Public sentiment is largely negative, with a prevailing sense of anxiety and skepticism about the implications of the renewed interest in nuclear testing and advancements in nuclear technology, especially from Russia. Many express concerns about escalating tensions, leading to fears of a potential arms race and the devastating consequences of nuclear confrontations. However, there is also a minority view that sees the situation as exaggerated, questioning the real capabilities and intentions behind such advancements.

United States

Russia

International Community

The way that missile crews in the US work, they constantly get tested while on alert with “drills”.
(USAF Perspective)

Whenever these drills happen, it feels and looks real, and it is only at a point partway through the drill that it’s revealed to the missile crew that it’s actually a drill.

This means that the missile crews get incredibly numbed to the actions they’re taking. It’s normalized. They go through hours and hours of very stringent training and have to pass and keep current on a very strict medical and psychological clearance to stay as a missile crew. (PRP).

HectorTheGod

At least in the U.S. military:

--The strategic deterrent is handled by personnel who are already part of a "zero defects" culture in other aspects of their work (aviation, missiles, submarines).

--There are background checks and continued monitoring for reliability. This is called the Personnel Reliability Program.

--The actual procedures of nuclear launch are drilled, so they are at least extremely familiar and normal to the individuals who would carry them out in case of actual use.

--The "multiple key" requirements probably instill a certain amount of conformity. If the other guys are going to launch then who am I to stop them?

abbot_x

The individuals you named (Petrov &amp; Arkhipov) were the ones who were supposed to issue the order to fire, they never issued it. (Petrov doubted the data he saw; Arkhipov was in a situation where he was one of 3 men who all had to be aligned on issuing the order to fire, he insisted on confirmation from his superiors before doing that).

Currently, 100% of times that the order to deploy a nuke has actually been issued it has been obeyed - once for Hiroshima, once for Nagasaki.

DegnarOskold

First off, nobody can see the future so we can't know anything for sure. Second, you know of the times that individuals prevailed over the establishment and prevented the use of nuclear weapons, but you don't seem to know of the reverse cases. The idea that nuclear weapons are some unusable weapon that no man could bring to bear is just that, an idea. There have been times in history when people were chomping at the bit to use them, by some accounts that even happened in 2021. The idea of a "limited" nuclear exchange has been floated many times, as has the use of nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear theater. The absolute best source for nuclear planning is the Kennedy tapes, I believe that the congressional hearings on MacArthur also covered nuclear planning in some degree, but they predated ICBMs. There is no more recent example that I know of, so details are sparse. Go look at the Kennedy tapes, it will send a chill down your spine, and hopefully, you will have a newfound respect for how dangerous these weapons are.

Neonvaporeon

Tom Nichols (nuclear weapons/cold war guy) has written about this, and his big point is that the entire system is designed to enable the President to launch, and the people in it are trained to obey orders, not question them. There's no checks and balances here, it's all oriented to making sure that a valid (i.e. authentic) order to launch is carried out. Relying on people to go against their training and to disobey orders is a very thin reed, even if it's happened in the past.

ManicParroT

The situations you describe involve individuals with some amount of command authority and decision making power, operating in isolated circumstances. The vast majority of launch scenarios, at least in the American context, do not involve this level of discretion.

The validity of mutually assured destruction hinges on the *credible* threat of extinction-level retaliation. An actor must have a sufficient number of weapons, capable of being reliably delivered, by crews who *will* deliver them. Any uncertainty in any one of those criteria raises the chance of an adversary daring to "sneak one past the refs." To that end, the United States has spent considerable sums of time and money eliminating as much risk as possible.

With regard to the human element, this takes the form of the Personnel Reliability Program. Service members whose duties include the handling of nuclear weapons are subjected to an extremely rigorous screening and monitoring program centered entirely upon their capacity and willingness to putting nuclear weapons on-target. This goes beyond technical proficiency. The program's goal is to ensure that the people responsible for launching weapons are the kind of people who *will* launch weapons when asked.

