After a brief period of time when the cold war was over and the threat of imminent nuclear annihilation at least seemed to be a thing of the past, the people of the US collectively decided that there just weren't enough existential threats in their lives and elected morons to make things more interesting.
I also saw russias recent video of their new insane weaponry. I don't have the long term scope on this section of the news, is this just routine flexing on both parts or is something more serious going on?
Russia has been publishing videos about ultra high tech weapons and even doing comical leaks of "secret" defense technology for years. I remember one "leak", although I can't remember if it was the nuke torpedo or something else, where they were doing a press briefing about some weapon but "accidently" left a classified poster up in the room detailing some super secret high tech weapon. It was clearly put there so the press would see it and make headlines about secret new Russian technology. Even if legit, they are prone to hype it.
I wouldn't worry about it, anymore than they worry about darpa's latest experiments. Sure maybe one day we will have easily cooled rail guns... But nobody in Russia is worried on the off chance we we actually figure it out in 25 years time.
The worst offenders are definitely Iran who are known to outright fake photos of weapons tests that never happened (or happened poorly).
Depends on what you mean with routine I guess, but it is a clear regression to the times when total nuclear war was the logical end awaiting all conflicts.
Literally fake news, the state of Science and engineering in Russia is dire, the generation that was brought up under excellent Soviet schooling is dying off or retiring (keep in mind male life expectancy in Russia is on par with Africa).
The people who designed, built and maintained their advanced technology are dying off and there is only a trickle to replace them, anyone with an advanced degree and experience tries to get the hell out of that country for a better life.
I be very worried about nuclear meltdowns in coming years as there are still Chernobyl class plants running and are crumbling.
How do we even know they disclosed the true numbers before? This is a serious strategic game (in the game theory sense) and what and whether they disclose may be just part of the game.
Who can check that the numbers are correct? And could they credibly prove it? Would they be interested in (allowed to) do that?
For one thing it was very close to the open source estimate, meaning the number is consistent with other publicly known facts about the program.
There also isn't any real gain from keeping the total number secret above the advantage that keeping their location secret gives. Not disclosing totals probably doesn't even make napkin level invasion planning harder since at that level reasonable estimates will do.
On the other hand it does make you a more suspicious actor in the strategic game as hiding harmless information is a clear sign of paranoia.
I guess the actual number wasn’t the point. Disclosing any number would send a signal of transparency, while stopping the practice would suggest the opposite. It could be consciously used as a deterrent by signaling that you are adopting a different, more aggressive strategy. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything (substantial) has to change in the background.
> "Great powers constantly try to gain nuclear advantage over their rivals and they do it because there is powerful incentives to do so"
> "The ideal strategy is to be the only power in the system that has nuclear weapons...however desirable this situation is, no state is going to achieve nuclear monopoly in our lifetime. (So) the best outcome a great power can hope for is to acquire the capability to launch a splendid first-strike against each of its adversary"
Being opaque on capabilities when it comes to nuclear weapons (especially when other great powers are being opaque) makes strategic sense.
>The report warns that that White House efforts to transfer sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia may be accelerating after meetings last week at the White House and ahead of a planned visit to Saudi Arabia by the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner
Between the originally posted link, the link in my comment, and Rick Perry bailing out of the Department of Energy, this is shaping up to be a very grim situation.
What’s wrong with Perry quitting Energy? Wasn’t his appointment an elaborate practical joke, in that it was the federal department he wanted to shut down but forgot the name of?
The experimental reactor being sold to Saudis is not capable of producing enough plutonium. And they don't have any reprocessing or fuel enrichment capability.
Disclosing military data (like nuclear weapon counts) is just a bad idea. Granted, the approximate numbers are not that difficult to figure out, but why give it away for free; make Russia and China expend resources to get the data.
> US halts recent practice of disclosing nuclear weapon total
I think America's biggest error in WWII was the disclosure of nuclear weapons existence. If America was able to keep that secret, it would have had the one and only card in its sleeve that could've stalled USSR's tank armies in Europe.
Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until eighties, and would've somebody more ambitious came to USSR's political arena instead of Brezhnev, even that would be under question.
WWIII in Europe was barely avoided twice with Stalin's unexpected death, and Khrushev's "retirement." That gave NATO 20+ years to prop up defences.
Firstly, this was unachievable; the concept of the bomb had been publicly discussed before the war, what remained was the engineering challenges of actually producing one. There were a number of independent and intelligence-assisted programs during and after the war to develop the bomb. The Russians would have been aware of the German programme that was sabotaged by the destruction of the Norway heavy water plant, for example.
Secondly, once the programme was started in the US, it would have been unthinkable to not use it during WW2; what kind of lunatic develops a super-weapon during a war and chooses not to use it?
Thirdly, the deterrent effect of the Bomb was (along with the conventional forces) entirely effective at preventing a Soviet invasion of Europe beyond the WW2 surrender lines.
Fourthly, the whole subject of secret superweapons is skewered most entertainingly by Dr Strangelove (1964) : "the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost....if you KEEP IT A SECRET!"
I think it's naive to assume that the Soviets learned of nuclear bombs once they were dropped in Japan. It's well documented that they knew and were doing research way before that. If you're developing it, somebody you don't want is always going to know.
> Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until eighties
Eh? France had their independently developed nukes in the 60s.
This comment also boldly assumes that the Soviets had a stronger urge to march with tanks into Europe than the U.S. has to march into Russia, which is not a given.
But putting all that aside, assuming the U.S. were able to keep it secret, what makes you think that that's necessarily a good thing? Do you really naively assume that all the U.S. cares about are 'liberal values'? The U.S. does not enjoy the universal 'good guys' reputation in many places around the world, for solid reasons.
