Sidestepping Tactical Nuclear Weapons Limits With Strategic Bombs

How does SDI work? by partofme · 2012-05-19 06:09 · Score: 4, Funny

From my Civilization 2 days I remember how SDI defenses were able to completely destroy any incoming nukes. How does it work and is it that good in real life?

Re:How does SDI work? by Sqr(twg) · 2012-05-19 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

The basic idea is: you use satellites detect the nozzle flame of ICBM:s as they launch, then use other satellites to destroy their fuel tanks or payloads with lasers.
The only difference between Civ2 and real life is that in Civ2 it works.
Re:How does SDI work? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-19 06:19 · Score: 1

The idea was to make a virtual shield over your country, able to identify and shoot down any incoming missiles. The shield consisted of all kinds of vaporware technologies -- space-based x-ray lasers and the like. But also ABMs. The CCCP was very worried about the ABMs. They probably weren't so worried about the orbital lasers because they had plenty of Russian scientists smart enough to advise the leaders that there was no way the USA could do anything like that any time soon.
(In the 70's the Russians looked at our rockets and said "Oh shit, they've got rockets powerful enough to carry men to the moon and back." In the 80s and from then on, they've looked at our rockets and laughed.)
Re:How does SDI work? by bkmoore · 2012-05-19 07:18 · Score: 5, Funny

....How does it work and is it that good in real life?
SDI works like a condom. It blocks incoming nukes. It might provide protection, or it might not. It may prevent unwanted wars or it may not. The only sure way is abstinence. But what's a loose nuke among friends anyway?
Re:How does SDI work? by nitehawk214 · 2012-05-19 11:00 · Score: 1

Watch out Gandhi might drop the A-Bomb.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:How does SDI work? by CodeBuster · 2012-05-19 15:02 · Score: 1

I don't know how SDI works, but I know the sound that it makes, "pew pew pew"
Re:How does SDI work? by rtb61 · 2012-05-19 20:53 · Score: 1

Unfortunately SDI is completely ineffective against long range cruise missiles flying nap of the earth. So far the only effective defence has been treaties and agreements limiting number and range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTCR). Of course if you start separating the components, engines, fuel tank, warhead and target guidance you can fiddle the numbers any way you want. A detached nuclear warhead is just a warhead not a particular kind of warhead. Detached extremely extended fuel tanks do not even need to be counted. Unattached cruise missile engines are of course just jet engines. Guidance systems are just a bunch of electronics.
So very long range stealth cruise missiles (subsonic for range to supersonic final target zone), don't even get counted until they are assembled, which could take as little as fifteen minutes per missile if designed that way. Of course designing that way also provides significant cost reduction, those motors could be used on reusable drones, military and civilian use.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:How does SDI work? by TheRaven64 · 2012-05-19 22:30 · Score: 1

SDI works by getting a load of DoD contractors to approach the government saying 'we can build this magic system. If the Russians build one first, they'll be able to launch a first strike without fearing retaliation. OMG Communists!!111eleventyone' The people on the appropriations committee don't want to be seen as Soft on Communists, so they authorise the spending. The Russians believe that, since the US government and their contractors believe that the system will work that they need to be able to defeat it before it goes live, so they ramp up military spending far beyond sustainable levels. This pushes the already-unstable USSR into total collapse. The politicians then say 'yes, that's what we meant to happen, see how clever we are? We killed communism! Vote for us!' Then people start wondering what is going to happen to all of those nuclear warheads that are being guarded by people who haven't been paid for over a year...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:How does SDI work? by kmoser · 2012-05-20 04:33 · Score: 1

It replaced the earlier technology of launching surface-to-air missiles to destroy the incoming warheads, which could only be controlled accurately by 14-year-old boys.
Re:How does SDI work? by tehcyder · 2012-05-20 23:06 · Score: 1

CCCP
Those are just Cyrillic letters for USSR, and if you writie in English language you should use English alphabet. Simples!

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Nuclear weapons are blase by arcite · 2012-05-19 06:29 · Score: 1

Wait until we have tactical laser platforms or mass driver launchers in orbit. Now that is some kind of weapons of mass-destruction I can get down with.

Re:Nuclear weapons are blase by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 07:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

We will have neither of those

Mass drivers. Too expensive to get that much mass into orbit and no matter how fast you throw your projectile, it can only penetrate so far underground, as limited by physics.

Tactical lasers: Effectively banned as they are all too easily used, intentionally or unintentionally, as blinding weapons.

Also stupid easy to destroy such systems. Launch a missile straight up in a sub-orbital intercept trajectory. Payload is aluminum spheres that is released into a fan pattern once the missile has cleared the upper atmosphere. Any Nation that has SCUDs or similar could develop such a system. A SCUD-C has a max altitude of about 124 miles at the max range of 340 miles with a 1300lb warhead. Both system you propose would be in low earth orbit, 500 miles tops. If you shot straight up and reduced the payload weight I see no reason why a SCUD-C could not launch a payload of aluminum spheres 500 miles up. Once up there, the satellites own kinetic energy will destroy it when it hits one or more of the spheres, which relative to the satellite are not moving.

Such a system has the benefit of not creating space junk, as the spheres will simply fall back and burn up in the atmosphere. The only serious technical difficulty is targeting. The targeted satellites may have maneuver capability, but if it only has a short window of warning it will take a significant amount of fuel to maneuver out of the way of such a cloud. Running the satellite out of thruster fuel will be just as effective as destroying it.
Re:Nuclear weapons are blase by cavreader · 2012-05-19 08:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Orbital strikes are the way to go. Launch a steel based rod metal projectile insulated using the heat shield materials that came out of old shuttle project. Add the maneuvering control system currently used with drones and thrusters for course changes and there you are. Massive destruction without having to worry about any radioactive fall out. People have criticized the US stoppage on the shuttle but they never mention the US already has a craft capable of reaching orbit, maneuvering, and landing back on earth. So far it has being a total military project but it has been in development for over 10 years using information collected from the shuttle program. The maneuverability to intercept and destroy any other countries military satellites if needed would also be devastating to those countries who rely on them.
Re:Nuclear weapons are blase by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 10:49 · Score: 2

Launch a steel based rod metal projectile insulated using the heat shield materials that came out of old shuttle project.
Do you even have the most basic understanding of how much that would cost? Here is a white paper with the details

Price Per Pound to orbit (pdf)
http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf

So you want to launch a one ton rod into orbit? Just the cost of a launching that would be about $8 million, assuming a $4,000 per pound launch cost. Add onto that several million just to build it in the first place. You won't be able to afford to deploy these in enough numbers to make any difference. A LGM-30 Minuteman III ICBM with a 3 warhead MIRV is only about $7 million.

Massive destruction without having to worry about any radioactive fall out.
You haven't done the math on this, have you?
A 2,000 pound rod traveling at Mach 10 has a kenetic energy equal to..........1.2 tons of TNT. Congratulations, you've spent $10+ million to do what two $800,000 cruise missiles can do.

People have criticized the US stoppage on the shuttle
Not me, the shuttle was a total boondoggle. One-time use rockets/capsules have proven to be the more economical method.

The maneuverability to intercept and destroy any other countries military satellites if needed would also be devastating to those countries who rely on them.
The country that most describes is the US. No other country is as heavily reliant on satellites. Note that China supposedly has an operational anti-satellite laser, which I find to be completely believable as the tech has been feasible for quite some time.

