7 ms·

This seems inevitable in the evolving post-Cold-War geopolitical environment. MAD only works when there is a nation-state whose cities you could conceivably ta

This seems inevitable in the evolving post-Cold-War geopolitical environment. MAD only works when there is a nation-state whose cities you could conceivably target. When the threat model is a larger number of non-state terrorist organizations that do not have well-defined borders, permanent populations, or even stationary bases, having a 450kt warhead targeting a city is basically useless. Imagine that say a Chechnyan separatist group detonated a nuclear warhead on U.S. soil. What would the response be? Nuke Moscow? "Yes, please, we never liked them anyway." The unfortunate thing is that everyone saying that this dangerously lowers the threshold for use of nuclear weapons is right. Deterrence works when there's an oligopoly of nuclear powers. When nuclear weapons proliferate beyond a handful of powerful nation-states, into countries or groups with nothing to lose, there's nothing stopping them from using their nukes. It's like how in the tech patent world pre-2010, people described all these "defensive" patent portfolios as mutually assured destruction, "and then Nokia launched the missiles". IMHO nuclear winter is a far more likely end of civilization than global warming is.

dlwdlw 7y ago
I like this argument. At a less lethal level it works for guns as well. WW2 taught that you can’t drive countries to the point of having nothing to lose. A potentially positive spin is that we advancing to societies that prevent this from happening to individuals. Though the cost...
- idoh 7y ago
  I have read this comment several times but have no idea what you are talking about, but it sounds interesting. Can you elaborate a bit here?
  - ptsneves 7y ago
    I think the comment is about the parallel between a post Versailles humiliated Germany leading to Hitler.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    The first sentence is comparing to the vast array of "less" lethal weapons modern police are equipped with with and how they seem to be more willing to use them in situations where they wouldn't be willing to shoot someone.
catalogia 7y ago
> Imagine that say a Chechnyan separatist group detonated a nuclear warhead on U.S. soil. What sort of response would having low-yield nukes enable? Drop a 1-kiloton bomb on a Chechnyan neighborhood in Russia? That hardly seems less insane. What sort of problems can low-yield nukes address that cruise missiles or guided non-nuclear bombs couldn't? EDIT: > "A 5kt nuke that blows up a roughly 150m radius and causes negligible fallout could be used [...] without causing massive diplomatic problems." I have serious doubts. Even a single atmospheric test of such a nuke in the middle of Nevada would probably cause a diplomatic incident. Why would using such a nuke on foreign soil cause any less trouble?
- HenryKissinger 7y ago
  Chechnya is Russian sovereign territory. I doubt Russia would take kindly to the US dropping a small nuke on their territory, no matter how weak, or where, or why. > What sort of problems can low-yield nukes address that cruise missiles or guided non-nuclear bombs couldn't? Their sheer explosive power? It would take thousands of cruise missiles to destroy 1945 Hiroshima.
  - Swizec 7y ago
    > Chechnya is Russian sovereign territory. I doubt Russia would take kindly to the US dropping a small nuke on their territory, no matter how weak, or where, or why. Isn’t this how WW1 started? Hey your terrorists killed our Duke!! Yeah so? You gotta let us send in the army or at least the police!! No thanks aaaand alliances pulled everyone into a gruesome war
- Aeolun 7y ago
  Cheap and huge explosions?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Nukes are expensive. Small size/weight is what you get for that money. For example, if you want a 1kt bunker buster using conventional explosives that's gonna be a heck of a bomb and therefore greatly limited in where/when/how it can be used. A 1kt nuke could fit in a JDAM sized form factor and be dropped by pretty much any military aircraft. Similarly, if you want to decimate a city with conventional bombs you'll need to deliver a heck of a lot of bombs. With nukes you only need one.
XorNot 7y ago
This hasn't happened, as far as we know - largely indicated by the fact no one's been detonating nuclear weapons they have. There has not, in fact, been a proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-state actors as people predicted might happen when the Soviet Union broke up. Because if you're a terrorist group with a nuclear weapon, why would you not use it as soon as possible, given that it's a large, hard to obfuscate item which you're otherwise likely to use (and would represent the most incredible asset you're ever going to have).
- Aeolun 7y ago
  Because, as a human being, it is hard to ever justify using one? Also, if you know the middle east will be potentially be glassed if you use one, you might have second thoughts. I have very little doubt that the great leader would happily order nuclear bombardment if the US was ever terrorized by a nuclear warhead. And I’m fairly certain most citizens would cheer him on.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    If you let fly with a Hiroshima sized bomb (what this is) you can be pretty assured that the chain reaction will be about the same as if you let fly with a megaton sized warhead. I could see the argument about reducing barrier to use if this were a 1kt bunker buster but this nuke is still big enough to be treated the same as any other nuke in the fleet.
    - Alupis 7y ago
      > If you let fly with a Hiroshima sized bomb (what this is) It's actually less than half (1/3rd in most cases). W76-2 warhead (what's on these missiles) contains 5-7kt[1] yield vs. Little Boy's 15kt[2], and Fat Man's 21kt[3] But I do think your other point still stands - these are still pretty large - large enough to not just be launched for any reason, or small reasons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man
DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
> IMHO nuclear winter is a far more likely end of civilization than global warming is. I think before we get to the nuclear winter stage we'll experience the effects of a dirty bomb somewhere. This is much easier to do for an isolated (non state actor) group and has the same effect. Statistically this is overdue and only a question of time IMO.
- eternalny1 7y ago
  A "dirty bomb" is nothing but essentially dynamite and radioactive I-131. That isn't a huge problem. I had my thyroid gland removed 30 years ago. How? They give you a pill of radioactive iodine 131. Nothing simple iodine pills won't solve. That's nothing even close to a nuclear weapon.
- godelski 7y ago
  > Statistically this is overdue and only a question of time IMO. A dirty bomb is an act of terror and not much else. No, seriously. Likely builds aren't extremely dangerous, except to those constructing them. There's many ways that you could create these, including amassing fire alarms (there's issues with this). So you make a pipe bomb with some nuclear material in it and there you go. You have cancer, and now your pipebomb sets off geiger counters. Added terror, but little added in terms of damage. The truth is that setting off a pipebomb in a NYC dumpster is going to cause relatively the same amount of terror as if that same pipebomb had radioactive material. Difference is your suitability and cost, so why do it? We're not overdue. We've never seen one in use. We've only seen a handful constructed. It just doesn't make sense. Its added kill count is potentially +1 (you) and added terror is only slight. It is much cheaper and easier to just make a bunch of standard pipebombs and place them around a major city. But we aren't seeing that happen. Why? Because there just aren't that many terror attacks (sorry to those that supported the patriot act). [0] So sorry, we aren't overdue. We haven't seen one because they are just a dumb idea that is expensive and difficult to execute. [0] Between 9/11/01 and 10/15 there were 3066 Americans killed by terrorists. 2961 of those were on American soil. 2902 were on 9/11/01. https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths...

