Live data from Hacker News

United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

fas.org

341–350 of 363 posts

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

#341
post #338
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ridiculously overintellectualizing the situation by trying to construct a rational argument for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There isn't any more rational argument for it than there was for the German murder of Jews by the millions. Just a dictator with unhealthy obsessions in either case. During WWII, Russia first allied with Germans and together they rolled over entire Europe until there was no-one else…

If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Putin is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of NATO, look at what NATO did to them at the first opportunity" theory. Especially since it has been a factor in conversation for decades. People have been pointing out that NATO expansion was raising tension with Russia since the fall of the USSR. It is just too easy…

Hacker News, 1939:

Armies don't just charge out because Hitler has his "dream", and certainly not sustaining the sort of punishment that the Germans have had to undergo in Poland. We can see from the response to Ernst Röhm that the military actually supports the Führer to a significant extent; if it was unpopular then Hitler would have been rolled by now. You aren't trying to understand the German motivation; this is unhelpful straw-manning and caricaturing.

And othering the Germans with irrational motivations is stupid. As a culture we've passed up too many opportunities to calm the situation down because of a Germanophobic attitude out of the US. Years of unhinged rhetoric from 1930 onwards turned out to be unhelpful in de-escalating a dangerous situation.

And I note you didn't link to speeches by Hitler. That'd be wise, it is rare to see a Anglo-American media outlet accurately representing even Anglo-American politicians. Not as a partisan thing, but as a blanket failure. It is better to go to the source material.

If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Hitler is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of France and Britain, look at what France and Britain did to them at the first opportunity" theory. Especially since it has been a factor in conversation for decades. People have been pointing out that the Treaty of Versailles was raising tension with Germany since the end of the Great War.

If the Treaty of Versailles wasn't involved in German Rearmament it does seem likely that nobody would be talking about the Treaty of Versailles.

But to argue that Germany isn't acting with reference to the Treaty of Versailles is just displaying a void of strategic empathy. What they've been doing makes a lot of sense through the lens of a group of people panicking as France and Britain keeps tightening the noose on them.

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

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Claims, without making a substantive argument.

Mearsheimer initially comes across as concerned, serious and intelligent. But when we stop to unpack what he's actually saying -- he emerges as a prime example of someone way too ideologically biased and beholden to broken narratives to be taken seriously.

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

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without evidence, that comment is an opinion piece. Hopefully we never have to find out.

Could it be that the source of your skepticism is the fact that you have over the last 2 years seen many comments here on HN asserting that Russia's military is probably incapable of maintaining an effective strategic nuclear capability whereas my comment is the first one you've seen that takes the opposite position? According to one comment I saw here a few weeks ago, Russia's nukes are probably made of wood. I sugg…

One of the top results from a very reputable source. The title says it all. "Russia’s Nuclear Modernization Drive Is Only a Success on Paper"

https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/0...

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

#344
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Putin is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of NATO, look at what NATO did to them at the first opportunity" theory. Especially since it has been a factor in conversation for decades. People have been pointing out that NATO expansion was raising tension with Russia since the fall of the USSR. It is just too easy…

Hacker News, 1939: Armies don't just charge out because Hitler has his "dream", and certainly not sustaining the sort of punishment that the Germans have had to undergo in Poland. We can see from the response to Ernst Röhm that the military actually supports the Führer to a significant extent; if it was unpopular then Hitler would have been rolled by now. You aren't trying to understand the German motivation; this is…

> If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Hitler is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of France and Britain, look at what France and Britain did to them at the first opportunity" theory.

Well, yes. As a Brit I would like to believe I would have been saying things like "this Treaty of Versailles approach is a disaster, we're just giving the Germans reasons to re-arm and fight us. We should have made more of an effort towards ensuring that Germany is prosperous and wealthy despite losing the Great War. Given what the British and the French did to them at the first opportunity, they are likely to be really angry with us the next time tensions rise".

Given what then happened, I would probably have scored myself pretty well for geopolitical acumen too. roenxi approved policies towards Germany in the interbellum period would have been less likely to see the British Empire make enemies and get its back broken. As we saw in the aftermath of WWII, the policies that work were occupation, respectful treatment, rebuilding and creating prosperity in the vanquished countries [0]. Similarly, the policies that would have helped with Ukraine would be a similar approach. We can't manage occupation but Russia seemed to be feeling cooperative back in the 90s, we should have taken advantage of that when the chance was open and tried to achieve all the other parts. Not salami tactics of advancing a hostile military alliance towards their borders.

Creating reasons for great powers to fight you is remarkably foolish policy. Even middle powers for that matter. That is not the sort of thing that should be done. These stupid policies have consequences.

