The probability of another nuclear bomb being dropped

[Keith&Co.]

my definition of terrorism is america and russia are nation of terrorist they are terrorizing whole world with their nukes and fighting wars on small nations

First of all, that's not a definition, that's just applying a label.
Second of all, that's not a definition, it's just jabbering 'terrorist' multiple times.
So, yea, verily, you're not even trying any more, you're just trolling.

PLUS america and russia killed 100 million their own white people in ww 2 thats my definition of terrorism

Let us know when you figure out what 'definition' means.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't mean in general, but if you surface and find America has been blasted... That's the real mission of the boomers--be a final retaliation option if the Russians win.

Not even 'not in general.' The Air Force found a way to make a Permissive Action Link for the submarines. We do not have full access to the firing circuit until we get the launch message from the properly qualified command authority.

Which negates your mission as a last resort in case they take us out.

 

[arkirk]

Not even 'not in general.' The Air Force found a way to make a Permissive Action Link for the submarines. We do not have full access to the firing circuit until we get the launch message from the properly qualified command authority.

Which negates your mission as a last resort in case they take us out.

There is no "winning" in any nuclear battle. We have no business extending the time this threat hangs over all of humanity. There are some disasters the entire human race cannot survive. All out nuclear war is one of them. We need to cooperate and wipe nuclear weapons from the face of the planet...with NO EXCEPTIONS, not build more and fuss over the deck chair arrangement on the Titanic. Any command authority that feels justified under ANY CONDITION to launch a nuclear war is by definition a willful participant in the greatest of all conceivable war crimes. The orange haired Trump was not a good bet for the people on this count. His arrogance and narcissism have grim consequences for the human race. He is talking about outpacing and winning in a nuclear arms race. That looks a lot like a madman to me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not even 'not in general.' The Air Force found a way to make a Permissive Action Link for the submarines. We do not have full access to the firing circuit until we get the launch message from the properly qualified command authority.

Which negates your mission as a last resort in case they take us out.

I think that mission depends on us detecting the overwhelming launch necessary to 'take us out' in time to issue the 'oh shit' codes.
So, maybe Hollywood will have a movie that shows a bunch of nuclear subs unable to launch anything in meaningless retribution and they'll issue us emergency can openers for the safes...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Which negates your mission as a last resort in case they take us out.

There is no "winning" in any nuclear battle.

'Last Resort' isn't suggesting 'winning' the war. It's the silly revenge deterrence function. We won't win the nuclear war, but neither will any of our enemies. That's the whole point of MAD. No one wins, and no one would conceivably start a war they know they won't win.

We have no business extending the time this threat hangs over all of humanity.

UNLESS the very threat is being effective as a deterrent. Then it's crucial that the threat hangs over the heads of the decision makers. It's the only chance the rest of us have, that even the guys in the deep bunkers fear pushing the button.

We need to cooperate and wipe nuclear weapons from the face of the planet...with NO EXCEPTIONS,

I would like to see an actual detailed plan for how to effectively accomplish this.
Seriously. I would desperately love to be out of work AND know that no one else poses this threat. What'll it take? Where can I donate?

 

[arkirk]

Which negates your mission as a last resort in case they take us out.

I think that mission depends on us detecting the overwhelming launch necessary to 'take us out' in time to issue the 'oh shit' codes.
So, maybe Hollywood will have a movie that shows a bunch of nuclear subs unable to launch anything in meaningless retribution and they'll issue us emergency can openers for the safes...

Why am I not seeing among all us intelligencia more suggestions about how to remove the threat....the fucking nuclear weapons and if necessary the nuclear weapons manufacturers, lobbyists, and legislators that look upon this threat as a way to being jobs to their districts. It is an issue of jobs versus decreased nuclear threat in nearly all cases. For the rest of the problem try welfare. " Conservatives" rail all the time against a "command economy." The classic example of a command economy is the production of nuclear weapons. The government taxes us all then commands a certain sector to produce this dangerous crap in secrecy. The industry is the industry of death for all. People in every country should demand an end to this madness and proceed if needs be to rip apart the governments that refuse to concede to their demands. For some odd reason the U.S. has chosen Trump and nukes. It defies logic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why am I not seeing among all us intelligencia more suggestions about how to remove the threat....

Maybe we don't think that removing the threat is the solution?
It's your goal, how would you achieve it?

the fucking nuclear weapons and if necessary the nuclear weapons manufacturers, lobbyists, and legislators that look upon this threat as a way to being jobs to their districts. It is an issue of jobs versus decreased nuclear threat in nearly all cases.

