10 ms·
US Tests Explosive at Nuclear Site as Russia Revokes Ban on Atomic Weapons Tests
- londons_explore 3y agoI saw an analysis recently that suggested a nuclear war between the west and Russia would no longer end in mutually assured destruction. Instead, it was likely that most of the west's missiles would be able to disable most of Russia's weapons before they could get to their targets, while the reverse was not true. Such a war would also likely extend the west's dominance by ~50 years or more if the replacement government in Russia was a pro-US one. Could this be the start of testing that out?
- Garvi 3y agoThis is the dumbest thing that I've read this year. In multiple respects. I'd be dying to know where you get your daily news from. Because I have a friend thats thinks like you. He reads a lot of 9gag. Called me once in the middle of the night a year ago because "Putin was about to nuke us". We traced the source of his fear back to a fake news article dubbing over random Russian TV excerpts with vile subtitles. He's otherwise considered sane and a family man. Also: We're debating a lie. OP is a liar. How dumb can you be?
- vsnf 3y agoCare to elaborate on why? It seems overly hopeful, not to mention somewhat dangerous to just assume western missile superiority, but it could also be true. It’s not like MAD is a law of physics. Edit: when I replied, the parent poster consisted of one sentence claiming the idea to be dumb, with zero substantive refutations. They have since elaborated in their original post.
- Garvi 3y agoYou are aware you're using the word "hopeful" in a sentence that's exploring the killing of hundreds of millions humans for a perceived personal gain. Do you think such thinking is justified because of the Ukraine war? I suggest you start reading UN reports of actual observers on the ground and stop reading propaganda intended for halfwits. I also suggest you read the analysis of us military experts on the subject hypersonic missiles. This whole thread is vile nonsense.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Garvi 3y agoFeels like Reddit. Getting downvoted because I'm ridiculing the idea of preemptively nuking hundreds of million of people because "they're our enemy". A shameful display for mostly US engineers. Of course without replies. People who think genocide is a good idea usually aren't that good at expressing themselves.
- capdiz 3y agoI feel your pain. On here, when it comes to anything to do with the Russia or China, it's best you stay quiet. You are dealing with most propagandized community when it comes to world affairs. PS. The downvotes don't put food on your table.
- Garvi 3y ago> The downvotes don't put food on your table. Remaining quiet around people joking about genocide would follow me around in my conscience. Also fearing downvotes is like an admission to defeat. Besides - all it took for the patriots to shit up the place was one lie: "I saw an analysis recently that suggested a nuclear war between the west and Russia would no longer end in mutually assured destruction." The lie is now the most upvoted comment in this thread. What happened to you HN? Did you ban all the smart ones and let the redditards in?
- capdiz 3y agoThe most scary thing is that they are living in an echo chamber. The world around us is becoming more dangerous at an unprecented pace, conversations that were wrongly pushed to the dinner table are starting to come out in full view. The HN community will be in shock when it finally hits on them that they too will be affected by what is happening across the ocean. The belief of unlimited superiority is blinding the fact that other people are now more willing to do harm than previously imagined.
- sitkack 3y agoIt would plunge the whole world into chaos and billions of bystanders would die. It is an insane, repugnant idea.
- bangkoksbest 3y agoIf you write "I saw an analysis recently..." it's best to link to or at least describe the source of the analysis, otherwise the rest of us are just left with completely unsourced hearsay
- username332211 3y ago>Instead, it was likely that most of the west's missiles would be able to disable most of Russia's weapons before they could get to their targets, while the reverse was not true. How is disabling most of Russia's nuclear missiles OK? How will wiping out a few of North America's urban centers ensure western dominance? Who made this analysis? The "Real American Association Against the Degenerate Urban Elites" or something?
- waveBidder 3y ago"some of you may die, but that is a price I am willing to pay."
- Garvi 3y agoNo one made the analysis as there was no analysis. This is propaganda. Unclear whether OP is a tool or gets paid to stir up hate against an ethnic group. One can look up legitimate military analysis of US vs. Russian missile capabilities and get mostly opposite opinions to what OP is spreading. US lacks hypersonic capabilities or the capability of intercepting such weapons, while both countries have reliable retaliation strike capability with hidden nuclear subs. What OP is suggesting is complete lunacy and a simple lie. It's horrifying not more people are picking up on this. Now imagine this circlejerk on reddit. Realize what an effect it has on young people seeing hundreds of comments agreeing with such a lunatic perspective, while all others are censored or didn't dare posting in the first place. We're about to solve the Fermi paradox.
- elashri 3y agoI wouldn't put the fate of humanity as a potential price for testing a hypothesis. I prefer trying to test the theory that we can produce a (Micro) black hole at CERN (Because it will not do what you think it will). That is an old and safe theory.
- tutfbhuf 3y agoDisabling most is insufficient. All it takes is a few ICBMs hitting NY, LA, etc., and the calculation already becomes nonsensical. It would be intriguing, however, if it becomes possible in the future to intercept ICBMs during the launch phase using some kind of new technology. Even then, though, you would need to ensure a 100% success rate.
