Hacker News Reader

Comment by nordsieck | Hacker News Reader

> But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them.

That seems like a very good strategy if you want to use nukes as a deterrent. I don't think this follows if you are planning on actually using them.

> That's because the problem with nuclear weapons is their unlimited ability to quickly escalate destruction.

This is tempered quite a bit by the target's economic ability. South Africa doesn't have an "unlimited ability to quickly escalate". Neither does Pakistan or North Korea. Those countries do have nukes, but they are so poor, it's just not plausible they have many, or particularly high yield ones at that.

Your point does hold for the US, Russia and China, though.

View on HN

Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989 and has yet to deviate from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty it acceded to in 1991. It also recently ratified the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Do you know something we don't?

This is a bit of a special case, though. The decision to relinquish the nuclear weapons was directly a consequence of the end of the apartheid regime. In a sense, the apartheid government didn't give up it's weapons, so much as it knew that it's days were numbered and it didn't trust the next regime with the weapons.

> Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989

You probably know better than I do.

I tend to believe that once countries get nukes, they don't tend to give them up, but I could certainly believe that South Africa doesn't have any anymore.

Fortunately (in this case), knowledge and technology isn't permanent - it takes a lot of work to maintain. Unless they have secretly trained scientists and engineers, and maintain secret facilities for most of the supply chain, they've probably lost the ability to make a nuclear weapon by now.

While many states do explore what is called 'nuclear hedging' where they remain non-nuclear but conduct research and development to shorten the potential time of their nuclear breakout (a contemporary example being Iran), South Africa is definitely not a part of this club as their rhetoric and supporting actions simply do not align with this strategy.

looking at the other two countries that gave up their nukes, i don't blame them.

>I tend to believe that once countries get nukes, they don't tend to give them up

Well of course not. It's the nation state equivalent of being able to defend yourself with lethal force. It means that anyone who is an existential threat to you must reckon with the fact that you can be an existential threat to them if sufficiently backed into a corner. No nation is going to give that up.

So the only reason to use tactical nukes are if you're going to use them an extreme case, or you're going to slaughter innocent citizens of a perceived enemy country in a surprise attack.

But that only gets you one free surprise use. After that the world knows your intent and capabilities. So you'd still have to be prepared for an all out nuclear war.

So it seems like if the president cares anything about self preservation, then nuclear weapons would only be used as a deterrent.

Tactical nukes are those that one uses against military targets. Of course, they kill over some radius, but it's not a given that they would affect civilians.

You may be thinking about strategic nukes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com