5 ms·

I think he got confused with the terminology - Putin said he tested nuclear-powered Burevestnik, but that's not the same as testing nuclear weapons.

by r721 1y ago

measurablefunc 1y ago
Technically it is a nuclear weapon. It uses radioactive material in some non-trivial capacity.
- ggm 1y ago
  I think "technically" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when the nuclear component is an engine. It's like classic geek ratholing. if a nuclear submarine launches a tomahawk with a non-nuclear warhead is the entire weapons system "a nuclear weapon" in your eyes? Is that a breach of the arms treaties, and breaches "no first strike" posture and invites second strike response with nuclear warheads?
  - measurablefunc 1y ago
    I wasn't arguing about semantics. Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic so they saw the latest propaganda from Russia & decided that the new policy would be the proper response.
    - ggm 1y ago
      Russia tested a nuclear capable long duration engine and the US response as reported to media is that the WH requested a resumption of nuclear weapons tests. Not nuclear engine tests.
      - measurablefunc 1y ago
        The public will be happy w/ their response. You're drawing distinctions very few people care about which is why Trump is president & you're arguing w/ random internet strangers about the absurdity of the response.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      > Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic Apparently you haven't noticed that Tramp has been purging anyone loyal to the United States as a country and installing subservient apparatchiks in their place. This is not a dynamic which selects for intelligence, competence, or subject matter focus.
      - measurablefunc 1y ago
        I don't think the nuclear physicists & engineers building the bombs are any less competent so I don't know what point you're making. In fact, the people doing the actual work are still the same people as they were when Biden was president.
        mindslight 1y ago
        You were talking about policy, not the people designing and building bombs.
        measurablefunc 1y ago
        I didn't specify whether it was policy or implementation or both. The government isn't a monolithic structure w/ everyone being equally stupid or intelligent. In the case of nuclear warheads I'm certain the people who have to do the actual work are not idiots even if the policymakers are idiots.
        mindslight 1y ago
        > decided that the new policy would be the proper response. How were you talking about anyone but policymakers?
        measurablefunc 1y ago
        > people who work for him Does not mean only policymakers. In any case, I'm not concerned about this issue so good luck to you.
ggm 1y ago
A point I think many people are overlooking. Furthermore, to the extent Burevestnik or the seaborne device can deliver nuclear warheads, very little in bomb physics has changed since the last tests were run. It was my understanding the US bombs production and management facilities ran tests until simulations were good analogues of what they saw in the real test, at which point it's both cheaper and faster to run simulations. The only possible reason to run real tests, is for a political communication, although who is receiving it and what it says to them, isn't clear.

I think he got confused with the terminology - Putin said he tested nuclear-powered Burevestnik, but that's not the same as testing nuclear weapons.

by r721 1y ago

I think he got confused with the terminology - Putin said he tested nuclear-powered Burevestnik, but that's not the same as testing nuclear weapons.

measurablefunc 1y ago

Technically it is a nuclear weapon. It uses radioactive material in some non-trivial capacity.

ggm 1y ago
I think "technically" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when the nuclear component is an engine. It's like classic geek ratholing. if a nuclear submarine launches a tomahawk with a non-nuclear warhead is the entire weapons system "a nuclear weapon" in your eyes? Is that a breach of the arms treaties, and breaches "no first strike" posture and invites second strike response with nuclear warheads?
- measurablefunc 1y ago
  I wasn't arguing about semantics. Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic so they saw the latest propaganda from Russia & decided that the new policy would be the proper response.
  - ggm 1y ago
    Russia tested a nuclear capable long duration engine and the US response as reported to media is that the WH requested a resumption of nuclear weapons tests. Not nuclear engine tests.
    - measurablefunc 1y ago
      The public will be happy w/ their response. You're drawing distinctions very few people care about which is why Trump is president & you're arguing w/ random internet strangers about the absurdity of the response.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    > Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic Apparently you haven't noticed that Tramp has been purging anyone loyal to the United States as a country and installing subservient apparatchiks in their place. This is not a dynamic which selects for intelligence, competence, or subject matter focus.
    - measurablefunc 1y ago
      I don't think the nuclear physicists & engineers building the bombs are any less competent so I don't know what point you're making. In fact, the people doing the actual work are still the same people as they were when Biden was president.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        You were talking about policy, not the people designing and building bombs.
        measurablefunc 1y ago
        I didn't specify whether it was policy or implementation or both. The government isn't a monolithic structure w/ everyone being equally stupid or intelligent. In the case of nuclear warheads I'm certain the people who have to do the actual work are not idiots even if the policymakers are idiots.
        mindslight 1y ago
        > decided that the new policy would be the proper response. How were you talking about anyone but policymakers?
        measurablefunc 1y ago
        > people who work for him Does not mean only policymakers. In any case, I'm not concerned about this issue so good luck to you.

ggm 1y ago

A point I think many people are overlooking. Furthermore, to the extent Burevestnik or the seaborne device can deliver nuclear warheads, very little in bomb physics has changed since the last tests were run. It was my understanding the US bombs production and management facilities ran tests until simulations were good analogues of what they saw in the real test, at which point it's both cheaper and faster to run simulations. The only possible reason to run real tests, is for a political communication, although who is receiving it and what it says to them, isn't clear.