Lab officials excited by new H-bomb project

Valid! Change "will" to may though.

Here is an example:

If we have a history of a certain volcano errupting one every 200 years during the last 20,000 years, and it has been 100 years since the last erruption, the probability of an erruption in the next 1-10 years is low on the order of .2, or less.

If the last erruption was 150 years ago the probability of an erruption in the next 10 years will go up to something like .4, and if time elapsed has been 190 years the probability may jump to .5. The probabilities continue to increase in a linear fashion until the volcano errupts again ... and that may be 500 years later than expected from the previous history. Until the volcano actually errupts the probability will always be less than 1.

This is a very different case from trying to forecast what might happen when human agencies are involved. One looks at the trend lines and tries to pick those trends that are most relevant, strongest and believed to extend through the end of the period one is studying. Multiple trends are often involved, and it is quite easy to either utilize the wrong trend lines, or to improperly extrapolate from them. One tries to weigh the range of possible outcomes based on both objective and subjective merits. Again it is quite possible to inapproriately weigh the alternatives, and arrive at an incorrect result. One mathematical tool is least squares, but it has limited utility, especially in long-term analysis. No trend line (what least squares does best) will continue infinitely, and that has to be accounted for.

When trying to forecast it is always best to provide a range within which the actuality is most likely to fall. For short-term predictions one can sometimes predict a very tight range with a very high probability of being correct. To make predictions with a high probility of being correct in complex problems/trends, the range must necessarily be very much larger.

Above when I made some "predictions" in the 300-600 year future, I would assign all of the predictions as being at least .5, or better. As time progresses, the probabilities will continually change. Some will increase and others will decrease depending upon more variables than anyone can ever identify, much less calculate for. Finally, let me say that analysis is not totally objective, but involves a great deal of art as well. As one works to find objective and rational hints as to what may happen, our subconscious is simultaniously passing judgement on our choices, amending weights, etc. until we arrive at a finally best judgement of what is likely to happen and the probabilities of its actual occurance.

In one five year study I did over twenty years ago, we later found the forecast over 90% correct. That's generally regarded as pretty accurate forecasting, though I was aiming for 95%. Oh well.........

Blueflame,

If research into nuclear weapons design is resumed, the eventual outcome is more likely to be the continued reduction of nuclear weapons, not an increase in numbers. The older weapons are being decommissioned, and the U.S./Soviet stockpiles are getting smaller as we speak. It is no longer necessary to have the same sort of arsenal that was deemed necessary during the height of the Cold War, and our arsenal needs to be updated to meet current conditions. The number of weapons needed now, and in fhe foreseeable futrue, is smaller, but the sort of weapons needed is also different today than in 1978.

I expect that the U.S. nuclar arsenal will in the future have a very broad range of specialized warheads, and a minimum number of full-range nukes where all nuclear effects are present. The older generation is expensive to maintain, and as time goes on are increasingly less reliable. They need to be replaced, and by redesigining our weaponry we hope to make them smaller, more versitile, and easier to maintain without losing our nuclear advantage over all possible opponents.

The fewer members of the Nuclear Club, the better. It is unreasonable to suppose that most of the Club members will voluntarily give up their weapons until they are assured that the loss of the weapons will not but them at un-necessary risk. Most of the world depends upon the U.S. nuclear capability to shield them from nuclear attack, and that makes us different than other countries. The French could give up their nuclear inventory with no risk, accept to their vain-glorious egos. The British might someday give up their arsenal as an un-necessary expense. India and Pakistani are currently at parity, or near parity, and hopefully they will remain stable until some reductions are possible. Russian is a special case, and dismanteling their old arsenal is a joint project with the U.S., and eventually will be rendered "safe". Israel is not going to give up nuclear weapons when they are the best guarantee that their militant neighbors who call for destruction of Israel will not attack them. The DPRK and Iran either have, or want nuclear weapons to blackmail regional neighbors or to extend extreme Islamic doctrines.

There is a very big difference between an American nuclear warhead and one possessed by the DPRK, or Iran, and only those who are blind can not see it.

A relevant aside, more akin to the topic at hand than the Volcano analogy. There are legions of economists inclusive of the Fed, that have done their damnedest to predict interest rates, and IMO have failed miserably.

Their resources and tools are arguably much more formidable, and unarguably much more specific than those used for the military type of forecasting you make reference to.

Asherman,

I haven't had a chance to read your posts about this, but I thank you for taking the time to do this. I'll sit down late tonight after JayBea has gone to sleep so I can concentrate on them. I'm sure you've made some valid points, and have already covered my objections.

