[HN Gopher] US Tests Explosive at Nuclear Site as Russia Revokes...
___________________________________________________________________
US Tests Explosive at Nuclear Site as Russia Revokes Ban on Atomic
Weapons Tests
Author : Jerry2
Score : 16 points
Date : 2023-10-23 06:24 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| londons_explore wrote:
| I saw an analysis recently that suggested a nuclear war between
| the west and Russia would no longer end in mutually assured
| destruction. Instead, it was likely that most of the west's
| missiles would be able to disable most of Russia's weapons before
| they could get to their targets, while the reverse was not true.
|
| Such a war would also likely extend the west's dominance by ~50
| years or more if the replacement government in Russia was a pro-
| US one.
|
| Could this be the start of testing that out?
| Garvi wrote:
| This is the dumbest thing that I've read this year. In multiple
| respects. I'd be dying to know where you get your daily news
| from. Because I have a friend thats thinks like you. He reads a
| lot of 9gag. Called me once in the middle of the night a year
| ago because "Putin was about to nuke us". We traced the source
| of his fear back to a fake news article dubbing over random
| Russian TV excerpts with vile subtitles. He's otherwise
| considered sane and a family man.
|
| Also: We're debating a lie. OP is a liar. How dumb can you be?
| vsnf wrote:
| Care to elaborate on why? It seems overly hopeful, not to
| mention somewhat dangerous to just assume western missile
| superiority, but it could also be true. It's not like MAD is
| a law of physics.
|
| Edit: when I replied, the parent poster consisted of one
| sentence claiming the idea to be dumb, with zero substantive
| refutations. They have since elaborated in their original
| post.
| Garvi wrote:
| You are aware you're using the word "hopeful" in a sentence
| that's exploring the killing of hundreds of millions humans
| for a perceived personal gain.
|
| Do you think such thinking is justified because of the
| Ukraine war? I suggest you start reading UN reports of
| actual observers on the ground and stop reading propaganda
| intended for halfwits.
|
| I also suggest you read the analysis of us military experts
| on the subject hypersonic missiles. This whole thread is
| vile nonsense.
| Garvi wrote:
| Feels like Reddit. Getting downvoted because I'm
| ridiculing the idea of preemptively nuking hundreds of
| million of people because "they're our enemy". A shameful
| display for mostly US engineers. Of course without
| replies. People who think genocide is a good idea usually
| aren't that good at expressing themselves.
| capdiz wrote:
| I feel your pain. On here, when it comes to anything to
| do with the Russia or China, it's best you stay quiet.
| You are dealing with most propagandized community when it
| comes to world affairs.
|
| PS. The downvotes don't put food on your table.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| > exploring the killing of hundreds of millions humans
| for a perceived personal gain.
|
| Nobody here is suggesting the US conduct a preemptive
| nuclear attack against Russia, or that it would be a good
| thing for humanity. The argument is merely that if a
| nuclear war was to break our (for whatever reason) the US
| now appears to have an edge over Russia.
| Garvi wrote:
| > if a nuclear war was to break our (for whatever reason)
| the US now appears to have an edge over Russia
|
| What does that mean? Are you not aware that even a
| relatively small amount of 10 average modern strategic
| nuclear weapons is enough to trigger a 100year nuclear
| winter? US and Russia have a combined number of 10k+ of
| them. I thought there were engineers on this forum.
| Saying what the OP did would get you fired in my company
| same as saying what you did. Not for the ideological
| implications, but because of the complete lack of
| critical thinking. Are you getting any of this?
| vsnf wrote:
| I am sympathetic to stance here, no one is claiming
| nuclear war would be anything other than catastrophic.
| But the question at hand here, and to which your charged
| reaction is causing you to miss, is whether or not such
| an analysis about western missile superiority could be
| true or not.
| Garvi wrote:
| > whether or not such an analysis about western missile
| superiority could be true or not
|
| I'll go with US military experts saying Russia has a
| clear edge in missile tech and the fact that 10k nukes
| kill the Earth 1000 times over. What you're saying is
| simply insane.
|
| The fact you're completely omitting my points made, means
| you're one of the people one cannot reach with reason.
| You'll cheer for your team and kill the enemy, no matter
| what that means exactly.
| sitkack wrote:
| It would plunge the whole world into chaos and billions of
| bystanders would die. It is an insane, repugnant idea.
| bangkoksbest wrote:
| If you write "I saw an analysis recently..." it's best to link
| to or at least describe the source of the analysis, otherwise
| the rest of us are just left with completely unsourced hearsay
| jrflowers wrote:
| Technically now that we've read that comment we too have read
| an analysis to that effect.
| Garvi wrote:
| Care to pass it around?
| username332211 wrote:
| >Instead, it was likely that most of the west's missiles would
| be able to disable most of Russia's weapons before they could
| get to their targets, while the reverse was not true.
|
| How is disabling _most_ of Russia 's nuclear missiles OK? How
| will wiping out _a few_ of North America 's urban centers
| ensure western dominance?
|
| Who made this analysis? The "Real American Association Against
| the Degenerate Urban Elites" or something?
| waveBidder wrote:
| "some of you may die, but that is a price I am willing to
| pay."
| elashri wrote:
| I wouldn't put the fate of humanity as a potential price for
| testing a hypothesis. I prefer trying to test the theory that
| we can produce a (Micro) black hole at CERN (Because it will
| not do what you think it will). That is an old and safe theory.
| tutfbhuf wrote:
| Disabling most is insufficient. All it takes is a few ICBMs
| hitting NY, LA, etc., and the calculation already becomes
| nonsensical. It would be intriguing, however, if it becomes
| possible in the future to intercept ICBMs during the launch
| phase using some kind of new technology. Even then, though, you
| would need to ensure a 100% success rate.
| FreakyT wrote:
| _> if it becomes possible in the future to intercept ICBMs
| during the launch phase using some kind of new technology_
|
| This was largely the concept of the Strategic Defense
| Initiative (aka Star Wars) in the 1980s:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| You should definitely test this theory, anonymous experts are
| certainly people you can trust with your life. #yolo
| defrost wrote:
| Article and related Xhitter (Oct 19)
|
| https://archive.md/EoqWY Congratulations to the
| integrated #NNSA team on successfully executing Shot A of their
| Physics Experiment 1 series @NNSANevada. Our talented workforce
| reduces global nuclear threats by continually improving detection
| of underground nuclear explosive tests.
|
| https://twitter.com/NNSAHruby/status/1714730603860390023
| Garvi wrote:
| Dear diary: Today I took part in a debate on an engineering forum
| on whether the US could take Russia in a nuclear war.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-23 09:01 UTC)