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

Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

rapidcityjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 250 posts

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#91

Post by Xixi »

hangonhn wrote: post #85
nyolfen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not to mention gaddafi

Nuclear weapons wouldn't have help Gaddafi anyways. He didn't have a working weapon nor a reliable way to delivering it. Also, what was he going to do with one? Threaten the US with one if the internal rebellions don't stop? Threaten to nuke his own people? There's an illusion of the utility of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons might be OK if you want to destroy masses of conventional armies or destroy the ability of…

Had Gaddafi developed a working nuclear bomb with the necessary delivery mechanism, would France/UK/US have launched a campaign that ultimately ended with his death? We will never know, only speculate, but North Korea is betting that the answer to this question is "no".

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#93

Post by nyolfen »

hangonhn wrote: post #85
nyolfen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not to mention gaddafi

Nuclear weapons wouldn't have help Gaddafi anyways. He didn't have a working weapon nor a reliable way to delivering it. Also, what was he going to do with one? Threaten the US with one if the internal rebellions don't stop? Threaten to nuke his own people? There's an illusion of the utility of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons might be OK if you want to destroy masses of conventional armies or destroy the ability of…

>Also, what was he going to do with one? Threaten the US with one if the internal rebellions don't stop? Threaten to nuke his own people?

prevent the US from intervening/preventing him from putting down internal rebellions. the risk of nuclear escalation gives you a much greater license to do things that fly in the face of international conventions.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#94

Post by robryk »

rrmm wrote: post #89
robryk wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I was wrong. See the child for correction. There are no radioactive materials in the warhead. In other words: there are no materials that undergo radioactive decay. What is in there are fissile materials: ie. materials that emit neutrons upon being irradiated with neutrons. The only way the warhead might become radioactive is if it partially detonated.

Pu-239 is radioactive no? Along with impurities like Pu-240 which are slightly more radioactive.

Thanks, I stand corrected. For some reason I was considering Uranium only (which also decays, but with such a long half-life).

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#95

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Xixi wrote: post #91
hangonhn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear weapons wouldn't have help Gaddafi anyways. He didn't have a working weapon nor a reliable way to delivering it. Also, what was he going to do with one? Threaten the US with one if the internal rebellions don't stop? Threaten to nuke his own people? There's an illusion of the utility of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons might be OK if you want to destroy masses of conventional armies or destroy the ability of…

Had Gaddafi developed a working nuclear bomb with the necessary delivery mechanism, would France/UK/US have launched a campaign that ultimately ended with his death? We will never know, only speculate, but North Korea is betting that the answer to this question is "no".

On the other hand, the US didn't launch a campaign that ended in the NK ruler's death before they had nukes, either...

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#96

Post by [deleted] »

rrmm wrote: post #89
robryk wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I was wrong. See the child for correction. There are no radioactive materials in the warhead. In other words: there are no materials that undergo radioactive decay. What is in there are fissile materials: ie. materials that emit neutrons upon being irradiated with neutrons. The only way the warhead might become radioactive is if it partially detonated.

Pu-239 is radioactive no? Along with impurities like Pu-240 which are slightly more radioactive.

[deleted]

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#98

Post by googletazer »

hangonhn wrote: post #88
batter wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It worked so 'well' that it lost part of it's territory. From Budapest Memorandum Wiki: 'The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.' Now it will be a lesson for others: nukes are way more reliable than some piece of paper, which no one is gonna follow: http://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotte…

"Now it will be a lesson for others: nukes are way more reliable than some piece of paper, which no one is gonna follow" Is it really though? Even if Ukraine had nukes, would it have threatened and actually have the will to use it over the lost of the Crimea? The conflict was low intensity warfare, which nukes are not particularly well suited for. I don't think nukes are the be-all-end-all weapons people think they a…

They couldn't launch them anyway, its the same as US nukes in Turkey.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#99

Post by greedy_buffer »

hangonhn wrote: post #88
batter wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It worked so 'well' that it lost part of it's territory. From Budapest Memorandum Wiki: 'The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.' Now it will be a lesson for others: nukes are way more reliable than some piece of paper, which no one is gonna follow: http://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotte…

"Now it will be a lesson for others: nukes are way more reliable than some piece of paper, which no one is gonna follow" Is it really though? Even if Ukraine had nukes, would it have threatened and actually have the will to use it over the lost of the Crimea? The conflict was low intensity warfare, which nukes are not particularly well suited for. I don't think nukes are the be-all-end-all weapons people think they a…

> The conflict was low intensity warfare, which nukes are not particularly well suited for.

Firstly "was" is not the right word, the war is ongoing: http://tass.com/world/965974

Secondly, imo the nature of the conflict is less important than whether a concentrated population of the adversary's citizens are within range of the weapon as far as determining the effectiveness of nuclear deterrent.

> Even if Ukraine had nukes, would it have threatened and actually have the will to use it over the lost of the Crimea?

Would those that made the decision to invade have accepted the risk of even the most minute possibility? No leader has done that so far.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#100

Post by Xixi »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #95
Xixi wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had Gaddafi developed a working nuclear bomb with the necessary delivery mechanism, would France/UK/US have launched a campaign that ultimately ended with his death? We will never know, only speculate, but North Korea is betting that the answer to this question is "no".

On the other hand, the US didn't launch a campaign that ended in the NK ruler's death before they had nukes, either...

Quite true. Though western countries didn't attack Gaddafi before he gave up nuke either.

The speculation I've heard (on radio, so I cannot paste a link) is that NK analysis is roughly: NK's regime is safe as long as China sees it as useful (probably using NK as some sort of buffer state against US), but sooner or later that support will end. Then only nuclear weapons will ensure NK's regime survival. It's rational, though again just speculation.

The contradiction, or maybe unintended side effect, is that the developing of nuclear weapons itself is causing China to rethink its support of NK regime...

Post reply on HN