I just can't imagine a scenario where we need to be blowing up any kind of nuclear weapon. I think it takes a particularly venal and evil person/country to authorize that kind of destruction and that kind of murder. If a terrorist sets off an aquired nuke, who are you going retaliate against?

I don't know Ash, it's an evil business, killing millions of people at a stroke. I was hoping we weren't those kind of people any more. Apparently, I'm wrong, it makes me very sad.

Anon

How about a nuclear war?

Asherman, I'm for arms limitation and non-proliferation treaties. Bushie came out swinging against arms limitation treaties it took decades to achieve. He talked of resuming underground nuclear testing and let China know he would not object if they resumed. Putin then said if that happened he would resume. This is imo the wrong direction. I agree with El Baradei that the US should lead the world into disarmament. The recent resolution against Iran included a call for a nuke free Mid-East. El Baradei is at least honest enough to admit that America's call for new nukes only drives other nations to attempt to build nukes as a deterrent. Bushie knows his actions make other nations jittery. But jitteriness is a money maker for war merchants like Bushie. ElBaradei has a chance with the new resolution against Iran to make his case for international agreements away from proliferation and a new generation of nukes. And I hope he does. I dont consider the Geneva Convention to be quaint either. Theses international treaties were pushed by the USA as a civilized way to deter war. Unfortunately the USA has fallen into the hands of a Hitleresque axis that lied us into a pre-emptive unjust and unneeded war as Jimmy Carter called the Iraq war. And a promise of escalation.

ElBaradei should watch his back. America had a great world leader, JFK, who pushed against nukes and the arms race and look what happened to him. ElBaradei's ideas closely mirror JFK's. Unfortunaterly Bushie is the anti-JFK and has worked very hard to derail non-proliferation. "The deadly arms race, and the huge resources it absorbs, have too long overshadowed all else we must do. We must prevent the arms race from spreading to new nations, to new nuclear powers and to the reaches of outer space." JFK State of the Union Address, January 30, 1961 http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/11/17_carnegie_jfk-nuclear.htm

Unless ElBaradei rides around in an open town car............Anyway, JFK was killed by a Communist Martian from Pluto posing as human, everyone knows that's the only conspiracy theory that makes any sense at all.

Chumly, whoever it was killed JFK JFK was a world apart from Bushie on nuclear weapons and the arms race.

Maybe they did not like the cut of JFK's jib?

And it's a bit late to stop outer space warfare, I mean jeez, doesn't El Cabob (ElBaradei?) watch Star Trek?

Humor off.

From who ... Korea?? I doubt it! China, why? They going to knock us off educationally, economically, and technically anyway. They're going to take it from us, and they don't need a nuke to do that! It's not going to take that long either! Russia? They might try, and we blow them off the face of the earth with what we already have. Same goes for any of the mid-east states.

If we get hit, it's going to be by a terrorist organization. They'll do it with nukes that ALREADY exist, and they'll either truck it over a border, or surf it into a harbor.

We haven't prepared the way we should. We've thrown away our resources, we've indebted ourselves for decades without spending another penny, and we've misdirected our money to the top 1-5% of the American People while crippling the rest. We are severely limited now in so many ways to prepare the way we should. We've let this Administration do this to us because they have done a superior job of scaring the crap out of everyone. One of the most pathetic examples of this was little old ladies making their homes airtight in case of an Anthrax attack.

This Admin has sodomized us bloody, and I for one doubt our ability to recover from it. Yea, yea, yea ... the economy is wonderful, joblessness is great, everything is candy and ice cream and I'm just an old party pooper.

Fine! Meanwhile, while we celebrate in our delusions, this Admin will continue what's it's doing. At some point, it will strike the American People what the situation is ... right about the time that GM layoff becomes your company, or business.

I will just have to sit and watch the disaster, because everything is just candy and ice cream.

This nuclear "research" is just another way to give more money to those who have been sodomizing us so far. All in the name of fear!


Anon

At to present day nuclear threats I expect you can list the usual suspects as well as anyone (i.e. anyone who has access to the technology). As to why; that would be for the same reasons that man has fought wars throughout the ages. As to the future; well Ash's view are not congruent with mine, but suffice it to say, I assert there will be considerably more nuclear powers in oh say 100 years.

As to the rationality of using nuclear weapons and/or the rationality of a nuclear war and/or the rationality of war itself, my general view it that the net effect is a big negative but that it may be unavoidable.

Careful with the "we" you keep using as I'm Canadian, and you know how much better Canadians are than Americans don't you

I would love to live in Canada, but JayBea can't take the cold. It's gonna have to be Rome instead.

Anon

The gulf Islands don't get cold and rarely snow, same with my home.

