[vox_mundi]

Freakin' mad man. Pegs my doom-o-meter.

Don't Panic!

Energy Secretary Oops (AKA Rick Perry) has everything under control.

[Tanada]

What a pile of BS. For one thing the last set of equipment was partially emplaced and the wells already drilled when President Clinton ordered the moratorium in 1993. So the wells are already there and installing the instruments sure as heck doesn't take six months unless you are on some wacky cost plus contract where every day of delay leads to a bigger payout.

For decades the USA routinley planned and executed a set of tests every year. Initially in the South Pacific and then from the early 1950's in the Nevada test Site. Above ground tests in the Pacific were ended in the early 1960's when the USSR promised to stop open air testing after Tsar Bomba and our government went along.

But deep testing is and was perfectly legit and continued from the mid 1960's after the atmospheric test ban all the way to 1993 when President Clinton instituted the moratorium. The problem is, to have a real credible deterrent you can not just claim your 30 year old designs are perfect and effective. Every now and then you need to pull something out of the inventory and test it to see how real world aging may have effected it. Be a shame to have a nuclear war because the Chinese or Russia know their weapons are fully functional but they believe ours have corroded into uselessness.

[GHung]

Madman.

[Cog]

Nuclear surety is part of process of keeping our nuclear deterrent credible.

[Tanada]

Nuclear surety is part of process of keeping our nuclear deterrent credible.

Exactly! I don't want to have a nuclear war just because our deterrent is doubted by foreign powers!

Nuclear weapons exist no matter how hard you squeeze your eyes closed and wish them away. Unless or until every country allows unlimited inspection by an international search force they will remain in arsenals all over the place whether the country in question is an official nuclear weapon power or not.

I don't foresee any circumstances where the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, USA and Israel are all going to welcome in an international disarmament force. So long as one country has nuclear weapons nobody else is going to give them up. If a major power believes the USA arsenal is not a real threat the temptation of making a first strike becomes a very real threat to world peace.

Let me be clear, I think adopting the MAD standard of defense in the 1960's was a huge mistake, but it has kept us from actually getting into a war for almost two generations. The M in MAD stands for Mutual, because all sides believe an attack on another power would mean retaliation that would destroy them as well. Keep ignoring assurance of function and sooner or later someone is going to decide to roll the dice on civilization.

[onlooker]

But what most people I believe think, is that the very creation and deployment of Nuclear Weapons was a huge and tragic mistake. It is like the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and no putting it back in.

[Cog]

The employment of two nuclear weapons on Japan saved millions of lives. Most of which were Japanese. While MAD doctrine might not make logical sense, no one has employed a nuclear weapon in war for 73 years.

Research operation Olympic and Downfall.

[onlooker]

The employment of two nuclear weapons on Japan saved millions of lives. Most of which were Japanese. While MAD doctrine might not make logical sense, no one has employed a nuclear weapon in war for 73 years.

Research operation Olympic and Downfall.

Yeah, well research the Cuban Missile Crisis and how close we came to all out nuclear war. Also, research briefcase size nuclear weapons. Given our history of warfare and emotional mindset, having such a devaststing weapon being produced by several countries and with instructions on manufacturing a tactical nuclear weapon on the Net, this should not provide any sense of comfort to anyone. Asymetrical warfare is the manner anyone with a grievance can lash out. And the destruction they can inflict with a nuclear weapon is enormous. So, nothing more complicated than an economic transaction whereby supply meets demand

[Tanada]

The employment of two nuclear weapons on Japan saved millions of lives. Most of which were Japanese. While MAD doctrine might not make logical sense, no one has employed a nuclear weapon in war for 73 years.

Research operation Olympic and Downfall.

