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

United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

fas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 363 posts

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

#181

Post by bbatha »

GemesAS wrote: post #48
transcriptase wrote: post #11

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…

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.

Plutonium is very corrosive and sensitive to phase changes so it needs to be refurbished and replaced regularly. The weapons grade plutonium lying around is probably not bomb ready.

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

#182

Post by 542354234235 »

umbra07 wrote: post #126
nradov wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a limited set of scenarios where a major nuclear state might use a tactical weapon against a lower-tier state. For example, if the USA got into a conflict with Iran and we had actionable intelligence that they were assembling a nuclear weapon in an underground bunker then we might take it out with a small number of tactical nuclear ground strikes. I'm not recommending this but you can game out scenarios whe…

but why use a nuke? we have all sorts of non-nuclear weaponry. we have bunker busters that can penetrate hundreds of feet. even if iran can't retaliate with nukes, the geopolitical cost would be insane.

>"Iran’s underground nuclear facility could be between 80 meters (260 feet) and 100 meters (328 feet) below the surface... That could be a problem for the GBU-57 since the US Air Force stated that the bomb could rip through 60 meters (200 feet) of cement and ground before detonating. US officials have talked about detonating two of these bombs consecutively to guarantee the destruction of a location. However, the new depth of the Natanz tunnels still poses a significant obstacle." [1]

[1] https://www.eurasiantimes.com/us-flaunts-massive-ordnance-pe...

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

#183

Post by racional »

hollerith wrote: post #180
bamboozled wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still feels like an opinion, as the other commenter said, look at the state of their equipment when going against Ukraine, there is little indication their nukes or their silos, bombers are much better except your opinion. Opinions are fine, but the evidence against your opinion is currently stronger.

[flagged]

Also, you do realize that Russia is currently winning in Ukraine

They are not "currently winning". By any objective measure, the war on the ground is currently a stalement.

Only problem is that in the long term -- stalemates never work out for the occupiers.

In Russia's case: If the situation continues as it does, and moving at the glacial pace that it does, and draining 10 percent of its GDP every year -- they will ultimately have to give up on their optional neocolonial adventure, pick up their toys and go home.

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

#184

Post by 542354234235 »

knappe wrote: post #108
somenameforme wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's talk about just how destructive nukes are, because I think most people grossly underestimate this. One bomb in Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands. And that was a tiny little bomb relative to modern standards - 16kt of yield in a mid-sized city of ~350k people. Modern tactical weapons (weapons intended for battlefield use) can have yields exceeding 100kt. Strategic weapons (weapons intended to end other civi…

To add to this, the Tsar Bomba was so large, it created a shock wave that circled the globe _3_ times.

Another fun Tsar Bomba fact. If you build a thermonuclear weapon’s bomb casing out of U238, the fast neutrons released by the fission/fusion reactions cause the U238 to fission, increasing the yield by about 50%, while also increasing the fallout. The Tsar Bomba variant tested was utilizing a lead casing, because the Soviets were worried that the 100MT version would kill the crew dropping it, and irradiate a significant amount of territory. It is weird to think about how the one tested was the half strength version.

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

#185

Post by 542354234235 »

TiredOfLife wrote: post #109
nimbius wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the stockpile remains or grows solely due to senators from colorado, Wyoming and montana who host the ground based strategic nuclear arsenal. Force reduction would mean lost jobs and revenue. At least the transparency can start a discussion hopefully.

And nothing to do with russia invading its neighbors and threatening to nuke anyone helping them.

Probably not. The US nuclear triad is very well known and doesn’t rely on exact numbers. It isn’t like Russia would think “maybe they decommissioned all their SSBN nuclear subs and we are in the clear” until they saw the yearly numbers. The point is that we already have plenty enough to obliterate any nation on earth in either a first or second strike. The arms reduction treaties and transparency have always been to reassure war hawks that we still have plenty to kill everyone, so we don’t need to spend money making more and risk an accident.

If you want to saber rattle, you test new systems like hypersonic missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Or you perform “military exercises” to show how capable and/or stealthy your nuclear subs and bombers are.

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

#186

Post by 542354234235 »

justin66 wrote: post #97
llamaimperative wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a huge number of nuclear weapons to achieve this, you need nuclear weapons in secret and ideally changing locations (i.e. submarines)

The fixed missile silos out in the middle of nowhere (sorry Montana!) serve a lot of useful purposes. If you do not intend to be the one who pushes the button and destroys the entire world, it is nice having weapons like that precisely because the adversary can see whether or not you've fired them. If the enemy can see that your ICBMs haven't launched and your bombers aren't in range to fire their cruise missiles, th…

One additional reason, that the enemy would have to destroy a large amount of American territory to realistically neutralize the threat. They can’t just target some military bases and subs in an attempt to cripple us while attempting to keep it limited. No half measures.

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

#187

Post by slg »

roenxi wrote: post #140
slg wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I would expect some type of escalation beyond the position we have been in for the better part of the last 80 years. We have escalated beyond the point we have been in for the last 80 years. Russia have lost more troops than in any war since WWII. That is a lot of dead Slavs. Their strategic nuclear defences have already been attacked [0] and NATO currently appears to be organising direct strikes on Russian territo…

One or more nuclear powers has been at war for basically the entire nuclear era. They have all had wars in which they have "lost more troops than in any war since WWII". Even if this is the end of the Putin regime, this wouldn't even be the first time that the Soviet Union/Russia collapsed. I don't know what the path you think you see from where we are now to "full scale nuclear war", but it seems incredibly silly to suggest "the situation is more tense than it ever has been before", especially after you have already name checked Able Archer and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

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

#188

Post by yencabulator »

roenxi wrote: post #140
slg wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I would expect some type of escalation beyond the position we have been in for the better part of the last 80 years. We have escalated beyond the point we have been in for the last 80 years. Russia have lost more troops than in any war since WWII. That is a lot of dead Slavs. Their strategic nuclear defences have already been attacked [0] and NATO currently appears to be organising direct strikes on Russian territo…

> They've made it quite clear that they want the war to continue until something in Russia breaks.

Huh? I'd expect most non-Russian-aligned parties would be happy to see Russia retreat from Ukraine, pay reparations, and call that a peace. Russia only needs to break if Russia persists in occupying other countries.

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

#189

Post by yencabulator »

toast0 wrote: post #116
transcriptase wrote: post #11

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…

> Because if they could start churning out a dozen or a hundred a week within a short period of time, why does the standing arsenal really matter? There's probably a declared number where this matters, but the current number of warheads is high enough that's there's no need to make more. 3,000 is plenty to retaliate against an opponent with 30,000. More doesn't provide a benefit. Nuclear disarmament, as practiced by…

> 3,000 is plenty to retaliate against an opponent with 30,000. More doesn't provide a benefit.

I think a big part of this is that the long-distance missiles, when all of this was invented, were not very accurate. Sending 10 to do the job of 1 might have been necessary just to hit the intended targets.

Modern missiles are quite capable of precision strikes.

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

#190

Post by data-ottawa »

hypeatei wrote: post #96
data-ottawa wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to Russia that the US is attacking NK and not just nuking Kamchatka? Can the trajectory of an ICBM be inferred by the height of it’s arc?

> Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to Russia that the US is attacking NK and not just nuking Kamchatka? I guess that depends on current relations between the two countries and assumes there wouldn't be a breakdown of communications when launches are detected. > Can the trajectory of an ICBM be inferred by the height of it’s arc? From the book I mentioned in another comment, Russia has very flawed satellite systems for…

Thanks, that’s helpful, I’ll checkout that book
Post reply on HN