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

Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

military.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 231 posts

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#181

Post by johnwheeler »

formvoltron wrote: post #145
chipsa wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second strike weapon. It is supposed to be able to survive someone else's first strike. First strike weapons can't survive someone else's first strike. It's part of the whole "assured destruction" thing: doesn't matter if you hit us first, you're still going to end up a self lit parking lot afterwards.

The obvious problem with mutual assured destruction is that an insane person could get ahold of the weapons, launch first, and kill all of current and future humanity. How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive.

Game theory doesn’t work that way

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#182

Post by DaltonCoffee »

dsq wrote: post #141
signa11 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

''' Even the primal innocent are being roped into our primate rivalries. ''' what's your opinion of say, horses used in olden times (heck till about WW-I, quite extensively) in battle ?

The accounts of horses in war are quite horrific, and their replacement by machines in the role of war transports is gratifying.

Indeed, the horror of their long history of participation in our primate wars puts their modern militarization in perspective.

Is the modern military's exploitation of animals actually significant compared to any other time in human history?

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#184

Post by tgflynn »

thelittleone wrote: post #62
poulsbohemian wrote: post #19

This isn't exactly a secret or new information... it was pretty well known when I lived on the peninsula 10+ years ago (thus the username, Poulsbohemian...). There's a state park right near the Hood Canal bridge where it isn't uncommon to watch the submarines come and go in and out of the canal. Always a bit surreal to push your kids on the swings while watching a first strike weapon capable of destroying the world p…

No doubt surreal, but a single sub destroy the world? That piqued my interest so took a quick look and found an article [1]. This article states that "even a single vessel [submarine] could reduce as many as 288 city-sized targets into radioactive ash in less than 30 minutes." Later in the article they say that the Ohio class is capable of carrying up to 24 UGM-133 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles.…

During the 50's and 60's many nuclear bombs were tested in the atmosphere. I don't know the exact total megatonnage but I do know that the largest test, the "Tsar Bomba" alone was 50 MT. So the total megatonnage of all atmospheric nuclear tests very likely exceeds 137 MT by quite a good margin, and, whether for better or worse, the world is still here.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#186

Post by hammock »

formvoltron wrote: post #145
chipsa wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second strike weapon. It is supposed to be able to survive someone else's first strike. First strike weapons can't survive someone else's first strike. It's part of the whole "assured destruction" thing: doesn't matter if you hit us first, you're still going to end up a self lit parking lot afterwards.

The obvious problem with mutual assured destruction is that an insane person could get ahold of the weapons, launch first, and kill all of current and future humanity. How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive.

Wish you weren't downvoted, it's a valid question (if not beaten to death).

I highly recommend the movie By Dawn's Early Light if you haven't seen it. I will offer no spoilers.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#187

Post by l-albertovich »

loeg wrote: post #142
maccard wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rather spend their mindshare improving the animal condition than the human condition. How does arming dolphins improve the human condition?

Someone could make a compelling argument that US' global military dominance imposes a kind of Pax Americana that is net beneficial to the human condition, and this is one limb of that military dominance.

I think you'll need to repeat that a little bit louder beacuse it seems like they didn't get the news in the middle east.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#188

Post by loeg »

l-albertovich wrote: post #187
loeg wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone could make a compelling argument that US' global military dominance imposes a kind of Pax Americana that is net beneficial to the human condition, and this is one limb of that military dominance.

I think you'll need to repeat that a little bit louder beacuse it seems like they didn't get the news in the middle east.

I'm not making the argument myself; it's just one I could imagine being compelling.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#189

Post by ASalazarMX »

johnwheeler wrote: post #181
formvoltron wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious problem with mutual assured destruction is that an insane person could get ahold of the weapons, launch first, and kill all of current and future humanity. How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive.

Game theory doesn’t work that way

If game theory was how reality works, WW3 would have started several times already. Game theory is a guide, not the actual playbook.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#190

Post by nradov »

vkou wrote: post #63
thelittleone wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt surreal, but a single sub destroy the world? That piqued my interest so took a quick look and found an article [1]. This article states that "even a single vessel [submarine] could reduce as many as 288 city-sized targets into radioactive ash in less than 30 minutes." Later in the article they say that the Ohio class is capable of carrying up to 24 UGM-133 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles.…

A single sub can destroy the world any time it's commander wishes, not by launching 288 warheads at 288 cities, but by launching one warhead, at either Moscow, or Washington. Contingency plans for responding to a decapitating strike will do the rest.

A single submarine commanding officer is unable to destroy the world. For US Navy ballistic missile submarines at least, launch authorization requires concurrence by the executive officer as well. I assume other nuclear powers have a similar safeguard.
Post reply on HN