Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway12201 | Hacker News Reader

People don't seem to understand how close to the edge of disaster we still are. The message in movies like Threads and The Day After are quite relevant today, despite how impossible they may seem. While an intentional war may be less likely today, the danger of an accidental one is just as real.

View on HN

Just this week, one nuclear state is threatening another nuclear state that happens to border with two other nuclear states. Meanwhile, the nukes are on hair trigger everywhere. What can possibly go wrong?

The really scary part, however, is that, obviously, nobody cares. There are no angry tweets, demonstrations, whatever. Politicians must feel like they can do whatever they want without anyone even noticing.

On the positive note, there are UN negotiations of nuclear weapon ban going on. In theory, the ban could be approved as soon as this summer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-Weapon-Ban_treaty

Ah, global zero idea, right? Which is cool, if you believe world leaders can be trusted ... and, even if they can, that they'll trust each other.

It doesn't help that the Saudis are just one large money-transfer away from having their own nukes (the check is probably already written, just waiting to be cashed, so to speak). The Iranians are closer, and Pakistan's been there for some time. So even if the "grown ups" (USA, Russia, China, India, UK, France, Israel) can be counted on to behave themselves, the upstarts less so.

It's also an open question how well the new members of the club would be able to keep their own arsenal under lock and key. If the Middle East gets into a nuclear arms race, to protect themselves from each other, that's all the more opportunities for some enterprising jihadis.

In one sense, the presence of nukes has made large-scale war more unlikely, and taking them off the table might have the opposite effect.

It was done with other types of WMD, so why not nukes? Such bans come with extensive monitoring programs.

Also, it's better to have couple countries hiding few nukes so that they are not found by inspectors than thousands of nukes on hair trigger as we have today. An accident in the first case may wipe out one city or one country. An accident in the latter case will wipe out humanity as a whole.

Also kudos to South Africa who have destroyed their nuke cache long time ago!

This is the original context for "trust, but verify."[1]

There is already a lot of infrastructure for monitoring the development and production of new nuclear weapons. As you suggest, tracking existing weapons is much harder and depends mostly on the cooperation of the club members.

It wouldn't be easy, but it can be done.

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=JQGHqScEFtoC&lpg=PP1&dq=ho...

> Meanwhile, the nukes are on hair trigger everywhere.

What makes you think this?

The scale of potential disaster is much lower now than then. We have many times fewer nukes, and counterforce is supposed to work a lot better for the attacking side leaving even less to be thrown on cities.

It will only kill high tens of millions of people now, instead of hundreds!

It's an improvement, but not much of one.

Also, consider the aftermath of nuclear war. Consider how many people live in cities. Consider that cities are not at all equipped to survive without massive, and consistent shipments of food, water, and electricity.

We'd be lucky if billions, not millions, of people didn't die in an all-out nuclear war between the US and Russia. It's still debatable whether any humans anywhere in the world would survive.

> It's still debatable whether any humans anywhere in the world would survive

Is it?

Long term, yeah. The ensuing nuclear winter would effect the entire planet much more than was thought in the early Cold War [1], which would absolutely affect food production. Add in the fallout, and your long-term forecast looks pretty bad.

[1] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.00246.pdf

What, do you think they had just enough nukes before and now they're crippled? You don't need many nukes for what is approximately the worst case...

Right now yes, nuke forces are crippled and no longer sufficient to do their job in many cases. Essentially they are sufficient in just one case: Russia finds itself in unmanageable situation and attacks countervalue first, in a deliberate suicide to take everyone else with it. To me it seems highly unlikely. In all other situations, nukes will simply play too little role with every possible conflict fought and won without or with very minimal use of nukes.

They didn't update for 30 years after all, and conventional smart weapons evolved a great lot in the same period. Nukes are almost not needed for counterforce (almost, because area targets such as sub bases and mobile ICBM garrisons are still better attacked with airburst nukes, but these are so low number it will be inconsequental from humanitarian or environmental standpoint).

