SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Putin, before vote, unveils 'invincible' nuclear weapons to counter West
President Vladimir Putin unveiled an array of new nuclear weapons on Thursday, in one of his most bellicose speeches in years, saying they could hit almost any point in the world and evade a U.S.-built missile shield. [...] His remarks were greeted with scepticism in Washington, where officials cast doubt on whether Russia has added any new capabilities to its nuclear arsenal beyond those already known to the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.
[...] Among weapons that Putin said were either in development or ready was a new intercontinental ballistic missile "with a practically unlimited range" able to attack via the North and South Poles and bypass any missile defense systems.
Putin also spoke of a small nuclear-powered engine that could be fitted to what he said were low-flying, highly maneuverable cruise missiles, giving them a practically unlimited range. The new engine meant Russia was able to make a new type of weapon - nuclear missiles powered by nuclear rather than conventional fuel. "Nothing like it in the world exists," Putin told the audience. "At some point it will probably appear (elsewhere) but by that time our guys will have devised something else."
Other new super weapons he listed included underwater nuclear drones, a supersonic weapon and a laser weapon. In one of his video clip demos, a weapon appeared to be hovering over what looked like a map of the state of Florida.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 02 2018, @03:53PM (2 children)
Nothing was wrong with Stuxnet if you find nothing wrong with consequentialism. My problem is that the ends never end, and thus everything becomes an endless string of means. We lost our ability to take a moral high ground about the evils of cyberwarfare, and proven we're just as capable and willing to engage in warfare when it serves a purpose. Instead it's one less thing we could have pointed to, to suggest why we are morally capable of handling nuclear weapons ourselves. We are willing to drop bombs ourselves.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday March 02 2018, @04:16PM (1 child)
I'm sorry, I don't get it. You think it's wrong to actively work to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons? That isn't full-blown "cyberwarfare", that was a very narrowly-aimed piece of malware that only targeted centrifuges used for that purpose. It's not like the US used hackers to take down the Iranian power grid or something; that's what "cyberwarfare" is: using computers to attack critical infrastructure. Nuclear bomb plants are not "critical infrastructure". And harming a country's ability to make a WMD is not the equivalent of dropping a bomb.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 02 2018, @06:37PM
No, I think you do get it and you just disagree and believe that it is OK to actively develop a piece of malware with a particular political goal in mind and unleash it on another country. The end of pausing Iran's nuclear program with a technical setback was worth the means of utilizing a piece of malware to do that. Which is consequentialism. Which, as I age, I believe in less and less, though I acknowledge that others might believe in it.
It is an active intrusion and violence done, although virtually and although it was a single instance with limited focus. That it was a single instance, or didn't cause massive damage, is irrelevant to me. If I only break the last bone of your pinky finger, or stick you with a sterilized thumbtack, I've not really damaged you in a permanent or critical method. I have, nevertheless, assaulted you. Closer to the mark: If it is believed that there is a nuclear reactor in Iran, and it is believed that it is producing weapons-grade uranium, is it OK to drop a bomb on that facility? It's just one bomb - and let's even say it was done in a way that nobody was intended to be or was in fact hurt - it's not like we're declaring war on Iran or anything. Is that excusable and morally right? A consequentialist might believe so. A deontologist might not. I'd rather have seen us believe, "we could do that thing, but if we do then we are not different and quite possibly less than they are. And maybe believing in America and making it great means we need to find other methods to persuade Iran to not pursue nuclear ambitions that do not compromise our ideals.... like playing fairly with them, for starters."
I think I also disagree with you on what cyberwarfare is. Not surprising, as I know of no authority that has established the definition - at least, I don't have access to an OED and I wouldn't trust The Free Dictionary on that one. But, using the definition of Techopedia, "Cyberwarfare is any virtual conflict initiated as a politically motivated attack on an enemy's computer and information systems." It goes on to broaden scale a little bit, but I'm not sure scale matters. Really to me Stuxnet fits that definition pretty precisely.
This sig for rent.