Global thermonuclear war: still a risk?

[angrysoba]

Fortunately Japan is a peaceful country and wouldn't hurt a fly. But if they did, the nuclear missiles would be embossed with Hello Kittys.

 

[egslim]

Interesting that Japan's been mentioned twice.

Given the secrecy that surrounds the development of these weapons, and the obvious sensitivity within Japan wrt having them in their arsenal, does anyone have a (speculative) idea what the extent of Japan's capability is? Eg, they'd have to start completely from scratch, or they have done some theoretical development and could manufacture the components in a couple of years, etc, etc?

Japan has extensive experience with nuclear technology for energy production. Thermonuclear weapons are 60 years old, the scientific principles are well-known.

So while I don't think Japan has made any effort to weaponize it's nuclear program, they have everything they need to build nuclear weapons in a matter of years.

I think they could build an arsenal in the order of magnitude of 5,000 weapons within five years from the moment they decide to do so. Without outside help, and able to defeat any ballistic missile defense. (It took the US 20 years to build an arsenal of 30,000+ in 1966, so 5,000 in five years is reasonable.)

 

[Corsair 115]

I think they could build an arsenal in the order of magnitude of 5,000 weapons within five years from the moment they decide to do so. Without outside help, and able to defeat any ballistic missile defense. (It took the US 20 years to build an arsenal of 30,000+ in 1966, so 5,000 in five years is reasonable.)

Warheads aren't the entire story though. One also needs reliable and effective delivery platforms. Those can be troublesome to develop, and can be expensive.

 

[egslim]

Warheads aren't the entire story though. One also needs reliable and effective delivery platforms. Those can be troublesome to develop, and can be expensive.

The first succesful ICBM dates back to 1957. It's 54 year old technology, not counting earlier ballistic missiles.

Given the political will, advanced countries like Germany or Japan could today easily develop the equivalent to any system the superpowers built half a century ago.

Of course it would be more troublesome for nations with more primitive resources.

 

[Seismosaurus]

The nuclear deterrent worked against Stalin and Mao, even though both of them also posessed nukes.

Concerning the value of human life or rationality, I don't think the Iranian mullahs are worse than those two.

If they believe that they can go out in a blaze of glory and get their afterlife, then yes, they are worse. Much worse.

Of course we can argue about just how much the leaders buy into that stuff versus how much they parade in front of the masses. But in a country like that one true believer certainly has a decent chance of getting in front of the red button eventually.

 

[dtugg]

The MAD concept assumes that both sides are rational and actively want to avoid death. This is not necessarily a given with Iran, and much less a given for the kinds of people that Iran might, possibly, give nukes to if they had them.

This is true. But what are the odds that Iran can destroy the USA? 0%. What are the odss that the USA can destroy Iran? 100%

Two word: delivey systems. The USA has 14 which are pretty much undestroyable, the Ohio class sub. Each one of these subs carries up to 24 missiles which can each carry up to 8 warheads. 14*24*8=2688.

 

[Darth Rotor]

the risk of a world-wide nuclear war, is almost non-existant.

I am sorry, but the war on stupid requires that stupid be identified and fired upon.

What you just posted is stupid.

It is a far greater quantity than zero, due to its being most powerfully influenced by human capacity for random (and even stupid) behavior ... not any numerical quantification of hardware.

 

[Seismosaurus]

This is true. But what are the odds that Iran can destroy the USA? 0%. What are the odss that the USA can destroy Iran? 100%

Two word: delivey systems. The USA has 14 which are pretty much undestroyable, the Ohio class sub. Each one of these subs carries up to 24 missiles which can each carry up to 8 warheads. 14*24*8=2688.

Yes, I know a little about such things.

But here's the problem. There's no winning in a nuclear exchange. There's degrees of losing.

Iran could put nukes into half a dozen US cities by smuggling them in. Don't even for a second imagine that that couldn't be done. Remember the 9/11 chaos? Multiply it by fifty, and then imagine it happening once a day for a week.

Yeah, there would be no Iran left after day one - assuming, that is, you could identify Iran as the source. But so what? That doesn't change what would happen to America one iota, and there are those in the world who would think sending their own population off to heaven as martyrs for the sake of killing a million or so Americans would be a hell of a good deal.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Seismosaurus, don't assume rational actors. It gets places like Poland invaded ...

 

[Corsair 115]

The first succesful ICBM dates back to 1957. It's 54 year old technology, not counting earlier ballistic missiles.

Given the political will, advanced countries like Germany or Japan could today easily develop the equivalent to any system the superpowers built half a century ago.

Of course. But it takes time and money to do so. And a lot of engineering and testing.

Iran could put nukes into half a dozen US cities by smuggling them in. Don't even for a second imagine that that couldn't be done.

Could it be done? Perhaps so. Could it be done without getting caught somewhere along the line? Considerably less likely it seems to me.

 

[SezMe]

Considerably more likely, however, than developing, deploying and firing a large offensive missile system.

 

[3point14]

The MAD concept assumes that both sides are rational and actively want to avoid death. This is not necessarily a given with Iran, and much less a given for the kinds of people that Iran might, possibly, give nukes to if they had them.

Indeed.

The worst possible people to have their finger on the button are those that believe that life is a passing phase and it will all be better in the hereafter.

 

[3point14]

Could it be done? Perhaps so. Could it be done without getting caught somewhere along the line? Considerably less likely it seems to me.

But if you send 20, it doesn't really matter all that much if only ten get through.

Hell, if only one gets through that's still a whole lot of dead people.

 

[bigjelmapro]

The only nation besides ourselves with sufficient warheads and delivery systems would be Russia, to my knowledge. Although there is some degree of parity in terms of sheer numbers of warheads, I believe that the Russian delivery systems have fallen far behind after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Under the New START nuclear arms reduction pact announced recently, Russians have downsized their delivery systems and nuclear warheads way ahead of the 2018 deadline. 250 less strategic warheads, over 250 less launchers, and so forth than the US. At least according to this article:

US: Russia cutting nuclear arsenal faster than required

Then again, the argument in the past that even though there are less overall weapons, the Russians usually had less accurate, more powerful nukes than the US, which usually opted for the more accurate, less powerful nukes.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Warheads aren't the entire story though. One also needs reliable and effective delivery platforms. Those can be troublesome to develop, and can be expensive.

I hate to spam wikipedia drivel, but I'm assuming this is pertinent to the argument at hand:

Japanese nuclear weapon program

De facto nuclear state
...
Significant amounts of reactor-grade plutonium are created as a by-product of the nuclear energy industry, and Japan was reported in December 1995 to have 4.7 tons of plutonium, enough for around 700 nuclear warheads. Japan also possesses an indigenous uranium enrichment plant[25] which could hypothetically be used to make highly enriched uranium suitable for weapon use. Japan has also developed the M-V three-stage solid fuel rocket, similar in design to the U.S. LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM, which could serve as a delivery vehicle, and has experience in re-entry vehicle technology (OREX, HOPE-X).

In terms of capability, the Japanese are up there in production of nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them.

Doubtful this will happen at all, unless the N. Koreans really push them to.

 

[Corsair 115]

But if you send 20, it doesn't really matter all that much if only ten get through.

You have to have the twenty first. And then those twenty represent a considerable investment of national resources. Which makes them a valuable and important national asset, one intended to help safeguard the nation from external threats.

In which case sending them off on some very risky first-strike mission and depriving the nation of its deterrent and retaliatory capability would not seem to be a wise move.

 

[Corsair 115]

I hate to spam wikipedia drivel, but I'm assuming this is pertinent to the argument at hand:

Japan also possesses an indigenous uranium enrichment plant[25] which could hypothetically be used to make highly enriched uranium suitable for weapon use. Japan has also developed the M-V three-stage solid fuel rocket, similar in design to the U.S. LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM, which could serve as a delivery vehicle, and has experience in re-entry vehicle technology (OREX, HOPE-X).

In terms of capability, the Japanese are up there in production of nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them.

Note the bolded words. "Could" and "experience" do not instantly translate into weapons systems that work with the necessary accuracy, reliability, and effectiveness. Indeed, there's a long history of weapons systems working well enough in peacetime testing but which failed in actual combat.

 

[angrysoba]

Note the bolded words. "Could" and "experience" do not instantly translate into weapons systems that work with the necessary accuracy, reliability, and effectiveness. Indeed, there's a long history of weapons systems working well enough in peacetime testing but which failed in actual combat.

Then that undermines your point about testing.

Of course. But it takes time and money to do so. And a lot of engineering and testing.

The Japanese have a very advanced rocket programme which has been through the kind of testing you are talking about. It can be safely assumed to be very accurate.

Now if you wish to return to your point about systems working in peacetime but not in warfare then that goes for every single countries nuclear ICBMs given that such a war has never taken place.

I think that it was and still is foolish to doubt the effectiveness of such weapons in the cases of the US and the former USSR so I would think it is also foolish to pre-emptively doubt the potential effectiveness of Japan's virtual nuclear weapon stockpile or that of the very real stockpiles that Pakistan and India, in particular, are in possession of.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Could it be done? Perhaps so. Could it be done without getting caught somewhere along the line? Considerably less likely it seems to me.

The odds may be small, but the pot is large.

 

[Seismosaurus]

In terms of capability, the Japanese are up there in production of nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them.

Doubtful this will happen at all, unless the N. Koreans really push them to.

I've heard it said that Japan could likely build an ICBM within a year or two at the most if they really wanted to. But given their history, it would be a hell of a controversial thing for them to do - basically only acceptable if national survival was at stake.