Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 26 2018, @01:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the better-read-this-VERY-quickly dept.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) has set the Doomsday Clock to "two minutes to midnight" to reflect fears of a nuclear confrontation with North Korea, as well as the failure of world leaders to address climate change and other factors. The clock is now set as close to doomsday as it was in 1953:

The team of scientists singled out a series of nuclear tests by North Korea. They dramatically escalated tensions on the Korean peninsula and led to a war of words between North Korea and the US.

The BAS also referred to a new US nuclear strategy that was expected to call for more funding to expand the role of the country's nuclear arsenal. Rising tension between Russia and the West was also a contributing factor.

The "weakening of institutions" around the world in dealing with major global threats - including climate change - was another major concern, the scientists said. They also mentioned US President Donald Trump's "unpredictability", pointing to his often controversial tweets and statements.

We're back, baby!


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @04:31PM (8 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @04:31PM (#628313) Journal

    I'm generally a mostly disinterested fan of the Doomsday Clock, and irreversible catastrophic climate change should certainly be acknowledged, but unless I've been grossly misinformed a nuclear war with North Korea shouldn't really register on it.

    I'm more concerned about the war than the mostly hypothetical climate change. We can always adapt to either, but there's a good chance with a nuclear war, even one that appears to start small with limited participation from the rest of the world, for things to balloon out of hand.

    For example, the First World War which is thought to have killed 15-20 million people started with an assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and ballooned greatly from there. A war which starts small may not stay small.

    It's not just a matter of crazy leaders who tweet too much too. For example, consider this paper [mitpressjournals.org] discussing the tactics of hitting North Korea nuclear weapons infrastructure with small, tactical nukes. Figure 3 shows the difference between hitting 5 hypothetical sites (they don't actually expect important infrastructure to be there, they made a supposedly educated guess for the simulation) with normal nukes (455 kton yield) and well-directed tactical nukes (0.3 kton yield). With the big weapons and a bad wind pattern, the fallout can cover South Korea and southern Japan, causing casualties in countries allied with the US.

    Meanwhile with the small tactical nukes (and a different wind pattern that conveniently keeps the colored irradiated regions in North Korea), the fallout regions are far smaller. While the paper may well be exaggerating the effectiveness of the second approach, it remains that there's a lot less fallout, real and political, from using this class of nuclear weapons than from the larger ones. This indicates that the game has changed.

    Rather than debate the motives of this particular paper (perhaps it's in good faith, perhaps it's cover for someone's plan to attack North Korea), let's consider the big message - namely, that it indicates that a small nuclear war has a much smaller initial cost to its use than it would have had a few decades ago with less efficient nuclear weapons, poorer targeting systems, and worse satellite intelligence. Eventually, someone will use them (such as a fight between a superpower and a small, nuclear-armed country).

    North Korea with its particularly loathsome and aggressive behavior may well be a transition to an era where nuclear weapon use has become normalized.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 26 2018, @06:18PM (4 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Friday January 26 2018, @06:18PM (#628382) Journal

    Meanwhile with the small tactical nukes (and a different wind pattern that conveniently keeps the colored irradiated regions in North Korea), the fallout regions are far smaller. While the paper may well be exaggerating the effectiveness of the second approach, it remains that there's a lot less fallout, real and political, from using this class of nuclear weapons than from the larger ones. This indicates that the game has changed.

    Exactly. Open that door and it becomes available to all nuke holders. Pakistan hits India. Iran hits Israel, (yes both sides have them - regardless of what they claim).

    Once anyone cedes the moral high ground, the tactical nuke will be the got-to-have weapon for every threatened state.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @06:40PM (3 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @06:40PM (#628401) Journal

      Once anyone cedes the moral high ground, the tactical nuke will be the got-to-have weapon for every threatened state.

      I'm more concerned about the counters to the tactical nuke. The tactical nuke is relatively nondestructive when it comes to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. For example, North Korea has a counter to the use of nuclear weapons by the US or South Korea in the massed artillery pointed at Seoul.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 26 2018, @11:18PM (2 children)

        by frojack (1554) on Friday January 26 2018, @11:18PM (#628613) Journal

        North Korea has a counter to the use of nuclear weapons by the US or South Korea in the massed artillery pointed at Seoul.

        True, but that artillery is defeated within an hour or two at most. MOAB was made for this.
        But lacking that, any standard air support makes this an unlikely tactic.

        What you have to worry about is nuclear artillery.
        If the NK ever had any old Soviet versions, they could make their own easier than making rockets.

        At the end of the Cold War, Russia followed the United States lead and deactivated its nuclear artillery units in 1993. By 2000, Russia reported that nearly all nuclear artillery shells and missile warheads had been destroyed. But the Kim Family has been around a long time.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 27 2018, @02:54AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 27 2018, @02:54AM (#628678) Journal

          True, but that artillery is defeated within an hour or two at most.

          By what? Even tactical nukes and MOAB aren't that effective against hundreds or thousands of deeply dug in positions. You would need a bunch of them and something to deliver them. In Iraq both in the Gulf War and the Iraqi invasion, with much better visibility for air to ground combat, it took several days to obtain uncontested air superiority. That would be needed for the MOAB because MOAB can only be dropped by the B-52 which doesn't do well against relatively modern air defenses. Meanwhile the B-2 can only be flown out of specialized hangars. Apparently, Guam has those now, but that's still several hours between sortie.

          What you have to worry about is nuclear artillery.

          Or chemical and biological weapons. They're not as effective as nuclear weapons for killing people in a targeted, but they are adequate for indiscriminate killing of civilians.

        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 30 2018, @02:17PM

          by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday January 30 2018, @02:17PM (#630351)

          that artillery is defeated within an hour or two at most.

          Absolutely not. They have a huge volume of conventional artillery pieces, many of them concealed. There's no way on Earth you'd take them all out in good time with airstrikes. If it came to it, Seoul would be obliterated. There's no question about this.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Friday January 26 2018, @08:08PM (2 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @08:08PM (#628477)

    For example, the First World War which is thought to have killed 15-20 million people started with an assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire

    Nah nah nothing to do with that. The root cause of WWI was the leadership, culture, political geography, and national boundaries of Europe were pre-industrial, but here's all this industrial era stuff rolling around like locomotive deployment of troops and machine guns and submarines and tanks and the Russians are industrializing and expanding.

    If you want a less "root" cause the pre-industrial era ottoman and austro-hungarian empires were dead men walking on the verge of collapse and disintegration and everybody wanted a piece of the corpse(s) and everyone figured the best way to get a piece of the action was to go in shooting, because, well, frankly that usually worked pretty well, pre-industrially anyway, mostly.

    ballooned greatly from there

    It wasn't an accident it was the whole purpose of the exercise. It was the old guard vs the new revolutionaries and millions on all sides begging for an excuse to start shooting.

    Thats the problem with the analogy. So... NK itchy trigger finger because for 50 years they've been extorting the region with tantrums and "sure would be a shame if war broke out, so how about you send a few train loads of food to us and we'll extort you next year?"

    There's nothing new or revolutionary or civilization wide going on. Just the usual extortion game thats getting old and too dangerous to keep playing.

    Watch what Trump does not what he says... we have examples of recent presidents party to assassination, think of Vince Foster, for example. Or maybe Seth Rich. There's bluster as a negotiating technique and then there's bloodthirsty psychopaths. Both have recently (currently) been in charge. I prefer Trump's bluster, personally. Someone like Clinton would have been more likely to politely cuck on TV, but nuke NK anyway. Trump ironically sounds scarier but is less likely to do something stupid and bloodthirsty based on past examples (like say decades of business activity, or a year of presidential behavior).

    Eventually, someone will use them (such as a fight between a superpower and a small, nuclear-armed country).

    Almost certainly the next nuclear war will be between India and Pakistan and its hard to call a country a superpower when most of its citizens are still street-shitting. With a side dish of maybe the middle east will fight first. But I'd take a bet on India/Paki nuclear war before middle east. Its too easy for superpowers to "Afghanistan" a small country, nuke or no. Or Soros-funded "color revolution"

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:38AM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:38AM (#628717) Journal
      And that couldn't happen here? How about the US (and possibly Europe) taking on the role of the Ottoman and Astro-Hungarian empires. China and India taking up roles as the up and comers. I think you see where I'm going with this. It's not particular unstable right now, but right now isn't going to continue forever. And the future may well look like the lead up to the First World War.
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday January 30 2018, @06:07PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday January 30 2018, @06:07PM (#630502)

        However, "wanting a slice of the pie" and "using nuclear weapons" are relatively incompatible. Nobody wants radioactive pie, so the only reason to nuke it is if your enemies have already claimed the pie and you don't see any realistic way to get any yourself. AND you are willing to risk your enemies nuking you in retaliation for spoiling their pie.