8 ms·

When walking through the Pima Air and Space Museum, where NATO and Soviet-bloc aircraft of matching generations often sit almost side-by-side, the similarity of

by ISL 6y ago

When walking through the Pima Air and Space Museum, where NATO and Soviet-bloc aircraft of matching generations often sit almost side-by-side, the similarity of the aircraft was striking. While some of the similarity can be explained by espionage, much of it comes from the confrontation between ingenuity and Nature. These instruments of war, built by professionals who deeply respected their adversaries, memorialize the extent to which each side was desperate to prevent the other from gaining an operational edge. It is the science of life and death, confronting not entropy (as we do in the case of Covid-19) but other humans. As a scientist who builds instrumentation, looking particularly into the landing-gear wells and bomb-bays, I felt great connection with those who built the instruments. People, just like me, built these things because they felt that they had to in order to defend their homes. I have promised myself never to build weapons unless the United States is attacked -- devoting instead a portion of my time to non-proliferation work -- but it is easy to see how humanity reaches such a point. I see in today's era of closing borders and increasing nationalism the prospect of conflict not seen since the 1940s. Tectonic stresses have built for decades; we must find ways to relax them gently in a way that is beneficial to everyone, so that humanity might prosper and thrive for generations to come.

sjg007 6y ago
The NIKE missile silo is interesting too. They have some information about the armaments of the US and the USSR. From what I recall, or what at least left an impression, the US had technically better missile systems that were reliable but less nukes overall. In contrast, the USSR had worse targeting and less reliable missiles and so was relying on a very large number of nukes. I remember thinking about the probabilities.
- pstrateman 6y ago
  The US actually had many more and much better nuclear weapons and delivery systems, but they thought the soviets were much further along than they really were.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    The Soviets were the first to deploy operational ICBMs. They also had the first Submarine launched ballistic missile. They had the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons for many years. They developed the most potent nuclear weapons. Can you be more specific?
    - YarickR2 6y ago
      Guidance systems were (and are) presumably worse, if one has to judge by officially released data. Propulsion systems were much more difficult to keep in a ready to launch state, and much more fragile. In general, USSR preferred less sophisticated solutions, instead making sure they could be easily replicated.
      - paganel 6y ago
        Because that had worked for them in WW2, when German tanks (among many other things) were technically superior to their Soviet counter-parts with the results we all know. Fortunately this will never happen but I have always been curious about how US technicals would fare in a ground-war in Russia. My bet is that they would fail most of the times with no possibility of easy fixes, at least compared to their Soviet (now Russian) equivalents. What’s the US equivalent for the Russian Ural or Kamaz trucks?
        jabl 6y ago
        Quantity has a quality of its own. T-34, which was superior to most German tanks like pzkpfw 3/4 when it was introduced, was produced in vast numbers, around 80000. German designed a competitive tank with the Panther, but only about 6000 were made, and they were beset by reliability problems. Add in the production by the Western allies, such as 50000 Sherman tanks, the surprising thing is that Nazi Germany didn't collapse faster. Don't know about modern hardware. Certainly Soviet hardware has a reputation for reliability in adverse conditions. OTOH the first Gulf war was a pretty damning indictment of the warfighting ability of Soviet armour.
enriquto 6y ago
> I have promised myself never to build weapons unless the United States is attacked What if it is the United States that attacks another country? Would you build weapons for that other country instead? Pacifism should be an universal attitude for it to make sense at all.
- glomph 6y ago
  If?
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Back in 1814, the Brits did have hostile units on US soil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington Anything more recent? (for that matter, are there any scenarios for full major power wars that don't end after an hour or two?)
    - sorokod 6y ago
      During the early 1860s plenty of hostile units were on US soil. Over million people died. It is interesting that at this polarising times, the idea that this weaponry will be used in an internal conflict is not considered.
      - 082349872349872 6y ago
        I'd counted that conflict as internal in GP. It seems the nations of the time agreed: none recognised the Confederacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_of_the_American_Civil_War#Confederate_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_of_the_American_Civi... (I've noticed many revolutionary movements fail when their key exports turn out to have been worth less, due to stocking or substitution, on world markets than they'd been planning. Sometime I should check successful revolutions, and see what happened in their export markets...) Edit: for the US revolution, nothing so far on the economic effects of the British blockade, but the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake implies they lacked complete naval superiority.
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> I have promised myself never to build weapons unless the United States is attacked Attacked by whom and for what purpose and for what ends? How would you moderate your response to an attack based on the circumstances? How do you even know the attack was real or that it had the intent that was reported by the media[1]? The US is a big country, and while its mainland has never suffered any significant attack by a nation-state in de-jure war, the US is "attacked" in some way or another quite regularly - the immediate example is 9/11 of course, but what about economic and social attacks (e.g. Russia social-media manipulation, or the PRC's attempts to replace US influence abroad)? I assume the US is your home - but from my perspective (as a non-American) that seems a tad chauvinistic: do I detect you implying that the US worth defending but not other democracies? Or 1,001 other points one could make along similar lines. I appreciate that one's moral philosophy and position on the extent of the right to self-defence (from the person, to the home, to the town, to the nation) is a very complicated and subjective topic, so to be clear: I don't mean to attack your stated position at all (I'm sure you have a well-reasoned position), but it's a bad idea to try to succinctly summarize one's opinion on this matter in particular on the Internet. [1] Thinking of 9/11 again: I'd wager the vast majority of Americans would repeat the "they hate us for our freedom" line without thinking too much about how much of a gross-oversimplification that line was when there were in-fact many reasons for the plot (e.g. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/news/what-caused-911-and-consequences-linger https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/news/what-caused-911-and-conse... ). I guess if anything good came out of 9/11 it's that Islamofascist militants realised any political message they want to make would be completely distorted or misrepresented in the American media landscape - even if some of their goals were still achieved (e.g. getting the US stuck in a quagmire in the Middle East).
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  Maybe just to add, what if "attack" was fabricated, just to evoke exactly response that can justify any mean? "Exitus acta probat".
  - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    Although I was not thinking about conspiracy theories like 9/11 or Perl Harbor, fundamentally I am quite curious to find why is more believable for average American that Putin can rig US election than that Trump can attack some oversea country with excuse of them having chemical weapons. I remember that Iraq was attacked with strong claims from intelligence agency that they have weapons of mass destruction (another president), America destroyed Iraq and what remained from that destroyed economy was seed of ISIS. Later on, when they have not found any evidence of weapons official admired that they spiced the info. Because hey oil was interest to protect. Despite biggest protest in history of the World, and despite not having UN approval America attacked Iraq. Also, I am curious to find out, what makes someone think that it is ok to drop a bomb that will level entire city and kill thousands innocent people, basically committing genocide. Allays were portrayed as good in WW2 but are we? First bombed was dropped to Hiroshima 70,000 people vaporized instantly, later on 140,000 would die. Now I guess they had some kind report, but they did not stopped there, they dropped another one to Nagasaki. So let say they did not know about first one, but second one was pure genocide, targets were civilians. Now I ask among those ~300,000 was there any innocent child? My point is what ever way you feel it is justifiable it is not, history is written by the winners, and our "morality" tends to bend accordingly. As we progress in future, if we do not find mechanisms to identify human psychopathic tendencies we are doomed, as each fraction of advancement would just mean higher risk and probability of mutual destruction. Technology is just a multiplier of all our abilities and who we are. Although we tend to think we are better than our savage ancestors, history has proven number of times - that we are not.
kapuasuite 6y ago
> I have promised myself never to build weapons unless the United States is attacked The issue with this is that by the time we are under attack it’s already too late to develop weapons. Most of the naval and air assets we used to fight World War II (the modern ur-example of a just conflict) were on the drawing board and planned, if not already in production, prior to Pearl Harbor. The problem is only magnified today where it takes years, not months, to build a ship, for example. Pledging to not work on weapons and other military projects absent a conflict is, in essence, a pledge never to work on weapons or military projects ever.
- ISL 6y ago
  Agreed. My general position is that, creatively applied, the weapons we have are good enough. This is not in a relative sense, but an absolute one. I do not wish to spend my limited time on the planet improving the fundamental rate at which we can kill one another. We, as a species, are already excellent at that task. I am a physicist. If we are involved in a protracted conflict, there will be plenty of opportunities akin to MIT's Rad Lab or the Manhattan Project to which I might contribute. R.V. Jones is a personal hero. Until then, I would rather contribute to preserving life or chasing down nature's secrets (my day job through 9/16, when I cast off on a new odyssey).
- dexen 6y ago
  Your point is correct and important; I like to think of it as the proverbial "speak softly and carry a big stick". There's however one key, pivotal change that happened during the wartime - scaling out the manufacturing and logistics. Primarily USA, and largely Great Britain and USSR, scaled out production of weapons, vehicles & materiel, subassemblies, and certain raw materials by factor of 10x or even 100x. Same with the related logistics. This was a huge undertaking[1], required high level of engineering, manufacturing, and managerial expertise. If people like GP only got into weapons & materiel production in the wartime, they'd still contribute greatly to the military effort. -- [1] building and relocating whole factories, rearranging production lines, and adjusting designs & manufacturing techniques for streamlining. Example, a ship was built in under 5 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Robert_E._Peary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Robert_E._Peary
md2020 6y ago
> devoting instead a portion of my time to non-proliferation work This is very interesting to me, what line of work are you in such that you are able to devote a portion of your time to non-proliferation work? Having previously worked at one of the NNSA labs it's my understanding that non-proliferation work is often classified, but I'd be interested to hear how normal technically-minded folks can contribute.
smsm42 6y ago
> never to build weapons unless the United States is attacked It'd be kinda late to start building weapons then. Imagine a country being attacked by an adversary like USSR and start building weapons at the moment of the attack only. They couldn't last a week. Note also that the official ideology of the USSR presumes ultimate violent overthrow of every non-socialist state. While late USSR has mellowed down somewhat and preferred stealth and sneaky rather than open combat, the expansionist drive has never been gone. And I wonder what we could have seen if USSR would have been the only country that had nukes in their possession...