I have pointed out elsewhere that any country that has rocket tech of SCUD-C level or better could build a "shotgun" type anti-satellite weapon for LEO satellites, the main difficulty being targeting.
Re:Nuclear weapons are blase by cavreader · 2012-05-19 14:08 · Score: 1

I never mentioned a 1 ton rod. That would be massive overkill. It's the velocity of the projectile not the projectile weight that dictates the level of destruction.
Shooting down a military satellite from the ground that uses high orbits is really not feasible right now. Maybe a rail gun could do it but it is still in the developmental stage. The Chinese and US satellite shoot down demonstrations both targeted satellites in very low orbits. And exactly how do you know what China or any other countries military assests and capabilities are? They usually don't post that information to the general public. Some people seem to assume they know a countries true military capabilities from what they read on the Internet, rumours, or other public sources. The US usually sucks at keeping military secrets but the F-117 program secrecy worked and surprised quite a few countries during the first Iraqi war. Iraq's air defense system was the best you could buy and they primarily used Russian systems that were rendered practically useless. As of right now the US military technology leads the field and they have had plenty of experience actually using these weapon systems in a real time situations which is the best way of detecting problems and improving the technology. Isreal is in the same boat. Simulations are fine for initial development, testing, and training but you only know a systems true capabilities when it is used in a real time environment.
And the Shuttle project wasn't really a boon doggle it was a platform used to test certain technologies. Look at the X-37 programs and see how they benefited from the data collected from the Shuttle project.
Re:Nuclear weapons are blase by Interfacer · 2012-05-20 09:45 · Score: 1

Yes, well, his example was a 1 ton rod at mach 10, which equalled 2 800K cruise missiles.
If you argue that the mass could be much lower, how do you accelerate whatever weight you end up with to equal that?
How do you get that thing to reach mach 30 in atmosphere?
If you can solve that, you still have a solution that is still not cost effective compared to existing non nuclear technology.
Re:Nuclear weapons are blase by cavreader · 2012-05-20 14:38 · Score: 1

Both mass and speed dictate the destructive potential but the mass can be varied and the initial launch speed can be varied. It all depends on how much you want to destroy. The launch facility for this type of weapon could be a permanent orbiting station built using the information obtained by the ISS project. The facility would not even have to be big or as complicated to build as the ISS. The best thing about weapon systems like this is that it does not result in radioactive fallout which is what makes current nuclear weapons scary.
Re:Nuclear weapons are blase by Interfacer · 2012-05-21 21:09 · Score: 1

Did you get this from a Clancy novel? I think this idea was used on a Chinese nuke base by the Americans in the protection of Russia.
Anyway, while you can vary initial launch speed, you still have to penetrate the atmosphere and still end up with a terminal velocity that is high enough to have much oomph. There is a reason most meteorites burn up in atmosphere.
If you try to hit the earth with something at mach 30, my bet is that you can't get there before your object has evaporated. And if you go at much lower speed, your mass has to be very high to make up for that, and your weapon will then be very expensive to get into orbit
And again, you still have the problem that you develop a new solution for something that already has a cheap non nuclear equivalent in the form of cruise missiles. Additionally, your sattelites are sitting ducks for anyone to pick off.
Re:Nuclear weapons are blase by cavreader · 2012-05-22 07:27 · Score: 1

I did read about the idea but it wasn't a Clancy novel it was in the Reality Dysfunction sci-fi series by Hamilton. And we have already developed heat resistant materials capable of protecting shuttle re-entries which is much more difficult than insulating a rod shaped projectile because of the surface volume exposed on the descent. The projectile could even be designed to anticipate some heat related degradation by making the projectile sectioned and longer than really needed.. Satellites in the right orbits are pretty damn safe for now but adding defensive weapons to them like those used on current air craft carriers for example would handle most threats. The US has been flying an unmanned shuttle vehicle (X-37) for almost 2 years and I imagine mounting a weapon system on that vehicle has crossed someones mind. Cruise missiles are becoming more vulnerable now that radar tracking and anti-missile technology has advanced.. They are not that stealthy and they are damn near the size of your average jet. Plus there are only a few countries capable of producing and using continental ballistic cruise missiles and if it ever comes to that there will be quite a few other things to worry about. True point defense systems are really not that far away. The Patriot and Iron Dome systems are just baby steps towards creating a true point defense system. It's amusing that it will probably be anti-missile systems that increase the risk of war rather than the missiles themselves. Why produce missiles if they can be intercepted and rendered useless? Hopefully the more advanced countries will obtain that level of technology at the same time to prevent someone from having a panic attack and invoking the "use them or lose them strategy". Both the US and Russia gained nuclear weapon technology around the same time which helped prevent either country from starting another world war. If the US had nuclear weapons and the Russians didn't the US would have probably used that advantage in Korea and other areas. The same thing would have applied to Russia using them against the US if they had the advantage.

Same as conventional weapons by Dupple · 2012-05-19 06:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

During similar talks over conventional weapons, a certain number of Russian Army Tanks were transferred to the Russian Navy, thus making them exempt from the treaty.

This is the best link I can find. Scroll down to the 'Cold War' section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Infantry_(Russia)

--
Watch those corners

Re:Same as conventional weapons by Dupple · 2012-05-19 06:35 · Score: 1

I should point out that the 'Naval' tanks were eventually included in the treaty. That wasn't clear from my post

--
Watch those corners
Re:Same as conventional weapons by pesho · 2012-05-19 07:57 · Score: 1

That would have been very clever if US marines were completely devoid of armor. Which is not the case so what exactly is your point?
Re:Same as conventional weapons by stephanruby · 2012-05-19 08:03 · Score: 1

Yes, I wonder how long it takes for North Korea to start calling its nuclear program a "tactical nuclear weapons program" and that they will "preemptively defend themselves from the American Empire" and launch an operation called "operation freedom" that will "liberate" their countrymen down south.
Re:Same as conventional weapons by turbidostato · 2012-05-19 12:09 · Score: 1

"Yes, I wonder how long it takes for North Korea to start calling its nuclear program a "tactical nuclear weapons program""
That would be a total nonsense. Everybody knows that "tactical nuclear weapons" are those launched from Germany, aimed at a target in Germany.

Is "tactical nuclear weapon" a bad word now? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 06:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

From TFA:

In any case, as a bonus for ratifying a single-limit treaty, the United States and Russia would be one step closer to retiring the term "tactical nuclear weapon," allowing this confused Cold War anachronism to drift into irrelevance.

This makes no sense to me. Tactical nuclear weapons would continue to exist, and would continue to be referred to as such. Plus, it's not obvious at all why they are any more anachronistic than strategic weapons, or why this guy seems more comfortable with the idea of weapons meant to be dropped on cities and kill vast numbers of civilians than ones intended to be deployed on a battlefield, with a much higher ratio of combatant to civilian casualties?

Re:Is "tactical nuclear weapon" a bad word now? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-05-19 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

During the Cold War, there was a bitter German joke to the effect of, "Tactical nuclear weapon: any nuclear weapon intended to be detonated over German territory." IOW, it's a euphemism, and "tactical" nukes are, in practice, unlikely to be any less murderous than "strategic" ones.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Is "tactical nuclear weapon" a bad word now? by Mindcontrolled · 2012-05-19 08:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Pretty much that. I grew up close to the Czech border in Germany. Wasn't that much of a fun place in the 80s. Our history teacher was military reserve - he used to tell the occasional story about how they nuked our hometown during the last training exercise. Roads were prepared with access shafts to place explosives to destroy the infrastructure, should the Soviets decide to move, lots of fun stuff like that.

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Re:Is "tactical nuclear weapon" a bad word now? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-05-19 09:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Notice the mention of a 50-kiloton threshold for being "tactical", when bombs in the 15-20 kiloton range had strategic effects in 1945.
Re:Is "tactical nuclear weapon" a bad word now? by couchslug · 2012-05-19 13:43 · Score: 1

Tac nukes are in fact much smaller, and were detonated in atmospheric testing which _proved_ limited nuclear war to be quite practical.
This wasn't done for shits and giggles. Testing validated NBC protective gear (which was also tested in chambers with live nerve agent and still is), armored fighting vehicle filtration and ventilation systems, shelters and bunker systems, etc, etc.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Is "tactical nuclear weapon" a bad word now? by Patch86 · 2012-05-19 23:23 · Score: 1

The point is that there's no technical difference between a bomb dropped on a city to kill civilians and a bomb used on the battlefield. They're more or less identical, right down to the size of the warhead. This is particularly true with the invention of MIRVs- the "big bombs" you'd drop on a city are basically just cluster bombs made of the dozens of the small bombs you'd use on the battlefield. Nobody has much use for genuine "big bombs" anymore.
So if you're talking about limiting the number of bombs a country can have, saying they can have "tactical bombs" but not "strategic bombs" is a pointless exercise. It's as pointless as saying you can have tactical sticks of dynamite, but not strategic sticks of dynamite. They're the same sticks of dynamite.
Re:Is "tactical nuclear weapon" a bad word now? by DougF · 2012-05-20 07:46 · Score: 1

Correct, which is why the conventional military now uses "tactical" and "strategic" to define the value of the target, not the weapon or the weapon system. Any weapon can be used on a strategic or tactical target (and yes, there are better "fits" for each target/weapon, but the point stands). As well, any weapon system can be used against strategic or tactical targets--it makes no sense to say an ICBM is a strategic or tactical weapon system...it is just a weapon system. To use an ICBM on a tactical-value target is a bit much overkill, but it is certainly possible, and I'm certain there are scenarios where it would be justified (taking out a city-killing alien ship, for example, would be a tactical use for one...the strategic target being the mother ship, or if the aliens were using our satellites to communicate/time the attack you launch an ICBM into low orbit and hope the resulting EMP would disable their communications network--a strategic target). Or conversely, you could use a small craft normally used for reconnaissance fitted with an appropriate weapon to penetrate deep into an enemy's mothership and deliver a knockout blow--a strategic target.

--
Impetuous! Homeric!

I have trouble seeing the point by Sycraft-fu · 2012-05-19 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why do we care about limits on this stuff, in terms of numbers? I can totally understand saying "Let's get rid of these things, period, they are too dangerous." However I can also understand why that'll never happen. So then why do we care how many the US or Russia have given that the answer is "more than is needed" in both cases? It isn't like having "only" say 1,000 nuclear weapons in the US instead of 5,000 would really mean anything.

Is all just seems rather silly. If someone has a viable strategy for real global nuclear disarmament, I'm all ears. However this push to try and limit the numbers the US and Russia has seems like feel-good security theater. They'll agree to it because they know it makes no difference to their actual fighting capabilities. They can destroy a couple hundred nukes as a symbolic thing, probably the ones the computer simulations show are failing anyhow, and it changes nothing.

This is just silliness.

Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 07:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

The purpose of having so many is relatively simple: Modern SOP in regards to nuclear war is "Retaliation after Ride-out". "Launch on Warning" is simply impractical given the short time between the launch of a first strike and the warhead reaching its target. Therefore a country thinking about defense will have to work on the assumption of a large portion of its nuclear weapons being destroyed in the first strike, even after extensive hardening of the launching platforms. Depending on who you ask, the military assumes a worst case scenario where between 90-95% of its strategic nuclear weapons will be destroyed/damaged in a first strike. So if you have 5,000 strategic nukes, ICBM, SLBM, bomber launched cruise missiles, that means that after ride-out you should expect to have only 250 to 500 weapons operationally available with which to immediately retaliate against the aggressor nation.

Then also remember that you don't want to use all your working weapons against the first aggressor nation, there are other nations that may take advantage of the strike to attack you, so you need to hold back some weapons in reserve in case you need to use them against other aggressor nations.

Going from 5,000 to 1,000, assuming 90-95% losses in a first strike, means you now only have between 50 to 100 warheads with which to retaliate with. When you look at it that way,you can understand why having 10,000 nukes is not seen as excessive by many in the military. They don't see us having 10,000 nukes. They see us having 500-1000 nukes after a first strike. less in fact when you consider that many will be offline for maintenance. Figure retaining half for continued deterrence and then you only have a max of 250-500 nukes to immediately retaliate with.

Of course then there is the fact that nuclear disarmament would probably make large scale war MORE likely. With nukes you do not need a large standing army for national defense. (For national OFFENSE, what the US is doing today, you do.) Without them you have to expend vast resources maintaining a conventional military for purely defensive purposes. Seriously, why DIDN'T the Soviet Union just steamroll until they got to Gibraltar? They could have done so with conventional forces largely at any time during the Cold War. Because they knew full well that such an action would result in nuclear retaliation.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by realityimpaired · 2012-05-19 08:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

The number of weapons required to malfunction to cause serious problems: ONE. Even if it's a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% probability; the more weapons you have in more places, the more likely something goes wrong.
With you until you said that. Nuclear weapons are not stored in an armed state, and they aren't designed to keep a critical mass in such a configuration that it could turn into an uncontrolled fission. The absolute 100% worst case scenario possible would be that the non-nuclear part of the payload (which is used to mash the nuclear components together and trigger a critical mass detonation) could go off prematurely, but as the weapon is not stored in an armed state, that would not trigger a nuclear detonation (in the un-armed state, the physical position of the nuclear fuel is such that it would be blown away from each other, not towards, in the event that the explosive went off accidentally). It would, essentially, be a dirty bomb whose effective area would be contained to the storage facility in which it went off... dirty bombs are most effective when they're used outside where the local weather can carry the nuclear contaminants. Even that is not very likely, because the type of explosives they're using in modern weapons are extremely difficult to set off accidentally. (check youtube for a video of somebody cooking their lunch with burning c4... that stuff does not accidentally explode).
A *far* more likely scenario than anything you suggest would actually be some nuclear fuel "going missing". The problem with stealing a bomb is that somebody will notice it pretty much immediately. They're big, and difficult to transport. While you could fit one in an 18-wheeler, you'd have a hard time sneaking that truck into a military facility without being noticed. On the other hand, the nuclear fuel is significantly smaller and easier to transport. In theory, somebody could take the nuclear fuel from a weapon while working on it, and sneak it out in a briefcase. I would be extremely surprised if anybody ever managed to successfully do that, because my understanding is that they film people when working on nuclear weapons, and that nobody's ever left alone with a bomb.
You're right, it only takes one, but there are safeguards in place that provide an extremely small chance that any of the situations you suggest could ever happen. I would prefer nuclear disarmament too, but given that it's never going to happen, I'm comfortable with the safeguards in place. The engineers who designed these things are not morons, and designed them to fail safe (or at least, as safe as you can get with several kilograms of nuclear fuel involved).
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-19 08:10 · Score: 2

If nothing else, it's a cost-saving measure. Politically, you aren't allowed to use your nukes, or even test them much anymore; but that doesn't make them any cheaper to maintain, stockpile, keep ready for use, etc. A shiny, bilateral, humanitarian, oh-so-noble, strategic arms reduction treaty serves as a pleasantly face-saving way for both the US and Russia to say 'fuck it, this shit isn't worth the money'.

Nobody wants to be the first to blink; but being a 'responsible' nuclear power is actually pretty lame. You aren't allowed to do crazy tinpot dictator stuff, and your large conventional forces deter smaller competitors even without nukes; but you still have to pay upkeep, fret about loose cannons sneaking off with a warhead when you aren't looking, and so forth.

I'd wager that none of the nuclear powers would want to get rid of all their toys; but that the US and Russia are delighted to have been able to free up some of the cash spent on the ludicrious overkill buildup levels of the cold war and divert that to other uses...
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-05-19 08:25 · Score: 2

The usefulness of a weapon in preventing wars is directly proportional to the odds of it killing politicians. I mean its all fun and games sending off the flower of a country's youth to perish on some distant battlefield while you sit there sipping bourbon, and if worst comes to worst you can usually come to some sort of gentleman's agreement with your counterpart, but with nukes the supply of fine spirits gets rapidly curtailed along with oh, everything else.
Therefore the more self interested a politician is, the less likely they are to actually use serious weapons of mass destruction. Thus given the temperment of politicians everywhere, we should arm every country that's not a complete asylum with nukes, in order to secure world peace.
Yeah I'm a little jaded.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 08:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not to mention that even IF you steal one, good luck arming one. Nukes that are on active standby are heavily guarded and the detonators require pass codes to arm. Talked with someone whose duty was to guard nukes and his orders were, "ONE warning, if you do not get IMMEDIATE compliance, shoot to disable. If you can't shoot to disable, shoot anyway." People working on the weapons accidentally breaking procedure did happen on occasion, where they have to tell everyone to stop everything until the guards can sort everything out. Obviously everyone immediately complies because they know what the guards orders are and know if they get shot it's their own fault. Not unreasonable given what they are working on.

You can't just rip out the pass-coded detonator and wire all the blasting caps on the explosives together, to get the explosive "lens" in an implosion type weapon requires some blasting caps go off before others to take the core super-critical.If that timing is off all you get is a dirty bomb

Weapons that are not on active standby have vital parts removed including, when possible, the nuclear core.

This is done not only for safety, it prevents a saboteur from detonating a warhead. Worrying about a nuke accidentally going off is like me worrying about my car accidentally starting and driving over a little kid while I sit here in my house. Sure my car could accidentally catch fire, the horn could accidentally go off, but for the engine to accidentally start, the transmission accidentally shift into reverse, and the parking brake to accidentally disengage is an event so improbable that it is not worth considering.

