Current Nuclear Weapons Development

[sferrin]

Why? All that is required is a minimal deterrence. Deterrence doesn't improve with more warheads. It just wastes money.

If your deterrence isn't credible then it doesn't work.

 

[bobbymike]

Why? All that is required is a minimal deterrence. Deterrence doesn't improve with more warheads. It just wastes money.

If your deterrence isn't credible then it doesn't work.

Thanks sferrin for your preciseness, spot on as usual.

Of course the term 'Minimal Deterrence' ("MD") can only reflect the warhead count backing that up. The authors of the report (Keith Payne has many great books on deterrence theory) are refuting the numbers of warheads and deployed launchers that currently comprise what the 'minimal deterrent' thinkers believe constitutes MD.

I agree with the authors in fact I wouldn't have signed New START, START I was far enough for me - 6000 warheads on 1200 launchers ;D

 

[Orionblamblam]

Deterrence doesn't improve with more warheads.

How reliable are your warheads? And how many will get through the defenses? How how many will be left after you've shot your bolt?

It's not much of a deterrence if your arsenal is known to not be terribly reliable.

It's not much of a deterrence if your arsenal won't meaningfully punch through defenses.

And it's not much of a deterrence if your arsenal is so minimal that if you launch a strike with it, you have no reserves. This means you are very unlikely to actually *use* it.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Herman Kahn identified 3 types of deterrence in thermonuclear warfare strategy as well.

 

[Rickshaw]

Why? All that is required is a minimal deterrence. Deterrence doesn't improve with more warheads. It just wastes money.

If your deterrence isn't credible then it doesn't work.

More warheads doesn't make it more "credible". What makes it credible is it's existence and it's ability to inflict massive destruction upon your enemies. Blowing them up more than once is excessive and wasteful of monies and resources. They don't fear being destroyed many times, they fear being destroyed once.

 

[Rickshaw]

Deterrence doesn't improve with more warheads.

How reliable are your warheads? And how many will get through the defenses? How how many will be left after you've shot your bolt?

It's not much of a deterrence if your arsenal is known to not be terribly reliable.

It's not much of a deterrence if your arsenal won't meaningfully punch through defenses.

And it's not much of a deterrence if your arsenal is so minimal that if you launch a strike with it, you have no reserves. This means you are very unlikely to actually *use* it.

Your questions are not germane to the issue of "deterrence". What deters your enemy is the fear of what your arsenal could do. Not what it can do. If that fear is removed, then it doesn't matter how many warheads you posesse or their delivery systems. Having the means to destroy your enemy more than once doesn't increase their fear. It is not a factor which can be doubled or trebled. They already know they will be destroyed if they attack you. Having more warheads may reassure you like a security blanket as you go to sleep but it doesn't actually, materially improve your deterence of your enemy.

 

[sferrin]

Why? All that is required is a minimal deterrence. Deterrence doesn't improve with more warheads. It just wastes money.

If your deterrence isn't credible then it doesn't work.

More warheads doesn't make it more "credible". What makes it credible is it's existence and it's ability to inflict massive destruction upon your enemies. Blowing them up more than once is excessive and wasteful of monies and resources. They don't fear being destroyed many times, they fear being destroyed once.

Extremely naïve. You have 10 warheads and I have 40 with first-strike capability. I know if I launch 20 in a first strike I can take yours out leaving you with none and me with 20. On the other hand, you know that you could NEVER take out all of mine because you don't have enough to do it. So explain how my 40 is no more credible than your 10.

 

[Rickshaw]

Why? All that is required is a minimal deterrence. Deterrence doesn't improve with more warheads. It just wastes money.

If your deterrence isn't credible then it doesn't work.

More warheads doesn't make it more "credible". What makes it credible is it's existence and it's ability to inflict massive destruction upon your enemies. Blowing them up more than once is excessive and wasteful of monies and resources. They don't fear being destroyed many times, they fear being destroyed once.

Extremely naïve. You have 10 warheads and I have 40 with first-strike capability. I know if I launch 20 in a first strike I can take yours out leaving you with none and me with 20. On the other hand, you know that you could NEVER take out all of mine because you don't have enough to do it. So explain how my 40 is no more credible than your 10.

I don't have to take out your warheads. I merely have to threaten your population centres, your industrial centres and your seat of government. I have to make you fear the reality that I can wreck your country, utilising my warheads. That will deter you because you cannot guarantee that your "first strike capability" will destroy my warheads in their entirety. Indeed, I would make sure that wasn't possible by hiding them. If you cannot locate them, your "first strike capability" disappears. I would make them mobile, put them on submarines, hide them in underground "race tracks", etc., etc.

