4 ms·

Vela incident (1979)

87 points by rwmj 3y ago

wahnfrieden 3y ago
[flagged]
- lawlessone 3y ago
  I believe this guy is what is known as the "Wasp Cake" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA73vORSnA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA73vORSnA4
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Yes. He just revealed that it was discussed at the table, with the others, not that he was the problem for discussing it with them, however impractical or decided against of course; the problem was revealing it, it seems, by how they censured him without much consequence after it was revealed
- Maken 3y ago
  That's clearly an hyperbole. They don't need nuclear weapons to exterminate everyone in Gaza.
- lemper 3y ago
  [flagged]
- llm_nerd 3y ago
  Israel has total military domination over Gaza and would never need to resort to nuclear weapons. The notion is absurd and some guy's ill-considered bluster isn't betraying some secret agenda. The Israel nuke theory comes more into play for an opponent like Iran. While Iran is already the backer of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi, insurgent groups within Iraq, among others, if Iran really got involved it would be Tehran that would be the demonstration.
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
"Only one country (South Africa) has been known to ever dismantle an indigenously developed nuclear arsenal completely." 3 other countries have given up their Soviet nuclear weapons: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine
- throw1234651234 3y ago
  Definitely led to peace in Ukraine! "The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[4][5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
  - ajross 3y ago
    To be fair: the geopolitical goal wasn't "peace" in the abstract, it was to prevent nuclear weapons from being abused or lost by a failed state. Russia wasn't "trusted" per se, but they were felt to be a safer stability bet on the whole than a tiny breakaway state with minimal history of self-rule. In hindsight, that was wrong of course. But the logic seemed clear and everyone agreed at the time.
    - throw1234651234 3y ago
      Ukraine wasn't a "tiny breakway state" - it had some of the heaviest USSR industry, crop production, education facilities / educated populace, and most combat capable military units due to being on the border of Europe. It has since sold off a lot of this due to corruption. However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. There are modern, deprecated (read: late 80s) launch facilities, even one of which could have prevented the war (possibly).
foobarian 3y ago
Key sensor involved in detection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhangmeter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhangmeter. Gotta love engineering humor.
- radicality 3y ago
  Interesting! Another example where ChatGPT hallucinates stuff. I first checked Wikipedia and saw this correct history: > The name is derived from the Hindi word "bhang", a locally grown variety of cannabis which is smoked or drunk to induce intoxicating effects, the joke being that one would have to be on drugs to believe the bhangmeter detectors would work properly. ChatGPT on the other hand claimed something completely different and unrelated to the origin. > The term “bhangmeter” is the more technically correct and widely used name, stemming from a whimsical contraction of “bang” (referring to the explosion) and “V. F. H. Metzger”, who contributed to its development.
  - PokemonNoGo 3y ago
    Further down the rabbit hole. "Bäng" is slang in Swedish of being high on cannabis. I had to look up where it came from and: >From Tavringer Romani beng, bäng (“devil, satan”), from Romani beng (“devil”). Related to Sanskrit व्यङ्ग (vyaṅga, “speckled, deformed”). Bängometer totally conveys the same thing in Swedish and most would understand the meaning.
  - golergka 3y ago
    > ChatGPT hallucinates stuff What model did you use?
    - radicality 3y ago
      Whatever is the current ChatGPT Pro subscription default model for ChatGPT-4. https://chat.openai.com/share/8e9caf23-158b-498a-9261-7f257fb617ee https://chat.openai.com/share/8e9caf23-158b-498a-9261-7f257f...
  - mustacheemperor 3y ago
gosub100 3y ago
Are there any youtube videos that go into the theory of proliferation and how an arms race works, or is there just not that much information available? I've kind of tired myself of the technical details of how the weapons work, the modes of delivery, and the (feeble) countermeasures. But the theory about why we have to keep developing them (arms race) is really fascinating (in a macabre way). It's so easy to have a child's view that WMD are terrible (and yes, they are) and therefore should be eliminated. But the fact that they are so terrible is paradoxically why we have to keep advancing them. I want to learn more about that.
- treypitt 3y ago
  Here is a good realist take on Iranian proliferation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hjfBGI7qXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hjfBGI7qXg
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  This might be interesting for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency > Nuclear latency or a nuclear threshold state is the condition of a country possessing the technology to quickly build nuclear weapons, without having actually yet done so. > There are many countries capable of producing nuclear weapons, or at least enriching uranium or manufacturing plutonium. Among the most notable are Japan, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia. > Taiwan and South Korea have both been identified as "insecure" nuclear threshold states—states with the technical capability to develop nuclear weapons and the security motivations to seriously contemplate such an option.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    That is interesting. Makes me think about the stories in the past few years that U235 can theoretically be condensed from seawater. Not good for proliferation.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > Not good for proliferation. What do you think it changes about proliferation?
speed_spread 3y ago
A.K.A. "Tell me you have the bomb without telling me you have the bomb." Technically, they probably didn't have to test it to know it worked. But for a nuclear weapon to be an effective deterrent you have to demonstrate it somehow. But you still need plausible deniability to abide by the world standards of peace-loving democracies /s
- mrweasel 3y ago
  They also had a test site in the Kalahari desert. The plan was to detonate a nuclear weapon within the territory of South Africa in case they where threatened by communist Angola, to show that they had and was serious about using nuclear weapons. The idea was that this would force Western powers to intervene on the side of South Africa, to avoid nuclear weapons being used against Angola. There is a great book detailing the nuclear program in South Africa: https://www.amazon.com/South-Africas-Weapons-Mass-Destruction/dp/025321730X/ https://www.amazon.com/South-Africas-Weapons-Mass-Destructio...
golergka 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
instagib 3y ago
TLDR: 1979 one satellite picked up something normally determined to be a nuclear detonation. - some probability it happened using other research. 2022 NASA confirmed a nuclear blast with another satellite by “blast's shockwave in the ozone layer”.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

