News Is the Nuclear Arms Race Making a Comeback?

[zoobyshoe]

Article from back in Sept.:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...lly-think-about-using-nuclear-weapons-n655536

Interesting take from a couple days ago:

...Putin is fully justified in his complacency. Contra Barro, there is no reason to think that a new arms race would replicate the Cold War, with the U.S. using its economic superiority to force the Russians into a competition they are bound to lose. By Trump’s own account, the main global problem isn’t Russia but http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/26/trump_media_wont_say_radical_islamic_terrorism_because_they_dont_want_to_offend_president_obama.html Iran, and China.

More broadly, going back to at least 1987, Trump has believed that it is in America’s best interest to join forces with the Soviet Union to fight emerging powers. In a recently resurfaced interview from 1987 with Ron Rosenbaum, Trump laid out the case for the world’s two major superpowers to work as a team. “Most of those [pre-nuclear] countries are in one form or another dominated by the U.S. and the Soviet Union,” Trump told Rosenbaum. “Between those two nations you have the power to dominate any of those countries.” Trump then suggested that Pakistan, which at that point didn’t have nuclear weapons, could be prevented from doing so by the U.S. and Soviet Union’s “powers of retaliation.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/139...r-arms-race-isnt-warning-putin-its-invitation

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

The only way the US can threaten the strategic balance and MAD is by trying to negate other nations' nuclear arsenals by building defensive weaponry, ie expanding the missile shields. This WOULD force Russia to respond by building better weapons and hence trigger an arms race.

This has been happening for years. See the video I posted in which Putin explains this. The Russian response to NATO missile defense is not to duplicate it, but to overwhelm it with more and better offensive missiles. Putin warned years ago this is how he would respond. He said Russia would not tolerate a defensive system that would neutralize the Russian nuclear threat. NATO went ahead and Putin responded. I think any sane leader would do the same.

Now Trump is saying he wants to greatly expand the American nuclear arsenal. The other party does not seem to be promoting peaceful relations with Russia. None of this makes me feel safer.

The only way to guarantee we won't be vaporized by nukes is to eliminate the nukes. This is what we should be suggesting to our leaders. Returning to Prof. Winterberg's statement, I do find one flaw. He says it may take an all-out thermonuclear war for people to realize a world government is necessary. This assumes there will be people left after such a war. But if the nuclear winter scenario is correct, there won't be for long. To paraphrase Monty Python, we will be bereft of life, pushing up the daisies, and resting in peace. We will have ceased to be.

Therefore, our best survival strategy is to get rid of the nukes before we use them in war. But this would require an agreement between every country that has nukes. No one is going to get rid of their nukes if even one other country keeps theirs. As Prof. Winterberg said, it seems Utopian.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/nato-missile-defense-romania-poland/

https://www.rt.com/news/346076-turkey-cavusoglu-missile-defense/

 

[mheslep]

When's the last time a major country has just up and disappeared?

That would be the USSR in 1991.

I'd have to go with Crimea, 2014, on that one Alex.

 

[Prideful]

I'd have to go with Crimea, 2014, on that one Alex.

That's fair, although considering it was taken by the country I'm referring to throughout this conversation I think that just bolsters my original point. Whole countries don't just get taken over left and right in the modern day. Especially during this age of information.

 

[mheslep]

That's fair, although considering it was taken by the country I'm referring to throughout this conversation I think that just bolsters my original point.

The specific case of Russia has a long history that is supposed to inform us that they have a built-in, generational fear of foreign conquest. The Nazi invasion cost the Soviets 20 to 40 million lives and in the prior centuries the great power games threatened the lagging development in Russia While I don't doubt that history plays some part, there is no real threat of a massive foreign invasion. The only real threat to the Russian federation is a further self-dismantling.

Whole countries don't just get taken over left and right in the modern day. Especially during this age of information.

What is it about Twitter or Facebook that could stop Putin from sending some divisions into, say, Finland (again)? Expulsion of 32 Russians? No, the main deterrence is that the Fins destroyed a Soviet division the last time it was tried. The stage props of the New World Order (the UN, the EU) are now seen for what they are.

 

[Prideful]

The specific case of Russia has a long history that is supposed to inform us that they have a built-in, generational fear of foreign conquest. The Nazi invasion cost the Soviets 20 to 40 million lives and in the prior centuries the great power games threatened the lagging development in Russia While I don't doubt that history plays some part, there is no real threat of a massive foreign invasion. The only real threat to the Russian federation is a further self-dismantling.What is it about Twitter or Facebook that could stop Putin from sending some divisions into, say, Finland (again)? Expulsion of 32 Russians? No, the main deterrence is that the Fins destroyed a Soviet division the last time it was tried. The stage props of the New World Order (the UN, the EU) are now seen for what they are.

