No One Knows If Decades-Old Nukes Would Actually Work 263
Atomic weapons are complex, sensitive, and often pretty old. With testing banned, countries have to rely on good simulations to trust their weapons work. From a report: Flattened cities, millions of people burnt to death, and yet more tortured by radioactive fallout. That harrowing future may seem outlandish to some, but only because no nation has detonated a nuclear weapon in conflict since 1945. Countries including the US, Russia, and China wield hefty nuclear arsenals and regularly squabble over how to manage them -- only last week, Russia suspended participation in its nuclear arms reduction treaty with the US. Thankfully, nuclear warheads mostly just sit there, motionless and silent, cozy in their silos and underground storage caverns. If someone actually tried to use one, though, would it definitely go off as intended? "Nobody really knows," says Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear weapons historian at the Stevens Institute of Technology. The 20th century witnessed more than 2,000 nuclear tests -- the vast majority carried out by the US and the Soviet Union. And while these did prove the countries' nuclear capabilities, they don't guarantee that a warhead strapped to a missile or some other delivery system would work today.
Surprisingly, as far as we know, the US has only ever tested a live nuclear warhead using a live missile system once, way back in 1962. It was launched from a submarine. The Soviet Union had performed a similar test the previous year, and China followed in 1966. No nation has ever tested a nuclear warhead delivered by an intercontinental ballistic missile. The missile could blow up on the launchpad, explains Wellerstein. No one wants to clean that mess up. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has, sadly, brought the specter of nuclear weaponry to the fore once again. In February, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed new strategic nuclear weapons systems had been placed on combat duty, and he threatened to resume nuclear testing. Russia's former defense minister, Dmitry Medvedev, has been particularly vocal about his country's readiness to use nuclear weapons -- including against Ukraine. Russia has around 4,500 non-retired nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit that focuses on security. Roughly 2,000 are considered "tactical" -- smaller warheads that could be used on, for example, a foreign battlefield. To our knowledge, Russia has not begun "mating" those tactical warheads to delivery systems, such as missiles. Doing so involves certain safety risks, notes Lynn Rusten of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a think tank: "It would be really worrisome if we saw any indication that they were moving those warheads out of storage."
If they were brought into operation, multiple things could in theory go wrong with these weapons. For one thing, the delivery systems themselves might not be reliable. Mark Schneider, formerly of the US Department of Defense's senior executive service, has written about the many problems Russia has faced with its missiles so far during the war with Ukraine. Last spring, US officials said between 20 and 60 percent of Russian missiles were failing, either in terms of not launching or not hitting the intended target. That doesn't necessarily matter, though, notes Schneider. When firing a nuclear warhead with a big explosive yield, "accuracy is much less relevant," he says. Russia certainly has enough missiles to get a nuclear weapon more or less to where it wants -- even if it takes more than one attempt. But what about the warheads themselves? Modern thermonuclear devices are complex bits of machinery designed to initiate a specific explosive sequence, sometimes called a fission-fusion-fission reaction, which releases a massive amount of energy. Wellerstein points out that some warheads designed decades ago are still part of nuclear arsenals. Over time, their parts must be carefully checked for degradation and refurbished or replaced. But certain components can become unavailable due to changes in manufacturing capabilities.
Surprisingly, as far as we know, the US has only ever tested a live nuclear warhead using a live missile system once, way back in 1962. It was launched from a submarine. The Soviet Union had performed a similar test the previous year, and China followed in 1966. No nation has ever tested a nuclear warhead delivered by an intercontinental ballistic missile. The missile could blow up on the launchpad, explains Wellerstein. No one wants to clean that mess up. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has, sadly, brought the specter of nuclear weaponry to the fore once again. In February, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed new strategic nuclear weapons systems had been placed on combat duty, and he threatened to resume nuclear testing. Russia's former defense minister, Dmitry Medvedev, has been particularly vocal about his country's readiness to use nuclear weapons -- including against Ukraine. Russia has around 4,500 non-retired nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit that focuses on security. Roughly 2,000 are considered "tactical" -- smaller warheads that could be used on, for example, a foreign battlefield. To our knowledge, Russia has not begun "mating" those tactical warheads to delivery systems, such as missiles. Doing so involves certain safety risks, notes Lynn Rusten of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a think tank: "It would be really worrisome if we saw any indication that they were moving those warheads out of storage."
