Nukes and Stability • Hacker News Board

Re: Nukes and Stability

#21

Post by jostmey » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 1:08 AM UTC

ouid wrote: post #19

sbierwagen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comprehensive test ban treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban... The US also hasn't tested since 1992. Given the situation with B-2 heat exchangers, F-22 spare parts and FOGBANK, I would not be interested in betting large amounts of money that American nuclear weapons are fully functional either. Interestingly enough, both the US and Russia routinely test fire ICBMs. So we know the r…

I believe that much of the work done in our nuclear laboratories is verification that the nuclear weapons work. They do not fall tremendously out of disrepair, as fissile material does not degrade much over the timescale of 20 years, and the degradation that occurs is extremely well studied. Your hopefulness is, for better or worse, extraordinarily unlikely.

Oh, I’m sure a significant fraction of nuclear weapons would work, and the results would be horrible. It’s just that large fraction might not work. I don’t think Putin would want to reveal this because it means he lacks the capacity to fully eliminate the United States

Re: Nukes and Stability

#22

Post by zamalek » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 1:46 AM UTC

azornathogron wrote: post #8

nickff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to ask yourself what he would achieve by using nuclear weapons, and what the costs would be. Using nuclear weapons seems unlikely to benefit the Putin regime in any way, and risks destablizing his position, both from inside and outside Russia. Putin is not crazy, he is acting rationally from his perspective (though it may be hard to understand). My suspicion is that the reports of him having cancer are corre…

> Putin is not crazy, [...] the Ukraine invasion was a way to bolster and secure his position in the face of doubt caused by the cancer. Although I (think I) know what you mean, the idea of starting a war, killing thousands of people, destroying cities and destroying the Russian economy all to avoid looking weak due to cancer... well, it certainty sounds pretty fucking crazy to me.

Psychopaths and sociopaths can be surmised as: acquisition of power and self-preservation. A nuclear war is also a nuclear war for Putin; he would perish along with the rest of us, or soon after us (especially with no infrastructure to treat his cancer).

Suicide is a terminal disease. Psychopathy is a chronic condition. You could suffer from both, but we've never seen suicidal tendencies from Putin.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#23

Post by betwixthewires » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 2:40 AM UTC

I was talking about this a few weeks ago, and a point was made in this article that I was making. We have 3 outcomes here, one, that this thing ends when it ends and there's a new cold war, two that someone launches nukes and it's game over for everyone, or three, that someone drops a nuke and it's not the end of the world, in which case it becomes normal for someone to drop a nuke every once in a while. Still better than the end of the world, but not a good world to live in.

If this ends with no nukes flying I'll be surprised. The stakes are high. Major powers are fighting an existential battle right now. But if it does, the world order is changed dramatically, either Russia controls Ukraine in which case other countries might decide they can do similar (which means it isn't really over) and we slow burn a global conflict, or or Russia loses out and is probably forever relegated to a minor player and someone else fills the power vacuum.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#24

Post by kurthr » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

jostmey wrote: post #2

I have been gravely concerned that Putin would order a nuclear strike in Ukraine or elsewhere. Now, I believe the chances of that happening have actually gone down substantially. Why? Because Putin doesn’t want to risk ordering a nuclear strike to find out these deterrents, which haven’t been tested in decades, no longer operate (or never actually did operate). Then Russia would be completely vulnerable. Instead, I b…

As in start Nuclear Testing in "free" Ukraine?

Re: Nukes and Stability

#25

Post by gunfighthacksaw » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 4:36 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #23

I was talking about this a few weeks ago, and a point was made in this article that I was making. We have 3 outcomes here, one, that this thing ends when it ends and there's a new cold war, two that someone launches nukes and it's game over for everyone, or three, that someone drops a nuke and it's not the end of the world, in which case it becomes normal for someone to drop a nuke every once in a while. Still better…

> or Russia loses out and is probably forever relegated to a minor player

Forever is a long time, Russia has collapsed and risen before. It currently has hegemony over the ‘pivot’ of Eurasia and even in the event of a break-up of the Federation it is unlikely that anyone other than the Chinese will move into Siberia to fill the vacuum. I mean they haven’t in the last 2000 years that I know of. Maybe the Mongols again?

Re: Nukes and Stability

#26

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 5:04 AM UTC

sbierwagen wrote: post #13

hadlock wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised to find out just now that the last time Russia tested a nuclear weapon was, October 1990. Looks like most of their testing locations are/were located in former soviet bloc countries. Presumably that means any newer designs than what were tested in the 1980s, have never actually been tested before, and those that have, might be almost 35 years old.

