Got the afternoon to myself. Reposting the old thread intro for our newer visitors.
>Ask me about nuclear weapons. (Except the science). Nuclear weapons strategy, weapon effects, current capabilities, former capabilities, weapon effects, etc....
>My bona fides:
>Worked with nuclear strategy and arms control with 2 different agencies (Bureau of Verification and Compliance, Office of Nuclear Deterrence) and currently work for an private sector group involved in anti proliferation policy.
>A few notes.
>1) I can not give you anything that is illegal for me to disclose. In most cases, it might be in the wikipedia article but still illegal for me to talk about it.
>If this comes up, I will tell you.
>2) This also means that 100% of what I can tell you you can find in a book or paper. So why do this? Because most people don't want to wade through reams of paper to answer one question.
>As I have already read through those oceans of crap, I can save you some time.
>3) What is policy, is often times different from my opinion. Where they differ, I will tell you.
>4) I will not jeopardize my employment or freedom.
>5) I don't know what's under Denver International Airport. Sorry.
>6) I am not in the military, and I never was.
>So thats my post.
>If you are interested, then please ask away, if not, then let this slide off. In any case, thanks.
>>23982677
I wish more thread OPs were like you, OPpenheimer.
Even if you don't KNOW what's under Denver International Airport, what do you THINK is under there?
>>23982677
where can i buy weapon grade plutonium?
also how do you make a neutron initiator
Ok OPpenheimer , ISIS claims they have a dirty bomb, is such a thing even possible?
>>23982699
Dirt, bedrock.
Maybe some fossils.
Minerals.
>>23982704
>where can i buy weapon grade plutonium?
Are you properly licensed?
>also how do you make a neutron initiator
Depends on your weapon design.
>>23982712
Sure. Radioactive material with conventional explosive = dirty bomb.
Effectiveness can vary wildly.
>>23982698
Everyone is different, Anon.
Hey OP, last thread you mentioned you're in favor of testing for a new generation of weapons. I think I've asked you a similar question before but do you think that if this testing ever took place that it would be exclusively underground detonations? I know atmospheric testing is banned but do you think the treaty brokers could be convinced that it would be necessary in this instance? And do you think it's necessary and/or worth the global effects?
>>23982729
I don't know what I expected.
>>23982704
>where can i buy weapon grade plutonium?
In 1985 you could buy it from any corner drug store, but unfortunately today it's a little harder to come by.
>>23982712
With all the hospitals they looted I'd imagine they could get their hands on some material. Probably wouldn't contaminate a broad area though, more of a fear weapon
>>23982677
>>23982677
OPpen, what's the chances for a combined strike? Ruskies and chinks, and/or Norks all striking the US at the same time?
>>23982740
>if this testing ever took place that it would be exclusively underground detonations?
Without a doubt.
>I know atmospheric testing is banned but do you think the treaty brokers could be convinced that it would be necessary in this instance?
Very doubtful to be honest.
>And do you think it's necessary and/or worth the global effects?
Not really, but it would be something to see, wouldn't it?
>>23982751
I snorted.
8/10
>>23982755
I agree with you.
>>23982768
0.0%
>>23982771
I would definitely buy tickets to an atmospheric test if they ever had one again.
Have they ever tried to harness nuclear energy to make a weapon that shoots multiple times, rather than a bomb that just explodes once?
>>23982781
That makes me feel better. I feel like even the Russians striking us is highly unlikely even with all the shit they talk, right?
>>23982796
I would too.
Thread Title Screen:
http://youtu.be/aexfyoVj1rM?t=6s
Also, are there any links in the strategic C3 chain that is vulnerable to attacks in the cyber domain, and are cyber attacks considered a credible threat against strategic forces?
Also, do you ever check your email?
>>23982740
With the amount we know now about fallout spread and fission products interacting with the human body, probably never again.
>>23982677
I'm seriously sick of you and your bullshit threads.
>>23982826
>>23982826
:^)
>>23982806
Not to my knowledge.
>>23982807
Extremely unlikely.
>>23982814
>Also, are there any links in the strategic C3 chain that is vulnerable to attacks in the cyber domain, and are cyber attacks considered a credible threat against strategic forces?
Not really. There are some points where it may be degraded but they are rather high up and non-essential.
>Also, do you ever check your email?
Just did. I have a few. Resend it so I can see which one you are.
>>23982806
Yeah, they put a rail gun on a nuclear powered ship.