Okay, so you've place the blame.
Now, what would you to do to remove the t

For the rest of the problem try welfare. " Conservatives" rail all the time against a "command economy." The classic example of a command economy is the production of nuclear weapons. The government taxes us all then commands a certain sector to produce this dangerous crap in secrecy. The industry is the industry of death for all. People in every country should demand an end to this madness

Demand away.
But... How will anyone make sure that these demands are met? Because the WHOLE WORLD has to meet these demands, at the same time, and keep meeting the demands for the future of the whole race, else it's just a waste of time.

and proceed if needs be to rip apart the governments that refuse to concede to their demands.

Whine, whine, whine. HOW? We need a HOW to meet these demands, not just a threat of violence if we don't.

Seriously, if it's a matter of jobs, then invent a new economy we can shift to in order to keep the jobs without having to keep the nukes.
And how will you inflict this new economy onto every nation that possesses two nuclear physicists to rub together and make a bomb?

 

[fast]

Terms that fit one situation do not necessarily fit other situations because of similarities, and that's because of differences. For instance, the same physical act in one situation may be murder while the very same physical act in another situation may be self defense. The same goes for terrorism. It's not just a matter of who you side with or have sympathy for. When I kill someone, it's not murder unless all the conditions for murder are met. Same goes for terrorism. There can be a fine line delineating between them, but in the end, it's the differences that matter. Yes, if I kill an attacker, someone's lost a child either way, but the circumstances surrounding the actions play a huge part on which words we choose. We can't rightly call every shooting a murder anymore than can we rightly call every bombing terrorism.

terrorism is not when you kill other people, terrorism is when they kill your people

my definition of terrorism is america and russia are nation of terrorist they are terrorizing whole world with their nukes and fighting wars on small nations PLUS america and russia killed 100 million their own white people in ww 2 thats my definition of terrorism

You sound like the mother of a black man that just got shot by the police. Emotions run high, I understand that, but no matter how insanely angry I get when one of mine is on the receiving end of horror, one who can step back and look from the outside in can usually tell who was and who wasn't just in their actions. If I target the bad guys in a war effort and a few innocent families and children inadvertently die in the process, that's very unfortunate, but much more awful are they that deliberately target innocent families to achieve an end.

If we are just in going after the bad guys, and if we are just in aiding an attack on bad guys going after our allies (and I believe it is just to forge forward in the pursuit of moral objectives), then there's still the ethical issue of how we go about it. If you believe you're right in your choice to bomb others, you still have the ethical consideration of mitigating innocent causalties, and far worst are they that put their own end ahead of any other ethical considerations. If the US were truly terrorists, we would have left devastation far (oh so far) worst than we have.

The people who attacked the World Trade Center were terrorists, not merely because of what they done but because they didn't care one iota who got hurt. We don't want to cause undue harm, but the true terrorists of the world could care less. Furthermore, they're not terrorists merely because they attacked us, so your notion that those on the receiving end of horrific acts are victims is a bit skewed, as there's more than devestation and who is devastated that goes into who are and aren't terrorists.

 

[bilby]

No. The nuclear genie is already out of the bottle. You can't stuff it back in. Enough people have the knowledge that it would take a catastrophic event, like a nuclear war, to erase that knowledge from mankind. As ironic as that might seem.

All the things that go into a nuclear bomb require very disruptive and very visible operations such a mining and ore processing and the huge Manhattan project. Your idea of a nuclear genie is an incorrect assumption that nuclear "secrets" can exist on earth outside a well planned inspection program. The real genie is the propaganda machines that promote both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. It does need to be stuffed back into the bottle. Derec is back at his mad raving about Iran and North Korea. I have not been to this forum for some time but it appears to be the same old place with the same old prejudices and tribalism.

This isn't really true. Sure, mines are fairly easy to detect; but most countries have lots of mines, and it's far from easy to tell which (if any) are producing uranium, unless you have inspectors there on the ground.

The only part of the bomb making process that is difficult is enrichment, and the technology for that is not going to be done in an open field; an enrichment plant looks just like any other factory from the outside, so again, inspectors on the ground (or spies and/or whistleblowers at the facility) are needed to find out that bomb making is being attempted.

Actually building a bomb, once sufficient fissile material is available, is easy - any half way competent person could do it in their garden shed.

The Manhattan Project was big and expensive, but only because it was the first time an atom bomb had been attempted - nobody was even sure that it was possible until they did it.

Every nation that has developed atomic bombs has done so in secret, with the first indication that they were doing it being a successful test.

It's simply impossible to prevent nations from developing such weapons if they really want to do so. Look at North Korea - not a wealthy country by any stretch, but they made a bomb in secret, and the first the world knew of it was when it was detonated.

 

[Malintent]

Doing some basic math in my head, I figure the probability of another nuclear detonation is a function of time and the existence of nuclear weapons:

While nuclear weapons exist, the probability that another one is dropped approaches 1 with the passage of time

And so it's imperative that, in the future, nuclear weapons are wiped completely from the earth.

Is it as simple as this?

