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

321–330 of 363 posts

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

#321

Post by racional »

hollerith wrote: post #314
hollerith wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it does seem pretty clear which side you're cheering for Whether Russia has the upper hand is an important question for deciding on what policies the NATO countries should pursue, but we cannot have a fruitful public discussion on the question if anyone giving evidence for one side of the question is shouted down as a traitor.

Note that I'm replying to myself. "shouted down as a traitor" does not get at the crux of the problem I see. The problem is that anyone who thinks as follows cannot form an accurate opinion about the likely outcome of the war: Anyone who argues that Russia is winning the war is probably a Russia sympathizer, and a Russia sympathizer shouldn't be trusted and consequently we don't have to consider his argument.

It was more the "cutesy" (and fact-indifferent) way they were arguing their position (rather than the basic proposition what they were arguing) that suggested to me that something was off here. As confirmed by their subsequent posts. I'll withdraw the pro-Russia insinuation if you like (as whichever side, if any they may favor seems irrelevant in this context).

I've personally yet to encounter anybody who holds (or read any arguments in favor of the view) that Russia is outright winning this conflict in any tactical or operational sense, beyond perhaps a very marginal measure - without it becoming immediately clear that the person making them had major gaps in their knowledge, and/or strong biases (as revealed by reciting standard narratives as to the supposed causes of the war). Or without it emerging (as with the sibling commenter) that they just don't seem to give a fuck either way.

But this is of course a different topic.

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

#322

Post by danielodievich »

danielodievich wrote: post #58
bamboozled wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wonder what the state of Russia's nuclear arsenal is like then? Better or worse? Maybe that still have a lot of the old Nuclear power stations running to better supply the materials to maintain their warheads ?

This is a frequent topic of discussion in various forums and I am sure by Very Serious People in Charge [TM]. Extrapolating from the general sad state of the weapon systems in use by Russians where they are at this point unpacking tanks made in 1950, the quality of maintenance on their vehicles, and is difficult to plausibly claim that all the ancient rusty USSR stuff across the strategic rocket barrier is in any sor…

So very timely, reading The Economist from last week https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/07/16/russias-vast-sto... (https://archive.is/Z9j7Y no paywall). I'd definitely trust The Economist over most anything on this kind of research.

Some choice quotes: "Vladimir Putin has the old politburo to thank for the huge stockpiles of weapons that were built up during the cold war"

"Russia’s ability to build new tanks or infantry fighting vehicles, or even to refurbish old ones, is hampered by the difficulty of getting components. The lack of high-quality ball-bearings is also a constraint."

"They [military firms] also largely depend on machine tools imported years ago from Germany and Sweden, many of which are now old and hard to maintain."

Given that the country has no ability to produce ball bearings - and in other news, even nails, and can only cast gun barrels in single digits on western equipment, consider me HIGHLY skeptical that any rocket modernization that was supposed to have transpired has gleaming ready to fly stuff. More likely the money was "razpil" (разпилено) - literally "sawn off".

Still, lets hope we don't have to find out

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

#323

Post by rdevsrex »

yencabulator wrote: post #188
roenxi wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's simply not going to happen. The West isn't sending enough military aid to tip the scales, and this is an existential war for Russia and they are managing it well enough.

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

#324

Post by ben_w »

credit_guy wrote: post #88
sadhorse wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enriching uranium is more expensive than making plutonium by a long shot. Modern nukes are two point implosion, not really fiddly. And when was the last criticality incident related to phase transition? Can't remember one.

> Enriching uranium is more expensive than making plutonium by a long shot I'm not sure. This used to be the case in WW2, but today enriching uranium is quite inexpensive. Here's an enrichment calculator [1]. The cost of enriching to 80% (weapons grade uranium) is $80000/kg, so you can enough uranium for a Hiroshima-style bomb for about $5 million. $5 million for a nuclear bomb is basically nothing. [1] https://www.u…

That's worryingly cheap, but it also feels unlikely due to all the fuss made over stopping Iranian centrifuges.

I assume that's something like the amortised cost over the lifetime of a factory dedicated to making them, rather than something which at least a few people on this forum can personally afford?

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

#325

Post by s1artibartfast »

Retric wrote: post #315
scott_w wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you do that when the Russian military won't let you near the weapons?

Ukraine had physical control of these weapons. They handed them over in 1994, 3 years after the fall of the USSR for assurances Russia would respect their borders. More generally a handful of soldiers isn’t the full might of a countries military. Bribes, blockade until they run out of supplies, or just shoot them.

