4 ms·

I don't really see what Russia or the US has to gain from designing new kinds of nuclear weapons. They already have the capability to wipe out whatever they're

by nesadi 7y ago

I don't really see what Russia or the US has to gain from designing new kinds of nuclear weapons. They already have the capability to wipe out whatever they're aiming at.

garmaine 7y ago
Including each other? That's the essential bit. Do either side have the capability to respond after a devastating, no warning first strike? That's what the arms race was about. Both sides have such extensive overkill capacity because they are expecting to face off against each other and need to be prepared for only a small fraction of their armament surviving a first strike or capable missile defenses.
qeternity 7y ago
The goal for these weapons is not mutually assured destruction.
mikeash 7y ago
The technology exists to shoot down ICBMs. It’s not yet deployed in sufficient numbers to be significant against an all-out attack from Russia, but that could change. I’m sure they want to stay ahead of the curve.
- vkou 7y ago
  If 'MAD ensures peace' is the justification for nuclear weapons being allowed to exist, why are we trying so damn hard to break it? You can't have it both ways. Either MAD works, and anyone working on and building ICBM defenses is a dangerous lunatic, and a threat to world peace... Or MAD doesn't work, and anyone controlling thousands of nuclear weapons is a dangerous lunatic and a threat to world peace. We either need to stop trying to break MAD, or disarm. What we do not need, is to build anti-ICBM installations. I do not understand why this is not ever brought up in public discourse. Do people think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon just went away with the Cold War?
  - mikeash 7y ago
    “Do people think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon just went away with the Cold War?” I’m pretty sure the answer is “yes.” I’m baffled as to why, but that seems to be the case. I’m also pretty sure that MAD is a very risky thing, and we really can’t count on it long term. The fact that we’ve made it many decades without a nuclear war indicates that the probability is low, but not necessarily low enough. The problem is, what do you do about it? I agree that we (as in humanity) need to disarm, but it’s not going to happen. It’s a classic prisoners’ dilemma: we’re best off if nobody has nukes, but then someone can gain a huge advantage by acquiring them, and then everybody else is better off if they also acquire them. (And remember that game theory was created to analyze MAD!) If MAD isn’t fully effective and disarmament isn’t going to happen, then building defenses makes sense.
    - vkou 7y ago
      > The problem is, what do you do about it? Set a realistic goal. Total disarmament is unrealistic. But if the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia could be brought down to hundreds, instead of thousands of weapons, we'd all be much better off. We can make that happen, by demanding that our government makes the following things a priority: 1. Some small, unilateral, token-of-good-faith reduction in arms stockpiles. 2. Combined with making more serious, tit-for-tat arms reduction a diplomatic goal. This isn't some novel idea. We have done this during the Cold war. We just need to do it, again. If MAD is not fully effective, ballistic missile defense makes it even less effective (Because it makes your opponent more afraid of you.)
      - cardiffspaceman 7y ago
        There was a treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty Summary: It was okay for each side to have a limited ABM capability but not an extensive one. Treaty was exited by USA side in 2002 and the stated reason was that ABM-like defense would be needed against "rogue states".
rfeather 7y ago
Funneling money to the shareholders of companies involved in the production of weapons, of course.
lmilcin 7y ago
This is about nuclear reactor and not nuclear warhead. Nuclear reactors are used to produce electricity and/or heat and to breed radioactive elements.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  This is about a nuclear reactor that was attached to a missile.
- baybal2 7y ago
  If you read the news, it is much more akin to a nuclear engine, not a reactor. Either powered by actual expensive artificial isotopes with enough activity to power an engine, OR they actually broke the ban and had it running on pu239 (which would also make its fuel reserve a nice yield booster)
  - lmilcin 7y ago
    Nuclear engine IS a nuclear reactor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor "A nuclear reactor, formerly known as an atomic pile, is a device used to initiate and control a self-sustained nuclear chain reaction." Nuclear engine is a device used to initate and control a self-sustained nuclear chain reaction. This is in contrast to nuclear bomb which initiates but does not control the chain reaction. Once the reaction is started nothing else can be done with it (ie. there is no control involved other than setting up initial parameters).
