Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#31

Post by jacquesm »

pluma wrote: post #24

As a European, I am always nervous about nukes. American nukes specifically. And not so much about Trump, who is a buffoon but doesn't actually want to get too involved in messy foreign politics, but Clinton, who as a Secretary of State has already proven to be another warmonger. The US has had a blasé attitude to nuclear weapons ever since the start of the Cold War. The majority of situations where we have come clos…

> The majority of situations where we have come close to global thermonuclear war involved careless US behaviour.

That may simply be a case of not having the same level of disclosure for the different countries involved.

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#32

Post by marvin »

runarb wrote: post #28

The security of nuclear weapons may be less tight than one may think. Hare are some classics: British nukes were protected by bike locks - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm Launch code for US nukes was 00000000 for 20 years - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...

Not only that -- before the creation of Permissive Action Links in the early 1960s, few nuclear weapons had launch codes at all.

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#33

Post by philjohn »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

> The president can order this without consulting Congress, without being checked by the Supreme Court. Perhaps a single person's power to launch up to 2,000 nukes needs to be revisited?

If you want to read more about how and why the current system evolved, I can recommend the excellent Command and Control ... fantastic (if lengthy) read: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Control-Eric-Schlosser/dp/0...

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#34

Post by philjohn »

Posted as a reply, but if you want to read more about the command and control structure in the US, and why it evolved as it did (tl;dr paranoia during the cold war for the most part) the excellent Command and Control is a good intro to the subject: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Control-Eric-Schlosser/dp/0...

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#35

Post by sevenless »

throwaway7767 wrote: post #30
sevenless wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would any country attack you if you make it clear that an attack will result in them being annihilated? Politicians start wars when they believe the risk is worth it; they are much less likely to order troops to invade if they think it will result in them, personally, being vaporized in 15 minutes.

Because they don't believe you'll actually do it over some small matter (say, a proxy takeover in a minor ally power), so they call your bluff. It makes it easy to chip away at your defenses, where every bite is so small that it would be insane to respond with a nuclear attack.

> a proxy takeover in a minor ally power

That sounds more like "How can we maintain a sphere of influence and a de facto empire" rather than "How can we ensure the nation is defended from attack." National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. Spheres of influence are fuzzy, and indeed fuzzy claims are susceptible to gradualist takeovers.

I agree that a large conventional military is indispensible if you want to go the imperialist route. However, that raises the question of whether imposing your will on the entire world is legitimate. I would advocate that it is not, that it makes the world a worse place.

In a world without strong international laws, if you want to safeguard other nations from attack and promote peace, sell them nuclear weapons. The logic of nuclear deterrence is hard to argue with, and safeguards the weak from the strong. For example, had Iraq had nuclear weapons in 2003, the US would have been deterred from invasion and the world would likely be a more peaceful place today.

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#36

Post by oneloop »

pluma wrote: post #24

As a European, I am always nervous about nukes. American nukes specifically. And not so much about Trump, who is a buffoon but doesn't actually want to get too involved in messy foreign politics, but Clinton, who as a Secretary of State has already proven to be another warmonger. The US has had a blasé attitude to nuclear weapons ever since the start of the Cold War. The majority of situations where we have come clos…

Please don't buy this idea that Trump is just an innocent buffoon. The guy is genuinely dangerous. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#37

Post by oneloop »

jacquesm wrote: post #31
pluma wrote: post #24

As a European, I am always nervous about nukes. American nukes specifically. And not so much about Trump, who is a buffoon but doesn't actually want to get too involved in messy foreign politics, but Clinton, who as a Secretary of State has already proven to be another warmonger. The US has had a blasé attitude to nuclear weapons ever since the start of the Cold War. The majority of situations where we have come clos…

> The majority of situations where we have come close to global thermonuclear war involved careless US behaviour. That may simply be a case of not having the same level of disclosure for the different countries involved.

Is the US known for its transparency?

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#38

Post by throwaway13337 »

sevenless wrote: post #21
piaste wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but you always have another choice. You can always surrender. Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war, over a direct invasion of your homeland. But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally? What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes? Are you…

> Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war The thing is that there is no reason to believe that a nuclear exchange is necessarily the same as national suicide or will escalate to a global nuclear conflagration. The political scientist Ken Waltz made this point quite forcefully ( https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm ): even if one or two nuclear bombs are exc…

All of this relies on rational actors.

There is major advantage to being or even feigning irrationality when the stakes are this high.

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#39

Post by ddaygold »

oneloop wrote: post #37
jacquesm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The majority of situations where we have come close to global thermonuclear war involved careless US behaviour. That may simply be a case of not having the same level of disclosure for the different countries involved.

Is the US known for its transparency?

In comparison to the Soviet Union? Yes, the US was more transparent than the Soviet Union.

Re: Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button

#40

Post by mavhc »

sevenless wrote: post #35
throwaway7767 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they don't believe you'll actually do it over some small matter (say, a proxy takeover in a minor ally power), so they call your bluff. It makes it easy to chip away at your defenses, where every bite is so small that it would be insane to respond with a nuclear attack.

> a proxy takeover in a minor ally power That sounds more like "How can we maintain a sphere of influence and a de facto empire" rather than "How can we ensure the nation is defended from attack." National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. Spheres of influence are fuzzy, and indeed fuzzy claims are susceptible to gradualist takeovers. I agree that a large conventional military…

Would be interesting to have a list of nations that have a complete fence/wall/etc
Post reply on HN