Posted on 05/18/2025 11:49:28 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
“The best way to destroy an enemy . . . is to make him your friend.”— Stanislav Petrov, The Man Who Saved the World
Humans—a problem-solving species—cannot solve its worst problem; not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Why is that the case? The solution’s in the hands of states that created it and they don’t want it solved.
Some problems go away on their own, and maybe this is one of them. It could happen in the next millisecond or 100 years from now. And, in the aftermath, all other problems—personal and societal—go away. Think about it: No more rigged elections, rampant immigration, lying politicians, or protest gatherings; no more arguments over money, the stock market, or the nature of truth and discovery. Whoever your number one evildoers are—whether it’s Putin or the IRS—they will no longer bother you.
Life on earth is the Gordian knot awaiting Alexander’s nuclear sword. A glance at the Doomsday Clock—maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1947 and created by members of the Manhattan Project—tells us we’re fast approaching the midnight hour when the sword will fall for the last time.
It is no secret that the major powers keep everything relating to its nuclear programs as closely guarded as possible, but we know enough to be in a state of chronic disbelief. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the US has 5,044 nuclear warheads as of May 2024, 400 of which are Minutemen III ICBMs. “Each ICBM carries one warhead, either a W87 or W78,” and are located in silos in the upper Midwest and Rocky Mountains. Ballistic missiles “can be launched promptly, are not recallable, and are fast flying, [thus] they reduce time for decision making in a crisis.” The W87 and W78...
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
Not a problem, as Russian nukes don’t work, at least according to the ‘experts’ on Western Media outlets.
But seriously, I knew our nukes were weaker than the Russian nukes - but I had no clue we were that much weaker (like at least an order of magnitude). We had bigger bombs during the Cold War...but I guess the Neocons did away with those.
Minuteman III is a missile not a warhead.
The Russians traditionally had major issues getting their nukes to be accurate so it looks like they are just trying to brute force the problem—make the bombs so big it does not matter if they miss the target by a mile or two.
I think it’s much more likely that the first nuclear war will be started by a minor nuclear power, and not involve the big three. I’m not sure the US would respond to a nuke attack on South Korea with a nuke attack on the north.
All the Rand Corporation war games say that once a single nuke flies, the world is engulfed in nuclear war within minutes.
All the Rand Corporation war games say that once a single nuke flies, the world is engulfed in nuclear war within minutes.
We have lower yield warheads because they are much more precise. This isn’t neocons. It was a deliberate move by the guys who thought up our nuclear weapons stockpile in the first place.
Bigger bombs were a reflection of the lesser accuracy of Soviet missiles, not superior bomb making skill. Modern nuclear missiles are extremely accurate so a smaller (relatively speaking) bomb is all that is needed.
Those 1950s gigantic yield H-Bombs were needed to ensure the target could be killed with a missile that might hit a mile or two this way or that. Minuteman III can hit with 800 meters. The Atlas was over a mile, and the Soviet missiles of 1960 were accurate within 3 miles or so.
And that is just ICBMs. We can put an A-bomb on a cruise missile and fly it through a window.
So really, our smaller bombs are a monument to our targeting accuracy.
I have heard that and further exploring with Grok says
The claim that a single nuclear strike would inevitably lead to a global nuclear war within minutes is a simplification. While the risk of escalation exists, it’s not a guaranteed scenario. The Rand Corporation war games and other models explore various scenarios, including potential escalation, but don’t paint a picture of immediate global annihilation after a single strike. There are significant scenarios with limited exchange and non-escalatory responses featured.
The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 is widely considered the closest the world came to nuclear war (that has been made public!).
During this 13-day standoff, the United States and the Soviet Union faced a direct nuclear confrontation due to the deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, which were a threat to the US.
Ultimately, the Soviet Union agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba, and the United States agreed to remove its missiles from Turkiye, de-escalating the crisis and averting a potential nuclear war.
