woolaf
@woolaf.bsky.social
Nuclear nerd and lover of baseball. Owner of the cutest dog in the world.
He was responsible for more nuclear disarmament than anyone who has actually advocated for nuclear disarmament. When he was VP, the Bush Administration reduced the nuclear stockpile by about 60%. Really annoys people when I call him the single greatest "unilateral disarmer" we've ever had.
November 4, 2025 at 3:46 PM
He was responsible for more nuclear disarmament than anyone who has actually advocated for nuclear disarmament. When he was VP, the Bush Administration reduced the nuclear stockpile by about 60%. Really annoys people when I call him the single greatest "unilateral disarmer" we've ever had.
Putin may have a broader agenda in mind, but the whole middle of the article about how the Russians used arms control to get to the table on broader issues is wrong. And the idea that the Russians see arms control as essential is wrong. Not sure where this framing came from, but its bizarre. 2/2
November 2, 2025 at 6:04 PM
Putin may have a broader agenda in mind, but the whole middle of the article about how the Russians used arms control to get to the table on broader issues is wrong. And the idea that the Russians see arms control as essential is wrong. Not sure where this framing came from, but its bizarre. 2/2
Pre-planned, long-scheduled tests of new delivery vehicles is not "nuclear chest thumping." The framing of this article is wrong. James and Pavel were right, but buried in the middle, between a German analyst who was wrong about the messaging and a Russian propagandist. Bizarre framing. (1/2)
November 2, 2025 at 6:01 PM
Pre-planned, long-scheduled tests of new delivery vehicles is not "nuclear chest thumping." The framing of this article is wrong. James and Pavel were right, but buried in the middle, between a German analyst who was wrong about the messaging and a Russian propagandist. Bizarre framing. (1/2)
Except all that other stuff will be stopped by the amazing Golden Dome! Only a radioactive tsunami can fill the deterrence gap! That was the explanation for Poseidon when Putin revealed it in 2018
November 1, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Except all that other stuff will be stopped by the amazing Golden Dome! Only a radioactive tsunami can fill the deterrence gap! That was the explanation for Poseidon when Putin revealed it in 2018
Fred Kaplan, Wizards of Armageddon. The Bomb is also good. Anything by Richard Rhodes.
October 31, 2025 at 1:13 AM
Fred Kaplan, Wizards of Armageddon. The Bomb is also good. Anything by Richard Rhodes.
It’s pretty clear he means delivery systems, not warheads, but it’s absurd that he doesn’t know the difference and even more absurd that he doesn’t know that we test delivery systems all the time. And yes, every sentence in that post is wrong.
October 30, 2025 at 5:30 AM
It’s pretty clear he means delivery systems, not warheads, but it’s absurd that he doesn’t know the difference and even more absurd that he doesn’t know that we test delivery systems all the time. And yes, every sentence in that post is wrong.
Yeah, but… what he said in Halifax, about the nature of a convo with the President doesn’t match with what Trump said to him after his talk in Halifax. I asked Hyten about this, but under circumstances that prevent me from sharing details of what he told me.
October 28, 2025 at 11:50 PM
Yeah, but… what he said in Halifax, about the nature of a convo with the President doesn’t match with what Trump said to him after his talk in Halifax. I asked Hyten about this, but under circumstances that prevent me from sharing details of what he told me.
I thought he did a shower head EO already
October 28, 2025 at 6:19 PM
I thought he did a shower head EO already
That, theoretically, might deter US first strike. As Jon said, this all started after US withdrew from ABM and Russia assumed U.S. would acquire a real and capable BMD system. They don’t need all the exotic systems to do this, but they never down-selected to just one or two.
October 26, 2025 at 5:29 PM
That, theoretically, might deter US first strike. As Jon said, this all started after US withdrew from ABM and Russia assumed U.S. would acquire a real and capable BMD system. They don’t need all the exotic systems to do this, but they never down-selected to just one or two.
It’s also about avoiding the loss of “assured retaliatory” capability. Assume U.S. shoots first and thins out lan-based and bomber systems. Assume US NMD is sufficient to thin out SLBM retaliation. Aquire ability to go over, around, and under U.S. defenses in 3rd strike. (1)
October 26, 2025 at 5:26 PM
It’s also about avoiding the loss of “assured retaliatory” capability. Assume U.S. shoots first and thins out lan-based and bomber systems. Assume US NMD is sufficient to thin out SLBM retaliation. Aquire ability to go over, around, and under U.S. defenses in 3rd strike. (1)
For the first question the movie posits both possible SSBN launch and potential cyber interference with satellites, but I don’t know enough about satellites to know if either is plausible. On the second, i doubt we’d go with only 2 GBIs. Probably at least 4 per incoming missile. Ask @armscontrolwonk
explanation.to
October 25, 2025 at 12:07 PM
For the first question the movie posits both possible SSBN launch and potential cyber interference with satellites, but I don’t know enough about satellites to know if either is plausible. On the second, i doubt we’d go with only 2 GBIs. Probably at least 4 per incoming missile. Ask @armscontrolwonk
It wasn’t just who gave the advice (he’s not briefed on the options, just the procedures), but also the extreme nature of the advice for one incoming missile!
October 25, 2025 at 7:13 AM
It wasn’t just who gave the advice (he’s not briefed on the options, just the procedures), but also the extreme nature of the advice for one incoming missile!
Am I the only one who screamed “no, just no!” at the recommendation from the guy with the football???? Where was the CJCS? Yes I felt the human tension, but there’s only so much disbelief that I can suspend on the scenario.
October 25, 2025 at 5:19 AM
Am I the only one who screamed “no, just no!” at the recommendation from the guy with the football???? Where was the CJCS? Yes I felt the human tension, but there’s only so much disbelief that I can suspend on the scenario.
They express the opinion of a majority of the Members of one house of Congress (or both, if they are Joint resolutions.) That's more than nothing, and I salute and support a public campaign on nuclear dangers, but there's a lot less there than meets the eye. (fin)
October 19, 2025 at 10:21 PM
They express the opinion of a majority of the Members of one house of Congress (or both, if they are Joint resolutions.) That's more than nothing, and I salute and support a public campaign on nuclear dangers, but there's a lot less there than meets the eye. (fin)
So the "success" was in educating and mobilizing public opinion, not in freezing nuclear programs. If this is the current goal, then all power to you, but the politics of this era are very different. Last point--resolutions aren't "laws." They don't require any change in programs or policies. (3)
October 19, 2025 at 10:19 PM
So the "success" was in educating and mobilizing public opinion, not in freezing nuclear programs. If this is the current goal, then all power to you, but the politics of this era are very different. Last point--resolutions aren't "laws." They don't require any change in programs or policies. (3)
It was the changing political relationship between the U.S. and SU (and the personal relationship between Reagan and Gorbachev) that moved the process forward, not the legacy of a failed congressional resolution. And reductions were due to changing requirements, not the freeze movement (2)
October 19, 2025 at 10:16 PM
It was the changing political relationship between the U.S. and SU (and the personal relationship between Reagan and Gorbachev) that moved the process forward, not the legacy of a failed congressional resolution. And reductions were due to changing requirements, not the freeze movement (2)
I don't mean to be pedantic, but several times in the article you say that the "the 1980s freeze movement succeeded." Succeeded at what? The resolution did not pass. The U.S. and Soviet Union never agreed to freeze their development of new weapons. Agreements were reached later in the decade but (1)
October 19, 2025 at 10:12 PM
I don't mean to be pedantic, but several times in the article you say that the "the 1980s freeze movement succeeded." Succeeded at what? The resolution did not pass. The U.S. and Soviet Union never agreed to freeze their development of new weapons. Agreements were reached later in the decade but (1)
From Telegraph:
t.me/rian_ru/322418
t.me/rian_ru/322418
РИА Новости
❗️Заявления Ушакова по итогам разговора Путина и Трампа:
🔹 Путин и Трамп в четверг провели восьмой по счёту телефонный разговор, он длился 2,5 часа. Разговор состоялся по инициативе России.
🔹 Особый...
t.me
October 16, 2025 at 7:43 PM
From Telegraph:
t.me/rian_ru/322418
t.me/rian_ru/322418
Low yield nuclear weapons
October 12, 2025 at 4:45 PM
Low yield nuclear weapons
No one can veto, and they can try to dissuade by suggesting alternative options (for targets or weapons)
October 9, 2025 at 3:10 AM
No one can veto, and they can try to dissuade by suggesting alternative options (for targets or weapons)
No he didn’t. He reminded those around him that he was in the “chain of communication” and that they were to make sure they set up a conference and included him if the president mused about use. Pres can order use without conference, so SecDef was trying to slow things down if Pres tried it.
October 9, 2025 at 2:51 AM
No he didn’t. He reminded those around him that he was in the “chain of communication” and that they were to make sure they set up a conference and included him if the president mused about use. Pres can order use without conference, so SecDef was trying to slow things down if Pres tried it.
That's why the fact that its true surprises people so much.
September 27, 2025 at 9:21 PM
That's why the fact that its true surprises people so much.
Totally agree, its obvious in the Senate history of support for treaties from Rs and votes against treaties from D's. R's will vote for their guy, even if they don't like the treaty, and D's will vote for the treaty because they like arms control. So R Presidents have a lot of room to move on this.
September 27, 2025 at 9:21 PM
Totally agree, its obvious in the Senate history of support for treaties from Rs and votes against treaties from D's. R's will vote for their guy, even if they don't like the treaty, and D's will vote for the treaty because they like arms control. So R Presidents have a lot of room to move on this.
One of my favorite reminders about the PNIs and the huge effect on deployed warheads is the fact that Dick Cheney was SecDef. Combine this with the significant cuts made to the stockpile under GWB, when he was VP, and Cheney easily wins as the “Greatest unilateral disarmer” in U.S. nuclear history.🙂
September 27, 2025 at 8:21 PM
One of my favorite reminders about the PNIs and the huge effect on deployed warheads is the fact that Dick Cheney was SecDef. Combine this with the significant cuts made to the stockpile under GWB, when he was VP, and Cheney easily wins as the “Greatest unilateral disarmer” in U.S. nuclear history.🙂