Live data from Hacker News

United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

fas.org

151–160 of 363 posts

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#151

What was going through their minds in the 60s when they amassed 5,000...10,000 but went on to amass over 30,000? Was there any point after a few thousand?

Keep in mind that Sputnik only happened in 1957, so the chances of a nuke actually hitting its target were much smaller during the build up than after the rollout of ICBMs. A lot of these were tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe to be launched at invading Soviet forces (including by infantry! Look up the Davy Crockett if you want to see Fallout's mini-nuke's real life counterpart)

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear there's any such thing as "tactical nukes" given that they're strategically useless, and it's actually not even clear there's such a thing as nuclear exchange that isn't full scale war. At least as told by Ellsberg in the Doomsday Machine, there was literally no mechanism for the US to launch a partial nuclear attack.

The main difference between tactical and strategic comes down to intended use. Tactical nukes are intended for battlefield use, strategic nukes are intended to end other civilizations. They also come in different delivery methods. For instance there are tactical nuclear landmines, artillery, and so on, whereas most strategic weapons are just going to be missiles and ICBMs in particular. But I do agree that the labeli…

> there are tactical nuclear landmines, artillery, and so on,

Not sure about the landmines, but the US and USSR retired their nuclear artillery decades ago. I'm not sure how much effort it would be to put existing warheads inside shells, or about other countries.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#153
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't work since you can't really prove that your opponent doesn't know the secret or changing locations - either out of sabotage or technical advancement.

I can't imagine any sort of sabotage that would make SSBNs easier to locate without also being obvious to the crew. As for technical advancements, what are you thinking of there within the current laws of physics? No other country has the economic resources to blanket the ocean with detection platforms. Some researchers have proposed using satellites to detect submarine wakes but that would take a huge constellation…

PLAN copying / rotating fleet of DARPA ACTUV (ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel). Park them outside sub home ports (outside of territorial waters / contiguous zone but within active sonar range) and blast sonar to keep continuous track once they're underway. Likely then hand off to faster/more powerful surface ASW platforms. Combine with rumored mini nuke boats from PLAN, especially if autonomous improves to drastically reduce manning (less mouths to feed to match endurance of big nuke boats), basically tailgate nuke boats the second they leave parking lot. Trumpet following girl meme. Economically, hard to say, but only fraction of very expensive to operate 14 boomers/SSNs on deterrent patrol at any given time.

That said, IMO hardly matters, sea/air leg of triad can be replaced by redundant / distributed land, not silos but road mobile TELs in hardened shelters probably for MUCH cheaper per warhead - PLA/PLARF model. Can have 1000s of cheap TEL trucks / fake warheads to play shell game and be just as impossible to decapitation strike as a few SSNs with 20 missiles. Mobile land leg just politically not sensible because it means unambigiously painting target on homeland, not just empty silo fields in bumfuck nowhere. IMO half the reason of sea/air leg now is they're out of sight/out of mind doing distant patrols. No one wants to see a nuclear TEL driving down the highway and process implications. If anti missile defense improves, cost/benefit of limited magazine SSNs gets even worse - a tube on a 2.5B+ nuke boat cost 100m to acquire + likely very expensive operation costs per shot to field. You can buy 500+ HEMTT 8x8 to hull around solid fuel ICBMs for that price. PRC can probably buy 1,000. Economics of nuke boats as delivery platforms outside of psychology does not seem to make sense, but civilian psychology when it comes to nuclear planning is very important.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#154
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pit production is likely the rate limiting factor. We disassembled a bunch of AFAPs so have a lot of weapons grade plutonium around. But Pu is nasty to work with & Rocky Flats--the previous pit production facility--closed down years ago. Pit production moved to Los Alamos but it is at a much reduced capability. Also, Pantex--where nuclear weapons are assembled--isn't exactly the model for speed & efficiency.

I guess mass produced nukes would rather be enriched uranium based, due to the far easier construction. No fiddly implosive lens assembly. No weird multi-phase cristallization that goes critical if you blink. Metal that is merely as dangerous and nasty as lead, magnesium or arsenic, not plutonium. If you really want to go carpet-bombing with nukes, miniturization isn't as important as having a lot, quickly and reliab…

Does the U.S. make weapons-grade U235 anymore except for research? I thought gun-type fission weapons were phased out for safety and efficiency reasons. I also thought essentially all "fission" weapons today are fusion-boosted, and I thought the implosion type was the only production-ready design of fusion-boosted weapons.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference between tactical and strategic comes down to intended use. Tactical nukes are intended for battlefield use, strategic nukes are intended to end other civilizations. They also come in different delivery methods. For instance there are tactical nuclear landmines, artillery, and so on, whereas most strategic weapons are just going to be missiles and ICBMs in particular. But I do agree that the labeli…

> there are tactical nuclear landmines, artillery, and so on, Not sure about the landmines, but the US and USSR retired their nuclear artillery decades ago. I'm not sure how much effort it would be to put existing warheads inside shells, or about other countries.

I take the disarmament claims with some degree of skepticism. Alot of these weapons provide substantial flexibility and destructive capability, which superpowers are generally not fond of relinquishing. A lot of the nuclear disarmament stuff hit its peak in the years following the collapse of the USSR, at which point US and Russian relations looked very positive and optimistic moving forward. We're now back to lows not seen since the Cold War.

