Thursday, 12 October 2017

“The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.” -Sagan

quote [ The fat orange idiot told the military that he wanted to increase our nuclear arsenal by ten times, which is what prompted his own cabinet to call a “fucking moron”.
by moby323 ]

This is the basis for the Moron comment and the wanting to have the FCC pull NBC's license even though they don't even license networks only local stations.

Here is a good techinal explaination I saw on Reddit by isleepinahammock

Not only that, it would be an absolutely colossal waste of money. You can't just build nukes and leave them on the shelf indefinitely. By their very nature, they are made of radioisotopes that decay with a certain half life. Wait a few decades and the uranium, plutonium, etc in them have degraded to the point of being useless as bombs. On the one hand, this can be useful. The US actually managed to lose a few nuclear weapons back in the 1950s and 1960s. We don't have to worry about these. There's also probably a few old nukes still sitting in the hulk of the K-129), but we don't have to worry about those either. Even if some terrorist group somehow managed to recover one of these old rusted bombs, the radioactive cores would be far too degraded to make usable bombs out of them. Sure, you could reprocess and repurify them, but the equipment needed to do that is the exact same equipment needed to enrich uranium in the first place. If your terrorist group has that level of infrastructure, you don't need to go dredging old shipwrecks for free nukes.

Anyway, the point is that nukes require a lot of heavy maintenance. They only have a shelf life of 20-30 years. After that you basically have to completely remake them. The explosives become unreliable, and the radioactive cores decay. You have to put in new explosives, replace the electronics, and melt down and re-enrich all of the radioactive elements.

This means nuclear weapons aren't a one time cost. A nation can't just buy or build nukes and just keep them around. If you want a credible nuclear deterrent, your nation needs to have a factory making and remaking nuclear bombs indefinitely. And the expense of this is going to be directly related to the number of bombs you want to maintain. It's not linear, ten times the bombs doesn't quite mean ten times the cost, but it is correlated. So ten times the bombs likely means 7 or 8 times the annual cost. Oh, and ten times more bombs also means ten times more bombs to keep track of, ten times the chance of one "falling off the back of the truck," getting stolen by a terrorist group, etc.

Ultimately, any nukes beyond what you need for a credible deterrent are nothing more than a massive financial waste. The US currently has 4400 deployable nuclear warheads. And even this is massive overkill. We could easily reduce this to 1000, 500, or even 250 and still maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. The whole idea of a nuclear deterrent is to make any major war against the United States not worth it. Even if the US has "only" 250 hydrogen bombs, it means any invasion or occupation US territory is unproductive. Whatever resources, territory, populations, etc an invader might hope to gain by invading the US would be canceled a hundred fold by the massive mushroom clouds exploding over their fifty largest cities.

The US arsenal is already massive overkill. Increasing it ten fold really is pure idiocy. We used to have an arsenal of about that size, and the only semi-rational justification for it then was the extremely poor accuracy of early ballistic missiles. If your missile only has a ten percent chance of landing within a few miles of the center of the city you're aiming at, or if you have to deliver warheads by bombers and you figure 2/3 of them will be shot down before dropping their bombs, you can justify having way more warheads than you need. You figure 50, 75, 90 percent will not arrive at their targets and compensate with raw numbers.

This doesn't apply to modern nukes. They're as "smart" as any of our other smart weapons and can reliably hit within a very short distance of their intended target. Our modern arsenal of 4,400 250 kiloton bombs is far more lethal than our 1960s arsenal of 30,000 500-2000 kiloton bombs, due to their reliability and precision.

Trump of course doesn't know any of this. And he would fall asleep, or lose focus and go back to twitter before reading even a modest post the length of this one explaining these things in a very simplified manner.

TLDR it is a stupid idea cost too much and is not feasible to store nukes.

Point is we can tack this up in the long list of things Trump doesn't the nuclear triad ,arms agreements, or nuclear nonproliferation.

This is why we now know that Tillerson called him a "Fucking Moron", this why the Nixon like attempt to punish the press.
that reported the stupidity.

This all ahead of a Summit with the Chinese, North Korea saber rattling, and his own staff turning on him...even Bannon saying there is only a 30% chance he finishes his term...and there is this Russian thing.

McCain scolds Trump for missing Russian sanctions deadline

Imagine that... its like he is trying not to make them mad or something...

In recent days, I’ve spoken with a half dozen prominent Republicans and Trump advisers, and they all describe a White House in crisis as advisers struggle to contain a president that seems to be increasingly unfocused and consumed by dark moods.

Here is a little reminder of his previous staments

Here's What Donald Trump Has Said About Nuclear Weapons

[SFW] [politics]
[by bbqkink@12:34amGMT]


bbqkink said @ 1:44am GMT on 12th Oct [Score:1 WTF]
I’ve always thought about the issue of nuclear war; it’s a very important element in my thought process. It’s the ultimate, the ultimate catastrophe, the biggest problem this world has, and nobody’s focusing on the nuts and bolts of it. It’s a little like sickness. People don’t believe they’re going to get sick until they do. Nobody wants to talk about it. I believe the greatest of all stupidities is people’s believing it will never happen, because everybody knows how destructive it will be, so nobody uses weapons. What bullshit…It’s like thinking the Titanic can’t sink. Too many countries have nuclear weapons; nobody knows where they’re all pointed, what button it takes to launch them.

Why You Really Should Be Terrified About Trump and Nuclear Weapons
bbqkink said @ 1:03am GMT on 12th Oct
bbqkink said[1] @ 2:58am GMT on 12th Oct
This explains it... It is Obama's fault that Trump has to start a war with NK.

Now China's been very helpful, I think," he said. "I think. Who knows? They seem to be very helpful. They cut off banking to North Korea, that's something they've never done before. They've cut down, way down, on the fuel and a lot of other things."

"We're going to see what happens," he added.

Trump: Obama 'should have taken care of' North Korea

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings