We Have Explosive?
May 20, 2005 7:15 PM   Subscribe

Just another broken treaty? Rumors persist that the W-76 and W-88 warheads may have been designed with “limited” usability guidelines, and short life spans. Replacement of warheads designed for a first strike with more reliable and long life deterrents seems like a good idea. However, the Bush administration has a love affair with a controversial program, and there could be immense new pressure to “drive before we buy”.
posted by PROD_TPSL (20 comments total)
 
There is an obvious hypocritical nature to this whole stinking affair. How can we dictate to Iran and North Korea that disarming and renouncing nuclear weapons are in their best interests while we follow a path towards more powerful weapons? What will Russia and China do as the United States postures itself to develop new warheads? Just how soon will new weapons platforms be built around new warheads and where will they be deployed? At sea? In space?

As a USian I am worried. How do other MeFites feel?
posted by PROD_TPSL at 8:20 PM on May 20, 2005


It would stink to high Heaven.. If I believed in such a place.
posted by Balisong at 8:22 PM on May 20, 2005


But what are you guys going to do about it?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 10:26 PM on May 20, 2005


Well, I had a dream about wandering around in the nuclear wasteland that was once my city about a week ago. I know someone else here at MeFi had a similar dream. Anyone else care to share your nuclear nightmares? First time I've ever had a dream like that. I've lived through the worst days of the Cold War with Russia by the way, when nuclear alerts really meant something . . . This is absolutely *not* a good direction this country should be taking right now by the way, nor should any country. Stupid, stupid fools . . .
posted by mk1gti at 11:04 PM on May 20, 2005


How can we dictate to Iran and North Korea that disarming and renouncing nuclear weapons are in their best interests while we follow a path towards more powerful weapons?

One possible theory: Because there are vastly different geo-political realities between the two countries. The US doesn't currently have an enemy that could wipe out the entire US arsenal.

However, if North Korea were to be on the verge of developing nukes or have a few (we're probably at that point) then South Korea (or whomever, insert your favorite enemy here) would have a huge incentive to strike first and wipe out N. Korea's arsenal before it could be used. It is no longer in S. Korea's interest to wait until a war starts before getting involved - if they think that there is a risk of the nukes being used then it is in S. Korea's interest to strike first. That is an unstable situation that is bad for both sides. South Korea is forced to either strike first and accelerate a war or to sit back and wait until North Korea has turned Seoul into a heap of glowing rubble. North Korea has leverage if they ever go to war, but there is an increased liklihood of war happening.

You don't have to accept all of that, but it's an internally consistant theory that could be used to convince N. Korea / Iran / etc why developing nukes isn't in their best interest unless they can build a LOT quickly.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:27 AM on May 21, 2005


thedevildancedlightly
Here's another 'internally consistent theory' that has more basis in fact: many people thought the russians would strike first so we should strike them first. We accused the russians of wanting to accelerate the arms race when in fact in the early sixties they had practically no nuclear weapons to speak of. It was a time ripe for disarmament and many in the diplomatic and scientific community thought so as well, drawing up documentation that was later used in the SALT talks and led to disarmament at the end of the Cold War. They could have disarmed in the early sixties, but bloodthirsty morons like Curtis LeMay still ran the roost, bloodthirsty morons like Rumsfeld and Cheney have essentially run it or had influence through the Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations
The bottom line is this: No one ever actually pursued this nonsense of 'We Better Kick Their Ass Before They Kick Ours' because at some point a substantial proportion of our country's people would lose their lives.
You seem to forget that this country has very little fallout shelters to speak of, and those that are left have been pretty much decommissioned.
Think before you spout off with your murderous bluster...
posted by mk1gti at 7:23 AM on May 21, 2005


2. NORTH KOREAN WARHEAD FOUND IN ALASKA?
Seoul's Korea Times, citing a report by South Korea's National Assembly, voiced claims March 28 that the warhead from a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in Alaska. "According to a US document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska," former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. "Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang's missile capabilities," he said.
posted by mk1gti at 9:32 AM on May 21, 2005


many people thought the russians would strike first so we should strike them first... No one ever actually pursued this nonsense of 'We Better Kick Their Ass Before They Kick Ours' because at some point a substantial proportion of our country's people would lose their lives-

You just missed the ENTIRE point of the comment. Look at the differences between two situations. In the US-USSR situation both sides had massive arsenals that both sides believed at the time could not be destroyed by a first-strike. Even if the US attacked first we believed that the USSR had enough weaponry that they would be able to retaliate and effectively turn the US into a pile of steaming rubble. Thes theory was known as "mutually assured destruction" and made the situation more STABLE because it made an attack by either side suicidal. That is still the situation the US is in because nobody could possibly wipe out the entire arsenal in one blow and to attempt to do so would be to sign a country's own suicide note.

