Does the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal consist of thermonuclear weapons?
Do we still have low-yield (tactical?) atomic bombs?
We have a few different ones.
Here are the ones I'm aware of:
>dial-a-nuke
The yield can be preset somehow
>bunker busters
Yes, we do have the B61 and B83, which are meant to be delivered by aircraft.
>>30087966
>B61 and B83
Are fusion-boosted-fission (thermonuclear) weapons. At minimal yeld they inject minimal fusion fuel, however, and thus are almost totally fission weapons.
>>30087955
They adjust the yield by varying the amount of fusion fuel that is injected into the bomb. The fusion reaction greatly compresses and accelerates the fission reaction, causing more of the fission fuel to be converted to energy.
No current-service weapons are purely fusion weapons.
>>30087928
>Does the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal consist of thermonuclear weapons?
Yes.
>Do we still have low-yield (tactical?) atomic bombs?
We have low-ish yield thermonuclear weapons.
What is the yield of a typical Soviet ICBM?
>>30088211
>Soviet
What era?
>>30088239
I meant a contemporary Russian ICBM (force of habit)
If I were to be more specific, what kind of warhead would be set off over an urban area?
What about a military base?
>>30088291
800 Kt.
Query: In the event of a nuclear exchange between two non superpower nations (ex India and Pakistan) do other nations intervene? Would said nations do so with conventional or nuclear force?
>>30088389
The most likely thing that is going to happen when the nukes start lying is this:
The two powers and whatever part of their spheres of influences they can get involved are going to duke it out while everyone else not in their path is going to shit their pants and think they're absolute idiots. (This is especially true if it's two small countries like India and Pakistan).
Everyone else will likely be very conservative with their nukes, thinking "wouldn't it be great if we became the nuclear powers after the big guys are done slugging it?" and "Do you like global apocalypes john? Nope me neither let's not shoot ourselves in the foot and get involved."
"You might as well go out and shoot everyone you see and then shoot yourself" ~ Eisenhower
>>30088389
One of the superpowers might mop up the surviving nuclear forces of the winner to prevent their misuse.
>>30088389
>>30088432
I'd imagine that if there were any conventional ABM forces nearby, they'd do what they could to limit the carnage (I'm thinking Aegis cruisers/destroyers here).
Otherwise, the rest of the world would then come in to help with the humanitarian cleanup. Unfortunately, that would largely mean helping those who looked vaguely OK to recover, and letting those who look like they need help die a slow and heavily medicated death over the course of a month or so.
Acute Radiation Syndrome is a bitch.
>>30088309
Just finished reading Command and Control, do you have any book recommendations as interesting as that one?
>>30087928
We have several. Most of the research in recent years has gone in this direction. There is a pretty large body of evidence than the US and israel have used tactical nukes in the past decade.
>>30088496
saw that one japanese plant worker in '99, his body just wasting away, skin falling off, oh god.
>>30090352
u wot m8?
>>30088135
who are you Oppenheimer? i always see you in these sort of threads
>>30088103
For variable yeild, they inject Tritium into a fissle core, while tritium is used in fusion (its actually duetritium that breaks down to tritium) the tritium in fissle cores do not acheive fusion, in the heat and pressure they release more neutons and help fission
>>30088309
So I was surprised to learn that Chine only has ~250 Mt-range nukes. I assume that number is probably a little low, but it would suggest a very different tactic than the "missile Gap" strategy pursued in the Cold War.
What kind of scenario do you think China's arsenal is optimized for? Defence / Scorched Earth? Pure Deterrent (MAD doesn't apply as well), a possible limited retaliation, either against us or possibly India/Pakistan?
It just seemed confusing since the paradigm for nuclear stockpiling before was always "more is better"
>>30090517
They even publicly decree that they maintain a minimum nuclear deterrence policy.
That being said, this is more for political reasons, as they don't want the military to have the ability to actually control active nuclear weapons, which is why they store the delivery systems separate from the warheads.
That strategy though is slowly evolving, however, as China plans to deploy SLBM-capable subs to the Pacific soon. They use THAAD as an excuse but it's purely the PRC flexing its new nuts.
Realistically China would straight up lose a nuclear exchange with a well developed nuclear arsenal (see: Russia, United States).
They also pledge to never use nuclear weapons unless they are first targeted.
>>30090453
Don't worry about him. He's just a roleplaying guy from /tg/.
>>30090352
Absolutely none whatsoever.
>>30090453
He works for a nuclear weapons think tank and used to work as a defence analyst.
>>30090453
Ignore him, he is a useless cuckmaster, in fact, we're all cucks here, leave the board, and never return.
He has forgotten more than you could ever hope to learn, he is the beginning and the end on all things nuclear. Do not engage unless you want your world paradigm shattered.
Leave now, this is your only warning.
>>30090579
cool, would really like to hear more from him
>>30090542
I hadn't thought about the PLA suspicion. Keeping your warheads away from your missiles...Jesus christ. We have literal minutemen, and their response time could depend on fucking TRAFFIC.
So that's really not much of a deterrent, right? I mean, we've got the numbers to completely incapacitate their nukes before they could do more than launch a couple SLBMs (I'm kind of ashamed, but I know basically nothing about the PLAN, do they even have Boomers?)
The "no first strike" pledge seems authentic (I mean, we;re the only ones who've done that...so far), but surely they're using it for regional hegemony instead of Global (I guess that's the "4 Strategies" or whatever they call it).
They couldn't beat the Old Timers Club, but it's enough to keep the Norks and Kasmir calm, right? Is that the idea?
So how many of their nukes are missiles and how many are aircraft-deployed? Could they use the Spratleys as a staging area against, say, the Phlips or Australia or something? What's their Long-Range Bomber fleet look like?
I just...what's the point? It's like showing up to the OK Corral with a .22. Sure, it's better than nothing, but are you really gonna make a difference?
>>30090600
As soon as he appears, he vanishes..
He swoops in and deftly eliminates and crushes all misinformation about nuclear weapons and policy with his decades of experience and schooling, and as soon as the situation is stabilized, he vanishes.
He isn't the hero we need, but the one we deserve.
Also, he doesn't appear near as active as he used to just because some asshole doxxed him and nearly got him fucked at work.
I love Oppen, but I miss his nuclear policy and theory threads, as well has his fantastic wargame threads, it was like playing fucking Able Archer with Oppen at the helm.
I miss those wargames threads..
>>30090636
>"Also, he doesn't appear near as active as he used to just because some asshole doxxed him and nearly got him fucked at work."
Aw fuck that guy, he should seriously start a youtube channel/ blog of some sort
>>30090622
They have currently 0 SLBMs but claim to be able to deploy boomers to the Pacific by the end of the year.
The launchers and warheads are stored in hardened underground tunnels and (supposedly) able to be launched very quickly (supposedly).
That being said, the entire command and control structure of Chinese nuclear forces could hypothetically be destroyed in a decapitation strike, because they are theorized to have less than 250 nuclear weapons, most not being MIRV capable.
The idea is that China would only use them if they lose the war, but an arsenal of that size couldn't destroy a developed nation, so it's much more useful to use them as a bargaining chip in peace talks to insure that your nation and political structure will survive a peace treaty and avoid possible balkanization.
Does that make sense at all? I have the concept extremely well developed in my head but I'm finding it difficult to put it to paper.
