3 ms·

How Radioactive Are Low Yield Nuclear Weapons?

9 points by graderjs 4y ago

credit_guy 4y ago
> conclusion that for actors like Russia and China, lower-yield nuclear weapons have military value. That's not a fully warranted conclusion. Russia just discovered that its conventional forces are quite ineffective, and its military industrial complex is not able to produce enough materiel to adequately supply a large offensive. China is quite the opposite. Of course, until the actual fighting happen, we can never be sure, but it appears China has lots of soldiers, they are well trained, it has a huge conventional military capability, and a huge economy that can be redirected to war production, and can produce an overwhelming number of missiles, artillery shells, drones, landing craft, you name it. It is not in China's interest to use tactical nuclear weapons. Its official nuclear doctrine is of no first use. Of course, they can decide to use that doctrine as crumpled paper, but they don't have any reasons to do that. From their point of view, the best use of nuclear weapons is for deterrence. They can draw red lines in the sand. As long as their conventional forces can achieve whatever goals they have, using tactical nukes would just be dumb.
- graderjs 4y ago
  Nukes only effective deterrence has been deterring otherwise smart people from pursuing practical careers and instead going into the rarified field of policy wonking and military tactitioning for think tanks and the like. They've no other deterrence, war still occurs, constantly, since WWII. "China as military aggressor" is another wonk wet dream: only possibility in next 80 years is they play the same proxy war antics as US, UK and Russia in last 60. Russia war is more interesting: forget the headlining, what's the deal? The war that "nobody said they wanted" yet are doing their best to maintain: sympathetic media for Ukraine--cover for making endless war palatable: "Isn't it terrible, poor Ukraine. Evil Russia" great cover if you want to inure people; all the sycophanting to Zelensky--cover for repulsion toward him. Question is why? Was Ukraine some threat to Europe, and Putin merely the short-straw-drawing messenger for European consensus? What if Putin didn't want this war but was handed this job with "no choice"? Question is why? That's an interesting question. I don't believe the "war profiteers" take...I think there has to be something else. (I have a theory that when a military, any military, becomes too large, "the system" acts to rebalance the inevitable threat to itself (from that military) by creating a war to "cull the herd" (terrible) of the soldiers who could otherwise be put to some status-quo threatening use. But I think that doesn't go the whole way. I wonder what the real reason for that war is. Ignore all the bluster about Russian manifest destiny mythology (neatly tied up in that "religiosity" speech by Putin)--more cover. But for what? I don't know. I just think it's obvious it's not what it seems.)
  - pipodeclown 4y ago
    Sure war still happens all the time, it is however of a very different scale and intensity. Nukes have basically precluded any direct confrontation between nuclear capable states (or alliances with those states). Wars between those states used to be the most destructive ones. Proxy wars through and in non nuclear states sadly still happen...

9 points by graderjs 4y ago

> conclusion that for actors like Russia and China, lower-yield nuclear weapons have military value. That's not a fully warranted conclusion. Russia just discovered that its conventional forces are quite ineffective, and its military industrial complex is not able to produce enough materiel to adequately supply a large offensive. China is quite the opposite. Of course, until the actual fighting happen, we can never be sure, but it appears China has lots of soldiers, they are well trained, it has a huge conventional military capability, and a huge economy that can be redirected to war production, and can produce an overwhelming number of missiles, artillery shells, drones, landing craft, you name it. It is not in China's interest to use tactical nuclear weapons. Its official nuclear doctrine is of no first use. Of course, they can decide to use that doctrine as crumpled paper, but they don't have any reasons to do that. From their point of view, the best use of nuclear weapons is for deterrence. They can draw red lines in the sand. As long as their conventional forces can achieve whatever goals they have, using tactical nukes would just be dumb.

graderjs 4y ago
Nukes only effective deterrence has been deterring otherwise smart people from pursuing practical careers and instead going into the rarified field of policy wonking and military tactitioning for think tanks and the like. They've no other deterrence, war still occurs, constantly, since WWII. "China as military aggressor" is another wonk wet dream: only possibility in next 80 years is they play the same proxy war antics as US, UK and Russia in last 60. Russia war is more interesting: forget the headlining, what's the deal? The war that "nobody said they wanted" yet are doing their best to maintain: sympathetic media for Ukraine--cover for making endless war palatable: "Isn't it terrible, poor Ukraine. Evil Russia" great cover if you want to inure people; all the sycophanting to Zelensky--cover for repulsion toward him. Question is why? Was Ukraine some threat to Europe, and Putin merely the short-straw-drawing messenger for European consensus? What if Putin didn't want this war but was handed this job with "no choice"? Question is why? That's an interesting question. I don't believe the "war profiteers" take...I think there has to be something else. (I have a theory that when a military, any military, becomes too large, "the system" acts to rebalance the inevitable threat to itself (from that military) by creating a war to "cull the herd" (terrible) of the soldiers who could otherwise be put to some status-quo threatening use. But I think that doesn't go the whole way. I wonder what the real reason for that war is. Ignore all the bluster about Russian manifest destiny mythology (neatly tied up in that "religiosity" speech by Putin)--more cover. But for what? I don't know. I just think it's obvious it's not what it seems.)
- pipodeclown 4y ago
  Sure war still happens all the time, it is however of a very different scale and intensity. Nukes have basically precluded any direct confrontation between nuclear capable states (or alliances with those states). Wars between those states used to be the most destructive ones. Proxy wars through and in non nuclear states sadly still happen...