Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101d | Hacker News Reader

Some folks are arguing even further, "Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately":

> The modern world is a place where nuclear-armed great powers, led by authoritarian leaders, often feel the impulse to bully smaller nations. If those smaller nations lack nuclear weapons, they lie prostrate and vulnerable at the feet of the bullies. But if they have nukes, they are much harder to push around. This doesn’t mean they’re impervious to attack — Israel has been struck by Iran and its proxies — but having nukes dramatically improves a small country’s security.

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-n...

View on HN

I think the collapse of the US as "The World's Policeman", will result in the most nuclear proliferation since the 50s. That alone will make the world a much, much more dangerous place.

Maybe if Trump keeps beating his chest saying "peace" and "denuclearization" then it'll happen.

For sure. My understanding is that this is the main reason why US foreign policy in relation to Europe and NATO was steadfast for 75 years - that it provided this stability. It helped in the quest to avoid nuclear proliferation - many countries could say : Look, we don't have nukes either!

And the proof is in the pudding, during these 75 years not a single bomb exploded with intent to kill. The forecast for the next 75 years surely is more dire.

Makes me wonder if I should get the hell out of New York.

Seriously, if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? Almost certainly Washington DC and NYC. The US is too big to bomb in its entirety.

Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice.

Just avoid any rural areas east of Kansas or wherever there are minuteman silos!

You won't want to live anywhere after nukes start flying. Even if your location isn't hit directly, you're dealing with a complete collapse of society as we know it. Not to mention things like nuclear winter.

> The US is too big to bomb in its entirety.

Russia has ~5500 warheads, so maybe not every square inch but certainly several cities and other locations in each state.

You know, those underground bomb shelters from the 50's and 60's always did seem kind of cool...

If more than 10% of their warheads still work, I'd be (hopefully metaphorically) blown away.

Soon to be more after trump gives them american ones

Similarly there are Europeans considering a move to rural France or the Iberian peninsula.

I know you're half joking but if someone were to give an honest answer i think you need to take into consideration resources in the region, water supply, rivers that could carry radioactive material and so on. I would assume (they) would've already thought about this kind of thing where you would map what's the most damaging areas to nuke that would affect the most area.

Grim times ahead for sure but i'm not that stressed considering that something like 70% of russia's population is in the west of the country, very, very close to europe

> if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start?

First, nuclear forces: ICBM and IRBM silos and their C2, nuclear weapons storage, strategic airfields and ballistic-missile submarine bases. (This is why nuclear arsenals escalate against each other. The defensive role of missile silos is both deference and to soak up the enemy’s nukes.)

Second, leadership: command posts and communication.

Third, other military: barracks, supply depots, marshalling points, airfields, ammunition storage, tank and vehicle storage.

Fourth, military industry: ammo, tank, APC factories; refineries; railyards and repair facilities. Steel, aluminum and power generation.

Fifth, population centres. (You don’t want to nuke New York if that could have taken out a silo that will flatten a dozen of your cities.)

In summary, somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere :).

https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-319fs.pdf page 22

That’s a nice theory but nuking empty silo’s is pointless.

So, attacking them just means they launch everything at you while also wasting your nukes.

You don't know where the enemy ICBM warheads will land until it is too late. So you have to assume that they will target the silos

The B part of ICBM means ballistic, and they are. Thus you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory.

By useful I mean you can do significantly better than saying if it’s targeting the middle of the US, east, or west coast. Though it’s quite a large area.

> you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory

If you’re doing a first strike and aren’t a moron, you conventionally strike the early-warning radars first. Ideally in a plausibly-deniable way.

First strike detection isn’t limited to early warning radar or ground based systems except in the very early days of the Cold War.

There’s no plausibility deniable way to take these systems down in practice.

And they have to assume you will assume this, so they would expect your silos will already be emptied in a retaliatory strike. Of course you have to trust early-warning systems and the ability to react decisively and quickly.

> nuking empty silo’s is pointless

Nuking full siloes is the point of a first strike. So yes, you’re relatively safe near a silo field if America is launching first and the adversary assumes or knows that every silo launched perfectly.

The fact first strike didn’t look like it would work has a lot to do with why we’ve avoid nuclear war.

I’m not saying nobody would ever target a missile silo, just that they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets.

> they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets

The target list is obviously conditional on a nuclear war happening. Unless your position is the U.S. is invulnerable to a first strike, then the silos should stay at the top of the list. (Even in a second strike you hit them and hit them fast. If there was a launch error you get a tremendous defensive ROI in taking them out.)

My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless.

Even France and the UK has 4 nuclear subs, the US has what 14 ballistic missile submarines?

> My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless

That’s incoherent with this thread, which started with someone asking what would happen “if someone decides to nuke the US.” Not if France launched a suicidal first strike on America.

The realistic scenarios for America getting nuked are a first strike from a rogue state, first strike from Russia or China, and second strike from Russia or China.

First strike from a rogue state is basically nuclear terrorism; it will probably target a population centre or something close and hittable, e.g. Guam for Pyongyang. First strikes from Russia or China would target silos. (Unless theatre-based, e.g. hitting Guam and our Japanese airbases ahead of an invasion of Taiwan.) Second strike would mean silos are probably empty, though not necessarily, these are hundreds of decades-old mechanisms in who knows what condition of readiness, but sure, if the American first strike is comprehensive and flawless, and the enemy omnipotent, we’d probably not see too many nukes go at silos. (You would at other nuclear infrastructure.)

So in general, no, if we’re in wide-scale nuclear war the planners who thought about this for decades in the Cold War may not have missed that launched tubes that have launched are now empty.

> First strike from a rogue state is basically nuclear terrorism

Obviously by definition someone can attack first, however:

“First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike_(nuclear_strategy...

So yes in theory sure a first strike would take out nuclear silos, but neither side believed they could preform a successful first strike. It’s a theoretical goal, not something that seems to have been possible barring the very early days of the Cold War before ICBM’s existed.

Which then brings up the question of what exactly you target if you assume thousands of nukes will hit you regardless of what you aim for.

Why do you think France or Britain would nuke New York? And there isn't that much point for Russia to nuke their new ally either.

I don't think it's super likely, though if our president decides to declare war to try reignite American imperialism, then it seems like it could happen.

He's already talked about invading Greenland, what's to stop him from trying to invade somewhere else, somewhere with more firepower to fight back? All it would take is Fox News or OAN to start running stories about how the US is actually entitled to the land of France. It's not like it matters if there's any truth to it.

Isn't US military well independent? So they would just refuse in contrast with authoritarian militaries like russia where they don't have that power

> Isn't US military well independent?

Is it? I mean I don't think they could legally refuse (if use of force was authorized by the president and congress)? So it would still effectively be a military "coup" and those can obviously still happen in authoritarian countries.

Do you think us Brits just calmly accepted our loss in the war of independence?

New Yorker here. Last year one of my meditation teachers here in the city casually mentioned that in some sects of Tibetan Buddhism there's a prophecy of some sort of catastrophic global event between 2026 and 2032, and a former monk friend of his advised him to leave NYC by 2030. From some casual googling it seems like the text is "The Light That Makes Things Clear: A Prophecy of Things to Come".

I'm a non-believer when it comes to these sorts of things, but if anything was to convince me otherwise it'd be watching Trump speed run us towards another World War these past few weeks.

How is trump speed running towards another world war? To me– a non-us citizen– it does seem like quite the opposite.

Well he has talked repeatedly about taking Greenland "by force", which in itself wouldn't be a world war, but of course is still terrible.

I think the concern is that telling Ukraine to surrender their land after they were invaded by Russia will give Russia the confidence to start attacking other European countries. Traditionally, NATO would have protected us from that happening, but with Trump upsetting all our NATO partners, I'm kind of concerned that that won't help this time.

Well, this is how yout tell anynone feeling like fixing like they might be in a position of fixing old grudges or grabbing some land - go for it! :P Not very safe and can get out of hand very very quickly...