>>23982826
Progressive Edgemaster 3000,
have you something better to offer? No? So fuck off
>>23982826
>>23982826
>>23982814
Ok, got it.
Sorry.
>>23982826
Honorable OPenheimer, why no love for NewSTART?
'
OPphim
Who has the better nuke program USN or USAF
>>23982729
Could a radiological weapon be made from Cobalt-60?
What material would be the most dangerous in such a weapon?
How easily could terrorists obtain Cobalt-60 or such materials?
>>23982885
Who could love unilateral disarmament?
>>23982848
>>23982868
>>23982884
Oh fuck you guaranteed repliers
>>23982885
In my opinion it hangs Europe out to dry, it is favorable to the Russians, and dangerous.
It has some good parts. The inspection regime is sound, the disclosures are good, but its flaws outnumber its good points.
>>23982887
>Cobalt-60
Thats a really good choice. As far as whats the most dangerous, the location of the device is more important than the actual effects. You are unlikely to actually kill anyone no matter the material used as the explosive will spread it too far to give lethal doses in the short exposure times that are likely in the aftermath of such an explosion.
After all, who hangs out in the area after a bomb has gone off?
The true effect is the fear and horror that the media will spread for you.
With the media playing "RADIATION LEVELS ON WALL STREET 100 TIMES BACKGROUND LEVELS" all over the place, the actual physical damage will be negligible in comparison.
What's the average daily caloric intake of your wife because she is huge.
>>23983045
I'm aware a dirty bomb is mainly a bomb with extra fear, but under what conditions would it be most effective in inducing rad sickness in addition to the terror factor?
Or would a terrorist be better off sprinkling C-60 into a mall's ventilation shafts?
I ask all this because I enjoy writing speculative fiction, and I try to make these things realistic when possible. The nasty shit rad poisoning does makes it too good to pass up for a writer, but balancing it with realism makes that tough.
Also, what about NNEMPs? How effective would they be at causing havoc in an urban environment? Are there long-term health consequences?
>>23983176
>I'm aware a dirty bomb is mainly a bomb with extra fear, but under what conditions would it be most effective in inducing rad sickness in addition to the terror factor?
>Or would a terrorist be better off sprinkling C-60 into a mall's ventilation shafts?
Yes, finding a method that would spread the material clandestinely would be best, but understand it is actually pretty difficult to kill someone in a short period of time with materials like that. You need a large amount of a gamma emitter to really kill quickly.
Sodium-24 might be a possibility, but how to source it would be the main issue.
You need to find a way to clandestinely expose the same people day after day. In your mall example the issue is that you might give the customers cancer in 10 years, while giving the employees ARS in a few days time.
>I ask all this because I enjoy writing speculative fiction, and I try to make these things realistic when possible. The nasty shit rad poisoning does makes it too good to pass up for a writer, but balancing it with realism makes that tough.
Yes, its very difficult to find a method that could irradiate people quickly enough to give them ARS but that is not tricking them into walking into a nuclear reactor or picking up some spent fuel rods.
>Also, what about NNEMPs? How effective would they be at causing havoc in an urban environment? Are there long-term health consequences?
I would imagine they would be very effective, from what I understand about them, but I do not know that much about them unfortunately.
General question to older (pre-90's generations) anons, was the threat of nuclear war displayed in everyday life (eg.drills in schools, communities)?
>>23983308
This is me. I was posing elsewhere and forgot to put my trip back on. Sorry.
>>23983328
It could vary, but yes it was. In the 1980's it was more common in smaller towns and the like, while big cities had resigned themselves to helplessness.
>>23983308
Say Russia cannot enact measures to save her economy and the Ruskies start clamoring for change the Kremlin cannot deliver, does this raise the risk of nuclear war? Might we see an attack on Saudi Arabia by Russia conventional or otherwise to reverse the decline in oil prices?
Also, with the recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan do you see this as a sign that the Taliban there are being driven to take more extreme and desperate measures against the state and if so does this increase the risk of them attempting to steal or gain control of a nuke?
>>23982826
>>23983397
>Say Russia cannot enact measures to save her economy and the Ruskies start clamoring for change the Kremlin cannot deliver, does this raise the risk of nuclear war?
Slightly, but the Russians took into account internal chaos in their command and control systems and as a result it would be difficult if not impossible for dissidents to gain control of nuclear forces.
>Might we see an attack on Saudi Arabia by Russia conventional or otherwise to reverse the decline in oil prices?
I doubt the Russian conventional military has the ability to do much to SA, and in any case the blow back on that would be horrendous for the Russians.
>Also, with the recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan do you see this as a sign that the Taliban there are being driven to take more extreme and desperate measures against the state and if so does this increase the risk of them attempting to steal or gain control of a nuke?
They have already tried to storm a naval vessel with the help of some naval officers. I think that the risk of the loss of Pakistani government control of their nuclear forces is at an all time high.
>>23983452
>implying Putin would die directly. They have new nuclear policy now, m8.
>>23983522
>>implying Putin would die directly.
What?
>They have new nuclear policy now, m8
Interesting. What is it?
>>23982826
>>23982826
Problem, anon?
>>23983452
On the topic of Russian weaponry, what's the feasibility of suitcase nukes? Could Russia detonate nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabian oil fields, frame a terrorist group and rake in money as oil skyrockets in price and get away with it?
On a similar note, can nuclear forensics ID the country of origin of a nuke? If so, how does it work, in Layman's terms if possible?
Again, spec-fiction guy here.
is 155mm artillery nuke shell useful?
what yield would it be?
Do russkies have anything like that (I often find "nuclear capable" in their 155mm artillery description in wikipedia)?
How do you see Pakistan going? in the past you have said they were "Mostly likely to collapse".
How do you think that will go? Civil War? Military Junta? Theocracy?
Whats the time frame on that?
What does India do? Would they want to invade the whole country or just that portion in Kashmir?
Does NATO try and make a move to control the nuclear sources? Will other countries? Could we see conflict between say the US and China to secure these items and facilities?
>>23982826
>>23983616
>On the topic of Russian weaponry, what's the feasibility of suitcase nukes?
Very feasible. The W54 weighed about 50 pounds.
>Could Russia detonate nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabian oil fields, frame a terrorist group and rake in money as oil skyrockets in price and get away with it?
Very unlikely they could get away with it.
>On a similar note, can nuclear forensics ID the country of origin of a nuke? If so, how does it work, in Layman's terms if possible?
Yes. In general, the methods of the production of the fissile material and the bomb design leave telltale signatures on the fission products.
By examining these products you can get a good idea of the make up of the initial material and design of the bomb, which will tell you its origin.
>>23983665
>is 155mm artillery nuke shell useful?
Depends on the situation but it could be.
>what yield would it be?
The W48 was about .1Kt.
A modern design could get 5Kt possibly.
And yes the Russians had/have nuclear artillery.
>>23983695
>How do you see Pakistan going? in the past you have said they were "Mostly likely to collapse".
Still believing that they will fall at some point.
>How do you think that will go? Civil War? Military Junta? Theocracy?
Civil war.
>Whats the time frame on that?
Next decade I think.
>What does India do? Would they want to invade the whole country or just that portion in Kashmir?
Depends on the disposition of the Pakistani nuclear weapons. They might just stay out of it.
>Does NATO try and make a move to control the nuclear sources?
Probably.
>Will other countries? Could we see conflict between say the US and China to secure these items and facilities?
I think both would cooperate to make sure they are under control.
>>23983176
Here, this is what our Hazmat team uses
>>23983771
>And yes the Russians had/have nuclear artillery.
>had/have
We don't know which?
>>23984074
Even the Russians aren't sure of that. They probably do, but it was probably left to rot in a warehouse in Kazakhstan somewhere and may or may not have been sold off by some corrupt officer/wholesale surplus dealer.
>>23984074
Their non strategic forces are somewhat ambiguous.
>>23983771
>Very unlikely they could get away with it.
May I ask what this assumption is based on?
Is it predicated on externally-obtained evidence (nuclear forensics, SIGINT, ELINT, HUMINT) or internal Russian factors (disenchanted defectors, anonymous leaks as a result of conscience, etc.)?
>In general, the methods of the production of the fissile material and the bomb design leave telltale signatures on the fission products.
By examining these products you can get a good idea of the make up of the initial material and design of the bomb, which will tell you its origin.
So the ability to ID a nuke's homeland is predicated on knowledge of their nuclear weapons manufacturing and design process?
Is there a limit on how long the fission products remain viable evidence?
>>23984107
>>23984113
Why are we signing nuclear treaties if we don't understand their nuclear forces (yes I understand the treaties are "strategic" and the forces in question are "tactical" but it's a blurry line between them).
>>23984142
here. Gonna be gone a bit while I drive to college. Really enjoying this nuke thread, I stuck around /k/ all day after I enjoyed yesterday's thread a lot.
>>23984142
>May I ask what this assumption is based on?
The nuclear forensics will tell you.
There is also a process of elimination that can help.
>So the ability to ID a nuke's homeland is predicated on knowledge of their nuclear weapons manufacturing and design process?
It helps, but its not completely necessary.
>Is there a limit on how long the fission products remain viable evidence?
Nope. Half lives are half lives.
If you are going to be writing a book, you should invest in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Forensic-Analysis-Kenton-Moody/dp/0849315131
>>23984171
Thats one of my main criticisms of New START.
>>23984196
Me again.
>>23983328
pic related is from a DOD film from the 50s, which was still showing when I was in second grade in the late 70s. The "tornado" sirens of today were "The Russians have launched the end of the world" sirens back then. There were also yellow fallout shelter triangles on public buildings everywhere.
>>23984293
these used to be all over the place
Do you think its reasonable or at least possible to use nuclear weapons in a ``tactical'' sense without great risk of escalation to them being deployed strategically? Against another nuclear power with sufficient capabilities that is.
I've heard for example an advantage to newer warheads is that they can be dialed down to a certain power. Whats really the point of that when to my understanding hasn't the entire class of medium range delivery systems been banned by treaties and such? That is using an enormous ICBM to send a low yield nuke is the scenario I'm thinking about.
Also who is your favorite hidamari? (open question for everyone)
>>23983328
I grew up in the 80's and we did the desk and shelter drills.
>>23984412
>Whats really the point of that when to my understanding hasn't the entire class of medium range delivery systems been banned by treaties and such?
http://www.rferl.org/content/united-states-russia-arms-treaties-/26736623.html
>>23984412
>Do you think its reasonable or at least possible to use nuclear weapons in a ``tactical'' sense without great risk of escalation to them being deployed strategically? Against another nuclear power with sufficient capabilities that is.
Yes its possible.
>I've heard for example an advantage to newer warheads is that they can be dialed down to a certain power. Whats really the point of that when to my understanding hasn't the entire class of medium range delivery systems been banned by treaties and such?
Those selectable yield warheads are battlefield weapons. They can be delivered by aircraft and the like.
>That is using an enormous ICBM to send a low yield nuke is the scenario I'm thinking about.
They wouldn't use an ICBM to deliver such a warhead, but rather a tactical missile or aircraft.
>>23982826
Would Russia ever be desperate enough (with the ruble crashing, oil crashing and their economy seizing up) to use nuclear weapons in regional conflicts ie Ukraine / Georgia?
>>23984597
>Would Russia ever be desperate enough (with the ruble crashing, oil crashing and their economy seizing up) to use nuclear weapons in regional conflicts ie Ukraine / Georgia?
Not without a good reason.
NATO intervention might be one.
>>23982677
Wisdom from OPpenheimer
>>23984627
I am dead
thank for these threads btw, they are informative
>>23984458
Makes sense, I assume those have to be set before they're loaded on the aircraft? How much would versatility do you think being able to adjust them on the fly would add(still on the aircraft, not after launch), enough to spend research money into it?
>>23984437
>The 1987 treaty bans ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying between 500 to 5,500 kilometers.
This is what I was thinking of and it go me to wondering, surely the air launched cruise missiles have a range like that so why are ground based ones a big deal? Something to do with the ability to hide and prepare them for launch easier? I assume subs have missiles with that range too.
Whats your take on medium range missiles(ground based) in general and is banning them a sound policy?
>>23982677
>got the afternoon to myself
>spends it ok /k/
Go do something productive, tripfaggot.
>>23984627
OPpenheimer, why isn't houston a massive blob of nuke in this map? I thought it was a massive target.
>>23983328
>>23984293
>The Song For The End Of The World.
The last thing you hear before all is fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG8w9cb4vk0
german kommando here.
first: i like your threads and i am reading every thread with pleasure. thx for your work!
do you think it is a good idea to "give free" the bombs like the us with commanchain/Codeblocks etc or be like the brits with there letters of last resort and the subcommander can launch the rockets on his own?
Baguettes does not count.
pic unrelated
>>23984627
Are those cold war targets or modern day, also are the wisps fallout or what?
>>23983771
>The W54 weighed about 50 pounds.
Ok OPpen...this is about 350-450Kt W80 physics package, how much does it weight?
>>23984677
Under the terms of New START, any aircraft capable of firing a long range nuclear capable ALCM (long range being defined at 600+ km) counts as a heavy bomber and would be included in the counting rules.
No official restrictions exist on submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles, however the US did declare it was removing them from being carried in the early 90s (and under Obama dismantled the ones in storage). Russia supposedly reciprocated, but statements by officials suggest their subs once again carry them.
>>23984677
>I assume those have to be set before they're loaded on the aircraft?
Not necessarily.
>>23984677
>surely the air launched cruise missiles have a range like that so why are ground based ones a big deal? Something to do with the ability to hide and prepare them for launch easier?
Yes. The ground based missiles have little warning and can be on their targets in just a few minutes.
>I assume subs have missiles with that range too.
Yes, but Russia can't restrict subs.
>Whats your take on medium range missiles(ground based) in general and is banning them a sound policy?
Probably not a good idea as it places the US at an overall disadvantage in Europe.
>>23984686
I am. I'm writing, talking to /k/, and playing a video game.
I might watch a movie later.
>>23984688
That map depicts a first strike by the Russians. The most likely scenario would be that the Russians would hit US nuclear weapons and command and control.
Houston does not fall into that category.
>>23984720
>do you think it is a good idea to "give free" the bombs like the us with commanchain/Codeblocks etc or be like the brits with there letters of last resort and the subcommander can launch the rockets on his own?
I prefer the use of Command authority like the US
>>23984727
Modern current targets.
There are a few errors, mostly on the west coast.
And yes that fallout.
>>23984751
300 pounds give or take.
But it is also missing several components that the weight of the W54 includes.
>>23984627
>>23984849
What are the targets around Sacramento?
>>23984880
Incorrect placement of some communication facilities.
>>23984849
>I am. I'm writing, talking to /k/, and playing a video game.
What games you play? I'll add you on steam or xbl!
>>23984923
Im doing a scenario for Command Modern Air and Naval combat.
I also play Falcon 4.0, DayZ, KSP, and Crusader Kings 2.
Don't really do much multilayer other than DayZ, I guess.
>>23984958
No more defcon? Also any chance you'll be doing another wargame thread anytime soon?
>>23984966
I forgot Defcon.
Yes I'll do another one soon.
>>23982826
>>23982677
Is Elmendorf Air Force Base important? If so how so?
>>23984966
>OPenhimer plays Wargame RD?
>>23982677
What would a retaliatory strike from Russia or China look like against the US? What would be the targets? What targets would they have in common?
>>23984982
Yes, there is Alaskan NORAD Region based there.
>>23985006
>What would a retaliatory strike from Russia or China look like against the US? What would be the targets? What targets would they have in common?
It would depend GREATLY on the results of the US first strike. The response would probably be focused on US economic targets.
>>23983328
By the time the 80's came around we had this idea that it didn't matter. Anyone who talked about surviving was crazy 'who would want to'. I blame most of it on 'the day after'.
>>23984627
What are the targets in Louisiana and Mississippi? They can't be refineries because Texas gulf coast isn't marked as a target.
>>23984849
but when a well planed first strike beheaded the american authority? to be honest i clearly doesnt know who can order a nuklear strike int he us~ i mean i am a big fan of tom clancy books and so on, but its only books.
>>23982677
Have you ever been in the OC-135B Observation Aircraft used in accordance with the Open Skies Treaty to ensure the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is mutually enforced?
I have.
Also i probably have more bottle caps than you.
>>23985086
Oh dear Lord, that fucking thing. Jason Robards became forever after the face of the holocaust. Now we have "The Road" and still everyone thinks survival won't matter.
>>23985109
Barksdale AFB in LA and Keesler AFB in MS.
>>23985110
The US is designed to prevent a decapitating first strike.
If the President is killed, then the authority passes to his successor, and he and the Secretary of Defense can order the response.
It is a myth that the President has the codes to launch.
He has the authority to order a launch, but the codes are actually all over the place. Different weapons will have different codes. The president (or his lawful successor) just needs to prove his identity to the chain of command. The nuclear football has the means to do this.
>>23985156
I have not. I'm jealous.
>>23985164
That file name is funny.
>>23982806
Project pluto
>>23983328
In the early and mid-'80s, there were civil defense films and drills in public schools, but I think it was all just lip service at that point.
I recall filing into an orderly line and making way to a part of the school which had one of those "fallout shelter" signs in it (cafeteria, I think).
>>23985055
Could you expand on that some? Is it just NORAD? What is involved there etc?
Are the fighters there important in a strategic sense, as possible interceptors for Russian bombers perhaps?
Would it be struck in a first strike (Russian attack) scenario and if so what would the targeting look like?
>>23985164
It actually motivated me greatly. My response wasn't 'nobody will survive' but instead 'if they had been prepared they would have been fine'. Pretty much the opposite of my rural school/community.
>>23985193
>Barksdale AFB in LA and Keesler AFB in MS.
Why would they be targets? What would they be hit with?
>>23982677
Serious questions about dirty bombs and RDDs, for a policy and risk assessment project I'm working on.
1. What is the term for material that is too radioactive to steal? I forget, but basically stuff that will likely kill you before you can move it very far. There's a term used in the industry for it.
2. Effects of a dirty bomb? Obviously most destruction would come from the actual explosives, but what would the aftermath look like? What kind of dispersal of radioactive material look like? Fine dust/particles, or chunks?
3. Most common isotopes for RDDs come from medical equipment: cobalt 60, cesium 137, americium perhaps. What about uranium 235? UF6? Related to next question.
4. ISIS claims to have 40kg uranium stolen from Mosul University. (Current) Iraq is an NPT signatory. What kind of uranium is this likely to be, and what purity? What does a university without a test reactor use uranium for? What is the actual risk of low-grade uranium in a dirty bomb? It's an alpha-emitter, so I imagine it's actually a poor choice for a dirty bomb.
5. What sort of large-scale decon or clean up would be needed to restore an area to usable after a dirty bomb?
>>23985341
Barksdale has B52 strategic bombers, it and the B2 are the only aircraft that carry nukes.
>>23982751
>In 1985 you could buy it from any corner drug store, but unfortunately today it's a little harder to come by.
Bullshit. If you were legit, you'd know that even Doc Brown had to make deals with the Libyans for his plutonium.
>>23982806
Casaba howitzer. Directed energy weapon using shaped nuclear charges.
>>23982677
Question about shaping nuclear effects. I've read that it's theoretically possible to shape the blast of a nuke by adjusting the casing, internal mirroring, and such. Is this truly feasible? Did we ever work on such devices, for weapons or AFP-type projects?
>>23985341
Barksdale is a nuke base, Keesler is a training base, not much there last time I visted
>>23985381
That's not correct, I've seen nukes that attach to to f16, they're relics of the Cold War but they can still carry it
>>23982677
Last question for a while. How did variable yield nukes work? Like those that could be adjusted in the field: Davy Crockett and such. Also, how did the variable weapons that supposedly allowed them to be used as nukes or ERWs work?
>>23985381
Keesler?
>>23985261
Its for Early Warning. Taking it out would degrade the US efforts at attack characterization.
And yes it would be struck. As for as how bad, I would expect a mix of SLBM warheads, and ICBM, perhaps some cruise missiles. Some surface bursts.
Probably 1.75 MT total aggregate yield.
>>23985341
Barksdale is HQ of Air Force Global Strike Command, and 8th Air Force. Both are vital parts of US strategic warfighting capability.
Keesler has an unidentified communications facility still there. Its on the low end of the probability but I kept it in.
>>23985364
>1. What is the term for material that is too radioactive to steal? I forget, but basically stuff that will likely kill you before you can move it very far. There's a term used in the industry for it.
I don't know.
>2. Effects of a dirty bomb? Obviously most destruction would come from the actual explosives, but what would the aftermath look like? What kind of dispersal of radioactive material look like? Fine dust/particles, or chunks?
It would depend on the explosives used as well as the type of radioactive material used.
>3. Most common isotopes for RDDs come from medical equipment: cobalt 60, cesium 137, americium perhaps. What about uranium 235? UF6? Related to next question.
Yes but those are somewhat harder to obtain.
>4. ISIS claims to have 40kg uranium stolen from Mosul University. (Current) Iraq is an NPT signatory. What kind of uranium is this likely to be, and what purity?
It is likely a mix of Uranyl acetate, UO3, Ammonium diuranate and other stuff.
>What does a university without a test reactor use uranium for?
Some of it was for research, they have a physics lab there. Electron Microscopes use it as well. The bulk probably came from the Al Jesira conversion plant nearby.
CONT
Hi OPpenheimer,
Thanks for answering our questions.
First, is/was "Dead Hand" a real thing? I heard some anecdotal rhetoric that it wasnt. If that is the case where do you think the disinformation came from, Warsaw Pact or NATO?
Second is more of a comment, the proposed Anti-BM systems advocated by the central european NATO stooges, open boasting of USA's arab allies that the Chechen terrorists are in their pockets, as well as the unending stream of "colour revolutions" being financed by such luminaries as Soros are leading me to feel that "the West" has lost whatever moral high ground it may have had left, and the developments in the last year especially make me predisposed to sympathise with Russia's stance on these issues. Convince me otherwise.
I'm not a shill or anything, these are just opinions I have formed while paying attention to things and having a memory that lasts more than six months. I'm interested in a response that isn't GTFO slavaboo.
Thanks
>>23985364
>>23985860
>What is the actual risk of low-grade uranium in a dirty bomb? It's an alpha-emitter, so I imagine it's actually a poor choice for a dirty bomb.
Its only real danger is if you inhale it so its less than ideal, but then you don't need to actually kill anyone, just scare them, and the media will do that for you.
>5. What sort of large-scale decon or clean up would be needed to restore an area to usable after a dirty bomb?
Washing it down, removal of debris collection of runoff.
>>23985542
On some there are parts that need to be placed on prior to use, like different tampers and the like.
For others its done by changing the amount of tritium you inject into the primary. This can be done easily.
OPpen, does the US have any type of missile defense system that's effective against nukes/icbms etc?
>>23985891
>First, is/was "Dead Hand" a real thing? I heard some anecdotal rhetoric that it wasnt. If that is the case where do you think the disinformation came from, Warsaw Pact or NATO?
No.
Perimeter is a communications system not unlike our ERCS. It never had an automatic function installed.
The Soviets did discuss it, but decided it was too risky.
>Second is more of a comment, the proposed Anti-BM systems advocated by the central european NATO stooges, open boasting of USA's arab allies that the Chechen terrorists are in their pockets, as well as the unending stream of "colour revolutions" being financed by such luminaries as Soros are leading me to feel that "the West" has lost whatever moral high ground it may have had left, and the developments in the last year especially make me predisposed to sympathise with Russia's stance on these issues. Convince me otherwise.
I probably can't. I don't really see much morality in the actions of one government over another. Both are trying to do what they feel is in their own best interests. When those best interests collide, you have crises and conflict.
I understand why the Russians don't want US BMD in their area, I understand why they don't want NATO to expand.
I just believe that the loss of Russian influence in Eastern Europe is worth the benefits.
I do not really see right or wrong, just advantageous and disadvantageous. I have a side that I favor, and I want whatever is advantageous to my chosen side. I understand that the other side wants the same.
>I'm not a shill or anything, these are just opinions I have formed while paying attention to things and having a memory that lasts more than six months. I'm interested in a response that isn't GTFO slavaboo.
>Thanks
You are welcome, although I suspect the answer was not what you wanted to hear.
>>23985975
Yes.
GBI/AEGIS BMD
>>23982826
>>23985891
>proposed Anti-BM systems advocated by the central european NATO stooges
Advocacy of them was to protect against a nuclear Iran, and is retroactively justified again by Russian violations of the INF treaty
>open boasting of USA's arab allies that the Chechen terrorists are in their pockets
M8, Arab fundies finance all kinds of terrorists, not just ones hostile to Russia, but ones hostile to the US and EU. It's not something the US is happy with, and the Arab gov'ts are kinda embarassed about it too.
>as well as the unending stream of "colour revolutions" being financed by such luminaries as Soros
Not sure what you're getting at there, or how Soros is financing them or benefiting. In any case, none of the domestic revolutions this century have benefited the West in any way except ideologically, when it's viewed as moving towards democracy. Orange revolution didn't really succeed in its goals, and that's why Maidan happened. Arab Spring got fucked, and only three "successful" revolutions, of which only one has resulted in a semblance of functioning democracy. And given that Soros is Jewish, he'd likely be inclined to not disrupt the region and make things worse for Israel. Nobody in the West benefits from a risky disruption of gov'ts in the Middle East.
>>23986001
No actually that's exactly what I wanted to hear. I can respect an honest answer like that, even if it somewhat disagrees with my own opinion. Rhetoric and finger pointing make me feel like I'm being treated like an idiot.
Just to elaborate, I feel a unipolar "world order" to be an undesirable situation for most people. Even "our" side. That's basically the reason why I feel the way I do.
