Nuclear disarmament

[albaPhenom]

Nukes are the literal Pandoras Box.

If you think that it has been exactly 60 years since the world last stood on the brink of Nuclear annihilation and now we are getting dangerously close again… the first time any nuclear power gets involved in a war which threatens the other powers.

Then you have the attitude that China is rapidly developing, outright stating they would fare better than America in a Nuclear exchange due to their size and population, like they’ve convinced themselves it’s a winnable war.

How do we as a species last another 200 years at this rate. Seems like due to our own stupid violent horrible nature that it’s only a matter of time.

A good start would be getting 70+ year old farts still living in the Cold War era the hell out of power.

 

[motorbiking]

Nukes definitely kept the world safe since the 2nd world war. If we had nuclear disarmament, you can guarantee people would hide a few under the bed. The temptation to use such a game changing weapon would have been overwhelming.

Does anyone think Putin wouldn't have wiped America of the map, if he thought he could win on a strike first basis?

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Nukes are the literal Pandoras Box.

If you think that it has been exactly 60 years since the world last stood on the brink of Nuclear annihilation and now we are getting dangerously close again… the first time any nuclear power gets involved in a war which threatens the other powers.

Then you have the attitude that China is rapidly developing, outright stating they would fare better than America in a Nuclear exchange due to their size and population, like they’ve convinced themselves it’s a winnable war.

How do we as a species last another 200 years at this rate. Seems like due to our own stupid violent horrible nature that it’s only a matter of time.

A good start would be getting 70+ year old farts still living in the Cold War era the hell out of power.

As the cliched saying goes, we'll very likely be the masters of our own downfall.

 

[transam]

Nuclear disarmament all very laudable

but a complete nonsense tbh

bandied around by the greens
CND duffers and fruit cakes

Uninvent the bomb

 

[mattylad]

Are Russia's nukes actually any good any more?
Although the radioactive elements will be, surely the rocket bits are left over from the cold war?

 

[JohnD]

Are Russia's nukes actually any good any more?
Although the radioactive elements will be, surely the rocket bits are left over from the cold war?

Russia has a thriving rocket industry, they launch a lot of commercial rockets for Western companies (satellites etc)

 

[motorbiking]

there are 4 things you need to work
1. weapons grade plutonium - they have that
2. decent rocket - they have that
3. guidance and launch - they have that
4. the blowy upy bit that fires into the plutonium to super compress it - no reason to think they haven't mastered that.

The only issue is maintenance.

 

[Notch7]

I don’t remember the Cuban missile crisis at all. Not surprising, I was -3 at the time

 

[ellal]

Whos flag would be 'attached' to the device - Iran, North Korea? Certainly not Ukraine

Someone it appears doesn't understand the meaning of 'false flag'...

Have you noticed how the russians have claimed the US has chemical weapons in Ukraine without showing the evidence?

All it would take to start a nuclear escalation would be to detonate a small one on 'home soil'...

And all the denials/proof on non involvement wouldn't prevent what would happen next!

 

[ajohn]

Russia let off the biggest bang. A rather thoughtful one that considered pollution. 50mt that could have been 100. It had to be dropped on a parachute to allow the plane to get away. They also came up with the 1st deliverable H bomb. Rumours that they leaked how to do it. Everybody stopped atmospheric testing shortly after the big one. The testing done by all has polluted the planet. If you want some radiation free metal get it from ships sunk in WWII.

I worked with some one who was involved with the UK bomb project. Simple view. 2 chunks of metal. The longer they can be held together the bigger the bang. That's the design art. Best bomb is the one with the highest yield compared with it's weight. Post war USA and UK agreed to share info. UK sent theirs and nothing came back.

There is a film on Amazon about a spy and the Cuban missiles. Building facilities in Cuba. The crisis came about when the bombs were on their way there by boat. They turned round eventually. It seems there was an agreement that the USA removed some that had been recently sited - Turkey. This aspect even figures now - Russia wanting the USA to take back their warheads from Europe. Plus concerns about them getting into Eastern Europe. Also missile defence systems - IMHO for obvious reasons. There was a lot of chat about a USA system to spot missiles from Iran ( ?????? ). USA found some other way of doing it.

Perhaps upsetting the MAD balance is not a good idea.

 

[securespark]

the blowy upy bit that fires into the plutonium to super compress it

Loving your technical language!

 

[ajohn]

there are 4 things you need to work
1. weapons grade plutonium - they have that
2. decent rocket - they have that
3. guidance and launch - they have that
4. the blowy upy bit that fires into the plutonium to super compress it - no reason to think they haven't mastered that.

The only issue is maintenance.

I don't think plutonium needs to figure. The Russian big bang could have used it to increase the yield from 50 to 100mt for a big increase in pollution. Uranium can have several states. That's why weapon grade uranium gets mentioned. Dirty bombs probably relate to low yields and poor or even wrong materials.

Technique - Layercake gets mentioned. I immediately think russian dolls.

 

[JohnD]

There is a film on Amazon about a spy and the Cuban missiles. Building facilities in Cuba. The crisis came about when the bombs were on their way there by boat. They turned round eventually. It seems there was an agreement that the USA removed some that had been recently sited - Turkey.

There is a myth in USA that the Cuba crisis was solved by Russia giving in to Kennedy's Tough Guy threats of nuclear war. This is very popular among American Hawks, especially Trumpists.

The truth it that it was solved by negotiation, and US agreeing to remove its equivalent nuclear missiles from Turkey in a quid pro quo.

Russia has just as many hawks as US, and currently they are in control of the state, since they include Nationalist Putin and his group of (mostly ex-KGB) "Siloviki" hard men, mostly around 70 and all old Cold Warriors. They are also Plutocrats of enormous wealth, looted from the nation.

his inner circle does not include Army generals or politicians, who do not have power, dare not combine, and are therefore incapable of deposing him. The run of the mill oligarchs have no power and are liable to be imprisoned and/or stripped of their wealth and/or assassinated if they cause trouble.

"Inside Putin’s circle — the real Russian elite | Free to read" FT.com

 

[transam]

As far As I am aware the Russians
Actually had nukes in Cuba ? at the time of the crisis ????

 

[JohnD]

As far As I am aware

I'm not sure that's true

Spy satellites observed launch pads being built, and bombers parked by an airstrip.

Ships carrying missiles turned back before delivery because a negotiated settlement had been agreed.

The Cubans agreed to Russian military aid because US had (unsuccessfully) attempted to invade and overthrow the government.