I wonder what hasn’t been made public?
“But seriously, I knew our nukes were weaker than the Russian nukes - but I had no clue we were that much weaker (like at least an order of magnitude). We had bigger bombs during the Cold War...but I guess the Neocons did away with those.”
____________________________________________________________
Back in the days when “precision guidance” meant “within a couple kilometers” or a manned bomber, the increased yield made up for inaccuracy.
We traded size for the real precision of being able to put a 25 kiloton through the window of a specific house or other target.
“The Russians traditionally had major issues getting their nukes to be accurate so it looks like they are just trying to brute force the problem—make the bombs so big it does not matter if they miss the target by a mile or two”
Definitely the case during the Cold War...but not anymore - Ukraine would vouch for that!
“So really, our smaller bombs are a monument to our targeting accuracy.”
Unfortunately for us, the Russians didn’t retire their far larger nukes when they improved their accuracy. Bummer.
“We have lower yield warheads because they are much more precise. This isn’t neocons.”
Well, we HAD big bombs...then we got Neocons in positions of power...now we have SMALL bombs.
But feel free to defend the Neocons, they need all the help they can get!
The biggest boost for solid propellant ICBMs came in mid-1956 when scientists determined that it was feasible to miniaturize thermo-nuclear warheads. Dr. Edward Teller suggested in the summer of 1956 that a 400-pound warhead could provide the explosive force of one weighing 5,000 pounds. The Atomic Energy Commission in September 1956 estimated that a small nuclear warhead would be available by 1965 with an even chance of being ready by 1963.
The guidance system was critical to deliver the payload with a good enough Circular Error Probability (CEP). The Polaris used an all-inertial guidance system, which was a critical component of the Polaris A-1, the USA's first submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The guidance system used gyroscopes and accelerometers to ensure accurate navigation and targeting without relying on external signals, a significant technological achievement for the time. These components were electromechanical and produced analog signals, but the system as a whole was not a traditional analog computer.
The CEP of the Polaris A-1 missile was approximately 1.1 miles (50% of the missile's warheads were expected to land within 1.1 miles of the target). The Polaris A-1 CEP was relatively large compared to later missiles due to the limitations of its early inertial guidance system.
The guidance system incorporated some digital elements, as early digital computing technology was emerging during this period. The Polaris A-1's guidance system included a digital differential analyzer (DDA), a type of special-purpose digital computer designed to solve differential equations in real time, which was used to process the analog inputs from the inertial sensors and compute the missile’s trajectory. This made the system a hybrid of analog and digital technologies, with the digital components handling precise calculations and the analog components managing sensor inputs.
There was little remarkable in the initial SSBN design—basically that of the highly successful Skipjack (SSN-585) was “stretched.” This added 130 feet in length to permit the installation of special navigation, missile control, and other mission support equipment as well as 16 launch tubes for the 28-foot-long Polaris missiles. The USS George Washington (SSBN-598), commissioned in December 1959, was the first ballistic missile submarine to deploy with the Polaris A-1 missile in November 1960.
I remember dad bought me a Revell model of the USS George Washington and I was fascinated by the cut-away view of the launch tubes. I was 9 years old at the time and had no appreciation for what I was looking at. We weren't doing any duck-and-cover drills in upstate NY that I can remember.
Right now, these days, the debates in the nuclear weapons doctrine community is the effect of really small tactical nuclear weapons
“You can blame neo-cons for lots of things, but not this one. Has nothing to do with it.”
They were FRONT and CENTER as we were ridding ourselves of our big bombs, maybe you weren’t paying attention, but where I worked, we sure as hell were.
No one is disagreeing with the fact that we got rid of our really big bombs. You are arguing that it was nefarious. I am standing on the point that we got rid of them because we didn't need them. Among other things they were old, huge, and used old unstable explosives formulations. One of those big boys going off in a silo in your corn field will ruin a lot of real estate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.