Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Arms Cuts, Supported By 56% of Americans, Would Make the World Safer
Lasrick writes "Kingston Reif of the Nukes of Hazard blog writes about nuclear arms reductions are back in the news, thanks to President Obama's State of the Union address and now also a Gallup poll that shows 56% of Americans support U.S.-Russian reductions. From the Article: 'A recent report by the Center for Public Integrity revealed that senior Obama administration officials believe the United States can reduce its arsenal of deployed strategic warheads to between 1,000 and 1,100 without harming national security. Those numbers would put the total below levels called for by New START...' Congressional Republicans of course are against those cuts; Reif lays out why the cuts would make the U.S. and the world safer."
Do we even need a thousand nuclear warheads?
Need to mind the mineshaft gap!
Says who? And will countries like NK or Iran follow suit or not? And does that result play into the discussions at all?
Opinions do not equate to facts, yet some people like reporting as if they do.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why are talks between us and Russia while China is rapidly increasing their nuclear stockpile?
My understanding is that you are basically correct.
In-fact, one of the big points about the current anti-missile systems is that they do not have enough capacity to prevent strategic nuclear strikes from Russia or China. The goal is to make sure that they could always nuke us if they needed too. Which is a rather screwed up design feature; but it's understandable that we don't want to undermine their nuclear deterrence.
Because the US and Russia possess two orders of magnitude more nuclear weapons than China possesses. Even after reduction each will individually hold more than four times what China currently holds.
With Russia embracing democracy, more or less, there is less concern about it trying to conquer the world, as seemed to be a prime Soviet ambition. Meanwhile, China's government (not so much its people) is still bellicose, and has been significantly increasing its offensive capabilities in recent years. We can't drop the MAD paradigm just yet, because of China.
If 1000 to 1100 warheads is sufficient for the most paranoid people on the planet who are fully informed about the situation,
I assume you are referring to the Obama administration officials who came up with the 1000-1100 number here. What makes you think they are the most paranoid people on the planet? I'd say they were probably leaning mostly towards the world being all unicorns and glitter except for small pockets of Nickelodeon slime that haven't gotten the message yet.
Do we even need a thousand nuclear warheads?
If we ever want to travel to Alpha Centauri we do. How about putting those nukes toward the construction of an interstellar pulsed nuclear space drive?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I think we should send some of what we have now on a one-way trip to North Korea. That would make everyone happy. For the liberals we would have actually reduced the number left. For the conservatives we would have used them as intended and made the U.S. much safer by demonstrating that they can be used and are not just an empty threat.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You don't need 1000's of nuclear warheads to punch through one.. 1000's of conventional warheads and a dozen nuclear warheads would work just fine.
Actually, you don't even need that. As each ICBM reaches space, it could pop out a few dozen mylar balloon decoys. The balloons will cool rapidly in space, so you put a small IR LED with a button-cell battery in each one to give it the same heat signature as a real warhead. Of course the balloons will disintegrate as soon as they hit the atmosphere, but by then it is too late.
where do you get the absurd idea that nuclear weapons could even kill all the population once? Hollywood?
The difficult part about getting defense people to commit to decreasing the stockpile is that we have no idea when, if ever, we will be able to start producing new warheads. That turns it from being a discussion about how many we strategically need, towards a discussion about how certain were are that the stockpile we have will still be functional when we need it, and "can't we keep them all just in case". It would suck to destroy an entire line of warheads because they seem least valuable today, only to find out later that the ones we kept had an aging problem we couldn't detect before which didn't effect the destroyed line.
Actually, you don't even need that. As each ICBM reaches space, it could pop out a few dozen mylar balloon decoys. The balloons will cool rapidly in space,
And because of their tiny mass will almost immediately slow to zero velocity. If your DEW radars cannot differentiate between something moving at a considerable percent of the speed of sound and a balloon floating around with the wind, you need a better DEW line. "Hey, look, Bob, those incoming missles that were targeting Memphis are now going at only 120 knots and are aimed at the North Pole!"
That's not really an overwhelming majority, is it? So what, take action anyway and to hell with the concerns of the other 38-44 percent who don't agree that it's a great idea? That could arguably be cited as an example of a tyrannical majority.
(I personally think 1,000 warheads is plenty enough to deter rogue states or factions that happen to get a few nukes and an urge to blackmail with 'em, but there's principle here.)
Don't forget he mentioned they were in space, so it will take a lot longer for them to slow down than you think. The timing is tight enough that it could cause some issues.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
"In space" doesn't mean "hard vacuum." The low mass (so they can carry enough of them) combined with the large surface area (to mimic a large object) will make them decelerate rapidly enough that they won't confuse anyone for very long. Then remember that the real ICBM has been tracked from very close to the surface, so if one missile suddenly turns into 99 missiles slowing down very quickly and 1 that keeps the same trajectory, you can be pretty confident you know which one is real and which is chaff. Then you'll see one missile descending into the atmosphere and 99 that aren't, the jig will be up.
With Russia embracing democracy, more or less
I'm going with "less"
China has no more ambition or motive to attack the US than Russia does. Sure they are a superpower, and therefore dangerous, but if that is enough to keep MAD, then there is no "just yet" about the situation, they will always (for the foreseeable future) be a superpower, so by your logical we must always have MAD.
Right, at their current rate of expenditure their military should catch up with our current levels in only what, about 50-100 years. And I'm sure that has nothing to do with their being surrounded by a number of hostile and/or unstable countries within easy striking distance. Or as a deterrent against the one currently unopposed superpower that's apparently feeling it's oats and picking fights anywhere there's money to be made.
Frankly, I suspect the day China presents a credible military threat to the US will be the day our government has already crumbled from within.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Which are extremely easy to detect.
Are they radiological or not? Can be detected from a distance and easy to distinguish from something without enough material to pose a large scale threat.
In reality however ...
ICBMs are not what you should be concerned about.
Its the nuclear subs sitting 20 miles off the coast of ... well, everywhere, that are fully capable of launching a hundred nuclear tipped cruise missles at a moments notice ...
We've been backing off ICBMs for over 30 years. Believe it or not, that is shitty tech for the purpose at hand.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Who gives a shit what 56% of the general populace think? They aren't qualified to have a meaningful opinion.
Did I miss the high school class on thermonuclear tactics? Pretty sure I would have gone to that.
Actually, that was never a "prime Soviet ambition," except in the minds of the McCarthy-era US propaganda machine. Communist doctrine held by the Soviet leadership was focused on dealing with all the internal difficulties of managing their own economy. Yes, they hoped that workers in other countries would see their shining example and start their own revolutions (and they did provide friendly support for that). America, however, was the country exporting weapons and training dictators' death squads to brutally suppress left-leaning democratic movements across the globe.
What happens?
Nothing happens, as is clear since we're having this discussion.
Did you have point?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You might want to recheck that. The average nuclear warhead in the US arsenal is approximated to be 33,500 kilotons (slightly larger than the well known B41). For comparison, the nukes used in/on Japan were 15 and 21 kilotons. 33,500 kilotons is large enough to destroy/kill everything in a 55-60 mile diameter. It would take about 1000 of these to DIRECTLY kill everything in the United States. Factor in the indirect damage (nuclear poisoning, fallout, etc etc), and you could kill everyone in the United States with far far fewer. India (for example only), has 1/3rd the area of the United States. It would take probably 100 33.5 megaton nuclear bombs to kill everyone in an area equal to the size of India, and it would likely kill a couple hundred million of people not in that area.
That's completely false, most modern missile-based nukes are in the hundreds of kilotons, like 100-500 kt. 33.5 megatons is larger than the largest bomb we've ever had in service, the B53 at 9 megatons.
