The nuke detectives – New ways to detect covert nuclear weapons | Hacker News Reader

The nuke detectives – New ways to detect covert nuclear weapons

economist.com

64 pointssvepuri36 comments

I find it quite shocking how openly this article boasts about violation of everyones' privacy regarding "network analysis" (in the section about intelligence gathering, "The latest kit").

Quotes: "thanks to advances in “network analysis” software", "fed with people’s e-mails, schooling, web surfing, phone calls, banking transactions and purchases, the programs try to work out who might be a terrorist." ...

And while US americans might claim that this is of course only allowed to be used on foreigners (ignoring evidence to the contrary that just abut every countries intelligence services seems to spy on everyone including their own citizens), they explicitly mention someone who traveled abroad, comes back, and then gets his phone records screened.

It is kind of similar to the Chinese "credit" rating that is also talked about in today's news.

The thing that scares me is anything which eliminates the fissile isotope production as a step. Everything else is essentially trivial and could probably be done covertly or brazenly by a state or even a well resourced non-state actor.

Fission-free fusion is probably not realistic at this point (but, if it were developed, would be terrifying), but I think the technology curve for some form of laser isotope separation is disconnected from "special nuclear stuff" and much more "advances in mainstream science.

I'm completely amazed there hasn't been an openly documented theft of either nuclear materials or weapons and subsequent nuclear declaration by a new state or non-state. It seemed self-evident that would happen post-USSR collapse. I suspect some combination of luck and extremely good work by the IC in both Russia and non-Russia had a lot to do with that. Plus, the states most likely to want the weapons already had other pathways, although it's always possible something like the Pakistani or NK or Iranian program "launders" stolen material through some other more overt pipeline, using a "completely working, honest" enrichment process to cover for it. But the isotopic mixes are identifiable, so we'd know once they detonated where material came from.

The book The Nuclear Bazaar made the point that the ex-Soviet guards of nuclear material are unusually devoted to their missions, even without pay. Also, the roads in those areas suck so transporting any material covertly would be a challenge to say the least.

How difficult would it be to obscure the isotopic mix, either through running it through a purification process that is not effective enough to get weapons grade from raw ore in a reasonable timeframe, or by mixing in small amounts of un or underpurrified ore.

> I'm completely amazed there hasn't been an openly documented theft of either nuclear materials or weapons and subsequent nuclear declaration by a new state or non-state.

I have a feeling that, given the way that both suicides and bank heists increase when they get talked about in the news, no government wants thefts of fissile material talked about, lest the news that one state was successful once embolden other states to try for themselves.

In 2004, South Korea self-reported enrichment of uranium to weapon grade using laser isotope separation. It seems that nobody suspected it before self-reporting. This was a blatant NPT violation, but IAEA decided against pursuing formal charge, due to political considerations.

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_research_...

> I'm completely amazed there hasn't been an openly documented theft of either nuclear materials or weapons and subsequent nuclear declaration by a new state or non-state. It seemed self-evident that would happen post-USSR collapse.

Your gut feeling is right, but it (possibly) happened before the Soviet collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair

> The thing that scares me is anything which eliminates the fissile isotope production as a step.

Why do you think we invest in NIF and other fusion projects?

Using a fission primary to compress and heat fuel to create fusion is probably, in the context of a weapon, easier, smaller and cheaper than anything remotely like the NIF.

To do testing after CBT (validating models), fundamental research, and to a lesser extent, fusion power research.

(Well, the primary reason is to spend money.)

(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty CTBT, not CBT)

Most of the damage from a future 'rogue' nuke may be done by our reaction to it. Like the modern Pearl Harbor's fallout around us.

Edit: spelling

s/rouge/rogue/g

Or like the 9/11 attacks.

> Once a country has a nuclear bomb or two, there is not much other governments can do to stop it from making more, says Ilan Goldenberg, a former head of the Iran team at the Pentagon. Plenty of states want such capabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue

The unstated implication is that weapons and military power are for the US, and its allies. Others can't have any.

The brazen arrogance of that idea is probably among the chief reasons the US is so vehemently and passionately disliked throughout the world.

What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power?

What is wrong with acquiring nuclear weapons is that it increases the threat of nuclear war which nobody wants. This applies to both US and non-US states. Non-US states acquiring nuclear weapons is as bad as US acquiring new nuclear weapons.

You may not agree with it, but I don't think the disbelief is warranted. There may be other less pure motivations but there is a pretty simple moral case - proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war

- because more states have them. Increasing risk proportionately (?).

- because more unstable/nefarious states have them, which are more likely to use them. This is of course somewhat debateable, but nevertheless plenty of people believe this and they're not flatearthists.

Taking an entitlement point of view just seems to be missing the point. It does however explain why these other states want them and resent the US/the West.

> proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war

Again, the unstated implication is that the US has a moral right to shepherd the rest of the world to the correct moral conclusion to this situation. The rest of the world is just too damn ignorant to figure out how to not murder everyone with nukes, so the US has to have the hard job of controlling the nuclear stockpiles of the world. It's tough having that moral high ground, but someone's got to do it.

The US has committed crimes of war with nuclear weapons against civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...

The fact of the matter is that knowledge cannot be suppressed. The ability to create and operate nuclear weapons is not something that is going to be a controlled secrete for very long - if it is at all. The current policy of the US asserting its power over the rest of the world is only going to ensure that when this knowledge is common, it will most certainly be used to ensure the end of the US power.

There are a few issues with your assumption that, and this is coming from an immigrant of former USSR. 1. It's not the nation-states that posses nuclear weapons that are the most dangerous, it is a possibility of an extremist group getting nuclear weapons. Countries has something to fear, a small criminal/terrorist organization does not.

2. US and Russia has similar nuclear stockpiles, how come economic distribution is different between the two? Nuclear weapons does not make you a "super-power", economy does. Example: Germany has no nuclear weapons yet are an economic power.

It occurs to me that there are (crude) parallels between guns and atomic weapons. It seems inconsistent to be in favor of gun control (because too many people are proving to be irresponsible with them), but against nuclear weapons control (because surely those people will be responsible, right?)

> What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power?

Increases the risk of nuclear war?

I thought nuclear weapons were supposed to deter wars?

One of the key elements of the NPT is that eventually Nuclear Weapon States will disarm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

Eventually, but they never commit to a date. "Forever minus one day"?

Hmm, China and Russia are not what most people would consider US allies and Russia has roughly the same number as the US (~46% of world's stockpile) and the US has opposed proliferation to other allies I would question your reasoning to the 'unstated implication'.

It isn't brazen arrogance. Limiting the number of countries that have nuclear weapons is a clear (though not explicitly stated) foreign policy goal. The U.S. wants to preserve the current balance of power, and prevent big wars that could disrupt its interests in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Keeping one state from getting nukes and forcing other neighboring states to do the same, or raising tensions like has happened between India and Pakistan fits right into that goal. So does stationing troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and keeping a fleet ready in the Middle East. And it's not really about ultimatums, as much as using every tool it can to change the cost/benefit analysis of nukes to keep most countries from going for them. No one wants to be the next North Korea, and that's one big reason why the embargo against Iran helped to bring them to the negotiating table.

The U.S. policy on Israel has probably done more to irritate other states than the nuclear policy as alot of states hate Israel, but most don't care as much about getting nuclear weapons. Japan and a number of other big countries could get them if they wanted. OTOH, a number of countries "hate" the U.S. but wouldn't want to take over the cost of playing policeman all the time, and overall like the stability policy brings.

> And on top of that, the United States Air Force runs a detection network that includes satellites that can spot nuclear-weapons tests.

Always curious about this, but how do satellites detect the tests? Especially underground/water ones?

This article explains how satellites can detect "underground" nuclear explosions http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-detect-u...

Thanks, that's very helpful. I've heard that the GPS system has a second function to detect nuke tests, now I see how. It can be considered a lightweight global surveillance system that gives a useful benefit when things aren't blowing up.

paywall :/

open in incognito

Thanks for that suggestion :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com