How reliable is this?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

For example, I’ve known for a long time that Pakistan has a much smaller nuclear stockpile than India. The USA has always had a bigger number of nuclear warheads than Russia. There’s no way that North Korea could have that many. The number in Israel is completely unknown.

The following looks badly wrong, too. From memory, the USA had no reduction in nuclear weapons in the years leading up to 2009. Then a reduction after 2009. The final USA number below, about 4,000, is way below the number 6,185 in the chart above

The following figure looks more reliable? Keeping in mind that “awaiting dismantlement” means “around forever”. But still, I don’t trust it because, I’m sure that the number of US warheads is bigger than that of the USSR.

The following I do trust. It’s exactly what I’ve learnt over the years. The only surprise being that Argentina is on the list.

States That Had Nuclear Weapons or Nuclear Weapons Programs at One Time:

• Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, but returned them to Russia and joined the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states.
• South Africa secretly developed but subsequently dismantled its small number of nuclear warheads and also joined the NPT in 1991.
• Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but was forced to verifiably dismantle it.
• Libya voluntarily renounced its secret nuclear weapons efforts in December 2003.
• Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan also shelved nuclear weapons programs.

Missing figure from the above.

What’s the criteria, UK, France also has nukes. As does Israel.

I grew up thinking that the USSR always had slightly more warheads than the USA. In fact I was taught this in school.

My guess is Argentina tried to develop the bomb under the dictatorship of the 1970s and 80s, but gave it up when the regime was overthrown after the Falklands debacle.

mollwollfumble said:

The following figure looks more reliable? Keeping in mind that “awaiting dismantlement” means “around forever”. But still, I don’t trust it because, I’m sure that the number of US warheads is bigger than that of the USSR.

What makes you so sure?

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

The following figure looks more reliable? Keeping in mind that “awaiting dismantlement” means “around forever”. But still, I don’t trust it because, I’m sure that the number of US warheads is bigger than that of the USSR.

What makes you so sure?

You can trust Putin.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

The following figure looks more reliable? Keeping in mind that “awaiting dismantlement” means “around forever”. But still, I don’t trust it because, I’m sure that the number of US warheads is bigger than that of the USSR.

What makes you so sure?

You can trust Putin.

Does Putin make things up on a whim like Moll?

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What makes you so sure?

You can trust Putin.

Does Putin make things up on a whim like Moll?

I suspect Putin is far more organised.

It’s pronounced “nyoocyoolah”.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What makes you so sure?

You can trust Putin.

Does Putin make things up on a whim like Moll?

Thank you for asking so nicely. Here is a thing that I made up on a whim. Can you disprove it?

This diagram is a cynic’s view of the actual number of completely made and partially made atomic bombs owned by the USA. Instead of the publicised 4,000 it may be closer to 40,000.

The good thing about tritium is it’s short lifespan. It would have to be remade afresh for those H-bombs requiring tritium.

A cynic’s view is that that should be more like

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

You can trust Putin.

Does Putin make things up on a whim like Moll?

Thank you for asking so nicely. Here is a thing that I made up on a whim. Can you disprove it?

This diagram is a cynic’s view of the actual number of completely made and partially made atomic bombs owned by the USA. Instead of the publicised 4,000 it may be closer to 40,000.

The good thing about tritium is it’s short lifespan. It would have to be remade afresh for those H-bombs requiring tritium.

A cynic’s view is that that should be more like

You could just as easily find sources that refute your opinion.

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Does Putin make things up on a whim like Moll?

Thank you for asking so nicely. Here is a thing that I made up on a whim. Can you disprove it?

This diagram is a cynic’s view of the actual number of completely made and partially made atomic bombs owned by the USA. Instead of the publicised 4,000 it may be closer to 40,000.

The good thing about tritium is it’s short lifespan. It would have to be remade afresh for those H-bombs requiring tritium.

A cynic’s view is that that should be more like

You could just as easily find sources that refute your opinion.

Years ago at the height of the cold war. The US made a blunder which could have been serious.
Some nukes carried by SAC’s bombers have a fairly short life & need to be refurbished.
The techs replaced one at Frankfurt base then went home. Unfortunately they left the old bomb sitting unguarded on the ground. Much arm waving & red faces resulted.

I imagine various nuclear weapons based on stealth and/or hypersonic missiles exist or are in development today, still not sure what advantage they give the aggressor as you’d expect a retaliatory strike. Might be better to use some sort of mass driver to shove an asteroid into an enemies territory, it would have a similar yield to a large nuclear weapon and no fallout

Barry White lists the harpsichord as one of his best instruments.

Peak Warming Man said:

Barry White lists the harpsichord as one of his best instruments.

barry is da bombe!

A few things you ought to be aware of, if you aren’t already.

The story of nuclear proliferation:
The US got nuclear bombs to take over the world.
The USSR got nuclear bombs to protect irself from the US.
China got nuclear bombs to protect itself from the USSR
India got nuclear bombs to protect itself from China
Pakistan got nuclear bombs to protect itself from India
Iran wants to get nuclear bombs to protect itself from Pakistan

In other words, the big bad wolf responsible for nuclear proliferation is the US.

Another thing you ought to already be aware of: In the Cuban missile crisis, it wasn’t the USSR that backed down, it was the US. The US had moved medium range nukes up close to the Turkish-Russian border with a range to reach Moscow. A deadly situation for the USSR. The US backed down by removing those nukes, and the USSR responded by removing theirs from Cuba.

I need to confirm the following, but last time I checked it was correct. India has H-bomb weapons, Pakistan doesn’t.

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Thank you for asking so nicely. Here is a thing that I made up on a whim. Can you disprove it?

This diagram is a cynic’s view of the actual number of completely made and partially made atomic bombs owned by the USA. Instead of the publicised 4,000 it may be closer to 40,000.

A cynic’s view is that that should be more like

You could just as easily find sources that refute your opinion.

Years ago at the height of the cold war. The US made a blunder which could have been serious.
Some nukes carried by SAC’s bombers have a fairly short life & need to be refurbished.
The techs replaced one at Frankfurt base then went home. Unfortunately they left the old bomb sitting unguarded on the ground. Much arm waving & red faces resulted.

Oh dear, I hadn’t heard that one. LOL.

Are there any US nukes still permanently deployed in Europe? In Turkey?

> You could just as easily find sources that refute your opinion.

Yes. I intend to. See Good Scientist Cartoon number 1.
But it’s better to have an independent check by an unbiased observer – you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Soviet_deployment_of_missiles_in_Cuba

> You could just as easily find sources that refute your opinion.

Back when I was a member of Scientists Against Nuclear Arms (SANA), the guru on world nuclear arms was Thomas B. Cochran, Director of NRDC’s Nuclear Program.

The next best source was Jane’s nuclear weapons, in the same series as Jane’s Fighting Ships.

But I’ve been out of the loop for about 25 years. So let’s start digging.

mollwollfumble said:

> You could just as easily find sources that refute your opinion.

Back when I was a member of Scientists Against Nuclear Arms (SANA), the guru on world nuclear arms was Thomas B. Cochran, Director of NRDC’s Nuclear Program.

The next best source was Jane’s nuclear weapons, in the same series as Jane’s Fighting Ships.

But I’ve been out of the loop for about 25 years. So let’s start digging.

Wikipedia has lots of interesting articles on nuclear weapons/disasters, etc
I wonder how long before the treaty on no weapons in space/orbit holds up in this century

Cymek said:

I imagine various nuclear weapons based on stealth and/or hypersonic missiles exist or are in development today, still not sure what advantage they give the aggressor as you’d expect a retaliatory strike. Might be better to use some sort of mass driver to shove an asteroid into an enemies territory, it would have a similar yield to a large nuclear weapon and no fallout

fast enough they get very difficult to shoot down (destructively intercept), so there’s multiplied advantage from multiple missiles with a lowered probability of destructive intercepts (multiple targets for the other side). When launched the launch origin is announced, so too the rate, pattern of launches, which information can be gleaned from, so the delivery needs be optimized, adaptive too, some unexpectedness helps, things the other side are likely not to anticipate, or the computer systems involved are likely not to have projected as high priority in strategy

anyway, to the subject, not what moll had in mind..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

“Depleted uranium (DU; also referred to in the past as Q-metal, depletalloy or D-38) is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium. Natural uranium contains about 0.72% U-235, while the DU used by the U.S. Department of Defense contains 0.3% U-235 or less. Uses of DU take advantage of its very high density of 19.1 g/cm3 (68.4% denser than lead). The less radioactive and non-fissile uranium-238 constitutes the main component of depleted uranium.

Civilian uses include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment, and containers for transporting radioactive materials. Military uses include armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles”

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

> You could just as easily find sources that refute your opinion.

Back when I was a member of Scientists Against Nuclear Arms (SANA), the guru on world nuclear arms was Thomas B. Cochran, Director of NRDC’s Nuclear Program.

The next best source was Jane’s nuclear weapons, in the same series as Jane’s Fighting Ships.

But I’ve been out of the loop for about 25 years. So let’s start digging.

Wikipedia has lots of interesting articles on nuclear weapons/disasters, etc
I wonder how long before the treaty on no weapons in space/orbit holds up in this century

Reagan Star Wars tried to break the outer space treaty.
Nowadays, it’s recognised that even conventional explosions in space (ie. killer satellites) play havoc with both civilian and military use of space.

The outer space treaty is one of a set of five treaties that ban nuclear weapons and explosions in specific areas.

1963. Antarctic
1967. South America
1967. Outer space
1971. Seabed
1985. South Pacific

From information in the FAQ of https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html

The upper line in the following chart is probably wrong, because the US in 2001 had produced “no new HEU for weapons use since 1964”.

By way of contrast, the second line from the top in the following chart is probably right, because “Even after dismantlement, the expensive nuclear materials still exist, often in the form of fabricated weapons components, and manufacturing new weapons from them could be undertaken rapidly” and up until 2001, none of that nuclear weapons material had been diverted to non-weapons uses – except a little for use in Naval reactors after 1991.

Oh, and the peak active weapons count was 32,500 warheads in 1964, not 30,000. A minor error. So as of the year 2001, the US had enough fissionable material, most of it prefabricated, to build about 32,500 warheads. That includes (as of 1995) 38.3 spare tonnes of plutonium, 33 spare tonnes of >92% 235U, and 142 more spare tonnes of >20% 235U, all earmarked for nuclear weapons “in excess to national security needs” and not counted in the nuclear arsenal.

I want to bring these numbers more up to date. And I need to check a very questionable statement I’ve seen about the INF (intermediate range nuclear force) treaty.

It’s also hard to have any credibility when you have used force and threatening to use force against nations wanting to build nuclear weapons today, when you already have many of them yourself and being trusted to reduce them and not build more.

Cymek said:

It’s also hard to have any credibility when you have used force and threatening to use force against nations wanting to build nuclear weapons today, when you already have many of them yourself and being trusted to reduce them and not build more.

Credibility with who? How much weight does real politik give to credibility compared to preventing a rival from obtaining a bomb.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

It’s also hard to have any credibility when you have used force and threatening to use force against nations wanting to build nuclear weapons today, when you already have many of them yourself and being trusted to reduce them and not build more.

Credibility with who? How much weight does real politik give to credibility compared to preventing a rival from obtaining a bomb.

With the world and people who think beyond patriotism, but yeah they don’t really care.

Soz, that was meant to go here.

In dead seriousness, there’s no nuclear arsenal that troubles me more right now than that of the USA.

KJU might be a dingdong but he’s probably got a dozen warheads at most and it wouldn’t surprise me if NK’s delivery platform is unreliable. There’s no way India or Pakistan have reasonable leaders and there’s no chance they are going to opt to self annihilate. Why would Putin start a nuclear war at this point, or Netanuahu. I can’t think of any motive that would make France or the UK launch. China has a bit of a distributed executive control and again, nothing to gain.

The only real risk is that a short tempered, insecure, mentally unstable, impetuous, thin-skinned, unrealistic or tragically misinformed person who refuses to take advice or even consult with his team before acting would end up with unchecked authority over a large nuclear arsenal and this is the situation that exists in the USA today. I’ve never been terribly worried about this before. I would not have taken seriously the idea that Reagan or Clinton, the Bushes or Obama woukd launch a nuclear strike purely in a fit of pique, but doing so would line up exactly with Trump’s profile. 
In the USA there is literally no legal means to prevent the President from launching a nuclear strike. From his decision to attack to the launch takes less than 10 minutes and he does not need any other individual’s consent or agreement. He could have done it 10 minutes ago, as I type this. No level of readiness is required. (The entire arsenal is not kept ready to launch, obv, but enough). The only way it would be stopped is if several people decide to break the law for long enough for Cabinet to be alerted and enact the 25th amendment to remove him from office, but I doubt in the heat of the moment that would be likely.

It’s fuckin’ nuts that you need a psych eval to join the pplice, the air force, to be an astronaut, even to work on a remote location, but you don’t need one to hold the position with the untrammeled authority to render the Earth uninhabitable within hours.

It’s beginning to look as though the following diagram is a complete crock as well, even though I haven’t got more information since 2001.

By 1998 already 58% of Russia’s nuclear weapons had exceeded their lifespan, and there was no money for maintenance and warhead refurbishment. By way of contrast, the USA spends about as much money on warhead maintenance now as it did on warhead manufacture during the peak of the cold war era. So, back in 1998, it was predicted that Russia’s nuclear warheads would have decayed to the point where there were only 700 usable by the year 2007. And only a massive increase in Russian nuclear funding for maintenance could push the number of usable warheads up to 1,000 by the year 2015.

Or to put it another way, Russia’s funding for nuclear capability maintenance is somewhere between a hundredth and a tenth of the USAs. For example, the USA is keeping fresh tritium in most of its H-bombs at all times. Tritium has a half life on only 12.9 years and Russia’s H-bomb stocks are not being maintained. Then add to that radiation damage and corrosion.

So the following diagram’s estimate of 6,490 operational warheads for Russia in 2019 is way way too high, it can’t be more than about 1,500.

mollwollfumble said:

It’s beginning to look as though the following diagram is a complete crock as well, even though I haven’t got more information since 2001.

By 1998 already 58% of Russia’s nuclear weapons had exceeded their lifespan, and there was no money for maintenance and warhead refurbishment. By way of contrast, the USA spends about as much money on warhead maintenance now as it did on warhead manufacture during the peak of the cold war era. So, back in 1998, it was predicted that Russia’s nuclear warheads would have decayed to the point where there were only 700 usable by the year 2007. And only a massive increase in Russian nuclear funding for maintenance could push the number of usable warheads up to 1,000 by the year 2015.

Or to put it another way, Russia’s funding for nuclear capability maintenance is somewhere between a hundredth and a tenth of the USAs. For example, the USA is keeping fresh tritium in most of its H-bombs at all times. Tritium has a half life on only 12.9 years and Russia’s H-bomb stocks are not being maintained. Then add to that radiation damage and corrosion.

So the following diagram’s estimate of 6,490 operational warheads for Russia in 2019 is way way too high, it can’t be more than about 1,500.