No, not even close. A wise quote I encountered abou this once went something like this:

In a Nuclear armed conflict, the real enemy is War itself

 

[sdelsolray]

i only know only white american christians terrorist dropped nuclear bomb

Post reported to the US Department of Homeland Security.

 

[ronburgundy]

The next nuclear bomb will not be dropped, but detonated - likely by an Islamic terrorist. Nuclear war between nation states can be cast in the column of just ain't going to happen. Question is, if a terrorist is able to detonate a nuclear bomb in a major city, what's the response?

This is pretty naive. You are discounting the possibility of a nuke launched from one country against another country in retaliation to a false alert and/or a mistake. Additionally, a small scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan isn't out of the question if the right set of events occurred.

Not to mention, he is assuming that nation states with high nuclear capabilities will not be controlled by mentally unstable demagogues who are so narcissistic they would risk the fate of humanity in response to a perceived personal insult.
The US just added such a leader to the existing list, and the US president has been given greater unchecked authority to order a strike than to do just about anything else. The personal conscience of the mindless drone soldiers conditioned to think obedience is their only duty is the only real safeguard against such an action by a US president. Even more probable is an reckless threat by Trump of such a strike that, due to the known mental and emotional instability of our president-elect, would trigger a response by others regardless of whether the threat was sincere or would be carried out by those who actually hold the keys.

if countries were so lax about their use of nukes, it'd have already happened.

No country that is highly equipped to launch an immediate and effective (i.e., hit its targets before it can be hit) nuclear strike has had a leader with ultimate authority to command such a strike who has been mentally and emotionally incompetent and unstable as the one the US just elected.
The US has now surpassed North Korea as a the modern nation-state most likely to initiate an attack due to the combination of our nuclear capabilities and the extreme incapability of the person in command to make calm rational decisions.

 

[arkirk]

First of all, that's not a definition, that's just applying a label.
Second of all, that's not a definition, it's just jabbering 'terrorist' multiple times.
So, yea, verily, you're not even trying any more, you're just trolling.

PLUS america and russia killed 100 million their own white people in ww 2 thats my definition of terrorism

Let us know when you figure out what 'definition' means.

Actually, it is a silly argument you are proffering against what Syed is saying. Nuclear bombs could fit the mold for your idea of terrorism. It is not just an attack of one nation against the other nation's military. Curtis Lemay blazed the modern trail bringing modern warfare into the realm of terrorism by bombing civilian populations BEFORE the nuclear bombs. The real problem is believing in the efficacy of weapons of mass destruction and placing our fate in the hands of people who are capable of using them. It matters not the nation in which that happens. It only matters IF IT HAPPENS...and it HAS HAPPENED IN OUR COUNTRY. As long as there are launch codes and targeted weapons at the ready, we cannot claim any humanitarian or moral superiority over anyone. So there is some merit to what Syed is saying.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, it is a silly argument you are proffering against what Syed is saying.

But that's all Syed is doing, 'saying' shit. Not backing it up.
When my kids try to define a word using the same word, they get poor grades. Syed just proves he's trolling.

Nuclear bombs could fit the mold for your idea of terrorism.

Really? What is my idea of terrorism?
Syed calls the nation terrorist because we have nukes in the inventory. Having weapons is not part of my definition of terrorism.

It is not just an attack of one nation against the other nation's military.

Okay, that's what terrorism is NOT. Any chance of getting Syed to define what terrorism actually IS? I mean, without pointing fingers at every country he dislikes and calling them terrorists?

Curtis Lemay blazed the modern trail bringing modern warfare into the realm of terrorism by bombing civilian populations BEFORE the nuclear bombs.

Getting closer to something like a definition....

The real problem is believing in the efficacy of weapons of mass destruction and placing our fate in the hands of people who are capable of using them. It matters not the nation in which that happens. It only matters IF IT HAPPENS...and it HAS HAPPENED IN OUR COUNTRY.

So, possessing nuclear capability is terrorism, in your mind?
Okay.
You're scared shitless of nukes. How does that make it an act of terrorism, just having them?

So there is some merit to what Syed is saying.

Not the way he's babbling, no, there isn't.

 

[Elixir]

Not to mention, he is assuming that nation states with high nuclear capabilities will not be controlled by mentally unstable demagogues who are so narcissistic they would risk the fate of humanity in response to a perceived personal insult.

Aw c'mon. All they have to do is keep their mouths shut, hands in their pockets (no GESTURES!!) stay the fuck away from Twitter, and we'll all be fine.

 

[Tigers!]

The probability of another nuclear bomb being dropped

is always too high.

 

[jonatha]

Cold War estimates suggest that as few as five precisely targeted nukes could eliminate every US civilian authority in the line of succession, and that a further nine could eliminate every officer in the US military with the authority to order a retaliatory strike.

Source?

