4 ms·

U.S. Says Russia Might Be Setting Off Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons

49 points by tomohawk 7y ago

thomascgalvin 7y ago
> The Wall Street Journal was first to report the accusation on May 29, 2019, citing a U.S. intelligence assessment and comments from U.S. Army Lieutenant General Robert Ashley, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). So this isn't dick waving or Twitter posing: this is a legitimate intelligence officer making this assertion. This is absolutely terrifying. We are witnessing the unraveling of the near-universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.
- SpaceRaccoon 7y ago
  > So this isn't dick waving or Twitter posing: this is a legitimate intelligence officer making this assertion. And? Why do you trust intelligence agencies? They have been caught lying many times.
- vageli 7y ago
  > > The Wall Street Journal was first to report the accusation on May 29, 2019, citing a U.S. intelligence assessment and comments from U.S. Army Lieutenant General Robert Ashley, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). > So this isn't dick waving or Twitter posing: this is a legitimate intelligence officer making this assertion. > This is absolutely terrifying. We are witnessing the unraveling of the near-universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Didn't legitimate intelligence point to WMDs in Iraq?
fit2rule 7y ago
The "muh Russia" agitprop which keeps Americans distracted from their own nations crimes is already humming along at a feverish pitch - so the standards for evidence are going to have to be pretty high for this one. I, for one, hope that Americans pay attention to the IAEA, and especially to the recent corruption of the OPCW, when it comes to this story developing further. The stakes are too high, and too many people stand to profit from the conflict that is being fomented between these two powerful nations.
PFFFTgay 7y ago
You're a fucking faggot, dude.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sehugg 7y ago
Dispute Over Russian Testing Divides U.S. Nuclear Experts (2001) - https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/world/dispute-over-russian-testing-divides-us-nuclear-experts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/world/dispute-over-russia... It's well-known that John Bolton hates arms treaties, see this 2009 op-ed: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26bolton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26bolton.html And this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703618504575459511831427690 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703618504575459... And this: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659911920/bolton-affirms-u-s-intent-to-pull-out-of-arms-treaty-with-russia https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659911920/bolton-affirms-u-s-... And this: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/09/26/whats-the-deal-with-senate-republicans-and-the-test-ban-treaty/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/09/26/w... While the CTBT has not entered into force, a monitoring system has been set up around the world with sensors to detect nuclear explosions, whether they are in the atmosphere, underwater, or underground. Twenty-five of the system’s monitoring stations detected the September 9 North Korean nuclear test. If your admin is itching to abandon multiple nuclear treaties, I'd like more than a "probably" at a speech at a think tank, given that we have an international monitoring system. EDIT: Comprehensive thread from @ArmsControlWonk: https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1133814684962791424 https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/11338146849627914...
trhway 7y ago
>Reports have since emerged that the U.S. government has been monitoring Russia’s tests of its still-in-development nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile, which the Kremlin says will be nuclear capable. These launches have occurred from Novaya Zemlya and would, by definition, involve a nuclear reactor smashing into the ground at the end of each test, whether it is successful or not. it sounds like real reactors. One would hope that it were mock-ups. Wrt. the nuke warheads testing - Russia being that behind in supercomputer capabilities which are required for simulation probably tries/looks for various sneaking approaches of actual testing. I mean all that glorious super-duper-"wunderwaffe" revealed by Putin in the last couple of years means nothing without working warheads. The improved delivery precision allowed US to produce even further yield tuned-down versions of W76 and W88 which normally would require actual testing and was done using simulation instead. The Russia seems to still stuck with the aging models of its warheads. It makes me wonder that there seems to be no stories on attempted export of HPC stuff to Russia similar to China https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/10/us_intel_china_ban/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/10/us_intel_china_ban/
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  If the rocket is powered by a reactor, at some point a test of the propulsion system requires a reactor.
- helge9210 7y ago
  > It makes me wonder that there seems to be no stories on attempted export of HPC stuff to Russia https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-03-08/html/2013-05387.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-03-08/html/2013-...
OBLIQUE_PILLAR 7y ago
Please read why this article is alarmist garbage. https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1133814684962791424?s=19 https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/11338146849627914...
ncmncm 7y ago
Funny, they use the "safety and reliability" line in the article. Immediately after Congress passed legislation creating the DOE, charged with maintaining S&R, DOE announced that they were going to interpret "safety" to mean, NOT "it won't pop when it shouldn't, or leak or anything" but rather "it pops when you push the button". Then, "reliability" means "it makes as big a bang as promised". Of course the fix was in from the start, but there must have been reps not in on it who would have insisted that not blowing up in the silo was a more important goal than either. They got hoodwinked, and so did we.