The comprehensive test ban treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban... The US also hasn't tested since 1992. Given the situation with B-2 heat exchangers, F-22 spare parts and FOGBANK, I would not be interested in betting large amounts of money that American nuclear weapons are fully functional either. Interestingly enough, both the US and Russia routinely test fire ICBMs. So we know the r…

[deleted]

Re: Nukes and Stability

#27

Post by petre » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 5:14 AM UTC

beebmam wrote: post #16

k__ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to read that. All these apocalypse talks of uninformed bystanders are really gnawing at my mental health lately...

Hmm. If the Soviets were so deeply afraid of nuclear annihilation, maybe the US and NATO should be threatening it offensively as a means to get concessions. Like Russia has been doing.

That would mean China scores points by showing restraint.

Also NATO is a defensive alliance and it might break up if any member threatens other states with nukes.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#28

Post by lcedp » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 12:56 PM UTC

> The longer it takes for Russia to conquer Ukraine, the more likely it will end up being the start of World War III.

A very naive and fatal flow of judgement.

Numerous times, Russia state media expressed Russian desire to attack Baltic States and Poland. Putin said similar things many times: i.e. that he wants USSR to be restored in previous borders.

If Ukraine is conquered by Russia, you will not get a world peace as an output.

Half of Ukrainians will be exterminated in the process (think Holodomor), but I know you don't care too much: "As horrible as this would be for the Ukrainians". I get it, it's not the point of this comment.

As an output, you will get a much stronger Russia with added power of Ukrainian people and military resources.

The problem is also not in Putin. If he dies, the situation won't be better much. The Russian regime is fascist-like and embraces Russian imperialism.

The only sane action is to help Russia to disintegrate into smaller nations and to show the world that aggression at such scale does not work.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#29

Post by betwixthewires » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 7:53 PM UTC

gunfighthacksaw wrote: post #25

betwixthewires wrote: post #23

I was talking about this a few weeks ago, and a point was made in this article that I was making. We have 3 outcomes here, one, that this thing ends when it ends and there's a new cold war, two that someone launches nukes and it's game over for everyone, or three, that someone drops a nuke and it's not the end of the world, in which case it becomes normal for someone to drop a nuke every once in a while. Still better…

> or Russia loses out and is probably forever relegated to a minor player Forever is a long time, Russia has collapsed and risen before. It currently has hegemony over the ‘pivot’ of Eurasia and even in the event of a break-up of the Federation it is unlikely that anyone other than the Chinese will move into Siberia to fill the vacuum. I mean they haven’t in the last 2000 years that I know of. Maybe the Mongols again…

I'm thinking less of the territory of Russia proper and more their sphere of influence in central Asia. I agree that that power vacuum would likely be filled by China.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#30

Post by sliken » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 9:39 PM UTC

gunfighthacksaw wrote: post #25

betwixthewires wrote: post #23

I was talking about this a few weeks ago, and a point was made in this article that I was making. We have 3 outcomes here, one, that this thing ends when it ends and there's a new cold war, two that someone launches nukes and it's game over for everyone, or three, that someone drops a nuke and it's not the end of the world, in which case it becomes normal for someone to drop a nuke every once in a while. Still better…

> or Russia loses out and is probably forever relegated to a minor player Forever is a long time, Russia has collapsed and risen before. It currently has hegemony over the ‘pivot’ of Eurasia and even in the event of a break-up of the Federation it is unlikely that anyone other than the Chinese will move into Siberia to fill the vacuum. I mean they haven’t in the last 2000 years that I know of. Maybe the Mongols again…

Heh, sure, not forever, but the cold war ended after the last collapse, certainly looks like Russia is headed towards another one.

Sure Putin could catch a clue and announce that with the resistance, sanctions, inflow of weapons/goods into Ukraine, and world condemnation it isn't worth it. Withdraw all troops, and promise to be good the sanctions would end quickly, GDP/Trade would pick up, and the ruble would gain most of what it lost. Seems unlikely though. The weird thing is it's something like 10x as costly in lives/equipment as previous decade ish long invasions Russia has had, but they don't seem to be adapting.

Does seem like with complete control of the media they could say something like "We killed ever last Nazi and stopped the genocide in the Ukraine and have come home victorius.