TAC to Standard?-Challenge Accepted
by Patrick J. Buchanan

In the run-up to war in Iraq, The Weekly Standard was the voice of the "cakewalk" crowd clamoring for "Action This Day!" Cawing and cawing, in the end they got, and we got, the war they had craved.

No voice in America was more resolute that the war would be an historic blunder than ours. From our first issue in 2002 until the 3rd Division stepped off, we warned this was an unnecessary war. Though Saddam was a monster, we said, he was no threat to us. But a U.S. invasion would radicalize Islam, increase terror, and leave our troops mired down in a nation whose people would come to hate us. We scoffed at the utopian blather about democracy breaking out as propagandistic nonsense.

Enraged, National Review read us out of the movement. In a cover story, "Unpatriotic Conservatives," NR charged three editors and four of our writers with harboring a treasonous desire for a U.S. defeat. Said NR, all seven of us "hate" President Bush and "hate" America. A year later, William F. Buckley Jr. conceded that, had he known what he later learned, he, too, would have opposed the war.

History has proven us right. But the question on the table now is the one raised in the lead editorial of the Jan. 23 Standard, "And Now Iran." The Standard calls on President Bush "to prepare for various forms of military action" to smash Iran's nuclear program. For the Standard believes that containment and deterrence will not work with Iran.

Hearkening back to that most terrifying moment of the Cold War, the Standard raises the specter of 1962. "A Cuban missile crisis with Khrushchev's Soviet Union was bad enough. Are we willing to risk it with Ahmadinejad's Iran?"

But this is absurd. America has thousands of nuclear warheads we could put on Iran and hundreds of rockets and bombers to deliver them. There is no evidence Iran even has the ability to build a bomb. To equate our situation with a missile crisis where Soviet rockets with atomic warheads were within hours of going operational is neocon scare-mongering.

"Advocates of containment and deterrence should step forward to make their case openly and honestly," says the Standard, "We look forward to engaging them in a real debate."

Fine, we accept.

Is the Iranian nuclear program "near the point of no return," as the Standard implies? Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA has told Newsweek: "There is no clear and present danger." And while the seals have been broken at the 164-centrifuge pilot plant at Natanz, Iran's foreign ministry has said "fuel production" has not even begun.

Do we know different? Con Coughlin, the defense expert at the Daily Telegraph, writes that even if Iran begins to enrich, it will be three years before they have enough fissile material for a single bomb. Israel has hundreds, we have thousands of bombs.

But if the "military option" is a preventive war on Iran, let us, at least this time, consider beforehand the costs and consequences. With its cruise-missile and smart-bomb bins refilled, the U.S. could effect the nuclear castration of the mullahs in 48 hours. The Iranian air force and navy would be an afternoon's work. But all of Iran's Shahab missiles would likely be fired at U.S. bases and Israel, to the delight of the Arab and Islamic street, widening the war.

And how might Tehran respond? Iranian volunteers pouring into Iraq inciting the Shia to attack U.S. troops. The Green Zone turned into Fort Apache. A debacle, unless we send in more troops. Iranian oil exports halted. Terror attacks on U.S. installations and Gulf allies. Silkworm missiles fired at tankers. Oil at $100-$200 a barrel. A worldwide depression. That's for openers.

In an all-out war, Iran could break apart. If so, we will multiply the ranks of terrorists hell-bent on getting their hands on a nuclear weapon, perhaps from Pakistan, and using it on us.

With our Army tied down and taking losses in Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistanis demanding we be thrown out of their country, do we really need another war against a nation four times the size of Iraq? One bullet fired at Musharraf, another at Karzai, and the U.S. position in the Pakistani-Afghan region could collapse overnight.

Conservatives must raise the ever-relevant question: Cui bono? Who would benefit from a U.S. war with Iran? Who is prodding us into it? Are they looking out for America first?

Conservatives will demand that Congress, this time, debate, and, if we are going to war, declare war. That would force us to focus on what the real threat is and whether we cannot find some accommodation with these people, as we did with Stalin, Mao, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev.

We never fought Russia and we need not fight Iran, unless they start the fight.

Re: Lab officials excited by new H-bomb project




Excellent!

I hope they up the yields. Especially if they want to continue the trend towards fewer and fewer warheads.

What are they going to do about it?

Besides, they recognize that we are the world's policeman, and so have to have the superior armament.

I don't see the problem.

International law allows us to have nukes.

International law prohibits Iran from having nukes.

As I recall, Bush progressed us from START II to START III.





France and China did post-cold-war nuclear tests in order to develop post-cold-war nukes.

Why shouldn't we do the same?