
The nuke detectives – New ways to detect covert nuclear weapons - svepuri
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21662652-clandestine-weapons-new-ways-detect-covert-nuclear-weapons-are-being-developed
======
cnvogel
I find it quite shocking how openly this article boasts about violation of
everyones' privacy regarding "network analysis" (in the section about
intelligence gathering, "The latest kit").

Quotes: "thanks to advances in “network analysis” software", "fed with
people’s e-mails, schooling, web surfing, phone calls, banking transactions
and purchases, the programs try to work out who might be a terrorist." ...

And while US americans might claim that this is of course only allowed to be
used on foreigners (ignoring evidence to the contrary that just abut every
countries intelligence services seems to spy on everyone including their own
citizens), they explicitly mention someone who traveled abroad, comes back,
and then gets his phone records screened.

~~~
visarga
It is kind of similar to the Chinese "credit" rating that is also talked about
in today's news.

------
rdl
The thing that scares me is anything which eliminates the fissile isotope
production as a step. Everything else is essentially trivial and could
probably be done covertly or brazenly by a state or even a well resourced non-
state actor.

Fission-free fusion is probably not realistic at this point (but, if it were
developed, would be terrifying), but I think the technology curve for some
form of laser isotope separation is disconnected from "special nuclear stuff"
and much more "advances in mainstream science.

I'm completely amazed there hasn't been an openly documented theft of either
nuclear materials or weapons and subsequent nuclear declaration by a new state
or non-state. It seemed self-evident that would happen post-USSR collapse. I
suspect some combination of luck and extremely good work by the IC in both
Russia and non-Russia had a lot to do with that. Plus, the states most likely
to want the weapons already had other pathways, although it's always possible
something like the Pakistani or NK or Iranian program "launders" stolen
material through some other more overt pipeline, using a "completely working,
honest" enrichment process to cover for it. But the isotopic mixes are
identifiable, so we'd know once they detonated where material came from.

~~~
saboot
> The thing that scares me is anything which eliminates the fissile isotope
> production as a step.

Why do you think we invest in NIF and other fusion projects?

~~~
rdl
To do testing after CBT (validating models), fundamental research, and to a
lesser extent, fusion power research.

(Well, the primary reason is to spend money.)

~~~
rdl
(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty CTBT, not CBT)

------
jakeogh
Most of the damage from a future 'rogue' nuke may be done by our reaction to
it. Like the modern Pearl Harbor's fallout around us.

Edit: spelling

~~~
TeMPOraL
Or like the 9/11 attacks.

------
jilebedev
> Once a country has a nuclear bomb or two, there is not much other
> governments can do to stop it from making more, says Ilan Goldenberg, a
> former head of the Iran team at the Pentagon. Plenty of states want such
> capabilities.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue)

The unstated implication is that weapons and military power are for the US,
and its allies. Others can't have any.

The brazen arrogance of that idea is probably among the chief reasons the US
is so vehemently and passionately disliked throughout the world.

What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond
the fact that it threatens US power?

~~~
lsd5you
You may not agree with it, but I don't think the disbelief is warranted. There
may be other less pure motivations but there is a pretty simple moral case -
proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war

\- because more states have them. Increasing risk proportionately (?).

\- because more unstable/nefarious states have them, which are more likely to
use them. This is of course somewhat debateable, but nevertheless plenty of
people believe this and they're not flatearthists.

Taking an entitlement point of view just seems to be missing the point. It
does however explain why these other states want them and resent the US/the
West.

~~~
jilebedev
> proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war

Again, the unstated implication is that the US has a moral right to shepherd
the rest of the world to the correct moral conclusion to this situation. The
rest of the world is just too damn ignorant to figure out how to not murder
everyone with nukes, so the US has to have the hard job of controlling the
nuclear stockpiles of the world. It's tough having that moral high ground, but
someone's got to do it.

The US has committed crimes of war with nuclear weapons against _civilians_ :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)

The fact of the matter is that knowledge cannot be suppressed. The ability to
create and operate nuclear weapons is not something that is going to be a
controlled secrete for very long - if it is at all. The current policy of the
US asserting its power over the rest of the world is only going to ensure that
when this knowledge is common, it will most certainly be used to ensure the
end of the US power.

~~~
bardworx
There are a few issues with your assumption that, and this is coming from an
immigrant of former USSR. 1\. It's not the nation-states that posses nuclear
weapons that are the most dangerous, it is a possibility of an extremist group
getting nuclear weapons. Countries has something to fear, a small
criminal/terrorist organization does not.

2\. US and Russia has similar nuclear stockpiles, how come economic
distribution is different between the two? Nuclear weapons does not make you a
"super-power", economy does. Example: Germany has no nuclear weapons yet are
an economic power.

------
bane
> And on top of that, the United States Air Force runs a detection network
> that includes satellites that can spot nuclear-weapons tests.

Always curious about this, but how do satellites detect the tests? Especially
underground/water ones?

~~~
svepuri
This article explains how satellites can detect "underground" nuclear
explosions [http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-
detect-u...](http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-detect-
underground-nuclear-explosions)

~~~
bane
Thanks, that's very helpful. I've heard that the GPS system has a second
function to detect nuke tests, now I see how. It can be considered a
lightweight global surveillance system that gives a useful benefit when things
aren't blowing up.

------
tallerholler
paywall :/

~~~
mrep
open in incognito

~~~
svepuri
Thanks for that suggestion :)