If they were brought into operation, multiple things could in theory go wrong with these weapons. For one thing, the delivery systems themselves might not be reliable. Mark Schneider, formerly of the US Department of Defense's senior executive service, has written about the many problems Russia has faced with its missiles so far during the war with Ukraine. Last spring, US officials said between 20 and 60 percent of Russian missiles were failing, either in terms of not launching or not hitting the intended target. That doesn't necessarily matter, though, notes Schneider. When firing a nuclear warhead with a big explosive yield, "accuracy is much less relevant," he says. Russia certainly has enough missiles to get a nuclear weapon more or less to where it wants -- even if it takes more than one attempt. But what about the warheads themselves? Modern thermonuclear devices are complex bits of machinery designed to initiate a specific explosive sequence, sometimes called a fission-fusion-fission reaction, which releases a massive amount of energy. Wellerstein points out that some warheads designed decades ago are still part of nuclear arsenals. Over time, their parts must be carefully checked for degradation and refurbished or replaced. But certain components can become unavailable due to changes in manufacturing capabilities.
I know ... (Score:2)
... Lets try a few out and see! !! ! !!
(please note sarcasm)
Re:I know ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if nukes work.
It only matters if our adversaries think they will work.
The purpose of nukes is deterrence. If they are ever used, they have failed their purpose.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if nukes work.
It only matters if our adversaries think they will work.
The purpose of nukes is deterrence. If they are ever used, they have failed their purpose.
Until venture capitalists need to REALLY crash the economy bigtime. Then nukes will help them make even more money!
Re:I know ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The war in Ukraine revealed that a lot of weapons in storage, both in East and West are not in working condition (tanks, airplanes and such). Also it revealed a lot of weapons in service are not as good as expected (HIMARS are the exception). So is logical now to expect the same from nukes. BTW, just a few days ago the Western media reported about a presumably failed test in Russia with Satan II.
Re: (Score:3)
Also it revealed a lot of weapons in service are not as good as expected (HIMARS are the exception)
Anti-tank missiles like Javelins seem to work pretty well. Although, that could only appear to be the case because the Russian pop-top tanks are so bad.
Re:I know ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The war in Ukraine revealed that a lot of weapons in storage, both in East and West are not in working condition
This is nowhere near true. The war in Ukraine has show that both Russian equipment and fighting forces are questionable. Western weapons and counter weapons are working just fine.
An this is not a good thing. The more unreliable Russian forces are shown to be, and the more effective Western weapons are the more likely Russia will resort to tactual nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
In a couple areas, they are barely pushing Ukraine back. Mainly because Ukraine is letting them do it, because it helps Ukraine significantly.
Russia hasn't really learned much from their failures, they keep trying the same things that have failed them over and over again. Their leaders are basically all the same as they have been, they just keep switching them around.
Surovikin, the last Russian General that they pulled was much better than the new/old replacement one. The new/old guy Gerasimov was the the m
Re: (Score:3)
1000 dead per meter gained isn't sustainable for the long run
You only have half the numbers required to answer that question.
Re: (Score:2)
Only thing I care about is if the Russian nukes works or not (preferably not).
Re: (Score:2)
It only matters if our adversaries think they will work. The purpose of nukes is deterrence.
Even more important for Russia now that it's clearly demonstrated it wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. in conventional warfare.
Re:I know ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more important for Russia now that it's clearly demonstrated it wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. in conventional warfare.
Which is not necessary a good thing. The more unreliable Russia weapons are proving to be in a conventional war, the more likely they will resort to nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
You might have a point but I think if it doesn't explode it isn't considered a "nuke", at least in common parlance. I bet if you just strapped a bunch of cesium to a traditional bomb and dropped it enough people would pitch a fit for it to have the same effect. I think the politics of it are so close to a"regular" nuke that it's off the table for any nation state, not much different than a bio-weapon.
Re: I know ... (Score:3)
No, it is just another nuclear weapon with a different usage profile. It still would toss a shitload of radioactive crap all over the place, which would all have to be cleaned up, and until it is, it would be bioaccumulation in wildlife and aquifers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Start with Florida and work our way around the rest in order from worst to best.
Russia (Score:2)
Well given the condition of the 1980s junk they’re currently losing with, their nukes have a good chance of not working. But they only need one to succeed.
One is not enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Well given the condition of the 1980s junk they’re currently losing with, their nukes have a good chance of not working. But they only need one to succeed.
I don't know that having a single nuke succeed would count as a success, since that would result in a response that would delete the entire Russian nation and population.
The summary is a bit misleading, because many (over half, apparently) of Russia's nukes are not currently mounted on missiles. They are very old, and the missiles are old, and and it's not certain that any of them would work. As the article indicates, none of the modern designs have been actually tested, so it'snot clear that they would have worked NIB.
It's more likely that a nuke would explode somewhere near the conflict area (Ukrainian war front lines, or perhaps a nuke delivered by hand to Kiev), and again even if no one made a nuclear response it would mean the end of Russia. All the countries propping up Russian activities (China, Iran, India) would immediately stop dealing with them.
When the Ukraine invasion started (about a year ago), the intelligence services were confident that no nukes would be used, simply because someone "would bail" on the decision. Putin can't unilaterally decide to use nukes, there's a chain of command, and the IS were pretty confident at the time.
As to the war itself: it seems that Russia has mounted a new assault, And Ukraine is simply content to dig in and make the assault as expensive as possible for the attackers. This is reflected in the kill count which is currently over 500 each day, resulting in a total kill count of around 150,000 [ukrinform.net] (killed Russians) at this point. Ukrainian casualties are not published, but GCHQ estimates that the kill ratio is 1-to-6, indicating around 22,000 Ukranian casualties (probably not counting civilian casualties).
According to Critical Threats [criticalthreats.org], the Russian assault was not well executed and is not expected to succeed.
Also, it appears that Russia has expended something like 97% of it's military capacity, and will simply run out very soon.
From the Critical Threats website:
Russia likely began to run out of combat-ready forces by late May 2022, forcing Russian President Vladimir Putin to decide between launching a volunteer recruitment campaign or ordering an unpopular involuntary reserve call-up.
(Some other estimates indicate that the end of March will be a turning point, with Ukraine rolling over any remaining Russian forces.)
Here's hoping.
Re:One is not enough (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the assertion that Russia has used up 97% of its military capacity is cherry picking particular capabilities. It's likely fair that Russia has used up pretty much all of it's pre-war active weapons in a number of categories, but that's ignoring reserves. For example, let's say Russia tank losses account for 97% of it's pre-war active tanks. However, it pulled tons of tanks out of its reserves, so perhaps they lost 50% of their active tanks and about the same number of tanks from their reserves.
By percentages, their air power is in much better shape, and their navy is mostly doing just fine, not being allowed into the Black Sea by Turkey.
What we are seeing quite clearly, though, is that their reserves aren't nearly as large as advertised, and much of what they do have is in horrible shape. They are clearly running out of trained ground forces.
Ukraine is clearly doing well with the strategy of letting Russia through their forces into attacks against defended positions where they get chewed up. At some point, Ukraine will launch another offensive of their own, and we'll see if the Russian forces are ready to break.
Ukraine will likely be able to achieve their pre-invasion borders by the summer. Personally, I think the Bradleys will be incredibly useful in any new offensive. Retaking Crimea the LPR/DPR may take longer.
I expect Russian forces will look solid until they suddenly break completely, possibly on a region-by-region basis, or perhaps systemically.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well given the condition of the 1980s junk they’re currently losing with, their nukes have a good chance of not working. But they only need one to succeed.
I don't know that having a single nuke succeed would count as a success, since that would result in a response that would delete the entire Russian nation and population.
OK, nobody is going to nuke Russia.
And nobody but Russia will bring a tactical nuke to Ukraine, either.
Russia is not ready to use nukes in Ukraine. Their threat, posture, and bet, is that the US won't cross certain lines. For example, actually sending the American Army to defend Ukraine.
And Russia is correct: we won't do that. It would be political suicide for the White House to pur our boys on the ground there.
Meanwhile, it's a race to see whether Russia will conquer Ukraine before we get enough weapons ov
Re: (Score:3)
Are you a wizard? Sounds like you think you can see the future. LOL
Nope.
From the Critical Threats website: Russia likely began to run out of combat-ready forces by late May 2022,
It's 2023. He is predicting the past.
Inaccurately.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they are planning on nuking a few cities like Kyiv, or using a couple dozen of them, they wouldn't really help the war effort.
They are not very effective militarily except as something like a bunker buster. That is why we mostly got rid of them.
The US might not launch ICBMs in response, but that doesn't mean the US isn't going to go into Ukraine and end the conflict. Or decide we need to risk the minuscule chance of Russia launching nukes against us even in a direct war, and invade Russia to remove t
Re: One is not enough (Score:3)
Dude, "began to run out" is a past-tense verb.
You just talked shit when you didn't read it right.
Re: (Score:2)
A likely scenario is a russian nuke going off inside Russia due to disrepair. Possibly during takeoff.
Yes, some could intended target. But are they willing to take that risk?
(Of course they can always use this as a propaganda device: "NATO detonated a nuke in our borders", even when it is 100% apparent is was russian incompetency).
Re: (Score:2)
add... to cycle back, literally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Here is a russian missile (possibly S300) boomeranging immediately after launch, and killing their own crewmembers.
Re: (Score:2)
To protect against that, warheads don't arm themselves until near the end. Of course, that could fail, either arming early or not arming at all. In any case, missiles that blow up on the pad will spread the radioactive material around the immediate area, but I don't think Russia cares that much about that.