Everything I read stated that Russian military was in possession of the weapons, but they were located within Ukraine. Perhaps bribery was an option, but Russia had the ability to destroy them at any time, either by scuttling them or bombing them.

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

#326

Post by yencabulator »

rdevsrex wrote: post #323
yencabulator wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's simply not going to happen. The West isn't sending enough military aid to tip the scales, and this is an existential war for Russia and they are managing it well enough.

The likelihood of it is kinda irrelevant, if it were to happen I expect it would satisfy "The West", hence the want the war to continue part sounds wrong.

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

#327

Post by sdkdfjdlkdsj »

jvanderbot wrote: post #304
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not about "later" it's about "now". You don't inspect standing stockpiles and delivery mechanisms to say "See? We will never have the capability to nuke you", you do so to show that you're not currently building and are not currently sitting on a pile of nukes. As mentioned probably two posts up, any ramp up would be obvious to adversaries, have some lead time, and would take away from other production efforts.

[flagged]

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

#328

Post by hollerith »

racional wrote: post #321
hollerith wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that I'm replying to myself. "shouted down as a traitor" does not get at the crux of the problem I see. The problem is that anyone who thinks as follows cannot form an accurate opinion about the likely outcome of the war: Anyone who argues that Russia is winning the war is probably a Russia sympathizer, and a Russia sympathizer shouldn't be trusted and consequently we don't have to consider his argument.

It was more the "cutesy" (and fact-indifferent) way they were arguing their position (rather than the basic proposition what they were arguing) that suggested to me that something was off here. As confirmed by their subsequent posts. I'll withdraw the pro-Russia insinuation if you like (as whichever side, if any they may favor seems irrelevant in this context). I've personally yet to encounter anybody who holds (or r…

Professor of international relations John Mearsheimer claims that Russia is winning and that consequently Ukraine and NATO are in a pickle. The 60 seconds or so after this timestamp is a relevant quote:

https://youtu.be/vk0pSQtGb0g?si=NdoH3hHR-RJanp-R&t=431

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

#329

Post by cedws »

shmerl wrote: post #296
cedws wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That strategy would work if you weren’t trying to reason with a Soviet-era psychopath whose only concern is his own legacy. If he’s on his last legs tomorrow you don’t think his final move will be nuclear revenge? This man has demonstrated that he will kill anyone who gets in his way, even his own citizens, in brutal ways.

That "psychopath" (more exactly - sociopath) values his palaces and riches more than burning in a nuclear war. I.e. he can bluff and blackmail, but he is a coward who is obsessed with money and hedonistic pursuits. That's why the idea conveyed to him that if he makes any nuclear attack he personally will be immediately killed (by conventional weapons) made him tone his idiotic threats down by a lot. Those who see the…

Can't enjoy palaces and riches if you're on your death bed. Think about it. You've been a dictator for 20 years and killed anybody who stood in your way. Delusion has set in and you're convinced you've been poisoned by your enemy. Why wouldn't you get revenge while you still can?

It is precisely the fact that dictators like Putin are so pampered and disconnected from the consequences of their actions that worries me. He won't think twice about the lives that will be lost. He's constructed his own alternate historical timeline to justify his assault on Ukraine. He could do the same to justify dropping some nukes.

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

#330

Post by roenxi »

slg wrote: post #288
roenxi wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Vasil…

That is kinda my point though - you don't seem able to predict that sort of thing with foresight. Before the Cuban missile crisis you wouldn't have seen a path to nuclear war. During the crisis you probably wouldn't have seen a path. For 40 years [0] after the crisis you wouldn't have believed there was a path.

Then, 40 years later, someone ion the Russian military would explain to you that a person attempted to fire the nukes and it was narrowly prevented by a coincidence. At that point you would see a path to nuclear war. And based on my read of this conversation you probably wouldn't make the connection with the escalatory policy in Turkey as a threat to the Soviets without decades in hindsight either. That was less threatening than the NATO work the US has been orchestrating in Europe.

The publicly available information we have on the Ukraine war suggests a tenser situation than the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Russia's mainland nuclear defence infrastructure has literally been targeted. That is pretty dicey compared to harassing a presumed-harmless submarine near Cuba.

[0] In case you haven't read up on it, the incident you are referring too wasn't publicly discussed until 2002. A lot of other details also weren't available without hindsight.

Post reply on HN