Hacker News Reader

Comment by trashtester | Hacker News Reader

Russia has a bit more than a couple of nukes, as does the US. I believe I've seen the numbers indicate that the present arsenals that are currently in service are too small to erase humanity, but they are definitely big enough to cause hundreds of millions to a few billions of deaths.

If we consider the situation of just 1-2 warheads are used in a conflict, I think it really hard to gauge the effect on public perception, and I suppose it also depends on the circumstances. If for instance, they were used in an unprovoked terrorist attack, killing 2-4million in a city, the response could be like after 9/11, but x100.

If they were used to stop a military aggressor, killing "only" 10k soldiers in the field, their may lose their mythical status, and this could be the opening of Pandora's box, increasing the probability that they are used in later conflicts.

View on HN

9/11 x100??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZcZ6eJoxeE

Sorry, thread needed some levity.

Levity appreciated. It's needed even more during these times.

But does 9/11 times 100 equal 91,100 or 81.818181...?

Yeah, I did the math and it doesn't even equal 91,000/100, which is what it sounded like to me.

One "solution" is to intercept the nuclear missiles from space. (Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative).

It was restarted a couple years ago with commercial involvement. Possibly a Starlink derivative. Putin must be aware.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities

I don't think that's viable for a couple of reasons unless the tech has changed significantly.

One of the traditional decoys of an ICBM are basically launching a bunch of decoy mylar balloons with the warhead in one as well. The last round of interceptors couldn't figure out which of the balloons was the actual warhead. Then the government made the results secret.

Worse now is the hypersonic weapons which won't have constant or "ballistic" trajectory. They may be slower in space, but they have maneuverability -- which will allow them to avoid being targeted by the systems the US has.

Actually interception happens at the boost phase (upon launch) with these systems, so decoys are not possible unless you literally launch multiple rockets.

You mean the new systems? THAAD is re-entry or terminal phase. And decoys still exist in the midcourse phase.

Wikipedia's definitions are what I understand about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_pha...

With boost phase you have around 180 seconds to see it and to react to it.

No, space-based.. Like Brilliant Pebbles. It's why Space Force is a big deal.

Oh, so we think putting arms in space is a good idea now? there is a treaty against that, because if we accept that, anyone who is able to get objects into space can do some of the following:

- Park nukes in space -> no launch, you just drop them on your enemy - Tungsten rods -> put a couple of tungsten rods into a launch satellite and have them rain down from space on your enemy

Not sure that this is such a good idea.

At this point it's just a concept. There's nothing being actively developed.

Putting nukes or tungsten rods in space wouldn't accomplish much. You can't just "drop" an object from orbit. Instead you need to conduct a burn to de-orbit and head toward the target. So it doesn't save much time compared to hitting the target directly with a missile launched from Earth. Launch satellites themselves would be vulnerable to anti-satellite defenses so they would be shot down early in any major conflict. And nuclear weapons can't be left unattended indefinitely; they require maintenance at least every few years in order to operate reliably.

That seems like a problem in itself, it needs to be on a hair trigger to fire soon enough to catch a weapon soon after launch. Sure would be bad to accidentally shoot down an unannounced manned rocket launch after the software thought it was a nuclear launch.

Well, I think the equilibrium here is that, all civilian rocket launches should be announced, not the worst outcome. Isn't this already the case?

this got miscommunicated once and led to Boris Yeltsin opening the nuclear football and weighing launch orders when the call came in that it was actually a Norwegian sounding rocket, not a surprise Arctic first strike.

Oh, so as long as the humans in every country that announce the rocket launches and the humans that enter known launches into missile defense systems do their jobs perfectly every single time, then everything will be ok.

It is the case, but aren't you then trusting your enemy to be honest? It would allow at least one warhead to get through the boost phase.

That's the problem decision time is so short.

Missile defense is as it exists today is not a deterrent.

Ballistic missile defense capabilities will remain very limited for at least the next few years. But Russia has also hedged against this risk by developing the Poseidon strategic nuclear torpedo. We have no effective defense.

http://www.hisutton.com/Belgorod-Class-Submarine.html

Same with hypersonic missiles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...

Again, space-based intercept takes out the missile within 2 minutes of launch, before hypersonic is deployed. This also stops submarine launch (the space-based sensor layer detects it and intercept comes from space). It doesn't matter where the submarine is, the space-based launch-intercept system has whole earth coverage.

The Kinzhal does not enter space, therefore no space-based intercept is applicable. The Avangard is an example of a FOBS - will the space based intercept be able to intercept a FOBS vehicle? I'm unclear.

Is it really necessary to lead with "Again"? It makes me feel like you think I can't understand, and therefore you're smarter than me, that you are some know-it-all who has to be right, and that it's zero sum so that I must also therefore be wrong for you to be right. Your informative and accurate point can be made without that word.

We can and should learn from each other. You know a lot and I want to learn from you.

I hope that wasn't too antagonistic, I just wanted to explain how your comment made me feel. I had some very mean things to say to you before writing this out. Thank you for posting, I wasn't aware of Starlink's military implications.

I find this quote they interesting

> called the project "fundamentally destabilizing".[192]

As we see today, the situation is not that terribly stable.

