Slashdot Mirror
How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament
Lasrick writes: John Mecklin details exactly how nuclear weapons modernization is kick-starting a new arms race, and how modernizing these weapons to make them more accurate and stealthy puts the world at even greater risk of nuclear war: "[T]his is precisely why the U.S. Congress rejected the Air Force’s requests for low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons in the 1990s: Their very accuracy increases the temptation to use them." The issue is not getting very much attention, but the patience of the non-nuclear states is wearing thin, and a breakthrough in public awareness may be on the horizon: "The disarmament debate is likely to make this spring's NPT conference a contentious one and just might be loud enough to make the public aware that a new type of nuclear arms race is unfolding around the world."
Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.
Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.
How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one? A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon, and cause an all-out retaliation. Frig sakes, even Curtis LeMay knew that when he responded to Kennedy's request for a series of nuclear attack/response scenarios with a single puffed-out version of 'nuke them back to the effing stone age'.
Seriously... if you use a nuke first these days, the entire planet will cut you off, if they don't come at you with everything they have. If you were nuked first, then the taboo has already been broken, and the world would almost expect you to unleash hell on whoever bombed you.
I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Only in the eyes of an ivory tower theoretical type could the tripwire of nuclear weapons first use be "eased" by "low yield". No matter how low the yield, the secondary effects of the nuclear weapon remain the same. It remains a WMD. If someone lobs a "low yield" nuke at you, do you think you're going to blink an eye before using your own arsenal? The whole premise is silly.
Nuclear disarmament is a fool's errand. The deterrent effect of a nuclear arsenal cannot easily be understated. All nations would aspire to it, if it were possible. They aren't going away, and reducing the arsenal below a certain point may actually be more destabilizing than maintaining more warheads. (see below)
The construction of newer weapons has no impact on the equation, except on the counterforce mission. It might make it easier to destroy your opponent's arsenal, but you still retain the SSBN problem, meaning that in practical terms there is no difference. But newer anti-missile technologies have a similar but greater destabilizing effect on deterrence, as they CAN shoot down the SSBN-based missiles.
tl;dr - article is a bunch of pointless hot air
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
As long as other powers have nukes or have developed them and could develop them again then we'll have nukes. And as long as we have nukes then other countries will continue to have them as a deterrent against us.
It doesn't matter how crude or sophisticated the device is- the two nukes that were used in conflict were just about as crude as one could get and they still each destroyed a city in one stroke.
Science always progresses faster than poltiical thought. It's not usually science that uses the developments for ill intead of for benefit though, that's firmly in the realm of politics. That we've only used nuclear weapons in anger twice, effectively in one drawn-out moment in history, and have not used them cavalierly subsequently is hopefully proof that we're maturing, however slowly.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers with great success. Only a complete idiot or a warmonger of the most evil type would call for nuclear disarmament. Of course, one of those groups is very useful for the other.
If we didn't have all this nuclear non-proliferation nonsense, not only would the world be a peaceful place, but we'd have cheap, abundant nuclear power everywhere. There wouldn't be any "developing" countries--they would all be first world.
Trying to have wars in a world with nuclear weapons is like trying to have gangs of roving banditos in a nation where everyone carries around rifles and handguns. It's just not possible, and anyone who tries won't last very long.
I frankly don't believe that disarmament is ever going to happen because too many people want power. So, the nuclear powers are:
France - never going to disarm because they've been invaded twice in living memory (just) and suffered awful consequences. Never going to happen again.
USA - lolno.
Russia - yeah Putin is totally going to disarm when everyone does because he's such a nice guy. I think he'd wet himself with glee if everyone else disarmed.
India - not until Pakistan disarms, because Pakistan is way too unstable (and probably not even then).
Pakistan - not until India disarms, and, well, who will be a serious power without them.
North Korea - well, they're a total basket case of a country so whatever they do wouldn't surprise me. But evil dictators aren't know for relinquishing power.
Iseael - disarm while they're surrounded by hostile nations who tried to wipe them off the map within living memory? Not likely.
China - eeeynope. I think they're going to keep on growing their power, and not being uninvadable is not a good way to do that.
UK - I don't think we actually will (I really hope).
SJW n. One who posts facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As usual, John Oliver has a great rant on the subject.
Right now, the US has more nuclear weapons than they can safely take care of. Manning the silos is now a demoralizing job, because those people basically do nothing and yet the job is tremendously tedious. So it ends up being done by people who really shouldn't be in such an important position, and do not take enough care in their job, especially given the dangers if something were to go wrong.
The US is the only country to drop a nuke on a civilian population. Everyone knows about when they dropped a couple on Japan, but few people remember when they accidentally dropped one on North Carolina. It did not explode, but it was one of a number of close calls that have happened over the years.
As it is being managed now, the nuclear deterrent is more of a danger to the US than to anyone else, though it is also a danger to planet as a whole. I don't think a complete disarmament makes any sense in the short term, but a move towards scaling back to safe and sustainable levels would make sense. However, those that benefit from such massive and useless military spending are not about to let it happen without a fight.