dlwdlw 7y ago

I like this argument. At a less lethal level it works for guns as well. WW2 taught that you can’t drive countries to the point of having nothing to lose. A potentially positive spin is that we advancing to societies that prevent this from happening to individuals. Though the cost...

idoh 7y ago
I have read this comment several times but have no idea what you are talking about, but it sounds interesting. Can you elaborate a bit here?
- ptsneves 7y ago
  I think the comment is about the parallel between a post Versailles humiliated Germany leading to Hitler.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The first sentence is comparing to the vast array of "less" lethal weapons modern police are equipped with with and how they seem to be more willing to use them in situations where they wouldn't be willing to shoot someone.

catalogia 7y ago

> Imagine that say a Chechnyan separatist group detonated a nuclear warhead on U.S. soil. What sort of response would having low-yield nukes enable? Drop a 1-kiloton bomb on a Chechnyan neighborhood in Russia? That hardly seems less insane. What sort of problems can low-yield nukes address that cruise missiles or guided non-nuclear bombs couldn't? EDIT: > "A 5kt nuke that blows up a roughly 150m radius and causes negligible fallout could be used [...] without causing massive diplomatic problems." I have serious doubts. Even a single atmospheric test of such a nuke in the middle of Nevada would probably cause a diplomatic incident. Why would using such a nuke on foreign soil cause any less trouble?

