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).
I doubt that anybody in Kremlin realistically believe of their ability to provide real military deterrence. The deterrence here was of political nature.
I also don't believe that any sane military strategist in NATO high command believes that any conflict with Bloc can be won with nuclear advantage. Even at the height of cold war, the combined nuclear arsenal of NATO countries would've only been enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances.
Unlike common misconception suggests, war and politics is not always the same. What may look as a sure win for a general, may look like a loss to a politician:
Russia's choreographed invasion of Georgia had no real military objective, and may be seen as a botched war, but it was a total victory on the political stage, scaring shit out of many politicians in the West.
> Even at the height of cold war, the combined nuclear arsenal of NATO countries would've only been enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances.
Is there a reason nuclear weapons would be aimed at military targets, rather than political targets? I always assumed a nuclear war would just be a bunch of decapitation strikes where suddenly nobody has capitol cities.
I can't provide you with a good source for this at the moment, but it's my understanding that during the Cold War a team of US ethicists determined that the most ethical direction to point nuclear weapons was at major population centers (not military targets) because targeting military targets would be necessary to launch a first strike. Targeting civilians signaled that those weapons were intended for retaliation. Adopting a retaliatory posture was considered to lessen tensions, if only by just a little, making nuclear war less likely to occur.
Edit:
@justin66: Right, there is a difference between what a few ethicists determine and what policy is actually enacted. America was actually postured for a first strike, with Russian airfields,etc being the highest priority targets, urban-industrial targets being lower down the list. After that, population centers were considered targets. This was based on the supposition at that time that a Russian attack could be anticipated and preempted.
> it's my understanding that during the Cold War a team of US ethicists determined that the most ethical direction to point nuclear weapons was at major population centers (not military targets)
This was never US policy and not how our weapons were targeted.
> America was actually postured for a first strike,
Once the cold war was in earnest, both sides were capable of a first strike, and were also capable of successfully launching a crippling retaliatory strike. Hence the phrase "mutually assured destruction" describing the tension used to prevent either side from attacking.
> Russian airfields,etc being the highest priority targets,
To put the ancient information you're linking to in perspective, it's apparently 63 years old, prior to when the United States successfully tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile.
Later, the highest priority targets for nuclear weapons were... other nuclear weapons. Specifically, things like hardened missile silos were targeted once we had ICBMs capable of targeting them accurately enough to destroy them.
> urban-industrial targets being lower down the list. After that, population centers were considered targets.
No. I don't have time to pick through the fifties-era document you linked to, but cities were never really a target. It's easy enough to understand why.
The serious damage done to population centers in a nuclear war would have been largely incidental. That would have been terrible enough. You don't have to target population centers per se when you launch enough thermonuclear weapons to cause a nuclear winter, and when a lot of population centers happen to be located adjacent to (or simply downwind from) your military targets. Those people are fucked anyway
If you have a really good anti-ballistic missile defense system, the game changes and you can target whatever you want. We haven't seen what that is like yet.
> Is there a reason nuclear weapons would be aimed at military targets, rather than political targets? I always assumed a nuclear war would just be a bunch of decapitation strikes where suddenly nobody has capitol cities.
Yep, it's just an another examples where the definition of a military and political objective in war differs dramatically.
In case you fight a purely "political war," that might've worked, but imagine in a scenario a gigantic indoctrinated military "with mind of its own." You can kill a higher animal by decapitation, but not a hydra that does not need a head to function to begin with, or will possibly even get more aggressive and stronger without it.
In nuclear planning, there are two main attack scenarios: counterforce and countervalue. Stronger side counts on preemptive strike which is counterforce (trying to take out enemy's missile silos before they can launch). Weaker side relies on retaliatory countervalue strikes.
But it's important to remember that even counterforce strikes involve nuking command centers which might be in major cities such as the Kremlin in Moscow. And the ground bursts used to take out hardened military structures will generate far more fallout than the air bursts used to level cities.
> Is there a reason nuclear weapons would be aimed at military targets, rather than political targets?
If you have the choice between targeting an ICBM silo, a ballistic missile submarine, or a large number of civilians, which do you think is going to maximize what you have left after a nuclear exchange?
(keep in mind that the statement "enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances" is total nonsense)
As I understand it, the so called KANYON/Poseidon nuclear torpedo is likely a real project, albeit with somewhat exaggerated capabilities. The Project 09852 / Belgorod submarine is certainly real, and there is some reason to believe it is being created in part to carry and launch those massive torpedoes.
But supposing its claimed capabilities were accurate, 10,000 km at 100 km/h would take the torpedo over four days. The original claim of 185 km/h is much faster, but travel time would still be measured on the order of days. It's fast enough to be very noisy but slow enough to be seen coming days away; totally nonsensical for a first strike weapon. The conclusion is that if such a torpedo is in development, it's intended as a retaliation weapon.
Yes but used in such a role, there would be little that's special about it. Nuclear armed torpedoes and short range missiles aren't new. What's special about KANYON is specifically it's range and payload (but frankly the payload could be a tenth of what's advertised and it would still be a chilling weapon, so really the range is the real interesting part.)
It's likely it would never be operated near it's maximum range, but would nevertheless be operated at few thousand kilometers. The reason for this is because its likely host, the Belgorod, would be safest operating under the polar ice cap where sonar is, relatively speaking, a clusterfuck.
No, INF treaty is about ground launched weapons, the same thing launched by boats are fine.
On of the things the Russians did was to take a boat launched weapon capable of INF prohibited ranges, putting it on the ground but only testing it out to ranges allowed by the INF. )I think they put something heavier on it so it wouldn't go as far as the naval version.)
Did you read the wiki page? It would move in stealth mode for weeks until it gets close enough to strike at high speed. This is a deadmans switch kind of weapon more than anything designed to counter us anti ballistic initiative on a budget.
The drone and/or stealth properties of it are likely overstated. The fact that Russia is constructing at least two incredibly expensive submarines (Khabarovsk and Belgorod) to carry them suggests that they aren't suited or intended for long term independent operation. For economically troubled Russia to construct two very costly host submarines suggests that these devices are more akin to torpedoes than autonomous submarines.
Less significantly, the diagrams Russia "published" don't seem to have any room for ballast tanks, which means it would not have hydrostatic control over it's buoyancy (like a traditional submarine does.) Operating depth would therefore be controlled hydrodynamically (as a traditional torpedo does.) Unless it were doing laps, and thus easier to detect, it probably cannot loiter for very long.
Despite all of the above, there are some rumors of a sea bed variant, however I still suspect the system cannot simply settle itself down on the sea bed. Rather it, along with supporting infrastructure, would be placed there by a submarine or surface ship. The Belgorod in particular seems the likely candidate for this sort of operation, since it is additionally reported to be the host for a Paltus-class midget submarine.
> "This is a deadmans switch kind of weapon"
e.g. for retaliation, not first strikes. On that we agree. SSBNs have traditionally served this role, since assuring their destruction during a preemptive strike would be virtually impossible. Advances in ballistic missile defenses threaten to make the inability to assure destruction of all SSBNs irrelevant, and this new torpedo is obviously a response to that.
The cobalt payload is kind of giveaway too - it’s basically a dirtybomb torpedo designed to do most of its killing over decades which makes it bad for first strike.
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.
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.
> "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.
> 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.
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.
This is not an absolute, people do stupid antisurvival things all the time. Especially if the drawback is long term combined with a short term benefit.
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.
Those arguments are very easy to parry. Even in the scenarios where Soviets got a bomb, I believe keeping it secret would've been of great military value
And remember, Soviets gave no shit about the nuke even after first hydrogen bomb test, thinking of it as an impractical weapon. Were not its use in war, Soviet nuclear project could've ended just being a stack of documents on the shelf without political backing, and them not fully realising how to deal with being attacked themselves.
Imagine yourself in such a situation:
You encounter robbers on the street, they demand money. You know for sure that you will either be robbed and killed after you give money, or be killed and then robbed if you don't give them money and try defending yourself.
Now, will you threaten them retaliation from the start, brandishing your weapon, or hide the weapon and play an easy victim until the very last moment, to try your chance in a surprise attack when they let their guard down?
> Those arguments are very easy to parry. Even in the scenarios where Soviets got a bomb, I believe keeping it secret would've been of great military value
it was never a secret wrt the ussr. the manhattan project was riddled with communist spies.
Even Germany had an inkling of what was going on. The research papers before the war were talking about possibilities like bombs, and then there was suddenly radio silence on the issue. The physicists left in the Axis understood what that meant
Detente is the easing of position, a reduction in tension.
Reagan's arms reduction - START - was indeed early 80s, and did succeed in rowing back some of the tension in Europe. Star Wars almost immediately threw a spanner in those works. Fall of the Berlin wall and the rest of the Soviet bloc disintegration - set in chain partly thanks to the cratered oil price - achieved far more.
Keeping nuclear secret was unlikely - the capability was progressing in the UK - albeit merged (more like taken over, but I digress) with the US part way, Germany, Russia and the US.
MAD is hugely overrated - there's been far too many politicians and generals believing they can win a nuclear exchange. MAD hopefully delays things long enough for someone to have second thoughts.
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!"
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?
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.
Call it a less dumb Pascal's Wager of sorts. The possibility that they still exist is high enough that it's only rational to tread lightly under the assumption that they exist.
Sure (and cool reference,) but to me, "prudent to act as if they exist" is not the same as "they exist." Even if they don't, there's still much strategic utility to extract from pretending they do.
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.
Keeping totals secret could me maintaining secrecy of some locations -- if your number is much higher than your "enemies" then they're likely to have missed some locations, especially under a backdrop of CND where over-estimation by the state would be politically unhelpful.
How so? You can in principle store a nuke in anything with a roof so you need quite silly numbers before before storage space places any important geographical constraints.
Simple considerations on where things have to placed to be on hand for actual use are likely much more useful for locating storage sites; and if you hide a lot of nukes where they can't be accessed in times of need that's just inefficiencies that helps your opponent.
> How so? You can in principle store a nuke in anything with a roof so you need quite silly numbers before before storage space places any important geographical constraints.
Because countries monitor their enemies. If Russia publishes that they have 50 nukes, and we know of 5 locations that each have what we estimate to be 10 nukes, we can be pretty confident that we know of all of their storage locations.
You need five reliable estimates, which a total doesn't give you.
In any case, if you have that sort of access to count the nukes in program that small it is simply not plausible that you wouldn't know of all the bases anyway.
>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.
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 did not elect this moron. A two century old relic of old white male and slave state empowerment did, against my wishes and the slight majority wishes of my fellow countrymen and women
Are you implying that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist? Because that is patently false. Yes, Trump may be racist, but just because someone is racist, doesn’t mean everyone who supports them is racist.
Also, the argument that majority rule is what should elect someone is wrong for many reasons; The biggest being that the constitution is what created the electoral college. Yes, the electoral college has issues, but it’s the best we have when only 58% of the voting population turns up.
> Are you implying that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist?
Not everyone who votes Trump/Republican is a racist, but if you're a racist you almost certainly voted Trump/Republican because you believe they're most likely to advance your agenda.
> Also, the argument that majority rule is what should elect someone is wrong for many reasons
If believing that every citizen's vote should be of equal weight is wrong, I don't want to be right.
> If believing that every citizen's vote should be of equal weight is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Ok, so let me suggest that it is a problem if the cities have complete control over the course of policy. In principle pure majority is obviously just, but i don't think it is without consequence. Especially in the UK where London has all the money _and_ a-lot of the votes - i think it is worth some consideration?
You know, you're right, the principle that every person should have equal political weight is absurd. As you say, minorities should be given more political voice than the majority. That's why I believe black people's votes should count double those of white people. I'm sure you'd agree with that, right?
There is a phrase "tyranny of the majority" designed for this specific purpose. Taking the argument to its logical conclusion, sure. I want representation in government for minorities who don't have the population to justify it. How to do that is interesting :)
The commenter is implying that we have an antiquated system of voting where poor, uneducated states have disproportionate power.
Also if you vote for Trump, you are not by definition like him, but you certainly condone a racist/idiot/sexual assaulter as president.
Your arguments for the electoral college are irrational. The electoral college does nothing to address poor voter turnout, in fact it encourages it. The fact that the constitution included the electoral college does not make it superior to majority election. You are trying to state the tautology: "If it is in the constitution it is good for America for eternity."
Just because Trump lost popular vote during last elections does not mean that the result would be the same if there was no electoral college. The way elections currently work is discouraging many voters from participating: if you are a Democrat in red state, or Republican in blue state you might feel that your vote does not matter and not go to vote at all.
If there were different rules voters would also behave differently. So we won't ever know who would win such elections until we actually have them.
While I do not support a lot of the things that Obama did, like increasing the unchecked power of the NSA and personally signing the death warrants of many Iraqi citizens through drone strikes, I would not call him a moron.
It is impossible to debate policy with individuals such as yourself. You regard anything that Trump does as bad even if a Democrat previously thought it was a good idea.
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.
reply