Slashdot Mirror


US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

FreedomFirstThenPeac writes: As a former Cold Warrior (both launch officer side and staff analytical mathematician side), I now appreciate the bitterness I saw in former WW2 warriors when they would see a Japanese car. According to the NY Times, a new assembly plant in Kansas is "part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. This expansion comes under a president who campaigned for 'a nuclear-free world' and made disarmament a main goal of American defense policy." Mind you, Mutual Assured Destruction is a dangerous path, and one we managed to negotiate only because we were lucky (and we were) and because we were careful (and we were).

As a strategy, it only works with rational people (e.g., world powers with lots to lose) who might have irrational expectations that they will win in the long run. (The rapid fall of imperialist Russia was helpful — I have seen blackboard talks on this as a mathematical result in game theory. This speed minimized the time we spent in the high-risk regions while transiting from MAD to where we were in the 1990s). The Times article says, "The original idea was that modest rebuilding of the nation’s crumbling nuclear complex would speed arms refurbishment, raising confidence in the arsenal’s reliability and paving the way for new treaties that would significantly cut the number of warheads. Instead, because of political deals and geopolitical crises, the Obama administration is engaging in extensive atomic rebuilding while getting only modest arms reductions in return."

10 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Re:MAD by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, those same psychopaths have big ass bomb shelters with enough supplies to last at least a century. Do you really think that they would launch without being in their bunkers? Even better, do you believe that peons will be invited inside? Psychopaths are not stupid. Immoral and egotistical sure, but not stupid.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  2. Logical Steps to MADness by gus+goose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, you identify yourself as personally involved in both the tactical, and theoretical side of an issue that spans generations now, and then you extend that back to WW2. Skip forward to current-day Kansas, link in the politics of the current president, quoting (hopefully accurate) political campaign rhetoric (with an undercurrent of disdain).

    Now, throw in the logical statement "Mind you, Mutual Assured Destruction is a dangerous path" ... really, it's a dangerous path?

    Then, jump to the strategic level where we assume you are correct that it only works with rational people (and let's also assume you are assuming that American people (voters) and politicians are rational too).

    now throw in some blackboard theory from the 90's.... and viola!

    Obama's policies don't get enough peace in return....

    I imagine there's maybe 1, or 2 people in the world who can navigate sanely though that argument chain.... certainly not me. So. This is one of those.... blah blah blah posts that says more about submitters to slashdot than American policy.

    --
    .. if only.
  3. Re:MAD by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MAD prevented WWIII. I don't care whether the people who build them or the people who authorize their construction are corrupt, or worship a giant statue of a sexually aroused Beelzebub, the fact is that we are kept largely secure from would be Napoleons, Hitlers and Stalins by the mere fact that these weapons exist.

    Hitler would have pushed the button just before he pulled the trigger.

    MAD only works when all the owners of knukes are reasonably sane.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  4. Re:MAD by BringsApples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MAD prevented WWIII

    WWIII is the war on terror.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  5. Re:"imperialist Russia" by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Soviet Union (USSR) included Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Its sphere of influence, the Warsaw Pact nations (the Iron Curtain), included Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungry, Bulgaria, East Germany, Romania, Albania and Yugoslavia.

    The USSR's influence extend well beyond these nations, to North (and now South) Vietnam, North Korea, various Central and Latin American nations.

    This extended Russia's 'borders' greatly.

    Claiming the U.S. was a uniquely global empire from the 50s to the 80s is disingenuous. Even now, I'n not sure we can claim a global empire, whether by design or incompetence being a question for the scholars.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  6. Re:You sound awfully concerned about by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We were never able to destroy the world several times over...

    Over 1,000 nuclear weapons have been detonated on Earth in the past 50+ years...

    We're all still here...

    It would take more than we've got to kill everyone, much less do any real lasting harm to the planet...

  7. Japanese Cars versus rearmament by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a former Cold Warrior (both launch officer side and staff analytical mathematician side), I now appreciate the bitterness I saw in former WW2 warriors when they would see a Japanese car.

    Grumbling at a Japanese car because "We beat the Japs, now you won't buy American cars!" isn't quite the same as "I manned a US nuclear silo during the Cold War, and now the USA is refreshing the nuclear weapons stockpile". Maybe "we beat the Ruskies, and now you order brides via mail from Russia!" or "I manned a US Flying Fortress during WWII and now the USA is refreshing the Air Force with new bombers" might be closer to the two expressed sentiments. One is "I've been trained to hate a particular enemy", the other is "War. War never changes."

  8. Re:MAD by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    MAD only prevented WWIII from going nuclear. The damage is far more insidious than a brilliant flash and a three mile wide mushroom cloud, the State are fucking our kids.

    They block, obfuscate, ridicule and incarcerate using false accusations such as arson, those who try and go public with their experiences in State abuse situations (Melanie Shaw, who attempted to go public with her survivor's tale of sexual abuse, trafficking and murder in Nottinghamshire got her jailed without access to medication or any medical help whatsoever - not even a visit from a chaplain - and no access to legal advice to challenge her unlawful incarceration AKA abduction while her repeatedly-delayed "swift trial by jury" (actually, a summary hearing by a single judge as it is more likely to end up being) is now put back until NEXT YEAR. Today she went on hunger strike at privately-run high security jail Peterborough). They've been doing this shit for years and as recently as 2010 they changed the Law so that children who were being abused in State "care" were not allowed to file grievances against the local authorities.

    Fuck your nukes, I don't care about them. Let's talk about what we're going to do about these paedophiles in power.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  9. Re:It is all pork barrel politics by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because Obama's campaign slogan was "A Nuclear-Free World" doesn't mean he can't lie

    This isn't evan a lie. The best way to get a nuclear free world is not to simply chuck them in the bin while Russia, China, etc still have them. That's the best way to get your ass handed to you on a plate in 20 years time. And after the ass-handing has happened the world still won't be nuclear free.

    Sure there are countries that have done it, but their just cheap-ass freeloaders, relying on the US, the UK and France spending the money to not do it and thereby indirectly keeping them safe. It's great to say "hey I'm nuclear free" when you're close to two nuclear powers and allied to a third all of which have a good incentive to not let you get invaded. It's still freeloading.

    As for revamping, the stockpile stewardship is and has been for a long time an ongoing process. Assuming a nuclear free world is in abstract a good idea, as I mentioned, simply getting rid of the nukes is not the way to do it. If you've decided you need them, keeping them unmaintained, on obsolete decaying missiles is also not a good idea.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  10. Re:Not MAD. by Sabriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're thinking "world" = "surface area". I strongly suspect the GP is thinking "world" = "modern civilisation". Deploy even a fifth of those 1500 MIRVs against the planet by strategically targeting urban population centres in order of descending population, and the world as we know it would be gone.