Re: (Score:3)
Nukes are terribly hard to get a good yield out of. If the explosives around the core do not detonate with the correct timing then the chain reaction started and blows the core up before enough of the chain reaction happens, and you get a fissile and an explosion that is 100x-1000x smaller than designed. It still does do a good job of radioactive material distribution, but the explosion is much smaller. Basically the electronics have to initiate the explosion in the exact right way or the yield is min
Re: (Score:3)
As someone else smart noted, it might not be the US or some other NATO country, that launches back first... there's a very good chance China will nuke Russia first.
Xi is not Putin's friend. He sees Russia as a useful distraction for the Silk Road / South China Sea initiatives... but he's not a fan of Vlad. He see
Re:Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's unlikely that there's going to be a nuclear response if Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. The West doesn't want to start WW3 unless Putin literally starts throwing nukes at NATO countries.
More likely, there would be an overwhelming response with conventional arms. Every Russian warship would be sunk within hours. We know where they are. Russians have also pulled air defenses from NATO facing borders to support the war in Ukraine so if there was a good reason, the western powers could fly in with impunity (especially after a few stealth bomber sorties) and hit their missile sites and strategic bomber bases. Russia would cease to be a military power. This is probably the deterrent that's keeping Putin from using "tactical" nukes.
China isn't going to nuke Russia. They'll just roll in with troops as Russia falls apart and call it a peacekeeping operation, then a humanitarian aid mission to the freshly independent People's Republic of Siberia.
It doesn't matter (Score:2)
Callahan: I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?
I can hear the deep Hungarian accent (Score:2)
Most of these delivery systems were developed decades ago. Think of the technology employed, somewhere they're probably using vacuum tubes and old analog relays to control processes. Hell, half of them may blow up just trying to get out of their silos.
It would be nice to actually think that they won't work however you have to remember the scientists and engineers who developed these systems used slide rules and a lot of math so the physics had to be right, the delivery system had to work. I just don't think
Re: (Score:3)
they're probably using vacuum tubes and old analog relays to control processes.
Nope. Vacuum tubes and relays are still susceptible to EMP.
If it absolutely, positively, has to work, even in a nuclear war, you use pneumatic logic [wikipedia.org].
You can buy pneumatic logic gates on Amazon [amazon.com].
harrowing future (Score:2)
Flattened cities, millions of people burnt to death, and yet more tortured by radioactive fallout. That harrowing future may seem outlandish to some
This is the past of some unlucky humans, never forget.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: harrowing future (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know that it justified dropping two nukes on cities, but - yeah. We can't forget that certain Japanese military elements actually tried to commit a coup [wikipedia.org] to stop the emperor from surrendering (side note - he wanted to surrender prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
And that coup attempt happened after the US dropped the nukes!
Since We're Living in a Dark Comedy (Score:5, Funny)
The last few years have felt very much like we're living in some fantasy writer's version of reality. A dark comedy where nearly every tragedy can be seen coming, and nobody's willing to do anything to prevent it, right up to the moment of ultimate failure.
It would be perfectly fitting in this dark comedy for Russia to finally push the button, have a series of intercontinental missiles blow their tops on the pad, and completely annihilate themselves, and leaving large chunks of the planet under a nice sooty cloud.
Nah, just Revelation Chapter 6 - the four horsemen (Score:2)
1) Conqueror going out to conquer
2) War
3) Disease
4) Famine
I'm not suggesting this IS the apocalypse, but the concurrence is not amusing
We're both wrong (Score:3)
1) White horse; bow and crown
2) Red horse; large sword
3) Black Horse; scales
4) Pale Horse; 'Death' with Hades, using 'sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.'
Re: (Score:3)
Doubt there is no testing. (Score:2)
I highly doubt there is no testing going on. The biggest advantage comes from any rule your adversary follows that you do not.
Thus, in every government, there is somebody whoâ(TM)s job is to find ways to break the rules without anybody finding out to gain this advantage.
If they are monitoring the earth then fool the monitors. If they only detect certain elements of fall out, then try to design bombs that donâ(TM)t produce those elements. If thereâ(TM)s places those sensors cannot see do your
Re: (Score:3)
You can’t hide a nuclear detonation. It shows up on seismic sensors all over the place. If some country did launch one into space how would they hide the launch?
Good (Score:2)
The only way to win a nuclear war is not to fire any nuclear weapons. That includes if "they" strike first because, while you'll be blown to smithereens either way, at least you won't be murdering millions of people who would never want to kill you if given the option. Nuclear weapons are a tool of the demented sociopathic political class the world over.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to win a nuclear war is not to fire any nuclear weapons. That includes if "they" strike first because, while you'll be blown to smithereens either way, at least you won't be murdering millions of people who would never want to kill you if given the option. Nuclear weapons are a tool of the demented sociopathic political class the world over.
Bertrand Russel advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, quickly, before they developed their own nukes. Once the Soviets got nukes, Russel became a major anti-nuclear campaigner. It was just game theory to him, he didn't care about Soviet cities getting nuked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "winning" a nuclear war, only surviving it. And then, there is either surviving the aftermath, or not. Nobody gets anything good out of nuclear confrontation, some just get it worse than others.
Re: (Score:2)
That includes if "they" strike first
The whole idea of MAD is "you can't use your weapons, because the counterstrike will ensure we both lose." Making "well, we're dead, but we're still not going to kill those guys" your doctrine is, itself, the act that ensures nuclear war is inevitable.
MAD is indeed mad, but it is the only workable strategy in the current world we have.
There's a conspiracy theory going around (Score:2)
It's why I let out a bitter, cynical laugh whenever Russia threatens the US with nukes. Nobody seems to realize how absolutely, batshit insane we are. Seriously, do not taunt the dynamite monkey.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Americans don't back down. Not because we're brave, but because we're stubborn, prideful, and have lost our instinct for self-preservation. That 30% of Americans that want to see the End Times is buoyed by another equally large fraction that think that the destruction of civilization is utterly impossible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been watching Tucker Carlson on Foxnews, yes I know, for the last few days. Of all the "news" outlets him, and Tim Pool, seem to be the only ones talking about how stupid it is for us to be egging this on the way we are. Think about it, when Tucker Carlson is making sense it might be time to rethink what you are doing.
Re: (Score:3)
The alternative was to let Putin take over Ukraine, and then hope Russia was happy with just that.
Remember this is not Russia vs Ukraine with a bit of backup from the USA. This is Russia with logistical support from Belarus vs Ukraine with backup from USA, UK, Germany, Canada, Poland, France, Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and a bunch more.
I'd put good money on it that these countries combined have better strategic sense than Tucker Carlson.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a hint: google search for Neville Chamberlain holding a newspaper saying, "Peace in our time." Then follow the rabbit down the hole. Or keep watching the traitor Fucker Carlson.
Re: (Score:3)
There it is. Figured someone would try to march out history, and bring up hitler. Here is something for you to think about. The two are not even close.
Hitler despite being a evil motherfucker never had a chance to end all of human civilization in 45 minutes. Last time I checked Putin did. If that doesn't make you think over one nuclear power engaging another nuclear power then you are a fool.
Second, nobody I'm not talking about letting Putin keep his holding in Ukraine, or even appeasing him. I
FUD that could end the world (Score:2)
Really Important topic (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is a big question about the Russian arsenal. If those nukes have degraded, then how much teeth does this tiger really have? Their nuclear arsenal is the only thing keeping the Ukrainians from advancing the war into Russian territory (or rather the main reason why the West is very gradually limiting what weapons they provide to Ukraine as they don't want Ukraine making steps toward Moscow and giving Russia a reason to bring it's nukes into play).
Although the word is the Russian Strategic Rocket Force, which controls 60% of Russian nuclear weapons, has been spared of corruption to some degree. So it's possible these are still good. Anyways, no specific point to my post apparently, but it's a worthy and very relevant discussion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their nuclear arsenal is the only thing keeping the Ukrainians from advancing the war into Russian territory
No one wants war in Russian territory, with or without nuclear weapons. Giving territory with violence from Russia to Ukraine is just as bad as giving territory from Ukraine to Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about Ukraine taking territory from Russia? Is about destroying military bases and supply lines. And making Russia acknowledge defeat. And making Russian people who support the war to understand what war means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is Putin cannot look weak or the government crumbles. Ukraine wants all seized lands including Crimea back. Russia cannot afford to give that politically or the government could fall. So there is no common ground for them to stop fighting.
For Ukraine, taking the war into Russia and even just threatening Russia
Re:Really Important topic (Score:5, Interesting)
It raises a valid point though: is the ossification of state borders (as has more or less happened in the nuclear age, at least for nuclear-armed states) healthy, or is it worse?
For the entirety of human history, political borders have shifted according to the circumstances of power between states. Since nuclear weapons have introduced an existential dimension to any great-power conflict, this has not been the case since 1945.
As much as wars between great powers are actually miserable for the combatants and the unlucky souls who happen to live in the battle areas (which are often minor states or proxies with little actual stake in the results) on a theoretical level it could be argued that this 'slippage' of borders (and the risk thereof) reflects something real. The knowledge that certain diplomatic actions could have consequential losses of territory and prestige means those actions then carry a particular cost in the minds of statesmen, where victories ensure glory and losses ignominy (if not occasionally even worse results) to the very personal outcomes of those leaders.
