Is the Nuclear Arms Race Making a Comeback?

[russ_watters]

What I see is that either sides military would not only have been willing but very enthusiastic to launch a first strike if they weren't restrained by M.A.D. (I don't think that mindset has improved, all that has improved is the tech involved).

I'd like to see a source on this. Given that in the US at least that nuclear weapons are under civilian control, for the military to have any impact (no pun intended) they would have to launch a first strike on their own, a la Dr. Strangelove. Is the claim that they were planning this?

I read it as saying people in the military are murderous warmongers, which, as a former member of the military, I find obscenely insulting.

 

[Bystander]

I read it as saying people in the military are murderous warmongers, which, as a former member of the military, I find obscenely insulting.

I'll second and third that, and what the hey, throw in a fourth and a fifth.

 

[1oldman2]

a la Dr. Strangelove. Is the claim that they were planning this?

Sorry about the delay responding, a search of this subject requires wading through a lot of "crackpottery". Strangelove is a great film but I'll leave Hollywood out of this, I was only referring to certain military leaders historic enthusiasm for preemptive use of nukes, fortunately as you mentioned they don't have control of launches etc., I'll mention a few examples and we can discuss details from there.
http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963
This is a little ambiguos, depending on which part you read however it states "Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s."

"But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963."http://www.globalresearch.ca/not-just-a-last-resort-a-global-strike-plan-with-a-nuclear-option/1704
This incisive article by William Arkin on the Bush adminstration’s Nuclear War doctrine was published in May 2005. It outlines the mechanism whereby a nuclear attack against a Iran or North Korea would be carried out. These war plans involving the US, Israel and turkey for a nuclear attack on Iran are now in a state of readiness. They have also been endorsed by NATO.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/
The Berlin crisis of 1961 does not loom large in the American memory, but it was an episode that brought the United States and the Soviet Union close to war-nuclear war. Newly available documents reveal that the Kennedy White House drew up detailed plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets, and that President Kennedy explored the first-strike option seriously

The SIOP here mentions "Preemptive plans"
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB130/
"A full nuclear SIOP strike launched on a preemptive basis would have delivered over 3200 nuclear weapons to 1060 targets in the Soviet Union, China, and allied countries in Asia and Europe"https://themoscowtimes.com/articles...ve-nuclear-strike-doctrine-against-nato-39016
"A Russian general has called for Russia to revamp its military doctrine, last updated in 2010, to clearly identify the U.S. and its NATO allies as Moscow's enemy number one and spell out the conditions under which Russia would launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the 28-member military alliance, Interfax reported Wednesday.

The general added that special attention should be paid to integrating the functions of the newly created Air and Space Defense Forces with Russia's land, sea and air based nuclear forces. "In addition, it is necessary to hash out the conditions under which Russia could carry out a preemptive strike with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces," he said."

https://www.rt.com/usa/186084-russian-bombers-labrador-gertz/
"A pair of Russian bomber jets reportedly practiced cruise missile attacks against targets in the United States last week, according to a report published on Monday in the Washington Free Beacon."Of course there is much history to be discussed and I look forward to your take on this subject, I should add that it's much easier to find examples of the US's stance than the USSR/Russian side of things, but that highlights the difference in our systems of government.

 

[1oldman2]

I read it as saying people in the military are murderous warmongers, which, as a former member of the military, I find obscenely insulting.

Not military people in general, only certain military leaders. History speaks for itself.

 

[russ_watters]

Not military people in general, only certain military leaders.

Fair enough, it just sounded like "...either sides military..." was a very wide net.

History speaks for itself.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be correctly interpreted:

This is a little ambiguos, depending on which part you read however it states "Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s."

Yes, it is ambiguous. And it doesn't address your actual claim: that the military was strongly advocating that plan. Duty requires that military planners make lots and lots of plans for many different contingencies. A first strike plan might be a reflection of a strong desire by a nuclear warmonger who created it or it might be a logical calculation based on the unknown possibility that Moscow could be planning a nuclear strike. That was always my reading of the situation: it wasn't an emotional desire for mass murder, but a coldly logical calculation based on a difficult to measure threat.