Like, for instance, USA and China go at it, China has basically lost, but if they try to launch, a US decapitation strike will eliminate most weapons and military resistance, and the small counter-strike will accomplish very little, and now the US is free to impose 100% of its will on the PRC, whereas if China comes to the table as a still nuclear-capable nation they will get better terms for any peace deal.
But yeah, nukes also pretty much guarantee that any conflict with India will not go nuclear, leading to a Chinese victory.
>>30090660
>give away valuable nuclear info
>on YouTube
Okay NORTH Korea
>>30090698
>automatically assuming he has to spew out secrates
Get out of here Stalker.
>>30090697
>No sub launchers
I hope at least they've got some SCUD-esqe mobile launchers on the mainland. stationary targets? They certainly don't put much stock in that particular ace up their sleeve.
>Easily decapitated
Did they just watch Dr Strangelove too many times and get worried? Seriously, you must have some major dysfunction within your military to not even trust upper-echelon commanders to have your back it SHTF.
Tunnels are great...until you get out of them. ICMBs are easiest to shoot down during their initial stage right? And we know where the launchpads are. But, again, it's not us they expect to fight. They're sort of approaching this as a second-rate power. Not even trying to compete in the big leagues. Then again, that's how we beat the ruskies!
So here's my problem: I can't see China "losing" a war but still being in complete control of their army/countryside. At the point that China is surrendering, do they thing the nukes would still be a bargaining chip? Would they surrender early in order to retain that edge? Maybe I'm just a dirty gwailo, but I really don't understand their logic here. Their brains must be folded WAN MIRRION TIMES!
Also, as far as balkanization goes, is the concern Taiwan? The ROC stealing clay? Because I don't see the international community giving the Japs Manchuria or the Koreans Kamchatka. Are they scared of Uighurs?
Basically, their entire strategy is that it's easier to negotiate than to fight? But at the same time, they're worried that the Army might start shit on its own, thereby weaking their position.
I think they DID watch Strangelove.
Since they're a regional hegemon, are there any places ( except the SCS of course) where they're looking to extend their hard power? Russia had to cover for all the ComBlok states, but China mostly does that with money.
Sorry man, I'm fairly drunk. This probably doesn't make sense. But I guess I don't see the value of HALF a nuclear weapons program.
(1/2)
>>30090765
(2/2)
Maybe there's something I'm not considering. What's their production capacity like. If shit started, could they draw us (or anyone) into a war of attrition for long enough to ramp up production and get their numbers up into "threatening" range? If they have the means, but just lack the will, is THAT their deterrent policy? I have no doubt the Chinese are more than happy to Zerg Rush...
Does whistling into a phone still work these days?
>>30090765
In the event of a NATO/UN intervention in China with their nuclear teeth pulled they'd certainly lose Tibet and likely Hong Kong. That would be a pretty damn big deal, and put China as nothing more then a regional power for the rest of time, if the water-rich south didn't deiced it had no fucking use of the north and west and wanted to be it's own country too.
The idea of their launch system is that they can get a shot off if they are losing a conventional war badly, or if India or Pakistan, minor atomic powers, goes apeshit on them.
The thing is? It's logical, how they work. They couldn't trust functional atomic weapons to their generals because there was a real possibility of a military coupe. Deploying Jin with SLBM is more a symbolic measure then anything else, given the Jin class has no business in the water with American subs. In the event of a war the boats shadowing them would get the order to kill them.
>>30090815
nah, hasn't for a while
>>30090765
>>30090775
There's some serious tensions with India, there's always been tensions with Vietnam.
The issue is that in the event of a major military showdown there will be a large number of PLA troops diverted to contain dissidents and ethnic minorities, so the idea is to be able to curbstomp anyone smaller than you, but avoid conflict entirely with with anyone your size or larger.
They think that if they just take a little bit at a time nobody will notice, and even if they do it's not worth a war over.
If China loses, Tibet could be lost, Hong Kong will go independent, the Muslims will probably carve off a piece, and the ROC might try to claim all or part of the Chinese political structure.
China knows that if they get into a war with America they will lose, they know they can inflict massive casualties in a ground war, but instead of taking it that far and risk a potential civil war, it's easier to come to the table after the PLAN gets sunk.
A lot of their launchers are mobile, but that hardly matters when it's basically impossible to hide readying their nuclear arsenal.
They can "zerg rush" but the more soldiers they send to die to the Americans the less soldiers they have to keep the boot on their own citizens, which becomes increasingly dangerous as the war drags on.
As far as a buildup goes, they know they will lose an arms race, the US and Russia already have the infrastructure to mine, refine, and build nukes, nuclear material, and delivery systems, just because we stopped active production does not mean you no longer have the capability. China pretty much doesn't, it would cost hundreds of billions to create the nuclear infrastructure Russia or the US has, and would be immediately noticed.
We simply have an impossibly large head start, one that China could only overcome if America simply did nothing for 30 years while China spends obscene amount of money on nuclear development like us in the Cold War
>>30090873
There was a brief Sino-Indian War, but I always thought the Himalayas stopped that from advancing. No one's got Hannibal's balls anymore, mountains are a deal-breaker. Then again, elephants don't have kM+ ranges
(elfants not included)
Kek Vietnam. My favorite war in history is when China decided to try to (re-)invade Vietnam after we left. Makes the Winter War look like pussy shit.
So they have to assume they'll spend significant resources on domestic cooperation. I guess that's what tyranny does to a people. That, or it's some major distrust of your Propaganda machine.
They'd rather be a big fish in a little pond, I get that, but it seems like even just HAVING nukes puts you in the big pond. Unless you're Israel and "dont ;)" have them. If China just wants regional hegemony, why get into the Nuke game? All that's gonna do is attract international attention, while not providing you a particularly strong advantage against smaller, less industrialized countries.
I mean, India is the country who fucked up an AK variant and sank a sun IN PORT. I don't think they're a major threat to China in the next 50 years. (imho)
So they'd learn from Japan's mistakes and surrender BEFORE the nukes? Basically?
The reason I ask about mobile launchers is that they could say "if you invade us, some nuclear SCUDs might get lost, and those Uighurs are cra~azy muslims ya know!" The idea of a lost nuke W/ launch might scare world powers more than China. Maybe.
>>30090600
>>30090660
If you want to know more check the archive.
There's a massive catalog of nuclear threads.
>>30090937
(2/2)
I know China imports a lot of raw materials, but I thought that was just because it was cheaper. My impression was that they had solid reserves of everything from Oil to Uranium (re: investments in East / Southern Africa lately) to be able to sustain themselves reasonably well if we started shit.
If they've made >100 warheads already, how much more buildup would be required to become "uncomfortable"?
Another question might be how modernized their arsenal is.
So China is basically a second-rate nuclear power. Not gonna match us Cold Warriors, but with industrial capacity that outweighs the Norks and Iranians. How does China stack up compared to the NATO nuclear powers? It seems like France alone has >400...
>>30088309
Question:
I have heard a rumor that my country Australia has parts for a dozen tactical nukes that can be assembled in 30 minutes so we aren't classified as having them.
How likely is this to be true?
>>30090937
>>30090941
Having nukes makes you worthy of speaking to. If they didn't have nukes then there is nothing stopping the US from carving you up into occupation districts like Iraq, you understand? There isn't even a ghost of a bargaining chip, you submit or die.