- rpiguy 7y ago
  Yes but this missile is intended to be nuclear armed as well. Obviously the test missile won't have a live warhead, but if it makes production these are nuclear weapons.
  - lmilcin 7y ago
    Even the title says "Russia Says Small Nuclear Reactor Blew Up...".
Synaesthesia 7y ago
It’s madness of the highest order, their could be a huge tragedy at any time, possibly by mistake. We have to work to remove these atrocious weapons.
- checktheorder 7y ago
  One of my favourite episodes of Deep Space Nine, "Little Green Men", involved Quark, Nog, and Rom accidentally traveling back in time to 1947 Earth, crash-landing in Roswell, and being captured by the US military. There's a wonderful conversation between the three about nuclear weapons and ultra-cynic Quark of all people being surprised and horrified by the concept. ROM: I'm working as fast as I can, brother, but there must be some kind of interference disrupting our translators. QUARK: What kind of interference? ROM: I'm not sure. Could be solar flares, or maybe ionic interference. Or I suppose it could be beta radiation, but that's only produced by nuclear fission. QUARK: Don't be an idiot. Nuclear fission doesn't happen within planetary atmospheres. NOG: It does here. In the twentieth century humans used crude nuclear reactors as weapons. They called them atom bombs. They used to blow them up all the time. QUARK: They irradiated their own planet?! ROM: If Nog says so, they did. He knows all about Earth history. QUARK: You'd better fix those translators fast. The sooner we start talking to these savages, the better off we'll be.
poilcn 7y ago
Although regular nuclear weapons could be intercepted only on paper, no one has tried to do it with real weapons that the other side would use yet, potentially it's believed that it could happen. So the goal is to have faster nuclear weapons that would have less chances to be intercepted. Though, I have doubt it was the incentive in this case. If you watched Russian news, the only thing that gives at least some positive response among people are the achievements of the military industry. Official media milk this theme by producing one note per week (sometimes more) in regard of "promising" weapons that "have no counterparts in the west/world". Most of modern weapons are just soviet developments, so they need at least one real wunderwaffe to demonstrate that last 20 years were not for nothing.
- herendin2 7y ago
  Testing is necessary, but if you're only testing "faster", couldn't you replace the nuclear warhead with a rock?
rpiguy 7y ago
ICBM launches can be detected by satellite. A nuclear powered cruise missile could be launched undetected from anywhere (because of its near unlimited range). It will eventually show up on radar when it gets close enough to the target, but these also have nuclear warheads on them so it doesn't need to get super close to kill a lot of people. This sort of thing isn't just for Russia to deter the United States. China is their best "frenemy" and this sort of thing helps contain China as well.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
  How does this detection work? By infrared? Visually looking for the streak of glowing exhaust? Wouldn't the exhaust, even if only superheated air from a (nuclear) scramjet be comparable, at least in infrared? I'd bet the globe is crisscrossed by infrared trails of civil aviation already, for the eyes of such satellites. But doesn't matter, because tagged by ADS-B, or whatever. So benefit is speed to target by avoiding climbing up suborbitally, maneuverability , and not to be as predictable as some oldfashioned ICBM, with its purely ballistic trajectory.
lolc 7y ago
While it's easy to annihilate a city, it's hard to destroy a bunker or missile silo. The people who keep nuclear weapons want to be able to hit a narrow target while evading countermeasures. Maybe even burrow into the ground before setting off the main charge. This is easier with smaller payloads. There was once a wide consensus to not continue with this arms race. But unfortunately it broke down.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Yes, but at global collateral damage; mutually assured destruction is still a thing at the moment. They can destroy one another but what would they gain? And of course the resulting nuclear winter would cause a mass extinction event. That said, the Russians in particular get very nervous about the US' missile defense systems and research; after all, if one party has an effective ICBM detection system, the other party's nukes are no longer as threatening and a counterattack may follow.

by nesadi 7y ago

I don't really see what Russia or the US has to gain from designing new kinds of nuclear weapons. They already have the capability to wipe out whatever they're aiming at.

garmaine 7y ago

Including each other? That's the essential bit. Do either side have the capability to respond after a devastating, no warning first strike? That's what the arms race was about. Both sides have such extensive overkill capacity because they are expecting to face off against each other and need to be prepared for only a small fraction of their armament surviving a first strike or capable missile defenses.

qeternity 7y ago

The goal for these weapons is not mutually assured destruction.

mikeash 7y ago

The technology exists to shoot down ICBMs. It’s not yet deployed in sufficient numbers to be significant against an all-out attack from Russia, but that could change. I’m sure they want to stay ahead of the curve.

vkou 7y ago
If 'MAD ensures peace' is the justification for nuclear weapons being allowed to exist, why are we trying so damn hard to break it? You can't have it both ways. Either MAD works, and anyone working on and building ICBM defenses is a dangerous lunatic, and a threat to world peace... Or MAD doesn't work, and anyone controlling thousands of nuclear weapons is a dangerous lunatic and a threat to world peace. We either need to stop trying to break MAD, or disarm. What we do not need, is to build anti-ICBM installations. I do not understand why this is not ever brought up in public discourse. Do people think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon just went away with the Cold War?
- mikeash 7y ago
  “Do people think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon just went away with the Cold War?” I’m pretty sure the answer is “yes.” I’m baffled as to why, but that seems to be the case. I’m also pretty sure that MAD is a very risky thing, and we really can’t count on it long term. The fact that we’ve made it many decades without a nuclear war indicates that the probability is low, but not necessarily low enough. The problem is, what do you do about it? I agree that we (as in humanity) need to disarm, but it’s not going to happen. It’s a classic prisoners’ dilemma: we’re best off if nobody has nukes, but then someone can gain a huge advantage by acquiring them, and then everybody else is better off if they also acquire them. (And remember that game theory was created to analyze MAD!) If MAD isn’t fully effective and disarmament isn’t going to happen, then building defenses makes sense.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > The problem is, what do you do about it? Set a realistic goal. Total disarmament is unrealistic. But if the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia could be brought down to hundreds, instead of thousands of weapons, we'd all be much better off. We can make that happen, by demanding that our government makes the following things a priority: 1. Some small, unilateral, token-of-good-faith reduction in arms stockpiles. 2. Combined with making more serious, tit-for-tat arms reduction a diplomatic goal. This isn't some novel idea. We have done this during the Cold war. We just need to do it, again. If MAD is not fully effective, ballistic missile defense makes it even less effective (Because it makes your opponent more afraid of you.)
    - cardiffspaceman 7y ago
      There was a treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty Summary: It was okay for each side to have a limited ABM capability but not an extensive one. Treaty was exited by USA side in 2002 and the stated reason was that ABM-like defense would be needed against "rogue states".

rfeather 7y ago

Funneling money to the shareholders of companies involved in the production of weapons, of course.

lmilcin 7y ago

This is about nuclear reactor and not nuclear warhead. Nuclear reactors are used to produce electricity and/or heat and to breed radioactive elements.

ryanmercer 7y ago
This is about a nuclear reactor that was attached to a missile.
baybal2 7y ago
If you read the news, it is much more akin to a nuclear engine, not a reactor. Either powered by actual expensive artificial isotopes with enough activity to power an engine, OR they actually broke the ban and had it running on pu239 (which would also make its fuel reserve a nice yield booster)
- lmilcin 7y ago
  Nuclear engine IS a nuclear reactor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor "A nuclear reactor, formerly known as an atomic pile, is a device used to initiate and control a self-sustained nuclear chain reaction." Nuclear engine is a device used to initate and control a self-sustained nuclear chain reaction. This is in contrast to nuclear bomb which initiates but does not control the chain reaction. Once the reaction is started nothing else can be done with it (ie. there is no control involved other than setting up initial parameters).
rpiguy 7y ago
Yes but this missile is intended to be nuclear armed as well. Obviously the test missile won't have a live warhead, but if it makes production these are nuclear weapons.
- lmilcin 7y ago
  Even the title says "Russia Says Small Nuclear Reactor Blew Up...".