The point is, deterrence is not about using your weapons its about making your opponent fear that you will use them and that will prevent you from attacking - if you are a rationale player. If you are not, then deterrence can break down and whether you have 10 or a 1,000 warheads becomes immaterial. Everybody loses in a nuclear exchange. There are no winners in nuclear war.

 

[sferrin]

Why? All that is required is a minimal deterrence. Deterrence doesn't improve with more warheads. It just wastes money.

If your deterrence isn't credible then it doesn't work.

More warheads doesn't make it more "credible". What makes it credible is it's existence and it's ability to inflict massive destruction upon your enemies. Blowing them up more than once is excessive and wasteful of monies and resources. They don't fear being destroyed many times, they fear being destroyed once.

Extremely naïve. You have 10 warheads and I have 40 with first-strike capability. I know if I launch 20 in a first strike I can take yours out leaving you with none and me with 20. On the other hand, you know that you could NEVER take out all of mine because you don't have enough to do it. So explain how my 40 is no more credible than your 10.

I don't have to take out your warheads. I merely have to threaten your population centres, your industrial centres and your seat of government. I have to make you fear the reality that I can wreck your country, utilising my warheads.

And you can't do that if the other guy doesn't believe you have a credible force.

 

[Orionblamblam]

What deters your enemy is the fear of what your arsenal could do. Not what it can do.

The two are related.

Having the means to destroy your enemy more than once doesn't increase their fear. It is not a factor which can be doubled or trebled.

So a bank robbed only needs *one* bullet. Gotcha.

They already know they will be destroyed if they attack you. Having more warheads may reassure you like a security blanket as you go to sleep but it doesn't actually, materially improve your deterence of your enemy.

Errrr.... wrong.

Let's say it would take 500 properly placed nuclear explosions to take out The Enemy. You're saying I don't need more than 500 nuclear bombs. But if my bombs only have a 90% reliability, then I'd actually need 556 bombs. And if the delivery systems are only 90% reliable, I'd need 617. And if my actual targeting is only 90% accurate, I'd need 685. And if the enemies defenses are 50% effective, I'd need 1371. And if I want a 50% reserve after the first strike, I'd need 2743. And if I want to assume that I won't be launching the first strike, but instead a retaliatory strike, and will lose half my weapons in The Enemies first strike, I need 5487 weapons.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The point is, deterrence is not about using your weapons its about making your opponent fear that you will use them and that will prevent you from attacking - if you are a rationale player. If you are not, then deterrence can break down and whether you have 10 or a 1,000 warheads becomes immaterial.

Absolutely not true. this^ falls back on the MAD rationale, along with some of the arguments made by peace groups over the years. if one warhead is fired the entire world goes whole hog and launches 1,000s of warheads. It completely discounts limited nuclear war, long exchanges, delivery means, and counter force attacks, along with attacks on and by multiple countries. Deterrence is not just about preserving the piece its also about survival and deterring further attacks by being able to strike back despite losses or failure.

However, if you want to try explain how one side having 10 warheads and another side having 1,000 warheads in a nuclear exchange makes no difference Im all ears. especially how deterrence is maintained after side A loses or uses all ten of its warheads, and side B still has hundreds left.

Everybody loses in a nuclear exchange. There are no winners in nuclear war.

We could also say "no one wins in World Wars, everybody loses" although its true "everyone loses" in a grand sense, Its also true that there were some clear winners and losers at the end of both world wars. Nuclear Strategists are quick to point this. Its easy to sit back and say "war is bad, weapons are bad" but we live in a world with both.

 

[Bill Walker]

So a bank robbed only needs *one* bullet. Gotcha.

Actually, lots of banks get robbed with no bullets. All it takes is a fake gun, or the threat "I have a gun you can't see right now". Nobody is thinking "well, you have only 5 bullets, but our guard has 10 bullets, so its OK if you get killed after killing 5 bank employees and customers".

Nuclear deterrant works much the same. Are people freaking out because North Korea has thousands of world class warheads and highly accurate and reliable delivery systems? No, they are freaking out thinking about one poorly made - but functional - bomb slipping through customs somewhere. I firmly believe that Kim Jong-un is a nutbar, but now that he is a nuclear nutbar he gets a bit more of my respect.

 

[bobbymike]

So a bank robbed only needs *one* bullet. Gotcha.

Actually, lots of banks get robbed with no bullets. All it takes is a fake gun, or the threat "I have a gun you can't see right now". Nobody is thinking "well, you have only 5 bullets, but our guard has 10 bullets, so its OK if you get killed after killing 5 bank employees and customers".

Nuclear deterrant works much the same. Are people freaking out because North Korea has thousands of world class warheads and highly accurate and reliable delivery systems? No, they are freaking out thinking about one poorly made - but functional - bomb slipping through customs somewhere. I firmly believe that Kim Jong-un is a nutbar, but now that he is a nuclear nutbar he gets a bit more of my respect.

But your scenario relies on deterrence of the unknown we believe the bank robber has potentially dozens of bullets or maybe a bomb if he declares it. We cannot be sure. We tell the world and by treaty obligations HAVE to tell the world how many nukes we have.

US nuclear forces are known and can be targeted. If we go down to 300 nukes on 6 submarines the enemy knows he has six targets and if he misses one he knows exactly how many we have left.

If a bank robber declared in front of two security guards with Glock 17's 'I have only one bullet to rob this bank' do you think he will be successful?

 

[seruriermarshal]

Trials of Russian nuclear subs suspended after missile launch fails

Published By United Press International

MOSCOW, Sept. 7 (UPI) -- Trials of two new Russian nuclear submarines have been suspended after a submarine-launched ballistic missile malfunctioned, a defense official said Saturday.

A spokesman for the Defense Ministry said a Bulava missile fired from the Alexander Nevsky submarine toward a test site in eastern Russia Friday failed in the second minute of the test, RIA Novosti reported.

The failure caused Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to halt further trials of the Alexander Nevsky and the Vladimir Monomakh. Five other launches of the missiles also were put on hold, the spokesman said.

The cause of the failure will be investigated by a commission led by Adm. Viktor Chirkov, commander of the Russian navy.

The Alexander Nevsky was scheduled to be put into operation Nov. 15, contingent on a successful launch of its ballistic missiles.

Officially, eight of the 19 or 20 test launches of the Bulava missiles have been declared unsuccessful.

http://www.upiasia.com/Top-News/2013/09/07/Trials-of-Russian-nuclear-subs-suspended-after-missile-launch-fails/UPI-67071378573870/

 

[bobbymike]

SSBN(X) news;

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:fdecbfac-0e89-42d2-bb2b-16fcf3b8d224

 

[Rickshaw]

What deters your enemy is the fear of what your arsenal could do. Not what it can do.

The two are related.

Not in the way you are trying to claim.

Having the means to destroy your enemy more than once doesn't increase their fear. It is not a factor which can be doubled or trebled.

So a bank robbed only needs *one* bullet. Gotcha.

No, your simile is flawed. You should be asking whether the bank robber fears the presence of a bank guard and is therefore deterred from robbing the bank. Doesn't matter how many bullets the guard has, it is the sure knowledge for the robber that there will be a response that deters them.

They already know they will be destroyed if they attack you. Having more warheads may reassure you like a security blanket as you go to sleep but it doesn't actually, materially improve your deterence of your enemy.

Errrr.... wrong.

Let's say it would take 500 properly placed nuclear explosions to take out The Enemy. You're saying I don't need more than 500 nuclear bombs. But if my bombs only have a 90% reliability, then I'd actually need 556 bombs. And if the delivery systems are only 90% reliable, I'd need 617. And if my actual targeting is only 90% accurate, I'd need 685. And if the enemies defenses are 50% effective, I'd need 1371. And if I want a 50% reserve after the first strike, I'd need 2743. And if I want to assume that I won't be launching the first strike, but instead a retaliatory strike, and will lose half my weapons in The Enemies first strike, I need 5487 weapons.

You are introducing unnecessary complications in the question of whether or not deterrence works. Why? Because your opponent cannot bank on any of your warheads or delivery systems failing. Therefore, they must assume that they will all work for even if only 90% work, that will be sufficient to cause more than sufficient damage to their nation. You in turn cannot bank only a percentage working of their warheads because to do so would lull yourself into a false sense of security.

 

[Rickshaw]

The point is, deterrence is not about using your weapons its about making your opponent fear that you will use them and that will prevent you from attacking - if you are a rationale player. If you are not, then deterrence can break down and whether you have 10 or a 1,000 warheads becomes immaterial.

Absolutely not true. this^ falls back on the MAD rationale, along with some of the arguments made by peace groups over the years. if one warhead is fired the entire world goes whole hog and launches 1,000s of warheads. It completely discounts limited nuclear war, long exchanges, delivery means, and counter force attacks, along with attacks on and by multiple countries. Deterrence is not just about preserving the piece its also about survival and deterring further attacks by being able to strike back despite losses or failure.

