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

111–120 of 250 posts

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#111

Post by 7952 »

iaw wrote: post #73
rrggrr wrote: post #8

This is why nuclear non-proliferation is important. Its difficult enough for a super power to safely store and control its WMD. Each new nuclear state magnifies the risks, and all the more so because they lack the after action experience that a half century of mishaps delivers.

Of the broken arrow incidents I'm aware of this was one of the least dangerous in terms of detonation threat. > Its difficult enough for a super power to safely store and control its WMD. There has never been an accidental detonation of a nuclear device. The problem this article describes was one in rocketry, insulation, and adherence to protocols. Nuclear non-proliferation is important, but this article is not the r…

But these devices always exist as one part of a wider technical and human system. It seems unwise to separate the two when safety could be comprised by a failure in any part of the system.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#113

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

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

Over a conventional invasion by a neighboring nation-state with massive conventional superiority with a paper-thin cover story?

Probably. I mean, that’s why the USSR didn't pull that stunt against any of the NATO countries bordering its satellites, ever, even though they did similar things to other neighbors. And those bordering states were merely allies of the nuclear powers, not nuclear powers themselves.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#114

Post by tzs »

knappe wrote: post #54

I recently finished Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety [0]. I can't recommend the book enough for how eye opening it really is into how blasé we have been with nuclear weapons. We've been reckless and by all accounts it is a miracle we haven't had a serious accident (there have been a few, just not on our own soil). The number of close calls is just astounding. Fur…

> Further the book, at one point, talks about America's position on Russia and the attempts to keep them from getting "the bomb". It is exactly what has played out and will continue to play out with North Korea and Iran. History is repeating itself and we sure haven't learned from it.

Is it actually similar, though?

The US got the bomb in 1945.

The Russians got theirs in 1949.

Given the size of the Soviet Union, how far it is from the United States, the available spying and reconnaissance technology (no satellites, no stealth aircraft), and that the US was only four years out of World War II, I don't think there is any way the US could have made a creditable threat to use military force to stop the Russians.

Also, China and Russia were still on good terms back then. China might not have stayed out of it if the US attacked their ally and neighbor.

Compare to North Korea and Iran. In both cases the US can make a creditable military threat. From a purely military point of view, the US could easily wipe either (or both) of them out.

Furthermore, neither has any powerful allies who want them to get nukes.

With North Korea, their only powerful ally is China and I don't think China actually cares if North Korea gets destroyed as long as (1) it doesn't send a lot of refugees across the Chinese border, and (2) whatever replaces it continues to function as a buffer zone between them and South Korea because they do not want a US ally right on their border.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#116

Post by pwaai »

Incidents like this shows us that things will inevitably go wrong with increasing frequency and gravity.

Furthermore, I fear regional conflicts involving mass scale conventional face-off (ex. dmz) are converting to a low operating cost high risk situations in the form of mutually assured destruction.

East Asia is venturing into a potential double whammy of naval and nuclear arms race--smaller countries like South Korea are entering a phase of normalization for nuclear armament with pressure mounting from the public to have a deterrence and a back up plan yet cannot have land based missile silo's, instead relying on nuclear submarines that will host the IRBMs. The cost is much higher than the "previous generation", as smaller countries will most certainly be decimated, land based silos do not make sense.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#117

Post by scrumper »

tzs wrote: post #114
knappe wrote: post #54

I recently finished Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety [0]. I can't recommend the book enough for how eye opening it really is into how blasé we have been with nuclear weapons. We've been reckless and by all accounts it is a miracle we haven't had a serious accident (there have been a few, just not on our own soil). The number of close calls is just astounding. Fur…

> Further the book, at one point, talks about America's position on Russia and the attempts to keep them from getting "the bomb". It is exactly what has played out and will continue to play out with North Korea and Iran. History is repeating itself and we sure haven't learned from it. Is it actually similar, though? The US got the bomb in 1945. The Russians got theirs in 1949. Given the size of the Soviet Union, how…

That’s not quite an accurate read though, at least as far as NK. The US can’t really make a credible military threat because of the north’s proximity to the south, an important US ally and a country all but guaranteed to be mortally wounded in the event of north/USA hostilities.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#118

Post by cat199 »

tzs wrote: post #114
knappe wrote: post #54

I recently finished Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety [0]. I can't recommend the book enough for how eye opening it really is into how blasé we have been with nuclear weapons. We've been reckless and by all accounts it is a miracle we haven't had a serious accident (there have been a few, just not on our own soil). The number of close calls is just astounding. Fur…

> Further the book, at one point, talks about America's position on Russia and the attempts to keep them from getting "the bomb". It is exactly what has played out and will continue to play out with North Korea and Iran. History is repeating itself and we sure haven't learned from it. Is it actually similar, though? The US got the bomb in 1945. The Russians got theirs in 1949. Given the size of the Soviet Union, how…

> Given the size of the Soviet Union, how far it is from the United States, the available spying and reconnaissance technology (no satellites, no stealth aircraft), and that the US was only four years out of World War II, I don't think there is any way the US could have made a creditable threat to use military force to stop the Russians.

That whole 'massive military presence in western europe and asia minor' thing notwithstanding of couse..

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#119

Post by dboreham »

valuearb wrote: post #106
knappe wrote: post #54

I recently finished Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety [0]. I can't recommend the book enough for how eye opening it really is into how blasé we have been with nuclear weapons. We've been reckless and by all accounts it is a miracle we haven't had a serious accident (there have been a few, just not on our own soil). The number of close calls is just astounding. Fur…

Have we been reckless? We've never had a serious accident. So maybe it's not luck, maybe there are a lot of controls that actually work well.

In recent times, perhaps. But if you read the literature on the accidents and incidents that have occurred -- it is definitely due to luck.

Re: Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

#120

Post by zedpm »

If you happen to visit Badlands National Park, or western South Dakota in general, make time to visit the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site mentioned in the article. I toured Delta-01 last summer, and it was fascinating. The tour guide did a fantastic job of conveying the gravity of the mission and just how scary the Cold War was.
Post reply on HN