Lab officials excited by new H-bomb project

Yeah, but not really on point for the topic of this thread. BTW, these "predictions" are less probable than some of the outcomes I've suggested in my analysis of the course of nuclear weapons in the next 5 years.

We are presupposing that Iran is evil. I would like the idea of all parties are innocent unless proven guilty. Iran had an elected democratic government in Mossadeh in1950's. The CIA with Ike as President overthrew the him and placed Pahlavi as King. This is evil.

There are people who can't tell the difference between Asherman's limited nuclear arsenal versus the old radiactive ones as they both I'm sure produce mushroom clouds. This is the slippery slope to an all-out nuclear war. You have seen bar scenes where the two sides are on edge and all it took was a minor incident to produce the flashpoint. The spark no matter how minor or unrelated had that property to set the tinderbox on fire. GWB = George Will Burn, has done a great deal to create that tinderbox.

Asherman,
Good humors, even if you did disregard all my well thought out, lovingly crafted points, for the sake one quick, relatively painless poke, at yours truly

It's always hard for me to understand why we need more bombs! All I can do is shake my head and go throw up!!

Anon

Anon-Voter,
If that is projectile vomiting please, contact Blasterrman (aka Asherman); no doubt he will need to do a five year study on your ICBM (Inter-Continental-Barf-Motility)

Asherman,
If you wish to respond in a thoughtful intelligent manner, to my last post that was thoughtful and intelligent, I will reciprocate thoughtfully and intelligently, but in the interim I hope you don't mind some leg-pullin'
.
.
.
.
.

Yoink!

I thought I had responded to your postings in a "thoughtul and intelligent manner". Some of your criticisms (?) seem to revolve around definitional terms that seem only to obfiscvate my meaning. Determining probable outcomes for near term events can be done, though seldom with a high degree of accuracy. The further into the future one tries to penetrate the more unforeseen factors will intervene and outcomes become ever less precise and predictable.

You quite correctly pointed out that some things can be extrapolated far into the future. The Sun we can predict with a great assurance will not cease to shine in the next thousand years. The tides will continue to rise and ebb so long as the moon orbits our planet. Humans will be born, get sick, suffer numerous ailments and anxieties, grow old and die until the extinction of the species ... and that might be tomorrow, or ten thousand years hence. Human history leads us to believe that love and war will always be a part of our world. Surprise as an element in winning battles will be as important in 500 years, as it was five thousand years ago.

Some trend lines are so strong that they may not easily be altered over long periods of time, but no straight line extrapolation will continue forever. Finite resources can not be infinitely stretched. Weapons and tactics continually evolve, until they are discarded in favor of newer, better, more efficient and effective weapons and military doctrines.

The cost of many modern technologies has drastically fallen, but that trend is not applicable to where nuclear technology is likely to go in the foreseeable future. Computers and etc. are popular and in great demand, but nuclear weapons research is an unwanted, unloved stepchild that is kept hidden in the closet. There is not now, nor is there likely to be a return to the frantic expansion of nuclear arsenals that occurred during the Cold War. A few rogue states want to acquire nuclear weapons to blackmail their neighbors, or to advance their own twised notions of national/religious destiny. Most countries neither have, nor have any desire to divert national resources to the porcurement of nuclear stockpiles. The Atomic Age was a fizzle, but it isn't something that will easily go away in the next five, ten, fifty or perhaps even hundred years. In your 300-600 year range, my prediction would be that nuclear weapons would no longer exist outside of a few museums.

The topic here, I thought, was the renewal of nuclear weapons research. I've tried to provide some answers as to the value of that research, and to defuse common misunderstandings about nuclear weapons and the consequences of their use. I trust that you will not find that I am appreciably wrong in any of my statements regarding nuclear arms. My analysis and conclusions may, of course, later be found wanting. I don't think so, but I've been wrong before. I've tried to indicate the reasons for my conclusions in a "thoughtful and intelligent" manner, but that may be just a subjective judgement.

I know my posts on this subject have tended to be long, but this isn't a topic that can be discussed in a few short declaritive sentences. If you don't want to believe me, then read unclassified serious documents on nuclear weapons available on the internet. If you have trouble understanding nuclear weapons, read the The Effects of Nuclear Weapons cited above. If you doubt the probable outcome of a nuclear exchange, especially on a massive scale, read Dr. Kahn. The dangers of nuclear proliferation are self evident, and difficulty of reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world shouldn't be difficult to understand. What do you want of me?

So I might suggest you review my three premises in light of your statement, etc. etc.

I would not worry too much if this leans away from the main plot of the thread, that's not uncommon on able2know, and at the least it does go to relevance re: the lab official's underlying impetus.

Because I did not concur with your notion of nuclear "planing" in the context of my premise, and I did not use the word "planning" to describe my views, it surely does not mean that I am obfuscating your meaning.Well yes and no, certain outcomes actually become more and more predictable as time and number of events increase, and one of those I argue is the likelihood of another major war with nukes.There you go again with the "likely to go in the foreseeable future" stuff. I hearty disagree that anyone including you has the acumen to assess what a nuclear weapon will cost in 100 years. Show me how you can manage this please. As to costs dropping, I suggest you compare the cost of the entire Manhattan project (and the net of the two bombs dropped) to the cost of one modern tactical nuke.Supply and demand are hardly the only factors that can drive down costs, and "trickle-down" and "parallel" technologies are two good examples as are advances in the sciences, as I have discussed.Whether that belief remains true or not, I assert that you do not have the foresight to know with any certainty, and it is in fact, only an article of faith. But this is for certain, there would be no need to have such a "frantic expansion" to have a considerable increase in nuclear proliferation over the next 100 years.I entirely disagree as to what that means for the future of atomic energy, in fact, although atomic energy has been set back some, I contend it will be a major player in the supply of electricity around the world, unless or until solar power satellites arrive. It should be clear that fossil fuels won't do it, nor will alternate energy sources cover the massive shortfall as the entire world industrializes.Very unlikely indeed, given that these forces (in the physic's sense) are the inherent glue that holds everything together, therefore the likelihood of more powerful weaponry is rather slim; plus given our agreement on man's warlike nature.

Asherman, it's the energy that powers every sun in the entire universe, and you are saying that as far as Mankind is concerned, that power source is going to be relegated to a museum piece? Very dubious reasoning.

We are not making more bombs, we are replacing the older ones we have with newer, more up to date and reliable ones.

Do you still have every house or car you ever bought?

No, as you purchase a new one, you sell the old one... net gain in houses or cars ... zero.

We are getting RID of the older weapons to because they have become too unreliable and expensive to maintain.

As I said earlier, my belief is that in modernizing our nuclear force, we will actually end up with LESS, but more effective weapons.

Last time I checked we weren't buying a new car while telling our neighbor if they even think about a car we would take their house away from them.

Straw Man, Parados - we're streamlining and modernizing our aresenal, while telling the religious fundies and the ideologic anachronists down the street they can't have a similar arsenal - not at all the same thing.

Hi Asherman,
If I did not make it clear, I don't have much faith in countermeasures (Star Wars, Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems etc.) having an overall net efficacy against a consequential nuclear deployment. My text may have been a bit vague on this point.

First, I ordinarily don't write just to a single person, but to the general reader who may visit the thread. So don't take my remarks personally, unless I personally address them to you. I also try to avoid argument, because experience has shown it does little beyond raising people's blood-pressure.

O: Because I did not concur with your notion of nuclear "planing" in the context of my premise, and I did not use the word "planning" to describe my views, it surely does not mean that I am obfuscating your meaning.

A: "Planning", "expounding", "predicting", etc. how does the precise meaning of any of these change the clear meaning of my remarks?

Q: Well yes and no, certain outcomes actually become more and more predictable as time and number of events increase, and one of those I argue is the likelihood of another major war with nukes.

A: I repeat my earlier statement, The further into the future one tries to penetrate the more unforeseen factors will intervene and outcomes become ever less precise and predictable. What prediction can you make whose probability of being correct increases, rather than decreases as time goes on?

Q: There you go again with the "likely to go in the foreseeable future" stuff. I hearty disagree that anyone including you has the acumen to assess what a nuclear weapon will cost in 100 years. Show me how you can manage this please. As to costs dropping, I suggest you compare the cost of the entire Manhattan project (and the net of the two bombs dropped) to the cost of one modern tactical nuke.

A: You should note that the "foreseeable future" is in the range of 1-10 years. I agree that no one can accurately forecast human events, technologies, politics, etc. for 300-600 years into the future. We can however make some reasonable forecasts about the 1-10 year future, but only if we keep the predictions "fuzzy". If you want a solid and clear prediction then, "the costs of producing a nuclear weapon will not decrease in the next six months".

Q: Supply and demand are hardly the only factors that can drive down costs, and "trickle-down" and "parallel" technologies are two good examples as are advances in the sciences, as I have discussed.

A: Of course, many factors might affect the cost of nuclear weapons production, but none of them is likely to apply unless research into nuclear weapon designs continues. Those who actively want to acquire nuclear weapons is small, the existing technology required is expensive, the raw materials are rare and difficult to obtain, and the "pay off" for having such a weapon is doubtful. None of those factors are likely to drive down development and production costs. If the United States resumes active research into nuclear weapons design, we can expect our costs of maintaining such an article to go down. That will make parity even harder for all but the largest and richest states to achieve parity. As the technological imbalance grows, the less motivated others will be to enter a nuclear weapons competition. The United States, if it does find means of reducing weapons costs, will not share that information with others. Again, my analysis is confined to that time span when reasonable prognostications have a high probability of occurring, 1-10 years.

