Nuclear Posture Review or...

[MKSheppard]

Good point, MariusRoi. It iisn't like nuclear weapons follow physical laws that are regular and predictable, like any other device. You can't just theoretically design these things without testing and expect them to work

Wrong.

Computer modelling has resulted in such notable duds as the W-80-1 failure, resulting in our entire ALCM stock being "hey, don't get it too cold" for an entire year.

Long and short was that the ALCM warhead compartment was unheated, which meant that on a long range, high altitude cruise on a B-52's bomb bay or pylon, the warhead would cold-soak for hours at -40° F. Despite taking this into account during development, and the fact that computer calculations indicated that the primary would work at these low temperatures; when they actually did take a W-80 primary and fire it after cold soaking it; it fizzled; and required redesign and a second test shot to proof it.

Mike Kozlowski, back in the day (early 1980s); remembered that the USAF had a fetish about keeping the ALCMs inside the IMF (missile/warhead maintenance facility); or inside the "SRAM Magazines"; earth covered igloos which were warmer than the alternatives.

That would have never worked in the Manhatten Project, for instance. We didn't use any namby pamby math to make those damn things.

Ducky fails history. We never tested the Mark One with a test shot, because it was so idiotically simple that you couldn't fuck it up -- go go Gun Type devices; but we tested the Model 1561, in a little thing called Trinity before we dropped it on Japan.

[Mr Bean]

Underling:Well if we can't use SCIENCE! I guess there's only Magic left if we can't test anything nor make new ones, the only thing we can do is try and tap into the Great Beyond, or perhaps Prayer, perhaps some Divine Magic will get that Nuke to go off.

The government is getting a 20 petaflop supercomputer next year to help do just that. How useful will that be? Who knows...

The computer is for simulating Nuclear BLASTS not simulating if the Type 47A circuit Gravity bomb has to be replaced after X number of years because the contact corrode easy and lead to fizzle initiations.

[Samuel]

It also addresses why the US isn't blackmailing anyone, even when it would be in it's best interest to do so, even when the victims have no nuclear weapons.

We don't blackmail with nukes Stark- we use supercarriers. And the threat of invasion, embargo, loss of favored status, etc.

Isn't this exciting! I guess we WANT some people to be blackmailable.

Yes, that is in fact the plan.

And yet, where is the nuclear blackmail? You stated it was inevitable 'if you have no nuclear weapons'. So why isn't it more prevalent?

Because few nations can build nukes? Because they are extremely expensive and complicated to maintain?

[Stark]

So not having supercarriers makes you vulnerable to blackmail? Or are nukes the counter to supercarriers? How do we determine who is 'allowed' to counter US supercarriers? Oh and some other diplomatic stuff that isn't important lol.

Your answer to 'why isn't the putative constant threat of nuclear blackmail evident anywhere outside of nuclear power posturing' is 'not many people have nukes'? He made the claim, he can back it up.

I mean, it's clear what he meant is if the US disarmed totally (a frankly ludicrous idea) that anyone with nukes could blackmail anyone (which is arguable). Without total or near-total disarmament by the big players, this sort of thing is deterred, arguably by the kind of powerplay Russia indulges in all the time.

But since you made these claims, why isn't America blackmailing her enemies if it's so easy? Nobody is going to attack the US (or really even have the capability to do so)? Or will the US only begin blackmail after ABM renders them immune to counterattack?

[Samuel]

So not having supercarriers makes you vulnerable to blackmail?

Well, that and the marines- we managed to have Latin America bend to our will for a long time through a combination of military and economic force.

[Stark]

So it turns out international blackmail has many vectors and causes, and even when you have thousands of nukes and your victims have none, you prefer to use other types. Fascinating!

[Ryan Thunder]

So it turns out international blackmail has many vectors and causes, and even when you have thousands of nukes and your victims have none, you prefer to use other types. Fascinating!

Have you ever considered that basically telling a country "We will nuke you if you don't do what we say" might not go over very well with the rest of the international community?

[phongn]

Good point, MariusRoi. It iisn't like nuclear weapons follow physical laws that are regular and predictable, like any other device. You can't just theoretically design these things without testing and expect them to work: That would have never worked in the Manhatten Project, for instance. We didn't use any namby pamby math to make those damn things.

Uh, Duckie, in the general case one has to empirically confirm that what one calculated actually works. History is full of incidents where prediction failed to meet reality (e.g. Tacoma Narrows, LHC, etc.)

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So it turns out international blackmail has many vectors and causes, and even when you have thousands of nukes and your victims have none, you prefer to use other types. Fascinating!

Have you ever considered that basically telling a country "We will nuke you if you don't do what we say" might not go over very well with the rest of the international community?

So what you're saying is that nuclear blackmail doesn't work? Isn't that the exact same thing Stark has been saying this entire time?

[Simon_Jester]

When does that actually happen? The US is involved in wars in non-nuclear countries right now, and they can't 'blackmail' jack shit with the no-threat of nuclear attack.

If we had committed nuclear blackmail, would you (or I) know about it?

This is not a joke question.

Because naturally the US needs to start a nuclear war now? American neoconservatives are hillarious. They simultaneously think the Soviet Union is around (WE NEED ALL THE NUKES WE CAN GET) and that we're in WWII (WE MUST DEFEND ANZAC, THEY WILL THANK US FOR SAVING THEM).

...Yeah, pretty much. If you imagine the movement as a bunch of weird refugees from a world where the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact blossomed into some sort of horrible mutant Soviet-Nazi alliance, it explains a LOT.