On the other hand, one could further point out the certainty that (given the incalculable threat of strategic nuclear war) a certain level of diplomatic vandalism - anything short of triggering nuclear response - is even tolerable or outright promoted as nobody dares do anything to punish the malefactor. Suddenly a whole level of diplomatic opportunism is justified by the near-lack of real consequence. (If you're a bad actor, just make sure your vast hidden hoard is secreted safely in anonymous western banks before the inevitable 'sanctions' fall - that's pretty much all anyone has left to try to twist arms.)
Russian aggression in Crimea in 2014 might have ended more like 1845, lacking nuclear weapons.
Does MAD contrarily protect bad actors? I think it does.
It's hard to imagine a state like North Korea's shenanigans like wholesale counterfeiting and drug smuggling being tolerated by the Americans or Russians in the early 20th Century, or the Imperial British the century before. I don't think it's incredible to envision a quick punitive expedition of gunboats up the Taedong shelling the city with impunity until Kim Il (whomever) was chased off to be a bandit leader in the hills.
Is the geopolitical quietude an essentially good thing (less war is obviously good), or is it more like a forest fire, the buildup of stressors ultimately promising that (when it does happen) the conflict that erupts will indeed be cataclysmic?
Then again, to turn my own argument on its head, the viciousness and totality of conventional wars - and the staggering casualties across both military and civilian targets - was growing ANYWAY. I can't say with certainty that alone wouldn't have provided enough deterrence to nearly obviate the impact of nuclear weapons anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm having a hard time thinking that the lack of static borders would be beneficial towards humanity.
In most of human history, the lack of static borders has resulted in people being ruled time and again by foreigners that treat them like a resource to be exploited. From Babylon to Britain, we've seen it time and again.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrainians from advancing the war into Russian territory
BAHAHAHAHA
No, Russia will never 'Nuke' Ukraine for several reasons. (maybe a tactical weapon, but the effect would be not really different from weapons already being used)
1) Once Russia goes Nuclear NATO would freak-the-fuck-out. Even though cooler heads would likely talk leadership out of a nuclear-first-strike in response (NATO is not technically a belligerent currently). It would lead to open war with Russia, and Putin cannot afford that.
2) Putin wants *wants* Kiev ultimately. He might be will to raise i
Re: (Score:2)
Tanks in Red Square may be wishful thinking, but some Kremlin bombing (rockets, drones) would be perfectly doable.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really important topic. For several types of weapons the Plutonium cores are expected to last 100 years [popularmechanics.com]. I've heard other places, and unfortunately cannot find the source right now, that the warheads should be replaced every 20-30 years. If I recall correctly, but bear in mind I can't find the source, is that while the cores can last, the radiation from the core's degradation can erode the electronics around the firing explosives that trigger the reaction in the first place, and need to be replaced periodically.
NNSA’s Life Extension Program (LEP) has been ongoing for some time, refurbishing existing warheads by replacing components that may have deteriorated. There is also a modernization program to design/build/deliver new variants of some weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a big question about the Russian arsenal. If those nukes have degraded, then how much teeth does this tiger really have? Their nuclear arsenal is the only thing keeping the Ukrainians from advancing the war into Russian territory (or rather the main reason why the West is very gradually limiting what weapons they provide to Ukraine as they don't want Ukraine making steps toward Moscow and giving Russia a reason to bring it's nukes into play).
Not really. Ukraine has zero interest into advancing into Russian territory. Russia has spent the whole war trying to spin it as some kind of defensive action because a defensive war is waaay easier to justify than an offensive one.
And Putin still hasn't gone full mobilization because he's worried that public support will finally crack and his whole regime will tumble down.
If Ukraine ever did invade Russian proper (I don't think Crimea counts, even to Russians) that is something that could bring up a big su
Re:Really Important topic (Score:5, Insightful)
Ukraine gets this. They are not at war with Russia or Russians. They're at war with the government of Russia run by Putin. If they start lobbing missiles into Russian cities or strike deep to cut off supply lines or attack air bases or training centers, they could cause enough disruption in the Putin government that it could topple or fall into disarray. Everyrone else gets this too; the rhetoric on this whole thing is it's "Putin's War". By extension getting rid if Putin stops the war.
Given that the two sides' stated terms for negotiations are irreconcilable, then this puts Ukraine in the position of taking the other side out completely. Not Russia, but the current Russian administration. They just need to disrupt Putin's government enough that some factions start fighting, then they can claim back their territory and win back any concessions from whoever is left standing in a collapse of the Russian government. That can be done just by attacking the populace directly and changing the political situation in Russia.