by ISL 6y ago

sjg007 6y ago

The NIKE missile silo is interesting too. They have some information about the armaments of the US and the USSR. From what I recall, or what at least left an impression, the US had technically better missile systems that were reliable but less nukes overall. In contrast, the USSR had worse targeting and less reliable missiles and so was relying on a very large number of nukes. I remember thinking about the probabilities.

pstrateman 6y ago
The US actually had many more and much better nuclear weapons and delivery systems, but they thought the soviets were much further along than they really were.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  The Soviets were the first to deploy operational ICBMs. They also had the first Submarine launched ballistic missile. They had the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons for many years. They developed the most potent nuclear weapons. Can you be more specific?
  - YarickR2 6y ago
    Guidance systems were (and are) presumably worse, if one has to judge by officially released data. Propulsion systems were much more difficult to keep in a ready to launch state, and much more fragile. In general, USSR preferred less sophisticated solutions, instead making sure they could be easily replicated.
    - paganel 6y ago
      Because that had worked for them in WW2, when German tanks (among many other things) were technically superior to their Soviet counter-parts with the results we all know. Fortunately this will never happen but I have always been curious about how US technicals would fare in a ground-war in Russia. My bet is that they would fail most of the times with no possibility of easy fixes, at least compared to their Soviet (now Russian) equivalents. What’s the US equivalent for the Russian Ural or Kamaz trucks?
      - jabl 6y ago
        Quantity has a quality of its own. T-34, which was superior to most German tanks like pzkpfw 3/4 when it was introduced, was produced in vast numbers, around 80000. German designed a competitive tank with the Panther, but only about 6000 were made, and they were beset by reliability problems. Add in the production by the Western allies, such as 50000 Sherman tanks, the surprising thing is that Nazi Germany didn't collapse faster. Don't know about modern hardware. Certainly Soviet hardware has a reputation for reliability in adverse conditions. OTOH the first Gulf war was a pretty damning indictment of the warfighting ability of Soviet armour.

enriquto 6y ago

> I have promised myself never to build weapons unless the United States is attacked What if it is the United States that attacks another country? Would you build weapons for that other country instead? Pacifism should be an universal attitude for it to make sense at all.

glomph 6y ago
If?
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Back in 1814, the Brits did have hostile units on US soil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington Anything more recent? (for that matter, are there any scenarios for full major power wars that don't end after an hour or two?)
  - sorokod 6y ago
    During the early 1860s plenty of hostile units were on US soil. Over million people died. It is interesting that at this polarising times, the idea that this weaponry will be used in an internal conflict is not considered.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      I'd counted that conflict as internal in GP. It seems the nations of the time agreed: none recognised the Confederacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_of_the_American_Civil_War#Confederate_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_of_the_American_Civi... (I've noticed many revolutionary movements fail when their key exports turn out to have been worth less, due to stocking or substitution, on world markets than they'd been planning. Sometime I should check successful revolutions, and see what happened in their export markets...) Edit: for the US revolution, nothing so far on the economic effects of the British blockade, but the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake implies they lacked complete naval superiority.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

> I have promised myself never to build weapons unless the United States is attacked Attacked by whom and for what purpose and for what ends? How would you moderate your response to an attack based on the circumstances? How do you even know the attack was real or that it had the intent that was reported by the media[1]? The US is a big country, and while its mainland has never suffered any significant attack by a nation-state in de-jure war, the US is "attacked" in some way or another quite regularly - the immediate example is 9/11 of course, but what about economic and social attacks (e.g. Russia social-media manipulation, or the PRC's attempts to replace US influence abroad)? I assume the US is your home - but from my perspective (as a non-American) that seems a tad chauvinistic: do I detect you implying that the US worth defending but not other democracies? Or 1,001 other points one could make along similar lines. I appreciate that one's moral philosophy and position on the extent of the right to self-defence (from the person, to the home, to the town, to the nation) is a very complicated and subjective topic, so to be clear: I don't mean to attack your stated position at all (I'm sure you have a well-reasoned position), but it's a bad idea to try to succinctly summarize one's opinion on this matter in particular on the Internet. [1] Thinking of 9/11 again: I'd wager the vast majority of Americans would repeat the "they hate us for our freedom" line without thinking too much about how much of a gross-oversimplification that line was when there were in-fact many reasons for the plot (e.g. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/news/what-caused-911-and-consequences-linger https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/news/what-caused-911-and-conse... ). I guess if anything good came out of 9/11 it's that Islamofascist militants realised any political message they want to make would be completely distorted or misrepresented in the American media landscape - even if some of their goals were still achieved (e.g. getting the US stuck in a quagmire in the Middle East).

