Hacker News Reader

Comment by baybal2 | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

> able to keep that secret

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.

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?

Pushing the analogy, if you do the latter, you're liable to get hurt or die. You have to wait your turn, but you might not get one.

Show and reputation are better weapons.

> 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.

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.

>The best decisions for the world are not made, the best decision for individuals are made.

Stanislav Petrov's insubordination is an intersting thought here.

To be fair, individuals are part of groups.

If a group gets a benefit(survival), people will support the best thing for that group.

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.

Being court martialled is better than having half your familiy, and possbily youself die in a nuclear war.

>half your familiy, and possbily youself die

And of course, millions of others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com