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:2)
I guess so long as they don't go off at all it's fine. I'd be shocked if Russia's nukes had anything of value left in them. I keep picturing a nuclear bomb up on cinderblocks with the rims stolen. The US just sanctioned coffee makers to Russia because they were using the chips inside them to make missiles. Not exactly a c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to point out that nuclear weapons haven't been used in war situations since lots of big players got the capability. Nukes are a zero-sum game. One player has them? They have the power. All players have them? Nobody has the power. Because using that power, even "just a little" quickly escalates to, "BUT, THEY FIRED THEIRS!" and all the hells are torn loose from their foundations and thrown onto the surface of the planet. If Russia fired a nuclear weapon at Ukraine today? Someone, probably the US
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Doom our species? Nah, doom our civilization, maybe, probably. But kill all of us, not a chance, they aren't that big.
The first question is would the even fire. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Uncertainty as a deterrent. (Score:2)
There's a difference between testing missiles themselves and testing the part that goes "boom".
Maybe it's best if nobody knows the result. Uncertainty may be a deterrent. If you have no idea of the outcome, you are usually more hesitant to start a conflict. Just have enough new ones to at least guarentee pain.
Defense Minister (Score:2)
Russia's former defense minister, Dmitry Medvedev, has been particularly vocal about his country's readiness to use nuclear weapons
He was actually president of Russia at one time.
Re: (Score:2)
Medvedev was a sock puppet for Putin (Score:2)
Not really President, just Putin's lapdog. Better than some jobs though...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he ever was Defense Minister, currently is Deputy chairman of the Security Council. In the past he was President and Prime Minister, after that a mere Minister would be a huge downgrade.
Summary? News for nerds? (Score:3)
That 'summary' is such a large percentage of TFA that it may strain the limits of fair use! And yet, the paragraph perhaps most interesting to nerds was left out:
Nuclear warheads have also sometimes been built with flawed components. Take the W47, made by the US. These had a wire inside that had to be pulled out in order to arm the weapon. But this wire had a habit of becoming brittle when stored, and it often broke or got stuck at the moment of arming. Metals inside warheads can also become fragile over time, given the intense radiation to which they are exposed. And very expensive components containing tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, have to be quite regularly replaced, since the tritium depletes over time.
The problem of radiation exposure degrading the components and materials that make up the bombs seems obvious. But it had never occurred to me, and I think I'm at least in a large minority, if not the majority, of the folks reading this. Also - again in the should-have-been-obvious department: the necessity of replacing parts, and even what's effectively a consumable, in bombs that are literally just sitting there. Entropy in action!
Hope for the best, plan for the worst (Score:2)
Wondering if Russia nuclear arms are effective is completely irrelevant. You have to assume they are.
Will most of them fail if they actually use them? Probably. That's why they have thousands of them. Even if only 5% of them successfully destroy their targets, that's still absolutely devastating.
Underestimating your enemy seldom works in your benefit. Just ask Russia.
Started and ended with space program? (Score:2)
It seems to me that since maybe the pyramids, the only time someone "did it right" was the space program.
It's nuts what got done with as little loss of life as possible, but there was no secret to doing ALL of the numbers, over and over, repeatedly and only work with the most optimal circumstances.
Come to think of it, at least 1 loss didn't have to happen and it was from deviating from the safety and probability first method.
I know, we threw a godawful amount of money into it and got that by way of propagan
Lack of maintance is because it's invisible (Score:2)
You're a politician. You have the choice of spending money on maintain infrastructure or on what the people want (more police officers / teachers / bypasses). Guess which wins? Rinse and repeat...
Until politicians become personally liable for infrastructure failures whose maintaining they voted against, (spoiler: this isn't going to happen), this will remain a perennial problem.
Who Cares (Score:2)
We still have poor people (Score:2)
So do it in a place where they only have poor people, so you don't have to clean it up. Geez, do I have to think of everything for you?
Interesting bit of info (Score:3)
Misleading, at least in regard to... (Score:3)
the US arsenal.
First, the warheads in the US arsenal are designs that have been successfully test fired. So there's no question that the warhead DESIGNS are valid. The only questions there than are [a] materials [b] workmanship, both of which get more scrutiny than almost anything else in the nation - which is another way of saying that if we're failing at that level, then everything else would be falling apart faster and more dramatically. As long as the designs and the materials and the workmanship are all valid, then we're just in the realm of physics, which works.