I'm getting very confused about where this discussion is going. I realize that historical information about Russian fear of foreign conquest. That's what I'm saying they need to move away from. I only brought up the age of information because I meant that society is evolving. Becoming more and more connected and less hostile towards different ideas. Which leads to fewer conflicts and therefore wars.

When did we get into discussing NWO? In my personal opinion I welcome a world order of some sort, in fact I believe it is the only future governmental system possible. There will always be flaws, corruption in any governmental system -cough- USA -cough-. However, at least by having a world government this corruption can be localized to a point and perhaps sterilized better. The benefits of a world government far out way the downfalls to me.

 

[mheslep]

... I only brought up the age of information because I meant that society is evolving. Becoming more and more connected and less hostile towards different ideas. Which leads to fewer conflicts and therefore wars...

The internet exists is a fact; fewer wars is a fact when compared to the first half of the 20th century. The 'therefore' is not a fact but an assertion. Societal evolution (for the better) is an assertion. That Internet traffic is mostly porn and used by ISIS to radicalize and recruit is partial evidence contradicting the idea that society is evolving for the better via the Internet. More likely, the general improvement in living conditions enabled by trade and technology, the expansion of democracy, and especially the military hegemony of the western democracies are all responsible for the decline of war.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The article I linked to earlier asserts that Trump has a wrong, 'business model' of nuclear proliferation that leads him to conceive of it as inevitable and normal in a free market:

In May, Trump even suggested he could support South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia, who are not currently nuclear powers, arming themselves with nuclear weapons for their own defense.

CNN's Anderson Cooper asked the Republican presidential nominee, "So if you said, Japan, yes, it's fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?"

Trump agreed.

"Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen, anyway. It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time," Trump insisted, despite a 25-year trend in which numerous nations — Libya, South Africa, Iraq, and former Soviet republics — have been denuclearized.

"They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely," Trump said. "But you have so many countries already, China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia, you have so many countries right now that have them."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...lly-think-about-using-nuclear-weapons-n655536

Seen in light of that, his recent, “Let there be an arms race, because we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.", has the warped ring of, "Bring on the competition, because our product will always be superior!"

System Accidents

"Normal" accidents, or system accidents, are so-called by Perrow because such accidents are inevitable in extremely complex systems. Given the characteristic of the system involved, multiple failures which interact with each other will occur, despite efforts to avoid them. Perrow said that operator error is a very common problem, many failures relate to organizations rather than technology, and big accidents almost always have very small beginnings.[2] Such events appear trivial to begin with before unpredictably cascading through the system to create a large event with severe consequences.[1]

Normal Accidents contributed key concepts to a set of intellectual developments in the 1980s that revolutionized the conception of safety and risk. It made the case for examining technological failures as the product of highly interacting systems, and highlighted organizational and management factors as the main causes of failures. Technological disasters could no longer be ascribed to isolated equipment malfunction, operator error or acts of God.[3]

Perrow identifies three conditions that make a system likely to be susceptible to Normal Accidents. These are:

The system is complex

The system is tightly coupled

The system has catastrophic potential

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

I note this sentence: "It made the case for examining technological failures as the product of highly interacting systems, and highlighted organizational and management factors as the main causes of failures." [italics mine]

 

[Wminus]

This has been happening for years. See the video I posted in which Putin explains this. The Russian response to NATO missile defense is not to duplicate it, but to overwhelm it with more and better offensive missiles. Putin warned years ago this is how he would respond. He said Russia would not tolerate a defensive system that would neutralize the Russian nuclear threat. NATO went ahead and Putin responded. I think any sane leader would do the same.

Now Trump is saying he wants to greatly expand the American nuclear arsenal. The other party does not seem to be promoting peaceful relations with Russia. None of this makes me feel safer.

The only way to guarantee we won't be vaporized by nukes is to eliminate the nukes. This is what we should be suggesting to our leaders. Returning to Prof. Winterberg's statement, I do find one flaw. He says it may take an all-out thermonuclear war for people to realize a world government is necessary. This assumes there will be people left after such a war. But if the nuclear winter scenario is correct, there won't be for long. To paraphrase Monty Python, we will be bereft of life, pushing up the daisies, and resting in peace. We will have ceased to be.

Therefore, our best survival strategy is to get rid of the nukes before we use them in war. But this would require an agreement between every country that has nukes. No one is going to get rid of their nukes if even one other country keeps theirs. As Prof. Winterberg said, it seems Utopian.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/nato-missile-defense-romania-poland/

https://www.rt.com/news/346076-turkey-cavusoglu-missile-defense/

Yes indeed Putin says the US has been doing it (eg construction of new missile shields and expanding the missile shield to all NATO frigates), but I'm not sure about how much they're investing in the technology. I don't exactly have top security clearance so I don't know, but my impression is that right now they invest way less than they could - what if they suddenly wanted to build something like the Star Wars shield, for example ?