I would suggest that if those other forms of war were possible, they'd have already occurred. The world and it's leaders fear the dangers of massive nuclear exchange. The problem is that once one warhead is launched, the assumption on the receiving state must be that others will follow and so there is always an impetus to retaliate massively to prevent the loss of all your warheads in the (supposed) incoming first strike of which your first warhead is but the precursor. Fail to launch your warheads means they will be caught on the ground and will be vulnerable if restraint is shown. This is nuclear strategy 101. No one really believes that limited nuclear war is possible except those who wish to live in never-never land IMHO.

However, if you want to try explain how one side having 10 warheads and another side having 1,000 warheads in a nuclear exchange makes no difference Im all ears. especially how deterrence is maintained after side A loses or uses all ten of its warheads, and side B still has hundreds left.

As I have pointed out now, several times but it appears you cannot grasp, deterrence is not about using your missiles, its about possessing them and threatening to use them. Your objective is to DETER your enemy from attacking you. You can achieve that with considerably smaller numbers of warheads than what some here seem to feel comfortable with. India and Pakistan achieve that with only tens of warheads, not hundreds, not thousands, not even more. Do you seem a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent?

Everybody loses in a nuclear exchange. There are no winners in nuclear war.

We could also say "no one wins in World Wars, everybody loses" although its true "everyone loses" in a grand sense, Its also true that there were some clear winners and losers at the end of both world wars. Nuclear Strategists are quick to point this. Its easy to sit back and say "war is bad, weapons are bad" but we live in a world with both.

We do indeed. Nuclear strategists will also point out that while they talk about "limited nuclear war" what they know in the back of their minds is that reality will be more like Kahn's "wargasm" than the end of WWII.

So, how many nuclear warheads does the DPRK possess? Is that sufficient to deter the US from attempting "regime change"? If so, don't you think that is sufficient, despite the massive numbers of nuclear warheads the USA has compared to North Korea? North Korea doesn't have to attack, it merely needs to possess to deter American attack.

 

[Orionblamblam]

You are introducing unnecessary complications in the question of whether or not deterrence works. Why? Because your opponent cannot bank on any of your warheads or delivery systems failing. Therefore, they must assume that they will all work for even if only 90% work, that will be sufficient to cause more than sufficient damage to their nation. You in turn cannot bank only a percentage working of their warheads because to do so would lull yourself into a false sense of security.

In that case: if I have 500 nukes, and The Enemy has 500 nukes... I can only assume that a small percentage of mine will work (for reasons given previously), but must assume that *all* of The Enemies will. Thus, by your argument, I *must* have vastly more nukes than them in order to stand a chance.

 

[Bill Walker]

In that case: if I have 500 nukes, and The Enemy has 500 nukes... I can only assume that a small percentage of mine will work (for reasons given previously), but must assume that *all* of The Enemies will. Thus, by your argument, I *must* have vastly more nukes than them in order to stand a chance.

That math only works if your intent is to win a large scale nuclear exchange. Most sane people think this is impossible. When the nukes start flying, we all lose. Now, if your intent to is to deter, all you need is the threat of a functional nuke or two. And Dennis Rodman to deliver your message.

 

[bobbymike]

So how many nukes are your minimum, what is your strategy, how are they deployed, what is your target set. Assume Russia keeps 1550 and China has 300 to 500.

I have openly stated I would want START I levels 6000 warheads on up to 1200 launchers.

So with 300 warheads which is the recommended 'minimum' deterrence you can't have counter force your only option is to kill innocent civilians by the millions. I would rather have a counter force strategy WITH a reserve force for counter value. That is a deterrent to me not one that limits you and paints you into a corner.

 

[Orionblamblam]

That math only works if your intent is to win a large scale nuclear exchange.

No, the math also works if your intention is to show The Enemy that no matter what, your nuclear arsenal will be enough to reduce their nation to a smoking ruin. One or two nuclear detonations, no matter how well placed. would not take down the Soviet Union. To destroy the Soviets, you'd need *hundreds.* And in order to have hundreds of well-placed explosions, you very likely need thousands of bombs. If you only have hundreds, chances are that their interceptors might be able to take out all but a small handful (even if their defenses weren't actually that good, they might *think* they are... see "Patriot").

Deterrence is proving to The Enemy that no matter what, if they start a ruckus, they're boned. Utterly and forever.

 

[Bill Walker]

So, if the Russians get a few hundred nukes onto American soil, do you really think you win by getting more onto their soil? The whole world was boned when the first few hundred nukes went off. ANYWHERE.

Logical sane people realize this. Kim Jong Nutbar maybe doesn't, but you don't need hundreds of nukes to put him out of the picture after he sets off his one or two. A few B-2s, with a few bombs each, will do nicely. Say, isn't that what America has now?

 

[sferrin]

So, if the Russians get a few hundred nukes onto American soil, do you really think you win by getting more onto their soil? The whole world was boned when the first few hundred nukes went off. ANYWHERE.

Swing and a miss.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I would suggest that if those other forms of war were possible, they'd have already occurred. The world and it's leaders fear the dangers of massive nuclear exchange. The problem is that once one warhead is launched, the assumption on the receiving state must be that others will follow and so there is always an impetus to retaliate massively to prevent the loss of all your warheads in the (supposed) incoming first strike of which your first warhead is but the precursor. Fail to launch your warheads means they will be caught on the ground and will be vulnerable if restraint is shown. This is nuclear strategy 101. No one really believes that limited nuclear war is possible except those who wish to live in never-never land IMHO.

Both the US Military and the Soviet Military and politicians lived in never never land then. As both sides understood concepts like 2nd and 3rd strikes, hostage cities, timed submarine attacks, levels of escalation, and both sides had direct lines to each other in order to communicate with words rather than massive world ending strikes- that of course both countries knew weren't feasible as an actual response.

What you are trying to tell me is that the US and the USSR who both embraced this strategy, were not actually embracing it. That President Carter actually didn't sign presidential directive 59. interesting position.

I think you have fallen into the classic "If I believe it so do the majority of people" hyperbole conundrum. hence "no one really believes" Actually a lot of people as early as the 1950's realized that one city being blown up shouldn't trigger ending the world. So a lot of people believe what the research says, I am one of them. And MAD strategy quickly evolved to more of a gray rather than a black and white absolute as more nukes were produced, more delivery systems created, and more early warning systems utilized.

As I have pointed out now, several times but it appears you cannot grasp, deterrence is not about using your missiles, its about possessing them and threatening to use them. Your objective is to DETER your enemy from attacking you. You can achieve that with considerably smaller numbers of warheads than what some here seem to feel comfortable with. India and Pakistan achieve that with only tens of warheads, not hundreds, not thousands, not even more. Do you seem a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent?

And you don't seem to comprehend that deterrence extends post attack as well, to deter follow on attacks. Further more, pointing to the indian subcontinent is an interesting cherry picked example seeing as the super power accumulated over 50,000 warheads during the cold war arms race. Lets ignore the whale to look at the minnow

The next issue with deterrence, and I think others will agree here. is deterrence is not just about keeping the peace with a bored enemy, its also about keeping the peace with a highly determined enemy always probing for weakness. Its meant to survive a determined foe too.

We do indeed. Nuclear strategists will also point out that while they talk about "limited nuclear war" what they know in the back of their minds is that reality will be more like Kahn's "wargasm" than the end of WWII.

This is awesome, we can use expert opinion that goes unsaid? So for example in the backs of the minds of Russian Nuclear missile designers they all know the nukes are duds. Thus all Russian nukes are duds. This is going to make arguing things a lot easier now since we can claim the opposite of what someone actually said.

So, how many nuclear warheads does the DPRK possess? Is that sufficient to deter the US from attempting "regime change"? If so, don't you think that is sufficient, despite the massive numbers of nuclear warheads the USA has compared to North Korea? North Korea doesn't have to attack, it merely needs to possess to deter American attack.

of course the US didn't attack when DPRK had zero nukes. On that note, the US has a lot of enemies, and we rarely invade... and they don't have nukes either. The US never invaded libya, or Serbia, or Iran. None of whom have nukes. How did they deter us?

DPRK doesn't possess deterrence either, which goes back to the idea that credible numbers and delivery systems matter, and must resist a determined foe. If DPRK has 10 warheads and we know where they all are and can be taken out pre-emptively, then they have zero deterrence. using one means losing the other 9 very quickly, especially as they couldn't be used to hurt US nuclear forces. It wouldn't stop B-2 bombers, Cruise missiles, SLBMs, or ICBMs. essentially North Korea's thin "nuclear umbrella" only "works" because its never rained. It couldn't stop or even slow a determined attack by the US.

lastly, thanks to the US not being stupid, if war broke out with North Korea, the Nukes would be top priority. If the US couldn't get them conventionally and feared their use, they would get them with nuclear warheads. incredibly this wouldn't end in world ending mutually assured destruction, but would end in a limited nuclear engagement. Something you say is impossible.

