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

281–290 of 363 posts

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

#281

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

1992spacemovie wrote: post #274
lbotos wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure someone here knows -- how many actively procured munitions could have their payload swapped for a nuclear payload? Are there "rules" against building "nuclear compatible" munitions?

Yes. And yes. Treaties for arms reduction deal with not only warheads but also delivery vehicles. Protocols include mutual inspection of disabled vehicles, etc.

I have a hard time imagining that anybody with the resources to secure a nuclear warhead in the first place would later be prevented from using it just because it wasn't plug-n-play compatible with their existing trebuchets or whatever.

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

#282

Post by roenxi »

jiggawatts wrote: post #272
roenxi wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often you you come across people saying any of that, though? That is a straw man position of the people pointing out that this conflict was quite a likely outcome of NATO's persistent expansion and that the strategic pressure on Russia has been extraordinarily damaging to US interests, European interests, Russian interests and the global security situation. The only people who ended up benefiting from NATO expans…

> How often you you come across people saying any of that, though? I'm paraphrasing, but I have friends that believe 100% of Russian propaganda they hear on the Internet and 0% of western mainstream media. "What the BBC is saying is just propaganda!" is a common comment I hear from people quoting Russian disinformation verbatim. > likely outcome of NATO's persistent expansion That is literal Russian disinformation. I…

[flagged]

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

#283

Post by elcritch »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #12

3000 nukes is better than Cold War highs, but it's still massive overkill. Even with a 90% interception rate, 300 nukes would be enough to kill tens of millions of citizens of any country from the blast alone. If an enemy leader isn't deterred by that, 2700 extra nukes aren't going to change their mind.

Oddly it seems useful for the US to have that large of a stockpile. Perhaps it's from watching too many sci-fi movies, but having a bunch of nukes on hand in the event of a massive asteroid on a trajectory to hit earth seems useful to me.

Alternatively if non-linear greenhouse process cause something like "all clouds disappearing suddenly", then nukes could be part of a last ditch effort to induce a nuclear winter to allow us time to find Ling term solutions.

Lastly, it is the USA. Why have 300 weapons when you can have 3,000.

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

#284

Post by ggm »

bbatha wrote: post #181
GemesAS wrote: 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.

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.

Without casting the military as lying, if they declare they have weapons in substantive state to be used, and place them in missiles, then the implication is they maintain a stockpile of pits capable of meeting that supply, constantly.

If we assume 1 pit per month ages out due to phase and corrosion, then they would presumably have a pipeline of 12 pits in refurbishment continuously.

Since the stockpile is still measured in the thousands, I would assume the stockpile of plutonium pits running through pantex facilities is at a similar scale.

(this also assumes there is no neutral gas non-corrosive, phase stable storage)

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

#285

Post by chipweinberger »

skellington wrote: post #15
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…

There is no form of full scale nuclear war where the production apparatus for anything becomes a factor.

It’s not a given that both sides have nuclear capability.

megaton size has not been disclosed. The majority could be small nukes.

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

#286

Post by Log_out_ »

1992spacemovie wrote: post #274
lbotos wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure someone here knows -- how many actively procured munitions could have their payload swapped for a nuclear payload? Are there "rules" against building "nuclear compatible" munitions?

Yes. And yes. Treaties for arms reduction deal with not only warheads but also delivery vehicles. Protocols include mutual inspection of disabled vehicles, etc.

Are treaties still worth something? In a world where authoritarians defect the "global community" and start wars of conquests that violate MAD , are those papers and laws still worth something?

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

#287

Post by ben_w »

Iwan-Zotow wrote: post #277
ben_w wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps, he saw the result of NATO aggression against Serbia?

"Russian paratroopers seized Slatina airport to become the first peacekeeping force in the war zone" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Which was a surprise at the time, and left some convinced it was a UN rather than NATO operation.

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

#288

Post by slg »

roenxi wrote: post #264
slg wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Able Archer was one of a series of (annual) scheduled training exercises. The Cuban missile crisis was a fairly civil dispute over w…

During the Cuban Missile Crisis the US dropped depth charges in the vicinity of the Soviet submarine B-59. This was meant as a sign to surface, but it was interpreted by the sub as an attack suggesting war had already broken out. The Soviet rules of engagement allowed for the launch of nuclear weapons in this situation if all three of the sub's highest ranking officers agreed. Two of them were in agreement, but Vasily Arkhipov disagreed. His decision that day single-handedly stopped nuclear war.

So yes, I think we were closer to "full scale nuclear war" during the Cuban Missile Crisis than we are today. There isn't much point in continuing the conversation if you can't agree with that.

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

#289

Post by jiggawatts »

roenxi wrote: post #282
jiggawatts wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How often you you come across people saying any of that, though? I'm paraphrasing, but I have friends that believe 100% of Russian propaganda they hear on the Internet and 0% of western mainstream media. "What the BBC is saying is just propaganda!" is a common comment I hear from people quoting Russian disinformation verbatim. > likely outcome of NATO's persistent expansion That is literal Russian disinformation. I…

[flagged]

> Do you want to see Moldova invaded?

You’re wilfully ignoring the reality that Moldova was always going to be invaded. Not because it might join NATO but because Russia has to invade it “while it still can.”

The same applies to Ukraine, and all of the -stans.

This. Is. The. Stated. Plan.

PS: the same people that believe Russian disinformation now will also believe the made up bullshit excuse China will cook up for invading Taiwan, something they’ve been planning and practising for literally decades now.

PS: I know a sociopath narcissist. She’ll make up a hundred reasons why she did something bad and argue them vehemently, but always pivoting on a dime and switching arguments mid-sentence if proven wrong. The real unstated reason is always “because I wanted to”, but she can’t say that so instead everyone gets an endless stream of ever changing “logic” of why things had to be so. Russian arguments for invading Ukraine are precisely this, and Chinese arguments for Taiwan will be the same.

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

#290

Post by amitport »

Log_out_ wrote: post #286
1992spacemovie wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And yes. Treaties for arms reduction deal with not only warheads but also delivery vehicles. Protocols include mutual inspection of disabled vehicles, etc.

Are treaties still worth something? In a world where authoritarians defect the "global community" and start wars of conquests that violate MAD , are those papers and laws still worth something?

The "global community" was never a thing. In the fist decade of the UN some countries made an effort, quickely it became a power grab political nightmare that never actually resolved anything.
Post reply on HN