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

Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 179 posts

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#121

Post by ben_w »

retinaros wrote: post #28
scarface_74 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any great money savings isn’t going to come from getting rid of personnel. Spending on government employees is only 6.8% of the budget. If they reach their goal of cutting 10%, that’s still less than 1% of the budget. They are going to have to cut Medicare, Social Security and military spending to make a dent.

If you believe Musk wont reach it you are dreaming. Just cutting all funding to all those NGO and those foreign news institutions will do it. In many countries a big chunk of governments workers are bs jobs and are just there to maintain an aging machine look like its working while helping reducing unemployment rate by financing useless jobs.

Behold, your budget: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/2023_US_...

You can't cut $2T without cutting at least some "mandatory" spending or your interest payments, because the total of absolutely all your "discretionary" spending comes to a total of $1.7T.

Your "discretionary" spending includes your entire active military. Not the retired military, that's "mandatory" spending, but all your active military.

Your non-military "discretionary" spending is $0.9T, less than half of what people are talking about cutting.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#122

Post by ben_w »

Denote6737 wrote: post #109
alephnerd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess the EU should hire them The EU doesn't have control of defense policy - that is the mandate of individual European states. The only EU member with nuclear weapons is France, which has it's own domestic nuclear ecosystem. More critically, public sector hiring is not the same as private sector. Working for a foreign government's NatSec apparatus would be a red flag for any sort of hiring - especially in the d…

Maybe that will change. Germany certianly has capability to manufacture nuclear armements. The UK may rejoin if the situation gets dire enough.

> Maybe that will change. Germany certianly has capability to manufacture nuclear armements. The UK may rejoin if the situation gets dire enough.

Given the politics here, I don't see that happening. No nuclear reactors, even.

I won't be too surprised if Finland gets some, but I don't really know the full politics of the area, only that they have reactors and are concerned about Russia.

Poland might, but no earlier than 2030.

In Europe but not in the EU, Ukraine… entirely depends on if they think they have nothing left to lose. If it looks like Trump will sell them out and they don't think anyone else will pick up enough slack to keep them independent of Moscow, they may rush a development program.

I can easily believe that Ukraine would try to hire any of these workers. No reason to think any of these workers would be interested, but I can see Ukraine trying.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#123

Post by _petronius »

krapp wrote: post #77
_petronius wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No electoral mandate can make illegal actions legal, or abrogate the law. The refusal of the congressional majority to enforce their authority under article 1 is what is causing this constitutional crisis. (Also, Trump did not run on these policies -- he's implementing policies he explicitly repudiated when he lied about not being affiliated with the Project 2025 manifesto.) I don't want to let the voters off the hoo…

>Also, Trump did not run on these policies -- he's implementing policies he explicitly repudiated when he lied about not being affiliated with the Project 2025 manifesto. Where do you think Project 2025 came from? Trump may not have run on the specific, enumerated list of items in the Project 2025 agenda, but everything in that agenda falls in line with Trumpist goals and right-wing Republican ideals, and it had deep…

Look, I'm aware that he's a liar and his track record from his first term should have made that pretty apparent to the voters at large. I'm just saying that the idea that "people voted for this" and therefore he has some kind of mandate for the current agenda is dumb when he explicitly said his policy was something else.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#124

Post by ben_w »

alephnerd wrote: post #114
actionfromafar wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is not the USSR. In practice, Russia is Moscow and St Petersburg. Pose a credible threat to those cities and be set. Because Poland and Russia are so close geographically, plausible second strike capability can be achieved many ways without having ICBMs and nuclear strike subs.

If you're at the point where you're actively considering nuclear strikes, you are fine with accepting the MASSIVE costs that arise. Even if Moscow or St Petersburg are completely wiped off the map, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Omsk, etc will remain while much of Poland is irradiated. > Russia is not the USSR It's not the USSR, but it's still a large country, and much of the defense industry has remained in Siberia since WW2.

I'd focus on your previous point about second-strike capabilities.

> Even if Moscow or St Petersburg are completely wiped off the map, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Omsk, etc will remain while much of Poland is irradiated.

Yes, but the goal isn't to win a first strike, it's MAD to prevent the other side doing that.

Russia has enough warheads to not just level Poland's cities, but every settlement and forest in the country.

Poland with 10 credible nuclear weapons is enough to break the economic back of any country who attacks, so they won't attack.

This needs what you said before, second-strike capability. Either that or a fast enough response time that they can launch while hostile missiles are still inbound. (Or does that still count as second-strike?)

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#125

Post by mrkeen »

_petronius wrote: post #123
krapp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, Trump did not run on these policies -- he's implementing policies he explicitly repudiated when he lied about not being affiliated with the Project 2025 manifesto. Where do you think Project 2025 came from? Trump may not have run on the specific, enumerated list of items in the Project 2025 agenda, but everything in that agenda falls in line with Trumpist goals and right-wing Republican ideals, and it had deep…

Look, I'm aware that he's a liar and his track record from his first term should have made that pretty apparent to the voters at large. I'm just saying that the idea that "people voted for this" and therefore he has some kind of mandate for the current agenda is dumb when he explicitly said his policy was something else.