- FreakyT 3y ago> if it becomes possible in the future to intercept ICBMs during the launch phase using some kind of new technology This was largely the concept of the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) in the 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
- tutfbhuf 3y ago> In 2019, space-based interceptor development resumed for the first time in 25 years It seems as though the program has been resumed lately.
- _8j50 3y agoMajor US cities being destroyed is pretty bad but not MAD bad. The rest of the US will still be around long enough to decimate Russia or China. MAD means both sides get wiped out completley not some horrible killing of 50mil people happened. I.E.: if they fire first, firing back does not mean everyone dies.
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoYou should definitely test this theory, anonymous experts are certainly people you can trust with your life. #yolo
- HHC-Hunter 3y agoWho ever did that analysis is an absolute fool. Propagation of such an idea should immediately be shot down.
- mullingitover 3y agoI've always said that nuclear is the answer to reducing our carbon emissions, but this is not what I had in mind.
- argentier 3y agoWhat could possibly go wrong?
- defrost 3y agoArticle and related Xhitter (Oct 19) https://archive.md/EoqWY https://archive.md/EoqWY Congratulations to the integrated #NNSA team on successfully executing Shot A of their Physics Experiment 1 series @NNSANevada. Our talented workforce reduces global nuclear threats by continually improving detection of underground nuclear explosive tests. https://twitter.com/NNSAHruby/status/1714730603860390023 https://twitter.com/NNSAHruby/status/1714730603860390023
- argentier 3y agoThat's a bit like the solar warning station at L1. Saw a documentary where it was described as a key part of our planetary security infrastructure. All it can do is issue a warning: 'you have 8 minutes to say your prayers'. Security indeed.
- defrost 3y agoIt's more like a system for detecting underground nuclear explosion tests. When they happen, there's a lot more time than 8 minutes remaining. eg: The India tests, the immediately following Pakistan tests, the more recent North Korean tests, etc.
- Garvi 3y agoDear diary: Today I took part in a debate on an engineering forum on whether the US could take Russia in a nuclear war.
- chrisco255 3y agoWho would make those calculations if not engineers?
- Garvi 3y agoRight after we calculate how many days a person can hold his breath underwater. The idea itself is so ridiculous and vile, it makes HN look like a bunch of children.
- ChatGTP 3y agoWell it is :)
- Garvi 3y agoIt didn't used to be the case.
- chrisco255 3y agoIt's not ridiculous, and obviously it's not so simple, which is why it's a good nerd snipe. Obviously we shouldn't be nonchalant about engaging in thermonuclear warfare (and none of the armchair strategists get to decide this anyways), but it's worth going through the thought experiment. It's informative if nothing else, and if you can't see why then maybe you should try engaging in more "ridiculous" thought experiments.
- fithisux 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_For... The US formally suspended the treaty on 1 February 2019, and Russia did so on the following day in response. The United States formally withdrew from the treaty on 2 August 2019.
- Garvi 3y agoYeah Bloomberg is not a reliable news source I'm afraid. The amount of straight up false propaganda they're putting out lately is scary.
- icegreentea2 3y agoHow does the IRBM ban relate to this article? What in this article is false propaganda? The article identifies the US' actions as another potentially destabilizing step in an atmosphere of mistrust. It identifies that the US has not worked to ensure that 3rd party (Independent) have the capacity to verify claims of non nuclear tests.
- Garvi 3y agoThe title is a lie as it implies the Russians pulled out of the agreement first. Unfortunately I'm stating the obvious. This means your question wasn't sincere as your reception of the answer most likely wont be. Be aware that it's titles that shape opinions as most people won't read past them.
- icegreentea2 3y agoSo I am trying to be sincere. The agreement you're referring to is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? And the title you're referring to is the original link to Bloomberg that says US runs tests after Russia "spurns treaty". I want to understand: * Is there a connection between the discussion about the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the linked IRBM treaty wiki article? I'm just wondering how you are connecting these different things together. * With respect to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty alone, what would be the truthful statement? Is the lie that America never ratified the treaty to begin with (and therefore could never actually withdraw), while Russia did ratify the treaty, and therefore was the only party that could withdraw? So the lie is that the headline creates a sense of cause and effect (Russia withdraws from the treaty, therefore America was right to respond with a partial test)? I'd agree that the current HN headline might be misleading that way. The current Bloomberg headline "Atomic Arms Fears Grow After US Test, Russia Spurns Treaty" I feel is actually quite neutral.
- lgvln 3y agoThe idea of surviving a nuclear war is analogous to a “who can stay in a tub of boiling water for the longest” contest. You might win the contest but you’re sure as hell still going to die. The nuclear winter that follows a nuclear war will bring humanity back to the Stone Age. We really need to disabuse ourselves of the notion of “surviving a nuclear war”. “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” - Albert Einstein