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

211–220 of 363 posts

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

#211

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

542354234235 wrote: post #184
knappe wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 signific…

[dead]

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

#212

Post by ben_w »

oceanplexian wrote: post #157
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…

“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…

Nukes aren't magic, but they are very compact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

And they do have the potential for outsized impact:

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

Interesting quote: "Physicists have testified at United States Congressional hearings that weapons with yields of 10 kt (42 TJ) or less can produce a large EMP."

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

#213

Post by chasd00 »

yencabulator wrote: post #189
toast0 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Modern missiles are quite capable of precision strikes.

yes, this is also why yields have dropped considerably. I'm not sure if there are any > 5 MT weapons in the US arsenal anymore. I think most are in the 500-750KT range, the missiles and delivery vehicle are accurate enough to produce the same result as the larger warheads and 5-7 (can't remember exactly) warheads can be carried by a single missile. So instead of having one missile launch one giant warhead that may hit 50 miles away from the target you have one missile launch 5-7 smaller warheads that hit within 50 meters of 5-7 different targets.

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

#214

Post by fluoridation »

jjk166 wrote: post #193
BMc2020 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough, I know a little bit about this one. We have them, but they are all come-from-behind missiles, so the launch site has to be as close to Russia (or wherever) as possible, which angers the Russians. The head-on hit-a-bullet-with-another-bullet-is missile still impossible, although many would like us to believe they are already here. Nuh uh. Plus those are still useless against nukes delivered inside ton of…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense

The GP specifically referred to head-on interception, when the missile is coming down towards its target. This is midcourse interception, when the missile is drifting horizontally from the launch site to the target.

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

#215

Post by chasd00 »

542354234235 wrote: post #184
knappe wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 signific…

> Soviets were worried that the 100MT version would kill the crew dropping it,

another fun fact, the drop plane had only a 50% chance of survival with the 50MT version. They weren't _that_ worried about the crew's fate.

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

#216

Post by ben_w »

JakkTrent wrote: post #198
TiredOfLife wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that NATO currently in the room with you?

This is purpose of NATO - to prevent the lines on the map from changing. Ukraine may not be a member of NATO officially but it doesn't need to be - the Soviet era reason for Ukraine is the same as the NATO, a buffer state. Russian aggression reinforced the need for a buffer state - before it wasn't obvious, now it is. NATO is intending to force Russia to leave Ukraine and they are willing to play a very long game bc…

The USSR asked to join NATO, which was quite funny to learn about.

Russia-NATO relations were pretty good, even heading (slowly) towards such membership under Putin in 2000.

Unfortunately, Putin didn't like GWB leaving the ABM treaty, and did like having the old USSR back, so aggression and all else as you say.

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

#217

Post by rurp »

oceanplexian wrote: post #157
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…

“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…

This line of thinking is both wrong and frightening. Military escalation is always messy and uncertain, and history is full of wars that escalated beyond either side's overall interest. Imperfect information, poor decisions, and tactically reasonable but strategically catastrophic decisions are all ways that can lead to things getting out of hand.

On top of all that, the only practical way to have any hope of "winning" a nuclear exchange is to hit the other side so unexpectedly hard and fast that they can't mount a strong enough response to completely destroy you in return. There were multiple serious high level discussions about doing exactly that at various points during the Cold War by both sides.

We should all want the world to be as many rungs down the escalation ladder as possible. One or more countries breaking the prohibition on nuclear weapon use and using tactical nuclear weapons would bring the world dangerously close to a full nuclear war. Being a few short steps from such an event is not a stable situation, and it is one that will break badly at some point.

Our current situation is too unstable; deliberately making things much worse is a terrible notion.

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

#218

Post by fatbird »

chasd00 wrote: post #201
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…

full scale nuclear war where the full quantity of warheads is used would be over in maybe 1hr tops. Initial attack, detection, response. Then probably another attack and another response from remaining SLICBMs and then that would be it. I don't think any capacity to create more would survive or change the outcome and therefore is not much of a deterrent.

Force replenishment in the event of nuclear war is a moot question, but if someone can go from 100 to 1,000 warheads in a couple months, that has a lot of relevance in a growing crisis--what would Russia have done in 2022 if Ukraine had kept the ability to manufacture them and was able to build 100/year?

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

#219

Post by sophacles »

542354234235 wrote: post #182
umbra07 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The US military has a long history of making technically true statements about it's weapons, but which are still misleading.

If a bomb can actually rip through 200 meters of cement and ground, then the 60 meter statement is also true.

It also has a history of revealing the actual limits of weapons systems, but only after better capabilities exist (with the limits of those still classified or understated) - that is the 60M limit was the max of the old bomb and they don't need to know about the new one.

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

#220

Post by chasd00 »

fatbird wrote: post #218
chasd00 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

full scale nuclear war where the full quantity of warheads is used would be over in maybe 1hr tops. Initial attack, detection, response. Then probably another attack and another response from remaining SLICBMs and then that would be it. I don't think any capacity to create more would survive or change the outcome and therefore is not much of a deterrent.

Force replenishment in the event of nuclear war is a moot question, but if someone can go from 100 to 1,000 warheads in a couple months, that has a lot of relevance in a growing crisis--what would Russia have done in 2022 if Ukraine had kept the ability to manufacture them and was able to build 100/year?

That's a good point, i read this thread top to bottom because this topic has always been fascinating to me. Others have brought up how war wouldn't go from 0 to missiles flying immediately, there would be a crisis and build-up period. So I can see something like that ability to mass produce nuclear weapons and demonstrate it acting as a deterrent and therefore be useful.I can't think of an instance off the top of my head where a massive arms build up caused the other side to back down though.

To your specific point, I think if Ukraine had the keys to even one nuclear weapon and Russia believed they'd use it the invasion would never have happened in the first place.

Post reply on HN