You're right. I distinctly remembered hearing about all that DOGE nonsense a long time ago, but I checked my sources and I can only spot stuff after the election.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#126

Post by nkrisc »

Sharlin wrote: post #44
nkrisc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to hear your understanding of French military history. Genuinely curious to know what year you would choose to begin with.

Americans vaguely know from war movies that they capitulated to the Nazis and then the US (and the US alone, of course) had to come rescue them, and that they refused to participate in the US's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, which then led to a propaganda campaign against France, including Freedom Fries and other nonsense. (France absolutely did partake in the war in Afghanistan, deploying several thousand troops…

As an American I am unfortunately very familiar with that narrative.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#127

Post by alephnerd »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #118
alephnerd wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The UK Not in the EU. And the same NatSec requirements hold. > Poland may want to develop their own. A nuclear shield is useless without second or third strike capabilities - which requires a nuclear triad - as both Russia and China have developed those capabilities due to their rivalry with the US. Poland hypothetically building 10 nuclear devices does nothing if Russia can launch multiple strike after getting str…

Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used. They are meant to prevent invasion attempts. For instance, between China and its own nuke North Korea is guaranteed not to be invaded by the US. Likewise, Israel is guaranteed that Arab countries or Iran won't try to invade it. In fact, that's why France developed its own nukes, in addition to making sure they'll keep a seat at the "adults table". Poland might be/have been an…

> Poland might be/have been another good example. They would only need to guarantee that St Petersburg, Moscow, and Minsk would be vaporised in case of invasion to be safe on their Eastern border

As I mentioned above, the fear of vaporization goes away if you can continue to keep striking after being striked. If you've reached the point where you are launching nuclear strikes, you accept the massive toll that you will have to pay with a launch, and wish to enact as severe a toll as possible. To do that you need second strike and nuclear triad capabilities.

Every single one of the countries you mentioned has second strike capabilities and either has Nuclear Triad capabilities (China, US, Israel) or is working to implement them (France, North Korea).

A country like Poland or Germany is too late in the game to build second strike or nuclear triad capabilities, and even starting a nuclear weapons program would be causus belli enough in the short-to-medium term for a war while being unable to prevent a strike.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#128

Post by alephnerd »

ben_w wrote: post #124
alephnerd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're at the point where you're actively considering nuclear strikes, you are fine with accepting the MASSIVE costs that arise. Even if Moscow or St Petersburg are completely wiped off the map, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Omsk, etc will remain while much of Poland is irradiated. > Russia is not the USSR It's not the USSR, but it's still a large country, and much of the defense industry has remained in Siberia since WW2.

I'd focus on your previous point about second-strike capabilities. > Even if Moscow or St Petersburg are completely wiped off the map, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Omsk, etc will remain while much of Poland is irradiated. Yes, but the goal isn't to win a first strike, it's MAD to prevent the other side doing that. Russia has enough warheads to not just level Poland's cities, but every settlement and forest in the country. Pol…

> Poland with 10 credible nuclear weapons is enough to break the economic back of any country who attacks, so they won't attack.

If you are in a situation where you are even seriously considering a nuclear strike, that means you are viewing a threat as existential, which completely undermines the economic argument.

> This needs what you said before, second-strike capability. Either that or a fast enough response time that they can launch while hostile missiles are still inbound. (Or does that still count as second-strike?)

Absolutely, but the issue is that this takes A LOT of time to build and implement, and a country like Poland or Germany cannot build that kind of capability overnight. Yet a nuclear program can be viewed as an existential threat that can be used as a causus belli for war (conventional or nuclear).

This is a pretty bad RoI.

Nuclear programs are expensive, and instead of spending the amount you would need to build a nuclear program, it's much better for Poland and Germany to double down and concentrate on conventional war capabilities such as rocket systems, drones, artillery, and heavy weapons. The fact that a country with an ossified MIC like Ukraine is able to bog down a military like Russia's with conventional capabilities is proof enough that doubling down on building conventional war-fighting capabilities is enough to cause severe pain on an aggressor while not turning a conflict into an existential one which justifies nuclear warfare.

And this is why you never hear Polish or German military leadership talk about developing a nuclear program.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#129

Post by mytailorisrich »

alephnerd wrote: post #127
mytailorisrich wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used. They are meant to prevent invasion attempts. For instance, between China and its own nuke North Korea is guaranteed not to be invaded by the US. Likewise, Israel is guaranteed that Arab countries or Iran won't try to invade it. In fact, that's why France developed its own nukes, in addition to making sure they'll keep a seat at the "adults table". Poland might be/have been an…

> Poland might be/have been another good example. They would only need to guarantee that St Petersburg, Moscow, and Minsk would be vaporised in case of invasion to be safe on their Eastern border As I mentioned above, the fear of vaporization goes away if you can continue to keep striking after being striked. If you've reached the point where you are launching nuclear strikes, you accept the massive toll that you wil…

No,the fear does not go away. The point is that Russia isn't even going to try if they know their main cities are going to be wiped. Whether they can possibly ultimately "win" because irrelevant if it is a pyrrhic victory and/or cost is to high.
Post reply on HN