Synaesthesia 7y ago

It’s madness of the highest order, their could be a huge tragedy at any time, possibly by mistake. We have to work to remove these atrocious weapons.

checktheorder 7y ago
One of my favourite episodes of Deep Space Nine, "Little Green Men", involved Quark, Nog, and Rom accidentally traveling back in time to 1947 Earth, crash-landing in Roswell, and being captured by the US military. There's a wonderful conversation between the three about nuclear weapons and ultra-cynic Quark of all people being surprised and horrified by the concept. ROM: I'm working as fast as I can, brother, but there must be some kind of interference disrupting our translators. QUARK: What kind of interference? ROM: I'm not sure. Could be solar flares, or maybe ionic interference. Or I suppose it could be beta radiation, but that's only produced by nuclear fission. QUARK: Don't be an idiot. Nuclear fission doesn't happen within planetary atmospheres. NOG: It does here. In the twentieth century humans used crude nuclear reactors as weapons. They called them atom bombs. They used to blow them up all the time. QUARK: They irradiated their own planet?! ROM: If Nog says so, they did. He knows all about Earth history. QUARK: You'd better fix those translators fast. The sooner we start talking to these savages, the better off we'll be.

poilcn 7y ago

Although regular nuclear weapons could be intercepted only on paper, no one has tried to do it with real weapons that the other side would use yet, potentially it's believed that it could happen. So the goal is to have faster nuclear weapons that would have less chances to be intercepted. Though, I have doubt it was the incentive in this case. If you watched Russian news, the only thing that gives at least some positive response among people are the achievements of the military industry. Official media milk this theme by producing one note per week (sometimes more) in regard of "promising" weapons that "have no counterparts in the west/world". Most of modern weapons are just soviet developments, so they need at least one real wunderwaffe to demonstrate that last 20 years were not for nothing.

herendin2 7y ago
Testing is necessary, but if you're only testing "faster", couldn't you replace the nuclear warhead with a rock?

rpiguy 7y ago

ICBM launches can be detected by satellite. A nuclear powered cruise missile could be launched undetected from anywhere (because of its near unlimited range). It will eventually show up on radar when it gets close enough to the target, but these also have nuclear warheads on them so it doesn't need to get super close to kill a lot of people. This sort of thing isn't just for Russia to deter the United States. China is their best "frenemy" and this sort of thing helps contain China as well.

LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
How does this detection work? By infrared? Visually looking for the streak of glowing exhaust? Wouldn't the exhaust, even if only superheated air from a (nuclear) scramjet be comparable, at least in infrared? I'd bet the globe is crisscrossed by infrared trails of civil aviation already, for the eyes of such satellites. But doesn't matter, because tagged by ADS-B, or whatever. So benefit is speed to target by avoiding climbing up suborbitally, maneuverability , and not to be as predictable as some oldfashioned ICBM, with its purely ballistic trajectory.

lolc 7y ago

While it's easy to annihilate a city, it's hard to destroy a bunker or missile silo. The people who keep nuclear weapons want to be able to hit a narrow target while evading countermeasures. Maybe even burrow into the ground before setting off the main charge. This is easier with smaller payloads. There was once a wide consensus to not continue with this arms race. But unfortunately it broke down.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

Yes, but at global collateral damage; mutually assured destruction is still a thing at the moment. They can destroy one another but what would they gain? And of course the resulting nuclear winter would cause a mass extinction event. That said, the Russians in particular get very nervous about the US' missile defense systems and research; after all, if one party has an effective ICBM detection system, the other party's nukes are no longer as threatening and a counterattack may follow.