As for Trump's talk.. Really it's meaningless, I doubt there will be much of a response to the US expanding its nuclear arsenal. You shouldn't be afraid.

 

[1oldman2]

Maybe this...

Is better than this...

Just a thought.

 

[zoobyshoe]

1oldman2, I think the first image is supposed to depict the reentry trajectories of multiple nuclear bombs from a MIRV. In other words, image one is actually 8x image two.

 

[Wminus]

Maybe this...
View attachment 110966
Is better than this...
View attachment 110967
Just a thought.

..OK. Is the first image supposed to represent the "missile shield"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Testing of the Peacekeeper reentry vehicles, all eight (ten capable) fired from only one missile. Each line represents the path of an individual warhead.

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

 

[1oldman2]

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

Interesting links, thanks zoob. I was only referring to "Star wars" in general, or more broadly, defense against the incoming nukes. Since the USSR went bankrupt and our government has had to deal with "disclosure" there has been a wealth of interesting reading on nuclear warfare planning, defense as well as targeting. What I see is that either sides military would not only have been willing but very enthusiastic to launch a first strike if they weren't restrained by M.A.D. (I don't think that mindset has improved, all that has improved is the tech involved). It still seems most likely the real threat is going to be a "wildcard" attack that sets the whole thing in motion. Strange how defense and offense are so closely linked in this situation, they seem to be one and the same.

This isn't the only "wildcard" in the deck, there are plenty of Nuclear threats out there in addition to U.S.-Russian nukes. The ones I worry about most are the ones with the least to lose when **it hits the proverbial fan.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/01/asia/north-korea-kim-jong-un-speech/index.html
Seoul (CNN)"North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said that his country is close to testing an intercontinental ballistic missile."

"Kim referred to North Korea as a "nuclear and military power in the east that formidable enemy dare encroach on" and said "unless the US and its vassal forces stop nuclear threat and blackmail and unless they stop the war exercises which they stage right at our noses under the pretext of annual exercises, the DPRK would keep increasing the military capabilities for self-defense and preemptive striking capacity with a main emphasis on nuclear force," according to state news agency KCNA."http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/asia/north-korea-kim-jong-un-year-end-lookahead/index.html
(CNN)"North Korean leader Kim Jong Un heads into 2017 with two things that loom ominous for the rest of the world -- he's tested a nuclear weapon, and no one really knows how willing he'd be to use one in anger."

"Combining nuclear warheads with ballistic missile technology in the hands of a volatile leader like Kim Jong Un is a recipe for disaster," Adm. Harry Harris, the head of the US military's Pacific Command, said in a December speech.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What I see is that either sides military would not only have been willing but very enthusiastic to launch a first strike if they weren't restrained by M.A.D. (I don't think that mindset has improved, all that has improved is the tech involved)

I'd like to see a source on this. Given that in the US at least that nuclear weapons are under civilian control, for the military to have any impact (no pun intended) they would have to launch a first strike on their own, a la Dr. Strangelove. Is the claim that they were planning this?

 

[russ_watters]

What I see is that either sides military would not only have been willing but very enthusiastic to launch a first strike if they weren't restrained by M.A.D. (I don't think that mindset has improved, all that has improved is the tech involved).

I'd like to see a source on this. Given that in the US at least that nuclear weapons are under civilian control, for the military to have any impact (no pun intended) they would have to launch a first strike on their own, a la Dr. Strangelove. Is the claim that they were planning this?

I read it as saying people in the military are murderous warmongers, which, as a former member of the military, I find obscenely insulting.

 

[Bystander]

I read it as saying people in the military are murderous warmongers, which, as a former member of the military, I find obscenely insulting.

I'll second and third that, and what the hey, throw in a fourth and a fifth.

 

[1oldman2]

a la Dr. Strangelove. Is the claim that they were planning this?

Sorry about the delay responding, a search of this subject requires wading through a lot of "crackpottery". Strangelove is a great film but I'll leave Hollywood out of this, I was only referring to certain military leaders historic enthusiasm for preemptive use of nukes, fortunately as you mentioned they don't have control of launches etc., I'll mention a few examples and we can discuss details from there.
http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963
This is a little ambiguos, depending on which part you read however it states "Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s."