They also don't store nukes in downtown New York, even though sometimes I think they should.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 08:53 · Score: 1

Far more money would be saved by downsizing ones conventional forces, we don't need them for defense. Strong Nuclear Triad, reasonably sized navy, small ground forces for small scale events. That's all you really need for defense.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by debrisslider · 2012-05-19 10:41 · Score: 1

Because the upkeep/maintenance costs for thousands of nuclear weapons is really expensive even today. A huge portion of the Department of Energy budget is devoted to nuclear weapons. So the fewer we have, the less money we spend, no? But the majority of nuclear weapons are for counterforce purposes - destroying military installations and other nuclear weapons. So a unilateral disarmament down to a fifth of the previous arsenal places the U.S. or Russia at an unacceptable risk for a decapitating first strike - regardless of how likely that actually is, you can't roll the dice with MAD. Both sides must have equivalent armament to assure MAD - you don't want to upset the strategic balance because even if you aren't realistically going to be attacked, a much greater nuclear arsenal still generates a lot of diplomatic soft power and you'll have the threat hanging over your head. I sure hope you don't make libertarian/tea-party posts elsewhere, because the cost difference between 1000 and 5000 is huge and both countries would dearly love to clear up some budgetary room at zero cost to their military's effectiveness. 1000 IS as effective as 5000 if both sides are at that level (and in the event of a nuclear war, 2000 exploded bombs results in much less fallout than 10000 - fallout is awful in either case, but you may as well have a whole lot less of it) and we're long past the one-upsmanship of the mid-period Cold War. Again, the majority of nuclear missiles are targeted at the other side's nuclear capabilities - it would take fewer than 1000 to decimate the civilian government, population, and infrastructure. We have no need to drive Russia into bankruptcy - indeed, Russian financial trouble is actually more likely to cause a nuclear incident, as weapons are stolen and engineering talent set free to be hired by other organizations and countries.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 11:02 · Score: 1

South Korea would wipe the floor with North Korea and you know it. North Korea does not have the materiel for a war with the South. SK spends over 10 times more than NK on defense. On paper it looks evenly matched with number of tanks and planes, but most NK equipment is obsolete and poorly maintained. NK does not have the logistics to steamroll anywhere, nor do they have an effective delivery system for their nukes.

If anyone used a nuke first it would be the North. China and Russia are going to be upset at NK, not anyone who retaliates with nukes against NK. Only reason nobody has invaded NK is because nobody wants it. No modern infrastructure, no resources, a largely illiterate population.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by mysidia · 2012-05-19 11:12 · Score: 1

You can't just rip out the pass-coded detonator and wire all the blasting caps on the explosives together, to get the explosive "lens" in an implosion type weapon requires some blasting caps go off before others to take the core super-critical.If that timing is off all you get is a dirty bomb
No, I certainly could not, but I am sure there are people that exist who would be able to defeat the pass-code protection or reset the code to a known quantity, or reverse-engineer the detonator and engineer their own, given a sufficient amount of time. There is also someone out there responsible for doing the manual work required to SET that passcode, and I wouldn't be too surprised if all units used the same passcode, and it was something simple like 000000.
Accidentally entering the passcode might not be too likely... but did you consider the possibility that a faulty electrical component in the unit's electronics or software results in it arming the device when it's not supposed to be armed, or acts as if a passcode has been entered and starts a countdown when no human has instructed it to arm or detonate?
This is done not only for safety, it prevents a saboteur from detonating a warhead. Worrying about a nuke accidentally going off is like me worrying about my car accidentally starting and driving over a little kid while I sit here in my house.
It's conceivable a short circuit and software bug in your computer-controlled ignition system could result in your engine starting.

If your parking break wasn't working for some reason, not in use, or controlled by a drive-by-wire system which also failed, it's possible your car would then lurch forward running over someone.
As small as the probability is, it's still far from zero, it's still a potential concern. Even if a car DOES do that, it's not that big a risk. And only a person standing directly ahead of the car is really at risk.
An accidental nuke detonation is a MUCH larger catastrophe.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Sycraft-fu · 2012-05-19 12:19 · Score: 2

Well I think the military disagrees with that now days, particularly when you see some of the things they've changed like bringing seafarer offline, moving NORAD out of Cheyenne Mountain and so on. Could well be because the only country with massive first strike capability was the USSR and these days we aren't worried about Russia doing that, never mind that we found out what a sorry state most of their weapons are in.
However none of that is relevant to my point of why are these people pushing for partial disarmament? This isn't Russia trying to trick the US in to less nukes, it is an anti nuclear weapons group saying "Well how about a little less?" My point was a little less is stupid. You either get rid of all of them globally (which of course won't happen) or you don't bother. Even if you eliminate a few a nuclear holocaust would still be perfectly possible.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Iskender · 2012-05-19 12:21 · Score: 1

Of course then there is the fact that nuclear disarmament would probably make large scale war MORE likely. With nukes you do not need a large standing army for national defense. (For national OFFENSE, what the US is doing today, you do.) Without them you have to expend vast resources maintaining a conventional military for purely defensive purposes. Seriously, why DIDN'T the Soviet Union just steamroll until they got to Gibraltar? They could have done so with conventional forces largely at any time during the Cold War. Because they knew full well that such an action would result in nuclear retaliation.
The little bit of political science I've read contradicts this, although I admit it's so little that I can't dig up any sources on short notice.
But the basic thing is this: if you have a lot of nukes you tend to build up a huge army precisely so that you'll never have to use them. You know nukes probably mean mutually assured destruction, so you never go "oh no problem, I'll just lean on the nukes".
Now, even though I live in Western Europe I think it's not that important: the Soviet Union was the only superpower to defend its home turf in Europe. It had a huge army. The US also had a huge army, but it didn't have its capital in Europe. The fact remains that both nuclear armed to the teeth superpowers also had strong conventional arms.
Also a quick check with unreliable sources gives
350,000 US troops in Europe in 1980. Add different national armies to this and the fact that the defender tends to be in a better position and the certain Soviet victory starts looking a lot less certain. Not to mention that 350 000 troops mostly standing guard far away from home hardly sounds like defence is cheap.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by turbidostato · 2012-05-19 12:23 · Score: 1

"The problem with stealing a bomb is that somebody will notice it pretty much immediately. They're big, and difficult to transport. While you could fit one in an 18-wheeler..."
Well, let's see what wikipedia has to say about the W62, the 170 kilotons warhead of which the Minuteman loads three: "The exact dimensions of the W62 are classified, but it fits within the Mark-12 reentry vehicle which is 22 inches in diameter and 72 inches long".
Kind of ridiculously tiny 18-wheeler, I should say.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by LordLimecat · 2012-05-19 12:39 · Score: 1

but did you consider the possibility that a faulty electrical component in the unit's electronics or software results in it arming the device when it's not supposed to be armed, or acts as if a passcode has been entered and starts a countdown when no human has instructed it to arm or detonate?
Probably no more than you have considered that your ATM will malfunction and randomly allow a PIN of 1111 to access your bank account, even without your ATM card.
I mean, if you want to doubt in the capability for reliable electronic authentication, why stop at warheads? Bad news for you, a large part of the world we live in relies on electronic authentication. Social security, loans, credit, payroll, taxes, communication....
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 13:03 · Score: 1

No, I certainly could not, but I am sure there are people that exist who would be able to defeat the pass-code protection or reset the code to a known quantity, or reverse-engineer the detonator and engineer their own, given a sufficient amount of time.
if you have that level of engineering expertise, just skip the whole "steal nuke" part and build your own with stolen enriched Plutonium.

Accidentally entering the passcode might not be too likely... but did you consider the possibility that a faulty electrical component in the unit's electronics or software results in it arming the device when it's not supposed to be armed, or acts as if a passcode has been entered and starts a countdown when no human has instructed it to arm or detonate?

Yes that was considered all the way back in 1945, which is why nukes back then had multiple interlocks to prevent such a thing. For example. Here is the firing sequence of a "Little Boy" nuke:

Several mechanical timer switches closed 15 seconds after the bomb was dropped. ( don't have an exact number of how many there were.) These timers cut-off the barometric switches, capacitor bank, and radar switches.

At 7,000' the barometric switches closed. I believe that there were a total of 4 barometric fuses, at least two had to activate to arm the third stage. When those fuses closed they, charged the capacitors that would set off the powder charge in the gun tube. They also turned on the radar fuses.

