Why none of the nuclear powers pushed zhe button yet?
Especially in the Cold War
>>519255
Because that button kills everything
>>519259
Realistically speaking it does not
Also there was a bunch of bunkers and im sure there was plans to preserve forces to countinue the fight after a MAD scenario
>>519267
>preserve forces to countinue the fight after a MAD scenario
for what purpose? You really after MAD the countries would even care about eachother?
>>519255
The soviet union had a conscientious "fire second" strategy.
In part because they planned on conventional war.
>>519280
Tbqh yes
just about everything else has happened though op. from nukes being lost..to being dropped by accident, computers thinking they have been launched...people thinking that they have been launched. But in the end no one has done it yet because they know the other guy has it 2...and for 70 odd years that has been enough.
>>519351
How will this change when an orginization or country or force gets their hand on a nuclear weapons who are not as caotious like the powers who have them today?
>>519374
>How will this change when an orginization or country or force gets their hand on a nuclear weapons who are not as caotious like the powers who have them today?
Mao had them, Hitler had Bio weapons that could reach New York in 1944.
Read Nuclear Warfare 101 for a inside look at how the logic of deterrence functions.
>>519255
ultimately the united states and ussr were led my rational, self-interested men who realized that it is better to go home to their families at the end of the day than to push the button
>>519381
In that case there was MAD in effect for both of those parties but what if a terrorist force or someone who wanna cause as much havoc as possible gets something?
Also why didnt anyone in ww2 used chemical/biological weapon on the european theatre or japs against usa forces?
>>519374
it will probably be some group/orginization like u said trying to make a point. or a incident happening in a country and the nukes launching because they dont care at that point or dont care. A likely example would be india and pakistan. But its still not likely, it will probably be a accident that sparks it or someone stealing or making a crude small one then does something.
>>519267
Oh okay
So now instead of being the ruling elite of a wealthy powerful nation with many millions of subjects and vast resources and advanced technology
You are now the ruling elite of whoever still will take you seriously in a depopulated blasted ruin whose wealth and culture has been seriously damaged, wracked by famine, plague, banditry and lawlessness
Jeez I wonder why the people in charge don't really want to start a nuclear war.
>>519421
Just like ww2 was
>>519255
mutually assured destruction that's it
>>519392
>ultimately the united states [was] led [by] rational, self-interested men who realized that it is better to go home to their families at the end of the day than to push the button
This is a stretch.
Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan were all christians. A core tenet of Christianity is the passing nature of this world.
Carter and Reagan were radical christians who believed in the immanence and imminence of the rapture. Reagan, while in office, went through periods of mental instability which put his decision making into the hands of radical christians with even greater beliefs in imminence.
Nixon went insane in office (poor bugger). His chief advisor believed that murdering thousands of trade unionists over freedom of trade was legitimate. His chief advisor advocated mass aerial bombardment of civil targets for the purposes of treaty negotiation, and Nixon listened to this advice.
LBJ was relatively rational, and sought rational men to advise him. Perhaps we can criticise this rationality as being disinterested in the return to the family life, because Mcnamara would have started a nuclear war if the input output tables said so.
JFK was a fucking speed freak who almost started a nuclear war because, damnit, we need obsolete missiles in Turkey.
Ike was rational and well known for kicking military industry complex figures in the nuts, publicly, over nuclear strategy.
So I'll give you Ike. And LBJ.
Mutually assured destruction, even if a pre-emptive strike was made on one side's arsenal, neither side had total knowledge of how many weapons the other possesd, and where they are located, leading to all the nuclear powers coming to the conclusion that firing their nuclear weapons was paramount to firing at their own population too
The only question though is, would someone be willing to press the button to retaliate, willing to know they'll be responsible for the deaths of countless civilian lives, even if they live in an opposing state. If you look at most situations where nuclear action was proposed or close to occurring due to tensions or mechanical faults giving false data, no one has chosen to retaliate yet.
The only way to guarantee mutually assured destruction is through an AI based system
>>519395
WMDs were not used in the European theatre due to both sides being aware that their opponent had the capability to do the same to them
>>519456
Need we talk about the high use of cocaine and low rates of readiness amongst USAF missileers?
In the silos we sit, and wait for the bell, indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRC_y7gx-tQ
>>519481
>The only way to guarantee mutually assured destruction is through an AI based system
I wonder who could be behind this post?
>>519395
>MAD in effect.
