9 ms·

Nuclear weapons can be repurposed for nuclear energy. Maybe, just maybe, one beautiful day we will live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons nor need f

Nuclear weapons can be repurposed for nuclear energy. Maybe, just maybe, one beautiful day we will live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons nor need for them. These weapons cannot be used ethically, they poison the soil, air, and water. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/military-warheads-as-a-source-of-nuclear-fuel https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... A quote from Sun Tzu is etched in stone at the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site just outside the Pine Ridge Native American Reservation: "Someday, an ultimate class of warriors will evolve, too strong to be contested. They will win battles without having to fight, so that at last, the day may be won without shedding a single drop of blood."

nssnsjsjsjs 1y ago
Yes those victorious warriors will find a way to split into 2+ warring factions.
- elmomle 1y ago
  If that were to happen then they would not be this ultimate class of warriors.
  - nssnsjsjsjs 1y ago
    They may be great warriors but bad diplomats
    - wrasee 1y ago
      Presuppose that the following argument contains the solution. This is my solution.
ssivark 1y ago
> "Someday, an ultimate class of warriors will evolve, too strong to be contested. They will win battles without having to fight, so that at last, the day may be won without shedding a single drop of blood." With such power asymmetries, the "bleeding" might merely be displaced to after the battle is settled. Look at the history of how colonialism played out.
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Minuteman_Missile_National_Historic_Site_marker.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Minutema...
atoav 1y ago
On that note: Trumps golden dome has the chance to end this paradigm, since with it the US can now Nuke countries that it likes without direct payback (which is probably the point of the whole thing in the first place). The problem with that is that it changes the incentive on nukes into using them in more concealed, non-attributable ways, like smuggling a suitcase nuke into Manhatten and have everybody wonder which nations or terrorist organization it was.
- flyinglizard 1y ago
  Nuclear explosions leave traces that you can link to a specific country's nuclear program. Check "nuclear fingerprinting".
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Any such tech will be highly destabilizing for the decade or two it takes to build and deploy.
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  And it's more than the fantasy of a madman?? 1) EMP strike. The device is a big h-bomb peacefully sitting in orbit, pretending to be something else. Push the button and basically everything to the horizon (which is a very long ways) gets fried. Some of the hardened military stuff might survive, but the country is gone. The survivalists might hang on for a while, but they can't rebuild. 2) Salvage fuse. You put a proximity sensor on the missile that detonates it if something comes sufficiently close. All the antennas and missile seekers looking at the area are dazzled if not destroyed. The defenses have a very hard time engaging the next missile. The next missile doesn't need to be looking at anything, it doesn't get fried. 3) Suppose it "works"?? Nope, the reality of missile defense is that you spend more on the interceptors than your enemy spent on the missiles. Iron Dome is last I knew $50k/shot. And note what happened in the aftermath of 10/7--Hamas bled the launchers dry with rockets that were at least an order of magnitude cheaper. Last I knew Iron Beam was only test-deployed (shooting at real inbounds but not considered fully operational) and even it can be swamped. And it's only a short range defense. And it takes dwell time--salvage fuse becomes an issue even though it's an energy weapon. Point defense, yes. Country defense, no.
wahern 1y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you juxtaposed your statement about repurposing nuclear weapons and the quote, but isn't the quote suggesting that nuclear weapons are those ultimate warriors that will bring an end to bloodshed? It seems like an artful allusion to the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction and the claim that MAD prevents wars.
- junon 1y ago
  It depends on the way you read it. Nuclear bombs cause bloodshed. The blood might be vaporized, cooked, or irradiated - but still shed. I don't think that's what OP meant; rather I read it literally, to mean one day there might actually be a world without war, or at least, a world without violent wars.
  - leesec 1y ago
    >Nuclear bombs cause bloodshed. No they prevent and drastically reduce bloodshed.
    - snake42 1y ago
      Until they don't.
    - junon 1y ago
      Tell that to the families of everyone who's died in the Russian war on Ukraine.
      - dsr_ 1y ago
        You know that Ukraine had nuclear weapons, and gave them up for the promise of never being attacked? Would Russia have spent the last 11 years attacking Ukraine if it were still a nuclear power? (Maybe. Dictators are not reknowned for their sanity and good decision-making skills.)
        LorenPechtel 1y ago
crossroadsguy 1y ago