0.1% of military grade fissile material has been converted to civilian use in the USA (according to the report in 2001), much less than 1 tonne. But under a 1994 agreement between the USA and Russia, a minimum of 500 tonnes of military highly enriched uranium (HEU) is being converted to civilian use in Russia over 20 years. That’s more than the entire stockpiled amount owned by the USA (calculated at 174 tonnes) that had been taken out of nuclear warheads. Bloody marvellous.

Russia is not the problem. Never was.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

It’s beginning to look as though the following diagram is a complete crock as well, even though I haven’t got more information since 2001.

By 1998 already 58% of Russia’s nuclear weapons had exceeded their lifespan, and there was no money for maintenance and warhead refurbishment. By way of contrast, the USA spends about as much money on warhead maintenance now as it did on warhead manufacture during the peak of the cold war era. So, back in 1998, it was predicted that Russia’s nuclear warheads would have decayed to the point where there were only 700 usable by the year 2007. And only a massive increase in Russian nuclear funding for maintenance could push the number of usable warheads up to 1,000 by the year 2015.

Or to put it another way, Russia’s funding for nuclear capability maintenance is somewhere between a hundredth and a tenth of the USAs. For example, the USA is keeping fresh tritium in most of its H-bombs at all times. Tritium has a half life on only 12.9 years and Russia’s H-bomb stocks are not being maintained. Then add to that radiation damage and corrosion.

So the following diagram’s estimate of 6,490 operational warheads for Russia in 2019 is way way too high, it can’t be more than about 1,500.

0.1% of military grade fissile material has been converted to civilian use in the USA (according to the report in 2001), much less than 1 tonne. But under a 1994 agreement between the USA and Russia, a minimum of 500 tonnes of military highly enriched uranium (HEU) is being converted to civilian use in Russia over 20 years. That’s more than the entire stockpiled amount owned by the USA (calculated at 174 tonnes) that had been taken out of nuclear warheads. Bloody marvellous.

Russia is not the problem. Never was.

Dose that mean they can only destroy half the world now?

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

It’s beginning to look as though the following diagram is a complete crock as well, even though I haven’t got more information since 2001.

By 1998 already 58% of Russia’s nuclear weapons had exceeded their lifespan, and there was no money for maintenance and warhead refurbishment. By way of contrast, the USA spends about as much money on warhead maintenance now as it did on warhead manufacture during the peak of the cold war era. So, back in 1998, it was predicted that Russia’s nuclear warheads would have decayed to the point where there were only 700 usable by the year 2007. And only a massive increase in Russian nuclear funding for maintenance could push the number of usable warheads up to 1,000 by the year 2015.

Or to put it another way, Russia’s funding for nuclear capability maintenance is somewhere between a hundredth and a tenth of the USAs. For example, the USA is keeping fresh tritium in most of its H-bombs at all times. Tritium has a half life on only 12.9 years and Russia’s H-bomb stocks are not being maintained. Then add to that radiation damage and corrosion.

So the following diagram’s estimate of 6,490 operational warheads for Russia in 2019 is way way too high, it can’t be more than about 1,500.

0.1% of military grade fissile material has been converted to civilian use in the USA (according to the report in 2001), much less than 1 tonne. But under a 1994 agreement between the USA and Russia, a minimum of 500 tonnes of military highly enriched uranium (HEU) is being converted to civilian use in Russia over 20 years. That’s more than the entire stockpiled amount owned by the USA (calculated at 174 tonnes) that had been taken out of nuclear warheads. Bloody marvellous.

Russia is not the problem. Never was.

Dose that mean they can only destroy half the world now?

It means they probably couldn’t even defend themselves if China and France decided to gang up on them.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

0.1% of military grade fissile material has been converted to civilian use in the USA (according to the report in 2001), much less than 1 tonne. But under a 1994 agreement between the USA and Russia, a minimum of 500 tonnes of military highly enriched uranium (HEU) is being converted to civilian use in Russia over 20 years. That’s more than the entire stockpiled amount owned by the USA (calculated at 174 tonnes) that had been taken out of nuclear warheads. Bloody marvellous.

Russia is not the problem. Never was.

Dose that mean they can only destroy half the world now?

It means they probably couldn’t even defend themselves if China and France decided to gang up on them.

And the wasted all that money on a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), but no warhead. Shame, it seemed so promising.

PermeateFree said:

And the wasted all that money on a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), but no warhead. Shame, it seemed so promising.

I’ll look that up.

Quiz. Name the nine European countries with nuclear weapons. (In the year 2001).

Give up? Here they are:

Russia (of course)
France
UK
Germany (four sites)
Turkey (three sites)
Italy (two sites)
Greece
Netherlands
Belgium

(only good news is none other than Russia from former USSR and eastern bloc).

mollwollfumble said:

Quiz. Name the nine European countries with nuclear weapons. (In the year 2001).

Give up? Here they are:

Russia (of course)
France
UK
Germany (four sites)
Turkey (three sites)
Italy (two sites)
Greece
Netherlands
Belgium

(only good news is none other than Russia from former USSR and eastern bloc).

India test fires new locally made Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. 20 Jan 2020.

“https://www.janes.com/article/93795/india-test-fires-locally-developed-k-4-slbm:https://www.janes.com/article/93795/india-test-fires-locally-developed-k-4-slbm

“sources told Jane’s on condition of anonymity that the 12 m-long K-4 was launched from an underwater pontoon near Visakhapatnam out to a distance of about 2,200 km”.

PermeateFree said:

And the wasted all that money on a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), but no warhead. Shame, it seemed so promising.

Is this the same one? This one is from the Ukraine not Russia. 10 Oct 2019. Not nuclear (I hope).

Ukraine’s Yuzhnoye introduces new supersonic ASM development
https://www.janes.com/article/91824/arms-and-security-2019-ukraine-s-yuzhnoye-introduces-new-supersonic-asm-development

The Bliskavka will be in the same performance class as the Russian-made Kh-31, one of the programme’s designers told Jane’s , but will be slightly faster than the Russian missile’s Mach 3.5 top speed and have a longer range. Like the Kh-31, the Bliskavka will be built with three different seekers: an active homing seeker for the anti-ship role; an electro-optical seeker; and a passive, anti-radiation seeker for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses missions.

Also in the news:

North Korea says it test-fired a new type of submarine-launched ballistic missile

Russia upgrades Kalibr cruise missiles
- the upgrade is only improved targeting.

China showcases JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile at 70th anniversary parade
https://www.janes.com/article/91614/china-showcases-jl-2-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile-at-70th-anniversary-parade

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has given the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) its first official appearance. The PLA is believed to have been conducting tests of the JL-2 from trial submarines as early as 2002, and the weapon is understood to have become operational in 2014. However, the PLA has never acknowledged the existence of this weapon, nor displayed it at official events.

The JL-2 is the primary weapon deployed from the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN’s) Type 094 (Jin)-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).

Quiz. Name the nine European countries with nuclear weapons. (In the year 2001).
Give up? Here they are:

Russia (of course)
France
UK
Germany (four sites)
Turkey (three sites)
Italy (two sites)
Greece
Netherlands
Belgium

—

Nah. Turkey, Germany, Italy, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium don’t have nuclear weapons.

Other countries have the nuclear weapons, and they have positioned them in those countries.

dv said:

Quiz. Name the nine European countries with nuclear weapons. (In the year 2001).
Give up? Here they are:

Russia (of course)
France
UK
Germany (four sites)
Turkey (three sites)
Italy (two sites)
Greece
Netherlands
Belgium

—

Nah. Turkey, Germany, Italy, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium don’t have nuclear weapons.

They do, but only in their own countries.

It’s a form of blackmail. A country e.g. Belgium says ‘do as we say, or we’re going to nuke Belgium!’.

captain_spalding said:

It’s a form of blackmail. A country e.g. Belgium says ‘do as we say, or we’re going to nuke Belgium!’.

