4 ms·
How do we even know they disclosed the true numbers before? This is a serious strategic game (in the game theory sense) and what and whether they disclose may b
by bonoboTP 8y ago
How do we even know they disclosed the true numbers before? This is a serious strategic game (in the game theory sense) and what and whether they disclose may be just part of the game.
Who can check that the numbers are correct? And could they credibly prove it? Would they be interested in (allowed to) do that?
- close04 8y agoI guess the actual number wasn’t the point. Disclosing any number would send a signal of transparency, while stopping the practice would suggest the opposite. It could be consciously used as a deterrent by signaling that you are adopting a different, more aggressive strategy. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything (substantial) has to change in the background.
- dosy 8y agoHow do we know Earth even has nuclear weapons anymore?
- darkpuma 8y agoCall it a less dumb Pascal's Wager of sorts. The possibility that they still exist is high enough that it's only rational to tread lightly under the assumption that they exist.
- dosy 8y agoSure (and cool reference,) but to me, "prudent to act as if they exist" is not the same as "they exist." Even if they don't, there's still much strategic utility to extract from pretending they do.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoFor one thing it was very close to the open source estimate, meaning the number is consistent with other publicly known facts about the program. There also isn't any real gain from keeping the total number secret above the advantage that keeping their location secret gives. Not disclosing totals probably doesn't even make napkin level invasion planning harder since at that level reasonable estimates will do. On the other hand it does make you a more suspicious actor in the strategic game as hiding harmless information is a clear sign of paranoia.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoKeeping totals secret could me maintaining secrecy of some locations -- if your number is much higher than your "enemies" then they're likely to have missed some locations, especially under a backdrop of CND where over-estimation by the state would be politically unhelpful.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoHow so? You can in principle store a nuke in anything with a roof so you need quite silly numbers before before storage space places any important geographical constraints. Simple considerations on where things have to placed to be on hand for actual use are likely much more useful for locating storage sites; and if you hide a lot of nukes where they can't be accessed in times of need that's just inefficiencies that helps your opponent.
- xur17 8y ago> How so? You can in principle store a nuke in anything with a roof so you need quite silly numbers before before storage space places any important geographical constraints. Because countries monitor their enemies. If Russia publishes that they have 50 nukes, and we know of 5 locations that each have what we estimate to be 10 nukes, we can be pretty confident that we know of all of their storage locations.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoYou need five reliable estimates, which a total doesn't give you. In any case, if you have that sort of access to count the nukes in program that small it is simply not plausible that you wouldn't know of all the bases anyway.
- cheschire 8y agoINF on-site treaty compliance inspections used to occur, but eventually gave way to satellite checks.[0] With the INF suspended, however, perhaps the UN is still performing on-site compliance checks? 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty#Implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_For...