In any case, for the specifics - Wiki gives 2004 [1] as the date the US reportedly dismantled its nuclear artillery, and in 2000 Russia reported that "nearly all" of its nuclear artillery had been dismantled. Nuclear landmines [2] fall under 'atomic demolition munitions' which are basically any sort of small/mobile nuke, so you get everything from landmines to the suitcase nuke weirdness.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_demolition_munition

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#156
post #117
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What type of warning do you expect to see? We currently have a war in Ukraine involving between 2-4 of the major nuclear powers depending on how you want to count them (Russia, US, UK, China). Russia is bleeding heavily and it is hard to tell how close they are to some sort of internal crisis or collapse into groupthink by the military leaders. There have probably been Able Archer style near misses and we could have…

Maybe we aren't at 0 warning at the moment, but if there is a spectrum from 0 warning to imminent, we are close enough to 0 that the distinction doesn't really matter. The US, UK, and China are not actively fighting in Ukraine and even if they were, this wouldn't be the first time these countries have directly fought each other in a proxy war in the nuclear age. So unless you think the Russian military personnel that…

From ChatGPT: Normalcy bias is when people underestimate the possibility and impact of a disaster, believing things will always stay the same. It leads to inaction and unpreparedness during emergencies.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#157
post #117
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What type of warning do you expect to see? We currently have a war in Ukraine involving between 2-4 of the major nuclear powers depending on how you want to count them (Russia, US, UK, China). Russia is bleeding heavily and it is hard to tell how close they are to some sort of internal crisis or collapse into groupthink by the military leaders. There have probably been Able Archer style near misses and we could have…

Maybe we aren't at 0 warning at the moment, but if there is a spectrum from 0 warning to imminent, we are close enough to 0 that the distinction doesn't really matter. The US, UK, and China are not actively fighting in Ukraine and even if they were, this wouldn't be the first time these countries have directly fought each other in a proxy war in the nuclear age. So unless you think the Russian military personnel that…

“Civilization destruction” isn’t a realistic scenario and I think people need to get over that. It’s not the 1980s. It’s almost certain what would actually happen is one or two pop off in a conflict zone like Ukraine and then nukes start getting used tactically like conventional weapons.

The larger issue is once the “nuclear taboo” is broken nation states will start using them. Nukes aren’t magic, they’re just really big bombs. Most likely the smaller ones are more practical to deliver and will be used on military targets (Bunker busting, destroying fortifications, etc). It wouldn’t play out like Mad Max but basically WWII but with small nukes and regional missile defense systems playing a huge role.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#158
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine any sort of sabotage that would make SSBNs easier to locate without also being obvious to the crew. As for technical advancements, what are you thinking of there within the current laws of physics? No other country has the economic resources to blanket the ocean with detection platforms. Some researchers have proposed using satellites to detect submarine wakes but that would take a huge constellation…

PLAN copying / rotating fleet of DARPA ACTUV (ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel). Park them outside sub home ports (outside of territorial waters / contiguous zone but within active sonar range) and blast sonar to keep continuous track once they're underway. Likely then hand off to faster/more powerful surface ASW platforms. Combine with rumored mini nuke boats from PLAN, especially if autonomous improves to drast…

The level of resources it would take to even try something like that is way beyond what even China can afford. Just completely unrealistic.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#159
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PLAN copying / rotating fleet of DARPA ACTUV (ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel). Park them outside sub home ports (outside of territorial waters / contiguous zone but within active sonar range) and blast sonar to keep continuous track once they're underway. Likely then hand off to faster/more powerful surface ASW platforms. Combine with rumored mini nuke boats from PLAN, especially if autonomous improves to drast…

The level of resources it would take to even try something like that is way beyond what even China can afford. Just completely unrealistic.

Which part specifically?

Darpa toying with ACTUV expliclity because it was _dirt_ cheap vs relying on large surface combatants + air for ASW - small hulls with 10-20k per day operating cost vs 500k-800k per day ASW destroyer (US costs). It would be cheap to build out a fleet of ~50 small autonomous / minimally manned surface/subsurface fleet to follow the handful of SSNs on deployment at any given time. 30-80 ACTUV for surface ASW (US costs) is already 5-10 shadowing each deterrent patrol SSN. Economy of scale enters picture even if nuclear powered - danger is mostly political, parking reactors in adversaries EEZs. PLA relative cost vs USN acquiring/maintaining SSNs likely much cheaper / lopsided. Look at PRC's 80 type 22s that existed basically on the hope that it can deter the 1-2 carriers US normally throws in theatre.

As for mobile TEL / mobile land triad, like 30k+ HEMTT+LVSR has been built, and that's just Oshkosh Defense building tactical trucks. # of USD 300-500k heavy/tactical trucks globally in 100,000s. Add in land infra/tunnel/harden costs and you won't get close to 100m per shot. Can probably get Oshkosh to hammer out budget decoy TELs with autonomous driving without any of the the expensive TEL/launch hardware. Say what you will about US industry, US auto still pretty capable of building things that roll on wheels vs US ship building. SSNX is projected to be 5-7B per unit (200m+ per launch tube), that buys you a lot of road mobile launchers. E: USN plants to acquire like 30 of them. I would be very surprised PLAN needs to spend 150-200B on a ASW UAV fleet to counter that. That's ~400-600 054s frigates. An ACTUV drone would cost fraction of manned frigates. I think you're dramatically underestimating just how expensive US SSN force is / will projected to be and how economics will incentivize scope of counters.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#160

Every time I’ve seen nuclear stockpiles and the reduction thereof discussed, I’ve wondered: Assuming for some reason the United States needed to ramp back up to an absurd number of warheads (ignore the MAD/political practicalities), how quickly could they do so? What’s the lead time or rate limiting factors in production? Because if they could start churning out a dozen or a hundred a week within a short period of ti…

Nukes tend to blow up all your stuff quite a bit faster than you can build more of it.
Post reply on HN