Good point, MariusRoi. It iisn't like nuclear weapons follow physical laws that are regular and predictable, like any other device. You can't just theoretically design these things without testing and expect them to work: That would have never worked in the Manhatten Project, for instance. We didn't use any namby pamby math to make those damn things.

Contradictory note: "Surely You Must be Joking, Mr. Feynman," the chapters on the Manhattan Project.

[Ryan Thunder]

So what you're saying is that nuclear blackmail doesn't work? Isn't that the exact same thing Stark has been saying this entire time?

What I'm saying is that anybody who tried it would become an international pariah. This really wouldn't matter for states that already are or simply don't care about such things, but might for, say, the United States.

[Stark]

KIf we had committed nuclear blackmail, would you (or I) know about it?

This is not a joke question.

Can you stop begging the fucking question? You are supporting Starglider's arguments. SUPPORT THEM. Don't throw around baseless conspiracy theories like I should give a fuck. PS, there IS an answer to this question that doesn't make you look like an idiot, and I EVEN GAVE YOU A HINT.

What I'm saying is that anybody who tried it would become an international pariah. This really wouldn't matter for states that already are or simply don't care about such things, but might for, say, the United States.

So you're saying it's more complex than 'I has nukes, you has no nukes, do as I say'? AMAZING!

PS it's deeply amusing to me that you posit 'becoming a pariah' as a deterrant to nuclear blackmail... because the US tries to make it's enemies pariahs FIRST, which is WHY they need nukes to defend themselves from the putative blackmail. Does this seem safe to you? If someone is ALREADY a pariah, does this make them more dangerous? I love Americans.

[Colonel Olrik]

Good point, MariusRoi. It iisn't like nuclear weapons follow physical laws that are regular and predictable, like any other device. You can't just theoretically design these things without testing and expect them to work: That would have never worked in the Manhatten Project, for instance. We didn't use any namby pamby math to make those damn things.

The physical model of the system is a vital, but minor, part of the system engineering, design and manufacturing of the system. There are dozens of components even in a relatively straightforward guided shell that can and will go wrong on trials. Not to say that you need many tests, especially given the price of each one of those, since you have important knowledge from other sources. But a number of them at different working conditions is absolutely vital to validate the theoretical models. Simulation is like masturbation, do it too many times and you end up believing it's like the real thing.

[Ryan Thunder]

So you're saying it's more complex than 'I has nukes, you has no nukes, do as I say'?

For nations that give a damn about their public reputation, yes.

Iran, to take the obvious example, does not.

PS it's deeply amusing to me that you posit 'becoming a pariah' as a deterrant to nuclear blackmail... because the US tries to make it's enemies pariahs FIRST, which is WHY they need nukes to defend themselves from the putative blackmail.

What country has the US made pariahs of? Hint: I don't mean "which countries did something atrocious that the US condemned," btw.

If someone is ALREADY a pariah, does this make them more dangerous?

Yes.

I love Americans.

PS I am Canadian, you snivelling jackass.

[Winston Blake]

Goal 3 just kills me

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

Hahahahahaha...ahhh

Underling:Well if we can't use SCIENCE! I guess there's only Magic left if we can't test anything nor make new ones, the only thing we can do is try and tap into the Great Beyond, or perhaps Prayer, perhaps some Divine Magic will get that Nuke to go off.

By Xenu I hate President Obama on nuclear issues

It's a little stupid, but it's not THAT stupid. It sounds like a 'research proposal' aim to me- 'investigate if new software can obviate testing' - not an actual we-will-do-this goal. The word 'explore' in proposals usually means 'we don't know what we're doing - please give us money to find out'.

I doubt any engineer would ever want to rely solely on simulations for anything (of course, managers are different issue). The entire point of simulations is that you can MINIMISE testing, and reduce development time and project costs. Minimise, not eliminate. Developing good simulation software could slash the number of tests required to validate a new design.

I don't understand why you and Shep seem to be against this - it looks pretty reasonable. I would expect the outcome of this 'exploration' to be 'Based on these results, the minimum number of tests required to guarantee reliability for the Objective Interim Next-Gen Warhead can be safely reduced to one or two proof shots.'

---

Regarding the 'reduction = America vulnerable' argument, it's true that significantly reducing America's stockpile does make them more vulnerable, assuming Russia does not reduce theirs. But in a world where it's basically just Russia and America in the game, isn't parity the main thing? I mean, if both sides have ~2000 nukes, then both sides cut down to 1500 nukes, what ground has really been lost? Why not 10 000 each, if more is merrier? Surely arms limitation treaties reduce vulnerability because they ensure parity - fewer nukes does not automatically imply greater vulnerability. In a post-Cold-War era, more than a handful is a waste, so to speak (i.e. more than enough to destroy a country's biggest major targets is a waste).

Further, in this era, developing the industrial capacity to manufacture nukes with up-to-the-minute specs (if tensions rise) seems more valuable to me than maintaining huge expensive stockpiles of obsolete equipment. Just look at Russia scrapping all those thousands of brand-new mothballed old-design tanks because of their new doctrine.

As for a nuke-free world - it might work, but I think America would need firm global stability + very powerful conventional forces (dozens of supercarriers?) + ability to make new nukes if necessary.

[Uraniun235]

In a post-Cold-War era, more than a handful is a waste, so to speak (i.e. more than enough to destroy a country's biggest major targets is a waste).

Why wasn't "more than a handful" a waste during the Cold War? What's changed since then?

[Winston Blake]

In a post-Cold-War era, more than a handful is a waste, so to speak (i.e. more than enough to destroy a country's biggest major targets is a waste).

Why wasn't "more than a handful" a waste during the Cold War? What's changed since then?

Russia and America don't want to kill each other as much?