MAD is never in effect, MAD is a result of the policies utilized by both the soviet Union and the United States.
MAD
The MAD concept really likes to assume that the use of even just one bomb would result in a nuclear frenzy, which doesn't make sense. While it could seem potentially advantageous to exchange one or two attacks with roughly equal retaliation, there is no advantage to mindlessly firing as many nukes as possible.
What is the point of launching a war if you know you're gonna lose?
>>519535
that's just it tho, why would anyone stop at one or two? country A fires a nuke at country B, country A returns the favour. now why would it stop there? country B would of course retaliate and it'd just go back and fourth till one of them either ran out of nukes or ceased to exist
>>519535
>The MAD concept really likes to assume that the use of even just one bomb would result in a nuclear frenzy, which doesn't make sense. While it could seem potentially advantageous to exchange one or two attacks with roughly equal retaliation, there is no advantage to mindlessly firing as many nukes as possible.
Soviet doctrine was one use by OPFOR = all go.
Do you want to know something even more amusing? Soviet Doctrine considered smoke and WP as a trigger for chemical warfare authorisation.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb explained it pretty well, actually. You're never positive what a country has in store in terms of nuclear defense, odds are using nuclear weapons would just start a nuclear war of attrition.
>>519535
If a guy pulls a knife on you, and you not only have a knife but also a revolver on your belt, which are you going to reach for first?
When the gloves come off, it's all or nothing, friend.
>>519556
He's answering the OPs question, MAD is the reason nobody pushes the button. Massive retaliation would be the means.
>>519255
The closest that any power has come to either be during the Korea War with the US nuking China or the Sino-Soviet border conflict with both parties nuking each other. In both cases China was by far the weaker party, and with some planning could of been first strike'ed out of the war. How in both cases the stronger party knew that doing some would have major negative effects on NATO/Warsaw pact thus was not viewed as being worth it.
Reminder to watch the film Threads
>>519255
>Why none of the nuclear powers pushed zhe button yet?
Nothing has made the risk/reward analysis slide in its favor.
>>519298
>The soviet union had a conscientious "fire second" strategy.
The Soviets had plans to fire preemptively when they believed that an attack by NATO was imminent or to limit NATO escalation options as a precursor to their deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.
>>519280
Toward the late Cold War, both sides planned to fight what the US planners called "The Long War" which was a nuclear exchange that lasted days or weeks rather than 2 hours.
>>519506
This.
>>519827
Massive Retaliation stopped being US policy in the early 1960's. It shifted into flexible response, and then into NUTS.
>>519556
>As an actual nuclear consultant
A what?
>>519267
Explain to me how anything but a limited nuclear exchange would not kill every living thing on this earth..?
All the dust that get's thrown into the air would cover the earth in perpetual darkness for several years. Nothing would grow. All water would be contanimated. All animals would die, including the fish in the ocean. What would we humans eat? We can't grow crops, because there's no sun. We can't eat animals, because they all died because the food chain got fucking wrecked. We can't drink water because it's all radioactive.
Indulge me. How would we survive.
>>519456
I bet you think Dubya was a moron
>>522824
Sorry. I meant I heard it from a guy who used to work as one of those.
Holy fucking shit.
Oppenheimer
Read this essay on nukes and tell me what you think of it.
>http://www.giantbomb.com/fallout-3/3030-20504/forums/nuclear-warfare-101-wall-of-text-alert-2999/
>>522853
>All the dust that get's thrown into the air would cover the earth in perpetual darkness for several years. Nothing would grow. All water would be contanimated. All animals would die, including the fish in the ocean. What would we humans eat? We can't grow crops, because there's no sun. We can't eat animals, because they all died because the food chain got fucking wrecked. We can't drink water because it's all radioactive.
None of these things are accurate. Fallout is a fun game, but it is not a good reference for nuclear weapon effects.
>>522863
I have read it. He is largely correct in his technical aspects, but I disagree with him on his opinions for the most part.
>>522853
>http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8882.0
Nuclear winter is a myth made up by Carl sagan
>>522874
What do you disagree about?
>>522821
>oppenheimer browses /his/
h-hi
>>522853
>All the dust that get's thrown into the air would cover the earth in perpetual darkness for several years. Nothing would grow. All water would be contanimated. All animals would die, including the fish in the ocean. What would we humans eat? We can't grow crops, because there's no sun. We can't eat animals, because they all died because the food chain got fucking wrecked. We can't drink water because it's all radioactive.