I'm fairly confident you could drop 900 missiles on the US and not get most of my friends. I admit, I'm currently in an urban area so I'd get toasted, but America isn't (insert whatever country your from that clearly is THE SHIT compared to us) so don't assume we're as retarded and all live in 3 cities. America is broken into the 3 parts. West coast, East of the Mississippi, and 'no mans land' in the middle. While they could wipe out the east and west coasts and a few of the larger central cities with those 900, they wouldn't be able to blanket the entire area of the East of the Missippi.
Facts from areas with ACTUAL bombs dropped on them show that the 'fallout' isn't nearly as life ending as its made out to be in hollywood. In fact, there are more people living on land that has had nukes detonated on it now than there were before the nukes were detonated.
900 nukes would not make Fallout a reality, contrary to what you might think. I'd worry if you thought we'd get his by say ... 4000 or so (the entire ACTIVE arsenel of russia or the US for instance) ... well, I'd be a little more concerned with how much habitable parts of the US there were left.
If the radiation from the blast is going to kill you, you'll be vaporized by the heat first.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
China isn't a super power. They're at best 2nd world
I'm not sure you understand the definition of the phrase super power.
Not even close to true. China claims 240. However, that is impossible. Their claimed boomers alone would have about 500 warheads. And with what is thought to exist on boomers, would mean over 750 warheads just for subs. That does not include their air force, their land based mobile launchers, and their recently acknowledge 3000 mile + tunnels underground that China now says does indeed have a whole other set of mobile launchers/missiles.
Even now, they just launched a new solid missile, the DF-41, that is a MIRV with 10 warheads. The DF-31s which had 3 warheads was fairly short range and would target Russia, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Phillipines, and India. They are known to have over 1000 of these. Now, with the new DF-41's, they can go all the way around the globe. These are designed for Europe and America. And apparently, they have started active production of these. It is unknown what the quantities will be. BUT, I doubt it will 10 missiles.
Regardless, China obviously has a LOT LOT LOT more than 240 warheads. And the nuke site that was discovered during the earthquake (along with their military tunnels), would hint that they are in active production on these.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
China has stealth aircraft and bombers, a more prolific nuclear program than the United States, several centers with very reliable high speed internet that is better than most Americans (Beijing and Shanghai in particular), and spends the second most money on military in the world, albeit badly dwarfed by the United States (albeit most work is 1/3 to 1/4 the cost). If they aren't a super power, then Russia isn't, either.
you can be pretty confident you know which one is real and which is chaff.
I'm no rocket scientist, but it was my understanding that the decoys are deployed from the same bus as the MIRV warheads at the apogee of the flight. This serves to maximize the amount of time that both decoys and warheads spend above 120 nautical miles for maximum confusion of a target attempting to play the warhead shell game. Of course, if the weapon is of the Fractional Orbital Bombardment type (now banned by treaty) the MIRVs and decoys could separate from the missile on separate orbital trajectories until de-orbitng for attacks or feints.
Which means you get wiped out while your missles are in space waiting for the re-entry time ...
At an altitude of 100km, you reach the Karman Line, which is generally considered the threshold of space. The air density at that altitude is 1/(2.2 million) the surface density. At ICBM trajectory has an apogee of 1,200 km. Since the density decreases exponentially, it will be far, far less at that altitude. So I don't think either the balloons or the warhead would slow down enough to matter.
To clarify, I mean they will kill you instantly with the neutron flux produced by the Uranium-238 stage fissioning. Instantly. Not "give you radiation sickness, then you die two weeks later", I mean it will fuck up your brain's electro-chemical system enough to render you instantly dead, even if you are completely protected from the heat, blast, and have a self-contained air supply. So yes, I would say that the blast is something we do have to worry about. Depending on the weapon in question.
Totally right. The USA-UK-Canada-Australia alliance is the only superpower in the world.
First off, China is a RICH nation. Make no mistake. They have trillion+ of dollars that they are sitting on. They are NOT a poor nation.