While our (and presumably Russia's) counterforce capability has improved, a lot of likely counterforce targets are still near major population centers. An all out counterforce exchange would result in tens of millions of civilian casualties. Such an event would probably end our way of life (speaking as an American).

I think that the 1960's plans called for Moscow to be struck by about 400 warheads. Perhaps the modern ones call for less than 10, no one who knows will be able to comment I guess. In any case, not a great day to be in Moscow, London, Los Angeles, Paris... Perhaps casualties will be lower than the second world war, but I doubt it, and my guess is that they will be much higher for civilians, and that the injury count would be perhaps ten times higher due to flash burns. In any case my guess is that everyone who reads this would know people who will die in such a conflict. Not an exciting or positive thought.

Still over 10,000 nuclear weapons [1]. Wish it was more like a hundred.

[1]https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons/

Yes, but the present batch of leaders does not strike me as any more stable than those in the past.

Unrivaled global superpowers go out with a whimper, not a bang. If war comes to the U.S. in the near future, I fully believe that it will be due to internal issues.

With the US finding any way to tease Russia into attacking first, intentional war is just as likely now as an accidental one.

There's a reason the last official declaration of war by the us was ww2- and why the great powers never make hard and fast alliances with smaller states, or aid them too openly. And the reason is to avoid world war 3. Relations between countries are always in a big muddy middle ground between peace and war because they have to be.

> the great powers never make hard and fast alliances with smaller states, or aid them too openly.

Really? US-Israel? US-Saudi? Russia-Syria? All examples of basically untouchable alliances with smaller states and blatant, public military aid. If I were better educated/informed I'm sure I could come up with more.

That's absolutely nothing in comparison the Bismarkian international political structure that led to the first world war.

Did you watch 38 days? Great dramatization that brought that to life for me.

None of those are hard and fast alliances. None of them actually oblige the US to do anything in response to an attack on any of them.

Not to mention that the US is fond of breaking treaties left and right, though with the current administration it would surprise me if they didn't jump at the chance to attack anyone anywhere for the least provocation.

NATO does oblige all members to come to the defence of another member in response to an attack.

This is a good point, and I have an idea I want to toss out here- maybe what's really dangerous is to have a mutual defense treaty between a lot of states but still allow them to have separate diplomatic relationships.. so that a snafu involving one member state can blow up and involve a bunch of countries who didn't need to be involved. If there was a central agency speaking for all those states then there would be fewer ways for a disagreement to occur. So what I'm saying is that 20 small countries will a mutual defense treaty are much more likely to be involved in a war than one big country over the same area. I don't know if that's true or not- you'd have to do the number crunching to find out..

I truly believe the reason we have not had WW3 is because of nukes. It is one small frignge benefit.

It's the reason we have not yet had WW3. The jury is out on whether that is a good thing. Perhaps we'll find one day that several smaller conflicts (as horrifying as a WW without nukes would be) would have been preferable to one larger civilization-ending one.

Several smaller conflicts ... yep, sounds like the last 70 years of history since WWII. In a sense, we're in the middle of finding out. I agree the jury's out, but it's probably preferable to WWIII, or even a limited nuclear exchange.

perhaps we live in a multiverse, and only the surviver you-s still exist because their universes have still avoided WWIII... ;-)

The desire for positive relations with Russia is one of the reasons that Trump was elected. I'm not sure I'd characterize our government's behavior as "teasing Russia". The media is a different story.

Your low opinion of Russia is showing.

It's the opposite: they have shown an incredible amount of restraint in the face of overwhelming opposition and crippling sanctions from Europe and USA.

Didn't Russia annex Crimea? How are the sanctions not Russia's fault??

What? Well, they sure have earned those sanctions haven't they? Aggressive expansionism and annexation of foreign territories, tampering with elections in the USA, not to mention atrocious domestic policies in an effective dictatorship. They have earned those sanctions and more, indeed I think we will find in the future that dealing so softly with Russia was a mistake.