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

It’s a form of blackmail. A country e.g. Belgium says ‘do as we say, or we’re going to nuke Belgium!’.

Yep, the ‘Or the Nigger Gets It’ strategy.

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Quiz. Name the nine European countries with nuclear weapons. (In the year 2001).
Give up? Here they are:

Russia (of course)
France
UK
Germany (four sites)
Turkey (three sites)
Italy (two sites)
Greece
Netherlands
Belgium

—

Nah. Turkey, Germany, Italy, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium don’t have nuclear weapons.

They do, but only in their own countries.

It’s a form of blackmail. A country e.g. Belgium says ‘do as we say, or we’re going to nuke Belgium!’.

Belgium should be disbanded and split between the Netherlands and France.

dv said:

Quiz. Name the nine European countries with nuclear weapons. (In the year 2001).
Give up? Here they are:

Russia (of course)
France
UK
Germany (four sites)
Turkey (three sites)
Italy (two sites)
Greece
Netherlands
Belgium

—

Nah. Turkey, Germany, Italy, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium don’t have nuclear weapons.

Other countries have the nuclear weapons, and they have positioned them in those countries.

These nine European countries have nuclear weapons on their land, but only three own them.

On a more positive note, the Megatons to Megawatts Program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

The Megatons to Megawatts Program is the popular name given to the program which is also called the United States-Russia Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement. In 1993, the agreement was signed and (it was) successfully completed in December 2013.

This was a 20-year program to convert 500 metric tons of HEU (uranium 235 enriched to 90 percent) taken from Soviet era warheads, into LEU (less than 5 percent uranium 235). A total of 500 tonnes of Russian warhead grade HEU (equivalent to ~20,000 nuclear warheads) were converted in Russia to nearly 15,000 tonnes tons of LEU and sold to the US for use as fuel in American nuclear power plants. The program was the largest and most successful nuclear non-proliferation program to date.

About 10 percent of the electricity produced in the United States over those 20 years was generated by fuel from USSR era nuclear bombs.

“During this period, on a comparatively modest basis, the US government has also been converting some of its excess nuclear warhead HEU into power plant fuel.”

That last sentence needs checking – up until 2001, only 0.1% of the USA’s HEU was converted into fuel for civilian reactors. Is that what they mean by “comparatively modest”?

“Efforts have also been undertaken to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of converting warhead plutonium into fuel to augment nuclear fuel for US power plants.”

Don’t hold your breath. Plutonium reactor fuel is no longer fashionable. Or perhaps … MOX fuel. “One attraction of MOX fuel is that it is a way of utilizing surplus weapons-grade plutonium”. Not in use at all in the USA but used in 30 reactors throughout Europe, in Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and France. So don’t hold your breath for the USA.

“About 30% of the plutonium originally loaded into MOX fuel is consumed by use in a thermal reactor. If one third of the core fuel load is MOX and two-thirds uranium fuel, there is zero net gain of plutonium in the spent fuel.”

That’s nice – you get the benefit of electrical power from the plutonium without the hazard of extra plutonium for building nuclear weapons. A win-win.

Since 2011, Russia has been enriching uranium for the USA, if I read wikipedia correctly, to the tune of about 375 tonnes of enriched uranium (not weapons grade) per year.

dv said:

In the USA there is literally no legal means to prevent the President from launching a nuclear strike. From his decision to attack to the launch takes less than 10 minutes and he does not need any other individual’s consent or agreement. He could have done it 10 minutes ago, as I type this. No level of readiness is required. (The entire arsenal is not kept ready to launch, obv, but enough). The only way it would be stopped is if several people decide to break the law for long enough for Cabinet to be alerted and enact the 25th amendment to remove him from office, but I doubt in the heat of the moment that would be likely.

Much of the actual policies and procedures in place are kept secret for obvious reasons, but what you have said above is not accurate.

It would be trivially easy at this time to automate nuclear launches; to literally give the president a big red button which when pressed, sends the launch signal directly to the missiles. But:

1) someone needs to be able to tell those missiles what their target is, necessitating at least a chain of command including both the POTUS and the launch control officers;

2) It is deliberate policy to include a human chain of command separating the President and the launch control officers.

Both these things mean that the POTUS does not make the actual decision to launch, but rather only decides to authorise and order launch. US military officers are obligated not to follow unlawful orders. Trump giving an order to launch in a fit of pique,as you put it, (let’s not bear in mind that Trump is the first POTUS in a while who hasn’t actually started any new “ wars”, eh?) would be an unlawful order and wouldn’t make it past the upper hierarchy of US Strategic Command.

The US would never launch nukes within 10 minutes of POTUS giving the order except in three specific circumstances:

1)Launch-on-warning; an enemy state has begun nuclear launch procedures and there is credible and definitive evidence that they intend to launch against US assets. This evidence would need to be shared with and convincing to the hierarchy of command officers for them to obey a launch order from the President. They would need to be thoroughly convinced that the enemy state was not just conducting practice drills, for example.

2)Launch-on-launch; an enemy’s missiles have already been launched at US assets. Again, the evidence of this needs to be shared with those under POTUS who need to determine whether a counter-launch order is lawful or not.

3)Launch-on-impact; an enemy nuke has already hit US assets. Again, there would need to be good evidence of this, available to people with command ranks as well as to the POTUS for the counter-launch to go ahead.

Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

It should also be borne in mind that the rest of the world in general does not take the use of non-conventional weapons by a state very well. The use of nuclear weapons by the US, especially in scenarios outside immediate self-defence, would result in political, economic and reputational consequences which would be very damaging to the United Stated. Politicians, including Trump, and the military heirarchy are very aware of this and that the consequences of using nukes runs contrary to their goals (This is why the invasion of Iraq only employed the pseudo-nuclear “Shock-and-awe” tactics rather than actual nuclear attacks, for example.)

The idea that Trump is a maniac who could or would start a nuclear war in ten minutes is flawed on a number of levels; His power and capability as POTUS to do so is not nearly as absolute as many people seem to think; To do so would run contrary to Trumps stated and displayed-to-date goals; International and domestic reaction to such an attempt would destroy Trump and likely be fairly devastating to the US as a whole; And it is yet to be demonstrated that Trump is actually a a maniac rather than just an ill-informed badly-mannered arsehole.

esselte said:

dv said:

In the USA there is literally no legal means to prevent the President from launching a nuclear strike. From his decision to attack to the launch takes less than 10 minutes and he does not need any other individual’s consent or agreement. He could have done it 10 minutes ago, as I type this. No level of readiness is required. (The entire arsenal is not kept ready to launch, obv, but enough). The only way it would be stopped is if several people decide to break the law for long enough for Cabinet to be alerted and enact the 25th amendment to remove him from office, but I doubt in the heat of the moment that would be likely.

Much of the actual policies and procedures in place are kept secret for obvious reasons, but what you have said above is not accurate.

It would be trivially easy at this time to automate nuclear launches; to literally give the president a big red button which when pressed, sends the launch signal directly to the missiles. But:

1) someone needs to be able to tell those missiles what their target is, necessitating at least a chain of command including both the POTUS and the launch control officers;

2) It is deliberate policy to include a human chain of command separating the President and the launch control officers.

Both these things mean that the POTUS does not make the actual decision to launch, but rather only decides to authorise and order launch. US military officers are obligated not to follow unlawful orders. Trump giving an order to launch in a fit of pique,as you put it, (let’s not bear in mind that Trump is the first POTUS in a while who hasn’t actually started any new “ wars”, eh?) would be an unlawful order and wouldn’t make it past the upper hierarchy of US Strategic Command.