Second, is the launch vehicles (missiles and bombers). I don't know how other nations handle this, but in the USA there is a regular program that randomly selects an ICBM, then that ICBM is extracted from its silo and taken to Vandenberg Space Force Base where its warheads are replaced with instrument packages and it is placed into a silo there from which it is launched. The target is the Ronald Reagan test range [wikipedia.org] which is heavily instrumented and each MIRV is tracked to a precise target point, verifying both the basic function of the entire system and its accuracy. Here's [google.com] the obligatory end-of-the-world porn produced. As for the other delivery system (the bombers), they get a full workout dropping conventional ordnance with every conflict the globalists in both the Republican and Democrat party leadership in DC can get us into, and the bombers are agnostic about what sort of boom is in their bomb bays.
Re:Sounds like a good reason to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok...
You go first.....
Re: (Score:2)
dismantle them all and bring humanity back from the brink of annihilation.
America/NATO has a huge lead in conventional weapons.
Russia, China, and NK are not going to give up their nukes. It is the only security guarantee they have.
Likewise, Pakistan has no hope of defeating India in a conventional war. But nukes provide deterrence and security.
Re:Sounds like a good reason to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their best security guarantee is for them to STOP threatening and invading other countries! Why do China and Russia still insist on domination of their neighbors? Other than the fact that they're both dictatorships led by mentally unstable men. Are they not content with domination of their own citizens?
Re: (Score:3)
Their best security guarantee is for them to STOP threatening and invading other countries! Why do China and Russia still insist on domination of their neighbors? Other than the fact that they're both dictatorships led by mentally unstable men. Are they not content with domination of their own citizens?
Because as Orwell noted, dictators need bogeymen to redirect the anger of their serfs from agitation against the dictatorship to anger against the imagined enemy.
The difference between Putin and Xi is that Xi realizes that Taiwan's value is as the bogeyman and that military action is not useful (i.e., China can easily destroy Taiwan but has no chance of taking over a functioning Taiwan). Putin made the mistake of launching a war that didn't help his ultimate goal of staying in power.
Re:Sounds like a good reason to... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying that China is weak. Nobody knows how well they would do in a real war. But Russia looked like a peer adversary to the US, until they tried to take over a weak little country right next door to them, and couldn't manage to do it. Nobody thinks the Russian military is a peer adversary to the US anymore.
Just like Russia, China has a bit of a history of building big projects that look way more impressive than they actually are. They've built 50 ghost cities that have questionable construction and barely anyone actually living there. They claim a navy that's just as big as the US? That's easy if 3/4 of your ships are nothing but an engine, a fuel tank and an otherwise empty hull. How capable are they, actually? That's not a rhetorical questions - I don't know the answer to that. Does anyone?
But one thing is pretty certain - the US capabilities are real. When we claim a carrier group is launched and fully operational, you can be sure those ships are packed with the necessary people, tech, gear and weapons to do their designated job. When we build a weapons system that doesn't perform, we don't keep it around because it looks good. We cancel it and free up the $$$ for better ideas (aka littoral combat ship).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
dismantle them all and bring humanity back from the brink of annihilation.
Are you a fan of World Wars or something? Without nuclear weapons we would be on number 4 or 5.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I'm sure some of them will fail but 50% of nuclear weapons working is still a very hellish scenario, we all as a planet should be working to make sure nuclear weapons will not be used, instead of pressing forward with scenarios that make it more likely they will.
And, at least the launch sites are in isolated areas so when they do blow up at launch, the radiation from the shattered warhead won't contaminate anything important, right?
Re: (Score:2)
fallout [Re:Seems like a lot of it testable/se...] (Score:3)
A warhead only contains 1 to 12Kg of Pu-239. Even if it goes off, it just doesn't make much fallout (that's the stuff that causes contamination, ie fission products).
1. Bombs today are fission-fusion-fission weaons. They have more than just 1-12 kg of Pu-1239.
2. You don't seem to have any idea how intense the radiation from the daughter products of even the fission of 10 kg of Pu-239 would be.
3. And also, it's not just the initial plutonium and uranium in the bomb that makes fallout, there's also the products of neutron activation of all the stuff nearby that's been vaporized.
...For reference, there are 4 billion tonnes of Uranium in the oceans (from natural erosion) so a couple of Kgs of Plutonium won't make any real difference in the environment.
Half life of natural uranium is 4.5 billion years, you don't worry about it. But it is not rea
Re: (Score:3)
There are NOT daughter products from fission, daughter products are from radioactive decay. It is fission products that come from fission.
The daughter products of a fission reaction are know as fission products. The two words refer to the same thing. You can also call them fission fragments if you like.
There are no fission products with a 3rd generation daughter product (they decay once to a stable isotope).
Some do. Some fission products have a long decay chain. Usually most of the intermediates have short half-lives, though, so you can ignore them as just a stage the decay is going through.
And the most harmful of those decay in a few days.
Obviously. The shorter the half life, the more decays per second, and thus the more radioactive it is. Integrate it out, though, and the long-lived ones also a
Re: (Score:2)