[b112]

Are they?

Maybe. What if it is like forest fire prevention? The dead timber accumulates, and thus when an uncontained fire breaks out, it is 1000s of times worse as a result.

Fully managed forests, sometimes have controlled burns now, to prevent this.

Are nukes like this? Maybe, for tension can build, and build, and then?

Note: I don't know an alternative.

[colechristensen]

Yes they are. It’s not like brush accumulation.

With technology open war became more and more destructive until it passed the threshold of there no longer being a point. Two modern nation states can easily entirely reduce each other to ash in a few hours, and not before the other side can do the same.

Precision weapons also make nukes unnecessary in large ways.

It’s not about tension, big wars are pointless suicide pacts.

The big world wars were about nations feeling powerful with new technology and wanting to build on that power, that’s not the case anymore. No nuclear powers are going to think they’re better off after a war.

There’s not tension building to explosion, war is obsolete between technologically advanced states. Proxy wars, civil wars, and border skirmishes are all that is left or will be until there is a major technological change that changes the cost/benefit of war.

[anonymousDan]

The weakness in your argument is you assume both sides are rational actors. All it needs is one dictatorial lunatic in charge who doesn't care about the people for MAD to ensue.

[patagurbon]

While I could see this happening in a smaller state, the big 5 states likely have pretty good institutions built around nuclear weapons. Accidents might happen, but I doubt a single lunatic in those places + India and Israel could do much actual button pressing.

Now Pakistan perhaps less so, but apparently the US believes it's at least secure. North Korea definitely less so, but their capabilities are comparatively very limited

[_ed4s]

And that's why NK is so worrying: Not because their technology is any good, but because it only has to work once, and they might actually try it.

[wahern]

North Korea built a nuclear weapon because they're acting rationally. Nuclear weapons provide them legitimacy and bargaining power, both domestically and internationally. It's the same reason Iran wants a nuclear deterrent, or anybody else for the matter, like the U.S., China, or Russia. When you have the bomb, other powers tend to tiptoe around you--see, e.g., how Pakistan sabotaged US interests in Afghanistan with no discernible repercussions.

The real threat from North Korean nuclear weapons (other than empowering North Korea geopolitically) is in proliferation. And that's probably one (albeit minor) reason everybody tends to look away when they skirt the embargo.

[nradov]

From a proliferation perspective, Pakistan would seem to be a greater threat than North Korea. There is strong evidence that Pakistan actually sold nuclear technology to North Korea (although it's unclear whether NK used that technology in their weapons program).

https://www.dw.com/en/pakistans-indirect-role-in-north-korea...

There is also evidence of Pakistan sharing nuclear weapons technology with Saudi Arabia.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846

[TeMPOraL]

That's assuming they'll be able to scale it. Having a few low-yield nukes doesn't buy you much in terms of offensive capacity, especially not against "old" nuclear powers. But what it does is give you sovereignty - which is why I think NK wants to have those nukes.

The reality of modern world is that nuclear powers get to push around every other nation without consequences, whether overtly (like US getting away with invading two countries in the recent years) or covertly (proxy wars). But the world sees the use of nuclear weapons as qualitatively different from conventional ones, so having even one nuke you can threaten other countries with seems like an effective way to deter other powers from bullying you too hard.

[phatfish]

I wonder about nukes being of value during "day-to-day" diplomacy. Does even NK really go into negotiations with China for access to oil or something with the argument "sell it to us or we nuke you!".

I only see it as a deterrent for invasion. The US and South Korea will think twice before drone striking Kim if they know there could be a nuke in the air.

For any other diplomatic purpose the other party must surely just walk away when the "or we'll nuke you" argument comes out?

[TeMPOraL]

Yeah, I don't think nukes matter "day-to-day". But there's a constant awareness of them in the background, much like there is a constant awareness of general military situation.

On the negotiation table, there's only so far one nation can push another before the other one starts considering military options. There's no sharp line here - economics and war are parts of the same spectrum. Usually, it's in the best interest of every party to stay on the "economics" side of the talks. Both parties having nukes makes both of them try harder.

[dreamcompiler]

NK could at most destroy a few square blocks of e.g. Seattle. That would be a tragedy, but it would also serve as justification for a multinational coalition (possibly even including China) to take over NK and ultimately hand its territory to SK.

IOW, if NK lobbed a nuke anywhere they would cease to exist. I'm pretty sure Mr. Kim understands that.

[ThrowawayR2]

> "...war is obsolete between technologically advanced states..."

That's what they said after WW1, the "war to end all wars", yet we had another and (in my opinion) rather narrowly avoided a third between the '50s-'80s.

A foolish belief that no-one would dare start another large-scale war allows nations to indulge in grand posturing and ever closer brinkmanship which will inevitably to (surprise) another war.

[relax88]

If someone were to gain some kind of advantage that could prevent a retaliatory nuclear strike, then I could see it. Otherwise I highly doubt it. World War 2 offensives were made possible by the advances in mechanized and aerial warfare.

Interestingly enough the US has been retrofitting their nuclear arsenal with better targeting systems, making it much more effective. The Russians don't like this, which is why you hear talk of hypersonic missiles, autonomous submersibles carrying nuclear warheads, etc.

Perhaps some kind of neutron-based weapon could be developed to counteract large numbers of incoming ICBMs in the upper atmosphere, or to destroy an enemy nuclear arsenal in place. There we concepts like this, and the US even built some for defense against ICBMs (The W66 warhead).

[sonofhans]

Damn, I wonder about this too. Not to defend nukes (and I know you're not defending them), but I find it hard to believe that the apparent progress enabled by them is sustainable in the long term. And by "progress" here I mean, (a) large countries can no longer engage in total war, and (b) smaller countries are getting their asses kicked in proxy wars (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Iraq).

Have we really left total war behind? Is it really, finally, to awful to contemplate? That would honestly be a huge step forward for humanity. It seems too good to trust. This isn't the terminal phase of history; 2,000 years from now this may be a blip.

[chasd00]

The problem with MAD is it requires perfect decision making or perfect luck with no graceful failure if things go wrong.

From the Cuban Missile Crisis portion of Fog of War

"Lesson #2: Rationality will not save us.

I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today."

https://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_transcript.html

[jjoonathan]

Sure, but when the alternative to rationality is hope -- as in, disarm and hope that everyone else follows and doesn't lie despite having every incentive to take advantage -- rationality starts looking pretty good by comparison.

I'm all for arms reduction that maintains strategic deterrence. Everyone knows that MAD is, well, mad -- but the real question is whether it is more or less mad than the alternatives, and the leading alternative is to trust a bunch of sovereign nations to act together against their best interest, and that's even more mad than MAD.

[LorenPechtel]

There's also the launch from Norway.

Russia detected something rising off the coast of Norway. The performance looked like an older US SLBM. It was heading towards Russia and north--not towards anything important but a viable trajectory for an EMP decapitation attack. What it really showed is how poor their systems were.

The bird was real. It really was an older US SLBM--repurposed as a scientific launcher. It was launched from an island off the coast of Norway--but the Russian systems weren't good enough to figure that out. They also weren't good enough to figure out it was really heading mostly north, basically following the coast. And their bureaucracy had lost the launch notification, probably related to the fact that it didn't have a time on it. The bird was prepped (a good reason to use a solid rocket, it can sit there on the pad for a long time) awaiting the conditions it was meant to study.

[krisoft]

I don’t really understand your forest fire analogy.

One slightly paradoxical thing with nukes is that anti-ICBM systems makes us less safe by making the strategic landscape less stable. If a hypothetical world power trusts their “shield” then they are incentivised to strike their enemies nuclear forces in the hopes that they destroy enough enemy missiles that even if they launch them all they can be reliably soaked up by the “shield”. And it in turn incentivises the other party to strike first or risk loosing their nuclear arsenal. That sucks.

On the other hand having a survivable second strike capability can act as a stabilizing force. Those countries who believe they have this know that their enemy knows that even if they sucker punch them they will suffer. That’s the “assured” part of the MAD doctrine.

So it is not really the number of nukes which makes things more or less stable but other factors. If you are interested in these questions, and want to listen to much better analysis than what I have presented here I can warmly recommend the Arms Control Wonk podcast.

[nradov]

This is why the major nuclear powers are again engaged in an arms race to develop nuclear delivery systems that will be harder to intercept than ICBMs. The major focus now is on higher speed cruise missiles. Russia is also developing a long range nuclear torpedo.

[DonHopkins]

You mean like Reagan's "Peace Shield"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1C75RVHDMY&ab_channel=DonRi...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-11-02-ca-1276-s...

>‘STAR WARS’ BACKERS TO AIR TV AD

>BY JAY SHARBUTT, NOV. 2, 1985 12 AM PT, TIMES STAFF WRITER

>Last May, a scientists’ group took to TV in Washington to oppose the Reagan Administration’s “Star Wars” proposal for a space-based missile defense system. Now, a group supporting the Strategic Defense Initiative, as the concept is formally known, will make its case as did the scientists--with a TV commercial.

>The two opposing sides are the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Coalition for the Strategic Defense Initiative. The former contends that a space-based missile defense system can’t be perfected, would militarize space and increase the possibility of nuclear war. The latter argues that such a system would work and prevent nuclear war.

>Although light years apart in their beliefs, the two organizations have one thing in common: Their 30-second commercials each use the powerful emotional appeal of a child facing a nuclear holocaust.

[...]

>Its commercial, which had a local TV test run in Washington on Oct. 12, opens with a child’s stick-figure crayon drawing of a family and a house, with a large sun shining above.

>A little girl is heard saying that she had “asked my Daddy what this ‘Star Wars’ stuff is all about. He said that right now we can’t protect ourselves from nuclear weapons and that’s why the President wants to build a peace shield.

>“It would stop missiles in outer space so they couldn’t hit our house. Then nobody could win a war . . . and if nobody could win a war, there’s no reason to start one.”

>As she speaks, a dome is drawn over the house and family. Incoming missiles strike the shield and are destroyed. The dome turns into a rainbow. Frowning faces become smiles, and the girl concludes with: “My daddy’s smart. Support the peace shield.”

[...]

>He says the coalition’s ad has three aims--the first a contention that a defense-in-space system is feasible right now. Another is to drum up public support for congressional backing of the Strategic Defense Initiative, or the “peace shield” as he calls it.

>The group also wants to air its ad, he says, “to offset the anti-SDI propaganda, such as has come from the Union of Concerned Scientists with their 30-second thing, which says what SDI is about is blowing up little children.”

>He referred to the union’s TV effort last May. That $10,000 commercial showed a little boy watching the night sky, singing a snatch of “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.” Suddenly, a star explodes like a nuclear blast and an announcer says: “Heavens are for wonder, not for wars. Stop ‘Star Wars.’ ”

[...]