3 ms·

> small European countries do now have to consider nukes It wouldn't be all that surprising to see Poland and Finland doing atmospheric tests in the next few m

> small European countries do now have to consider nukes It wouldn't be all that surprising to see Poland and Finland doing atmospheric tests in the next few months. Given that Ukraine gave up their weapons for a totally vacuous security guarantee it would make sense for them to build bombs too. 2025 could be the year of global nuclear proliferation.

sidewndr46 2y ago
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to restart atmospheric testing. If you want a subsurface test to be public knowledge, there's a pretty good track record of how to do that: invite the press. Pakistan, North Korea, India & others can serve as a good example. In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it. That is an argument from the absence of evidence unfortunately.
- titzer 2y ago
  > while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test' Given the sensitivity of global seismometers, I don't think this is physically possible. Maybe you could test one on the far side of the moon? :)
  - chopin 2y ago
    There are seismometers on the moon, though.
- jcgrillo 2y ago
  The point of an atmospheric test wouldn't be to merely say "we have capability" it would be to say "we have capability and we're absolutely not afraid to use it, no matter what the cost." The idea is to demonstrate overwhelming strength and resolve, such that the opponent doesn't dare attack, not to escalate slowly.
- deepsun 2y ago
  The whole point of nuclear weapons is to NOT conceal them, but boast as loud as possible.
  - the_gipsy 2y ago
    For Europe, yes. But on a tangent, for example for Iran it would be desirable to conceal tests until the point you have proven that you can make and deliver nukes.
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    Not really. For example, everyone considers the UK to be a nuclear power. Exactly what weapons they have seems to be tied to the deals of the US-UK defense agreements. The UK's development of fission weapons is well documented. The development of thermonuclear is unclear and its not exactly obvious when and how they tested proper thermonuclear weapons. Pakistan probably had nuclear weapons decades before their official tests. The US even made them one heck of an offer to maintain this policy of uncertainty. Ultimately they would debut very small thermonuclear weapons. They probably can manufacture large scale nuclear weapons into the megaton range. Pakistan probably also has plenty of delivery options. But ultimately their arsenal is mainly just there to deter China or India's territorial expansion. Pakistan can't really threaten other nuclear powers and it seems unlikely that a country like France is just going to launch an invasion of Pakistan. So there isn't really too much reason to bother with more tests. Ambiguity is their ally.
- alienthrowaway 2y ago
  > In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it. Only because the US decided to officially look the other way. See "The Vela incident" which was never publicly attributed, but was almost certainly a joint Israel-South Africa test.
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    I think you're correct but it also hasn't ever been publicly attributed to Israel. It's certainly a nuclear weapon test, but there isn't anything to directly tie it to Israel. "could have been anyone" is a pretty good shield

sidewndr46 2y ago

I don't think anyone is dumb enough to restart atmospheric testing. If you want a subsurface test to be public knowledge, there's a pretty good track record of how to do that: invite the press. Pakistan, North Korea, India & others can serve as a good example. In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it. That is an argument from the absence of evidence unfortunately.

titzer 2y ago
> while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test' Given the sensitivity of global seismometers, I don't think this is physically possible. Maybe you could test one on the far side of the moon? :)
- chopin 2y ago
  There are seismometers on the moon, though.
jcgrillo 2y ago
The point of an atmospheric test wouldn't be to merely say "we have capability" it would be to say "we have capability and we're absolutely not afraid to use it, no matter what the cost." The idea is to demonstrate overwhelming strength and resolve, such that the opponent doesn't dare attack, not to escalate slowly.
deepsun 2y ago
The whole point of nuclear weapons is to NOT conceal them, but boast as loud as possible.
- the_gipsy 2y ago
  For Europe, yes. But on a tangent, for example for Iran it would be desirable to conceal tests until the point you have proven that you can make and deliver nukes.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  Not really. For example, everyone considers the UK to be a nuclear power. Exactly what weapons they have seems to be tied to the deals of the US-UK defense agreements. The UK's development of fission weapons is well documented. The development of thermonuclear is unclear and its not exactly obvious when and how they tested proper thermonuclear weapons. Pakistan probably had nuclear weapons decades before their official tests. The US even made them one heck of an offer to maintain this policy of uncertainty. Ultimately they would debut very small thermonuclear weapons. They probably can manufacture large scale nuclear weapons into the megaton range. Pakistan probably also has plenty of delivery options. But ultimately their arsenal is mainly just there to deter China or India's territorial expansion. Pakistan can't really threaten other nuclear powers and it seems unlikely that a country like France is just going to launch an invasion of Pakistan. So there isn't really too much reason to bother with more tests. Ambiguity is their ally.
alienthrowaway 2y ago
> In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it. Only because the US decided to officially look the other way. See "The Vela incident" which was never publicly attributed, but was almost certainly a joint Israel-South Africa test.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  I think you're correct but it also hasn't ever been publicly attributed to Israel. It's certainly a nuclear weapon test, but there isn't anything to directly tie it to Israel. "could have been anyone" is a pretty good shield