The US would never launch nukes within 10 minutes of POTUS giving the order except in three specific circumstances:

1)Launch-on-warning; an enemy state has begun nuclear launch procedures and there is credible and definitive evidence that they intend to launch against US assets. This evidence would need to be shared with and convincing to the hierarchy of command officers for them to obey a launch order from the President. They would need to be thoroughly convinced that the enemy state was not just conducting practice drills, for example.

2)Launch-on-launch; an enemy’s missiles have already been launched at US assets. Again, the evidence of this needs to be shared with those under POTUS who need to determine whether a counter-launch order is lawful or not.

3)Launch-on-impact; an enemy nuke has already hit US assets. Again, there would need to be good evidence of this, available to people with command ranks as well as to the POTUS for the counter-launch to go ahead.

Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

It should also be borne in mind that the rest of the world in general does not take the use of non-conventional weapons by a state very well. The use of nuclear weapons by the US, especially in scenarios outside immediate self-defence, would result in political, economic and reputational consequences which would be very damaging to the United Stated. Politicians, including Trump, and the military heirarchy are very aware of this and that the consequences of using nukes runs contrary to their goals (This is why the invasion of Iraq only employed the pseudo-nuclear “Shock-and-awe” tactics rather than actual nuclear attacks, for example.)

The idea that Trump is a maniac who could or would start a nuclear war in ten minutes is flawed on a number of levels; His power and capability as POTUS to do so is not nearly as absolute as many people seem to think; To do so would run contrary to Trumps stated and displayed-to-date goals; International and domestic reaction to such an attempt would destroy Trump and likely be fairly devastating to the US as a whole; And it is yet to be demonstrated that Trump is actually a a maniac rather than just an ill-informed badly-mannered arsehole.

A lot of good points there.

> Trump is the first POTUS in a while who hasn’t actually started any new “ wars”

OMG, that’s right.

> it is yet to be demonstrated that Trump is actually a a maniac rather than just an ill-informed badly-mannered arsehole.

That’s right, too, surprise on surprise. Of course, that doesn’t mean that some generals in the POTUS chain of command aren’t maniacs.

> Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

Excellent, if true. Do you have a reference for that?

> This is why the invasion of Iraq only employed the pseudo-nuclear “Shock-and-awe” tactics rather than actual nuclear attacks, for example.

And Vietnam. I was delighted that the USA was prepared to suffer a major loss rather than use nuclear weapons. It could have gone the other way.

mollwollfumble said:

esselte said:

dv said:

In the USA there is literally no legal means to prevent the President from launching a nuclear strike. From his decision to attack to the launch takes less than 10 minutes and he does not need any other individual’s consent or agreement. He could have done it 10 minutes ago, as I type this. No level of readiness is required. (The entire arsenal is not kept ready to launch, obv, but enough). The only way it would be stopped is if several people decide to break the law for long enough for Cabinet to be alerted and enact the 25th amendment to remove him from office, but I doubt in the heat of the moment that would be likely.

Much of the actual policies and procedures in place are kept secret for obvious reasons, but what you have said above is not accurate.

It would be trivially easy at this time to automate nuclear launches; to literally give the president a big red button which when pressed, sends the launch signal directly to the missiles. But:

1) someone needs to be able to tell those missiles what their target is, necessitating at least a chain of command including both the POTUS and the launch control officers;

2) It is deliberate policy to include a human chain of command separating the President and the launch control officers.

Both these things mean that the POTUS does not make the actual decision to launch, but rather only decides to authorise and order launch. US military officers are obligated not to follow unlawful orders. Trump giving an order to launch in a fit of pique,as you put it, (let’s not bear in mind that Trump is the first POTUS in a while who hasn’t actually started any new “ wars”, eh?) would be an unlawful order and wouldn’t make it past the upper hierarchy of US Strategic Command.

The US would never launch nukes within 10 minutes of POTUS giving the order except in three specific circumstances:

1)Launch-on-warning; an enemy state has begun nuclear launch procedures and there is credible and definitive evidence that they intend to launch against US assets. This evidence would need to be shared with and convincing to the hierarchy of command officers for them to obey a launch order from the President. They would need to be thoroughly convinced that the enemy state was not just conducting practice drills, for example.

2)Launch-on-launch; an enemy’s missiles have already been launched at US assets. Again, the evidence of this needs to be shared with those under POTUS who need to determine whether a counter-launch order is lawful or not.

3)Launch-on-impact; an enemy nuke has already hit US assets. Again, there would need to be good evidence of this, available to people with command ranks as well as to the POTUS for the counter-launch to go ahead.

Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

It should also be borne in mind that the rest of the world in general does not take the use of non-conventional weapons by a state very well. The use of nuclear weapons by the US, especially in scenarios outside immediate self-defence, would result in political, economic and reputational consequences which would be very damaging to the United Stated. Politicians, including Trump, and the military heirarchy are very aware of this and that the consequences of using nukes runs contrary to their goals (This is why the invasion of Iraq only employed the pseudo-nuclear “Shock-and-awe” tactics rather than actual nuclear attacks, for example.)

The idea that Trump is a maniac who could or would start a nuclear war in ten minutes is flawed on a number of levels; His power and capability as POTUS to do so is not nearly as absolute as many people seem to think; To do so would run contrary to Trumps stated and displayed-to-date goals; International and domestic reaction to such an attempt would destroy Trump and likely be fairly devastating to the US as a whole; And it is yet to be demonstrated that Trump is actually a a maniac rather than just an ill-informed badly-mannered arsehole.

A lot of good points there.

> Trump is the first POTUS in a while who hasn’t actually started any new “ wars”

OMG, that’s right.

> it is yet to be demonstrated that Trump is actually a a maniac rather than just an ill-informed badly-mannered arsehole.

That’s right, too, surprise on surprise. Of course, that doesn’t mean that some generals in the POTUS chain of command aren’t maniacs.

> Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

Excellent, if true. Do you have a reference for that?

> This is why the invasion of Iraq only employed the pseudo-nuclear “Shock-and-awe” tactics rather than actual nuclear attacks, for example.

And Vietnam. I was delighted that the USA was prepared to suffer a major loss rather than use nuclear weapons. It could have gone the other way.

Somewhere I read a link that said for the US to launch it’s land based ICBMs 5 people needed to insert and turn their keys at the same time, it then went on to say if 3 of the five refuse to do so two people are still enough to launch. I thought to myself that’s a bit rich but whatever.
But on further thinking I thought hang on if 5 keys need to be turned at the same time 2 keys aint gunna do it.
So PWM is of the mind.
1. The article is bullshit.
B. The article is bullshit.

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

esselte said:

Much of the actual policies and procedures in place are kept secret for obvious reasons, but what you have said above is not accurate.

It would be trivially easy at this time to automate nuclear launches; to literally give the president a big red button which when pressed, sends the launch signal directly to the missiles. But:

1) someone needs to be able to tell those missiles what their target is, necessitating at least a chain of command including both the POTUS and the launch control officers;

2) It is deliberate policy to include a human chain of command separating the President and the launch control officers.

Both these things mean that the POTUS does not make the actual decision to launch, but rather only decides to authorise and order launch. US military officers are obligated not to follow unlawful orders. Trump giving an order to launch in a fit of pique,as you put it, (let’s not bear in mind that Trump is the first POTUS in a while who hasn’t actually started any new “ wars”, eh?) would be an unlawful order and wouldn’t make it past the upper hierarchy of US Strategic Command.

The US would never launch nukes within 10 minutes of POTUS giving the order except in three specific circumstances:

1)Launch-on-warning; an enemy state has begun nuclear launch procedures and there is credible and definitive evidence that they intend to launch against US assets. This evidence would need to be shared with and convincing to the hierarchy of command officers for them to obey a launch order from the President. They would need to be thoroughly convinced that the enemy state was not just conducting practice drills, for example.

