
US halts recent practice of disclosing nuclear weapon total - jonbaer
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/04/18/us-halts-recent-practice-of-disclosing-nuclear-weapon-total/
======
AnIdiotOnTheNet
After a brief period of time when the cold war was over and the threat of
imminent nuclear annihilation at least seemed to be a thing of the past, the
people of the US collectively decided that there just weren't enough
existential threats in their lives and elected morons to make things more
interesting.

~~~
meko
Of course you're being cheeky but "collectively decided" doesn't fit the bill
here. We didn't collectively decide anything.

------
thatoneuser
I also saw russias recent video of their new insane weaponry. I don't have the
long term scope on this section of the news, is this just routine flexing on
both parts or is something more serious going on?

~~~
steve19
Russia has been publishing videos about ultra high tech weapons and even doing
comical leaks of "secret" defense technology for years. I remember one "leak",
although I can't remember if it was the nuke torpedo or something else, where
they were doing a press briefing about some weapon but "accidently" left a
classified poster up in the room detailing some super secret high tech weapon.
It was clearly put there so the press would see it and make headlines about
secret new Russian technology. Even if legit, they are prone to hype it.

I wouldn't worry about it, anymore than they worry about darpa's latest
experiments. Sure maybe one day we will have easily cooled rail guns... But
nobody in Russia is worried on the off chance we we actually figure it out in
25 years time.

The worst offenders are definitely Iran who are known to outright fake photos
of weapons tests that never happened (or happened poorly).

~~~
darkpuma
As I understand it, the so called KANYON/Poseidon nuclear torpedo is likely a
real project, albeit with somewhat exaggerated capabilities. The Project 09852
/ Belgorod submarine is certainly real, and there is some reason to believe it
is being created in part to carry and launch those massive torpedoes.

But supposing its claimed capabilities were accurate, 10,000 km at 100 km/h
would take the torpedo _over four days_. The original claim of 185 km/h is
much faster, but travel time would still be measured on the order of days.
It's fast enough to be very noisy but slow enough to be seen coming days away;
totally nonsensical for a first strike weapon. The conclusion is that _if_
such a torpedo is in development, it's intended as a retaliation weapon.

~~~
AstralStorm
Or perhaps covert local-ish deployment from places closer than 10 Mm.
Essentially a medium range torpedo with higher top speed.

~~~
siffland
Would not that of violated the I.N.F treaty? This is a serious question
because I am not sure.

~~~
SiempreViernes
No, INF treaty is about ground launched weapons, the same thing launched by
boats are fine.

On of the things the Russians did was to take a boat launched weapon capable
of INF prohibited ranges, putting it on the ground but only testing it out to
ranges allowed by the INF. )I think they put something heavier on it so it
wouldn't go as far as the naval version.)

------
bonoboTP
How do we even know they disclosed the true numbers before? This is a serious
strategic game (in the game theory sense) and what and whether they disclose
may be just part of the game.

Who can check that the numbers are correct? And could they credibly prove it?
Would they be interested in (allowed to) do that?

~~~
SiempreViernes
For one thing it was very close to the open source estimate, meaning the
number is consistent with other publicly known facts about the program.

There also isn't any real gain from keeping the total number secret above the
advantage that keeping their _location_ secret gives. Not disclosing totals
probably doesn't even make napkin level invasion planning harder since at that
level reasonable estimates will do.

On the other hand it does make _you_ a more suspicious actor in the strategic
game as hiding harmless information is a clear sign of paranoia.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Keeping totals secret could me maintaining secrecy of some locations -- if
your number is much higher than your "enemies" then they're likely to have
missed some locations, especially under a backdrop of CND where over-
estimation by the state would be politically unhelpful.

~~~
SiempreViernes
How so? You can in principle store a nuke in anything with a roof so you need
quite silly numbers before before storage space places any important
geographical constraints.

Simple considerations on where things have to placed to be on hand for actual
use are likely much more useful for locating storage sites; and if you hide a
lot of nukes where they can't be accessed in times of need that's just
inefficiencies that helps your opponent.

~~~
xur17
> How so? You can in principle store a nuke in anything with a roof so you
> need quite silly numbers before before storage space places any important
> geographical constraints.

Because countries monitor their enemies. If Russia publishes that they have 50
nukes, and we know of 5 locations that each have what we estimate to be 10
nukes, we can be pretty confident that we know of all of their storage
locations.

~~~
SiempreViernes
You need five _reliable_ estimates, which a total doesn't give you.

In any case, if you have that sort of access to count the nukes in program
that small it is simply not plausible that you wouldn't know of all the bases
anyway.

------
factsaresacred
Recent and relevant talk on Nuclear Weapons and International Security by John
Mearsheimer here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdvdKdnpCRg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdvdKdnpCRg)

> _" Great powers constantly try to gain nuclear advantage over their rivals
> and they do it because there is powerful incentives to do so"_

> _" The ideal strategy is to be the only power in the system that has nuclear
> weapons...however desirable this situation is, no state is going to achieve
> nuclear monopoly in our lifetime. (So) the best outcome a great power can
> hope for is to acquire the capability to launch a splendid first-strike
> against each of its adversary"_

Being opaque on capabilities when it comes to nuclear weapons (especially when
other great powers are being opaque) makes strategic sense.

------
minikites
[https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-
whi...](https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-
whistleblowers-raise-grave-concerns-with-white-house-efforts-to)

>The report warns that that White House efforts to transfer sensitive U.S.
nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia may be accelerating after meetings last
week at the White House and ahead of a planned visit to Saudi Arabia by the
President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner

Between the originally posted link, the link in my comment, and Rick Perry
bailing out of the Department of Energy, this is shaping up to be a very grim
situation.

~~~
adolph
What’s wrong with Perry quitting Energy? Wasn’t his appointment an elaborate
practical joke, in that it was the federal department he wanted to shut down
but forgot the name of?

~~~
mrguyorama
>Wasn’t his appointment an elaborate practical joke, in that it was the
federal department he wanted to shut down but forgot the name of

Do not downplay this appointment. It was not a joke. Attempting to dismantle
government institutions is stated republican policy.

------
doggydogs94
Disclosing military data (like nuclear weapon counts) is just a bad idea.
Granted, the approximate numbers are not that difficult to figure out, but why
give it away for free; make Russia and China expend resources to get the data.

------
baybal2
> US halts recent practice of disclosing nuclear weapon total

I think America's biggest error in WWII was the disclosure of nuclear weapons
existence. If America was able to keep that secret, it would have had the one
and only card in its sleeve that could've stalled USSR's tank armies in
Europe.

Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until
eighties, and would've somebody more ambitious came to USSR's political arena
instead of Brezhnev, even that would be under question.

WWIII in Europe was barely avoided twice with Stalin's unexpected death, and
Khrushev's "retirement." That gave NATO 20+ years to prop up defences.

~~~
AsyncAwait
I think it's naive to assume that the Soviets learned of nuclear bombs once
they were dropped in Japan. It's well documented that they knew and were doing
research way before that. If you're developing it, somebody you don't want is
always going to know.

> Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until
> eighties

Eh? France had their independently developed nukes in the 60s.

This comment also boldly assumes that the Soviets had a stronger urge to march
with tanks into Europe than the U.S. has to march into Russia, which is not a
given.

But putting all that aside, assuming the U.S. were able to keep it secret,
what makes you think that that's necessarily a good thing? Do you really
naively assume that all the U.S. cares about are 'liberal values'? The U.S.
does not enjoy the universal 'good guys' reputation in many places around the
world, for solid reasons.

So to me, it seems far better that MAD exists, it keeps everyone from becoming
too drunk with power.

~~~
baybal2
Those arguments are very easy to parry. Even in the scenarios where Soviets
got a bomb, I believe keeping it secret would've been of great military value

And remember, Soviets gave no shit about the nuke even after first hydrogen
bomb test, thinking of it as an impractical weapon. Were not its use in war,
Soviet nuclear project could've ended just being a stack of documents on the
shelf without political backing, and them not fully realising how to deal with
being attacked themselves.

Imagine yourself in such a situation:

You encounter robbers on the street, they demand money. You know for sure that
you will either be robbed and killed after you give money, or be killed and
then robbed if you don't give them money and try defending yourself.

Now, will you threaten them retaliation from the start, brandishing your
weapon, or hide the weapon and play an easy victim until the very last moment,
to try your chance in a surprise attack when they let their guard down?

~~~
nyolfen
> Those arguments are very easy to parry. Even in the scenarios where Soviets
> got a bomb, I believe keeping it secret would've been of great military
> value

it was never a secret wrt the ussr. the manhattan project was riddled with
communist spies.

~~~
mrguyorama
Even Germany had an inkling of what was going on. The research papers before
the war were talking about possibilities like bombs, and then there was
suddenly radio silence on the issue. The physicists left in the Axis
understood what that meant