Here are a few examples of how prices do not decline as technology improves. A top of the line automobile a hundred years ago cost maybe $2000 (adjusted for inflation), today luxury automobiles cost in excess of $35,000. Our first television (in black and white, with snow for free) cost around $200, but our 52 inch projection system with all the bells and whistles cost close to $3,500, and I got the newer system at a steep discount. A P-38 fighter plane may have cost $50,000 per copy, what do you suppose the cost is for the newest fighter aircraft?

Q: Whether that belief remains true or not, I assert that you do not have the foresight to know with any certainty, and it is in fact, only an article of faith. But this is for certain, there would be no need to have such a "frantic expansion" to have a considerable increase in nuclear proliferation over the next 100 years.

A: In looking to the future, I deal only in probabilities, not certainties. Actually, there is some probability that a "frantic expansion of nuclear arms" will occur within the next 100 years, but that probability is very low, perhaps between .2 and .3.

Q: I entirely disagree as to what that means for the future of atomic energy, in fact, although atomic energy has been set back some, I contend it will be a major player in the supply of electricity around the world, unless or until solar power satellites arrive. It should be clear that fossil fuels won't do it, nor will alternate energy sources cover the massive shortfall as the entire world industrializes.

A: Perhaps I should have been clearer when saying "The Atomic Age was a fizzle". Since the thread topic and my comments are about nuclear weapons, I only meant that only two atomic weapons were ever utilized in war, though thousands were produced at great cost in dollars and resources diverted from other purposes. Even that is a great overstatement, since the production of those large and fearsome arsenals prevented a nuclear war. Once the Cold War ended, the need for large arsenals decreased and we are left with large redundancies. How likely do you think it is that the world will return to a nuclear arms race comparable to that during the Cold War, In the next 1-10 years?

Q: Very unlikely indeed, given that these forces (in the physic's sense) are the inherent glue that holds everything together, therefore the likelihood of more powerful weaponry is rather slim; plus given our agreement on man's warlike nature. Asherman, it's the energy that powers every sun in the entire universe, and you are saying that as far as Mankind is concerned, that power source is going to be relegated to a museum piece? Very dubious reasoning. (see the actual quote below).

A: Read my statement again please. "My prediction would be that nuclear weapons would no longer exist outside of a few museums." You will note that my prediction is only for the likelihood that large stocks of nuclear weapons will still be important in 300-600 years. Will more "powerful" weapons be developed? I can't say, but probably not. On the other hand new classes of weapons that are better suited to the conditions that will exist half a century from now may well be developed … especially if we revive research into nuclear weapons design. The weapons may draw upon the "inherent glue that holds everything together", yet bear little resemblance to the sort of munitions of the late 20th century. See, that's the problem with trying to make such long term predictions, there are just too many variables that can crop up unforeseen and change everything.

**********

I believe that reasonably effective defenses can be developed to reduce the risk of widespread devastation from an incoming cloud of nuclear missiles. I do not believe an effective system current exists, only that it is possible. By effective, I mean that a missile defense system should be able to prevent 90% of incoming missiles from reaching their targets and exploding. Whether such a system should be pursued, at great cost, is another matter and outside the four corners of this discussion.

That would be opposed to the "religious fundies" and idealogues that live in this house?

Hi Asherman,

Thank so much for responding. I am not the blood boiling type and I very much appreciate your thoughtful and direct responses. I'll give it a good read through and do my best to return the favor, on point, if there is more to add.

"What prediction can you make whose probability of being correct increases, rather than decreases as time goes on?
"

horse race?

BERLIN (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog called on the United States Tuesday to set an example to the rest of the world by cutting its nuclear arsenal and halting research programs.

"The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Germany's Stern weekly.

Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

"In truth there are no good or bad nuclear weapons. If we do not stop applying double standards we will end up with more nuclear weapons. We are at a turning point," ElBaradei told Stern in the interview released ahead of publication.

Actually there are many predictions whose probability of being correct increases, rather than decreases as time goes on: death, entropy, certain chemical and nuclear reactions, likelihood of war, the fall of nations, proliferation of nuclear weapons (being discussed as we speak)but I figure Asherman's query may have been meant in his specific context, and using his sometimes semi-rhetorical sensibilities. At least I gather he uses those notions in his arguments. Asherman?

That so-called "turning point" has essentially been in existence the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Chumly, I thought this was a more important line, "If we do not stop applying double standards we will end up with more nuclear weapons."