2)Launch-on-launch; an enemy’s missiles have already been launched at US assets. Again, the evidence of this needs to be shared with those under POTUS who need to determine whether a counter-launch order is lawful or not.

3)Launch-on-impact; an enemy nuke has already hit US assets. Again, there would need to be good evidence of this, available to people with command ranks as well as to the POTUS for the counter-launch to go ahead.

Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

It should also be borne in mind that the rest of the world in general does not take the use of non-conventional weapons by a state very well. The use of nuclear weapons by the US, especially in scenarios outside immediate self-defence, would result in political, economic and reputational consequences which would be very damaging to the United Stated. Politicians, including Trump, and the military heirarchy are very aware of this and that the consequences of using nukes runs contrary to their goals (This is why the invasion of Iraq only employed the pseudo-nuclear “Shock-and-awe” tactics rather than actual nuclear attacks, for example.)

The idea that Trump is a maniac who could or would start a nuclear war in ten minutes is flawed on a number of levels; His power and capability as POTUS to do so is not nearly as absolute as many people seem to think; To do so would run contrary to Trumps stated and displayed-to-date goals; International and domestic reaction to such an attempt would destroy Trump and likely be fairly devastating to the US as a whole; And it is yet to be demonstrated that Trump is actually a a maniac rather than just an ill-informed badly-mannered arsehole.

A lot of good points there.

> Trump is the first POTUS in a while who hasn’t actually started any new “ wars”

OMG, that’s right.

> it is yet to be demonstrated that Trump is actually a a maniac rather than just an ill-informed badly-mannered arsehole.

That’s right, too, surprise on surprise. Of course, that doesn’t mean that some generals in the POTUS chain of command aren’t maniacs.

> Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

Excellent, if true. Do you have a reference for that?

> This is why the invasion of Iraq only employed the pseudo-nuclear “Shock-and-awe” tactics rather than actual nuclear attacks, for example.

And Vietnam. I was delighted that the USA was prepared to suffer a major loss rather than use nuclear weapons. It could have gone the other way.

Somewhere I read a link that said for the US to launch it’s land based ICBMs 5 people needed to insert and turn their keys at the same time, it then went on to say if 3 of the five refuse to do so two people are still enough to launch. I thought to myself that’s a bit rich but whatever.
But on further thinking I thought hang on if 5 keys need to be turned at the same time 2 keys aint gunna do it.
So PWM is of the mind.
1. The article is bullshit.
B. The article is bullshit.

Was watching a documentary two days ago in which a nuclear missile was fired from a USA silo (this is a realistic demonstration retained for historical and possibly training or tourist purposes. There is a historical silo at a launch site no longer used and this may be it). Two keys turned at the same time will do it, but the people who turn those keys are just drones, they have to be fed encrypted authorisation and targeting information. There is no “oops” button. Perhaps only one person would really be needed – to feed false information to the president and targeting information to the silo or submarine.

This nuclear-free zones map looks promising. But the zones have been violated several times, by the UK in the Falklands war for instance, by American warships. I hadn’t heard of the African, Mongolian, Bangkok and Central Asian nuclear free zones. The banning of USA nuclear weapons off parts of the USA shoreline is baffling.

mollwollfumble said:

This nuclear-free zones map looks promising. But the zones have been violated several times, by the UK in the Falklands war for instance, by American warships. I hadn’t heard of the African, Mongolian, Bangkok and Central Asian nuclear free zones. The banning of USA nuclear weapons off parts of the USA shoreline is baffling.

The funny thing about nuclear-armed submarines is that they’re often difficult to spot at sea, for reasons that the more astute among us will quickly grasp.

While the whole of the South Pacific is nuclear-free by treaty, i have to say that to believe that no nuclear-armed submarines have visited that area would be a touch naive. Our largest trading partner has had its boats pay some visits there, as have the Russians (although not as often as in years gone by). The USN would also be a trifle disingenuous to say that none of its fleet had ever been there, either.

Should there be an outbreak of hostilities, then, of course, treaties instantly cease to function, and some would consider it foolish to not have prepared in quieter times to use treaty-covered areas as operational areas. Submarines may not be on regular station in nuclear-free areas, but, well, a visit or two…

There’s a gap between what the treaties forbid, and being caught doing what the treaties forbid.

We were talking about treaties (specifically non-nuclear-area treaties) and i spoke about ‘being caught doing what treaties forbid’.

While walking with the Wolf, i recalled something that a RAN Sea King jockey told me about his time with the RN.

There’s an international agreement that all submarines will traverse the Straits of Gibraltar on the surface, for safety reasons.

However, said the Sea King bloke, the RN would send all of its ASW helicopter crews for stints in Gibraltar because you could fly out from there at just about any hour, dunk the sonar, and get a contact for submerged sub.

It was great training, allowing operators to become familiar with the acoustic signatures of just about every class of Russian sub, especially the nuclear powered ones.

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

This nuclear-free zones map looks promising. But the zones have been violated several times, by the UK in the Falklands war for instance, by American warships. I hadn’t heard of the African, Mongolian, Bangkok and Central Asian nuclear free zones. The banning of USA nuclear weapons off parts of the USA shoreline is baffling.

The funny thing about nuclear-armed submarines is that they’re often difficult to spot at sea, for reasons that the more astute among us will quickly grasp.

While the whole of the South Pacific is nuclear-free by treaty, i have to say that to believe that no nuclear-armed submarines have visited that area would be a touch naive. Our largest trading partner has had its boats pay some visits there, as have the Russians (although not as often as in years gone by). The USN would also be a trifle disingenuous to say that none of its fleet had ever been there, either.

Should there be an outbreak of hostilities, then, of course, treaties instantly cease to function, and some would consider it foolish to not have prepared in quieter times to use treaty-covered areas as operational areas. Submarines may not be on regular station in nuclear-free areas, but, well, a visit or two…

There’s a gap between what the treaties forbid, and being caught doing what the treaties forbid.

Noted. The UK carried nuclear weapons into a nuclear free zone in the Faulklands war, for example. And neither the USA nor Russia have actually honoured either of the last four strategic arms limitation treaties.

There have been a LOT of nuclear accidents with nuclear weapons resulting is a radiation spill. The USA has had at least three. Russia has had several. Perhaps these should become better known. The most recent was from August 2019, not long ago.

The Russians were retrieving a cruise missile from a failed test when the cruise missile propulsion system blew up. Killing people and scattering radiation. Details in the newspaper “The Moscow Times”.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/30/russias-mystery-nuclear-explosion-occurred-during-missile-recovery-at-sea-reports-a67084

“The mysterious explosion in northern Russia that caused a spike in radiation levels happened during a mission to salvage a nuclear cruise missile from the bottom of the sea, media have cited a U.S. intelligence assessment as saying. Five nuclear engineers were killed in a liquid propulsion system blast at Russia’s naval missile test facility, leading to a brief spike in radiation on Aug. 8. The secrecy surrounding the accident has led outside observers to speculate that what the explosion involved the Burevestnik nuclear intercontinental cruise missile, dubbed the SSC-X-9 Skyfall by NATO.”

“This was a recovery mission to salvage a lost missile from a previous test. Russia tested four of the missiles between November 2017 and February 2018, each resulting in a crash.”

I need to look into this in more detail, it seems to say that the propulsion system of the cruise missile is nuclear. Which is a bit weird if true. It makes sense if the missile is to have a very long range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik

“The 9M730 Burevestnik (NATO name: SSC-X-9 Skyfall) is a Russian experimental nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile under development for the Russian Armed Forces. The Burevestnik is one of the six new Russian strategic weapons unveiled by Russian President Vladimir Putin on 1 March 2018.”