87 points by rwmj 3y ago

wahnfrieden 3y ago

[flagged]

lawlessone 3y ago
I believe this guy is what is known as the "Wasp Cake" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA73vORSnA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA73vORSnA4
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Yes. He just revealed that it was discussed at the table, with the others, not that he was the problem for discussing it with them, however impractical or decided against of course; the problem was revealing it, it seems, by how they censured him without much consequence after it was revealed
Maken 3y ago
That's clearly an hyperbole. They don't need nuclear weapons to exterminate everyone in Gaza.
lemper 3y ago
[flagged]
llm_nerd 3y ago
Israel has total military domination over Gaza and would never need to resort to nuclear weapons. The notion is absurd and some guy's ill-considered bluster isn't betraying some secret agenda. The Israel nuke theory comes more into play for an opponent like Iran. While Iran is already the backer of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi, insurgent groups within Iraq, among others, if Iran really got involved it would be Tehran that would be the demonstration.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago

"Only one country (South Africa) has been known to ever dismantle an indigenously developed nuclear arsenal completely." 3 other countries have given up their Soviet nuclear weapons: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine

throw1234651234 3y ago
Definitely led to peace in Ukraine! "The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[4][5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- ajross 3y ago
  To be fair: the geopolitical goal wasn't "peace" in the abstract, it was to prevent nuclear weapons from being abused or lost by a failed state. Russia wasn't "trusted" per se, but they were felt to be a safer stability bet on the whole than a tiny breakaway state with minimal history of self-rule. In hindsight, that was wrong of course. But the logic seemed clear and everyone agreed at the time.
  - throw1234651234 3y ago
    Ukraine wasn't a "tiny breakway state" - it had some of the heaviest USSR industry, crop production, education facilities / educated populace, and most combat capable military units due to being on the border of Europe. It has since sold off a lot of this due to corruption. However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. There are modern, deprecated (read: late 80s) launch facilities, even one of which could have prevented the war (possibly).