 

[Bill Walker]

Swing and a miss.

A few minutes on Google turns up documents like this:
"A nuclear war anywhere in the world, using as few as 100 weapons, would disrupt the global climate and agricultural production so severely that the lives of more than a billion people would be at risk."

And this, discussing how the 1980s research into "nuclear winter" after a full exchange probably understated the problem:
"Well, it turns out that this portrayal of nuclear winter was overly optimistic, according to a series of papers published over the past few years by Brian Toon of the University of Colorado, Alan Robock of Rutgers University, and Rich Turco of UCLA. Their most recent paper, a December 2008 study titled, "Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War", concludes that "1980s predictions of nuclear winter effects were, if anything, underestimates". Furthermore, they assert that even a limited nuclear war poses a significant threat to Earth's climate."

"It is sobering to realize that the nuclear weapons used in the study represented only 0.3% of the world's total nuclear arsenal of 26,000 warheads."

And this from NASA:
"Relatively large climatic effects might result even from small nuclear exchanges (~ 100 to 1000 MT), because fires can be initiated by nuclear weapons of any size, and as little as ~ 100 MT is sufficient to devastate most of the world's major urban centers. The existence of such a low threshold yield for massive smoke emissions implies that even limited nuclear exchanges could trigger severe aftereffects."

And so on and so on...

 

[Orionblamblam]

So, if the Russians get a few hundred nukes onto American soil, do you really think you win by getting more onto their soil?

You seem to have completely missed the point of the discussion: deterrence. If the Russians nuke the US into oblivion... sure, the climate might go a bit goofy for a year or two. But if the Russians are being run by people who think nuking the US into oblivion is a neato-keen idea, they won't be dissuaded by a couple of bad winters and a few million of their own countrymen freezing and starving. What *will* dissuade them is the knowledge that if they nuke the US into oblivion, they themselves will be nuked into oblivion.

You "win" by setting things up so that the other guy doesn't pull the trigger in the first place. And you do that by proving that you have overwhelming force on your side. Proving that you are *weak* is, as anyone who ever went to school with other children (or, I suspect, went to prison) will attest, is the fast road to getting your ass *beat.*

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Just to summarize. The amount of warheads needed for deterrence differs on threats. The amount of nukes needed to maintain deterrence is dependent on having enough warheads to annihilate your enemy after they have attempted to annihilate you. Yes, Numbers matter not just for deterrence, but also in case "deterrence fails" So while 3,000 for example may sound like a lot, maybe a tad overkill, It might be prudent if your enemy is capable of taking out 2500 of them in a surprise, or preemptive counter-force strike. In which case 500 is "just right" and 3,000 is more of a "Bare minimum" in that worst case scenario. If for example you cut the 3,000 in half and went with 1,500 while your enemy could still kill 2500 of them, that is not Deterrence--That is "hope". Hope is not a course of action

Using the DPRK for example. they don't have "deterrence" they have "If they decide to wipe us off the earth they can, so don't do anything too stupid" If the US told North Korea it had 10 days to surrender or be vaporized what could they do? how many nukes, ICBMs, Subs, and Strategic bombers would DPRK have to have to actually give the USA pause? Discuss.

 

[gtg947h]

One must also keep in mind the kind of people a deterrent is meant to deter, and how a deterrent is actually planned for use.

There's a common belief that nuclear targeting plans are simply "drop a bomb in the middle of a big city to kill lots of people--that'll deter them!" However, that's not how it works. The Kims, Stalins, Khomeinis, Maos, and various other Dear Leaders of the world are concerned solely with their own power and survival. They don't give two fecal units about their civilian populations; threatening those civilians won't really work on them--the leaders will still be able to conduct military operations and live in relative luxury at least for the short- to medium-term. So, you have to threaten them and the implements of their power and comfort.

That brings us to part II. Nuclear targeting plans go after infrastructure and military assets, not civil populations and big cities as a whole. If you dropped some devices in, say, New York and Los Angeles, a lot of people will be killed and the financial industry will take a big hit as their electronic billions disappear. But nearly all of the country's industrial, military, and agricultural capabilities--the things you really need to have a functioning modern society--will be untouched. Now, shrugging off a loss like that is unthinkable to us and to the leadership in most countries, but to a ruthless enough Dear Leader type, it's not. For them, a deterrent needs to go after their power base. That means targeting all military capability (bases, equipment, defenses), internal transportation (airports, railyards, interchanges, transportation hubs, ports), power generation, C3I, war material production, etc. Targeting all of these disparate facilities requires lots of warheads and lots of delivery systems.

But (number_of_targets) =/= (number_of_warheads), because nothing works perfectly. You have to figure that some of your delivery systems will fail (rockets blow up, airplanes have mechanical failures, bombs fail to release), some warheads will be duds, aircraft will be shot down, subs sunk, etc. That probably doubles the number of warheads required. Then, you have to figure that some proportion of your devices will be in maintenance at any given time, further increasing the required number.

And on top of that, you want to make sure you have enough left over to deter someone else who might step in and try to take advantage of you in a weakened state. Thus, more warheads.

The statement you're trying to make is not "I could potentially maybe hurt you badly, so don't hurt me", but rather "I can thoroughly and completely bomb you back to the 16th century and leave you completely and utterly powerless, and there is absolutely nothing you could do to stop me or prevent it". There's a big world of difference there; one implicitly says "you might have a chance if you're sneaky enough" and the other says "not a snowflake's chance on the sun".

 

[bobbymike]

Swing and a miss.

A few minutes on Google turns up documents like this:
"A nuclear war anywhere in the world, using as few as 100 weapons, would disrupt the global climate and agricultural production so severely that the lives of more than a billion people would be at risk."

And this, discussing how the 1980s research into "nuclear winter" after a full exchange probably understated the problem:
"Well, it turns out that this portrayal of nuclear winter was overly optimistic, according to a series of papers published over the past few years by Brian Toon of the University of Colorado, Alan Robock of Rutgers University, and Rich Turco of UCLA. Their most recent paper, a December 2008 study titled, "Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War", concludes that "1980s predictions of nuclear winter effects were, if anything, underestimates". Furthermore, they assert that even a limited nuclear war poses a significant threat to Earth's climate."

"It is sobering to realize that the nuclear weapons used in the study represented only 0.3% of the world's total nuclear arsenal of 26,000 warheads."

And this from NASA:
"Relatively large climatic effects might result even from small nuclear exchanges (~ 100 to 1000 MT), because fires can be initiated by nuclear weapons of any size, and as little as ~ 100 MT is sufficient to devastate most of the world's major urban centers. The existence of such a low threshold yield for massive smoke emissions implies that even limited nuclear exchanges could trigger severe aftereffects."

And so on and so on...

"A nuclear war anywhere in the world, using as few as 100 weapons, would disrupt the global climate and agricultural production so severely that the lives of more than a billion people would be at risk."

So is that the policy you will announce to the world? If we are attacked we will strike back at the entire planet firing nukes off in all directions putting one billion people at risk. Is that deterrence?

Or if Russia hits you with 90 warheads will you only strike back with 10 so as not to disrupt the global ecosystem? Or better yet the US should fire 99 nukes at their enemies and then say "Don't fire one more at us or you will disrupt the global ecosystem" I am sure that would work.

If this sounds like I'm being facetious, you are correct sir.

But the point I am making is that those studies are irrelevant when discussing deterrence

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Agree with gtg947h, well said.

 

[Bill Walker]

Bobbymike, did you actually read the articles I listed? The point is that as few as a hundred nukes will, over a few years, kill round about a billion people spread around the world, not counting those fried in the initial blasts. The billion would be everywhere, including the country that launched the hundred nukes. Yeah, they are just studies, and could be wrong, but they could be wrong in either direction. Do you feel lucky?

I understand the math of how many bombs might get through in a retaliatory strike, but the person planning the first strike has to consider all the possibilities as well. What if I don't take out a big % of my opponent's capability in the first strike? What if their surviving delivery systems have an 80% success rate? Yes, the only answer to that math is to launch not a hundred, but thousands of warheads in my first strike, thus assuring the destruction of civilization everywhere on the planet. Including my homeland. Even if my opponent doesn't launch a single warhead back at me. Where is the benefit in that?

I think more and more world leaders are realizing this, and the chances of anybody launching thousands or even hundreds of nukes is decreasing daily. What we do have to worry about is the Kim Jong Dingdongs and religious fanatics of the worlds. Here, the logical defence is two part. First you plan and publicize a limited decapitation response to their first strike, and second you make sure the crazies never get more than a few weapons or delivery systems.

Getting back to the original question, I don't see how any of the world's major powers possessing a few hundred fewer nukes changes all this. All the nasty scenarios I discussed here could be started by the UK or France or India or Israel with their limited stockpiles. Sane people know this, and won't push them. Responding to the insane doesn't take thousands of warheads. The only logical reason to possess more than a small number of nukes is because you feel you may need to destroy civilization some day.