49 points by tomohawk 7y ago

> The Wall Street Journal was first to report the accusation on May 29, 2019, citing a U.S. intelligence assessment and comments from U.S. Army Lieutenant General Robert Ashley, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). So this isn't dick waving or Twitter posing: this is a legitimate intelligence officer making this assertion. This is absolutely terrifying. We are witnessing the unraveling of the near-universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

SpaceRaccoon 7y ago
> So this isn't dick waving or Twitter posing: this is a legitimate intelligence officer making this assertion. And? Why do you trust intelligence agencies? They have been caught lying many times.
vageli 7y ago
> > The Wall Street Journal was first to report the accusation on May 29, 2019, citing a U.S. intelligence assessment and comments from U.S. Army Lieutenant General Robert Ashley, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). > So this isn't dick waving or Twitter posing: this is a legitimate intelligence officer making this assertion. > This is absolutely terrifying. We are witnessing the unraveling of the near-universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Didn't legitimate intelligence point to WMDs in Iraq?

fit2rule 7y ago

The "muh Russia" agitprop which keeps Americans distracted from their own nations crimes is already humming along at a feverish pitch - so the standards for evidence are going to have to be pretty high for this one. I, for one, hope that Americans pay attention to the IAEA, and especially to the recent corruption of the OPCW, when it comes to this story developing further. The stakes are too high, and too many people stand to profit from the conflict that is being fomented between these two powerful nations.

PFFFTgay 7y ago

You're a fucking faggot, dude.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sehugg 7y ago

Dispute Over Russian Testing Divides U.S. Nuclear Experts (2001) - https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/world/dispute-over-russian-testing-divides-us-nuclear-experts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/world/dispute-over-russia... It's well-known that John Bolton hates arms treaties, see this 2009 op-ed: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26bolton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26bolton.html And this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703618504575459511831427690 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703618504575459... And this: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659911920/bolton-affirms-u-s-intent-to-pull-out-of-arms-treaty-with-russia https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659911920/bolton-affirms-u-s-... And this: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/09/26/whats-the-deal-with-senate-republicans-and-the-test-ban-treaty/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/09/26/w... While the CTBT has not entered into force, a monitoring system has been set up around the world with sensors to detect nuclear explosions, whether they are in the atmosphere, underwater, or underground. Twenty-five of the system’s monitoring stations detected the September 9 North Korean nuclear test. If your admin is itching to abandon multiple nuclear treaties, I'd like more than a "probably" at a speech at a think tank, given that we have an international monitoring system. EDIT: Comprehensive thread from @ArmsControlWonk: https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1133814684962791424 https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/11338146849627914...

trhway 7y ago

>Reports have since emerged that the U.S. government has been monitoring Russia’s tests of its still-in-development nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile, which the Kremlin says will be nuclear capable. These launches have occurred from Novaya Zemlya and would, by definition, involve a nuclear reactor smashing into the ground at the end of each test, whether it is successful or not. it sounds like real reactors. One would hope that it were mock-ups. Wrt. the nuke warheads testing - Russia being that behind in supercomputer capabilities which are required for simulation probably tries/looks for various sneaking approaches of actual testing. I mean all that glorious super-duper-"wunderwaffe" revealed by Putin in the last couple of years means nothing without working warheads. The improved delivery precision allowed US to produce even further yield tuned-down versions of W76 and W88 which normally would require actual testing and was done using simulation instead. The Russia seems to still stuck with the aging models of its warheads. It makes me wonder that there seems to be no stories on attempted export of HPC stuff to Russia similar to China https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/10/us_intel_china_ban/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/10/us_intel_china_ban/

i_am_proteus 7y ago
If the rocket is powered by a reactor, at some point a test of the propulsion system requires a reactor.
helge9210 7y ago
> It makes me wonder that there seems to be no stories on attempted export of HPC stuff to Russia https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-03-08/html/2013-05387.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-03-08/html/2013-...

OBLIQUE_PILLAR 7y ago

Please read why this article is alarmist garbage. https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1133814684962791424?s=19 https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/11338146849627914...

ncmncm 7y ago

Funny, they use the "safety and reliability" line in the article. Immediately after Congress passed legislation creating the DOE, charged with maintaining S&R, DOE announced that they were going to interpret "safety" to mean, NOT "it won't pop when it shouldn't, or leak or anything" but rather "it pops when you push the button". Then, "reliability" means "it makes as big a bang as promised". Of course the fix was in from the start, but there must have been reps not in on it who would have insisted that not blowing up in the silo was a more important goal than either. They got hoodwinked, and so did we.