Is it possible that, despite these efforts, a small number of missileers or naval officers can't bring themselves to turn their keys when the order comes in? Of course. But this isn't a scenario where the launch capsule has been given a full rundown of the global situation, and a set of facts to debate. They've been given an order from the special telephone, and six minutes to carry it out. The human element does not enter the equation in the same way it did in the examples you cite above.

But even in the event the constant training and routinization of nuclear warfare doesn't hold, that officer is one of several hundred. Whether or not you can execute *your* order, odds are good the other 449 silos can. And for the folks on the receiving end of our portable sun delivery service, that's a 449 vs. 450 is a difference without a distinction.

dr_jiang

[Here is a great thread by u/MRChuckNorris, which covers it a lot better than I could. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclearweapons/comments/taneef/people_need_to_hear_this_if_an_order_is_given_to/)

Old-Let6252

You've mentioned the Petrov example - yes, Petrov had the context of Korean Airlines, but ultimately, heightened tensions between the US and the USSR had been the case for three decades, and he'd lived through Berlin and Cuba anyway. 

In real use case scenario of strategic weapons, you're looking at scenarios like a NATO Article 5 situation or an invasion of Taiwan. At this point I think the decision-making calculus of an individual has significantly changed, and the acceptability of making that personal moral decision changes.

The same for a tactical commander in a battlefield situation. After all, if a Russian commander has seen ten brigades wiped out over the past few months, why would a weapon that itself destroys a single brigade be particularly offensive?

SadWorry987

I think you will find it helpful on a very deep level to read, " On Killing " by Col Grossman.  He explains in great detail that the presence of an authority figure, prior conditioning with a positive/negative reward system, physical and mental distance from the enemy (they aren't people,  they are the enemy) and being directly observed by your teammates in a crew based weapon system drastically increases the individuals ability to carry out the function of killing other people. The military is excellent at training and conditioning a prescribed response even under terrible stress.  When the appropriate orders are issued,  the weapons will be deployed at an almost 100 percent rate in virtually every scenario.

Internal_Air6426

If a nuke is dropped every second it would take three and a half hours until we ran out

[deleted]

French Guiana, forever in our hearths, never colored on the maps

PepitoLeRoiDuGateau

North Korea has 50 nukes… and 5 working light bulbs.

AtlasInMyBag

The title sounds like the number ideally should be higher, but it actually would be better if it went down (but never stayed at 1)

ShoWel-Real

Also the fact that people think this is the real number is pretty insane. There's no way ACA or SIPRI are able to get any close estimates of something as secretive as Nuclear stockpile.

acricketfan

Theoretically it could be good for the US and Russia to reduce their numbers to be about the same as China, but realistically it will never happen.

Eroica_Pavane

The comment section on this one is something else

MRoss279

And five of them are at war, so maybe that has something to do with it.

NastyStreetRat

hornybrisket

Icy_One3229

Cultural-Ad-8796

Strange_Quail946

Is 5580 Russian ones like us + uk + israel + 40 spares or just 355 spares?

Excellent-Listen-671

jiumalu13

South Korea - has everything except Nukes (tho, if the US ever approves SK to buiild their own nukes, im sure they will take like a few weeks/months before saying DONE). 

North Korea - has nothing except nukes.

s4yum1

Having nukes is one thing. Having enough of them : an altogether different story.

ThomasArad

China seems to be increasing their nuclear warhead count. Less than 10 years ago China was on the same 200s range as France and UK.

eilif_myrhe

Just wait until Antarctica gets their hands… er, I mean flippers… on nuclear weapons.

gggg500

Israel having near 1/6 as many nukes as China (and not even acknowledging that they have them) is outrageous  🤣

Euromantique

Самое интересное то, что достаточно 1000 боеголовок, чтобы стереть с лица земли 90% населения.

OdmenUspeli

Alternate titles: Most aggressive countries. 
Most likely to invade another country.

Ok-Elk-1615

And two the most dangerous ones, Pakistan and Israel, are supplied by US.