Yeah, well research the Cuban Missile Crisis and how close we came to all out nuclear war. Also, research briefcase size nuclear weapons. Given our history of warfare and emotional mindset, having such a devaststing weapon being produced by several countries and with instructions on manufacturing a tactical nuclear weapon on the Net, this should not provide any sense of comfort to anyone. Asymetrical warfare is the manner anyone with a grievance can lash out. And the destruction they can inflict with a nuclear weapon is enormous. So, nothing more complicated than an economic transaction whereby supply meets demand

We know foreign countries are not about to give up their nuclear weapons so what do you suggest we do about it? As you said, the genie is out of the bottle and will not be put back, so what is your alternative? Completely disarm the USA and hope no tyrant ever takes over a different nuclear power? Pakistan and India each have over 100 devices, possibly many more. We do not live in a perfect world, far from it. If the USA were not able to retaliate what is to stop some future Jihadi leader of Pakistan from striking the USA to rid the world of the 'Great Satan'? Like it or not we have made a lot of enemies around the world in the last century, and if we were vulnerable to a first strike without the ability to retaliate you can bet dollars to doughnuts one or another of them would hit us as hard as they possibly could. A dozen destroyed cities could be the cost of your disarmament plan in our imperfect world, if we were lucky, and the top hundred population centers if you are talking a true revenge mission strike.

[onlooker]

Tanada, I am not pretending to offer any such disarmament solution. Which is why I said the biggest mistake was their creation and development in the first place. I see no solution except perhaps in some farther off future. How a nuclear weapons free world can be accomplished.? I haven't the slightest clue or even whether it is possible.

[KaiserJeep]

Nuclear weapons were inevitable. Both Japan and Germany had them under development in WW2. The US economy plus the recruiting of scientific minds from many countries enabled the US to win that particular race.

I happen to agree, Nagasaki and Hiroshima - both legitimate military targets in WW2 - were the price for 73 years of peace. Maybe we need a larger threat to secure the peace now.

Kinetic enegy weapons delivered from orbit may be most of the answer. Just as destructive as nukes, they offer pinpoint accuracy and zero nuclear fallout or ground contamination. The size of the industrial base necessary to support a space program will ensure that no upstart countries join the select Kinetic Energy Weapons club. Any country that employs a first strike nuclear weapon - or multiple Muslim countries if NGO groups like Al Quaida employ such - would face a rain of rocks from space until they literally rejoin the Stone Age.

[Subjectivist]

Nuclear weapons were inevitable. Both Japan and Germany had them under development in WW2. The US economy plus the recruiting of scientific minds from many countries enabled the US to win that particular race.

I happen to agree, Nagasaki and Hiroshima - both legitimate military targets in WW2 - were the price for 73 years of peace. Maybe we need a larger threat to secure the peace now.

Kinetic enegy weapons delivered from orbit may be most of the answer. Just as destructive as nukes, they offer pinpoint accuracy and zero nuclear fallout or ground contamination. The size of the industrial base necessary to support a space program will ensure that no upstart countries join the select Kinetic Energy Weapons club. Any country that employs a first strike nuclear weapon - or multiple Muslim countries if NGO groups like Al Quaida employ such - would face a rain of rocks from space until they literally rejoin the Stone Age.

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. You need something like the novel setting to acvomplish a sustained large scale bombardment.

[eclipse]

A fascinating question is how long it would take for civilisation to rebuild after a nuclear war.

Isaac Arthur (physicist and futurist) predicts industrial society would have mostly rebuilt within a few generations of a nuclear war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWmEgu1iP_E

In some ways it would be much faster than the first industrial revolution, as we have already learned the laws of physics and chemistry and biology that make the modern world possible. All survivors would have to do is dig through buried libraries and dig up the engineering information to start rebuilding things. In other ways it would be slower and more dependent on local renewable energy sources as we've already burned up all the easy to get fossil fuels. But they'd get things up and running eventually, even if the local workshop had to stop working on cloudy days. Smart survivalists might have seen the war coming and downloaded and printed out this "Civilisation starter kit" to have some knowledge to trade. https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/ ... ine-index/
But if not, other places will have their technical people dig up and study old manuals (by candlelight?) in the evenings as they're will be no TV for a while. What else are you going to do but research that next component to salvage for your workshop needs?

Bit by bit society would build up again, but in a more walkable, human based city plan. Energy would be more valuable and prioritised for the most important survival and salvaging efforts. That is, until finally someone gets the nukes started again. Once they get the breeder reactors up and running, any nuclear waste in that country becomes an incredible asset that could power the nation for centuries to come.