Now look at the N. Korea / S. Korea situation. North Korea has nukes or is about to. If you are Kim Dae-jung (President of South Korea) then I agree that in most situations your actions wouldn't change. The problem is that if there is ever a hint that an attack by the North is imminent then South Korea has a faustian choice to make. They can sit back and wait to see what happens -- in which case they'll find out that the war is on because Seoul and Pusan have blinked out of existence. That's more than a "substantial portion" of the life in the country. Or, they can strike at the nuclear weapon launch sites before North Korea has a chance to use them, which accelerates the war but prevents the other side from using nuclear weapons.

The entire point is that it is very destabalizing for a small country to have one or two nuclear weapons. The theory of "we'll kick their ass before they kick ours" (as you so delicately put it) has been used before. See, oh, Pearl Harbor. The US had a vastly superior fleet in the Pacific until half of it sank in Hawaii. Japan thought that the US was going to get involved eventually, so they took preemptive action to go to the heart of the US power. It almost worked.

When offense is more powerful then defense the situation is inherently unstable. Normally war is defense-biased, but when you introduce a small number of nukes on one or both sides suddenly strike-first becomes the strategic answer. WWI, anyone?

They could have disarmed in the early sixties, but bloodthirsty morons like Curtis LeMay still ran the roost

Unilateral disarmament in the middle of the Cold War would have been a pretty bad idea. Remember we were fresh off using Korea as a proxy for direct war, and were just starting to engage in Vietnam as a proxy for direct war. The USSR had just put the first man in space and by all indications was winning the technology war. In hindsight, we've learned a lot about what their capabilities were. But there was no way to get that information at the time.

I agree that mutual disarmament would have been great if it had happened in the 1960's, but it just wasn't going to happen.

You seem to forget that this country has very little fallout shelters to speak of, and those that are left have been pretty much decommissioned

I'm not sure why this is relevant. Fallout shelters have pretty much been shown to be worthless in the event of world-ending war. In the event of a smaller nuclear combat (eg, the two bombs dropped in WWII) fallout shelters aren't needed.

If the US used 10% of its current arsensal then we'd be beyond fallout shelters. I'm not sure why adding a couple more nukes on top of that makes a difference to fallout shelters. We're already at massive overkill levels.

voiced claims March 28 that the warhead from a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in Alaska

Great, another reason to explain to North Korea why they would create instability in the region if they had medium-range nukes.

Think before you spout off with your murderous bluster...

Classy. Thanks. Can't argue with the message, attack the messenger.

There are a lot of principled reasons to oppose US investment in nuclear weapons. Inconsitency with NNPT policies is not one. Fallout shelters is not one. Come up with principled reasons instead of calling people "murderous" and accusing them of "bluster" and I'd love to have an intelligent debate.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:37 PM on May 21, 2005


There are a lot of principled reasons to oppose US investment in nuclear weapons.
Agreed.
There are a few kooky reasons to support US investment in nuclear weapons.

Reasons to oppose:
massive death
poisoning the earth
no need for extensive "deterrence"
StrangeLove will eventually use his toys
money better spent on people and infrastructure and environmental causes
and on and on and on ...

Reasons to support:
profits for military corporation friends of politicians
posted by nofundy at 2:42 PM on May 21, 2005


Why not just give South Korea nukes?
posted by Balisong at 4:02 PM on May 21, 2005


And Taiwan, for that matter?
posted by Balisong at 4:05 PM on May 21, 2005


I mean, as long as we're on the fast track to Armegeddon, we can't be the ONLY ones to kill the WHOLE PLANET, are we?
posted by Balisong at 4:06 PM on May 21, 2005


Let S. Korea give the North a black eye, which will cause the north to invade, (since they don't quite have their nukes on line yet, but have an ammased loyal UNIFORMED army) And then have the S. Koreans call to us for "Help!" and we'll be the benefactors of good relations all around..

Ditto for Taiwan.
posted by Balisong at 4:10 PM on May 21, 2005


Am I slipping to the Dark Side?
posted by Balisong at 4:11 PM on May 21, 2005


What I don't quite get is why the US and Russia still feel the need for keeping thousands of nuclear warheads. Not that there ever was a point in keeping enough nukes to blow up the Earth several times over, but one would think that keeping "just" a couple of hundreds (like the other main nuclear powers) would be more than enough for the purpose of deterrence.
posted by Skeptic at 4:31 PM on May 21, 2005


Let's install a nuclear weapon pointing to a random 1/6th of the planet, and install the "GO!" button on the podium of the head speaker of the new Iraqi government podium.

Just to rap his fingers against.
posted by Balisong at 4:52 PM on May 21, 2005


Ho, ho, ho. Here's a lovely paradox: Lots of nukes are stabilizing, but few nukes are destabilizing. The harder we work at disarmament, the more likely a small-scale nuclear exchange will be.

Remember back in late 2001, when India and Pakistan were eyeball-to-eyeball? They each had a small number (less than 50) of nukes. They could both empty their arsenals without causing doomsday. So what cooled them off? Not MAD, 'cause it wouldn't have been total enough.

But it was pretty dicey.

Same thing happened back in the 60's when China went nuclear. There were some abortive discussions between US and USSR about turning China into a lake of glass before they built up a strategic force.

Balisong, how about everybody just showers in gasoline and you start handing out the matches?
posted by warbaby at 6:19 PM on May 21, 2005


Here's a lovely paradox: Lots of nukes are stabilizing, but few nukes are destabilizing. The harder we work at disarmament, the more likely a small-scale nuclear exchange will be.

Exactly. The law of unintended consequences at work.

Why not just give South Korea nukes?

Both sides having a low number of nukes is VERY destabalizing. Then both sides would have a strong incentive to strike first with their nuclear weapons to wipe out the opposing arsenal. The only "solution" along those lines would be to give both sides a huge arsenal that couldn't be eliminated by a first strike.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:35 PM on May 21, 2005


DDL: The law of unintended consequences is a neocon excuse for why none of their policies succeed. There is not, nor never was, any such "law."

The higher instability of smaller nuclear arsenals has been long known and understood. It was one of the stumbling blocks twenty years ago during the nuclear disarmament talks.

You appear to have some reason to believe that small nuclear powers can pursue a counterforce strategy. Such a strategy (using your nukes to knock out their nukes in a first strike) requires that you can find and hit nearly all of your opponent's nuclear forces. No small power has the intelligence or targeting accuracy for this.

If India and Pakistan were to mix it up with nukes, they will be targeting each others military forces, industrial infrastructure and population. Messy, immensely destructive and unlikely to be unilaterally decisive with any certainty. Due the the relative sizes of the two countries and the limited range of forces, India's size gives it a slight advantage (if you can call what would result after a nuclear exchange an advantage...)
posted by warbaby at 9:16 PM on May 21, 2005


The law of unintended consequences is a neocon excuse for why none of their policies succeed

I don't think the neocons were smart enough to come up with that. It long predates them. The instability of small arsenals isn't a neocon/socialist/democract/republican/etc issue. It's a world peace issue.

The higher instability of smaller nuclear arsenals has been long known and understood. It was one of the stumbling blocks twenty years ago during the nuclear disarmament talks.

You act as if we're disagreeing somehow. We agree that small numbers of nukes are destabalizing and that instability is a good independent reason why it's a Bad Thing that India/N. Korea/Pakistan/Iran have or are developing small arsenals. The exact mechanics of why it's bad is less important. I can't see well enough into the head of Kim Il-Jong to know what he'd do with his nukes in the event that South Korea had its own arsenal, but I can tell you that it'd be bad. We seem to agree on that.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:45 PM on May 21, 2005


« Older black naturalization ceremony   |   Another damn StarWars link Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments