I tend to agree that these sorts of non-proliferation acts are long overdue, but as a young American it is perhaps hard for me to fully understand the history behind all of this. There aren’t any downsides, IMO, to cutting back on nuclear arms, although I’m sure some argue that they are a deterrent, but having so many around just seems insane, even 1,000 seems insane to me, and with the exception of destroying incoming objects from space I don’t really see any benefit to having them.
All ICBMs are designed to hit Earth-surface targets.
Besides – if an asteroid is headed for Earth, and it’s blown up with nuclear weapons, now instead of one big lump there are millions of fragments, with the same aggregate mass and kinetic energy as the whole thing, headed for Earth at exactly the same trajectory and velocity as the whole thing was, plus now they’re radioactive.
Nukes could perhaps be used effectively – if landed and detonated, say, on a point on the asteroid, selected not to destroy it but to divert its course so it misses Earth.
If one big asteroid is turned into millions of fragments, doesn’t that radically increase the surface area, which increases the chance it’ll burn up in the atmosphere?
Reducing nuclear stockpiles is a worthy goal in itself. However, why is this a priority? I was unaware that there is, at present, a high risk of nuclear confrontation with Russia.
The only one that springs to mind is that it would probably be costly in the short term. You don’t just yank these things out of the ground and toss them into a land fill. Also there would have to be a whole verification process put in place like last time, which is also costly.
None of these things are show stoppers, but I guess I’m not seeing the urgency here and we kind of have a lot of other important things on our plate. Most likely a large percentage of the Russians weapons are of, um, limited reliability in any case…so really this would be more of a priority for THEM than for US.
It won’t change our relationship at all IMHO.
I doubt it. What incentive would China have to reduce their nuclear arm? From their perspective why would they want too at this time?
We HAVE been reducing them since 1991. Both the Russians and the US has reduced their over all stockpiles significantly from from cold war levels. It really hasn’t been a priority for either of us to cut those stockpiles more however since, again, there really isn’t all that urgent a need to do so.
But as Brainglutton points out, the mass of rubble still has the same mass and energy. Burning up doesn’t keep that energy from hitting, and witha big asteroid the minor dissapation of the impact force makes no real difference.
Let me use an analogy. If I toss an inch wide steel ball bearing at you, that’ll hurt if it hits; if I grind it into dust and toss the dust at you with the same force most of it probably won’t even reach you due to air resistance. That’s like a small meteor burning up. Now; instead suppose I drop a thousand tons of steel on top of you. Whether it’s dust or solid, you’ll still squish; the sheer mass and kinetic energy are too huge, and air resistance doesn’t do much to stop it. That’s like a good sized asteroid hit.
It would actually be worse if we were hit by a rain of fragments than by one large piece. This all assumes our weapons could significantly fracture such a structure in the first place (and actually be reprogrammed in such a way as to even get to such a target), which I’m a bit skeptical of.
IIRC, it’s believed that many asteroids are largely lumps of rubble, and not very solid. One of the worries when it comes to deflecting an asteroid with a nuke is that we may not be able to prevent it from fragmenting. You’d need more of a gentle push - which isn’t what a nuclear warhead is best at.
Yes, that’s my recollection too, at least for some types of asteroids. Others are pretty solid. I’m unsure if the current ICBM’s could be reprogrammed (or even have the ability) to intercept an asteroid…and I’m unsure what effect a nuclear explosion would have on even one of the loose asteroids.
A better plan to stop an incoming meteor would be to send one or more small devices (designed to maximize x-ray output) in a large reflective cavity with a thick plastic plug in one end, in effect making a tamped charge. Once it detonates (with the plug end facing the meteor) the plug absorbs x-rays and vaporizes, leaving a dense cloud of gas with high rearward or lateral momentum which impacts the meteor and diverts it onto a non-intercept trajectory without a large shocking impulse. This, of course, assumes the capability to launch the device(s) and intercept the incoming threat at interplanetary distances; greater than what conventional ICBMs can achieve. (Large ICBMs like the R-36M ‘Satan’ or the LGM-118A ‘Peacekeeper’ can deliver payloads to orbit, but do not have enough additional impulse or payload capacity to achieve an Earth-escape trajectory.)
As for reducing the number of weapons in stockpile, this is desirable not only from a security standpoint but also reducing maintenance costs and reliability. The notion of parity and overwhelming force as a deterrent was questionable even when there were only two major nuclear powers, and in the post-Cold War environment with current and inevitably increasing nuclear proliferation, it simply doesn’t make a lot of sense to maintain a large arsenal.
You don’t think the best plan would be to send a small dedicated team of miners on an experimental shuttle to drill a hole 400 feet deep in order to place an explosive nuke and blow the entire thing into scrap (with the two halves just missing the earth and saving the day)?
Reprogramming would not be enough, you’d have to redesign them. ICBMs are not made to launch at targets beyond the atmosphere. Actually, you’d have to put the warheads in a completely different kind of rocket.
Because they have no more practical use for nuclear weapons than we have, and must spend money maintaining them, etc. They only got the damned things in the first place to keep up with Sam and Ivan.
Well, there you are wrong. They DO have a very practical purpose…they serve the purpose of enhancing the power and prestige of the nation that is maintaining them. From Russia’s perspective they give the illusion that they are still a military superpower…illusion because I doubt they ARE maintaining them very well these days, nor that they maintained them very well for the last decade or so. For China they give the veneer of superpower-hood as well, saying that China is in the big leagues. That alone is DEFINITELY worth the rather modest expense for the Chinese of maintaining the nasty things.
The US of course derives similar benefits, as do the Euro’s who still have them. Why do you think they still DO have the things after all, when the US has deterrent enough for everyone? AFAIK both the French and the Brits still maintain a small arsenal of nuclear weapons, despite the fact that neither country really needs them and both could do without the expense.
I used to work in arms control, as an inspector, interpreter, and escort (for when their side visits our side). Doesn’t make me an expert, but IMHO,
Whenever an arms control treaty comes into force, it involves inspection and ensuring of compliance with the terms of the treaty. The whole process keeps both sides working together and talking. At first, both inspection teams visiting the other side think “what are they hiding? Gotta find it.” After awhile they realize the other side isn’t doing anything nefarious, and they spend their time getting to know each other (and pounding vodka shots).
It’s great that x number of weapons get decommissioned or destroyed or buried or whatever, but what is really important is both sides are entwined, and talking, and getting to know each other and feel comfortable with each other.
Will China be next? Oh, hell yeah. They don’t want to be left out of these sorts of relationships.
Of course on the flip side, ANY money they do spend on the worthless things is money they CANT spend on useful weapons, lobbyists, terrorists schools etc etc.
Maybe Reagan was right, lets keep a big ass nuclear force, bankrupting everyone else who tries to “keep up”