Nuclear Bomb Test

[JB99]

@XT

Well, I knew about most of that, and it still doesn’t seem to answer the question. We can build up our own arsenal if that would even be necessary (:dubious:)…it’s not like we’ve forgotten how to build nukes or that we don’t have libraries full of data and simulations to work from to build new ones. As for the rest, that seems to be, again, a launch vehicle issue, which certainly IS something Russia is supposedly working on. But it doesn’t have anything, as far as I can see, to do with the payload.

Then I’m confused as to the nature of your question. When you asked, ‘Where is this coming from?’ I interpreted it as, ‘Why are conservatives suddenly concerned with our arms race?’

What would we accomplish with some new generation of nuclear weapons? We can already dial up the yield…in fact, we actually have variable yield nukes where we can, on the fly (sort of) dial up or down the yield. We can already make them more powerful. And I don’t see an issue with making them smaller, if that’s the issue…we have done that and, I suppose, could go smaller if we really wanted too without any new generation of the things. Like I said, I’m baffled…I don’t get it. New launch vehicles with new capabilities? Yeah, I get that. But…new generation of nukes? And we are falling behind some great new nukes Russia and China are making (I asked the rather, to me, leading question of…well, how are THEY building them when they aren’t able to do full tests either? No response except to point out I’m not a nuclear physicist, as if that matters wrt the discussion, especially since they aren’t either :p).

That’s a question for your acquaintances. They made the claim that the US is somehow ‘falling behind’ (or whatever), so they bear the responsibility to explain exactly how the US is deficient. If they cannot, then their opinions are worth nothing. Arguing with someone who cannot offer actual facts to support their ideas is a waste of everyone’s time.

FWIW… If the enemy has X weapon capability, it does not follow that we also need X weapon capability. The last 70 years of strategic deterrence has been built on the credibility of our nuclear arsenal. The only question that truly matters is: “Can we inflict an unacceptable amount of damage on the enemy?” If the enemy believes that any course of action will result in an unacceptable outcome, then we have achieved our goal of presenting a credible deterrent. Increasing the yield or capability of the bombs beyond that point doesn’t actually make any difference. As we’ve already pointed out, when you can credibly threaten your enemy with total destruction, it doesn’t really matter if you can destroy it two or three more times.

[XT]

@JB99

Then I’m confused as to the nature of your question. When you asked, ‘Where is this coming from?’ I interpreted it as, ‘Why are conservatives suddenly concerned with our arms race?’

No, it seemed to me to be a very specific (weirdly so) assertion, so was wondering if some of the board conservatives knew where it was coming from. I can understand concerns about the reliability of our arsenal. That’s a valid concern, though we DO inspect the things and have good simulation data that can be used to judge reliability of the arsenal as a whole, at least that’s my understanding. No…this was about, specifically developing new nukes. Not making more nukes along the lines of what we can already do, not building the numbers, not even checking the reliability of the ones we have, but developing new ones. Which makes no sense, to me at least.

That’s a question for your acquaintances. They made the claim that the US is somehow ‘falling behind’ (or whatever), so they bear the responsibility to explain exactly how the US is deficient. If they cannot, then their opinions are worth nothing. Arguing with someone who cannot offer actual facts to support their ideas is a waste of everyone’s time.

FWIW… If the enemy has X weapon capability, it does not follow that we also need X weapon capability. The last 70 years of strategic deterrence has been built on the credibility of our nuclear arsenal. The only question that truly matters is: “Can we inflict an unacceptable amount of damage on the enemy?” If the enemy believes that any course of action will result in an unacceptable outcome, then we have achieved our goal of presenting a credible deterrent. Increasing the yield or capability of the bombs beyond that point doesn’t actually make any difference. As we’ve already pointed out, when you can credibly threaten your enemy with total destruction, it doesn’t really matter if you can destroy it two or three more times.

It probably is a waste of time, and they weren’t able to even articulate, at least so I could get the gist, where or why they were claiming what they were. Again, I asked here in case some of the boards conservatives could shed some light on where this is coming from and perhaps give me some idea of why anyone is even worried about this aspect. If not, it’s cool. It hasn’t been worth my time to try and dig through Fox or other conservative news or blogs to try and track it down…was just curious if any 'dopers knew where it’s coming from or what it’s about.