Six! That may be BS. The wikipedia references to that turn out to say nothing of the kind. The second new Russian strategic weapon is a torpedo. No mention of others.

“The tests of the nuclear power unit, were successfully completed in January 2019.”

The USA has heavily switched over from ICMBs to cruise missiles. It is extremely interesting to see that Russia is following course. A calculation of how many cruise missiles Russia has now would be very interesting.

The answer appears to be “very few”. About 50% of the USA’s nuclear warheads are now on cruise missiles, starting more than two decades ago. But Russia seems to have only started development seriously following Trump’s statement that he won’t be renewing the New START treaty in 2017.

“It still remains unclear whether the nuclear cruise missile project is part of a full-fledged R&D program. Notably, the new nuclear-powered cruise missile was not mentioned in the recently released U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)”.

The 2018 US Nuclear posture review is online at https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF

>>The 9M730 Burevestnik (NATO name: SSC-X-9 Skyfall) is a Russian experimental nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile

Nuclear powered cruise missile??

Peak Warming Man said:

>>The 9M730 Burevestnik (NATO name: SSC-X-9 Skyfall) is a Russian experimental nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile

Nuclear powered cruise missile??

Nuclear thermal rocket with a solid rocket booster.

Huge if true.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>The 9M730 Burevestnik (NATO name: SSC-X-9 Skyfall) is a Russian experimental nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile

Nuclear powered cruise missile??

Nuclear thermal rocket with a solid rocket booster.

Huge if true.

Thanks. Has crashed in four out of the last four Russian tests.

The USA has cruise missiles with an enormous range, as far as a long range bomber and as far as a long range ICBM. Thousands of them.

Could it be that the USA has already had nuclear powered cruise missiles for even as long as the last 20 years or so?

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>The 9M730 Burevestnik (NATO name: SSC-X-9 Skyfall) is a Russian experimental nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile

Nuclear powered cruise missile??

Nuclear thermal rocket with a solid rocket booster.

Huge if true.

Thanks. Has crashed in four out of the last four Russian tests.

The USA has cruise missiles with an enormous range, as far as a long range bomber and as far as a long range ICBM. Thousands of them.

Could it be that the USA has already had nuclear powered cruise missiles for even as long as the last 20 years or so?

If they have, they’ve done well to keep it dark.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Nuclear thermal rocket with a solid rocket booster.

Huge if true.

Thanks. Has crashed in four out of the last four Russian tests.

The USA has cruise missiles with an enormous range, as far as a long range bomber and as far as a long range ICBM. Thousands of them.

Could it be that the USA has already had nuclear powered cruise missiles for even as long as the last 20 years or so?

If they have, they’ve done well to keep it dark.

And that surprises you? They even keep their presidents in the dark.

The two US cruise missiles in 2007 weren’t nuclear powered.

Damnit, I’m sure that the cruise missiles from some country had a very long range. Nope. Not according to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cruise_missiles

“To replace the ALCM, the USAF planned to award a contract for the development of the new Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) weapon in 2015.” Details of the LRSO still seem to be top secret. 150 kT warhead. “The designations YAGM-180A and YAGM-181A have been allocated to prototypes for the Long Range Stand-Off Weapon”. Nothing to say what they mean by “long range”.

mollwollfumble said:

> Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

Excellent, if true. Do you have a reference for that?

Sure. From the horses mouth, Gen Robert Kehler (ret), former commander of USSTRATCOM.

Paraphrased TLDW… “If Trump (or any POTUS) gave a command, in a fit of pique, to commence a nuclear attack, how would you respond?”….. “I would say ‘I’m not ready to proceed at this time’.”

“14 Nov 2017) A former senior U.S. military officer says an order from the president to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that command is determined to be illegal.
Retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones.
Kehler served as commander of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013.
He says the legal principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality also apply to decisions about the use of nuclear weapons.
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland asked Kehler if that means the top officer at Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails those tests.
Kehler says, “Yes.” But he says that would lead to a “very difficult conversation.”
Kehler said the nuclear weapons command and control system is tightly structured to avoid the unauthorized, accidental, or inadvertent use of the U.S. atomic arsenal.

esselte said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

Excellent, if true. Do you have a reference for that?

Sure. From the horses mouth, Gen Robert Kehler (ret), former commander of USSTRATCOM.

Paraphrased TLDW… “If Trump (or any POTUS) gave a command, in a fit of pique, to commence a nuclear attack, how would you respond?”….. “I would say ‘I’m not ready to proceed at this time’.”

“14 Nov 2017) A former senior U.S. military officer says an order from the president to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that command is determined to be illegal.
Retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones.
Kehler served as commander of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013.
He says the legal principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality also apply to decisions about the use of nuclear weapons.
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland asked Kehler if that means the top officer at Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails those tests.
Kehler says, “Yes.” But he says that would lead to a “very difficult conversation.”
Kehler said the nuclear weapons command and control system is tightly structured to avoid the unauthorized, accidental, or inadvertent use of the U.S. atomic arsenal.

Nah

dv said:

esselte said:

Sure. From the horses mouth, Gen Robert Kehler (ret), former commander of USSTRATCOM.

Paraphrased TLDW… “If Trump (or any POTUS) gave a command, in a fit of pique, to commence a nuclear attack, how would you respond?”….. “I would say ‘I’m not ready to proceed at this time’.”

“14 Nov 2017) A former senior U.S. military officer says an order from the president to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that command is determined to be illegal.
Retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones.
Kehler served as commander of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013.
He says the legal principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality also apply to decisions about the use of nuclear weapons.
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland asked Kehler if that means the top officer at Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails those tests.
Kehler says, “Yes.” But he says that would lead to a “very difficult conversation.”
Kehler said the nuclear weapons command and control system is tightly structured to avoid the unauthorized, accidental, or inadvertent use of the U.S. atomic arsenal.

Nah

Nah what?

Here is the video of the full Senate hearing WATCH: Senate hearing on presidential authority to use nuclear weapons

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

esselte said:

Much of the actual policies and procedures in place are kept secret for obvious reasons, but what you have said above is not accurate.

It would be trivially easy at this time to automate nuclear launches; to literally give the president a big red button which when pressed, sends the launch signal directly to the missiles. But:

1) someone needs to be able to tell those missiles what their target is, necessitating at least a chain of command including both the POTUS and the launch control officers;

2) It is deliberate policy to include a human chain of command separating the President and the launch control officers.

Both these things mean that the POTUS does not make the actual decision to launch, but rather only decides to authorise and order launch. US military officers are obligated not to follow unlawful orders. Trump giving an order to launch in a fit of pique,as you put it, (let’s not bear in mind that Trump is the first POTUS in a while who hasn’t actually started any new “ wars”, eh?) would be an unlawful order and wouldn’t make it past the upper hierarchy of US Strategic Command.

The US would never launch nukes within 10 minutes of POTUS giving the order except in three specific circumstances:

1)Launch-on-warning; an enemy state has begun nuclear launch procedures and there is credible and definitive evidence that they intend to launch against US assets. This evidence would need to be shared with and convincing to the hierarchy of command officers for them to obey a launch order from the President. They would need to be thoroughly convinced that the enemy state was not just conducting practice drills, for example.

2)Launch-on-launch; an enemy’s missiles have already been launched at US assets. Again, the evidence of this needs to be shared with those under POTUS who need to determine whether a counter-launch order is lawful or not.

3)Launch-on-impact; an enemy nuke has already hit US assets. Again, there would need to be good evidence of this, available to people with command ranks as well as to the POTUS for the counter-launch to go ahead.

Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

It should also be borne in mind that the rest of the world in general does not take the use of non-conventional weapons by a state very well. The use of nuclear weapons by the US, especially in scenarios outside immediate self-defence, would result in political, economic and reputational consequences which would be very damaging to the United Stated. Politicians, including Trump, and the military heirarchy are very aware of this and that the consequences of using nukes runs contrary to their goals (This is why the invasion of Iraq only employed the pseudo-nuclear “Shock-and-awe” tactics rather than actual nuclear attacks, for example.)

The idea that Trump is a maniac who could or would start a nuclear war in ten minutes is flawed on a number of levels; His power and capability as POTUS to do so is not nearly as absolute as many people seem to think; To do so would run contrary to Trumps stated and displayed-to-date goals; International and domestic reaction to such an attempt would destroy Trump and likely be fairly devastating to the US as a whole; And it is yet to be demonstrated that Trump is actually a a maniac rather than just an ill-informed badly-mannered arsehole.

A lot of good points there.

> Trump is the first POTUS in a while who hasn’t actually started any new “ wars”

OMG, that’s right.

> it is yet to be demonstrated that Trump is actually a a maniac rather than just an ill-informed badly-mannered arsehole.

That’s right, too, surprise on surprise. Of course, that doesn’t mean that some generals in the POTUS chain of command aren’t maniacs.

> Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

Excellent, if true. Do you have a reference for that?

> This is why the invasion of Iraq only employed the pseudo-nuclear “Shock-and-awe” tactics rather than actual nuclear attacks, for example.

And Vietnam. I was delighted that the USA was prepared to suffer a major loss rather than use nuclear weapons. It could have gone the other way.

Somewhere I read a link that said for the US to launch it’s land based ICBMs 5 people needed to insert and turn their keys at the same time, it then went on to say if 3 of the five refuse to do so two people are still enough to launch. I thought to myself that’s a bit rich but whatever.
But on further thinking I thought hang on if 5 keys need to be turned at the same time 2 keys aint gunna do it.
So PWM is of the mind.
1. The article is bullshit.
B. The article is bullshit.

Notably, outside of the launch-on-warning, launch-on-launch, and launch-on-impact scenarios, there is literally thousands of people within the US military heirarchy of command who can countermand an order by the President to launch nukes; and they can legally do so without fear of legal prosecution.

dv said:

esselte said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Outside of these three scenarios any attempt by the POTUS to initiate a launch in such a compressed time frame (10 minutes) would fail and result in lots of questions being asked of that President.

Excellent, if true. Do you have a reference for that?

Sure. From the horses mouth, Gen Robert Kehler (ret), former commander of USSTRATCOM.

Paraphrased TLDW… “If Trump (or any POTUS) gave a command, in a fit of pique, to commence a nuclear attack, how would you respond?”….. “I would say ‘I’m not ready to proceed at this time’.”

“14 Nov 2017) A former senior U.S. military officer says an order from the president to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that command is determined to be illegal.
Retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones.
Kehler served as commander of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013.
He says the legal principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality also apply to decisions about the use of nuclear weapons.
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland asked Kehler if that means the top officer at Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails those tests.
Kehler says, “Yes.” But he says that would lead to a “very difficult conversation.”
Kehler said the nuclear weapons command and control system is tightly structured to avoid the unauthorized, accidental, or inadvertent use of the U.S. atomic arsenal.

Nah

Yeah.

International law says that soldiers are obliged to follow only lawful commands.

For a command to be lawful it has to be physically possible, within the authority of the person issuing the order, and not a command to do something contrary to law.

It’s that last one: is it legal to launch nuclear weapons on the say-so of one person, especially without ‘confirming’ information or a context of events?

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

esselte said:

Sure. From the horses mouth, Gen Robert Kehler (ret), former commander of USSTRATCOM.

Paraphrased TLDW… “If Trump (or any POTUS) gave a command, in a fit of pique, to commence a nuclear attack, how would you respond?”….. “I would say ‘I’m not ready to proceed at this time’.”

“14 Nov 2017) A former senior U.S. military officer says an order from the president to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that command is determined to be illegal.
Retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones.
Kehler served as commander of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013.
He says the legal principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality also apply to decisions about the use of nuclear weapons.
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland asked Kehler if that means the top officer at Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails those tests.
Kehler says, “Yes.” But he says that would lead to a “very difficult conversation.”
Kehler said the nuclear weapons command and control system is tightly structured to avoid the unauthorized, accidental, or inadvertent use of the U.S. atomic arsenal.

Nah

Yeah.

International law says that soldiers are obliged to follow only lawful commands.

For a command to be lawful it has to be physically possible, within the authority of the person issuing the order, and not a command to do something contrary to law.

It’s that last one: is it legal to launch nuclear weapons on the say-so of one person, especially without ‘confirming’ information or a context of events?

And the answer appears to be: yes it is. The President of the United States has the unchecked legal authority to decide what is a suitable context for a nuclear strike.

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Nah

Yeah.

International law says that soldiers are obliged to follow only lawful commands.

For a command to be lawful it has to be physically possible, within the authority of the person issuing the order, and not a command to do something contrary to law.

It’s that last one: is it legal to launch nuclear weapons on the say-so of one person, especially without ‘confirming’ information or a context of events?

And the answer appears to be: yes it is. The President of the United States has the unchecked legal authority to decide what is a suitable context for a nuclear strike.

The ‘is it legal’ question can come down to a matter of conscience and choice. If the CO says ‘shoot those civilians’, you know that it’s contrary to law. But, you trust the CO, you know he’s a good man, and he doesn’t give orders without good reason. Does he know something about those people that you don’t? Are they a threat of some sort? What do you do?

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

Yeah.

International law says that soldiers are obliged to follow only lawful commands.

For a command to be lawful it has to be physically possible, within the authority of the person issuing the order, and not a command to do something contrary to law.

It’s that last one: is it legal to launch nuclear weapons on the say-so of one person, especially without ‘confirming’ information or a context of events?

And the answer appears to be: yes it is. The President of the United States has the unchecked legal authority to decide what is a suitable context for a nuclear strike.

The ‘is it legal’ question can come down to a matter of conscience and choice. If the CO says ‘shoot those civilians’, you know that it’s contrary to law. But, you trust the CO, you know he’s a good man, and he doesn’t give orders without good reason. Does he know something about those people that you don’t? Are they a threat of some sort? What do you do?

Usually, what happens is that they shoot those civilians …

dv said:

And the answer appears to be: yes it is. The President of the United States has the unchecked legal authority to decide what is a suitable context for a nuclear strike.

No he doesn’t.

He has unchecked authority to order a nuclear strike. This isn’t even true, but even if we grant it to you…. this is not the same thing as an “unchecked legal authority to decide suitable context”….

The truth is exactly the opposite…. military officers from USSTRATCOM upper echelons down to the launch officers all serve as checks on the Presidential authority. This is by design.

Watch this: Blah blah blah

Watch the full senate hearing I linked. They talk a lot about context. Simply put, outside of the scenario where nuclear war has already begun the POTUS has bugger all ability (as apposed to authority) to order launch of nukes.

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

And the answer appears to be: yes it is. The President of the United States has the unchecked legal authority to decide what is a suitable context for a nuclear strike.

The ‘is it legal’ question can come down to a matter of conscience and choice. If the CO says ‘shoot those civilians’, you know that it’s contrary to law. But, you trust the CO, you know he’s a good man, and he doesn’t give orders without good reason. Does he know something about those people that you don’t? Are they a threat of some sort? What do you do?

Usually, what happens is that they shoot those civilians …

Sadly, yes. Equally sad, it can be that there was a good reason to do it.