In addition, they are NOT a democratic gov. or even a capitalist economy. The fact is, that the economy is split into 2 with those companies that export being capitalists, while those that are tied to the gov, esp. the PLA, being a pure command situation.
With China's earthquake loads was discovered about them. That 3000 miles of underground railway was a shocker. And the fact that they had an underground hidden nuke operation by the reservoir was also a shock. That alone should be a sign that it is very possible for China to have a reactor down there, being cooled by the reservoir and would NEVER be seen by space.
Now, as to MAD, let me explain how this works. Basically, both sides have to have systems that are either 100% first strike, with limited retailiation, OR nearly 100% defense, with limited first strike. Most importantly, neither side can have a true missile defense system. Now, W killed that and the neo-cons are pushing for us to put up a BMD system. However, it should be obvious to all, that we have gone nowhere with it. As such, we are still playing by the MAD logic that America and USSR had. Now, along comes China who does not tell what they have. However, we are finding out all the time that they are far more advanced than they let on to. In particular, they DO appear to have loads more BMD than is acknowledged. For starters, they took out a sat that was quite high (500 miles+). But it continues to get better. For starters, they have multiple ground based lasers designed to shoot into space. They have already taken out multiples of our sats. In addition, their space station is a military base. It is NOT a civilian program. They have stated that no civilians or non-chinese will be on-board. All in all, it is obvious that China is working against MAD, and is looking for a number of leg ups. That implies first strike and their entertaining the idea of winning a nuke war. And I am not wild about ANY military officer thinking that. EVER. That is why the worst thing that could happen is to cut down warheads.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We've surrounded Iran with dozens of military bases, crashed their economy and currency with sanctions, illegally threatened them with military force, and committed multiple acts of war on a country over the....nuclear weapons program both the CIA and Israelis admit they don't have.
So when does Iran get to threaten the United States for being in "material breach" of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires disarmament for countries already in possession of nuclear weapons?
The world would also have been safer if the USSR had won the cold war and we'd all be living under a communist dictatorship. Safety isn't all that matters.
This is dead on correct. Balloons on trajectory traveling just around mach 25 won't hit atmo with sufficient density to slow them down until about 5 minutes before the real warheads impact. There is no way to effectively respond in that time window. This is a completely effective strategy.
>The one where the democratically elected Afghani government
Since when are coup d'etats "democratically-elected"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saur_Revolution)
You are an idiot. The coup took place after the former prime minister of Afghanistan (Daoud Khan) moved to increase ties with the West, and to distance itself from the USSR. It was the commie stooges that overthrew the government that called for help from Moscow, not some democratically-elected nonsense. And did so after their disastrous policies alienated the entire country. The US poured aid money into the opponents after the communist coup.
>Yeah, US funding/training for those great up-and-coming Anti-Communist Freedom Fighters like Osama Bin Laden
Osama wasn't funded or trained by the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_%E2%80%93_al-Qaeda_controversy)
You, sir, are a dancing fucking moron.
Hardly, governments don't have the same relationship to money as people. Our debt is denominated in dollars, so if China tried to call in our debt we could just print that many fresh dollars and call it good. Of course that would devalue the dollar a bit, but better than foreclosing on the country.
Not to say that economic warfare isn't viable, it's just a far more nuanced game than you're suggesting.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
China a threat? They hold 1/4 of the external treasury bonds.!! (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt)....USA is flowing billions of $ to China to buy their products and the chinese cheap labor keeps the phones and tablets prices low in USA....there is no economic reason to act. It's just big money....no ideologies involved. Iran? No way...it's much better for the big money laundry scheme to keep an enemy alive than destroying him....where do you think all the money for the cold war had gone if the USSR had been destroyed?? trillions of taxpayers $ now are in hands of family and friends of private defense corporations....and they must keep the faucet flowing!!...a new spa in the alps, condos in big cities, a 300 acre vineyard in Italy (Ferrari included).... "see your taxes at work!"