[Victerius]

This raises a tricky question: Should the United States open or reopen a production line for nuclear weapons in order to avoid losing their manufacturing know-how, the way we do with M1A2 Abrams tanks? The United States once produced thousands of tanks per year. Today, there is only one tank plant left open in the nation, the Lima Army Tank Plant. For years, US Army leaders have asked Congress to stop purchasing new tanks because they didn't need them, but Congress kept ordering the Department of Defense to buy tanks anyway. They did this for two reasons. First, because the tank plant is a source of jobs in Ohio. Second, because tanks, especially modern, 21st century tanks, are specialized tools, and we wouldn't want to forget how to build them. An argument is made than it is cheaper to keep producing tanks that are not needed than it would be to restart a tank production line if one didn't exist. The argument is sensible and most likely true. After the US Air Force ordered an early end to the production of the F-22 Raptor in the early 2010s, the production line was dismantled. A report in the last few years estimated the cost to restart the production line in the billions, if not the low tens of billions.

So, back to nuclear weapons. The United States manufactured tens of thousands of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Most of these weapons have been decommissioned and the production lines have been shut down. The United States no longer manufactures nuclear weapons. Now, the incoming Ground Based Strategic Deterrent will be built by Northrop Grumman in the next few years to start replacing the aging Minuteman III ICBMs, but the warheads and the nuclear cores will be recycled from existing ICBMs.

Which raises a question: How would the United States replenish its nuclear weapons if the need arose? For example, after a nuclear war, where the US lost or expended 80% of its arsenal? The question of what to do after a nuclear war may sound absurd to some, but it's a worthwhile and interesting one. More on point, what if the nuclear cores degrade to a point where they may no longer work? This is essentially what the Department of Energy's Nuclear Stewardship Program is for. It's a program that costs billions of dollars a year and uses supercomputers to model the slow degradation of the nuclear cores in the stockpile.

But here's where it gets trickier. The New START treaty will expire in 2026. If it is not extended or replaced by a new treaty, there will be nothing stopping Russia from expanding its nuclear arsenal. China is also expanding its nuclear arsenal as we speak. Last week's report by the Department of Defense claims that China will have 1,500 nuclear weapons within a decade or so. China is building new nuclear weapons. The United States is not. And China is not bound by any arms control treaty.

Now, the US also happens to have about 1,400-1,500 nuclear weapons deployed, plus a few thousand more in storage, disassembled.

But what if China decides at some point to push past 1,500? To 2,000? 5,000?

A country with 5,000 nuclear weapons could conduct a first strike against a country with 1,500 nuclear weapons, on a 2:1 ratio, and still have 2,000 nukes in reserve for further strikes. This is why the nuclear arms race happened between the US and the Soviet Union in the first place. Any disparity in the deployed arsenals gives the side with more the advantage. So if China ever decides to expand beyond 1,500, the strategically sound move for the US would be to start building more, to match the Chinese production. It would be tragic, but it's not impossible.

But the US no longer manufactures nukes, so the old production lines would need to be reopened.

[philipkglass]

A country with 5,000 nuclear weapons could conduct a first strike against a country with 1,500 nuclear weapons, on a 2:1 ratio, and still have 2,000 nukes in reserve for further strikes. This is why the nuclear arms race happened between the US and the Soviet Union in the first place. Any disparity in the deployed arsenals gives the side with more the advantage. So if China ever decides to expand beyond 1,500, the strategically sound move for the US would be to start building more, to match the Chinese production. It would be tragic, but it's not impossible.

Submarine launched ballistic missiles and mobile missiles on land (train or truck based) break this race. If you don't know where all the enemy launchers are, having enough weapons to hit them all in a first strike doesn't matter much. That's why the US has a strong deterrent even though Russia has more warheads than it does [1]. The mobile weapons can't be guaranteed destroyed and a retaliatory strike from them will still be devastating. The US's mobile deterrent is based on submarine launched ballistic missiles but it has designed mobile land based weapons in the past, and other countries (e.g. Russia) still have mobile land based weapons.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_des...

[PeterisP]

It does mean that a change in intelligence (whether technical or human) that reveals the location of enemy launchers can suddenly enable this first strike - for example, if someone develops some technology capable of sensing where the US missile submarines are located, then you can't rapidly increase the size of nuclear arsenal fix the issue, you have to have the reserves pre-built.

[H8crilA]

I think your concern is valid, but the answer would be something like "we can reopen production lines when someone else ramps up their production first". In other words - do not escalate, but respond to foreign escalation. This is a much better approach, notice that if you escalate first you leave everyone worse off, including yourself. Perhaps others are worse off than you, but you are still worse off than you were before.

If you're wondering how would you know that someone is ramping up production (can be underground, etc.) the answer is detecting underground testing via seismographs.

About the tanks, it is indeed a problem. Just look at Germany, their military industrial complex used to be one of the best in the world (I'm talking post WW2, for example Leopard tanks) but they effectively killed it. Luckily there's always another modernization behind the corner, so as long as you don't reduce the vehicle count there's enough production. Which is what Germans (and not only them) did.

[mikeyouse]

There is no world in which the US "lost or expended 80% of its arsenal" that it would matter at all whether we could produce more. I can't even think of a good analogy. "Should I store a box of extra smoke detectors in my attic in case I have a house fire and my current ones are destroyed?"

[mauvehaus]

I think the more realistic need to produce new nuclear weapons is that for some reason parts availability for the existing ones becomes a maintenance problem. If Warhead A requires Part B which must be produced via an industrial process that was last widely used in the '70s, you no longer have a credible warhead.

It may not even be possible to spin that process back up even on a bespoke basis because it may depend on yet further now-outdated processes. Even if that's not the case, executing to a high enough degree of precision for the application may depend on a lot of now-lost trade knowledge.

But yeah, apart from the sustainment problem, there's definitely no way that replacing 80% of the US nuclear arsenal matters if the warheads were expended in anger or destroyed on the ground by nuclear weapons.

[mikeyouse]

The sustainment problem is solved as well - there was the infamous example of the "fogbank" aerogel that we lost capacity to build. It turns out it's easy enough (with an unlimited pile of money) to reverse engineer any component we might need and rebuild capacity. Nuclear weapons aren't "complicated" once you've figured out the science, they're just expensive to engineer.

Since we have maybe 10x more warheads that we need, we can easily salvage any components from decommissioned ones which is actually what's leading to the plutonium storage problems from the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank

[mauvehaus]

Taking everything in the article at face value (and assuming the substance actually exists and isn't an elaborate disinformation campaign), it took over a decade and $100,000,000 to recreate this single part of the warhead.

I don't know if we can call this a runaway sustainment success story. It's not as though we actually have limitless piles of money to throw at weapons systems.

[scotty79]

> $100,000,000

Which still is 0.2% of what one dude paid to run one crappy social network.

[Victerius]

I respectfully disagree. In the 12 months following a nuclear war, Americans would still need to file their taxes before the April 15 deadline, the federal and state governments would still have to pass annual budgets, software vendors like Microsoft and Apple would still need to push updates to their products, homeowners would still need to pay their annual property tax bill, people would still need to refill their drug prescriptions.... life could recover and go on. I'm not convinced that a nuclear war would be so destructive that civilization wouldn't survive. Most nuclear attacks would probably target missile silos in rural North Dakota and airbases anyway, not cities.

But, as I outlined in my comment, there are situations other than nuclear war where the US might want to restart nuke production.

[mikeyouse]

You're talking about a full scale nuclear exchange -- that's so far beyond North Dakota silos I don't know what to tell you. As one obvious example since you brought up Microsoft -- our Pacific Fleet Trident nuclear subs are based within 20 miles of Microsoft's campus -- they and many of our SLBM and warheads are stationed there. Nobody is going to be shipping software following a nuclear attack in Puget Sound.

[quickthrower2]

A more sinister reason to advocate for a global remote workforce and geo redundancy! Linux would be less affected than Windows most likely.

[danenania]

That's a rather... optimistic view of what total war between nuclear powers would entail. The goal would not be only to destroy missile silos, but industrial capacity, the electric grid, military and political leadership at all levels, and the population's will to fight. All major cities and all forms of civilian infrastructure would likely be targets.

[oceanplexian]

Infrastructure is a huge problem if you live in a dense population center, but a manageable one if you don't live in a big city.

Electricity isn't a requirement for survival; we lived without it only a century ago. My folks in New England can pretty much live indefinitely with a wood stove, a groundwater well, and local agriculture. It might be a rough time figuring out how to feed everyone. It would certainly be a brutal existence, and a lot of people wouldn't make it, but the world would go on.

[danenania]

Right, you would have some survivors, but people would not be concerned with paying taxes or anything related to tech/the internet.

Even rural areas would be very rough. Supply lines for gasoline would probably be disrupted so unless you can grow enough food for subsistence on your own land, local agriculture wouldn't help you much. We'd have to go back to horses and carriages, but with the exception of Amish areas, I doubt there are enough horses and related equipment around to make it work. And then there's security, which is probably the biggest issue. Even if you can sustain yourself, you'll need a way to deal with packs of hungry, desperate people going around with guns.

[cdelsolar]

the groundwater well is full of radiation and the plants all died from radiation and lack of sunlight...

[adventured]

There wouldn't be a lack of sunlight.

[justsomehnguy]

> I'm not convinced that a nuclear war would be so destructive that civilization wouldn't survive.

Civilization would survive, somewhere far from NA, Europe, Asia (ie in South Africa).

There is only two scenarios for a global nuclear war:

a) first, pre-emptive strike - then you need to take out not only nuclear arsenal of the enemy, but it's C2 and weapons production capabilities, including any administrative centers, eg Moscow or Washington

b) retaliatory, responding strike - then you need to make sure nobody from the enemy attacked you could ever wage war against you, so not only you destroy enemy nuclear capabilities (silos? why though? they are already used and empty) but any C2, weapons production capabilities, including any administrative centers, eg Moscow or Washington

In both scenarios there is no way you will see an IRS agent on the porch of your bunker in less than 10 years from the war.

[Mistletoe]

I can confirm this, I never saw an IRS agent one time in the wastelands in Fallout.

[Tangurena2]

There was a substance called FOGBANK. This is an aerogel used in thermonuclear bombs. It used acetonitrile in its construction. When absorbed into the body, acetonitrile metabolizes into hydrogen cyanide.

All of the records for making FOGBANK were destroyed. Too many workers were being poisoned by the stuff, so rather than pay out worker's comp and wrongful death lawsuits, the records were eliminated. As an aerogel, the stuff is brittle, crumbles and fractures. When the warheads needed to be reconditioned, it turned out that the limiting factor was the lack of FOGBANK. It turned out that some mysterious contaminant was needed to give it the exact properties necessary. So it had to be re-invented.

To address your other points, China's nuclear position has never been Mutually Assured Destruction - they've only wanted enough warheads to deter the opponent. In the past, this has meant about 200 warheads. Since the US has been developing anti-ballistic missile technology, that means China needs more warheads and more missiles to guarantee a sufficient deterrent. Only the US & USSR built so many nukes that the START treaties were even necessary.

> But the US no longer manufactures nukes

Yes we do.

Final assembly (and disassembly) is at Pantex in Amarillo, TX. Parts are made elsewhere, some in Kansas City, some at Lawrence Livermore, some at Y2. There have never been "production lines". All of them were built as individual projects. All of them authorized and approved by Congressional oversight.

> But what if?

But what if I get a pony?

How many countries has China invaded? How many have the US invaded? How many has Russia invaded? China may be run by buttheads, but I don't see them attacking others. Not like We The People have attacked and invaded.

Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetonitrile

[themaninthedark]

They are quite willing to attack others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Peo...

Just looking at the number of wars that the PRC has been involved in:

1950 : Invades and Annexes Tibet

1950 - 1953 : Assists North Korea and invades South Korea

1954 : Attempted to invade Taiwan

1958 : Attempted to invade Taiwan

1962 : Sino-Indian War

1967 : Nathu La and Cho La clashes

1979 : Sino-Vietnam War

2017 : China-India border standoff

2020-2021: China-India clashes

You also claim that FOGBANK records were destroyed to cover up for lawsuits, Wikipedia does not have anything relating to that. >Manufacture involves the moderately toxic, highly volatile solvent acetonitrile, which presents a hazard for workers (causing three evacuations in March 2006 alone).

Acetonitrile may be poison but has been used in public product very recently: >It has been used in formulations for nail polish remover, despite its toxicity. At least two cases have been reported of accidental poisoning of young children by acetonitrile-based nail polish remover, one of which was fatal.[23] Acetone and ethyl acetate are often preferred as safer for domestic use, and acetonitrile has been banned in cosmetic products in the European Economic Area since March 2000.[24]

[Mistletoe]

Acetonitrile is used on an almost daily basis by anyone doing HPLC (high-performance liquid chromatography). Big 4L jugs of it. The price has gotten exorbitant though and some have switched to using mostly methanol. I don't know what this guy is talking about with the toxicity, it smells kind of nice and has a very benign label. You don't even need to wear a respirator or anything to use it.

https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/11

2009-

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/great-acetonitrile...

[adventured]

China has also de facto militarily annexed territory larger than France in the South China Sea; territory that very clearly belongs to other nations. It was an act of war, they used their military to invade and take the territory of their neighbors.

[throwaway894345]

I mean, China basically said it would go to war to conquer Taiwan. China just fired missiles over Taiwan and into Japanese territory a few months ago. Seems like they're advertising a willingness to attack; why don't you believe them?

[somat]

The really tricky part about Taiwan. Politically I mean, is that it is not another country, it literally is china.

A history lesson the chinese empire fell apart in the early 1910's, there was fragmentation until it was sort of reunified in the late 1920's the communist's fought the reunified government in the thirties, paused for WW2 and were successful against the government in the 1940's. the pre-communist government still exists on the island of formosa(taiwan)

Now it is hard to say which government is more legitimate. The national government only really had ruled for 10 years at that point and by all accounts I have read they were sort of a shitty government. taiwan appears to be doing ok nowadays but remember that it ran under a military dictatorship until the 1990's

Taiwan at this point would probably be fine relinquishing their claim to the chinese mainland. but the communists do not want to let them go.

My only real take away from all this is that the chinese are there own worst enemies, what the japanese did to them in mancheria was brutal, far worst than the holocaust. What the chinese did to themselves afterwards was even worse.

[midoridensha]

>My only real take away from all this is that the chinese are there own worst enemies

I have a pet theory that almost every group of people is their own worst enemy.

[LetsGetTechnicl]

This reminds me of a recent NYT op-ed where the premise was "a little nuclear war is okay." The reality is that any amount of nuclear war is the end of humanity, there is no post-nuclear war civilization, at least not for very long.

[simonh]

>The reality is that any amount of nuclear war is the end of humanity…

Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean, but on the face of it that’s absurd. If N Korea nuked S Korea and the US nuked them back, or if Pakistan and India decided to toast a few of each others cities, the impact on the rest of the world would be mostly economic.

[adventured]

> The reality is that any amount of nuclear war is the end of humanity

One of the more absurd myths still going. It's not remotely close to being true.

You could detonate all the globe's nuclear weapons simultaneously within the territory of Texas and you'd fail to kill everyone in Texas. It's also not an argument that nuclear war is acceptable obviously. Pretending humanity and or civilization will cease due to nuclear war is very outlandish.

We detonated five hundred nuclear weapons above ground over half a century, and two thousand total. You could nuke the biggest 100 cities and humanity would pick itself up and promptly keep going.