As far as building more nukes, it isn't about Uranium, you have to pull the Uranium out of the ground, refine the ore, enrich it, build the warhead, and build the launcher. It takes a lot of time to go from ore to missile, and America does it better, faster, cheaper, and has a much larger capacity to do all of the above. China never did it on a large scale, whereas we couldn't get enough of it. We have more mines, enrichment facilities, and weapons facilities than China could hope to have. Even if China wanted to start tomorrow, it would take them a very, very, very longtime to catch up.
>>30090941
>My impression was that they had solid reserves of everything from Oil to Uranium (re: investments in East / Southern Africa lately) to be able to sustain themselves reasonably well if we started shit.
Sure they've been investing heavily into Africa, but in wartime everything they have there is a complete right off, unless we're going staggeringly far into hypothetical futures. Right now the PLAN is working hard to be able to make the SCS an expensive place for the USN to go in the event of hostilities, maintaining secure shipping anywhere further afield than a couple of miles off their own coast is simply not happening.
>>30090996
Ok, but I thought their strategy of "Unrestriced Warfare" was that they thought they could win a war through non-combat means. That Alone would devalue their nuclear arsenal. The reason the US doesn't just invade and chop them up is because we need them to make our cheap, plastic shit. The Nukes are, maybe, a secondary line of defense?
But if they've already build hundreds, surely they've got the centrifuges. Missile tech is fairly simple once you iron it out. implosion devices only need the physics figured out once.
I'm not saying they'd reach the 30k+ we/Rus had during the cold war, but even 1k weapons could make us think twice about a protracted war. Besides that, I know Sino-Soviet politics were complicated (trust me, I know), but doesn't China count on Russia/"USSR" having its back in a WWIII exchange?
Basically, they seem like they've set up a fine scenario to be underestimated, which would allow them to make a stronger-than-expected response, thereby scaring off potential adversaries.
Maybe?
I must be stupid, because I'm not not seeing a real advantage of having a few, weak nuclear weapons over just having a shitload of cannonfodder.
>>30091007
I'm a Navy brat, so SCS intrigues me greatly. It's such a ballsy move, not just to US but to international shipping standards. Hell, even LOTS. I understand wanting to have a "golf of mexico" of your own, but it seems to be really ballsy dick-waving. Maybe they're thinking longer-term? Avoid a war with us until the US falls apart, with the slavs dopes up on cheap Central Asian opiates, they could come out the remaining superpower.
But it seems like a lot of tea leaves and not much Think Tanks
>>30090941
>It seems like France alone has >400...
????
France has only <300 warheads and I've seen numbers that place it at around 236 active warheads.
>>30091035
eeeeehhhh... Again, a buildup would be noticeable, and the US would pounce on it, with sanctions, embargoes, their own buildup, it would be bad for China.
Also, all the hardware, all that tech, is extremely expensive. China starts ramping up their stuff, so do we, now we go back to ABM tech and surround their shit with a bunch of THAAD systems and successor equipment. Now out of hundreds of missiles you spent all of this money on, after a decapitation strike and THAAD gets you, you still have a negligible impact on the strategic scene.
See, that's why the US has China by the balls, because China and the US both know THAAD unbalances the strategic arms balance in East Asia, giving a distinct advantage to the Americans, but they are unable to do anything about it because if they do, it will justify deploying even more ABM tech to the East Asian theater.
It's a catch-22, it's cheaper for us to advance our arsenal and strategic posturing than it is for China to do the same, so for far, far less money, time, manpower, and resources we can stay far, far ahead of China, causing an eventual collapse if they try to keep up, like the USSR.
Even them giving the US a hint of a justification just furthers the gap because the US can continue to pump ABM stuff into the theater and China doesn't even have to do anything significant.
It's fucking genius. China lost the strategic game before they started, it is and always will be a bargaining chip in the event of losing a war, so China works on making sure a war never goes nuclear. Overwhelming conventional forces is their doctrine.
>>30091088
I thought the Frogs had ~500, and the Brits had ~ 750. My numbers could be way off, they're mostly from 80's/90's "Nukes are Bad, mmmKay?" kinda docs
>>30091035
>Basically, they seem like they've set up a fine scenario to be underestimated, which would allow them to make a stronger-than-expected response, thereby scaring off potential adversaries.
Except that in terms of nuclear deterrence that's a fairly bad idea. Whilst you of course don't want your exact capabilities to be known you do want your opponent to have a reasonably good idea of what you have. If you have huge stack of aces up your sleeve to surprise rape your opponent with after they've launched the first strike thinking you are/were much weaker than in reality, you've still lost because you got nuked. And in this case it's not like they're going to have some surprise capacity to leap ahead of the US.
>But if they've already build hundreds, surely they've got the centrifuges.
Yes they do, but unlikely to be in remotely enough quantities that sudden mass-production of large quantities of fissile material is an option. Building 100s of warheads over a period of years is a very different thing than building 100s (or lets be realistic 1000s if they wanted to dick measure with the US) more in a period measured in months. If they wanted more other than in a essentially last minute building frenzy amidst increasing tensions then they would already have built them.
>>30091049
Long term indeed, they have no interest in provoking a war with the US there, at least any time soon, and they can get away with what they're doing so it makes sense to do it now. Give it a couple of generations and Chinese occupation becomes something that people don't like but also dismiss as just the way it's always been and there's nothing to be done about it. Best case in some ways would be anyone other than the US going full retard and starting a war with China over SCS, getting their shit kicked in and ending up acting as an example to everyone else in the region why it's a bad idea and here's why you should play nicely.
>>30088389
> Rapelandia and Designatedstan nuke each other
> wanting to stop that
> I shiggity digging doo
>>30091098
Buildup requires resources, and no doubt we're paying close attention to how much industrial power goes into PLA and how much goes into Happy Meals. I'll concede this. Let's, for now, imagine that China COULD arm up without much notice from the UN. Maybe we're all watching Chechnya at that moment. Whatever.
Ok, this is actually something I REALLY wanted to ask you about. As a nuke expert, I assume you know something about China.
I've always thought that the footage Cnia released of their first test (in '64) was VERY telling. They had grunts polishing warheads, and literal horse-mounted cavalry in fucking gasmaks charging in. That was the perfect metaphor from China in my mind.Native Dances and horses charging toward a mushroom cloud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luZtl2J3sR0
So, in a way, we're trying to apply to arms race mentallity to china? and Because they were rural until the 19fucking60s, we have a clear advantage?
We negotiated the Jupiters out of Cochroachstan because we were afraid of a Russian First Strike. If we don't have that feat in East Asia, why would we not just meet China's limited firepower in the SCS? Why have we "let" them claim so much territory if we know they don't want to fight us?
I mean, I hate to keep going back to Kubrick, but they essentially have a doomsday weapon that they've convinced the West that the PLA might use in any event, in order to destabilize bargaining positions with the majors powers? Isn't that basically Pakistan's plan?
It seems like a Fatah/Hamas sort of "sneak in/kill bitches/frame people" method would be more effective.
Does that suspicion of the PLA extent to whatever they cal "special forces"? Does China not have a "tactical" nuke stockpile to stage smaller attacks with?
>>30091111
The idea I put forward was that We know They know We know they're lying. They make false reports to seem weak, while they know we know they have more. It's a mental gymnastics kinda thing.
And probably dumb. because I'm a fucking retard.
>They can't compete with us
Of course. But even if they could build 1 warhead in secret, and sell it / send it to whoever wants to do the next 9/11 (HYPOTHETICAL), that's a powerful bargaining chip, right?
>>30091111
Here's the thing: the chinks must know that their people hate them. Ai waiwai, Great Firewall, Weibo (chinese Amazon). They must know they can't contain a billion motherfuckers forever. I just wonder why they think authoritarianism can outlast "capitalism" or "democracy" or whatever. I mean jesus; Tienanmen right?
>>30091175
> the chinks must know that their people hate them
No they don't. Stop projecting your American ideas onto an entirely different people.
> I just wonder why they think authoritarianism can outlast "capitalism" or "democracy" or whatever.
I just wonder why they think can democracy outlast "authoritarianism" or "dictatorship" or whatever.
>>30091153
First off, I'm no nuke expert. I'm a political consultant. I'm basically the political side of Oppenheimer, he's the nuke guy, I'm the political guy. I just don't use a trip because I have no real desire to spend the year+ of people going "who the fuck is this guy?" and posting a fuckton of credentials etc. etc.
America is a democracy.. well, it's a lot more complicated than that but let's just say America is a democracy in the sense that the government requires public support to do things.
In America public support is a very, very scares commodity, like a currency. This currency must be spent on things that get the most return on their investment. For instance, Nixon spent his on the EPA, ending Vietnam, social programs, etc. Outside of Watergate he got a massive ROI. His poll numbers were incredible.
George W. on the other hand, squandered it on two brushfire wars we're still recovering from.
The current administration is running dangerously low, and the next administration, probably Hillary, will not have a lot to play with, and it will take a lot of convincing to get anything accomplished, especially on foreign policy or war.
China is essentially an Oligarchy. They make the rules, enforce them, and if you don't like it you get the Gulag. They don't really have to worry about any public support issues. If they want war, they go to war. In this case they want the SCS. Their people take no convincing because they don't matter.
Look at America. What would happen if tomorrow Obama announced we were at war with China? What would happen if your son, brother, or nephew was called up to fight and possibly die in a war you "think" you have no stake in, because you were not properly convinced? Mass protests, riots, total breakdown of American military and civilian C&C structure. Look at Vietnam.
If we could go to war tomorrow and whoop some Chink ass and call it a day, I'm sure we would, but we can't because we are accountable to our people.
>>30091198
Sup Xiu? Took you long enough to show up.
>>30091175
>But even if they could build 1 warhead in secret, and sell it / send it to whoever wants to do the next 9/11 (HYPOTHETICAL), that's a powerful bargaining chip, right?
That makes no sense. If they wanted to genuinely do it then nobody outside is going to notice 1 warhead going missing from their stocks, at least until shtf. Threatening to do so would be a fantastic way to move a long way up the U FOKKIN WOT M8 list of countries needing Freedom delivered. Neither committing the act nor threatening to do so advances the political situation for China globally.
And yes the leadership know the masses at least in part dislike them. They believe they can keep on doing it because the elite have been lording it over the peasantry for the last few thousand years, and whilst there have been a variety of hiccups it's worked more than it hasn't, at least in terms of keeping the elites on top. So long as they keep a large enough portion of the population happy enough to not openly revolt it will keep on working. Tiananmen? Zero consequences beyond a couple more words on their internet blocking list.
>>30091153
Hey, also, are you they guy that started the Oppenheimer thread?
>>30091210
I wondered why you had no trip. Well even if you're not Opp, you're the one I want to talk to. Nuclear weapons are one thing (/k/ - weapons), but Aggressive Negotiations are another. (Negotiations with a lightsaber?)
Yeah, Social Capital. Presidents don't waste their time on "losing" projects. (Honestly, I'd vote for Nixon over any Repub since him, hands down. He's a sweating, filthy liar, but I like him. But before we got too into >>>/pol/...)
The Bush Dynasty wasted basically 5 Pres terms on 1 senseless war.
Hillary has shown that she'll fucking kill you if you don't play the game. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Mali, etc. She's a war president. Which might be cool!
Again, we're getting off track.
China is Commie, so of course they're an oligarchy. And the oligarchy wants to keep its money.
I want to come back to this, but the SCS is a MAJOR shipping route into the US, and China establishing control (and basically kicking the USN out) is a MAJOR development. Even aside from the international rules they're violating, they're basically establishing control over all Indian trade that comes into the US. That's a power play, no two butts about it.
"To have a new war, as far as we can attest, we'd need a new Pearl Harbor..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Lvv1f5Qu4
>>30091215
Sum of All Fears terrorist attack
The point is that they don't want it traced back. They could produce an "untraceable" nuke.
Maybe.
Not really, but What If?
I think you underestimate the cultual effect Tienanmen had. The PRC showed its true colors as an authoritarian dictatorship, and the people are just afraid to rise up. Imagine if America had no guns.
>>30091245
Nope, but I love Destroyer of Worlds and I try to stalk the threads he's in. I always have dumbass questions.
>>30091210
>What would happen if your son, brother, or nephew was called up to fight and possibly die in a war you "think" you have no stake in, because you were not properly convinced?
Stage another gulf of Tonkin incident. Aka South China Sea incident
>>30091210
Anything coming close to war with China would need a hell of an justification to start it off, in other words. Obeezy and company don't have the juice to force the issue.
>>30091320
Holy shit are we trying, too.
We're embedding USN frigates with the Flips, sailing withing arrowshot of the "islands," and the US is talking about potentially landing troops on one of them, since we don't recognize them as Chinese property.
>>30091323
>Obeezy
Stop, it detracts from your argument.
>>30091264
>The PRC showed its true colors as an authoritarian dictatorship, and the people are just afraid to rise up.
You keep those that you feel you reasonably can happy, and if you keep those that are unhappy too afraid to do shit about it, you're winning. The problem is only if you have a large enough portion of unhappy people that they realise they could possibly do something about it.
>The point is that they don't want it traced back. They could produce an "untraceable" nuke.
Maybe.
Not really, but What If?
Fairly sure you can get decent idea by analyzing the exact compositions of isotopes and shit left over, but whatever, lets assume they can provide a completely untraceable nuke to BadGuys™ without any intel trail leading back either. What then? Sure if NYC goes boom or some such major city you get a sizable economic hit for the US, but you also have a US in full rage mode looking for blood. If you can have the timing work out such that it acts as a false flag to bait the US into war with someone else it would be an epic win, anything else is a bad outcome because 'murica on the warpath is bad for anyone not 'murica.
>China did 9/11
>>30091340
So, what would happen if a random island base there decided they are sick of being shadowed by us warships and sunk a USN boat? Would pic related happen?
>>30091377
Sunk? I don't know. I mean, I can guess, but I don't know for sure. More than likely the boats responsible would be sunk by the closes CSG.
After that it depends on China. If they want to push the issue then it's war. A limited one, but still a war. If they let their boats go down then it stops there.
>>30091393
if there was a full scale war with china would Australian RAAF bases be used to base bombers?
>>30091264
The PRC also has brought a drastic increase in living conditions over the last twenty years. People in China have their benevolent-ish overlords to thank for that. With Chinese stocks took a dive earlier this year, I'm sure the leadership was a little spooked. Their legitimacy comes from economic activity, not political freedoms.
>>30091409
Oh absolutely. In the event of a full scale war between the US and China the Aussies, Flips, Japs, and Koreans would be openly duking it out with the ChiComs and Norks, with pretty much everyone else in the region providing logistics, intelligence, and materials to the ones actually fighting China.
I personally just don't see it happening anytime soon though. Limited conflict? Maybe. Full scale war? Not very likely.
>>30090517
They saw the expense that the US and USSR suffered during the late unpleasantness and would want to avoid it.
Considering that the US has an almost insurmountable lead, it would be wasted effort.
>>30090542
Is correct.
>>30090557
Whats your THAC0?
>>30090622
>Keeping your warheads away from your missile
They had at least two situations where they almost lost control of their nuclear weapons to military officers wanting to do their own thing.
>So that's really not much of a deterrent, right?
If a crisis erupts that moves toward the US wanting to use their nuclear weapons, no, the Chinese forces are not going to deter that.
Deterrence is a moving target. What deters you in one situation, may not deter you in another.
Imagine you are a kid and you like to sneak out of the house at night. Every time you are caught, your mom spanks you with a switch.
So one night your friend comes over and want you to sneak out to drink a coke with him.
Thats not really important enough to get Adrian Peterson'd so you do not do it.
In that case, Mom's child abuse has deterred you from leaving the house.
But the next night, Your girlfriend (or trap, knowing /k/), comes by and says that she has been studying film and wants to show you her new oral skills.
You would consider that worth the whipping, so you go.
Mom's deterrence has failed, because your risk reward analysis favored the outcome of sneaking out, even if you get whipped.
China's nuclear arsenal is not designed to deter nuclear attack. It is designed to deter conventional confrontation because in the most early stages of a crisis, US policy leaders will be looking down the road at a worst case scenario and seeing just a single surviving warhead hitting LA or NY, and comparing it to the current minor disagreement.
>>30090636
>I miss those wargames threads..
Looking at doing them on /qst/
>>30091496
Interesting, i would of though people here would of gone "MUH NUCLEAR BOMBERS"
Your saying that a war is unlikely with China, but what about Russia? When ever i look at Russia i always see Germany post WW1 a former shadow of itself, maybe half the resentment the people had against minorities/allied powers but seeking to rebuild itself militarily and economically, and geographically (Crimea/ Eastern Ukranie)
>>30091517
">I miss those wargames threads..
Looking at doing them on /qst/
Looking forward to that.
>>30091517
opp what do you think of this?
>>30091423
>>30090765
>I hope at least they've got some SCUD-esqe mobile launchers on the mainland.
They have very capable mobile launchers.
>>30090765
>Seriously, you must have some major dysfunction within your military to not even trust upper-echelon commanders to have your back it SHTF.
Almost losing control of your nuclear weapons twice will do that to you.
>I can't see China "losing" a war but still being in complete control of their army/countryside. At the point that China is surrendering, do they thing the nukes would still be a bargaining chip? Would they surrender early in order to retain that edge? Maybe I'm just a dirty gwailo, but I really don't understand their logic here.
China's nuclear arsenal will be used as to stave of conventional defeat or to strike back after a US first strike.
>>30090944
>How likely is this to be true?
Seems unlikely today, but I can see that being seen as a 'Good Idea" in the Cold War. To my knowledge it did not happen.
>>30091153
>Why have we "let" them claim so much territory if we know they don't want to fight us?
It's a gamble. Just like in poker.
Even if we are 99% sure the other guy is bluffing, everything we have is in the pot. If we lose, we lose BIG.
In addition, we can only guess at what the other guy is thinking and there is a huge tendency to fall victim to "mirroring". This is where you look at what an opponent is doing and think about why you would do it and then assume that they are doing it the exact same way you would.
>>30091210
>What would happen if tomorrow Obama announced we were at war with China? What would happen if your son, brother, or nephew was called up to fight and possibly die in a war you "think" you have no stake in, because you were not properly convinced? Mass protests, riots, total breakdown of American military and civilian C&C structure. Look at Vietnam.
This man is correct.
The cost of it is not worth the benefit. For now. China is doing all it can to keep the cost high
>>30091544
See: >>30091575
>Seems unlikely today, but I can see that being seen as a 'Good Idea" in the Cold War. To my knowledge it did not happen.
>>30091517
What were those situations?
>>30091589
Australia was looking at buying British weapons in the 50s and the RAAF still entertained the idea in the 60s.
OP, how long do you think it would take for Australia to join the US nuclear weapon sharing program if Australia and the US decided they needed it?
>>30091589
Thanks for answering my question (really enjoy these Q&As btw)
>>30091595
Mid 1960's General Wang En Mao. commander of the Xinjiang region fell into a disagreement with Mao. He ordered his men to seize the weapons at Lop Nur.
Mao and him came to some sort of understanding.
Then in the Early 70's (I think) Mao's own nephew, Mao Yuanxin, lead a contingent of Red Guards to Lop Nur with the intention of seizing control of the nuclear arsenal.
Again, Mao and him came to an agreement that halted it. It is worth noting that as soon as Mao was dead, Yuanxin was executed.
>>30091633
>OP, how long do you think it would take for Australia to join the US nuclear weapon sharing program if Australia and the US decided they needed it?
If they both felt they needed it?
A year or two.
You would need to build the storage facilities, install a delivery system, and train crews for the use of them.
>>30091663
No problem.
>>30090453
He's an attenition whoring trippfag who seemingly knows his shit.
Every mouth breather on this board worshipps him like a God and takes everything he says as true despite the fact that it's pretty obvious he's roleplaying.
He's a living meme.
>>30091689
>>30091664
How do you respond to this oppen?
>>30091689
>worships
Also, roll initiative.
>>30091689
RP'ing or not, I've never seen anyone actually correctly call him out for being wrong.
He seems to have a broad understanding of the topic and contributes to threads by laying facts on the table.
>>30091704
I'd assume the same way the US responds to North Korea.
>>30091715
>call him out for being wrong
I have been wrong plenty of times.
>>30091726
Yeh but only when you're role playing being wrong right
>>30091689
>attenition whoring
How many times has he posted outside of nuke threads?
>>30091732
Right.
If I roll a 1, then I just spew something dumb.
But is reality, no one is infallible, and I have learned things here that have been enlightening.
>>30091715
People don't have to believe he's right, but just because they don't remember his credentials being posted and him getting doxxed over stupid bullshit doesn't mean that he isn't legit.
also this >>30091726
Just like I've been wrong, I've probably been wrong with some of the shit I've posted in this thread, but on the majority of shit I know enough to at least be dangerous, and I'm able to make at least educated guesses on stuff I'm not 100% about.
I mean, shit, I don't trip anymore on boards since I got doxxed on /news/ a long time ago.
That being said, I'm not some spoopy CIA guy, I'm a political analyst and consultant who mainly deals in import/export, not nationbuilding.
>>30091750
>/news/
The feels.
>>30091744
>a defense anylist learning things from a bunch of armchair generals
>>30091761
There are a lot of smart people here. They cover a great deal of interests. No one knows everything.
>>30091759
I loved it but hated what it became.
So much untapped potential, but so many unrepentant racists.
>>30091761
Reminder that trolling is against Global Rule 3.
>>30091777
>There are a lot of smart people here.
>>30091784
It was never as bad as /pol/, however.
>>30091788
the fuck are you on about?
>>30091797
Trolling is against Global Rule 3.
You are trolling. If people report you, you might get warned or banned.
Just making a statement.
>>30091808
i was doing jackshit you faggot, what are you a mod or something?
>>30091796
Absolutely not. At least /new/ pretended to have class. I don't think Stormfront found out about 4chan until /pol/
>>30091808
Kiddo butthurt spotted
I guess summer came early
>>30091817
The quality of posts is extremely important to this community.
Thats Global Rule 6.
Ask yourself, are you making quality posts, or are you making shitposts?
>>30091828
Do you think this is a quality post? Be honest.
>>30091835
U fittin to suk sum janitor cock senpai?
U tryin 2 do it for free?
>>30091835
>>30091828
I see you made sure to read through the global rules i see, very well then, go back to shoving black dildos up your ass, summerfag
>>30091796
That's true
>>30091848
Ah. Thank you. This was what I was waiting for.
>>30091777
Hey Opp, I'm about to go third year in army ROTC with a math major, and the more I see on hear the more I like the sound of what you do. What books and materials are out there to learn what you know and what would you differently if you had to relearn it from scratch?
>>30091852
>Thinks Oppen is full of shit
>calls other people summerfag.
>>30091863
>What books and materials are out there to learn what you know and what would you differently if you had to relearn it from scratch?
Here is a reading list:
On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner
The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan
Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérèse Delpech
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser
Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang
Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford
What would I do differently?
Been more selective in my first private sector employer. Maybe even have just gone somewhere to teach.
>>30091715
>I've never seen anyone actually correctly call him out for being wrong.
As if any of you fat weebmeisters have any clue when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Anyone that uses complicated words can fool you lot into thinking he's some kind of expert.
>>30091885
saved
Also, what do you think about nuclear winter? a real effect of nuclear war or just Carl Sagan's fever induced nightmare?
>>30091892
This.
He never worked for DTRA or MDA. The guy probably was never in military or federal service at that level to have an in depth understanding other than Wikipedia
>>30091517
>wargaming on /qst/
Hell yeah, never got to finish the Rome vs the CSA one
>>30091902
>not being here when he was doxxed.
Been here all week, right?
>>30091885
Holy crap, thanks. Also, how does one read all of this and then come about having a "correct" opinion? Is it just simply good critical thinking will get you in the ballpark? To elaborate, there are experts in all Christian denominations who read the bible and think they're right, how to avoid incorrect analysis?
>>30091900
Every study about it makes very serious flaws in initial assumptions that make it impossible to use the conclusions for anything useful.
>>30091909
Nah I don't hang out often here with kids
>>30091915
Then you should fuck off.
Or provide evidence that hes full of shit. He was doxxed, his shit was legit, and he was who he said he was.
You move, fag.
>>30091913
>>30091909
>>30091885
What happened when you were doxxed Oppenheimer?
>>30091913
What sort of flaws? Curious here. The size of the exchange, the ratio of ground to airburst, or just assume that the bombs threw way more into the atmosphere than they actually would?
>>30091934
Basically that nuclear detonations cause firestorms. This is the #1 cause of soot and ash in their proposals by far. There's a reason why Dyson even said it was bad science but good politically.
>>30091912
There's no such thing as a correct opinion, so the next best thing is to have a grounded one. You do that by keeping up-to-date on weapons capability and policy, along with specificity in your thinking.
>>30091926
No not really. Because who cares other than you? You're his fanboy squad.
Also
>doxxed
>2016
Lol okay
>>30091934
>nuke strikes cause firestorms
The only targets in history were Japanese cities (read: tinderboxes)
>firestorms produce lots of ash
If your city is 90% of wood & rice paper.
>enough ash will block the sun
Krakatoa cooled the earth, but that was several times the power of human nukes.
>>30091965
It was not this year you fucking idiot.
>>30091912
>Also, how does one read all of this and then come about having a "correct" opinion? Is it just simply good critical thinking will get you in the ballpark?
There is no correct opinion. There is an opinion that you feel best fits the data.
Compare and contrast. Make an effort to find read material critical of your opinion.
>>30091927
Gave out too much personal information. Where I worked and when, other little details.
Some anon was keeping it in a spreadsheet and finally found me by looking at the bios online.
So anon faxed me and emailed me and my employer.
>>30091934
They make assumptions that one target gets one warhead. Thats the biggest one.
They assume that each warhead will be aimed at urban areas. They will be aimed at discrete targets in the area. Factories and industrial targets are not often in the center of town.
They also assume that the majority of targets will be urban. This is unlikely.
They fail to account for modern building codes and fire resistant materials.
They also overstate the thermal effects of nuclear weapons to some degree.
This is not to say that Nuclear Winter is not possible, because it is. However, both sides would have to agree that they want to intentionally create this effect and cooperate.
>>30091934
Most of the studies assumed that the entire city burns to the bedrock and that all of that soot finds its way into the upper atmosphere.
It's wrong in thinking cities are the primary target, it's wrong in thinking modern cities are tinder boxes, it's wrong in assuming an entire city burns, and it's wrong in thinking every bit of soot ends up high in the atmosphere.
>>30091965
Insults and name calling aren't helping you here.
Also, where's your credentials?
>>30091980
>>30091992
Please leave him alone.
He can believe whatever he wants. As can anyone else.
This pissing match is unlikely to end well.
>>30091983
"So anon faxed me and emailed me and my employer. "
What a fucking asswipe.
>>30091864
Oh noes! How dares he call God-emperor Oppen a liar?
Burn the heretic
>>30091992
He doesnt have any. Hes trying to goad you into helping him dox Oppen again. That why he said the shit about the year.
Hes trying to dig through the archive to find it and he wants you to help him narrow down the search.
>>30091999
>This pissing match is unlikely to end well.
>Call each other faggots for 5 more minutes
>Get bored
>Close tab
>Search "xvideos" in google
>fap
>forget about whole ordeal
>>30091980
Yeah you white knight real hard for some internet persona.
You trying to be lil O's cockrest? Maybe even a janitor who tried to clean up a shit hole?
Either way you're a bigger loser than O is.
Psh...nothin personal kid
>>30091926
>trying to fit in the fanboi crew
>>30092001
Do you have a job?
Would you mind posting it here?
>>30092004
Do you have proof?
Thought not.
>>30092011
Oh no. I'm sitting here on my deck drinking coffee.
/k/ never changes and everyone gets so worked up.
>>30092022
So then what is your point?
>>30092004
So, did he piss in your cheerios?
Or, perhaps, he verbally demolished the nuclear capabilitys of whatever shithole you hail from.
>>30092022
>>30092020
>>30092019
>>30092016
>>30092015
>>30092011
>>30092025
>>30092030
Y'all need to calm down
>>30092020
Proof about what? That he's an attention whoring tripnigger who created a bizzare cult of personality around him? You are the living proof of that.
Proof about him being wrong? Here's the man himself admitting it>>30091726
What is my problem with this guy? Presonally i would have nothing against him if there wasnt such a fanatic fanbase around him. I've seen people who made strong arguments and very good points only to be ignored/shat on because "HURR DURR OPP NEVER WORNG".