None of what you linked actually addresses what you claimed. You've inserted a motivation into their minds, that you don't actually have information to support (except, perhaps, believing that General Ripper was/is typical of military thinking). What you need to support your opinion is a general actually saying he favored/favors first strike and he has to say it in an "enthusiastic" way. And conversely, you also need a general saying, in a disappointed/forlorn way, that he felt/feels restricted by MAD.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Duty requires that military planners make lots and lots of plans for many different contingencies.

Exactly. I have fire insurance in case my house burns down. Doesn't mean I want it to.

 

[1oldman2]

Fair enough,

Your reply is, as usual very well put. I'll do some more digging around before continuing so we can keep this discussion productive, (as I mentioned the crackpot factor is over the top when searching this subject.) I should mention that I have the deepest respect for the military in general, It's the politics that gets a little too self serving. Hope your New Year is off to a good start, back in a bit.

 

[1oldman2]

Exactly. I have fire insurance in case my house burns down. Doesn't mean I want it to.

Very good point, in the case of preemptive strike though it would amount to arson.

 

[zoobyshoe]

North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't happen!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...continental-ballistic-missile-trump/96091386/

What's that supposed to mean? Does it mean N. Korea is too inept to get a missile this far, or does it mean 'we won't let them,"?

This paper made the automatic assumption he meant the latter:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-north-korea-nuclear-weapon-233109

If he meant the latter, what course of action, exactly, does he propose to take to stop them?

 

[Bystander]

If he meant the latter, what course of action, exactly, does he propose to take to stop them?

What would you propose that he do?

 

[1oldman2]

Could this be "on the table" ?
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/03/north-south-korea-trade-threats-over-pre-emptive-strike/
TOKYO (AP) - Since North Korea’s latest nuclear test, Pyongyang and Seoul have been openly trading threats of decapitation strikes and annihilating capitals populated by millions of civilians. And the talk of how each side might throw that first pre-emptive punch has become more detailed than ever.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What would you propose that he do?

I think you misunderstood my question.

 

[mheslep]

What's that supposed to mean?

That's the question that I hope Kim Jong Un is asking himself.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's the question that I hope Kim Jong Un is asking himself.

But that brings us back to the failure of Von Neumann's Game Theory, which is that it only works when all players are rational.

 

[1oldman2]

But that brings us back to the failure of Von Neumann's Game Theory, which is that it only works when all players are rational.

Thanks, this explains so much about chess with my wife, I always wondered how she beat me two out of three.

 

[mheslep]

But that brings us back to the failure of Von Neumann's Game Theory, which is that it only works when all players are rational.

Whatever is happening so far on the US side of US-N Korea conversation, it's nothing particularly new.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-bomber-over-north-korea-lands-in-south-korea

 

[1oldman2]

Whatever is happening so far on the US side of US-N Korea conversation, it's nothing particularly new.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-bomber-over-north-korea-lands-in-south-korea

I hadn't heard of this particular b-1 mission, interesting. It seems "saber rattling" could get very intense as the annual war games take place in 2017, but as you stated "nothing particularly new".
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/north-korea-donald-trump-options/
More of the same, however #3 makes for interesting reading, #4 seems unlikely.

 

[mheslep]

hadn't heard of this particular b-1 mission

Right. An actual nuclear capable US bomber flown across the globe and over Korea, clearly in response to the latest N. Korean threat, yet with no explanation asked for or given by the President. Nothing-to-see-here-folks, page 6 at the bottom. I think that flight was some context to consider before getting too bent about Trump's tweet.

 

[russ_watters]

But that brings us back to the failure of Von Neumann's Game Theory, which is that it only works when all players are rational.

That's not an issue with this North Korea/Trump question: Kim has stated his intent (ballistic missiles) and we have to assume it is true and plan accordingly. Every indication is that he will try to follow-through and even if he didn't, it would be prudent to assume he would. I guess in that way you might say the irrationality of one of the players has to be built-in to the equation by assuming he'll certain irrational things.

Regardless of what, if anything, Trump actually intends, his options are the following:
1. Bluff, which never works.
2. Make a deal that we know Kim will violate, as he always does.
3. Airstrikes on the relevant infrastructure.

 

[1oldman2]

Right. An actual nuclear capable US bomber flown across the globe and over Korea, clearly in response to the latest N. Korean threat, yet with no explanation asked for or given by the President. Nothing-to-see-here-folks, page 6 at the bottom. I think that flight was some context to consider before getting too bent about Trump's tweet.

I see it mentioned that the b-1 has been reconfigured for conventional rather than nuclear weapons, any idea how quickly they could be returned to "nuke capable" ? (I'm pretty sure that would be classified but just wondering)

 

[mheslep]

No idea.

 

[1oldman2]

Regardless of what, if anything, Trump actually intends, his options are the following:
1. Bluff, which never works.
2. Make a deal that we know Kim will violate, as he always does.
3. Airstrikes on the relevant infrastructure.

That pretty well sums up the situation, I'm curious what China's reaction would/will be to #3. I can't remember a single case of diplomacy actually working in the case of N.K. so things are going to get "interesting" or Trump will have to do some rethinking on his tweets. (The latter doesn't seem likely.)

 

[mheslep]

...
Regardless of what, if anything, Trump actually intends, his options are the following: ...

There are other options for a country so isolated in the world.

Oct 30, 2006 - BEIJING — China cut off oil exports to North Korea in September, ...North Korea tested ballistic missiles in July, despite sharp warnings from Beijing...

That is, turn N Korea into Cuba after the Soviets fell. Cuba could barely fix its tractors, much less build nukes. To my mind, NK would be Cuba without China propping it up.

A problem with any attack on N Korean assets by an ally of S. Korea is that it invites an artillery attack on Seoul. The US could respond to an attack on Seoul, but I doubt it could be stopped before hand. Either China or S. Korea needs to stop N. Korea, so leverage needs to be applied there. Trump already plans to rework trade with China. Perhaps include another 3-5% bump in tariffs on *Chinese* trade every time NK tests a nuke?

 

[zoobyshoe]

This quote addresses my general complaint about the ambiguity of his tweets:

This also raises the issue of how much interpretation should be required for the tweets of what will soon be the most powerful man in the world.

Euan Graham, director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, said the world was “on the slippery slope of trying to interpret one man’s not particularly coherent tweets.” But he added that the exchange has increased the chances that North Korea could be “the first crisis out of the box” in the Trump presidency, at least in Asia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-responsible-actor/?utm_term=.13ffb6e7a674

The article as a whole explores mheslep's option, that Trump can try to pressure China into doing more. The likelihood of that is indicated (for whatever an indication is worth under the circumstances) by the second Trump tweet on the subject.

 

[mfb]

Whatever is happening so far on the US side of US-N Korea conversation, it's nothing particularly new.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-bomber-over-north-korea-lands-in-south-korea

Great journalism:
Tile: "U.S. Flies Supersonic B-1 Bomber over North Korea"
What actually happened is written in the text: "an unprecedented flight near North Korea [...] The flight was the closest these bombers have ever flown to the North Korean border,"
=> They did not fly over North Korea.

 

[1oldman2]

Discussion material here.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/27/first-strike-nuclear-doctrine-wont-change-carter.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/opinion/end-the-first-use-policy-for-nuclear-weapons.html?_r=0
"Throughout the nuclear age, presidents have allowed their senior commanders to plan for the first use of nuclear weapons. Contingency plans were drawn to initiate first strikes to repel an invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union, defeat China and North Korea, take out chemical and biological weapons and conduct other missions".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/science/obama-unlikely-to-vow-no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons.html
"President Obama, who has weighed ruling out a first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict, appears likely to abandon the proposal after top national security advisers argued that it could undermine allies and embolden Russia and China, according to several senior administration officials".

"But in the end, Mr. Obama seems to have sided with his current advisers, who warned in meetings culminating this summer that a no-first-use declaration would rattle allies like Japan and South Korea. Those nations are concerned about discussion of an American pullback from Asia prompted by comments made by the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/no-first-use-nuclear-weapons-policy-a-dangerous-ob/
"No first use may sound appealing. After all, who wants to drop the big one? But unilaterally taking the first-strike option off the table would significantly lower the security of the U.S. and its allies".

 

[jim hardy]

search OPLAN s ? I'm not savvy enough to comprehend these

but it's comforting to know somebody is thinking about 'what if' scenarios and will have some semblance of a plan.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan.htm
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/04/oplan8010-12/

 

[mfb]

There are what-if plans for everything. A US plan "how to invade Canada" made it into the news a while ago, but I guess they have plans to invade every country. Just in case it becomes important. And it is nothing US-specific: most other countries will have those plans as well.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are what-if plans for everything.

To stretch an analogy, I have a plan for what to do if my house burns down. Doesn't mean I want it to.

 

[1oldman2]

In my own screwed-up way I seem to keep derailing the focus of this thread, my original intention was a discussion of a potential U.S./Russian nuclear buildup, as you can see I've managed to wander off onto topics like preemptive nuclear strikes, North Korean threats etc. These "side issues" (especially N.K.) are Worthy of there own threads as I'm sure the future will prove, however the U.S/Russian issue is likely to be rather slow developing (at least until Trump settles into office and plays his hand). Since the "current news" aspect is on hold for the time being I would like to post a few sites with relevant information regarding Nuclear policy, capabilities, history, etc. that may or may not be of use in future discussions. I sincerely hope the problem goes no further, if it does we can pick up this thread when its in the news again.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/index.shtml
http://www.nuclearpathways.org/browse.html
http://alsos.wlu.edu/qsearch.aspx?browse=warfare/Nuclear+Weapons+Testing
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/basics/nuclear-stockpiles.htm
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/CISFacilities.shtml
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/USAFacilities.shtml

 

[russ_watters]

In my own screwed-up way I seem to keep derailing the focus of this thread, my original intention was a discussion of a potential U.S./Russian nuclear buildup...

While it's an important topic, it's just really speculative right now. Trump is so much about bluster that I still don't take much of what he says seriously (and I doubt he does either), so I'm in a wait and see mode.

Going to be an interesting few months...and 4 years.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Maybe this...
View attachment 110966
Is better than this...
View attachment 110967
Just a thought.

Interesting top photo. I don't recognize it. Can you explain? The bottom one reminds me of the Tsar Bomba.

This reminds me of a technically interesting scenario I sometimes dream about, namely that a highly advanced benevolent non-nuclear power, let's say at random Germany, could develop space-based green weaponry which could simultaneously neutralize all land, sea, and air-based nuclear weapons and impose an environmentally friendly peace on Earth. Of course a few might object to such a scenario. But just think about it. It would be nice to establish Beethoven's Ode to Joy as the planetary anthem, would it not?

I think the answer to your question is yes, the top photo suggests a better future. I hope that the technology that got us into trouble during the 20th century will be supplanted by a sane defensive and offensive technology that would allow the global peacemaker to prevail. Then, to pick a place at random, people would look to Karlsruhe as the capital of a peaceful world.

P.S. this replaces any earlier American-Russian cooperation scenarios. Since this is a physics forum I want to be a realist.

:)

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

There are what-if plans for everything. A US plan "how to invade Canada" made it into the news a while ago, but I guess they have plans to invade every country. Just in case it becomes important. And it is nothing US-specific: most other countries will have those plans as well.

Actually America did invade Canada in 1812. There was talk of liberating Canada from tyranny and oppression. For example, the American army attacked York, Ontario. In retaliation, the British entered Washington, D. C. in 1814, and burned the White House.

Meanwhile, the Tsar was plotting with his ministers how to interfere in the American elections. But this was all a distraction from the sinister Chinese, who even then were plotting world domination.

I hope this clears things up for all you tech people who don't have time to study history. My information comes from the internet so it must be true.

 

[1oldman2]

While it's an important topic, it's just really speculative right now. Trump is so much about bluster that I still don't take much of what he says seriously (and I doubt he does either), so I'm in a wait and see mode.

Going to be an interesting few months...and 4 years.

Along your line of reasoning, this seems applicable. It appears the "Honeymoon" may be ending for our President elect.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...502d6751bc8_story.html?utm_term=.ab31f66df25a
"The Kremlin has good reasons to worry that the combination of two scandals - on the hacking and on the dossier - has pushed Trump into an ugly corner," Baev said. "He may conclude that since it is so hard to block the anti-Russia drive, it is far easier to take a lead on it. Makes perfect political sense, and one thing Trump is good at is making turnarounds."

 

[jim hardy]

Interesting top photo. I don't recognize it.

Looks like "Cardinal of the Kremlin" .

This post election ruckus seems right out of Tom Clancy.