They could gift some nukes to their new friends in Syria.

emorac

here's a solution:

why not gather all them nukes and explode them... uh... somewhere? You know, like maybe Seoul! oh oh, how does Busan sound? or Better yet, Incheon!

  
(edit: holy shit guys, I'm Korean! that was 100% a joke comment!)

Basil-Boulgaroktonos

This map is anti Septic. Israel doesn't have nukes. Khamas sub

Tea_is_Fantastic3

Looks like we are out numbered. But I would assume Europe would wipe each other out first.

qazqaz2000

I only trust two of those countries to act responsibly. How wonderful.

EfficientAd3625

Of course not. They gotta make sure they get as big and advanced an arsenal as possible before any negotiations happen. Why do folks think the Soviets waited so many years before doing it?

HawkeyeTen

and now to the comments, to see what the experts have to say

craniumouch

China has said in the past it is perfectly happy to accept an agreement where the U.S. and China are limited to the same amount of warheads.

pham_nguyen

**From Semafor's Mathias Hammer:**

China has rejected US efforts to resume talks on arms control, following a November 2023 meeting on nuclear weapons that left US officials hopeful of continuing negotiations with their Chinese counterparts.

“Unfortunately, the PRC has declined a follow-on meeting and has not provided a substantive response to our suggested options,” a State Department spokesperson told Semafor.

The spokesperson said that the Biden administration had proposed “common-sense steps that addressed fundamental risks for conflict and uncontrolled escalation in the nuclear and space domains.” This included improving crisis communications with Beijing, instituting pre-launch notifications of strategic ballistic missile test launches, and efforts to lower tensions in space.

Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, told Semafor that the US should “stop its megaphone diplomacy,” and called instead for “countries with the largest nuclear arsenals” to “significantly and substantially” reduce their own nuclear arsenals to further arms controls negotiations. The remarks did not single out the US but were a clear reference to Washington, which maintains an estimated 5,000 nuclear warheads — although Russia, an important China partner, holds around 5,580 of its own.

**Read the full story [here](https://www.semafor.com/article/05/01/2024/china-declines-to-meet-with-us-on-nuclear-arms-control-us-official-says?utm_campaign=semaforreddit).**

semafornews

China would have to be brain dead stupid to not increase their nuclear arsenal when US has been aggressively positionining their nuke delivery systems around China for the past 10 years.

Practical_Meanin888

us, Russia, and China not talking about nukes is kinda scary

China has a fraction of Russia and USA's nuclear arsenal.

FeynmansWitt

So new cold war, fighting communist china are we slowly moving into the fallout timeline? Is climate change the resource wars?

EmilytheALtransGirl

I mean, this is a bit like some dude who is wearing three assault rifle, five combat knives, two pistols, a flame thrower and a bazooka asking a guy with a single pistol at their belt to talk about weapon control.

The USA has more than ten times more nuclear weapons than China, see [https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/) . China is more comparable to France than to the USA and Russia in that regard.

Ksorkrax

It’s like showing up to gun fight . Asking the other person to hand you their gun to check .without giving yours

Snoo-72756

I was just walking around the Berkeley campus in some out of the way spots and noticed--as I didn't 50 years ago--there's an Oppenheimer Way. Which raises the question, What exactly IS "the Oppenheimer way"?

larry_bkk

HA! US wants to control arms in China but not gun control  in its  own country.
Thoughts  and prayers, y'all.

ztravlr

When USA accuse you have WMDs, you better really have it:)

Unhappy-Buy5363

lovely, i just *adore* nuclear apocalypse! i &lt;3 humanity  ❤️❤️💥☢️ so intelligent, so cooperative, we’re just the best &lt;33

laikina

China is funding Russia now, they are basically funding a war against Europe.

No shit, the world is getting tired of America trying to dictate how people should think and what countries should do. Especially when the country doing all the dictating has serious problems of its own.

When they refuse to make treaties with you, then you just gotta leapfrog them on another tech tree

Strawbuddy

tedfreeman

Time to replay the Fallout series, I guess

HoboWithoutShotgun

hunt physical impolite wine quarrelsome placid airport direction escape abounding

Not until they build more, which is what they're doing.

ConstantStatistician

I'm legitimately curious how everyone here is so sure of the apparently defunct status of Russia's strategic arsenal?

Everything I'm reading indicates they've sacrificed the modernization of their conventional forces for the sake of their nuclear capabilities.

Submission Statement:

Russia has suspended its participation in the New START treaty, said Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in a speech to the Federal Assembly and members of the Russian political elite on Feb. 21. The nuclear arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia was signed in 2010 in Prague.   
Putin said that Russia would not allow the U.S. or NATO countries to inspect its nuclear arsenal, adding that a week ago he signed a decree putting new strategic ground-based systems of nuclear missiles on combat duty. He also said that Russia is prepared to test nuclear weapons if the U.S. does so first.

Putin also threatened that, "the more long-range Western systems will come to Ukraine, the further we will be forced to move the threat away from our borders."

KI_official

How will Russia fabricate and maintain the new arsenal? Wil they redirect a significantly larger portion of their economy to weapons production and maintenance? With the brain drain since the end of the cold war, could they even compete with the US or China in a high tech arms race? 

I don't know, I don't see this as a major development. Just more theatrics by a waning power that wants to maintain it's relevancy.

Ennc3

Pure fearmongering. Putin's speech was entirely directed at the most gullible in the West to scare them into pressuring their governments to leave Ukraine on its own, which is what he has been doing even before this war even started. Let's not act like this changes anything ; as with every treaty the Russians sign, they had been breaching it for many years by not letting foreign observers certify their arsenal respected the terms of the agreement.

And we know exactly why that is : it's not because their arsenal is bigger than it's allowed to be, but because it is in an utter state of disarray as is everything else in their military, and letting the world see that would fundamentally change the equation regarding how we deal with this garbage regime.

GarlicThread

After the West received enough evidence that the Russian conventional army is far from being the "second-best in the World", Putin uses his last card - nukes, and tries to gamble it in his negotiations to reach an armistice with the current borders. What he is also doing here is a) restricting external access so there will be less information on the state of the Russian nuclear arsenal which is probably weak as is its regular army, and b) sending a PR message to the domestic audience that starts asking questions like when and how this Special Military Operation is going to end actually?  
This was the only important bit of his 90 min excuses /amateur alternative history lessons / promises to Russian and suggestions to his own government. All takes place during the 23 year of his rule.

pass_it_around

The mere mention of nuclear testing makes me wonder how likely underground testing will resume?

Tommy27

It shouldn't be that worrying. Russia is not the soviet union. We have seen time and time again that russia cannot match its former in any way. It is not any threat to the west as even France has a better Military-Industrial complex. Also Russia has hemorrhaged the majority of its professionals since 1991. Basically there is as much threat here, as a ninety year old in a wheelchair saying hes going to knock you out

zepherths

The treaty is important because it allows the US to inspect Russia's nuclear arms. This is a key tool in nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Russia having secret nuclear weapons is not good, particularly in a scenario where their government becomes disorganized or fractures.

Jeydon

U.S. President Joe Biden said on Feb. 22 that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin had made a "big mistake" by suspending Russia's participation in the New START treaty, a nuclear arms reduction agreement between the two countries.  
More on this update here: https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/biden-on-putins-suspension-of-nuclear-treaty-with-us-big-mistake

It's all for show. It would make much more sense to grow its conventional capacities right now. Not just because it's at war but because its air arm has been lacking.

Flux_State

Finally.  An unchained arms race.  Just what we needed.

misterhamtastic

Russia doesn’t have the money for a new nuclear arms race.

Enjoy-the-sauce

I don’t have enough energy for this morning news so I’ll keep it short. Information on the nuclear arsenal is held behind lock and key but Putin’s actions betray the state of its condition. I am still highly concerned about the actual activation of nuclear warheads but I do believe it will be significantly delayed because of the potential mismanagement of funds. Really does feel like Putin is trying to delay becoming a pariah as long as possible.

