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

131–140 of 179 posts

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

#131

Post by alephnerd »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #129
alephnerd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The point is that Russia isn't even going to try if they know their main cities are going to be wiped

And my argument is if you as a state are seriously consider a nuclear strike, you have accepted that millions will die, but it's better to completely wipe out the other opponent. No amount of rationalization can resolve that level of existential threat. Poland saying "we can threaten to nuke Moscow" is enough of a justification for Russia to view Poland as an existential threat to wipe off the map.

Large countries, and especially large nuclear powers, have multiple cities where industries are distributed. This remains true in Russia, as most of their military manufacturing capabilities remain spread out across Omsk, Kazan, Novosibirsk, etc.

If you wish to scare a country from fighting a war with you, even conventional capabilities are enough to highlight the pain while also not reaching the threshold where a conflict becomes existential.

So no, it does not make sense for Poland or Germany to develop nuclear capabilities so late in modern world.

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

#132

Post by actionfromafar »

alephnerd wrote: post #128
ben_w wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not existenial if you don't have anyone on the other side of the "deal" to offer nuclear strikes in return. So far, it's been the US, but that doesn't seem assured for the future anymore.

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

#133

Post by wakawaka28 »

bambax wrote: post #49

> Nuclear security is highly specialized, high-pressure work, but it's not particularly well paid, one employee told NPR. Given what's unfolded over the past 24 hours, "why would anybody want to take these jobs?" they asked. The people who will be hired in those jobs in the future are the ones who can't find any other job, and don't care one way or another. It will be a catastrophe of epic proportions, but hard to no…

Sounds like the jobs probably already had people who can't find any other job and don't especially care, if you ask me. At least that makes as much sense as your argument about future hires.

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

#134

Post by alephnerd »

actionfromafar wrote: post #132
alephnerd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's not existenial if you don't have anyone on the other side of the "deal" to offer nuclear strikes in return. So far, it's been the US, but that doesn't seem assured for the future anymore.

It takes decades to build credible second strike or nuclear triad capabilities. A conventional war would be finished well before that.

For example, to launch into Russia, Poland and Germany would need Tactical, SR, MR, and LR Ballistic Missiles, but neither state has a ballistic missiles program so they would need to start from scratch or be entirely dependent on France (which the defense industry in both states have lobbied against).

If a Poland or Germany attempts to begin a nuclear weapons program, that is reason enough for a belligerent nation like Russia to start a war.

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

#135

Post by wakawaka28 »

alephnerd wrote: post #108
fifilura wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although your comments are technically correct I think the bigger picture may still make this relevant. These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII.

> These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII The 1950s is ancient history now. All countries have drastically ramped up background checks in NatSec and NatSec adjacent industries, and hiring foreigners (even from aligned states) can be a potential threat, as they will continue to retain family ties with their country of origin. This same inci…

So the US is a threat because it refuses to pay disproportionate funds for the defense of Europe? I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing. We have been massively subsidizing these "friends" so that many of them can afford free healthcare. Fuck that noise.

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

#136

Post by alephnerd »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #135
alephnerd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII The 1950s is ancient history now. All countries have drastically ramped up background checks in NatSec and NatSec adjacent industries, and hiring foreigners (even from aligned states) can be a potential threat, as they will continue to retain family ties with their country of origin. This same inci…

So the US is a threat because it refuses to pay disproportionate funds for the defense of Europe? I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing. We have been massively subsidizing these "friends" so that many of them can afford free healthcare. Fuck that noise.

> I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing

I agree. It is doable for individual European states to rebuild their conventional fighting capabilities.

France has been a proponent of this kind of "strategic autonomy" for decades, and so has the UK to a certain extent.

Most of the angst is coming from Germany, who let the Bundeswehr degrade from being one of the most capable Armed Forces in Europe in 1990 to what it is today.

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

#137

Post by pjc50 »

alephnerd wrote: post #79
shmobot wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just be careful when using analogies. The massive ship named USSR sank in a matter of months.

> The massive ship named USSR sank in a matter of months There was a decade of dysfunction and ossification before the USSR collapsed within a couple months A decade of low oil prices (affecting exports), high defense spending (increasing deficit), societal unrest due to the resurgence of nationalism, and slowing productivity all happened quietly over the 1980s before catalyzing into collapse.

> decade of low oil prices (affecting exports), high defense spending (increasing deficit), societal unrest due to the resurgence of nationalism, and slowing productivity

Good thing the US hasn't .. oh.

(the oil price is actually OK as is the trade balance, so far, but social cohesion is fraying and people are always complaining about productivity)

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

#138

Post by pjc50 »

lores wrote: post #86
retinaros wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not only are EU and US on a similar corruption index, the EU does not have a culture of widespread, legal corruption called "lobbying".

It absolutely does, but it's more "civilized" and less overt.

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

#139

Post by ben_w »

alephnerd wrote: post #128
ben_w wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

No, because it's not symmetric.

Party A may be an existential threat to party B, party B can prevent that existential threat just by being sufficiently painful. B doesn't even have to be close to an existential threat to A for it to be painful enough to reconsider.

That's how bees keep humans away from hives. Also how the Irish kicked my great-grandparents generation out of controlling Ireland, even at the height of the British empire.

> 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.

Yes, they are expensive. Also, I expect a multi-polar nuclear arms race to go hot much more easily, to normalise their use, to generally be bad for everyone.

So I hope you are correct (or, more importantly, that your opinion is shared by decision makers). On the other, there's clearly a constant undercurrent of "let's not give too much more aid to Ukraine just in case the Russian nukes actually work", so I don't think it's seen that way.

> German military leadership

Given the local attitudes towards even nuclear reactors, I think it's just a political non-starter around here. (I'll have to wait and see if @TeMPOraL sees this and responds regarding Poland's politics?)

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

#140

Post by mytailorisrich »

alephnerd wrote: post #131
mytailorisrich wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The point is that Russia isn't even going to try if they know their main cities are going to be wiped And my argument is if you as a state are seriously consider a nuclear strike, you have accepted that millions will die, but it's better to completely wipe out the other opponent. No amount of rationalization can resolve that level of existential threat. Poland saying "we can threaten to nuke Moscow" is enough of a…

France can nuke Moscow and is still there, North Korea caan nuke Seoul and Tokyo and is still there.. once you have credible nukes you can't be wiped out, that's the point of having them.

There is no being 'late', either. It's about the threats.

I have never implied that Poland should develop nuclear weapons. I wrote that they are/were in the very situation in which nuclear weapons may be desirable (similar to France, Israel, North Korea). Relatively small countries have nukes simply to make any attempt at invasion not worth it even if everyone knows they can't "win" against the USSR/Russia/the US, anyway.

Post reply on HN