 

[sferrin]

Bobbymike, did you actually read the articles I listed? The point is that as few as a hundred nukes will, over a few years, kill round about a billion people spread around the world, not counting those fried in the initial blasts.

So how do you explain the detonation of over ten times that many nukes in the 50s/60s not wiping out humanity?

 

[Bill Walker]

Bobbymike, did you actually read the articles I listed? The point is that as few as a hundred nukes will, over a few years, kill round about a billion people spread around the world, not counting those fried in the initial blasts.

So how do you explain the detonation of over ten times that many nukes in the 50s/60s not wiping out humanity?

Because they were spread over twenty years, not all at once. Read the articles. Still, they caused unneeded deaths. (This New Scientist article quotes a US government study that suggests 11,000 unneeded deaths in just the US.) A few nukes here and there, to quiet the crazies, could be a good thing. The trick is to keep it to a few. One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.

 

[sferrin]

One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.

That's naive fantasy. The other guy will always see the advantage of more.

 

[bobbymike]

Bobbymike, did you actually read the articles I listed? The point is that as few as a hundred nukes will, over a few years, kill round about a billion people spread around the world, not counting those fried in the initial blasts. The billion would be everywhere, including the country that launched the hundred nukes. Yeah, they are just studies, and could be wrong, but they could be wrong in either direction. Do you feel lucky?

I understand the math of how many bombs might get through in a retaliatory strike, but the person planning the first strike has to consider all the possibilities as well. What if I don't take out a big % of my opponent's capability in the first strike? What if their surviving delivery systems have an 80% success rate? Yes, the only answer to that math is to launch not a hundred, but thousands of warheads in my first strike, thus assuring the destruction of civilization everywhere on the planet. Including my homeland. Even if my opponent doesn't launch a single warhead back at me. Where is the benefit in that?

I think more and more world leaders are realizing this, and the chances of anybody launching thousands or even hundreds of nukes is decreasing daily. What we do have to worry about is the Kim Jong Dingdongs and religious fanatics of the worlds. Here, the logical defence is two part. First you plan and publicize a limited decapitation response to their first strike, and second you make sure the crazies never get more than a few weapons or delivery systems.

Getting back to the original question, I don't see how any of the world's major powers possessing a few hundred fewer nukes changes all this. All the nasty scenarios I discussed here could be started by the UK or France or India or Israel with their limited stockpiles. Sane people know this, and won't push them. Responding to the insane doesn't take thousands of warheads. The only logical reason to possess more than a small number of nukes is because you feel you may need to destroy civilization some day.

No what I am saying is that like it or not the 'potential' effects on the global ecosystem is not a factor in determining warhead levels for adequate deterrence and maybe just maybe (history seems to have borne this out) having thousands of warheads is better at preventing 100 from being used then if both sides ONLY had 100 each.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Or if Russia hits you with 90 warheads will you only strike back with 10 so as not to disrupt the global ecosystem? Or better yet the US should fire 99 nukes at their enemies and then say "Don't fire one more at us or you will disrupt the global ecosystem" I am sure that would work.

A cheaper approach would be to simply put 100 nukes on short range missiles in the CONUS aimed at Canada and Central America. "Mess with me and I'll set 100 forests on fire, and then boy, won't you feel like a chump!"

 

[bobbymike]

http://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/droptest082913

What I lose sleep over;

• In 1989, the United States halted the design and manufacture of new nuclear weapons.
• In 1992, the United States conducted its last full-scale, underground nuclear weapons test.
  

 

[sferrin]

http://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/droptest082913

What I lose sleep over;

• In 1989, the United States halted the design and manufacture of new nuclear weapons.
• In 1992, the United States conducted its last full-scale, underground nuclear weapons test.
  

I'd add to that:

• In 1992, the United States cancelled it's newest ICBM program.
• The newest US ICBM rolled off the assembly line in 1977.
• The newest US air-launched nuclear missile was designed in the 70's.
• The last US supersonic air-breathing weapon was designed in the 50's and is now retired.
• The newest US re-entry vehicle was designed in the 80's.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

A few nukes here and there, to quiet the crazies, could be a good thing. The trick is to keep it to a few. One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.

By that logic we could prevent war by drastically reducing conventional forces.

 

[Bill Walker]

A few nukes here and there, to quiet the crazies, could be a good thing. The trick is to keep it to a few. One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.

By that logic we could prevent war by drastically reducing conventional forces.

Of course that wouldn't prevent it. But it would limit the scope. Anyway, the arms industry seems to be doing that nicely for us, with their pricing.