At 1,800' the radar switches closed. There were 4 radar fuses, at least two had to activate to detonate the device. When they do, the stored energy in the capacitors set off the charge and detonated the device.

Now, point out to me where the possibility exists that a faulty electrical component in the unit's electronics could detonate the bomb?

Doesn't matter if a barometric fuse is faulty, the timers and radar fuses stop it. In addition to the need for a second barometric fuse to fail in the correct way as well to complete the circuit.

If a single timer fails you either activate a barometric sensor, arm the capacitor bank, or a radar fuse, neither of which can detonate the bomb on its own.

If a radar fuse is defective, that can't detonate the bomb either. They aren't even powered on until the timers and barometric fuses close their relays and two radar fuses need to close before the bomb can detonate.

You don't have enough monkeys and typewriters to make your scenario anywhere realistic.

It's conceivable a short circuit and software bug in your computer-controlled ignition system could result in your engine starting.
Not really. The starter switch in the ignition key switch, on my car at least, has separate wires going to power the ignition, fuel pump, and the starter solenoid. You would HAVE to have all 3 fail in the correct way at the same time to start the car. Doesn't matter how buggy the software in the computer is, without the starter motor and the fuel pump, the car isn't going anywhere

As small as the probability is, it's still far from zero, it's still a potential concern. Even if a car DOES do that, it's not that big a risk. And only a person standing directly ahead of the car is really at risk.

Hey now, you forgot about the transmission failing and going into gear. This would have to happen after the engine started, as the car physically can't start while in gear.>

While you are correct that it is not zero probability, it is close enough to be considered zero.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by pngai · 2012-05-19 13:57 · Score: 1

And wikipedia says: The W80 is physically quite small, the "physics package" itself is about the size of a conventional Mk.81 250 pounds (110 kg) bomb, 11.8 inches (30 cm) in diameter and 31.4 inches (80 cm) long, and only slightly heavier at about 290 pounds (130 kg).
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 15:42 · Score: 1

But the basic thing is this: if you have a lot of nukes you tend to build up a huge army precisely so that you'll never have to use them. You know nukes probably mean mutually assured destruction, so you never go "oh no problem, I'll just lean on the nukes" Now, even though I live in Western Europe I think it's not that important: the Soviet Union was the only superpower to defend its home turf in Europe. It had a huge army. The US also had a huge army, but it didn't have its capital in Europe. The fact remains that both nuclear armed to the teeth superpowers also had strong conventional arms.
.
As opposed to building up a huge army because you don't have them?

No, the reason the Soviets had large conventional force was to keep satellite nations and their own civilian population in line

The US also did have large conventional forces because it was operating under the flawed premise of perpetual "Limited War" in the third world and desire to police the world. That theory will hopefully be shot in the head and burred for good after the last few we've been in

350,000 US troops in Europe in 1980. Add different national armies to this and the fact that the defender tends to be in a better position and the certain Soviet victory starts looking a lot less certain. Not to mention that 350 000 troops mostly standing guard far away from home hardly sounds like defence is cheap.
The Soviets outnumbered NATO 3-to-1 in tanks, which at the time were technically comparable to western tanks, and had over 50% more aircraft. They also had more troops, more APCs, more SAMs, etc. A war would have been costly, but eventually the Soviets could have very well taken Europe.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 15:45 · Score: 1

True, though I wonder if it is not partially because of increased technology that we simply don't need NORAD in a mountain anymore. With better and better communications tech even after a first strike retaliation will still take place.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by CodeBuster · 2012-05-19 15:48 · Score: 1

You can't just rip out the pass-coded detonator and wire all the blasting caps on the explosives together
Indeed. Bypassing a PAL [Permissive Action Link] should be, as one weapons designer graphically put it, about as complex as performing a tonsillectomy while entering the patient from the wrong end."
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-19 18:16 · Score: 2, Funny

More importantly, essentially all South Koreans under the age of 40 have the ability to stop a zerg rush encoded into their brainstems through sheer practice...
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by AmiMoJo · 2012-05-19 21:56 · Score: 1

North Korea already has nukes and Iran will probably get them in the next decade. We want them to have as few as possible, and reducing our own stockpiles is an important step that backs up our diplomatic efforts. We don't want another arms race.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by u38cg · 2012-05-19 22:57 · Score: 1

Because total disarmament is currently impossible because there is insufficient trust. Successful implementation of an arms reduction agreement brings the point where you have that trust closer.

--
[FUCK BETA]
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by cboslin · 2012-05-20 01:17 · Score: 1

Not to mention that even IF you steal one, good luck arming one. Nukes that are on active standby are heavily guarded and the detonators require pass codes to arm. Talked with someone whose duty was to guard nukes and his orders were, "ONE warning, if you do not get IMMEDIATE compliance, shoot to disable. If you can't shoot to disable, shoot anyway." People working on the weapons accidentally breaking procedure did happen on occasion, where they have to tell everyone to stop everything until the guards can sort everything out. Obviously everyone immediately complies because they know what the guards orders are and know if they get shot it's their own fault. Not unreasonable given what they are working on. You can't just rip out the pass-coded detonator and wire all the blasting caps on the explosives together, to get the explosive "lens" in an implosion type weapon requires some blasting caps go off before others to take the core super-critical.If that timing is off all you get is a dirty bomb Weapons that are not on active standby have vital parts removed including, when possible, the nuclear core. This is done not only for safety, it prevents a saboteur from detonating a warhead. Worrying about a nuke accidentally going off is like me worrying about my car accidentally starting and driving over a little kid while I sit here in my house. Sure my car could accidentally catch fire, the horn could accidentally go off, but for the engine to accidentally start, the transmission accidentally shift into reverse, and the parking brake to accidentally disengage is an event so improbable that it is not worth considering. They also don't store nukes in downtown New York, even though sometimes I think they should.
Why is this post rated down, it appears to be factual and accurate, so should be rated up based on that alone...at least as informative. With that said, anyone who supports anything Nuclear today is INSANE. Insanity as they expect a different result than Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl (1986; 1:32:59) and Fukushima (2011; 5:49) (which is ongoing and will be with us for the next 10 years releasing radiation all over the world as they have admitted they do NOT have the technology, nor will they in the next 10 to 20 year, to go in, down into the earth below the containment, safely retrieve the melted through cores and make them safe. They have admitted they can not do this and will not be able to do this in the next 10 years, period)

...Talked with someone whose duty was to guard nukes and his orders were, "ONE warning, if you do not get IMMEDIATE compliance, shoot to disable. ...
This is TRUE. I babysat for a Marine Colonel that was in charge of a nuclear facility. While there was layers of protection before anyone could get to it, the actual storage area was a mile or so rectangular field with two machine guns on two sides...if you did not immediately stop with one warning, they were under orders to shoot. So this is very TRUE.

They also don't store nukes in downtown New York, even though sometimes I think they should.
Insanity! They do not have too! There is a Nuclear plant closer (only 38 miles) to New York City than Fukushima is to Tokyo (200 miles?), I believe its called Indian Point (Vermont Yankee is approximately the distance to New York as Tokyo is to Fukushima) Why the focus on Tokyo, simple, high radiation levels are being measured there and have gotten only higher with each rain fall since the Fukushima Disaster. If that tilting Fukushima Reactor building tumbles (85 X more Cesium than Chernoby
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by mysidia · 2012-05-20 06:56 · Score: 1

if you have that level of engineering expertise, just skip the whole "steal nuke" part and build your own with stolen enriched Plutonium.
I assume defeating the security component would be easier and less costly for a bad actor to accomplish than to design and construct the whole thing from raw materials.
Yes that was considered all the way back in 1945, which is why nukes back then had multiple interlocks to prevent such a thing.
You mean before the mass production of many nukes became a priority, and some brilliant manager probably decided that eliminating redundancy would let them produce more nukes on their budget, and software automation of ICBM launch would reduce the amount of manpower required to maintain readiness?
Now, point out to me where the possibility exists that a faulty electrical component in the unit's electronics could detonate the bomb?
Undetected non-simultaneous failures of multiple different electronic components.
Not really. The starter switch in the ignition key switch, on my car at least, has separate wires going to power the ignition, fuel pump, and the starter solenoid.
There are a lot of cars nowadays, you can start with a push of a button in the car, or on a keyfob remote. "Starting when in gear" is not mechanically prevented, it is electrically prevented.
There are Electric-Unleaded Hybrids now that have a continuously varying transmission, so there's no such thing as "In gear"; Drive-by-wire systems, where Brakes, Throttle, and all the settings are controlled by computer.
Just like not all cars have the same design, not all nukes have the same design.
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by nonguru · 2012-05-20 13:49 · Score: 1

