Most active commenters
  • measurablefunc(7)
  • mindslight(4)
  • ggm(3)

←back to thread

Trump orders immediate resumption of US nuclear weapons testing

(www.france24.com)
29 points hackthemack | 12 comments | 30 Oct 25 02:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
r721 ◴[30 Oct 25 02:44 UTC] No.45755881[source]▶
I think he got confused with the terminology - Putin said he tested nuclear-powered Burevestnik, but that's not the same as testing nuclear weapons.
replies(2): >>45756038 #>>45756073 #
measurablefunc ◴[30 Oct 25 03:11 UTC] No.45756038[source]▶
Technically it is a nuclear weapon. It uses radioactive material in some non-trivial capacity.
replies(1): >>45756080 #
ggm ◴[30 Oct 25 03:18 UTC] No.45756080[source]▶
I think "technically" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when the nuclear component is an engine. It's like classic geek ratholing.

if a nuclear submarine launches a tomahawk with a non-nuclear warhead is the entire weapons system "a nuclear weapon" in your eyes? Is that a breach of the arms treaties, and breaches "no first strike" posture and invites second strike response with nuclear warheads?

replies(1): >>45756113 #
1. measurablefunc ◴[30 Oct 25 03:24 UTC] No.45756113[source]▶
I wasn't arguing about semantics. Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic so they saw the latest propaganda from Russia & decided that the new policy would be the proper response.
replies(2): >>45756623 #>>45756824 #
2. ggm ◴[30 Oct 25 05:06 UTC] No.45756623[source]▶
Russia tested a nuclear capable long duration engine and the US response as reported to media is that the WH requested a resumption of nuclear weapons tests. Not nuclear engine tests.
replies(1): >>45756694 #
3. measurablefunc ◴[30 Oct 25 05:24 UTC] No.45756694[source]▶
The public will be happy w/ their response. You're drawing distinctions very few people care about which is why Trump is president & you're arguing w/ random internet strangers about the absurdity of the response.
4. mindslight ◴[30 Oct 25 05:57 UTC] No.45756824[source]▶
> Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic

Apparently you haven't noticed that Tramp has been purging anyone loyal to the United States as a country and installing subservient apparatchiks in their place. This is not a dynamic which selects for intelligence, competence, or subject matter focus.

replies(2): >>45756963 #>>45756995 #
5. measurablefunc ◴[30 Oct 25 06:25 UTC] No.45756963[source]▶
I don't think the nuclear physicists & engineers building the bombs are any less competent so I don't know what point you're making. In fact, the people doing the actual work are still the same people as they were when Biden was president.
replies(1): >>45757029 #
6. ggm ◴[30 Oct 25 06:32 UTC] No.45756995[source]▶
If you're willing to work in this space, there's probably a cohort who would like to put a shot in the hole and make it go off. The simulations are good, but people have life goals and "working on a bomb including setting one off" is probably there.

Unless there are some shot holes prepped, there is a bit of engineering to get there first. "As quickly as possible" is slow, unless you repudiate the other treaty and do an above ground or underwater shot which the US hasn't done since 1992 and even then it was basically a buried one. It hasn't done an underwater test for far longer.

7. mindslight ◴[30 Oct 25 06:38 UTC] No.45757029{3}[source]▶
You were talking about policy, not the people designing and building bombs.
replies(1): >>45757481 #
8. measurablefunc ◴[30 Oct 25 08:04 UTC] No.45757481{4}[source]▶
I didn't specify whether it was policy or implementation or both. The government isn't a monolithic structure w/ everyone being equally stupid or intelligent. In the case of nuclear warheads I'm certain the people who have to do the actual work are not idiots even if the policymakers are idiots.
replies(1): >>45760711 #
9. mindslight ◴[30 Oct 25 14:53 UTC] No.45760711{5}[source]▶
> decided that the new policy would be the proper response.

How were you talking about anyone but policymakers?

replies(1): >>45763086 #
10. measurablefunc ◴[30 Oct 25 18:06 UTC] No.45763086{6}[source]▶
> people who work for him

Does not mean only policymakers. In any case, I'm not concerned about this issue so good luck to you.

replies(1): >>45764515 #
11. mindslight ◴[30 Oct 25 19:52 UTC] No.45764515{7}[source]▶
They do when we're talking about policies being made? I'm not super invested in this either, I just don't understand why we're going around in circles here.
replies(1): >>45765534 #
12. measurablefunc ◴[30 Oct 25 21:22 UTC] No.45765534{8}[source]▶
Assume less & you'll be less confused in general.