Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by wil421 » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 11:22 AM UTC

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 US and Russia are about even in the times where a nuclear war was possible.[1] I'd argue that Russia has come closer, a submarine was going to arm and fire missles but the second in command refused to give consent.

There was another time where Russia's missle defense system showed an incoming attack.

Nuclear weapons will never be used in our lifetime by a stable country. They serve only as a deterrent, don't invade me or I'll nuke you.

The biggest chance is if an armed weapon falls into the hands of a bad actor. It's also worrisome what will happen to Russia if Putin dies without a successor.

It's going to get closer to war if Russia keeps annexing Europe.

[1]http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-c...

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

#42

Post by arethuza » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 11:30 AM UTC

marvin wrote: post #32

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.

UK Trident warheads don't have PALs in the usual sense - the crews on the boats have everything they need to launch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link

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

#43

Post by wtbob » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 11:37 AM UTC

> Bill Clinton allegedly misplaced the biscuit and didn’t tell anyone for months.

Boggle.

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

#44

Post by davorb » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 11:40 AM UTC

marvin wrote: post #32

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.

The military actually opposed PALs. They considered them to be an additional point of failure, and did everything in their power to prevent having them installed. Once you understand this, the decision to set all nuclear launch codes to 00000000 starts to make a little more sense.

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

#45

Post by wtbob » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 11:40 AM UTC

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…

> 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 exchanged, there is still every incentive for the parties to calm down.

This right here is very wise. Nuclear weapons really aren't inordinately scary. I wouldn't want to be hit by one, but I also wouldn't want to be hit by a blockbuster, a mortar, a bullet or a fist.

IMHO the real reason nukes have had so many decades of bad press is KGB agitprop from the Cold War.

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

#46

Post by ThomPete » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

oneloop wrote: post #36

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

Yet the only one who sent US troops in war and partly responsible for the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to gain power is Clinton.

Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person.

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

#47

Post by gonvaled » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 11:54 AM UTC

oneloop wrote: post #36

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

But is this Trump? I would argue that the current escalation is inherent to how policy has been conducted particularly in the recent time with Russia, alienating it instead of continuing the fruitful period which started after the fall of the Soviet Union, but more generally how humankind has (not) dealt with the nuclear arsenal.

So, tensions are bound to raise, no matter who is in the White House or in the Kremlin, simply because the arsenal is there, we have done little to get rid of it, and we have allowed the military complex to hold us hostage to a campaign of terror (I am talking about State Terror) swiping the world specially after the September 11 attacks.

And regarding Trump rhetoric: the only thing that differentiates him to other politicians is that he is able to say one thing and the opposite in the same sentence. But all politicians, continuously, say something in one moment, and the opposite in another, or say something, and do the opposite, including important issues.

So, Clinton saying "I would not use nuclear weapons, ever", is not reassuring to anybody.

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

#48

Post by gonvaled » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 11:57 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #46

oneloop wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yet the only one who sent US troops in war and partly responsible for the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to gain power is Clinton. Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person.

You meant "Trump" in your last sentence?

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

#49

Post by gonvaled » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 12:00 PM UTC

ddaygold wrote: post #39

oneloop wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the US known for its transparency?

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

It has also a much louder and powerful media empire, so its opinions are over represented in the world stage. The media is not objective, and is mostly pro-US.

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

#50

Post by oneloop » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 12:09 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #46

oneloop wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yet the only one who sent US troops in war and partly responsible for the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to gain power is Clinton. Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person.

My issue with Trump is how ignorant he seems to be about everything he's asked. You might say that Clinton is dangerous, but she's not stupid. Trump IS very stupid.

Also, what is this "power vacuum"that you're talking about? What are you trying to say, that if Obama was militarily more aggressive, there would be less ISIS? Weren't you just before concerned about Clinton wanting war? You can't have both.