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

141–150 of 179 posts

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

#141

Post by alephnerd »

ben_w wrote: post #139
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…

> 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…

> So I hope you are correct (or, more importantly, that your opinion is shared by decision makers)

Yep. I'm basing my stance on Poland's current defense strategy [0][1].

Furthermore, Poland's on track to outcompete Russia in rocket artillery and tanks, so it has day 1 capabilities that are comparable to a tactical nuclear strike minus the cost.

> No, because it's not symmetric

Yep. It isn't symmetric, but it doesn't matter, because crossing the nuclear launch threshold is enough to justify retaliatory strikes and counter-strikes - which is something a state which lacks a second strike or nuclear triad cannot deter against.

And the Kargil War in 1999 was proof enough that two states having nuclear weapons capabilities alone cannot deter a war.

[0] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10736700.2020.1...

[1] - https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/media-library---content--m...

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

#142

Post by retinaros »

SanderSantema wrote: post #78
retinaros wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If I am to believe the Corruption Perception Index, which I certainly would over your unsourced blanket statement, you’re wrong and Europe is actually doing rather well at having low rates of corruption. Anecdotally that has certainly been my experience. I don’t really understand the perceived competition anyhow, why not wish for everybody to do well?

Can you explain how exploding Nordstream pipeline and setting back Germany - EU engine - to the dark ages was USA wishing for everybody to do well?

Europe has no corruption ? We are literally led by an unelected woman who sent us to war and single handily decided to buy vaccines from pfizer

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

scotty79 wrote: post #24
actionfromafar wrote: post #3

Foreign intelligence agencies must pinch themselves right now.

Last few decades of what US is doing might be described as heroically snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, in slow motion. Basically since US was orphaned on the world stage by USSR it gradually falls apart.

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by alephnerd »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #140
alephnerd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> France can nuke Moscow and is still there

They have second strike capabilties and a nuclear triad

> North Korea caan nuke Seoul and Tokyo and is still there

They have second strike capabilities and are working on nuclear triad capabilities

> I wrote that they are/were in the very situation in which nuclear weapons may be desirable

But unlike the nations listed above, they do NOT have a domestic ballistic missiles program, and that would take decades to build.

SK and Japan both have had domestic ballistic missile development and submarine development capabilities for decades, and that's why if they wished to become a nuclear power, they could do so very quickly.

Poland and Germany does not.

> 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

You can't make nukes (and the associated delivery systems) overnight. It takes decades to build the entire ecosystem.

Just having a nuclear bomb isn't enough if you lack the ability to develop and manufacture ballistic missles or submarines domestically.

Furthermore, as was seen in the Kargil War in 1999, nuclear weapons can fail as a deterrence for war.

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

#145

Post by ben_w »

scotty79 wrote: post #101
generic92034 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something similar as the USSR might be back in a couple of years, though.

It doesn't really matter. After failed attempt at adopting "terrorism" as new enemy, USA firmly fixated its sights on China in hopes that a strong enemy will help US regain former prosperity. What Trump currently is doing fits perfectly this goal. Russia is natural, local ally of USA against China, that's what Trump means when he voices hopes for future cooperation between "our great countries". It is further reinfor…

On the one hand, yes.

On the other, please don't over-estimate the competence of the people in charge of Europe (states or EU) — we're still just a bunch of independent sovereign states pootling along quietly doing our own thing with no real hard stressors to force us to select the best of the best as leaders, certainly not a unified cohesive whole.

When it gets to sink-or-swim time, I don't know which way we're going to go. I hope swim, but the US isn't the only one who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — that's something every civilisation in history has suffered from, one time or another.

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

#146

Post by kccoder »

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.

Many of these things have been happening in the US for the better part of a decade (or longer).

Did the USSR have an entire administration rapidly and deliberately tearing down their government, or was it more of the cracks in the foundation finally giving out?

Just because the former took a decade doesn't mean that this will require the same amount of time.

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

#147

Post by thecopy »

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.

The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees)

It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that rewinding and dismantling this system will have net positive effects in the next 50 years for USA.

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

#148

Post by kccoder »

theshackleford wrote: post #99
bambax wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is a huge ship where everything happens slowly. If you fire all sailors at once, you won't notice the difference immediately. The phantom ship continues to sail. Then engines start to heat up and fail. And if there's an obstacle along the way, it's game over. This is a dangerous game played by morons full of hubris. On June 16 YC organizes an "AI Startup School"; the first speaker is Elon Musk: https://www…

> Government is a huge ship where everything happens slowly. If you fire all sailors at once, you won't notice the difference immediately. The phantom ship continues to sail. Happens to business too. People don’t realise how long these entities can circle the drain.

I feel like businesses aren't actively trying to dismantle themselves, but rather the decay, due to neglect/hubris/greed/..., builds to a critical mass over time. This administration is actively trying to dismantle as much of the government as fast as possible. I think the fall could happen much faster than people expect.

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

#149

Post by wakawaka28 »

thecopy wrote: post #147
wakawaka28 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees) It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that r…

We can't afford to police the whole world. NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine.

It's not clear to me that unwinding our interventionism around the world is going to make the world more stable. But it is clear to me that we can't afford to keep doing it. China is eating our lunch and they have about 3x as many people as we do. Neither Europe nor the US are producing much, and the entire West is in massive debt. Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China? We can't even defeat Russia in Ukraine, and China would fight much dirtier than Russia. It's time to get real, restructure our debts, and rebuild our own country.

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

#150

Post by alephnerd »

thecopy wrote: post #147
wakawaka28 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees) It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that r…

But in the 1990s, militaries like West Germany, Canada, etc remained competitive and helped balance the load.

There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again.

It's just German instraginence because of their fanatical opposition to deficits that is hampering their ability to do so.

> increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees)

As I wrote below, that is highly unlikely in much of Europe, as most European states (except the UK and France) lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems like ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines.

Post reply on HN