foobarian 3y ago

Key sensor involved in detection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhangmeter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhangmeter. Gotta love engineering humor.

radicality 3y ago
Interesting! Another example where ChatGPT hallucinates stuff. I first checked Wikipedia and saw this correct history: > The name is derived from the Hindi word "bhang", a locally grown variety of cannabis which is smoked or drunk to induce intoxicating effects, the joke being that one would have to be on drugs to believe the bhangmeter detectors would work properly. ChatGPT on the other hand claimed something completely different and unrelated to the origin. > The term “bhangmeter” is the more technically correct and widely used name, stemming from a whimsical contraction of “bang” (referring to the explosion) and “V. F. H. Metzger”, who contributed to its development.
- PokemonNoGo 3y ago
  Further down the rabbit hole. "Bäng" is slang in Swedish of being high on cannabis. I had to look up where it came from and: >From Tavringer Romani beng, bäng (“devil, satan”), from Romani beng (“devil”). Related to Sanskrit व्यङ्ग (vyaṅga, “speckled, deformed”). Bängometer totally conveys the same thing in Swedish and most would understand the meaning.
- golergka 3y ago
  > ChatGPT hallucinates stuff What model did you use?
  - radicality 3y ago
    Whatever is the current ChatGPT Pro subscription default model for ChatGPT-4. https://chat.openai.com/share/8e9caf23-158b-498a-9261-7f257fb617ee https://chat.openai.com/share/8e9caf23-158b-498a-9261-7f257f...
- mustacheemperor 3y ago

gosub100 3y ago

Are there any youtube videos that go into the theory of proliferation and how an arms race works, or is there just not that much information available? I've kind of tired myself of the technical details of how the weapons work, the modes of delivery, and the (feeble) countermeasures. But the theory about why we have to keep developing them (arms race) is really fascinating (in a macabre way). It's so easy to have a child's view that WMD are terrible (and yes, they are) and therefore should be eliminated. But the fact that they are so terrible is paradoxically why we have to keep advancing them. I want to learn more about that.

treypitt 3y ago
Here is a good realist take on Iranian proliferation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hjfBGI7qXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hjfBGI7qXg
dist-epoch 3y ago
This might be interesting for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency > Nuclear latency or a nuclear threshold state is the condition of a country possessing the technology to quickly build nuclear weapons, without having actually yet done so. > There are many countries capable of producing nuclear weapons, or at least enriching uranium or manufacturing plutonium. Among the most notable are Japan, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia. > Taiwan and South Korea have both been identified as "insecure" nuclear threshold states—states with the technical capability to develop nuclear weapons and the security motivations to seriously contemplate such an option.
- gosub100 3y ago
  That is interesting. Makes me think about the stories in the past few years that U235 can theoretically be condensed from seawater. Not good for proliferation.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > Not good for proliferation. What do you think it changes about proliferation?

speed_spread 3y ago

A.K.A. "Tell me you have the bomb without telling me you have the bomb." Technically, they probably didn't have to test it to know it worked. But for a nuclear weapon to be an effective deterrent you have to demonstrate it somehow. But you still need plausible deniability to abide by the world standards of peace-loving democracies /s

mrweasel 3y ago
They also had a test site in the Kalahari desert. The plan was to detonate a nuclear weapon within the territory of South Africa in case they where threatened by communist Angola, to show that they had and was serious about using nuclear weapons. The idea was that this would force Western powers to intervene on the side of South Africa, to avoid nuclear weapons being used against Angola. There is a great book detailing the nuclear program in South Africa: https://www.amazon.com/South-Africas-Weapons-Mass-Destruction/dp/025321730X/ https://www.amazon.com/South-Africas-Weapons-Mass-Destructio...

golergka 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

instagib 3y ago

TLDR: 1979 one satellite picked up something normally determined to be a nuclear detonation. - some probability it happened using other research. 2022 NASA confirmed a nuclear blast with another satellite by “blast's shockwave in the ozone layer”.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]