Have you seen the movie this topic is about? If not I highly encourage you to watch it. Blind nationalist attitudes like yours are what will cause the disaster it depicts.

Blind nationalist attitudes like those in the Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and Moscow?

The classic KGB tactic "accuse the enemy of exactly what you are doing" is all too transparent here.

Blind nationalism? Is anything I said not true?

Well, nobody wants to die in a Nuclear War.

It might surprise, and horrify you to know that a large number of high-ranking US staff think that nuclear war is winnable [1]. It makes my blood boil.

[1] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-nuclear-w...

> a large number of high-ranking US staff think that nuclear war is winnable

The article [1] cites two retired generals as its examples of "senior military officers" who "might be eager to get things started in the belief that a war with Russia could actually be winnable".

[1] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-nuclear-w...

The article mentions only a few. However, how many people did you think it took to sign off on building an ICBM 'shield' in Eastern Europe.

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

The official story, of course, is that it is intended to protect against Iran. From my limited understanding of geography, Poland does not lie between Iran and the United States.

Only the most patriotic Americans believe that lie. Is anybody in Poland worried about Iran launching missiles their way?

I don't think so!

https://youtu.be/vuP6KbIsNK4?t=47

do your smoldering bones care about whoever wins ?

Most people don't even realize that just about the same conditions led Japan to attack during WWII. There comes a time when you keep pushing a guy, and he says, enough! No mas!

Japan invaded China in 1931, Thailand in 1941 and had attacked Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. It was kind of on a roll attacking stuff before it hit the US in a way that is rather different from modern Russia.

Indeed. For example, when you push into the Ukraine and annex Crimea via military occupation.

Actually because of the restraint Russia has been showing in the last few years, I hold their leadership in very high regard.

Russia was the first country in Europe to invade and annex a part of a neighboring country since, what, WW2? If that's restraint, I hesitate to ask what the lack of it would look like.

Turkey, Cyprus.

Turkey didn't annex Northern Cyprus. Nor did Albania annex Kosovo, nor Russia itself annexed South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria before.

It's the combination of invasion and annexation - effectively, waging war for a formally acknowledged territorial gain - that makes the situation in Crimea unique post WW2.

Well, technically it was Greece that tried the annexation and Turkey does maintain a large military on Cyprus.

But you're right, the Crimea is both in scale, scope and ambition on a different level.

Which restraint would that be?

People who understand how close to the edge of disaster we are don't seem to understand how far past the edge others already are, and have been for generations.

Nuclear strike is only a relevant fear for people who live cushy lives exploiting those who already live in post-apocalyptic landscapes, often just down the street from them. Those who can afford to worry about imaginary disasters are clearly desensitized to current ones.

Those who truly care about holocausts are already busy putting out fires. Those who only care about themselves are worrying about nuclear weapons.

The possibility of preemptive nuclear strike is still looms. There is also the possibility that the person with their finger on the metaphorical button is not all there, and maybe shouldn't have that power. There is a movement to remove the ability for the president to call preemptive strikes. There is also a movement to remove ICBMs from the Triad. If enemies launch toward the US, an ICBM counter attack launch only allows a 6 minute window. (Assuming they targeted our ICBMs.) A side note: Military doesn't man the ICBMs. They are controlled by civilians. This is by design because the past administrations didn't trust the military to control ICBMs. The fear that they would use them without hesitation was too great.

Nuclear attack subs would pick up the slack and don't require the 6 minute response window. This would greatly reduce the currently great risk of thermonuclear war we live under.

> A side note: Military doesn't man the ICBMs. They are controlled by civilians. This is by design because the past administrations didn't trust the military to control ICBMs. The fear that they would use them without hesitation was too great.

Wut? Pretty sure that's totally false. US ICBM control stations are manned by Air Force personnel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Global_Strike_Comman....

The military still had control, even after they changed the codes on the warhead activation locks to all zeros: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link#Develop...

If you're talking about civilian control of the military, you're talking about the President and Secretary of Defense, not a dude in a bunker.

The production of nuclear weapons is under civilian control.

> The production of nuclear weapons is under civilian control.

That's not what the comment was talking about. This is what I was responding to:

>> Military doesn't man the ICBMs. They are controlled by civilians

That's not talking about manufacturing, and it's a totally false statement.

Sure, the DoE produces and "owns" the nukes, "loaning" them to the DoD for the deterrence mission.

Military personnel still turn the launch keys, when the order comes.

One of the issues is that destroying a nuclear submarine is an ambiguous operation with respect to nuclear war. Are you really going to launch nuclear missiles in response to a sub sinking? With land based ICBMs, it is unambiguously a nuclear attack and you would respond appropriately.

> There is also a movement to remove ICBMs from the Triad. If enemies launch toward the US, an ICBM counter attack launch only allows a 6 minute window.

The existence of ICBMs has been increasingly questioned in most of the countries that have them, with France leading the pack having phased them out of service. You've described one of the reasons, but the more important one is that their future ability to deliver warheads is now suspect. The SDI project was largely a comedy, but one of it's sub-projects, Brilliant Pebbles [1] was quite successful. While the work on the project as whole was ended, it's subcomponents lived on, most importantly the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle [2], the interceptor of the Ground-Based Interceptor [3], which was developed from the KE interceptor of Brilliant Pebbles. During the 00's, advancements in computers and especially digital cameras have made what were previously the hardest parts of Brilliant Pebbles have become not only realistic to implement but also quite cheap. At this point, it is widely believed that if anyone were to manufacture the ~5000 required interceptors and loft them into low earth orbit, this would provide nearly 100% effective missile shield against any exoatmospheric ballistic missiles.

The reason this was not previously considered debilitating to ICBMs was because of the limitations in available rocket launches, boosting all those interceptor satellites into orbit would have taken a very long time, during which you could either seek diplomatic solutions blocking their deployment, start deploying your own ASAT assets, or seek other solutions.

Enter SpaceX. Not only will ITS be the largest rocket ever developed, but they are intended to be very rapidly reusable, and SpaceX intends to build multiple of them operating from different pads. If they work as advertised, when they become operational the prompt space launch capability will go up by a factor of 100. This is necessary if we intend to make humanity a multi-planetary species. It will, however, also mean that the Chinese Premier can go to sleep one night in a world where ballistic missiles still work, and wake up into one where one power has deployed a functional ABM shield.

And if the other space launch operators intend to be able to compete with SpaceX in the market, they will have to build competing systems. This means that even the US is now looking into other ways to deliver warheads.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#B... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoatmospheric_Kill_Vehicle [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Interceptor

Pray tell what was objectionable about this comment that it got voted into invisibility?

@ritzw: "The possibility of preemptive nuclear strike is still looms. There is also the possibility that the person with their finger on the metaphorical button is not all there, and maybe shouldn't have that power. There is a movement to remove the ability for the president to call preemptive strikes. There is also a movement to remove ICBMs from the Triad. If enemies launch toward the US, an ICBM counter attack launch only allows a 6 minute window. (Assuming they targeted our ICBMs.) A side note: Military doesn't man the ICBMs. They are controlled by civilians. This is by design because the past administrations didn't trust the military to control ICBMs. The fear that they would use them without hesitation was too great. Nuclear attack subs would pick up the slack and don't require the 6 minute response window. This would greatly reduce the currently great risk of thermonuclear war we live under."

Probably the part about ICBMs being controlled by civilians, which is definitely not true.

@PhasmaFelis: "Probably the part about ICBMs being controlled by civilians, which is definitely not true."

You contradicted me so I am going to vote you down :(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com