This, basically. He's said that we're going to take Greenland one way or another, is talking about taking the Panama Canal, is basically telling Russia we're on their side and Europe can deal with it themselves, and China is ramping up activities around taking Taiwan [1]. He's also classified the cartels as terrorist organizations and has talked about sending in elite US forces to take them out, which Mexico has said they would view as a violation of their sovereignty.

I've been listening to a lot of French news lately and France is already talking about needing to build more nuclear weapons and to extend nuclear protections across Europe, as the US has in a short few weeks completely alienated all of our allies from the past 80 years [2].

So, I don't know, seems like we're closer to everything going to shit globally than in any other time in my 40+ years.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-will-work-firmly-a...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-realistic-is-france...

My personal 'unknown wisdom' conspiracy is that there's some knowledge about UAPs which is why politicians are being so weird. Rubio/Vance going from calling Trump a nazi to joining him. I know it's just they're shitty people, but part of me would rather it's some secret UAP knowledge.

And what UAP has with Trump? Remember US is going crazy others Democratic countries aren't and russia is being russia, don't confuse USA going downhill because of their shit politics as the world is going under, cold war was a lot worse

I sometimes heard vague theories of rich people on the east coast having their jets ready to fly to New Zealand, but I'm not sure how realistic that would be in such a scenario.

> fly to New Zealand

It's a 7700nmi trip:

* http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=nm&P=KJFK-NZAA

Not many private jets (or even commercial ones) can do non-stop:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_7500

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800

That is why those models are in high demand. Not only for a doomsday scenario, but as a general convenience to fly non-stop.

Billionaires such as Zuckerberg are also building luxury bunkers [1]. Kinda wish they tried to prevent apocalypse instead...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...

All they’re doing is making rich, delicious oysters for those left on the surface to shuck.

Idaho National Lab (the leading center for nuclear energy research and development) is 200 miles from Boise. Not a direct hit but still not fun.

https://inl.gov/

> Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice.

There's a handy map in this article:

* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-would-take-th...

* https://www.newsweek.com/safest-us-states-nuclear-war-attack...

In the US, the west coast and Florida seem to be the best candidates from fallout. See also perhaps:

* https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/nuclear-attack-map

* https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/yc0ho2/us_cities_a...

The patriot missiles have been quite effective at taking out Russian missiles. I'd wait till that stuff happens before packing up and driving west. Typing this from central London which also gets Russian threats.

I think it's unlikely the Russians would nuke somewhere like that as they only have two decent cities which would be hit in retaliation. It's more likely if they went nuclear that they'd hit troops in Ukraine. Biden issued a lot of threats to Putin if they did that but under Trump I'm not sure much US retaliation would happen.

It's one thing to want to withdraw orderly, it's another to treacherously backstab your allies.

Why more dangerous? I am worried about religious fanatics armed with nuclear weapons. I am not really worried about Germany, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan armed with them. The more deterence, the less likely there will be a war. You go to war when you think you can get away with it, not when you think there is even a 10% chance all you major cities will be nuked.

The more independent entities with Nuclear weapons, the more avenues for one to be used. Simple as that. Every country has potential to move towards national fanaticism over time.

That's just not the case. Look at every conflict of the past 50 years. Major powers trade very carefully against a nuclear armed nation. Which by the way largely explained Biden's tepid military support to Ukraine, giving them just enough weapons for them not to collapse but not enough to make any serious dent to Russia. And basically maximising casualties by making the conflict last.

That's not an argument against my statement, IMHO. If I were a nation without Nuclear arms, I would absolutely be racing to get them. That's independent of whether or not I think the aggregate risk increases. The US and Russia have deep levels of communication that have evolved over time in responses to near misses with Nuclear weapon firings. The more countries that enter in to that territory, the more need to have that communication and the more chances and avenues there are for mis cues. One mis cue results in at least one nuke being fired, and where one flies several have the chance to. And that's ignoring the fact that fanatical / suicidal regimes do in fact come to power from time to time.

I too hope that more nuclear arms will result in reduced conflicts and a reduced risk model overall. But if I were to bet, I'd bet that if we 10x the number of players with Nuke's, we 10x the number of chances for some to be used.

> I am not really worried about Germany, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan armed with them.

You should be. The more small states with nuclear weapons, the more chances there are that any one country feels like a nuclear assault could be "worth it". Heck, just look at India and Pakistan. I can't remember which Indian government minister said it, but years ago he essentially said that India could "absorb" a nuclear strike from Pakistan, because since India is bigger with a lot more people, any nuclear volley would mean the complete annihilation of Pakistan while India would "only" lose a couple hundred million people...

The more proliferation there is, the higher the chance any one government will move away from MAD theory to "well, guess we've got nothing left to lose".

> That alone will make the world a much, much more dangerous place.

It will make the world a safer place. That's why Macron is opening up this discussion at all.

There have been some South Koreans arguing for developing nukes, and until about two months ago, I was staunchly in the camp of "What a bunch of airheads, what purpose would nukes serve in our situation, when we already have our nuclear umbrella?"

Now I'm not so sure.

It's an absolute necessity. The US has lost all credibility as a deterrent.

These are nuclear capable countries but actually fielding them requires strong political will and a supply chain that is untouchable to adversaries. Given the amount of sabotage the Chinese routinely do to Taiwanese, Japanese and Korean systems, I don't have much faith in that.

Small nuclear armed states will never have a credible deterrent because unfortunately due to their countries' small size they will always be at risk of a first strike. Chinese leaders believed they were in this position vis-a-vis the United States until about a decade and a half ago.

For example, we hear about North Korea a lot but they don't have a credible deterrent. Their stockpiles are easily destroyed in a surprise attack by a couple of JASSMs because they don't have the luxury of a large landmass like Russia and China to move their mobile launchers around.

That's why you usually base nuclear missile in submarines for smaller contries, the idea being that if the country itself gets attacked, the hidden submarine will figure it out & launch the nukes while playing "god save the queen"/"sakura sakura"/"Gangam style" on the PA system. The last one possibly being a worse crime on humanity than the nukes.

I was under the impression from things I've read (though I don't remember where) that Japan has for a long time been everything but nuclear ready. As in they wanted to be able to say they didn't have nuclear weapons but in reality they'd done everything but final assembly of devices (or similar 95% complete kind of status). Perhaps even similar to Israel's assumed but never publicly acknowledged full nuclear capability.

It's called nuclear latency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency

  Japan is considered a "paranuclear" state, with complete technical prowess to develop a nuclear weapon quickly, and is sometimes called being "one screwdriver's turn" from the bomb, as it is considered to have the materials and technical capacity to make a nuclear weapon at will.

Also the solid fueled orbital launch rockets Japan has are totally not ICBMs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-V#Potential_as_an_interconti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_(rocket)#Vehicle_descr...

"The Epsilon is expected to have a shorter launch preparation time than its predecessors;[11][12][13] a function called "mobile launch control" greatly shortens the launch preparation time, and needs only eight people at the launch site,[14] compared with 150 people for earlier systems.[15]"

All this is just a coincidence. ^_-

> Also the solid fueled orbital launch rockets Japan has are totally not ICBMs:

The biggest threats to Japan are China and North Korea: you do not need ICBMs for them.

Cruise missiles have ranges of >1500km:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family)

And with that, a missile launched from the north of Japan (e.g., Sapporo) can hit NK:

* http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=1500km@RJCC

Southern Japan (e.g., Nagasaki) can reach Beijing and Shanghai:

* http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=1500km@RJFU

Japan doesn't currently have any, but perhaps Taiwan and/or SK would be willing to sell them some existing design:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyunmoo-3

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiung_Feng_IIE

Though they seem to be working on updating their own design:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_12_surface-to-ship_missil...

I think the French discussions of extending nuclear deterrence over Europe are meant to dissuade nuclear proliferation vis a vis Poland and maybe Germany. The US nuclear umbrella via the NATO alliance once served that purpose. Now, France is trying to contain nuclear proliferation.

Ukraine does too…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com