Page 1 of 1
Nuclear Arms
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:48 pm
by George the original one
Trump and Putin are both now on a mission to increase nuclear arms. Anybody think increasing nuclear arms these days is a credible military deterrent?
P.S. Merry Christmas.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:56 pm
by Ego
Trump is not the kind of guy whose ego can withstand everyone believing he is Putin's lapdog. I hope he finds better ways to convince himself of his own strength and vigor than nukes.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:20 pm
by Kriegsspiel
George the original one wrote:Trump and Putin are both now on a mission to increase nuclear arms. Anybody think increasing nuclear arms these days is a credible military deterrent?
No.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:49 am
by fiby41
Not if the country you want to deter already has a No First Use policy.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:21 am
by J_
No! And not a good combination with your PS
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:03 pm
by fiby41
Today India successfully test-fired Agni-5 अग्नि-५ nuclear-capable long-range indigenously-developed surface-to-surface inter-continental ballistic-missile with operational-range of 5,000 km.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:57 pm
by Bismarck
I'm more concerned about what the us response would/should be if North Korea nukes s korea, Japan, or the us. For deterrence to work the other guy has to believe you'll actually launch a nuke. We have to fire back, and I don't think conventional weapons prove the point. The fallout from our response likely hits china.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:21 pm
by OTCW
Duck and cover. I feel like I am back in 5th grade.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:06 pm
by James_0011
No, your hypothesis has been disproven in a few academic studies. Ill find references when I have more time. Basically, more nukes = less safety.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:30 am
by Dragline
Just another waste of money. We are awash in nukes.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:22 pm
by IlliniDave
The only thing that would come close to making sense would modernizing antiquated inventory, and even that is pretty distasteful. Unfortunately putting the genie back in the bottle is not something anyone will do.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:37 pm
by subgard
Safety relative to number of nukes is probably an S-curve.
Increasing nukes from 1-10 - Marginally more deterrence.
Increasing nukes from 10-100 - Substantial increase in deterrence.
Increasing nukes from 100-1000 - Back to marginal increase.
Increasing from 1000 to 10000 - Probably nil increase in deterrence
Most nuclear powers are in the sweet spot of the curve (a few 100), while Russia and the US have overshot ridiculously.
Re: Nuclear Arms
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:04 am
by Bismarck
I agree that10000 nukes has little gain in deterrence, but the 100 nuke sweet spot seems arbitrary. Are these fission or fusion bombs (yield), what are the available delivery systems, and do we have second strike/sub based nukes?
Those three factors alone seem more important than the actual count for deterrence. But I agree having 10000 vs 4000 is just wasting money.