The only way we will, now that the genie is out of the bottle, not need these weapons is when we will have easy and affordable (for nation states) ways to neuter a nuclear attack which is as likely as the earth being peaceful and filled with bonhomie unlike anytime in history ever. Besides if (and that’s some “if”) that happens that means the world has already found something more deadly and again some people will suddenly grow very mature insights on this and after destroying few cities they would totally focus on an initiative that ensures only they get to keep those weapons and every other nation should voluntarily sign up for it. And this is the main reason we will never get rid of deadliest of weapons and the endless quest for them.
- XorNot 1y ago
  Defending against a nuclear attack though isn't a desire for peace, it's a desire for freedom of action without consequence. In a world with nuclear weapons and limited, unreliable defenses against them, you have to actually fully comprehend what "wanting peace" actually means - i.e. negotiation and diplomacy are the actual kings. In a world without them, you always have the option of resorting to the barrel of the gun again - as happened to prior to WW2.
  - dmbche 1y ago
    I don't think reliable defenses against nukes can exist can they? Airbursting nukes high enough causes emp events and the irradiated material still floats around - that's without the assymetry in cost in trying to hit 100% of decoys produced by the nuke, stopping a single nuke is at least an order of magnitude more expansive than sending one - I don't think it could really be done!
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      >I don't think reliable defenses against nukes can exist can they? Airbursting nukes high enough causes emp events and the irradiated material still floats around With enough anti-missile technology, it's possible (though challenging) to defend against that. But good luck trying to stop them from smuggling a multi-kiloton device across your border and detonating it at a time calculated to cause the most casualties.
FridayoLeary 1y ago
The russians managed to find some constructive uses. Check up how they used them to put out burning oil wells and diverting a river.
latexr 1y ago
> Maybe, just maybe, one beautiful day we will live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons nor need for them. We already live, and have since forever, in a world that does not need nuclear weapons. > A quote from Sun Tzu The logical outcome of which being that whoever controls that class of warriors controls the world. I’m not convinced, despite what the quote seems to imply, that is better than never again shedding blood. With all due respect to ancient Chinese wisdom, Sun Tzu had no concept of atomic bombs, autonomous drones, and weaponised diseases.
gjm11 1y ago
I can't find this in The Art of War (but maybe I missed it?). Nearest I can find in this translation https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html is: 6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. 7. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem. and maaaaybe the original text underlying some of that could also be translated as the second sentence in the alleged quotation. But the bit about "an ultimate class of warriors" seems really fishy to me. [EDITED to add:] Ah, looking at a picture of the thing, it says "adapted from Sun Tzu, The Art of War". Seems like a pretty loose adaptation.
NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
>These weapons cannot be used ethically, I disagree. Our most dangerous enemies aren't even human. On the off chance the little green men show up, let's have something with a bit more oomph than polite rebuke. Just in case. >"Someday, an ultimate class of warriors will evolve, too strong to be contested. They will win battles without having to fight, so that at last, the day may be won without shedding a single drop of blood." This is just silly. What if those warriors want to ban abortions and library books? Will you be satisfied that their fighting prowess grants them the power to dictate that to you? Do you believe that there's some mystical connection between that strength and your particular ethical perspective?
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  Disagree, Kzinti Lesson. It's pretty much impossible to come up with a stardrive that doesn't have a weapon potential that makes nukes look like firecrackers. 1) The direct Kzinti Lesson: Anything that can push a ship to relativistic velocity produces incredibly energetic exhaust. The efficiency of the drive is directly related to how well you can point it in one direction, thus making it very hard to make something that isn't a weapon. And in a population-attack scenario such a starship throwing rocks is devastating. At 86% of lightspeed a rock hits with it's annihilation energy. At 94% of lightspeed it hits as hard as if it were antimatter. 2) Jump drives (whatever you call them) still need to get somewhere without waiting years. While it doesn't have nearly the planet-killing potential of a relativistic starship it's still quite capable of throwing city-killers. 3) Intertialess (Lensman series). No direct weapon potential but they knew they couldn't crack the defenses of Jarvenon--so the slapped inertialess drives to a couple of planets and used them as a nutcracker. Known physics only leaves the first scenario as possible, I threw out the others to cover the various sci-fi drives. I can't think of any story that uses something that doesn't fit one of these three categories.

nssnsjsjsjs 1y ago

Yes those victorious warriors will find a way to split into 2+ warring factions.

elmomle 1y ago
If that were to happen then they would not be this ultimate class of warriors.
- nssnsjsjsjs 1y ago
  They may be great warriors but bad diplomats
  - wrasee 1y ago
    Presuppose that the following argument contains the solution. This is my solution.

ssivark 1y ago

> "Someday, an ultimate class of warriors will evolve, too strong to be contested. They will win battles without having to fight, so that at last, the day may be won without shedding a single drop of blood." With such power asymmetries, the "bleeding" might merely be displaced to after the battle is settled. Look at the history of how colonialism played out.

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Minuteman_Missile_National_Historic_Site_marker.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Minutema...

atoav 1y ago

On that note: Trumps golden dome has the chance to end this paradigm, since with it the US can now Nuke countries that it likes without direct payback (which is probably the point of the whole thing in the first place). The problem with that is that it changes the incentive on nukes into using them in more concealed, non-attributable ways, like smuggling a suitcase nuke into Manhatten and have everybody wonder which nations or terrorist organization it was.

flyinglizard 1y ago
Nuclear explosions leave traces that you can link to a specific country's nuclear program. Check "nuclear fingerprinting".
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ceejayoz 1y ago
Any such tech will be highly destabilizing for the decade or two it takes to build and deploy.
LorenPechtel 1y ago
And it's more than the fantasy of a madman?? 1) EMP strike. The device is a big h-bomb peacefully sitting in orbit, pretending to be something else. Push the button and basically everything to the horizon (which is a very long ways) gets fried. Some of the hardened military stuff might survive, but the country is gone. The survivalists might hang on for a while, but they can't rebuild. 2) Salvage fuse. You put a proximity sensor on the missile that detonates it if something comes sufficiently close. All the antennas and missile seekers looking at the area are dazzled if not destroyed. The defenses have a very hard time engaging the next missile. The next missile doesn't need to be looking at anything, it doesn't get fried. 3) Suppose it "works"?? Nope, the reality of missile defense is that you spend more on the interceptors than your enemy spent on the missiles. Iron Dome is last I knew $50k/shot. And note what happened in the aftermath of 10/7--Hamas bled the launchers dry with rockets that were at least an order of magnitude cheaper. Last I knew Iron Beam was only test-deployed (shooting at real inbounds but not considered fully operational) and even it can be swamped. And it's only a short range defense. And it takes dwell time--salvage fuse becomes an issue even though it's an energy weapon. Point defense, yes. Country defense, no.

wahern 1y ago

Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you juxtaposed your statement about repurposing nuclear weapons and the quote, but isn't the quote suggesting that nuclear weapons are those ultimate warriors that will bring an end to bloodshed? It seems like an artful allusion to the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction and the claim that MAD prevents wars.

junon 1y ago
It depends on the way you read it. Nuclear bombs cause bloodshed. The blood might be vaporized, cooked, or irradiated - but still shed. I don't think that's what OP meant; rather I read it literally, to mean one day there might actually be a world without war, or at least, a world without violent wars.
- leesec 1y ago
  >Nuclear bombs cause bloodshed. No they prevent and drastically reduce bloodshed.
  - snake42 1y ago
    Until they don't.
  - junon 1y ago
    Tell that to the families of everyone who's died in the Russian war on Ukraine.
    - dsr_ 1y ago
      You know that Ukraine had nuclear weapons, and gave them up for the promise of never being attacked? Would Russia have spent the last 11 years attacking Ukraine if it were still a nuclear power? (Maybe. Dictators are not reknowned for their sanity and good decision-making skills.)
      - LorenPechtel 1y ago

crossroadsguy 1y ago

The only way we will, now that the genie is out of the bottle, not need these weapons is when we will have easy and affordable (for nation states) ways to neuter a nuclear attack which is as likely as the earth being peaceful and filled with bonhomie unlike anytime in history ever. Besides if (and that’s some “if”) that happens that means the world has already found something more deadly and again some people will suddenly grow very mature insights on this and after destroying few cities they would totally focus on an initiative that ensures only they get to keep those weapons and every other nation should voluntarily sign up for it. And this is the main reason we will never get rid of deadliest of weapons and the endless quest for them.

XorNot 1y ago
Defending against a nuclear attack though isn't a desire for peace, it's a desire for freedom of action without consequence. In a world with nuclear weapons and limited, unreliable defenses against them, you have to actually fully comprehend what "wanting peace" actually means - i.e. negotiation and diplomacy are the actual kings. In a world without them, you always have the option of resorting to the barrel of the gun again - as happened to prior to WW2.
- dmbche 1y ago
  I don't think reliable defenses against nukes can exist can they? Airbursting nukes high enough causes emp events and the irradiated material still floats around - that's without the assymetry in cost in trying to hit 100% of decoys produced by the nuke, stopping a single nuke is at least an order of magnitude more expansive than sending one - I don't think it could really be done!
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >I don't think reliable defenses against nukes can exist can they? Airbursting nukes high enough causes emp events and the irradiated material still floats around With enough anti-missile technology, it's possible (though challenging) to defend against that. But good luck trying to stop them from smuggling a multi-kiloton device across your border and detonating it at a time calculated to cause the most casualties.

FridayoLeary 1y ago

The russians managed to find some constructive uses. Check up how they used them to put out burning oil wells and diverting a river.

latexr 1y ago

> Maybe, just maybe, one beautiful day we will live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons nor need for them. We already live, and have since forever, in a world that does not need nuclear weapons. > A quote from Sun Tzu The logical outcome of which being that whoever controls that class of warriors controls the world. I’m not convinced, despite what the quote seems to imply, that is better than never again shedding blood. With all due respect to ancient Chinese wisdom, Sun Tzu had no concept of atomic bombs, autonomous drones, and weaponised diseases.

gjm11 1y ago

I can't find this in The Art of War (but maybe I missed it?). Nearest I can find in this translation https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html is: 6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. 7. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem. and maaaaybe the original text underlying some of that could also be translated as the second sentence in the alleged quotation. But the bit about "an ultimate class of warriors" seems really fishy to me. [EDITED to add:] Ah, looking at a picture of the thing, it says "adapted from Sun Tzu, The Art of War". Seems like a pretty loose adaptation.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

>These weapons cannot be used ethically, I disagree. Our most dangerous enemies aren't even human. On the off chance the little green men show up, let's have something with a bit more oomph than polite rebuke. Just in case. >"Someday, an ultimate class of warriors will evolve, too strong to be contested. They will win battles without having to fight, so that at last, the day may be won without shedding a single drop of blood." This is just silly. What if those warriors want to ban abortions and library books? Will you be satisfied that their fighting prowess grants them the power to dictate that to you? Do you believe that there's some mystical connection between that strength and your particular ethical perspective?

LorenPechtel 1y ago
Disagree, Kzinti Lesson. It's pretty much impossible to come up with a stardrive that doesn't have a weapon potential that makes nukes look like firecrackers. 1) The direct Kzinti Lesson: Anything that can push a ship to relativistic velocity produces incredibly energetic exhaust. The efficiency of the drive is directly related to how well you can point it in one direction, thus making it very hard to make something that isn't a weapon. And in a population-attack scenario such a starship throwing rocks is devastating. At 86% of lightspeed a rock hits with it's annihilation energy. At 94% of lightspeed it hits as hard as if it were antimatter. 2) Jump drives (whatever you call them) still need to get somewhere without waiting years. While it doesn't have nearly the planet-killing potential of a relativistic starship it's still quite capable of throwing city-killers. 3) Intertialess (Lensman series). No direct weapon potential but they knew they couldn't crack the defenses of Jarvenon--so the slapped inertialess drives to a couple of planets and used them as a nutcracker. Known physics only leaves the first scenario as possible, I threw out the others to cover the various sci-fi drives. I can't think of any story that uses something that doesn't fit one of these three categories.