US halts recent practice of disclosing nuclear weapon total

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/04/18/us-halts-recent-practice-of-disclosing-nuclear-weapon-total/

by jonbaer • 7 years ago

78 61 7 years ago

militarytimes.com

thatoneuser• 7 years ago

I also saw russias recent video of their new insane weaponry. I don't have the long term scope on this section of the news, is this just routine flexing on both parts or is something more serious going on?

steve19• 7 years ago

Russia has been publishing videos about ultra high tech weapons and even doing comical leaks of "secret" defense technology for years. I remember one "leak", although I can't remember if it was the nuke torpedo or something else, where they were doing a press briefing about some weapon but "accidently" left a classified poster up in the room detailing some super secret high tech weapon. It was clearly put there so the press would see it and make headlines about secret new Russian technology. Even if legit, they are prone to hype it.

I wouldn't worry about it, anymore than they worry about darpa's latest experiments. Sure maybe one day we will have easily cooled rail guns... But nobody in Russia is worried on the off chance we we actually figure it out in 25 years time.

The worst offenders are definitely Iran who are known to outright fake photos of weapons tests that never happened (or happened poorly).

baybal24• 7 years ago

I doubt that anybody in Kremlin realistically believe of their ability to provide real military deterrence. The deterrence here was of political nature.

I also don't believe that any sane military strategist in NATO high command believes that any conflict with Bloc can be won with nuclear advantage. Even at the height of cold war, the combined nuclear arsenal of NATO countries would've only been enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances.

Unlike common misconception suggests, war and politics is not always the same. What may look as a sure win for a general, may look like a loss to a politician:

Russia's choreographed invasion of Georgia had no real military objective, and may be seen as a botched war, but it was a total victory on the political stage, scaring shit out of many politicians in the West.

darkpuma6• 7 years ago

As I understand it, the so called KANYON/Poseidon nuclear torpedo is likely a real project, albeit with somewhat exaggerated capabilities. The Project 09852 / Belgorod submarine is certainly real, and there is some reason to believe it is being created in part to carry and launch those massive torpedoes.

But supposing its claimed capabilities were accurate, 10,000 km at 100 km/h would take the torpedo over four days. The original claim of 185 km/h is much faster, but travel time would still be measured on the order of days. It's fast enough to be very noisy but slow enough to be seen coming days away; totally nonsensical for a first strike weapon. The conclusion is that if such a torpedo is in development, it's intended as a retaliation weapon.

pps435• 7 years ago

That's Status 6 [1]. Unlike other more questionable developments, this one seems to be real. It's even mentioned in US Nuclear Posture Review.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...

fenk85• 7 years ago

Literally fake news, the state of Science and engineering in Russia is dire, the generation that was brought up under excellent Soviet schooling is dying off or retiring (keep in mind male life expectancy in Russia is on par with Africa).

The people who designed, built and maintained their advanced technology are dying off and there is only a trickle to replace them, anyone with an advanced degree and experience tries to get the hell out of that country for a better life.

I be very worried about nuclear meltdowns in coming years as there are still Chernobyl class plants running and are crumbling.

SiempreViernes7• 7 years ago

Depends on what you mean with routine I guess, but it is a clear regression to the times when total nuclear war was the logical end awaiting all conflicts.

factsaresacred• 7 years ago

Recent and relevant talk on Nuclear Weapons and International Security by John Mearsheimer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdvdKdnpCRg

"Great powers constantly try to gain nuclear advantage over their rivals and they do it because there is powerful incentives to do so"
"The ideal strategy is to be the only power in the system that has nuclear weapons...however desirable this situation is, no state is going to achieve nuclear monopoly in our lifetime. (So) the best outcome a great power can hope for is to acquire the capability to launch a splendid first-strike against each of its adversary"

Being opaque on capabilities when it comes to nuclear weapons (especially when other great powers are being opaque) makes strategic sense.

baybal24• 7 years ago

US halts recent practice of disclosing nuclear weapon total

I think America's biggest error in WWII was the disclosure of nuclear weapons existence. If America was able to keep that secret, it would have had the one and only card in its sleeve that could've stalled USSR's tank armies in Europe.

Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until eighties, and would've somebody more ambitious came to USSR's political arena instead of Brezhnev, even that would be under question.

WWIII in Europe was barely avoided twice with Stalin's unexpected death, and Khrushev's "retirement." That gave NATO 20+ years to prop up defences.

robertAngst2• 7 years ago

I wasnt even alive then, and I think this is insanely too simple.

If America was able to keep that secret

There is no America, there is the United States government. Americans did not want to join in World War 2, the president did.

When the time came to drop the nuclear bomb, these decisions were made by few people, and the popular theory is that the Democrats(incumbent) would have lost elections if the war went on, Americans died, and people found out about the Nuclear Bomb later.

The best decisions for the world are not made, the best decision for individuals are made.

I wonder what will happen when Putins or Xis back are against the wall politically. What horrors will they do for self preservation?

EDIT: Don't downvote because the Democrats were in power at the time. The Republicans would have done this too.

wallace_f2• 7 years ago

The best decisions for the world are not made, the best decision for individuals are made.

Stanislav Petrov's insubordination is an intersting thought here.

AsyncAwait• 7 years ago

I think it's naive to assume that the Soviets learned of nuclear bombs once they were dropped in Japan. It's well documented that they knew and were doing research way before that. If you're developing it, somebody you don't want is always going to know.

Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until eighties

Eh? France had their independently developed nukes in the 60s.

This comment also boldly assumes that the Soviets had a stronger urge to march with tanks into Europe than the U.S. has to march into Russia, which is not a given.

But putting all that aside, assuming the U.S. were able to keep it secret, what makes you think that that's necessarily a good thing? Do you really naively assume that all the U.S. cares about are 'liberal values'? The U.S. does not enjoy the universal 'good guys' reputation in many places around the world, for solid reasons.

So to me, it seems far better that MAD exists, it keeps everyone from becoming too drunk with power.

baybal24• 7 years ago

Those arguments are very easy to parry. Even in the scenarios where Soviets got a bomb, I believe keeping it secret would've been of great military value

And remember, Soviets gave no shit about the nuke even after first hydrogen bomb test, thinking of it as an impractical weapon. Were not its use in war, Soviet nuclear project could've ended just being a stack of documents on the shelf without political backing, and them not fully realising how to deal with being attacked themselves.

Imagine yourself in such a situation:

You encounter robbers on the street, they demand money. You know for sure that you will either be robbed and killed after you give money, or be killed and then robbed if you don't give them money and try defending yourself.

Now, will you threaten them retaliation from the start, brandishing your weapon, or hide the weapon and play an easy victim until the very last moment, to try your chance in a surprise attack when they let their guard down?

NeedMoreTea• 7 years ago

Detente is the easing of position, a reduction in tension.

Reagan's arms reduction - START - was indeed early 80s, and did succeed in rowing back some of the tension in Europe. Star Wars almost immediately threw a spanner in those works. Fall of the Berlin wall and the rest of the Soviet bloc disintegration - set in chain partly thanks to the cratered oil price - achieved far more.

Keeping nuclear secret was unlikely - the capability was progressing in the UK - albeit merged (more like taken over, but I digress) with the US part way, Germany, Russia and the US.

MAD is hugely overrated - there's been far too many politicians and generals believing they can win a nuclear exchange. MAD hopefully delays things long enough for someone to have second thoughts.

pjc50• 7 years ago

able to keep that secret

Firstly, this was unachievable; the concept of the bomb had been publicly discussed before the war, what remained was the engineering challenges of actually producing one. There were a number of independent and intelligence-assisted programs during and after the war to develop the bomb. The Russians would have been aware of the German programme that was sabotaged by the destruction of the Norway heavy water plant, for example.

Secondly, once the programme was started in the US, it would have been unthinkable to not use it during WW2; what kind of lunatic develops a super-weapon during a war and chooses not to use it?

Thirdly, the deterrent effect of the Bomb was (along with the conventional forces) entirely effective at preventing a Soviet invasion of Europe beyond the WW2 surrender lines.

Fourthly, the whole subject of secret superweapons is skewered most entertainingly by Dr Strangelove (1964) : "the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost....if you KEEP IT A SECRET!"

bonoboTP• 7 years ago

How do we even know they disclosed the true numbers before? This is a serious strategic game (in the game theory sense) and what and whether they disclose may be just part of the game.

Who can check that the numbers are correct? And could they credibly prove it? Would they be interested in (allowed to) do that?

close04• 7 years ago

I guess the actual number wasn’t the point. Disclosing any number would send a signal of transparency, while stopping the practice would suggest the opposite. It could be consciously used as a deterrent by signaling that you are adopting a different, more aggressive strategy. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything (substantial) has to change in the background.

dosy2• 7 years ago

How do we know Earth even has nuclear weapons anymore?

darkpuma6• 7 years ago

Call it a less dumb Pascal's Wager of sorts. The possibility that they still exist is high enough that it's only rational to tread lightly under the assumption that they exist.

SiempreViernes7• 7 years ago

For one thing it was very close to the open source estimate, meaning the number is consistent with other publicly known facts about the program.

There also isn't any real gain from keeping the total number secret above the advantage that keeping their location secret gives. Not disclosing totals probably doesn't even make napkin level invasion planning harder since at that level reasonable estimates will do.

On the other hand it does make you a more suspicious actor in the strategic game as hiding harmless information is a clear sign of paranoia.

pbhjpbhj• 7 years ago

Keeping totals secret could me maintaining secrecy of some locations -- if your number is much higher than your "enemies" then they're likely to have missed some locations, especially under a backdrop of CND where over-estimation by the state would be politically unhelpful.

cheschire• 7 years ago

INF on-site treaty compliance inspections used to occur, but eventually gave way to satellite checks.[0]

With the INF suspended, however, perhaps the UN is still performing on-site compliance checks?

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_For...

minikites• 7 years ago

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-whi...

The report warns that that White House efforts to transfer sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia may be accelerating after meetings last week at the White House and ahead of a planned visit to Saudi Arabia by the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner

Between the originally posted link, the link in my comment, and Rick Perry bailing out of the Department of Energy, this is shaping up to be a very grim situation.

adolph• 7 years ago

What’s wrong with Perry quitting Energy? Wasn’t his appointment an elaborate practical joke, in that it was the federal department he wanted to shut down but forgot the name of?

mrguyorama2• 7 years ago

Wasn’t his appointment an elaborate practical joke, in that it was the federal department he wanted to shut down but forgot the name of

Do not downplay this appointment. It was not a joke. Attempting to dismantle government institutions is stated republican policy.

pps435• 7 years ago

The experimental reactor being sold to Saudis is not capable of producing enough plutonium. And they don't have any reprocessing or fuel enrichment capability.

SiempreViernes7• 7 years ago

It's not about giving them nukes, the worry is about giving the foundation to a domestic nuclear weapons program.

AnIdiotOnTheNet• 7 years ago

After a brief period of time when the cold war was over and the threat of imminent nuclear annihilation at least seemed to be a thing of the past, the people of the US collectively decided that there just weren't enough existential threats in their lives and elected morons to make things more interesting.

meko• 7 years ago

Of course you're being cheeky but "collectively decided" doesn't fit the bill here. We didn't collectively decide anything.

doggydogs94• 7 years ago

Disclosing military data (like nuclear weapon counts) is just a bad idea. Granted, the approximate numbers are not that difficult to figure out, but why give it away for free; make Russia and China expend resources to get the data.

US halts recent practice of disclosing nuclear weapon total

Related Stories