Hacker News Reader

Comment by Simulacra | Hacker News Reader

I think also because the launch a nuclear weapons is not a simple task. There is no big button on the desk. Furthermore, it is highly questionable, if antagonistic nations even have the capability to use their nuclear weapons. There is a school of thought that the nuclear weapons of countries, like Russia have deteriorated so much, that even launch one would be a considerable, and noticeable effort.

As for tactical nuclear weapons, I think we are still looking at a major hurdle to put that theater and launch.

View on HN

>>There is a school of thought that the nuclear weapons of countries, like Russia have deteriorated so much, that even launch one would be a considerable, and noticeable effort.

I don't know why this keeps being repeated though - it sounds more like something people wish for rather than something than experts actually believe. The problem with Russian nuclear weapons is that as part of various treaties they had to let other countries, including US, inspect their facilities missiles and core storage, to make sure it's all in tip top condition and nuclear arms aren't being kept in an unsafe way and maybe getting stolen/sold off. So paradoxically we have made sure that Russian nuclear forces are probably the most well kept, inspected and funded out of all of Russian departments, because they had to allow international inspections regularly.

Foreign inspectors might warn the Russians about the risk of theft, accidents and so on. But would they warn them if they noticed that the weapons were degraded or nonfunctional, unbeknownst to the Russians?

No, and that's kind of hard to assess - but if they are inspecting facilities for maintainance of nuclear weapons and they appear to be in good order, then it would be weird for those facilities to not be actually used for their stated purpose of weapon maintenance. No one, not even the russians, is pouring billions into keeping those facilities operational and up to scratch and then not actually using them - I think it would be very unreasonable to assume so.

It is hard to assess, so this is just speculation, but I would guess that it is far easier to keep a facility in good working order, shining, nice and presentable when you don't actually use it but just pretend.

Also, the Soviet Union as well as Russia do have a culture of corruption, plan-fulfillment-only-on-paper, diversion of public funds and organized inefficiency on the job. E.g. from the current Ukraine-Russian war, there are reports (to be taken with a grain of salt of course, but there are dozens of confirmed, similar stories from Soviet times) of food shipments containing just canned water instead of canned meat/vegetables because somebody embezzled the money and shipped water to cover it up. I can't really decide either way: maybe all this is even easier, given the secrecy surrounding everything military and nuclear. Yet maybe it is harder, given the increased scrutiny around all things nuclear.

You mean like Wired magazine? How about the Wall Street Journal?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/nuclear-weapons-testing https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-russias-tactical-nuclear-we...

Wait, how about the New York Times? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/us/politics/russia-nuclea...

Paradoxically a google search would have helped.

Wired literally has a quote from someone competent who says exactly what I said:

"Provided you make the effort to maintain warheads properly, though, they ought to work. “Russia has a robust nuclear capacity. They refurbish their warheads often,” says Amy Woolf, a US specialist in nuclear weapons policy. Schneider, too, is confident that Russia’s nukes are serviceable. It would be unwise to assume otherwise. "

I can't read the WSJ or NYT articles without subscription so I cannot comment on those.

You only need 5% of the ICBMs and submarine launched ones to work to cause problems you couldn’t even imagine.

I read somewhere that even a single small nuclear exchange between countries across the planet from us would cause a Nuclear Winter, which would kill much of the flora and fauna on Earth.

How small is small? We've had hundreds of above-ground nuclear tests over the years

On city centers? Not saying it would cause nuclear winter, but economic disaster. (Hunger, disease, wars.)

100 warheads. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/devastating-effects-of-nu...

No, it wouldn't. Nuclear winter from a small-scale exchange was a simulation result many decades ago, to be disproven only a few years later by more advanced simulations and observation results from volcanoes, forest and oil fires. Larger exchanges will have a noticable effect, but how large is up for debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter has a fairly detailed elaboration on the various points of view and their history.

I’m talking just 100 warheads. https://youtu.be/CxkvsrSUyOU Kyle Hill talks about it on this video at 7:25.

This is sensationalist nonsense, as evidenced by "just 100 warheads" without giving any yield or burst height. And if you read the Wikipedia article I've given you, the evidence points to the effects of any exchange in the 100MT range (which is far more than one would expect from e.g. India vs. China or UK vs. France) will be noticable, but far from catastrophic. At worst, it will cancel out global warming for a year or two.

Kyle Hill is a sensationalist? Richard Wolfson and Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress are sensationalists? That is an accusation I have never ever heard sent Kyle’s way. Did you actually watch the video or read the article in the MIT press? Why should I believe you and not the authors at MIT?

The Fate of the Earth: Schell, Jonathan

> There is a school of thought that the nuclear weapons of countries, like Russia have deteriorated so much, that even launch one would be a considerable, and noticeable effort.

I would like to think that is true. I would hate to have to find out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com