>Indulge me. How would we survive.
Aren't these the lyrics to a GYBE! song?
>>519381
>Hitler had Bio weapons that could reach New York in 1944.
No he didn't. The V-2s could barely make it to london.
>>522905
What is your opinon on it
Because destroying the world is frowned upon in most cultures
>>522927
It would be traumatic, for sure. The face of the nation would never be the same, but I believe it would survive and recover.
The borders may change, and the US would not be anywhere close to the power that it was prior, but in a few years, a decade or so, a pre attack citizen dropped into the post attack united states might not find himself too out of place.
But I am considered an optimist by many, and after all, its all opinion.
>>522927
Not him, but as long as the human capital remains, even in a shrunken form, you're not likely to see a descent into barbarism, involving living in their own shit, starving, and keeping women around as breeding sows.
Cultural values aren't that hard to erase, and people tend to cling to them, not abandon them, in times of adversity. The "B" country is relatively self-sufficient (at least in America), not only in regards to things like agricultural production, but also in light manufacturing.
Would the standard of living be as high? Definitely not. But the notion that as soon as the electricity falls off, EVERYTHING TURNS TO SHIT, is just ridiculous.
That, and while not relating to nuclear war by itself, he enormously underestimates the ability of states to erase each other with conventional weapons. Occupation is immensely destructive if the occupier wants it to be, and can be far deadlier than a nuclear exchange.
>>522874
>None of these things are accurate.
Read the Cold and the Dark by Carl Sagan.
>Nuclear winter is a myth made up by Carl sagan
I remain unconvinced by a forum post, but a for effort.
>>522942
Sagan makes several assumptions that are incorrect.
1) The idea that 1 target gets 1 warhead. This is incorrect. Most targets will get between 2 to 3 warheads.
2) The idea that most targets will be urban area targets. The vast majority of targets will be nuclear weapons themselves and supporting infrastructure.
3) Failure to account for increased fire safety in modern building materials and codes.
4) Using Glasstones thermal effects data from Hiroshima. The USSBS found that the Hiroshima firestorm was due to the light construction of the buildings as well as the ubiquitous stoves that most Japanese buildings contained.
Post war testing found that the cal/cm2 needed to cause sustained ignition in most building materials was higher than Glasstone reported.
The best way to illustrate this is the pic in this post.
The thermal flash causes charring on the face of the house. The charing in turn releases smoke, that obscures the material and protects it from the continuing thermal effects. Post war testing showed that this effect on most building materials decreased the cal/cm2 that was received as time went on, making the thermal effects less effective.
You get charing, but not sustained ignition.
Nuclear winter depends on soot from massive firestorms.
Massive firestorms depend on sustained ignition.
Since you don't have sustained ignition, you do not have firestorms. No firestorms, no nuclear winter.
and lastly:
4) Sagan's particle injection model was shown to be fatally flawed when it predicted a cooling effect from the Gulf War fires. Such cooling did not materialize.
Every study that proposes nuclear winter makes the same errors outlined above. If you start with flawed assumptions, how can your conclusions be reliable?
>>522979
Forgot pic.
>>522938
I'm curious, and someone who isn't in any way connected with the nuclear establishment: why is your opinion considered overly optimistic?
You have some pretty solid historical evidence of societies sustaining enormous losses (Paraguayan war, post 3 kingdoms China) and still maintaining their cultural identity, keeping order, and even sometimes maintaining their actual governmental regime.
If the technical assumptions mentioned in the Slade article are more or less correct, you'd probably have a lesser level of total devastation than say, the Jin dynasty China. Why then, is the usual assumption total societal collapse?
>>523000
>why is your opinion considered overly optimistic?
Groupthink.
I just read this Slade article, it seems exterminating the civilian population is the best thing to do, to stop them rebuilding afterwards. So all the precision targeting of assets is just a starter course for the the main event of killing people.
>>523021
Limiting the damage to your own country is the best thing to do.
The kind of strategy that results in the targeting of cities is not employed anymore.
What kind of impact would nuclear war have on countries not directly involved?
Eg, the existing nuclear powers all nuke each other, what is life now like for say Sweden or Namibia?
>>523070
Massive economic effects. Possible civil unrest, refugee crisis.
>>522939
I think you are pretty niave about mankind's ability to maintain civility during and after disasters. Consider that after Katrina, New Orleans was in anarchy until armed forces could maintain somw sense of order. There was widespread crime and looting across the city. Imagine a scenario where the there would not be an organized armed force of NG troops, cops and mercs to instill order because they are either dead or worried about their own families. Nuclear attacks place military bases pretty high on the priority list, there will not be enough troops to maintain order.
>>523070
At a guess, it depends largely on how dependent they are on international trade.
Even if the various great powers survive as cultural phenomenons, and can eventually rebuild, the international order is going to tumble down. Nobody is going to be guaranteeing trade routes anymore. A lot of the global production for export is going to vanish in a twinkling.
Sub-Saharan Africa is going to be especially hard hit, given that their population levels are only sustained through foreign importation of food and medicine, which unlike somewhere like America, you don't have the means or the knowledge to produce locally.
I don't really know enough about Sweden to comment.
>>523088
As someone who lived in New Orleans at that time, and stayed through the duration of the storm, and the weeks that followed, I can tell you that you are exaggerating.
>Nuclear attacks place military bases pretty high on the priority list, there will not be enough troops to maintain order.
No one has enough nuclear weapons to even begin to think about targeting conventional forces.
>>523088
And for all the times it didn't happen? The Irish famine? The Shaanxi earthquake of 1556? Plague-struck London in the 17th century? The 1900 Galveston hurricaine?
Who is Oppenheimer and why is everyone orgasming at his presence? Is he a trip from another board or something?
>>523108
/k/ where I opine on strategic policy issues.
>>523103
>fellow 504'er on /his/ of all places
Same, bro. It really bugs me that people think NOLA went into full blown anarchy after the storm. There was definitely a lot of crazy stuff going on, but it wasn't nearly as bad as how people like to imagine.
>>523108
One of the last few /k/ trips that actually knows a thing or two
>>523103
>conventional military bases wont be targeted
Do you have a source on that? I've been trying to find a source but I seem to recall seeing an article that listed conventional military installations as the third highest priority target behind nuclear launch sites and political/military leadership sites. Seems to be a stretch that they ruskies wouldn't spare 300 some-odd warheads to take out the US as a conventional military power.
>>519255
why would they?
>>519456
>over missiles in Turkey
It wasn't about the missiles, it was about sokolov
>>523104
There are still plenty of instances of varying degrees of anarchy following disasters. Look at the siege of Leningrad; widespread cannibalism, rape, murder and looting. The 1930s famine in ukraine and the entirety of the eastern front durong ww2 had much of the same.
>>523114
Where did you get your knowledge from, any specific studies?
>>523197
And they're almost inevitably short lived. Days to weeks.
The 1930s famine and the WW2 Eastern Front were the result of actual enemy state backed forces physically occupying the territory that went to shit. You wouldn't have that in a nuclear war unless it was accompanied by a successful ground invasion, which would be difficult to pull off.
You don't see a slide back into barbarism unless you eliminate the segments of the population that actually know how to build and maintain things.
Because nukes don't exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sULjMjK5lCI
Wouldn't the radiation kill everyone anyway?
>>523154
>Do you have a source on that?
Math.
The Russians have about 1500 warheads (depending on when you count). The US has 500 MM silos. Each silo would be targeted with 2 or 3 warheads (depending on the exact type).
Thats 1250 warheads right there.
Then you have to hit the AFBs that support nuclear operations. Each base will take between 3 and 5 warheads. That's 15 to 25 warheads. Now you have to hit communications nodes and command posts, that's another 100 or so warheads, give or take. So we are up to about 1350 warheads, and we haven't hit any naval bases yet.
There are a lot more important things to hit before you get to conventional forces.
>>523206
Went to grad school, worked for some agencies and private sector non-profits involved in proliferation policy.
>>519255
>>519267
Firstly, in the late 1950s after Sputnik America wasn't certain it could win a nuclear war. The fear was that Russia had ICBM tech fielded by the mid 50s which would make all of America's bombers useless. By the time America had ICBMs in the early 1970s, Nixon had ushered in Detente and the Cold War was starting to wind down. Of course there was the Cuban Missile Crisis, but ultimately Russia decided that it wasn't worth their time to put missiles in Cuba and thus make the US put missiles in Turkey.
In the 1980s, for as ballsy as Reagan was a nuclear war wasn't something he was going to bother with unless Russia were to straight up invade Eastern Europe, or China making a blitz in the South Pacific. Neither occurred because neither could afford it.
tl;dr wars are expensive and a nuclear war would be really expensive
The only time a nuclear war would had been possible is IF the Rosenbergs didn't sell nuclear secrets, allowing the US to retain it's monopoly on both nuclear weaponry, high-altitude jet bombers and jet fighters. In this case, the US would have had more than enough weaponry to simply destroy the entire USSR and China outright once a ground war was provoked.
Related, in case you haven't read it yet, a recently declassified list of US Strategic Air Command targets from the mid 1950s when delivery was still aircraft-based:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/
>>522824
Fuck why the fuck are.you in my.thread just go back to autism k you fucking faggot
>>523421
Radioactivity is far less lethal than sci-fi shows would have you believe.
If you swallowed a chunk of plutonium (not recommended) the chemical properties would kill you faster than the nuclear ones would.
>>523597
>By the time America had ICBMs in the early 1970s
The US had ICBMs in service in the early 1960s.
>The only time a nuclear war would had been possible
The US had a major superiority in strategic nuclear warheads until well into the Cold War.
The Soviets didn't get to over 1000 warheads in service until 1966. That year the US has 11,000.
As for ICBMs, the that same year, the Soviets had about 450 ICBM warheads in service, while the US had just over 1000.
>>523108
A faggot from k where he became a celeb for no fucking reason but because k is autist
Now he tries his shit here and ppl sucking his dick when he has been proven wrong plenty of times and when that happens he goes away crying then comes back and the autist jump updown like doggies
I regret making this thread and bringing this k fag here
>>523640
>been proven wrong plenty of times
Examples?
>>523646
Hey opfaggot why did you stop using trips to ask this
Are you gonna cry again?:^}
>>523655
So no examples?
I'll wait.
>>523640
You are welcome to your opinion.
I'll let the things I have said on this topic speak for me.
https://desustorage.org/k/search/tripcode/%21%21bd8BUj0eKSN/
Also, feel free to remind me where I was "proven wrong so many times."
I can't seem to remember.
>using a trip
Why do they even have this anymore? Its a death sentence to a thread.
Seemed to be going fine until this fag showed up >>523615
Guy only uses it in Nuke threads on /k/. seems like the proper way to use it, tbhfamily
>>523702
Seems to be working out well so far.
>>523702
He attention whores in every thread you asslicker faggot (or just op without trip, he likes to do that)
Fucking cancer just like antman was
k the true autist board
>>523731
You seem buttflustered. Where did he attention whore?
>>523731
Go fuck yourself you assburgers faggot. Everyone was fine until you got here and starting shitting up the fucking thread because you hate one guy for reasons that arent even fucking clear.
Shut the fuck up. Either prove he's everything you say he is, or kill yourself you faggot.
>>523754
Then gtfo from.my.thread if you are.so much butthurt that someone doesnt.like your trip boyfriend faggot :^] and u kys
Also im pretty sure you op without the trip
>>523740
Every thread on k and when someone tells he is wrong he throws a sissyfit
Fucking fag
>>523784
Great.
Find me one. The archive goes back an entire year. I'm sure you can find what you are looking for then faggot.
>>523784
https://desustorage.org/k/search/tripcode/%21%21bd8BUj0eKSN/
Show me.
>>523779
Do you know how to use keyboard with out adding a period after every character?
>>523828
Now he will just accuse you of being me without my trip.
>>523853
I'm still waiting on you to find a thread where I was proven wrong and I threw a fit.
I'll repost the link to the archive for your convenience.
https://desustorage.org/k/search/tripcode/%21%21bd8BUj0eKSN/
Question from a newfag here.
What is a trip? People keep using that word.
That Oppenheimer guy, can't someone just comment while using his name and masquerade as him? Is there a way to know for sure?
>>523863
You seriously expect me to go through your bs? Also when you are sissyraging you dont use trips you faggot :^}
>>523886
Oh, I'm sorry. I just thought you could find a single example of what you were talking about, since you claim it happens so often.
Can you think of the subject? Maybe I can help you find it?
>>523886
Why all the hate ? He is just adding to (your?) thread, he knows what he is talking about, if you want to prove otherwise prove his posts wrong in this thread unless you have a screencap.
>>523882
A trip as in tripcode, the name.
Yes someone could pretend and no there is no way to know for sure but its just used in nuke and strategy threads and you would need to know a lot to pretend and whats the point desu senpai
>>524164
You would have to know what the trip code is to get it right.
Otherwise you wouldn't have anything but the name.
That what trip codes are
>>519255
watch threads, no one wants that to be happen tbqh