So to me, it seems far better that MAD exists, it keeps everyone from becoming too drunk with power.
I wasnt even alive then, and I think this is insanely too simple.
>If America was able to keep that secret
There is no America, there is the United States government. Americans did not want to join in World War 2, the president did.
When the time came to drop the nuclear bomb, these decisions were made by few people, and the popular theory is that the Democrats(incumbent) would have lost elections if the war went on, Americans died, and people found out about the Nuclear Bomb later.
The best decisions for the world are not made, the best decision for individuals are made.
I wonder what will happen when Putins or Xis back are against the wall politically. What horrors will they do for self preservation?
EDIT: Don't downvote because the Democrats were in power at the time. The Republicans would have done this too.
[+] [-] AnIdiotOnTheNet|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meko|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craftyguy|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mrguyorama|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thatoneuser|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steve19|7 years ago|reply
I wouldn't worry about it, anymore than they worry about darpa's latest experiments. Sure maybe one day we will have easily cooled rail guns... But nobody in Russia is worried on the off chance we we actually figure it out in 25 years time.
The worst offenders are definitely Iran who are known to outright fake photos of weapons tests that never happened (or happened poorly).
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fenk85|7 years ago|reply
The people who designed, built and maintained their advanced technology are dying off and there is only a trickle to replace them, anyone with an advanced degree and experience tries to get the hell out of that country for a better life.
I be very worried about nuclear meltdowns in coming years as there are still Chernobyl class plants running and are crumbling.
[+] [-] bonoboTP|7 years ago|reply
Who can check that the numbers are correct? And could they credibly prove it? Would they be interested in (allowed to) do that?
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|7 years ago|reply
There also isn't any real gain from keeping the total number secret above the advantage that keeping their location secret gives. Not disclosing totals probably doesn't even make napkin level invasion planning harder since at that level reasonable estimates will do.
On the other hand it does make you a more suspicious actor in the strategic game as hiding harmless information is a clear sign of paranoia.
[+] [-] close04|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheschire|7 years ago|reply
With the INF suspended, however, perhaps the UN is still performing on-site compliance checks?
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_For...
[+] [-] dosy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] factsaresacred|7 years ago|reply
> "Great powers constantly try to gain nuclear advantage over their rivals and they do it because there is powerful incentives to do so"
> "The ideal strategy is to be the only power in the system that has nuclear weapons...however desirable this situation is, no state is going to achieve nuclear monopoly in our lifetime. (So) the best outcome a great power can hope for is to acquire the capability to launch a splendid first-strike against each of its adversary"
Being opaque on capabilities when it comes to nuclear weapons (especially when other great powers are being opaque) makes strategic sense.
[+] [-] minikites|7 years ago|reply
>The report warns that that White House efforts to transfer sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia may be accelerating after meetings last week at the White House and ahead of a planned visit to Saudi Arabia by the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner
Between the originally posted link, the link in my comment, and Rick Perry bailing out of the Department of Energy, this is shaping up to be a very grim situation.
[+] [-] adolph|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pps43|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doggydogs94|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doggydogs94|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baybal2|7 years ago|reply
I think America's biggest error in WWII was the disclosure of nuclear weapons existence. If America was able to keep that secret, it would have had the one and only card in its sleeve that could've stalled USSR's tank armies in Europe.
Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until eighties, and would've somebody more ambitious came to USSR's political arena instead of Brezhnev, even that would be under question.
WWIII in Europe was barely avoided twice with Stalin's unexpected death, and Khrushev's "retirement." That gave NATO 20+ years to prop up defences.
[+] [-] pjc50|7 years ago|reply
Firstly, this was unachievable; the concept of the bomb had been publicly discussed before the war, what remained was the engineering challenges of actually producing one. There were a number of independent and intelligence-assisted programs during and after the war to develop the bomb. The Russians would have been aware of the German programme that was sabotaged by the destruction of the Norway heavy water plant, for example.
Secondly, once the programme was started in the US, it would have been unthinkable to not use it during WW2; what kind of lunatic develops a super-weapon during a war and chooses not to use it?
Thirdly, the deterrent effect of the Bomb was (along with the conventional forces) entirely effective at preventing a Soviet invasion of Europe beyond the WW2 surrender lines.
Fourthly, the whole subject of secret superweapons is skewered most entertainingly by Dr Strangelove (1964) : "the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost....if you KEEP IT A SECRET!"
[+] [-] AsyncAwait|7 years ago|reply
> Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until eighties
Eh? France had their independently developed nukes in the 60s.
This comment also boldly assumes that the Soviets had a stronger urge to march with tanks into Europe than the U.S. has to march into Russia, which is not a given.
But putting all that aside, assuming the U.S. were able to keep it secret, what makes you think that that's necessarily a good thing? Do you really naively assume that all the U.S. cares about are 'liberal values'? The U.S. does not enjoy the universal 'good guys' reputation in many places around the world, for solid reasons.
So to me, it seems far better that MAD exists, it keeps everyone from becoming too drunk with power.
[+] [-] robertAngst|7 years ago|reply
>If America was able to keep that secret
There is no America, there is the United States government. Americans did not want to join in World War 2, the president did.
When the time came to drop the nuclear bomb, these decisions were made by few people, and the popular theory is that the Democrats(incumbent) would have lost elections if the war went on, Americans died, and people found out about the Nuclear Bomb later.
The best decisions for the world are not made, the best decision for individuals are made.
I wonder what will happen when Putins or Xis back are against the wall politically. What horrors will they do for self preservation?
EDIT: Don't downvote because the Democrats were in power at the time. The Republicans would have done this too.