Tntkaboomsky

The treaty allows both countries to inspect each other's nukes?

There's no way the US allows Russia to do that and vice versa

So it was probably already functionally useless

laz10

Good. America should build all the nuclear weapons it can and design new missiles and weapons in space to deliver nukes with. More nukes is the best way to deter Russia, China, and Iran from attacking us.

as russia loses its conventional deterrence (by consuming it in ukraine), it seems just logical to step up the nuclear game.

Antalagor

This is nothing. 10% of their arsenal is way more than enough to destroy the human civilization, so at the end of the day who cares if they have 6000, 6300 or 8000. I even doubt they can proliferate anything, the last person to design or build a nuclear weapon probably retired around 1985. Can they get there again? Sure, almost any developing country can.

AgitatedSuricate

One is a 20-odd trillion dollar economy, one is a 1.7 trillion dollar economy. And the 1.7 trillion dollar one says that the US cannot determine our weapons :/  
That's true. I wish the US would buy Russia directly with a 10-year mortgage loan instead of determining the weapons.

infodawg

little Vlad throwing the toys out of the pram once again

When it came to nuclear weapons, the U.S. had two top priorities in the 1990s. One was to ensure that newly independent Ukraine handed over its vast arsenal to Russia. The other was to prevent North Korea from obtaining its own nukes.

The first effort was a success, but today, many regard Ukraine’s disarmament as a strategic blunder, leaving it vulnerable to a Russian invasion that has triggered the bloodiest European war in generations. The second attempt was a failure: Pyongyang deftly exploited American reluctance to use military force and became a nuclear-armed state that can challenge global security.

Now, as Israel unleashes its military seeking to prevent what it says could be a similar nuclear breakthrough by Iran, these examples are being carefully studied around the world. Is the lesson that countries facing existential threats need nuclear weapons to survive? Or that pursuing those weapons is too dangerous, encouraging enemies to strike while they still can?

In the past, it was mostly rogue states like Libya, Syria and Iraq that tried to obtain nukes. Today the option is being seriously contemplated by American allies such as South Korea, Japan, Poland, Germany and Turkey, who worry that they can no longer rely on Washington’s protection. President Trump has fueled this existential dread by questioning the value of NATO, cutting off military aid to Ukraine and considering a pullback of American forces from South Korea.

Meanwhile, North Korea emerged from isolation to join a formal military alliance with Russia, sending troops to fight on European soil and testing its ballistic missiles on Ukrainian cities. It could do so with impunity because, unlike Tehran’s theocracy, Pyongyang’s totalitarian regime has a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and doesn’t fear being challenged with military force.

“A lot of countries will now be thinking that nuclear weapons are the ticket to sovereignty,” said Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO who served as special envoy for Ukraine in the first Trump administration. “If we don’t change our behavior—and I don’t expect we will—the world we’re going to live in 20 years from now will be a world with lots of nuclear-weapons states.”

Themetalin

I wonder if any Latin America, African, or Pacific power will push for nukes now. Probably not.

acherlyte

&gt; “If we don’t change our behavior—and I don’t expect we will—the world we’re going to live in 20 years from now will be a world with lots of nuclear-weapons states.”

Then that's the world you deserve.

SeniorTrainee

There are 5 recognized nuclear powers, but 4 non legally acknowledged. Israel, Bharat, Pakistan, North Korea. 

Soon probably Iran. Really seems a non issue. If there are 10 vs 9, what difference does that even make?

killa_kuma

We used to understand that it is safer for the world and the five major nuclear countries (US, UK, Fr, Ru, CN) to limit nuclear proliferation. Then some losers decided to allow and, in some cases, even help their cronies to build nuclear weapons. These authoritarian countries have no sense of responsibility for the international community, only care about their own interests. They do not have the virtues to be the permanent members of the UN security council.

DaySecure7642

The global nuclear order faces challenges after Donald Trump's announcement to resume U.S. nuclear testing, potentially destabilizing long-standing arms control regimes.

Global Nuclear Order and Arms Control

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want