 

[rousseau]

Doing some basic math in my head, I figure the probability of another nuclear detonation is a function of time and the existence of nuclear weapons:

While nuclear weapons exist, the probability that another one is dropped approaches 1 with the passage of time

And so it's imperative that, in the future, nuclear weapons are wiped completely from the earth.

Is it as simple as this?

And you have a magic wand that can get rid of all nuclear weapons?

Nope, I'm only talking the probability of nuclear holocaust from a high level.

And it only took us 13 posts to conclude with 'despite being an intelligent species we're going to blow ourselves up eventually'.

That's not the conclusion. You aren't calculating the probability correctly. It's perfectly possible for the total probability to be less than 1 even when the probability in any given period is always nonzero, as long as the instantaneous probability keeps decreasing. The probability that another nuclear weapon will be used is 1 - the probability that another will never be used. The probability that another will never be used is the probability that one won't be used in the 21st century, times the probability that one won't be used in the 22nd century, times the probability that one won't be used in the 23rd century, and so on forever. If we can get the non-use probability per century up to 99%, and then up to 99.9%, and then just forever keep on adding more nines, then the overall probability of non-use for the rest of eternity can asymptotically go to 93% or whatever, depending on exactly how fast we keep adding nines.

If that's hard to follow, here's a simplified calculation. (This formula isn't quite right, but it correctly conveys the flavor of the mathematics.) Suppose the total chance of a nuclear attack some time in the 21st century is 10%, and in the 22nd century it's 5%, and in the 23rd century it's 2.5%, and so on, forever. Then the overall probability that one will ever be used anywhere on earth, at any point from now to forever, is only 20%.

So no, we don't have to get rid of them. We just have to commit to a permanent lifestyle of better and better security practices, arms control treaties, verification measures, and international conflict de-escalation.

We're calculating the probability that a nuclear bomb will be dropped while humans exist on earth, meaning that the more time we exist, the more time there is for a detonation.

That doesn't mean the probability is 1, but that it approaches 1. Given that we could be around for thousands, to hundreds of thousands of years, the probability as we calculate it now is close to 1 unless we make major efforts to reduce that probability, which is the point I was making.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Doing some basic math in my head, I figure the probability of another nuclear detonation is a function of time and the existence of nuclear weapons:

While nuclear weapons exist, the probability that another one is dropped approaches 1 with the passage of time

And so it's imperative that, in the future, nuclear weapons are wiped completely from the earth.

Is it as simple as this?

And you have a magic wand that can get rid of all nuclear weapons?

Nope, I'm only talking the probability of nuclear holocaust from a high level.

And it only took us 13 posts to conclude with 'despite being an intelligent species we're going to blow ourselves up eventually'.

That's not the conclusion. You aren't calculating the probability correctly. It's perfectly possible for the total probability to be less than 1 even when the probability in any given period is always nonzero, as long as the instantaneous probability keeps decreasing. The probability that another nuclear weapon will be used is 1 - the probability that another will never be used. The probability that another will never be used is the probability that one won't be used in the 21st century, times the probability that one won't be used in the 22nd century, times the probability that one won't be used in the 23rd century, and so on forever. If we can get the non-use probability per century up to 99%, and then up to 99.9%, and then just forever keep on adding more nines, then the overall probability of non-use for the rest of eternity can asymptotically go to 93% or whatever, depending on exactly how fast we keep adding nines.

If that's hard to follow, here's a simplified calculation. (This formula isn't quite right, but it correctly conveys the flavor of the mathematics.) Suppose the total chance of a nuclear attack some time in the 21st century is 10%, and in the 22nd century it's 5%, and in the 23rd century it's 2.5%, and so on, forever. Then the overall probability that one will ever be used anywhere on earth, at any point from now to forever, is only 20%.

So no, we don't have to get rid of them. We just have to commit to a permanent lifestyle of better and better security practices, arms control treaties, verification measures, and international conflict de-escalation.

We're calculating the probability that a nuclear bomb will be dropped while humans exist on earth, meaning that the more time we exist, the more time there is for a detonation.

That doesn't mean the probability is 1, but that it approaches 1. Given that we could be around for thousands, to hundreds of thousands of years, the probability as we calculate it now is close to 1 unless we make major efforts to reduce that probability, which is the point I was making.

I would say that is a conditional probability. What is the probability that a nuclear bomb will be detonated, given that we are not wiped out by some other event? I suppose that would approach 1, but is probably not quite as interesting. The unconditional probability for nuclear annihilation could still be extremely small.

aa

 

[ronburgundy]

i only know only white american christians terrorist dropped nuclear bomb

Post reported to the US Department of Homeland Security.

Surprised no one commented on this yet. I deeply hope this was a joke, and if it is, it is not a joke that should be made here without making it clear it is a joke. Sadly, the internet is rife with fascists that would in fact report such a post hoping to cause real harm to a person's life merely for expressing their political views.