HenryKissinger 7y ago
Chechnya is Russian sovereign territory. I doubt Russia would take kindly to the US dropping a small nuke on their territory, no matter how weak, or where, or why. > What sort of problems can low-yield nukes address that cruise missiles or guided non-nuclear bombs couldn't? Their sheer explosive power? It would take thousands of cruise missiles to destroy 1945 Hiroshima.
- Swizec 7y ago
  > Chechnya is Russian sovereign territory. I doubt Russia would take kindly to the US dropping a small nuke on their territory, no matter how weak, or where, or why. Isn’t this how WW1 started? Hey your terrorists killed our Duke!! Yeah so? You gotta let us send in the army or at least the police!! No thanks aaaand alliances pulled everyone into a gruesome war
Aeolun 7y ago
Cheap and huge explosions?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Nukes are expensive. Small size/weight is what you get for that money. For example, if you want a 1kt bunker buster using conventional explosives that's gonna be a heck of a bomb and therefore greatly limited in where/when/how it can be used. A 1kt nuke could fit in a JDAM sized form factor and be dropped by pretty much any military aircraft. Similarly, if you want to decimate a city with conventional bombs you'll need to deliver a heck of a lot of bombs. With nukes you only need one.

XorNot 7y ago

This hasn't happened, as far as we know - largely indicated by the fact no one's been detonating nuclear weapons they have. There has not, in fact, been a proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-state actors as people predicted might happen when the Soviet Union broke up. Because if you're a terrorist group with a nuclear weapon, why would you not use it as soon as possible, given that it's a large, hard to obfuscate item which you're otherwise likely to use (and would represent the most incredible asset you're ever going to have).

Aeolun 7y ago
Because, as a human being, it is hard to ever justify using one? Also, if you know the middle east will be potentially be glassed if you use one, you might have second thoughts. I have very little doubt that the great leader would happily order nuclear bombardment if the US was ever terrorized by a nuclear warhead. And I’m fairly certain most citizens would cheer him on.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  If you let fly with a Hiroshima sized bomb (what this is) you can be pretty assured that the chain reaction will be about the same as if you let fly with a megaton sized warhead. I could see the argument about reducing barrier to use if this were a 1kt bunker buster but this nuke is still big enough to be treated the same as any other nuke in the fleet.
  - Alupis 7y ago
    > If you let fly with a Hiroshima sized bomb (what this is) It's actually less than half (1/3rd in most cases). W76-2 warhead (what's on these missiles) contains 5-7kt[1] yield vs. Little Boy's 15kt[2], and Fat Man's 21kt[3] But I do think your other point still stands - these are still pretty large - large enough to not just be launched for any reason, or small reasons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

DyslexicAtheist 7y ago

> IMHO nuclear winter is a far more likely end of civilization than global warming is. I think before we get to the nuclear winter stage we'll experience the effects of a dirty bomb somewhere. This is much easier to do for an isolated (non state actor) group and has the same effect. Statistically this is overdue and only a question of time IMO.

eternalny1 7y ago
A "dirty bomb" is nothing but essentially dynamite and radioactive I-131. That isn't a huge problem. I had my thyroid gland removed 30 years ago. How? They give you a pill of radioactive iodine 131. Nothing simple iodine pills won't solve. That's nothing even close to a nuclear weapon.
godelski 7y ago
> Statistically this is overdue and only a question of time IMO. A dirty bomb is an act of terror and not much else. No, seriously. Likely builds aren't extremely dangerous, except to those constructing them. There's many ways that you could create these, including amassing fire alarms (there's issues with this). So you make a pipe bomb with some nuclear material in it and there you go. You have cancer, and now your pipebomb sets off geiger counters. Added terror, but little added in terms of damage. The truth is that setting off a pipebomb in a NYC dumpster is going to cause relatively the same amount of terror as if that same pipebomb had radioactive material. Difference is your suitability and cost, so why do it? We're not overdue. We've never seen one in use. We've only seen a handful constructed. It just doesn't make sense. Its added kill count is potentially +1 (you) and added terror is only slight. It is much cheaper and easier to just make a bunch of standard pipebombs and place them around a major city. But we aren't seeing that happen. Why? Because there just aren't that many terror attacks (sorry to those that supported the patriot act). [0] So sorry, we aren't overdue. We haven't seen one because they are just a dumb idea that is expensive and difficult to execute. [0] Between 9/11/01 and 10/15 there were 3066 Americans killed by terrorists. 2961 of those were on American soil. 2902 were on 9/11/01. https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths...