Comments on: Toward Smaller Nuclear Forces http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces an ACW Network site Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:58:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: joshua http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces#comment-2981 joshua Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:05:11 +0000 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=3005#comment-2981 And the complete article is here: http://carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/pdf/Smaller_and_Safer.pdf And the complete article is here:

http://carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/pdf/Smaller_and_Safer.pdf

]]> By: joshua http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces#comment-2980 joshua Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:17:01 +0000 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=3005#comment-2980 The Foreign Affairs article is now online, but you need a subscription to read the whole thing. See http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66540/bruce-blair-victor-esin-matthew-mckinzie-valery-yarynich-and-pav/smaller-and-safer The Foreign Affairs article is now online, but you need a subscription to read the whole thing.

See http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66540/bruce-blair-victor-esin-matthew-mckinzie-valery-yarynich-and-pav/smaller-and-safer

]]> By: Robert Merkel http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces#comment-2975 Robert Merkel Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:25:01 +0000 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=3005#comment-2975 Does the required number of warheads depend on the ability to change targets in a hurry? I obviously haven't run a simulation, but if the definition of "sufficient" warheads was based on the idea that a certain number of targets have to be destroyed with a sufficiently high confidence, it obviously makes a difference if you know that whatever warheads you have can be retargeted at will. Does the required number of warheads depend on the ability to change targets in a hurry?

I obviously haven’t run a simulation, but if the definition of “sufficient” warheads was based on the idea that a certain number of targets have to be destroyed with a sufficiently high confidence, it obviously makes a difference if you know that whatever warheads you have can be retargeted at will.

]]> By: Scott Monje http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces#comment-2973 Scott Monje Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:59:51 +0000 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=3005#comment-2973 If the US and Russia do get down to the point at which they are no longer an order of magnitude above other nuclear powers, then the nuclear world becomes multipolar rather than bipolar. Does that substantially change the dynamics of nuclear power politics? Do potentially shifting alliances become more significant if, say, the combination of Russian and Chinese missiles suddenly raises their total above that of other powers? If the US and Russia do get down to the point at which they are no longer an order of magnitude above other nuclear powers, then the nuclear world becomes multipolar rather than bipolar. Does that substantially change the dynamics of nuclear power politics? Do potentially shifting alliances become more significant if, say, the combination of Russian and Chinese missiles suddenly raises their total above that of other powers?

]]> By: elizzar http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces#comment-2972 elizzar Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:37:47 +0000 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=3005#comment-2972 re 3.1415 - isn't it pretty much the case that the UK, France and China have perhaps at most two hundred warheads (not sure on launch system numbers, but the UK supposedly has one permanent patrol sub. with i think 16 tridents, 3 warheads each, so ~50 'ready to go' ... these numbers of warheads are an order of magnitude lower than the vast usa / russian forces, and i doubt they would be reduced much lower - france may get rid of its remaining air launched systems, if anything i would suspect china of wanting to increase its arsenal. also, if the usa/russia did reduce to around 500 or so, wouldnt that make the other 3 SC countries more important in terms of their warhead numbers and less likely to reduce, to act as a more global balance and check and for guaranteed self protection? just wondering! re 3.1415 – isn’t it pretty much the case that the UK, France and China have perhaps at most two hundred warheads (not sure on launch system numbers, but the UK supposedly has one permanent patrol sub. with i think 16 tridents, 3 warheads each, so ~50 ‘ready to go’ … these numbers of warheads are an order of magnitude lower than the vast usa / russian forces, and i doubt they would be reduced much lower – france may get rid of its remaining air launched systems, if anything i would suspect china of wanting to increase its arsenal. also, if the usa/russia did reduce to around 500 or so, wouldnt that make the other 3 SC countries more important in terms of their warhead numbers and less likely to reduce, to act as a more global balance and check and for guaranteed self protection? just wondering!

]]> By: 3.1415 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces#comment-2971 3.1415 Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:21:50 +0000 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=3005#comment-2971 Once US and Russia got their nukes to 500, UK, France and China would find it no long possible not to talk about reducing theirs toward the common goal of no first use and then zero nuke. The non-P5 nuclear states have to follow too. If the United States is still interested in global leadership, cutting the nukes is perhaps the best litmus test. Once US and Russia got their nukes to 500, UK, France and China would find it no long possible not to talk about reducing theirs toward the common goal of no first use and then zero nuke. The non-P5 nuclear states have to follow too. If the United States is still interested in global leadership, cutting the nukes is perhaps the best litmus test.

]]> By: John Schilling http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces#comment-2970 John Schilling Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:18:22 +0000 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=3005#comment-2970 Stable deterrence with on the order of five hundred actual warheads is I believe quite plausible. The suspiciously precise figure of 311 warheads invites skepticism, but I wouldn't rule it out. It will be quite interesting to read the full study, when it becomes available. Going from 300-500 warheads to zero warheads, I'm not sure that's reasonable and I definitely don't know how to achieve it without great risk. As deterrent arsenals become smaller, they become more susceptible to breakout, strategic defense, and/or preemptive strike (possibly conventional), and I wouldn't want to cast myself as the Russian general who has to guarantee the security of the motherland against such threats with say fifty warheads. Any idea whether the Foreign Affairs study considered these issues, or do we have to wait until September 1st? Stable deterrence with on the order of five hundred actual warheads is I believe quite plausible. The suspiciously precise figure of 311 warheads invites skepticism, but I wouldn’t rule it out. It will be quite interesting to read the full study, when it becomes available.

Going from 300-500 warheads to zero warheads, I’m not sure that’s reasonable and I definitely don’t know how to achieve it without great risk. As deterrent arsenals become smaller, they become more susceptible to breakout, strategic defense, and/or preemptive strike (possibly conventional), and I wouldn’t want to cast myself as the Russian general who has to guarantee the security of the motherland against such threats with say fifty warheads. Any idea whether the Foreign Affairs study considered these issues, or do we have to wait until September 1st?

]]> By: elizzar http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces#comment-2969 elizzar Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:14:04 +0000 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=3005#comment-2969 Smaller nuclear forces are cheaper to build and maintain, easier to secure either from accidents, thefts, espionage etc., make your rivals less jumpy, show the rest of the world you aren't hypocrites re: NPT, perhaps encourage other diplomatic progression / attempts, all whilst still retaining the ability to vapourise anyonoe who looks at you a bit funny (erm i mean threatens your fundamental existence) - all very good things (tm) so it'll never happen :-( Smaller nuclear forces are cheaper to build and maintain, easier to secure either from accidents, thefts, espionage etc., make your rivals less jumpy, show the rest of the world you aren’t hypocrites re: NPT, perhaps encourage other diplomatic progression / attempts, all whilst still retaining the ability to vapourise anyonoe who looks at you a bit funny (erm i mean threatens your fundamental existence) – all very good things ™
so it’ll never happen :-(

]]> By: Allen Thomson http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3005/toward-smaller-nuclear-forces#comment-2966 Allen Thomson Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:14:07 +0000 http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=3005#comment-2966 For those not into such arcana, a colonel general isn't a colonel, it's a three-star general, generally equivalent in generalness to a US lieutenant general (O-9). I.e., a fairly heavy hitter in the military hierarchy. For those not into such arcana, a colonel general isn’t a colonel, it’s a three-star general, generally equivalent in generalness to a US lieutenant general (O-9). I.e., a fairly heavy hitter in the military hierarchy.

]]>