Personally, I think we are well past the point of nuclear armaments. I think, if there is war, it'll be a ground and air war that's like a sophisticated yet familiar chess game and a side war that is mostly anti-war propaganda, pro-Russia propaganda, misinformation, and attacks on IOT and public infrastructure that exhaust the citizenry out of watching the fighting.

Many people believed this kind of thing in July of 1914.

Exactly. When it comes to unloading your nuclear arsenal, it's not the war that's the problem -- it's the escalation.

Then when Putin starts losing and faces a coup from disgruntled people at home? You sure that megalomaniac won't decide to go nuclear when pushed into a corner?

One would hope that if the people in the streets are protesting then higher ups in the russian state would also be unlikely to go down with Putin. Just like Hitler's most trusted generals readily surrendering to advancing allies to ensure favorable terms for their soldiers.

That's when the generals start talking about a "limited nuclear war", and talk about survivability. The leaders don't need to be convinced that there will be small numbers of casualties, just that their country can survive or even come out stronger than their adversaries

And I'm sure there are lots of simulations that show a survivable outcome, even if it turns out to not be true in reality.

Even in the USA, there's been talk of developing small tactical nuclear weapons for use in a limited nuclear war.

https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-t...

But the problem, of course, is once that nuclear snowball starts rolling, it's hard to stop it, and there's no predicting how big it'll get because leaders don't always act as they do in simulations.

The cold war high side estimate was 50M if the West lets USSR to expend the whole of its arsenal on USA standing, doing nothing.

Recent figures I read were 20M-40M for worst case scenarios.

Realistically, a coordinated all in launch is ~1000 warheads, with 400 of them megaton scale in R36 MIRVs from West Siberia.

First strike is only possible with computerised launch infrastructure operational. Beheading the command structure is a way to prevent an effective first strike.

Without it, assorted launches get detected early, giving time for counterattack.

The missile defence can much more easily shoot down 20 boosting missiles coming one by one, than 10 missiles coming simultaneously.

My numbers included the arsenals of all countries, and casualties for all reasons, including the direct blast, fallout, breakdown of infrastructure, the possibility of a nuclear winter, reduced food production, etc.

Even people in areas with no nukes, little fallout and not affected by nuclear winter could face mass starvation due to lack of fertilizers, diesel, spare parts for machines, etc.

Even in North America, Europe and North Asia, having the electric grids knocked out, central administrations crippled, much industry and agricultural infrastructure knocked out, followed by nuclear winter might see more people die from cold and starvation than from the nukes themselves.

Anyway, I don't think we really want to test this, even if the total numbers do not fully add up to complete destruction.

Exactly. I bet most of us on HN live in large cities and will be killed in the first strike.

I live in a large city, but have reasonable hope not to be targeted in a first strike by either side. (I live in Singapore.)

According to Congressional testimony from a committee they created to study the problem, a SINGLE nuclear bomb set off to maximize the EMP effect would likely kill about 2/3 of the population of the Continental USA, with possible higher estimates up to 90%. Mostly through slow painful deaths like mass starvation.

Why?

Because it would knock out most of our cars, electronics, payment systems, farm machinery, and everything else that we depend on to keep the supply chains our grocery stores depend on for food distribution.

See https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/millions-americans-co... for verification.

I have no idea where your "worst case scenarios" come from. But they don't exactly seem "worst case" to me!

Those estimates where not from a single nuke. “If the lights stay off for more than a year in this country, the Commission's estimate was the loss of life would run into the tens of millions, perhaps a great deal more.”

Nationwide long term total blackout is unlikely for many reasons.

I think you underestimate the time needed to restore the entire grid if it were to be simultaneously destroyed.

Sure, but the estimate there isn't "we don't restore the grid within a year" it's "the entire grid stays off for more than a year" (the whole thing is completely unrecoverable). As far as I know, your average transmission line or transformer isn't going to be broken, so the issue would be primarily power production and things that use electricity (computers etc.). We wouldn't need to restring powerlines except in places actually hit by blast waves, and the grid wouldn't be "destroyed".

(and it should be further noted that this conclusion was that the US carrying capacity for life would decrease to 30m sustained by like subsistence agriculture. I expect that those deaths of hundreds of millions would be over decades, not quickly, and I really really doubt that we'd be unable to recover more than some of our agricultural capacity in a decade)

I hope you're right.

There is an open debate about the likely damage done by power surges along long-distance power lines. Industry funded research claims that they should survive both EMP and major solar storms. Real world experience suggests that they are overconfident.

See https://chris-said.io/2020/06/18/everything-ive-learned-abou...

Regardless of which side you believe, it is clear that any "worst case scenario" should include the possibility of an EMP attack that actually does take out the power grid.

That blog post is making a fundamental error, taking down the power grid isn’t the same as taking it out.

Things are setup to fail safe which preserves equipment but defaults to turning everything off. Getting significant parts of the grid up again should take days even if your stuck with rolling blackouts for years.

Further, EMP isn’t a magic wand that instantly destroys all electronics, there is a huge range of sensitivity not just based on type of equipment but also if it’s running and the orientation it’s in. Taking out farm equipment that’s off is really difficult. The actual nukes are a much larger threat.

They are enough slbm armed subs stalking the ocean that a clean first strike is impossible. Even if you decapitate the enemy’s command and control the subs still rise and launch a full retaliatory strike.

Why would only 20-40M die after 1000 nukes?

To be glib: Hopium.

To be frank: That number's missing a zero.

Not two zeros?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com