[0] Policies adopted because, given the sheer scale of the disaster that was WWII, even the politicians had to admit that a new approach from WWI's failed peace was needed.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you need to do delivery? If nuclear winter is going to end humanity as we know it, then couldn't you blow up an uninhabited wasteland part of your own country and still hurt everyone?

Isn't this the plot of Dr. Strangelove? If they do decide on that strategy, let's hope they don't keep the news for a special occasion...

It's not nuclear winter in strangelove, but a dirty 'cobalt bomb' which contaminates the atmosphere with a huge amount of radionuclides.

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

#346
post #338
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ridiculously overintellectualizing the situation by trying to construct a rational argument for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There isn't any more rational argument for it than there was for the German murder of Jews by the millions. Just a dictator with unhealthy obsessions in either case. During WWII, Russia first allied with Germans and together they rolled over entire Europe until there was no-one else…

If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Putin is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of NATO, look at what NATO did to them at the first opportunity" theory. Especially since it has been a factor in conversation for decades. People have been pointing out that NATO expansion was raising tension with Russia since the fall of the USSR. It is just too easy…

> People have been pointing out that NATO expansion was raising tension with Russia since the fall of the USSR.

NATO does not expand on its own like a dough left on a windowsill. My country is in NATO because we were scared stiff when we saw the methods Russia used in the First Chechen War in 1994. Nothing had changed since Russia invaded us during the WWII. As an insurance and deterrent against that happening to us again, we made a decision to build relations with other European nations to ensure tight cooperation and remove as many obstacles as possible for coming to mutual aid, hoping that even the possibility of receiving aid through organizations like NATO would make a Russian invasion less likely.

This is "raising tensions" only because Russia intends to invade us as soon as they can, and us being in NATO makes that more costly and risky for them, because they can't be sure where the aid ends - might go as far as American nukes flying.

> What they've been doing makes a lot of sense through the lens of a group of people panicking as NATO keeps tightening the noose on them.

Nobody in Russia is panicking. The narrative about NATO tightening a noose is an artificial talking point thrown to western useful idiots for self-flagellation to undermine the support of Ukraine. It is not a topic of discussion in Russian political and military circles. Instead, they talk about reclaiming their lost prestige and taking back what "belongs to them". For Russians of Putin's generation, the domination over Central and Eastern Europe was normalcy and they want it back.

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

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't targeting cities anymore but Russian and Chinese weapon installations. Consider the number of these. And that the ballistic missile defense is concentrated at these locations. It is surely more than 300.

I already gave another in-depth reply, so I'll keep this one short: the idea that the current US nuclear arsenal would be fully needed to cripple Russia or China's military and industrial capacity is ridiculous, and has been thoroughly rejected any time military analysts were actually asked by the government to make a survey of the US's nuclear plans (which is, not that often). You don't need to bomb every station of…

On the other hand if you take out every station it takes a lot longer to rebuild than if you just take out one.

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

#348

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.

I can’t believe that people still believe in MAD. It’s such a galaxy brain theory that weapons of mass destruction will actually make us safer because that other guy over there have them as well. And the theory will only be conclusively disproven if someone pushes the button.

Would you really want to live in a world where only Russia et al have nukes?

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

#349
post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Operational control yes, but the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory. Ukraine definitely had enough control for diplomacy to come into play. ~1,700 nuclear warheads spread across a large number of different sites is a nightmare to try and secure when the country was effectively falling apart. As to bombing 130 nuclear silos with non nuclear ordnance is problematic and doesn’t destroy th…

> the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory You seem to be missing the key point that I've repeated twice already. UKRAINE DID NOT WANT RUSSIAN TROOPS IN THEIR TERRITORY. There was no path to Ukraine maintaining the nuclear weapons while also NOT having the Russian troops on Ukrainian land. The discussion of "oh, they can re-wire the weapons" would have trigged IMMEDIATE WAR with Russia.…

> no path

Clearly war was one option to remove Russian troops. Saying there’s no options, is a vast oversimplification.

Call up the troupes on the phone and say we’re unhappy about those ICBM’s in our territory where going to start artillery bombardment noon tomorrow and suggest you leave before then.

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

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One thing I'll agree on John Mearsheimer is that an incredibly well articulated. He's also absolutely wrong. One of my also russian friends used one of his videos as a proof that everything is west's fault in the conflict in Russia. I patiently listened and what I heard was might makes right/who are we to meddle in the affairs of great Russia or great powers/Russia is great and we're doomed. It's a take that takes ANY agency out of Ukraine or any small country. Catnip for Z-patriots!. He's one of those "useful idiots" that Putin and his gang cultivate around the world.

For just a bit of - at the glance similar - but much, much more thought out and balanced stuff, I would recommend anything at all by Steven Kotkin. He speaks with folks from Brookings quite a bit. His experience is unparalleled and world view is considerably more nuanced

Post reply on HN