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
Maybe just to add, what if "attack" was fabricated, just to evoke exactly response that can justify any mean? "Exitus acta probat".
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  Although I was not thinking about conspiracy theories like 9/11 or Perl Harbor, fundamentally I am quite curious to find why is more believable for average American that Putin can rig US election than that Trump can attack some oversea country with excuse of them having chemical weapons. I remember that Iraq was attacked with strong claims from intelligence agency that they have weapons of mass destruction (another president), America destroyed Iraq and what remained from that destroyed economy was seed of ISIS. Later on, when they have not found any evidence of weapons official admired that they spiced the info. Because hey oil was interest to protect. Despite biggest protest in history of the World, and despite not having UN approval America attacked Iraq. Also, I am curious to find out, what makes someone think that it is ok to drop a bomb that will level entire city and kill thousands innocent people, basically committing genocide. Allays were portrayed as good in WW2 but are we? First bombed was dropped to Hiroshima 70,000 people vaporized instantly, later on 140,000 would die. Now I guess they had some kind report, but they did not stopped there, they dropped another one to Nagasaki. So let say they did not know about first one, but second one was pure genocide, targets were civilians. Now I ask among those ~300,000 was there any innocent child? My point is what ever way you feel it is justifiable it is not, history is written by the winners, and our "morality" tends to bend accordingly. As we progress in future, if we do not find mechanisms to identify human psychopathic tendencies we are doomed, as each fraction of advancement would just mean higher risk and probability of mutual destruction. Technology is just a multiplier of all our abilities and who we are. Although we tend to think we are better than our savage ancestors, history has proven number of times - that we are not.

kapuasuite 6y ago

> I have promised myself never to build weapons unless the United States is attacked The issue with this is that by the time we are under attack it’s already too late to develop weapons. Most of the naval and air assets we used to fight World War II (the modern ur-example of a just conflict) were on the drawing board and planned, if not already in production, prior to Pearl Harbor. The problem is only magnified today where it takes years, not months, to build a ship, for example. Pledging to not work on weapons and other military projects absent a conflict is, in essence, a pledge never to work on weapons or military projects ever.

ISL 6y ago
Agreed. My general position is that, creatively applied, the weapons we have are good enough. This is not in a relative sense, but an absolute one. I do not wish to spend my limited time on the planet improving the fundamental rate at which we can kill one another. We, as a species, are already excellent at that task. I am a physicist. If we are involved in a protracted conflict, there will be plenty of opportunities akin to MIT's Rad Lab or the Manhattan Project to which I might contribute. R.V. Jones is a personal hero. Until then, I would rather contribute to preserving life or chasing down nature's secrets (my day job through 9/16, when I cast off on a new odyssey).
dexen 6y ago
Your point is correct and important; I like to think of it as the proverbial "speak softly and carry a big stick". There's however one key, pivotal change that happened during the wartime - scaling out the manufacturing and logistics. Primarily USA, and largely Great Britain and USSR, scaled out production of weapons, vehicles & materiel, subassemblies, and certain raw materials by factor of 10x or even 100x. Same with the related logistics. This was a huge undertaking[1], required high level of engineering, manufacturing, and managerial expertise. If people like GP only got into weapons & materiel production in the wartime, they'd still contribute greatly to the military effort. -- [1] building and relocating whole factories, rearranging production lines, and adjusting designs & manufacturing techniques for streamlining. Example, a ship was built in under 5 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Robert_E._Peary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Robert_E._Peary

md2020 6y ago

> devoting instead a portion of my time to non-proliferation work This is very interesting to me, what line of work are you in such that you are able to devote a portion of your time to non-proliferation work? Having previously worked at one of the NNSA labs it's my understanding that non-proliferation work is often classified, but I'd be interested to hear how normal technically-minded folks can contribute.

smsm42 6y ago

> never to build weapons unless the United States is attacked It'd be kinda late to start building weapons then. Imagine a country being attacked by an adversary like USSR and start building weapons at the moment of the attack only. They couldn't last a week. Note also that the official ideology of the USSR presumes ultimate violent overthrow of every non-socialist state. While late USSR has mellowed down somewhat and preferred stealth and sneaky rather than open combat, the expansionist drive has never been gone. And I wonder what we could have seen if USSR would have been the only country that had nukes in their possession...