"But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963."http://www.globalresearch.ca/not-just-a-last-resort-a-global-strike-plan-with-a-nuclear-option/1704
This incisive article by William Arkin on the Bush adminstration’s Nuclear War doctrine was published in May 2005. It outlines the mechanism whereby a nuclear attack against a Iran or North Korea would be carried out. These war plans involving the US, Israel and turkey for a nuclear attack on Iran are now in a state of readiness. They have also been endorsed by NATO.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/
The Berlin crisis of 1961 does not loom large in the American memory, but it was an episode that brought the United States and the Soviet Union close to war-nuclear war. Newly available documents reveal that the Kennedy White House drew up detailed plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets, and that President Kennedy explored the first-strike option seriously

The SIOP here mentions "Preemptive plans"
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB130/
"A full nuclear SIOP strike launched on a preemptive basis would have delivered over 3200 nuclear weapons to 1060 targets in the Soviet Union, China, and allied countries in Asia and Europe"https://themoscowtimes.com/articles...ve-nuclear-strike-doctrine-against-nato-39016
"A Russian general has called for Russia to revamp its military doctrine, last updated in 2010, to clearly identify the U.S. and its NATO allies as Moscow's enemy number one and spell out the conditions under which Russia would launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the 28-member military alliance, Interfax reported Wednesday.

The general added that special attention should be paid to integrating the functions of the newly created Air and Space Defense Forces with Russia's land, sea and air based nuclear forces. "In addition, it is necessary to hash out the conditions under which Russia could carry out a preemptive strike with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces," he said."

https://www.rt.com/usa/186084-russian-bombers-labrador-gertz/
"A pair of Russian bomber jets reportedly practiced cruise missile attacks against targets in the United States last week, according to a report published on Monday in the Washington Free Beacon."Of course there is much history to be discussed and I look forward to your take on this subject, I should add that it's much easier to find examples of the US's stance than the USSR/Russian side of things, but that highlights the difference in our systems of government.

 

[1oldman2]

I read it as saying people in the military are murderous warmongers, which, as a former member of the military, I find obscenely insulting.

Not military people in general, only certain military leaders. History speaks for itself.

 

[russ_watters]

Not military people in general, only certain military leaders.

Fair enough, it just sounded like "...either sides military..." was a very wide net.

History speaks for itself.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be correctly interpreted:

This is a little ambiguos, depending on which part you read however it states "Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s."

Yes, it is ambiguous. And it doesn't address your actual claim: that the military was strongly advocating that plan. Duty requires that military planners make lots and lots of plans for many different contingencies. A first strike plan might be a reflection of a strong desire by a nuclear warmonger who created it or it might be a logical calculation based on the unknown possibility that Moscow could be planning a nuclear strike. That was always my reading of the situation: it wasn't an emotional desire for mass murder, but a coldly logical calculation based on a difficult to measure threat.

None of what you linked actually addresses what you claimed. You've inserted a motivation into their minds, that you don't actually have information to support (except, perhaps, believing that General Ripper was/is typical of military thinking). What you need to support your opinion is a general actually saying he favored/favors first strike and he has to say it in an "enthusiastic" way. And conversely, you also need a general saying, in a disappointed/forlorn way, that he felt/feels restricted by MAD.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Duty requires that military planners make lots and lots of plans for many different contingencies.

Exactly. I have fire insurance in case my house burns down. Doesn't mean I want it to.

 

[1oldman2]

Fair enough,

Your reply is, as usual very well put. I'll do some more digging around before continuing so we can keep this discussion productive, (as I mentioned the crackpot factor is over the top when searching this subject.) I should mention that I have the deepest respect for the military in general, It's the politics that gets a little too self serving. Hope your New Year is off to a good start, back in a bit.

 

[1oldman2]

Exactly. I have fire insurance in case my house burns down. Doesn't mean I want it to.

Very good point, in the case of preemptive strike though it would amount to arson.

 

[zoobyshoe]

North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't happen!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...continental-ballistic-missile-trump/96091386/

What's that supposed to mean? Does it mean N. Korea is too inept to get a missile this far, or does it mean 'we won't let them,"?

This paper made the automatic assumption he meant the latter:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-north-korea-nuclear-weapon-233109

If he meant the latter, what course of action, exactly, does he propose to take to stop them?

 

[Bystander]

If he meant the latter, what course of action, exactly, does he propose to take to stop them?

What would you propose that he do?

 

[1oldman2]

Could this be "on the table" ?
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/03/north-south-korea-trade-threats-over-pre-emptive-strike/
TOKYO (AP) - Since North Korea’s latest nuclear test, Pyongyang and Seoul have been openly trading threats of decapitation strikes and annihilating capitals populated by millions of civilians. And the talk of how each side might throw that first pre-emptive punch has become more detailed than ever.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What would you propose that he do?

I think you misunderstood my question.

 

[mheslep]

What's that supposed to mean?

That's the question that I hope Kim Jong Un is asking himself.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's the question that I hope Kim Jong Un is asking himself.

But that brings us back to the failure of Von Neumann's Game Theory, which is that it only works when all players are rational.

 

[1oldman2]

But that brings us back to the failure of Von Neumann's Game Theory, which is that it only works when all players are rational.

Thanks, this explains so much about chess with my wife, I always wondered how she beat me two out of three.