This may have been covered in other postings, one of the drivers for reducing nuclear stockpiles is cost. Many nukes - tactical or otherwise - suffer from technical obsolescence and the consequent maintenance difficulties. Nuclear inventory reduction and turnover makes a virtue out of a necessity... (Of course what is a government to do with all that unused plutonium/enriched uranium?)
Re:I have trouble seeing the point by crypticedge · 2012-05-21 02:27 · Score: 2

Mind not making up things about how the nuclear arsenal works? Some of us have actually worked on them and reading your posts makes me wonder about your sanity.
First it is 100% impossible for a nuke to go off on its own. Second, the techs never have access to the codes, nor an input method (contrary to movies, no US nuke has a keypad on them, all codes are sent from the platform they are fired from, something that only ICBM's are stored in and even still those are not stored hot so worst thing an accidental launch of those would do is bring a several ton slab of metal on someones house), nor do they have a way to change them considering it's a code that automatically changes every 10 seconds or so. This code cannot be caused by a short or other component due to the way things are interconnected and check one another. The warheads are also NOT in the missile before its ready to start loading, the techs that have access to the warheads are not the techs that know anything about how to manage the missiles at all. The missiles also cannot arm except in flight at all. There is a maneuver that has to be accomplished before the warhead arms, the code just puts it in a launch state, not an armed state. The weapon also has NO power source until the engine is running, something that cannot happen without the power from the launcher (something they are not stored in considering the launcher is a B-2 or B-52 depending on the model of missile)
I'm sorry to say, but the chance of a nuke going off on its own is exactly 0% so please stop spreading lies about it. You are statistically more likely to die of the moon crashing into you than a nuke accidentally going off in storage, testing or sabotage. Now due to opsec I won't be going into how each of these locks happen, but you are in more mortal danger from a keyboard injury.

Bad strategy by gmuslera · 2012-05-19 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since War Games we know that the only winning move is not to play

Re:Bad strategy by ScentCone · 2012-05-19 07:27 · Score: 2

Since War Games we know that the only winning move is not to play
Wrong, unless you include the rest of the correct notion. The only winning move is not to play, and to make sure that nobody else will or can, either. For those against whom a deterrent is appropriate, the "won't" part is fine. For those who are crazy or willing to sell the weapons to people who are, the "can't" part is more important.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Bad strategy by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 08:51 · Score: 1

For those who are crazy or willing to sell the weapons to people who are, the "can't" part is more important.
Except for the historical fact is that nobody is that crazy.

The Soviet Union wouldn't give China nukes, nor would they even give them assistance in developing their own.
China/Soviet Union sent large amounts of supplies to North Vietnam, never even considered giving them a nuke.
North Korea will sell it's missile tech, but no evidence of even them being crazy enough to sell a nuke.
Iran wouldn't give a nuke to the insurgents either. (For the simple fact that the insurgents would use it against the Iranians.)

Sure some counties may hand out conventional weapons like candy to their favorite proxys, but nukes are a different breed. Conventional weapons are like letting your friend sleep over at your house. Nukes are like putting their name on the deed. A country can always stop shipments of conventional weapons if they don't like what they are doing with them before things out of hand. Not so with nukes.
Re:Bad strategy by wer32r · 2012-05-19 09:11 · Score: 1

You forgot to add: For now...
Re:Bad strategy by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 09:50 · Score: 1

Please elaborate. I don't see the game changing all that much. If China, who had no problem with human wave attacks and killing tens of millions in its botched social programs, wouldn't give North Vietnam a Nuke then the same factors are at play with Iran, Pakistan, etc.

If you disagree please tell me why so I can address it.
Re:Bad strategy by Rezazur · 2012-05-19 10:07 · Score: 1

or to be player one...
obligatory smbc reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFCOapq3uYY
Re:Bad strategy by myowntrueself · 2012-05-19 13:56 · Score: 1

Since War Games we know that the only winning move is not to play
There was a little problem with that. it's quite possible to win tic-tac-toe....but it requires to things, you must strike first, and you must force the opponents first move to be where you want it. it's always bothered me.
And how do you force the opponents first move to be where you want it? You cover the tictactoe board with your hand leaving only one place open?

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

I always wondered about aircraft carriers by dragisha · 2012-05-19 07:20 · Score: 1

Why they are exempt from various quota talks?

Until I read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

So.. Where were we? Importance of arsenals?

--
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/

Re:I always wondered about aircraft carriers by 0123456 · 2012-05-19 08:16 · Score: 1

Why they are exempt from various quota talks?
Everyone knows that in a real war a carrier fleet is just a target-rich environment. Carriers are great for bombing third-world nations who can't shoot back, but not much use against modern missiles and submarines.
Re:I always wondered about aircraft carriers by DoninIN · 2012-05-20 01:57 · Score: 1

Who knows? These sort of experiments are tremendously costly in terms of cash, lives, and the political aftermath. But the current state of thinking, among those who do that sort of thing for a living. Is that this is not the case. Nor has it been the case for the most part since the aircraft carrier became the staple of US military power projection. Getting missile platforms within range of a carrier battle group, and then getting those missiles (Generally these things are the size a small airplane ) a target lock on the carrier, then those missiles flying to the target (Through a hail of missiles and at the end point-defense gunfire) and getting a hit. Don't forget quite powerful and active ECM, Chaff etc.
So it certainly doesn't seem to be an open and shut case. Now at the start of the war, the "bad guys" may get to start off close the carrier, and maybe they've got visual spotters, or electronic eyes on the target, think about those Soviet trawlers that used to sail around looking at the US navy during the cold war. Maybe that opening day a shot gets lucky. But probably not.

Re:Same same by JustOK · 2012-05-19 07:26 · Score: 2

short term, yes. Long term, no.

--
rewriting history since 2109

The Backyard Bomb by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 07:47 · Score: 1

Are you sure that just limiting the number is enough?

I am reminded of Edward Teller's backyard weapon: a bomb so powerful that it needed not being delivered physically on its intended target. Its yield was so high that it could have been simply detonated in the garden behind Edward Teller's home.

A backyard bomb would only count as one.

Re:The Backyard Bomb by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 08:58 · Score: 1

Yes, but the point is to destroy your enemy, not yourself.

Strategic, tactical, or . . . personal . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-05-19 07:52 · Score: 1

How small can you make a nuclear weapon critter anyway? Could individual soldiers carry something like a personal nuclear weapon? And would that make sense in a combat situation?

Of course, what terrorist folks would like to do with these is another matter.

Have any micro nukes been produced? Or would we even know if they had been?

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:Strategic, tactical, or . . . personal . . . ? by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-05-19 08:07 · Score: 1

How small can you make a nuclear weapon critter anyway? Could individual soldiers carry something like a personal nuclear weapon? And would that make sense in a combat situation?

If we accept the possibility of the Russian 'suitcase nukes', around 100lbs. The US W54 warhead was around 51lbs for the bare warhead. Wiki info here
Re:Strategic, tactical, or . . . personal . . . ? by Mindcontrolled · 2012-05-19 08:12 · Score: 1

Yes, micro nukes have been produced. Small enough to be shot with a recoilless rifle: Let me present the M388/Davy Crockett. Here is the relevant video. Whoever would want to fire a nuke, however small the yield, with a launcher limited to a 4000 m range is beyond be, though.

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Re:Strategic, tactical, or . . . personal . . . ? by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-05-19 11:51 · Score: 1

Whoever would want to fire a nuke, however small the yield, with a launcher limited to a 4000 m range is beyond be, though.
Says you, conveniently ignoring every suicide bomber in the known universe.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Re:Strategic, tactical, or . . . personal . . . ? by DoninIN · 2012-05-20 02:00 · Score: 1

You shoot, you jump in a hole. You'll almost certainly survive the immediate blast and radiation effects. Now you're long term survival may have been harmed. But in an alternate timeline where WWIII begins with tactical nukes back in the fifties/sixties and you find yourself on the front lines shooting Davy Crockett at the Russian steamroller. Tomorrow is about as long term as you've got to think about.