Meanwhile the dude gets away with spewing literal bullshit and his personal opinions are taken as God-spoken universal truths.
Every thread involving atomic weapons develops into a massive Oppenheimer worship ceremony. Pathetic.
>>30092073
>Presonally i would have nothing against him if there wasnt such a fanatic fanbase around him.
>I don't like this guy because you like this guy
>>30092073
It's like years ago with Squid.
I just think it's funny. It's a cycle
>>30092073
So you dont like him because he is well liked?
How is that his fault?
>>30092073
Let me translate this.
>I made some stupid comments in a thread.
>Oppen came in and corrected my stupidity
>people laughed at how dumb I was.
>now im mad.
>>30092073
>Presonally i would have nothing against him if there wasnt such a fanatic fanbase around him
So what do you want him to do about it? Seriously.
The only reason you say you dont like him is because others like him. So what should he do? Stop using the board because you dont like that people like him?
Im curious what your soloution is here.
>>30092073
>I've seen people who made strong arguments and very good points only to be ignored/shat on
Strong arguments in your opinion. What are your credentials that give your opinion of these arguments more weight than Oppenheimer who has had his credentials posted on /k/?
>>30091823
Pretty sure Stormfront knew about 4chan since at least '07 (IIRC there were threads with stormfags back when I found out about /b/, and that was around '07).
>>30090944
NPT is written and enforced to forbid that kind of stuff (not just 30 minutes, but months or even years worth of effort to complete a weapon). If Australia has indeed done so, they're in serious violation.
The closest you get to that is the Nuclear Sharing program, where another nuclear power (usually the United States) keeps nukes in-country under official US posession, but with agreement to hand them over to the non-nuclear ally in the event that shit goes hot.
>>30091575
>Almost losing control of your nuclear weapons twice will do that to you.
Is there somewhere one can read about this?
>>30090714
>spew out secrates
>secrates
>>30092073
>Every thread involving atomic weapons develops into a massive Oppenheimer worship ceremony. Pathetic.
no, we listen to him about nukes because he knows about nukes. Honestly as soon as he goes off that topic, he's about as reliable as any other anon
but he generally talks about nukes, so yeah
pretty good
How effective would the Russian SSBN fleet and bomber force be in a full-scale exchange versus NATO?
>>30094824
The bombers would likely be used against Europe (or maybe China...). Not likely they would make it to the US.
The subs are a random factor. Some sources seem to paint the picture that subs are only out a few times per year, and then more training than anything. With the majority of the sub fleet barely counting as a paper tiger that is rusting away.
Others suggest that they have at least one sub out at sea, and likely a second one soon, at all times (or often).
Anything not at sea is likely to be slagged before they can launch (unless part of a first strike). Those at sea will carry out orders.
>>30092169
What anon was trying to say was:
> I've seen people ignore the arguments I have made that I thought were strong and ignore points I made that I thought were good - sometimes they even shat on them.
And that likely sums up his entire problem as well.
>>30090407
The guy that got showered in radioactive shit that they kept alive in pure agony for educational purposes?
>>30091264
I don't believe Chinese care about freedom that much, or at least relative to security. If they did care Tienanmen Square would have become a revolution.
![images[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8oQa3Y5.jpg "images[1].jpg")
Why did nuclear propulsion go nowhere? Why don't we have nuclear-propelled nukes/ICBMs?
>>30100356
Politics.
Take the space-race to the moon, then give up = cheaper than continuing to mars.
Nuclear propulsion made a mars mission more viable and became a proxy for that. Kill nukes and you kill mars.
We're talking NERVA here, not Orion.
>>30092142
Not that guy but stop using trips, that only deters discussion, its an anonymous imageboard for a reason, if people like to read his opinions and posts they can all move to a forum and circlejerk over there
>>30100356
Being you need a fucktonne of radiation shielding for the crew, which negates the advantages of nuclear propulsion (I think)
Also because for unmanned spacecraft there's all the politics surrounding it, ie what if something goes wrong and it crashes, oh muh pollution etc
>>30092073
literally the only tripfag on this website who isn't a cock mongling faggot
fuck you
>>30092073
This dude seems legit. Do you have such a small penis and/or large craving for attention you can't stand to see someone else who is actually knowledable have the well-deserved spotlight?
Get a fucking life you phoney.
>>30100513
>anonymous imageboards
>deserved spotlight
that guy is a faggot, but come on.
>>30088135
So why don't we have anything approaching 10, 15, or even 30 megatons anymore? Even with great aim, wouldn't it be important to have such great power in our arsenal?
>>30100610
No. The goal of nuclear war is to destroy your enemy's capacity to wage war, not to inflict massive amounts of disproportionately civilian casualties.
let's say you send 2 700kt warheads at a target, the military target is dead, some civilians are dead.
Let's say you send 2 10Mt warheads at a target. The target is destroyed, a massive amount of civilians are also dead.
>>30100356
NASA knows the only feasible way to get to Mars is nuclear propulsion and is quietly researching it. Actual rockets have been built and tested on the ground.
>>30100610
10x 1Mt warheads is more useful than a single 10Mt warhead.
>>30092015
welcome to my life
>>30100685
Wew
I hope you're not talking about ramjets, because that only works when you have an atmosphere with gas molecules that can be forced into the apparatus and heated by fission, otherwise known as something that outer space doesn't have.
>>30101000
>retarded, the post.
Put on your glasses m8.
>>30100685
Chemical rockets are feasible, but they'd be slow and are best for one way. There are other possibility, of course.
Electric engines use electricity, rather then a chemical reaction, to accelerate the reaction mass. Ion engines and plasma engines are the dominate technologies, and either are options for a Mars mission. To power them an atomic reactor really is the most promising option, but solar cells could also do it.
For chemical engines, an option is to carry no fuel for the return mission and make more fuel on Mars. Technically, Mars has everything you need to make rocket fuel, and a factory to make rocket fuel on Mars would weigh less then the fuel to drive a chemical rocket home from Martian orbit.
Last, you've got the pure nuke ones. Some work by injecting fission fuel salts into water, allowing the fission reaction to turn the salts, fission byproducts and the water into energetic plasma that is directed out the back. Others put a fission reactor in a chamber and use it to heat hydrogen and eject it out the back of the ship to create thrust.
The last use small atomic bombs to generate a wave of energetic plasma that pushes the ship forward, pushing on a plate to create thrust.
>>30100422
>only deters discussion, its an anonymous imageboard for a reason, if people like to read his opinions and posts they can all move to a forum and circlejerk over there
Why does the board have the ability to use trips? Oppen does it the right way, only using it in nuke threads.
Also your point about it detering discussion is bullshit too. Look at this thread.
Everyone was discussing just fine until anon threw his temper tantrum.
>>30101246
>and a factory to make rocket fuel on Mars would weigh less then the fuel to drive a chemical rocket home from Martian orbit.
You can even send it on a separate, unmanned trip beforehand. So it's zero mass on the manned mission.
>>30100643
>No. The goal of nuclear war is to destroy your enemy's capacity to wage war, not to inflict massive amounts of disproportionately civilian casualties.
This depends on who you are.
