US Tests Explosive at Nuclear Site as Russia Revokes Ban on Atomic Weapons Tests
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Congratulations to the integrated #NNSA team on successfully executing Shot A of their Physics Experiment 1 series @NNSANevada. Our talented workforce reduces global nuclear threats by continually improving detection of underground nuclear explosive tests.
All it can do is issue a warning: 'you have 8 minutes to say your prayers'.
Security indeed.
When they happen, there's a lot more time than 8 minutes remaining.
eg: The India tests, the immediately following Pakistan tests, the more recent North Korean tests, etc.
Such a war would also likely extend the west's dominance by ~50 years or more if the replacement government in Russia was a pro-US one.
Could this be the start of testing that out?
Also: We're debating a lie. OP is a liar. How dumb can you be?
Edit: when I replied, the parent poster consisted of one sentence claiming the idea to be dumb, with zero substantive refutations. They have since elaborated in their original post.
Do you think such thinking is justified because of the Ukraine war? I suggest you start reading UN reports of actual observers on the ground and stop reading propaganda intended for halfwits.
I also suggest you read the analysis of us military experts on the subject hypersonic missiles. This whole thread is vile nonsense.
PS. The downvotes don't put food on your table.
Remaining quiet around people joking about genocide would follow me around in my conscience. Also fearing downvotes is like an admission to defeat. Besides - all it took for the patriots to shit up the place was one lie: "I saw an analysis recently that suggested a nuclear war between the west and Russia would no longer end in mutually assured destruction." The lie is now the most upvoted comment in this thread.
What happened to you HN? Did you ban all the smart ones and let the redditards in?
The HN community will be in shock when it finally hits on them that they too will be affected by what is happening across the ocean. The belief of unlimited superiority is blinding the fact that other people are now more willing to do harm than previously imagined.
Who do you think built the US military?
So yes, the fact the majority of people on this forum are engineers who seem to support the made up idea that the US can win a nuclear war against Russia, does shed a negative light on them. But then again so do many other things. But it's mainly the fact that the majority seems to read this comment as me propagating the idea that Russia would win. Us vs. them, right?
Nobody here is suggesting the US conduct a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia, or that it would be a good thing for humanity. The argument is merely that if a nuclear war was to break our (for whatever reason) the US now appears to have an edge over Russia.
What does that mean? Are you not aware that even a relatively small amount of 10 average modern strategic nuclear weapons is enough to trigger a 100year nuclear winter? US and Russia have a combined number of 10k+ of them. I thought there were engineers on this forum. Saying what the OP did would get you fired in my company same as saying what you did. Not for the ideological implications, but because of the complete lack of critical thinking. Are you getting any of this?
I'll go with US military experts saying Russia has a clear edge in missile tech and the fact that 10k nukes kill the Earth 1000 times over. What you're saying is simply insane.
The fact you're completely omitting my points made, means you're one of the people one cannot reach with reason. You'll cheer for your team and kill the enemy, no matter what that means exactly.
How is disabling most of Russia's nuclear missiles OK? How will wiping out a few of North America's urban centers ensure western dominance?
Who made this analysis? The "Real American Association Against the Degenerate Urban Elites" or something?
Now imagine this circlejerk on reddit. Realize what an effect it has on young people seeing hundreds of comments agreeing with such a lunatic perspective, while all others are censored or didn't dare posting in the first place. We're about to solve the Fermi paradox.
This was largely the concept of the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) in the 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
It seems as though the program has been resumed lately.
I.E.: if they fire first, firing back does not mean everyone dies.
The nuclear winter that follows a nuclear war will bring humanity back to the Stone Age. We really need to disabuse ourselves of the notion of “surviving a nuclear war”.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” - Albert Einstein
The US formally suspended the treaty on 1 February 2019, and Russia did so on the following day in response. The United States formally withdrew from the treaty on 2 August 2019.
The article identifies the US' actions as another potentially destabilizing step in an atmosphere of mistrust. It identifies that the US has not worked to ensure that 3rd party (Independent) have the capacity to verify claims of non nuclear tests.
I want to understand:
* Is there a connection between the discussion about the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the linked IRBM treaty wiki article? I'm just wondering how you are connecting these different things together.
* With respect to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty alone, what would be the truthful statement? Is the lie that America never ratified the treaty to begin with (and therefore could never actually withdraw), while Russia did ratify the treaty, and therefore was the only party that could withdraw? So the lie is that the headline creates a sense of cause and effect (Russia withdraws from the treaty, therefore America was right to respond with a partial test)?
I'd agree that the current HN headline might be misleading that way. The current Bloomberg headline "Atomic Arms Fears Grow After US Test, Russia Spurns Treaty" I feel is actually quite neutral.