Re:Sure, but... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-19 08:02 · Score: 4, Informative

TFA's thesis is that there simply isn't a dividing line between 'tactical' and 'strategic' that makes your sentence meaningful.

Given the mixture of forward bases and in-air refueling that the nuclear powers certainly aren't going to give up(even if their intentions are purely conventional, being able to B-52 bits of the middle east is just too convenient) delivering a 'tactical' warhead(or 10) right down a 'strategic' target's chimney is a matter of little more than swapping some hardpoints, and the upper edge of the dial-a-yield ranges for 'tactical' devices are well into the realm of 'would ruin a population center's day' territory.

There are, certainly, some unambiguously 'strategic' weapons, of the 'bloody huge thermonuclear warhead on an ICBM' school and there are (a dwindling number of) oddball low-yield artillery shells, demolition charges, and other oddities from the heyday of nuclear optimism(for sheer weirdness, I'm fond of the 'Davy Crockett' system. Essentially a 'technical' as much beloved by ragged 3rd world armies; but with nuclear warheads...); but much of the active hardware falls into the awkward middle ground where, in order to be powerful enough to be worth the trouble of being nuclear, it could certainly bestrategic if asked, and purely because of what people expect from contemporary delivery sytems, even for boring chemical explosives, 'strategic' delivery capabilities are widespread.

What the hell is other? by madhi19 · 2012-05-19 08:13 · Score: 1

The last line of the post leave me perplexes. "strategic, tactical, or other". What the hell does "other" mean in that context? Are we talking railgun shooting nukes on top of bipedal tanks or maybe orbital bomb that look and behave like satellites. Or Super Doomsday Nuke capable of seeding the whole atmosphere with cobalt-60.

Re:Sure, but... by Elldallan · 2012-05-19 08:35 · Score: 2

Then you probably have little to no idea of what a tactical nuclear weapon actually is. Strategical nuclear weapons is generally considered to be an nuclear weapon with a yield greater than roughly 100kT(a tactical nuclear weapon thus is anything below 100kT).The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 13kT and the on that hit Nagasaki was estimated at 21kT so the only nuclear weapons ever deployed in war falls well within the tactical envelope and many of the MIRV warheads straddle the boundary and the majority of ballistic missiles use MIRV'ed warheads because they are so much harder to intercept effectively.

The distinction between strategical and tactical nukes becomes pretty moot at this point.
And considering that for example the B61 bomb has a variable yield anywhere between 0,3 and 340kT the definition of what is a tactical and what is a strategical nuke ceases to matter completely.

Personally I don't really care much whether it's a single multi-megaton nuke or several 100kT MIRVed nukes that kills, I'll be just as dead either way.

Re:Kinda like a nuclear hand grenade. by Mindcontrolled · 2012-05-19 08:58 · Score: 1

What's the point?

The point is, that by most likely sacrificing a launch team of three soldiers, you evaporate a tank column. Don't look at me, I did not invent that shit...

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

It's not the damage, its the word by backslashdot · 2012-05-19 09:44 · Score: 2

They could bomb the crap out of a city with 10 megatons of dynamite, nobody will give a crap. It'll be the second news item right after the important breaking news on who Snooki is dating.

Did anybody care when Dresden was bombed and tens of thousands of humans died? We don't hear anyone saying we mustn't have a repeat of Dresden. Noo .. it's we mustn't use nuclear weapons.

Mankind has a psychosis over radiation .. I'm telling you .. forget strategic nuke or midget nukes ... the issue is that its nuclear. It's radioactive.

A nuclear weapon stockpile is no longer a deterrence to war. Conventional armies still are. If someone tries to invade the US, conventional weapons can stop it much better and easier than nukes can. The most powerful nuclear weapon ever made has only a 50% kill ratio in a 15 mile radius .. you cannot scale much higher easily because the earth's curvature will prevent the blast from reaching far .. and if you detonate it high in the sky the blast pressure reduces pi-squared with distance-- so 15 miles is a reasonable upper limit ..and that's assuming it's in a city where the debris is a danger. OK, then what about using multiple nukes at the same time? It won't be wise ... due to fallout ..-> the radiation can gather into a cloud system and rain down on an allied location or worse if we are unlucky it may even get caught in a weather pattern that brings it here. When the US tested one of the first thermonuclear weapons in Bikini Atoll, Japanese fishermen on aboard the Daigo Fukuryu Maru died from the fallout that happened hours later .. they were 100 miles from the atoll. They got more radiation than if they were just 15 miles away. There is a map of the US and thyroid contamination due to fallout from the Nevada test sites at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_fallout_exposure.png You can see that Montana, which is a thousand miles from Nevada got most of the radioactive effect --- meanwhile people in Nevada itself and its neighbor California got much less radiation exposure.

If anyone anywhere uses a nuke, even a tiny tiny nuke and in self defense .. it will still GUARANTEE a new nuclear arms race. Rather than having a stockpile of nukes that can be compromised by a terrorist or psychopathic group of individuals -- it's better to have a very strong conventional army and a small well protected nuclear stockpile. Best of all deterrents though .. is diplomacy .. good foreign policy, being reasonable, not interfering except for extremes, and not bearing hatreds.

Re:It's not the damage, its the word by debrisslider · 2012-05-19 10:48 · Score: 1

I suggest doing some research about Dresden, many historians and ex-military feel that it was not justified, and an act of pointless brutality to the extent that some wish to call it a war crime.
Re:It's not the damage, its the word by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-05-19 11:56 · Score: 1

not interfering except for extremes
Judging by recent behaviour, the US of A (amongst others) is happy to interfere even if the only EXTREME is the extremely fabricated "evidence".

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

SDI relies on irony... by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-05-19 11:39 · Score: 1

Take rockets and advanced materials and social collaboration by engineers that could make the solar system rich through billions of self-replicating space habitats supporting trillions of human lives, and instead waste it all fighting over oil fields and on posturing about whose socioeconomic system is a little less broken given twenty-first century facts like advanced automation making most of the paid jobs go away...

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

Viable strategy for transcending arms races by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-05-19 11:52 · Score: 1

"If someone has a viable strategy for real global nuclear disarmament, I'm all ears."

http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

A real, non-hipster, way by Sycraft-fu · 2012-05-19 12:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

This guy thinks he's discovered some magic thought experiment that let you think everything away. No, not really. The problem is that there are hostile, sometimes crazy, nations that have nuclear weapons. There are other nations that are kinda bullies (like China) that have nuclear weapons too. So if the US, England, France, and let's say Russia too get rid of all their nuclear weapons, then all that happens is those nations have leverage to push them around.

Right now, China's nuclear arsenal is defensive only and that's all it can be. They tried to use it offensively, they'd risk total nuclear annihilation. However if nuclear weapons went away from the other nations, it would be feasible. China decides to invade Russia and don't say "that would never happen" realize a small border conflict, with fatalities, happened in 1969, and a larger one happened in 1929. So they decide to invade to take land, which they quite want and need. Russia responds with conventional weapons and is doing well in the fight but China threatens them off: Leave us alone or we'll nuke a few cities. What is Russia to do?

Or worse yet, you take North Korea. Again, right now there's an understanding that if they nuked SK or Japan, it would mean nuclear annihilation for them and crazy though their leaders may be, they don't want to die or become rules of the glass parking lot. However with the US nuclear threat gone? Maybe they decide to go for it, nuke the major military installations in SK and Japan, and invade. What do they care? The life of their citizens doesn't matter to them and they aren't getting nuked back.

That's why I say there's no viable strategy. Doesn't matter what you could talk the US and Russia in to, they aren't the only ones who have nuclear weapons and there are likely to be more nations in the future, not less. If you think you can "irony" North Korea or China or Israel or Pakistan in to giving up their weapons, good luck with that, however until that happens, don't bother trying with the US or Russia.

Re:A real, non-hipster, way by Bomazi · 2012-05-20 01:33 · Score: 1

The first step is for the US and Russia to transition to a policy a minimal deterrence and reduce their stockpile to no more than a few hundred weapons each. That would put them at the same level as everyone else.
Then we can start talks that involve all nuclear powers. Will it be possible to agree on global disarmament ? Maybe not, but we won't know until we try. The problem today is that other countries are not interested in even talking about disarmament as long as the US and Russia maintain such ridiculously large arsenals.
By the way no one is suggesting that the US and Russia disarm completely while China doesn't.

