On the Nuclear Posture Review. He goes on about more aspects of it than I did yesterday, but his conclusions in that area are very similar to mine.
Moreover, I find the elaborate scenarios that nuclear strategists dream up to justify new weapons to be both militarily and politically unrealistic. They tend to assume that complex military operations will go off without a hitch the very first time they are attempted (and in the crucible of a nuclear crisis), and they further assume that political leaders in the real world would be willing to order the slaughter of millions for something less than existential stakes. My main concern has been that some gullible politician would actually believe that one of these elaborate scenarios would actually work and might therefore be tempted to try it. Just as bad: An adversary might think the United States thought it could win such a war and might decide it had no choice but to try to hit it first.
I also find the obsession with matching capabilities at every rung of some hypothetical “escalation ladder” to be slightly absurd. Is it realistic to think that U.S. leaders defending vital interests against a possible Russian threat would be stymied because they didn’t have a capability that exactly mirrored whatever Russia had or was threatening to do? Would a top advisor really say to the president: “Oh dear, sir, Russia just threatened to attack with a nuclear weapon with a yield of 7.2 kilotons. We have lots of 5-kiloton bombs and lots of 11-kiloton bombs all ready to go, but if we use the little one, they’ll think we’re wimps, and if we use the big one, then the onus of escalation will be on us. I guess they’ve got us over the whing-whang, sir, and we’ll just have to do whatever Putin says. If only we had built more 7.2 kiloton bombs than they did!”
His second question and answer are good.
Question 2: Why doesn’t the United States have more faith in nuclear deterrence?
Answer: Because threat-inflators are more numerous than threat-deflators.
It’s easier in today’s Washington, DC, to say “We don’t know that Russia/China/North Korea isn’t beefing up their arsenal so as to get an advantage on us” than it is to work out what the situation most likely is in a real world with real constraints. So you’ll see again and again that North Korea could have 60-80 nuclear weapons ready to go. That derives from a statement of estimated fissile material, divided by the amount that might be needed for a bomb, both very uncertain numbers. It ignores the time and facilities it takes to build the weapons. I did a more realistic estimate a while back.
There’s also a macho edge that we have to have more/better than anyone else, exacerbated by Trump’s insecure masculinity. Chest-pounding is IN.
Walt’s article is longer than mine, but very worth reading.
Cross-posted at Nuclear Diner.
Cermet
Considering the vast array of MIRV’ed missiles, and tactical nukes, exactly what new weapons do we need to kill a few thousand or all human life? I know we have it covered – this is an excuse to start underground testing since NIF failed so miserably.
Brachiator
Very elegantly stated observations. It’s as though the people who dream up these scenarios are envisioning a game of chess in which each side is moving perfectly equivalent pieces and removing them from the board as they are captured by the opponent. The only problem is that the “board” in the real world would be a planet devastated by nuclear destruction.
I’m looking forward to reading the entire piece.
Aardvark Cheeselog
I used to be sort of an amateur scholar of nuclear-war-fighting strategies, having the same sort of fascination with them that motivates people to watch horror movies and gawk at train wrecks. For a long time I thought we were done with that sort of wanking.
Skippy-san
Here is the thing. Trump has no problem with the slaughter of millions so long as they are Asian or Black. Or Mexican. He truly believes he can keep the genie in the bottle, and sadly , there are military advisors telling him that he can. We may be able to crush NK with tactical nukes, but not before they kill thousands of South Koreans and Americans.
? ?? Goku (aka Baka Amerikahito) ? ?
@Skippy-san:
Trump would be a butcher if that occurred and millions of Americans would demand his head on a platter. Could the UN do anything substantive?
Tom
@Cermet: Regarding underground testing, from 1951 through 1992 the United States detonated a total of 982 nuclear weapons at the Nevada National Security Site [NNSS] (known as the Nevada Test Site [NTS] back in the day)*. This is roughly one every 15 days for 41 years. Now, I’m not a nuclear physicist or weapons expert, but when I first learned this my immediate question was “What did we not learn from the first 981 that made 982 necessary?” I could understand the desire today to make a few tests to see what effect aging has on the weapons, but to me it seems like back in the day the program just took on a life of its own.
*Some of the early tests were above ground, but the vast majority were underground beneath the surface of Yucca Flat. Google “Yucca Flat images” and have a look at the aerial and satellite views. Amazing!
Yutsano
“A STRANGE GAME.”
“THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS NOT TO PLAY.”
…
“HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?”
TenguPhule
Trump’s Manboobs will cry.
The Moar You Know
@? ?? Goku (aka Baka Amerikahito) ? ?: There’s a long and complex correct answer to this, but the 90% answer will suffice: no.
TenguPhule
@Yutsano:
And then the orange pigeon shit on the chessboard, knocked all the pieces over and ordered a nuclear first strike.
Matt McIrvin
@? ?? Goku (aka Baka Amerikahito) ? ?: I wouldn’t be so sure. I remember 9/11, and how mass trauma makes people rally around the Leader. This would be far worse.
TenguPhule
@Skippy-san:
You’re off by about two orders of magnitude there.
? ?? Goku (aka Baka Amerikahito) ? ?
@Matt McIrvin:
Bush had charisma. He also wasn’t a dick on the level of Trump. Instead of the rallying around the leader, what’s more likely to happen is the WH is overrun by a mob and Trump is strung up on the South Portico.
TenguPhule
@Aardvark Cheeselog:
They dusted off the old plans with Bush Jr.
I expect they simply updated them for Donald by using colored markers to draw simple pictograms.
Spanky
A shred that belongs down below, but you people are so fickle:
Per CNN.
Cheryl Rofer
@Tom: Two years ago, the former director of testing at Los Alamos, gave an open talk on resuming nuclear testing that I summarized here. The short version is that we simply can’t test at the Nevada Test Site again, and it will take something like a billion dollars and finding a new site.
However, I saw recently that some Trump advisors just want to pop one off quickly to make a point.
narya
Fun (and completely irrelevant) fact: I helped him gut a house when I was in grad school. He and his wife were doing a gut rehab, and did a lot of the “gut” part themselves. My life was such that swinging a sledgehammer and destroying shit was a satisfying way to get rid of some frustrations.
realbtl
@TenguPhule: Not on THAT chessboard.
TenguPhule
@Cheryl Rofer:
So Trump will do it on the cheap in Oklahoma. Or California. And cite national security as justification.
? ?? Goku (aka Baka Amerikahito) ? ?
@Matt McIrvin:
In addition, any nuclear/conventional exchange would probably be provoked by Trump. Ergo, he would be clearly at fault and deemed a de facto war criminal.
Mike in DC
A progressive nuclear weapons policy:
1. No first use
2. Steady bilateral arsenal reductions
3. Push for gradual global denuclearization
Ceci n est pas mon nym
@Spanky: Meaning questions like “Ms. Hicks, what time do you have?” And “Ms. Hicks, what time can you be here tomorrow?”
TenguPhule
I live in a nation where the Disney Channel is advertising a kid’s cartoon toy line up based on ANTHROPOMORPHIC POOP. And this nation is not Japan.
NOTHING MATTERS ANYMORE.
/sob sob sob
rikyrah
Phucking trash.The entire lot of them.
Trump administration fights states’ crackdown on student loan collectors
02/26/2018 03:18 PM EST
The Trump administration is taking steps to shield student loan collection companies from state regulators, over the objections of consumer advocates and even some Republican attorneys general.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is preparing to issue a declaration that companies collecting federal student loans are off limits for state lawmakers and regulators. The “notice of interpretation” argues that only the federal government, not the states, has the authority to oversee federal student loan servicers, according to a draft of the document obtained by POLITICO. That includes industry giants like Navient and Nelnet.
Consumer advocates are highly critical. “It’s not surprising that this administration is weighing in on the side of industry over students and taxpayers,” said Whitney Barkley-Denney, legislative policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, a consumer group. “This is just a different verse of the same song we’ve been hearing over the past year” from the Education Department.
Ceci n est pas mon nym
@TenguPhule: Disney kid movies have had fart and puke jokes forever. Moana actually had a fairly explicit pee joke.
Short step from there to talking poop.
Now get off my lawn.
Brachiator
@TenguPhule:
That’s kinda shitty.
Roger Moore
@Skippy-san:
Or in states that voted for Hillary.
Spanky
@Roger Moore: That’s what Skippy-san said.
Villago Delenda Est
The short fingered vulgarian has infinite dick size anxiety.
rikyrah
What happens when a foreign government investigates a Trump business?
02/27/18 12:44 PM
By Steve Benen
Donald Trump’s domestic properties are at the center of some important controversies, but to fully appreciate the ethics messes surrounding this president, it’s also worth looking abroad.
………………………….
All of this may seem a little comedic, but now that the Trump Organization is under investigation by Panamanian prosecutors, the situation is rather serious – and without precedent.
If this were simply a matter of an American business facing a foreign investigation, we’d expect the controversy to be resolved in the courts, possibly drawing the interest of the State Department, depending on the severity of the circumstances.
But while the sitting American president no longer controls the day-to-day operations of the Trump Organization, he does still own and profit from it. In practical terms, when prosecutors in Panama investigate the Trump Organization, they’re examining whether the American president’s business committed a crime.
Jordan Libowitz, a spokesperson for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) told the Post, “The fear has always been that there would be an international incident involving the finances of the president, and the president would have his loyalties questioned…. What kind of pressure would he be willing to place on [foreign authorities]?”
Adam L Silverman
The other issue here is that while one is supposed to do war planning based on capabilities, not intentions, the reality is no war planner is going to produce a plan and sequels that gets that far into the weeds. There will be sequels that focus on this type of contingency, but the inability to match weapon for weapon is a bit much. The point of US military readiness, such as it is, as well as doctrine, concept, and strategic posture is superiority. The US has Airpower superiority. No other state’s air force, or air force and aviation components of other services, can compete against the US Air Force, the US Navy and Marine Corps aviation components in head to head air combat. The same idea goes into close/combat air support for the battlefield. Hence the fight to keep the A10 Warthog.
Similarly, the US Navy seeks to maintain superiority for the projection of Seapower, including their air combat component, as well as Amphibious power within the Marine Corps and the Marine’s own air component. And the US Army seeks to maintain superiority for the application of Landpower in ground combat.
Adam L Silverman
This isn’t marked with any classification headers or footers, so I’ll go ahead and link to it here. The previously number Joint Publication 3-12: Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf
Here’s the US Air Force 3-72 Annex
http://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/Annex_3-72/3-72-Annex-NUCLEAR-OPS.pdf?ver=2017-09-19-161643-273
Cheryl Rofer
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks, Adam. I wanted to keep yesterday’s post relatively simple. It turns out that when you try to get into doctrine, there are a great many documents that might be consulted. The two articles I linked yesterday link to Russian doctrine documents. And then there are still questions about what happens when something goes wrong, and so on.
Matching weapon for weapon three or four steps into warfighting is just silly. There are guys who want those weapons, and that’s how they justify them in the NPR. They don’t seem to care about starting an arms race.
Adam L Silverman
@Cheryl Rofer: No worries. I didn’t put the links in to cross foot you. In fact the DOD has recalled this doctrinal publication, which makes it unsearchable in the normal places, such as DTIC. For whatever reason they didn’t want it out for public consumption, but they also didn’t seem to classify it. They have, however, reused JP 3-12. It is now the alphanumeric designator for Joint Cyber Operations.
LunarG
@TenguPhule: Not Oklahoma. Some state that didn’t vote for him. He’s a bit peeved at Washington just now.
J R in WV
@Adam L Silverman:
Adam,
There’s lots of links in at least the USAF document, with addresses that resolve to various AF systems. I’m reluctant to click on them…no matter how interesting they look. Have you looked at those linked docs to verify that they aren’t currently classified?
Just curious.