[Zarquon]

It's not exactly hot news anymore, but just because I just stumbled across it:

https://www.wagingpeace.org/general-lee-butler/

The former commander of all US nuclear forces ('91-'94), after retiring, went very public, calling for the abolition of all nukes everywhere. Calls the theory of nuclear "deterrence" basically a bunch of nonsense. Says that the fact that mankind made it through the cold war is, if you like, more due to divine intervention than just dumb luck and certainly not due to skill. That Hiroshima wasn't about "saving lives". That nuclear weapons have no strategic value. That nukes are, as usual with the military-industrial complex, a racket.

He knows this stuff better than pretty much anyone. If you've commented in this long thread before, repeating the old, official cold war arguments, please read the interview.

[Newfie]

IMHO, and that’s all it is, the greatest deterrent we have is the global economy. At this point China and the West are so economically intertwined that we are symbiotic, we feed off one another.

Where I perceive the danger is that down the road to collapse, after a financial market meltdown, there may come a time when one of the big powers decides its going to “go it alone”. Either to take over the world or retreat into isolation, but it needs to reduce the threat on its borders first.

But these events are pretty far out in time. Not really predictable, or controllable.

[vtsnowedin]

But these events are pretty far out in time. Not really predictable, or controllable.

I hope you are right in that but I worry that someone, Perhaps China, will make a mistake that sets catastrophe in motion. Crushing dissent in Hong Kong or invading Taiwan are possibilities and elsewhere Iran might try to strike Israel which I think would be a quickly fatal mistake on their part but might then escalate.

[Tanada]

It's not exactly hot news anymore, but just because I just stumbled across it:

https://www.wagingpeace.org/general-lee-butler/

The former commander of all US nuclear forces ('91-'94), after retiring, went very public, calling for the abolition of all nukes everywhere. Calls the theory of nuclear "deterrence" basically a bunch of nonsense. Says that the fact that mankind made it through the cold war is, if you like, more due to divine intervention than just dumb luck and certainly not due to skill. That Hiroshima wasn't about "saving lives". That nuclear weapons have no strategic value. That nukes are, as usual with the military-industrial complex, a racket.

He knows this stuff better than pretty much anyone. If you've commented in this long thread before, repeating the old, official cold war arguments, please read the interview.

Okay I read the whole thing as you asked. Not only does he not say "Hiroshima wasn't about saving lives" what he actually said was alternative targets could have been chosen to cause fewer civilian casualties.

He does say that Deterrence is a very bad reason to use for building up unlimited numbers of nuclear weapons, but the idea that in our current world situation that every country will willingly not only give up nuclear weapons but allow the kind of invasive inspections that would be necessary to prevent their secret stockpiling is purest fantasy.

The world as always is a dangerous place. Pulling the covers over your head and saying nobody will be allowed nuclear weapons from date X is not a rational response to the existence of nuclear weapons. I hope we never find ourselves in a situation where those weapons are used, but pretending we never will is at best a fantasy and at worst deadly denialist wish fulfillment.

I also find it very troubling that despite the fact that the US Military had created four war plan options the only option he ever offered in a simulation was total war. How ridiculous is that? He then justifies this stance by saying the USSR had planned a total force response to any American counter attack. That is patently nuts because it presumes that if the USSR had initiated a limited nuclear attack their real goal was total attack when the retaliation was launched. That in his mind justified the USA launching a total response no matter what size the USSR attack was in the "first strike". That is not rational thinking and I really truly wish that our political leadership would participate in these simulations. Any politician might fall for the "I recommend MAO-4" answer once or twice in a simulation, but once they went through it a time or three the rational part of the mind would be asking "Why does this general always call for a total response no matter what size the Soviet attack is?" The fact that the other person on the line during these simulations was probably a military officer with the same mindset means they never said "No general, I want MAO-1 as closely matched to the attack as you can manage" instead of acceding to what the head of NORAD recommended. In that case the simulation would have had to continue a bit further and whomever was playing "Team Red" would have had to try and make a rational response to the USA counter strike instead of reflexively responding with a full out attack in the face of a full out attack.

The whole purpose of simulations the way NASA does it for example, seems how I am familiar with their method, is to stress the participants as much as possible so that if a real situation occurs they can respond rationally rather than reflexively. From everything in that interview the US military planning was rote reflexive response, you could leave the leadership completely out of the picture because you knew going in what the answer is always going to be. I find that far more terrifying than the idea that the world has nuclear weapons, a situation that is not about to change any time soon.