US Russian and Chinese nukes aren't the problem. by couchslug · 2012-05-19 13:38 · Score: 1

The have ensured a remarkably peaceful era and continue to do so.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re:Sure, but... by couchslug · 2012-05-19 17:31 · Score: 1

Tactical nukes make nuclear war practical. Be careful what you wish for.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re:Same same by couchslug · 2012-05-19 17:35 · Score: 1

Small tac nuke wars aren't necessarily "armageddon."

The equivalent of a small nuclear war was detonated above ground in the US, and again in the Pacific.

Here's a fun exercise.

Print a paper map of Iran and of Israel, grab a thumb tack for every atmospheric nuclear test, and "get to sticking".

They could largely exterminate each other without doing much collateral damage. Yes, really.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re:Sure, but... by IAN · 2012-05-19 21:37 · Score: 2

Tactical nukes make nuclear war practical.

That's what the nuclear-capable nations' militaries hoped for, but it didn't turn out that way. As already stated in a number of posts above (and argued in TFA), the distinction between tactical and strategic nukes is very difficult to make. Nuclear weapons are simply too powerful (and too dirty, regardless of the size) to be useful in a tactical setting.

One party which seems to have recently realized this is, wonder of wonders, North Korea. There are strong indications that their designed yield was about 4 kT. A piddly tac nuke, right? Well, as mentioned in the discussion after the referenced article, imagine those 4 kT going off in the heart of Seoul or Tokyo...

Re:Same same by TheRaven64 · 2012-05-19 22:35 · Score: 1

Actually, there'd probably be quite a lot of collateral damage in that scenario, specifically from contaminated oil fields. The sudden increase in the price of oil would have a significant impact on the US economy (less so on Europe, where taxation levels largely isolate consumers from the commodity cost of oil).

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:Sure, but... by BlueParrot · 2012-05-19 23:00 · Score: 1

There are, certainly, some unambiguously 'strategic' weapons, of the 'bloody huge thermonuclear warhead on an ICBM'

Many of the ICBM's have selective yield, and even with the max yield they are not particularly powerful for nukes to be. The most powerful weapons are the ones dropped by aeroplanes, and they typically have megaton yields.

Re:Sure, but... by Patch86 · 2012-05-19 23:01 · Score: 1

The definition has always been artificial, even when you get into fiddly discussions about warhead size. Tactical usually means "destroy stuff for a short term advantage", and strategic is "destroy stuff for long term advantage". The weapon used to do this is pretty much irrelevant.

Destroying a tank factory is strategic, and you can do it with a spread of piddly little Hellfire missiles from attack helicopters if you can get close enough. Destroying a tank column as it moves across the countryside would be tactical, and you could do that by dropping a megaton nuke if you so desired (and were a fan of overkill).

And as you rightly say, once the MIRV was invented,warhead size became more or less irrelevant even in terms of widespread destruction. An ICMB packed full of dozens of small warhead could level a city far more efficiently than a single Tsar Bomba style mega bomb.

Re:Same same by Patch86 · 2012-05-19 23:03 · Score: 1

And I think we can all agree, it's better to be short term dead than long term dead.

Transcending to a Newer Way Of Thinking by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-05-20 01:08 · Score: 2

"The problem is that there are hostile, sometimes crazy, nations that have nuclear weapons"

Like the USA? :-) If not today, maybe after the next election? What about a country that has institutionalized torture, that has about a quarter of its population food insecure, that is becoming completely dependent on other countries for consumer goods, and that is blowing up people around the world with killer robots, is sane?

You may be unable to see the forest of my point for the trees of your strategic reply, perhaps because you are caught up in short-term thinking about the rationality of military planning (each point making sense by itself) while missing the overall increasing systematic risk? That is the kind of thinking that lead to the recent global economic crisis --- every local economic decision making sense locally, but then the whole house of cards collapsing as the system collectively passes some phase change boundary (like heated water starting to turn into steam). Like pollution, increasing systemic risk is an externality often unaccounted for in local decision making (whether economically or militarily).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is based on rationality at all levels of the system (except that the whole approach is crazy for reasons I mention below). You just said there are crazy people out there. So MAD will not work. It can not keep working indefinitely for exactly the reasons you mention ("hostile, sometimes crazy"). Seriously, why should a crazy leader of either North Korea or the USA not just start nuking other countries because they think they are on some mission from god or something and everyone else is to terrified to stop them? Example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
"George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month."

Another source from before Bush's election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
"''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.'' "

You're also ignoring the bigger issue is that WMDs is no longer purely a national problem. Like has happened so many times before, the technologies like nuclear weapons, designer plagues, nanotech, cyberwarfare, or killer robots, that once were only in the control of big countries are going to eventually filter down to the average small country or even small group or individual. Our entire military doctrine is out-of-sync with emerging 21st century realities.

Or, as George Orwell said:
http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/authors/george-orwell
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, is possible to carry this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

An essay I wrote on that general issue:
"Problems of the MAD doctrine, their consequences, and positive alternatives"
http://groups.google.com/group/virgle/browse_thread/thread/6b18338b6b947931
"The policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) wi

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

Re:Transcending to a Newer Way Of Thinking by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-05-20 01:19 · Score: 1

Sorry, that should read: "Another source from before Bush's *re-*election:"

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

Twenty Tons of TNT needs updating.... by dmgxmichael · 2012-05-20 03:55 · Score: 1

Time to update the lyrics to this song - anyone got the current figures?

Flander's and Swann - 20 Tons of TNT

I have seen it estimated:
Somewhere between death and birth
There are now three thousand million
People living on this earth
And the stock-piled mass destruction
Of the Nuclear Powers-That-Be
Equals--for each man or woman--
Twenty tons of TNT.

Every man of every nation
Twenty tons of TNT
Shall receive this allocation
Twenty tons of TNT.
Texan, Bantu, Slav or Maori,
Argentine or Singhalee,
Every maiden brings this dowry
Twenty tons of TNT.

Not for thirty silver shilling
Twenty tons of TNT
Twenty thousand pounds a killing--
Twenty tons of TNT.
Twenty hundred years of teaching,
Give to each his legacy,
Plato, Buddha, Christ or Lenin,
Twenty tons of TNT

Father, Mother, Son and Daughter,
(Twenty tons of TNT)
Give us land and seed and water,
(Twenty tons of TNT.)
Children have no need of sharing;
At each new nativity
Come the ghostly Magi bearing
Twenty tons of TNT

Ends the tale that has no sequel
Twenty tons of TNT.
Now in death are all men equal
Twenty tons of TNT.
Teach me how to love my neighbour,
Do to him as he to me;
Share the fruits of all our labour
Twenty tons of TNT.

Re:Sure, but... by DougF · 2012-05-20 07:25 · Score: 1

Ummm...no. As a former member of a nuclear-capable military and one who handled a variety of nuclear weapons, we NEVER hoped nuclear war would be practical, or that certain capabilities would make nuclear war practical. We did hope that the weapons would be effective and therefore invoke the MAD theory. The terms "tactical" and "strategic" initially evolved from the distance to the target, as in Strategic Air Command and Tactical Air Command. For the conventional side of the military house, tactical and strategic are still used but now (since Gulf War I) describe the value of the target, not it's distance, since weapons platforms can hit targets with either tactical or strategic value. Which is why TAC and SAC were reconfigured into Air Combat Command. (Note: Don't get me started on how badly ACC screwed up their nuclear mission responsibilities and why the "Global Strike Command" was formed to take over the nuclear mission.) If TFA is correct and nuclear planners (on both sides) still use "tactical" and "strategic" to describe nuclear weapons then they should adopt the conventional method of ascribing tactical and strategic values to the targets, not the weapon systems.

--
Impetuous! Homeric!

US & Russia not the problem by bryan1945 · 2012-05-20 14:39 · Score: 1

I think they figured out that using them is bad. I'm worried about the other countries that have them, or may soon acquire them. Or worse, the nukes that have gone missing from the old USSR stockpiles and whoever has those.
So the big guys can do all the talking they want, but the next nuke explosion is coming from somewhere else. But I hope to God, Cthulhu, and FSM that another nuke is never fired.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.

Slashdot Mirror

Sidestepping Tactical Nuclear Weapons Limits With Strategic Bombs

99 of 138 comments (clear)