>>30101297
A very good point. I know I'd be more relaxed knowing a vanguard mission had established a base producing fuel on the surface of Mars that was functioning before I left Earth.
>>30090517
Chinese communities are everywhere. Do you really think they couldn't smuggle backpack nukes near to any target they wished to? They don't need icbms they just need to pick up the remote control.
>>30101525
They dont have backpack nukes.
>>30094824
>>30095369
Read Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising. I'm not 100% about it being fully grounded in reality, but Clancy has a track record of accurate militaryporn.
>The group tactical warfare officer was pale as he toggled his microphone. "Air Warning Red. Weapons free! Threat axis is two-one-seven. All ships turn as necessary to unmask batteries."
>The Tomcats had all been drawn off, leaving the formation practically naked. The only armed fighters over the formation were Foch's eight Crusaders, long since retired from the American inventory. On a terse command from their carrier, they went to afterburner and rocketed southwest toward the Backfires. Too late.
>The Bear already had a clear picture of the American formations. The Russians could not determine ship type, but they could tell large from small, and identify the missile cruiser Ticonderoga by her distinctive radar emissions. The carriers would be close to her. The Bear relayed the information to her consorts. A minute later, the seventy Backfire bombers launched their hundred forty AS-6 Kingfish missiles and turned north at full military power. The Kingfish was nothing like the Kelt. Powered by a liquid-fuel rocket engine, it accelerated to nine hundred knots and began its descent, its radar-homing head tracking on a preprogrammed target area ten miles wide. Every ship in the center of the formation had several missiles assigned.
>"Vampire, Vampire!" the CIC talker said aboard Ticonderoga. "We have numerous incoming missiles. Weapons free."
>>30101646
>The group antiair warfare officer ordered the cruiser's Aegis weapons system into full automatic mode. Tico had been built with this exact situation in mind. Her powerful radar/computer system immediately identified the incoming missiles as hostile and assigned each a priority of destruction. The computer was completely on its own, free to fire on its electronic will at anything diagnosed as a threat. Numbers, symbols, and vectors paraded across the master tactical display. The fore and aft twin missile launchers trained out at the first targets and awaited the orders to fire. Aegis was state-of-the-art, the best SAM system yet devised, but it had one major weakness: Tico carried only ninety-six SM2 surface-to-air missiles; there were one hundred forty incoming Kingfish. The computer had not been programmed to think about that.
>Aboard Nimitz, Toland could feel the carrier heeling into a radical turn, her engines advanced to flank speed, driving the massive warship at over thirty-five knots. Her nuclear-powered escorts, Virginia and California, were also tracking the Kingfish, their own missiles trained out on their launchers.
>The Kingfish were at eight thousand feet, one hundred miles out, covering a mile every four seconds. Each had now selected a target, choosing the largest within their fields of view. Nimitz was the nearest large ship, with her missile-ship escorts to her north.
>Tico launched her first quartet of missiles as the targets reached a range of ninety-nine miles. The rockets exploded into the air, leaving a trail of pale gray smoke. They had barely cleared the launch rails when the mounts went vertical and swiveled to receive their reloads. The load-and-fire time was under eight seconds. The cruiser would average one missile fired every two seconds. Just over three minutes later, her missile magazines were empty. The cruiser emerged from the base of an enormous gray arch of smoke. Her only remaining defenses were her gun systems.
>>30097623
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/effect-radiation-body0
Hiroshu Ouchi. Didn't shower, got a dose of 13 sieverts of gamma radiation. He was dead the moment they hit him.
Don't.. really check that link if you have a weak stomach. It's gruesome and nasty.
>>30091517
>Looking at doing them on /qst/
the Quest Thread General would be a good place to get your feet wet on the board, and maybe get an idea of what the current player base is like. Also a good place to shill for players who aren't from /k/. All in all a microcosm of /qst/.
>>30088135
Oh hey Opp, haven't seen you in months.
>>30101646
>>30101654
Fucking love that book, but i have seen some massive autism-arguments regarding the whole
>track record of accurate militaryporn.
part. Cant really remember what they though he got wrong, but i'd imagine is was along the lines of a normal Burgerclap/sovietboo-discussion, ie shit-posting galore
>>30102131
Agreed, Overall it's pretty entertaining, only part that really put me off was the romance that was forced in for some idiotic reason.
>>30102160
wait, romance? where?
>>30102283
Morris and the Icelandic girl he saved from the slavs trying to slav.
>>30100422
And yet tripcodes are an option here and he uses them in accordance with it's intended purpose
>>30102744
Why is it every summer some asshole shows up to give Oppen shit?
>>30102768
I'm trying to decide if it's like when rags on someone for drinking a "fancy" beer because it's not piss water and piss water is good enough. Or if it's more like the new inmate going after the biggest guy in prison to establish their own position
>>30102294
Oh yeah fuck, forgot all about that!
The closest thing i could think of was that frigate captain who lost his boat and got all sad
>>30102836
>Or if it's more like the new inmate going after the biggest guy in prison to establish their own position
Only to slink of in sadness after Oppen goes balls deep on him with sourced facts?
>>30102865
That was a better and more believable love story than Morris and the Icelander.
>>30102898
The drunk Norwegian submarine commander part was spot on though.
>>30091049
I imagine the Chinese have a different perspective of what constitutes long term strategic planning than what we are used to.
>>30091126
>Designatedstan
That needs to be the name of a country on Nation States. Make the flag a poo Gadsden, "only shit in the streets," or something like that.
>>30091175
China has been authoritarian for 5,000 years. Why wouldn't it be so for the next 5,000?
You assume liberty wins. That is a dangerous and nieve assumption.
>>30091784
Why would we repent? (We're right, you know...)
>>30101297
The critical part here is how much mass do you have to pay for, to send it into space. It doesn't matter how heavy the rocket is if your only other option is to send the exact number of kilograms in multiple rockets. The idea is to reduce the total # of kilos sent from earth to mars. They can all ride together as far as cost is concerned.
>>30101670
>In a coma for most of the time.
I was under the impression that he wasn't in a coma for quite a while because the doctors wanted to interview him from time to time and didn't want him to be unwakeable. The treated him like a lab rat while he begged for death. They had to keep his family away because he would tell them how badly he was being treated and they would tell the news.
>>30102131
The part that I usually see people taking issue with the most is Clancy thinking the F-19 was actually a thing and having it pull shenanigans the F-117 probably wouldn't have been able to. Also NATO having a ton of luck early on (though the Soviets luck out in the North Atlantic as well).
>>30102898
It was tolerable to me, certainly more so than the subplot in Bear and the Dragon. [spoiler]I can't take it seriously reading through it now though because of /pol/ memes[/spoiler].
>>30105336
>Japanese doctors perform painful experiments on unwilling subjects
I'm not surprised in the least.
>>30105552
>Doctors treat humans like lab rats against their will because lol radiation...
>I'm not surprised.
Nor am I.
If I'm ever exposed to that level of radiation, I will drive out into the desert and eat some #4 buck. No doctor will be able to resist the temptation to play god. Stupid government employees and their sycophants will let them.
who was to benefit from the SDI scientists being murdered?
>>30105669
wouldnt you want your tragidy to possible help human medical knowledge?
you would be drugged up on opiods at a minumum
>>30091664
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Yuanxin
Uh, he is still alive dude,