>>23985164
Fuck, the day after scared me.
>>23986082
Even as an American who wants the US to stay on the top, I think a unipolar world isn't ideal.
My ideal balance of powers?
>US
>European Union
>Russia
>China
>South America
Geographic and ideological distribution of enormous economic and military power. South America is friendly with the other 4. US, SA, and Russia all produce oil and gas. PRC and RF are allies, US and EU are close allies, SA is non-aligned and acts as a sort of mediator.
>>23982677
wait...why do people ask you what's under the Denver International Airport?
>>23986076
I was referring to Prince Bandar of Qatar asking Putin to "let them have Syria". In exchange he would promise to not stage an event during the last winter olympics.
Soros and his NGOs have financed the removal the govt in Georgia. That led to the South Ossetia conflict. He is behind that pathetic "art collective" that Pussy Riot was a part of, FEMEN, and also put up much of the five billion to remove the Ukranian government.
Those are the Soros ones I know of, the "Arab Spring" are a different beast by my estimation.
>none of the domestic revolutions this century have benefited the West in any way except ideologically,
This is in my opinion, fundamentally incorrect. If I have a business and I am able to snitch on a competitor to the IRS, or sabotage them in some other way, do I not gain? I can make far bolder risks and get away with it.
Note what carnage happened to all of the significant member states of the Non Aligned Movement, starting with Yugoslavia, almost immediately after the fall of the USSR.
Or the wholesale looting of economically strategic businesses in the former Warsaw Pact...but hey, free trade....democracy.
>>23986175
HAHHAHHAHAH you naive little boy, you have no idea what you just did! HAHHAHAAA
>Muh Eastern Europe ABM
Reminder that SM-3 is not a threat to Russian strategic arsenal, and is only a threat to the illegal weapons they are deploying.
Reminder that even if you include SM-3 bases as a potential threat and add them to the GBI count, you end up with the US still deploying fewer interceptors than Russia.
Reminder that on the other hand if you take Russian claims about the anti-ICBM capabilities of S-400 and soon to be S-500, you arrive at the conclusion that Russia is the one massively destabilizing the strategic balance at the same time America is reducing its forces.
Reminder that it is Russian official media that now openly brags about Russian ability to win both a tactical and strategic exchange.
>>23986175
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_International_Airport#Conspiracies_and_controversy
>>23986143
I don't see "the US" and "the EU" as distinct entities. My opinion is that same people call the shots in the US and the UK, and the EU is their mainland colony,
>>23986182
>Prince Bandar of Qatar
Saudi Arabia
>>23986198
None of this is information that I was ever exposed to. All I ever heard was the faggots in Prague and Warsaw asking for missiles to protect against "terrorism".
Show me the way to this information, please.
>>23986234
Sorry, my bad. I thought Qatar was involved somewhere there. My mistake.
>>23986249
Emir of Qatar funds HAMAS and used to fund ISIS, maybe that's why the confusion
>>23986272
That could be it.
It's nice to be able to have a conversation, and be able to make a mistake without sperglords jumping all over it.
OP OP OP
If an average-payload (by modern standards) nuclear warhead hit NYC and detonated 1km above the ground, would the people in the subway tunnels be safe?
>>23986182
>I was referring to Prince Bandar of Qatar asking Putin to "let them have Syria". In exchange he would promise to not stage an event during the last winter olympics.
Well shit, a Saudi prince being an asshole? That ain't new. The US gov't doesn't control everything its allies and their citizens say and do. If it did, things would be a lot different. 9/11 wouldn't have happened for one.
>Soros and his NGOs have financed the removal the govt in Georgia. That led to the South Ossetia conflict. He is behind that pathetic "art collective" that Pussy Riot was a part of, FEMEN, and also put up much of the five billion to remove the Ukranian government.
Gov't removal in Georgia was allegedly in pursuit of democratic ideals, but billionaires have no place determining internat'l policy in my opinion. The Pussy Riot thing was fucking dumb on both sides. Pussy Riot got a harsh sentence, but busting into a church to play some shitty protest punk rock is an idiotic idea too. On a lighter note, there was an "art collective" that drew a penis on a drawbridge near the FSB's HQ a few years back, which is pretty funny to me.
>If I have a business and I am able to snitch on a competitor to the IRS, or sabotage them in some other way, do I not gain? I can make far bolder risks and get away with it.
With businesses and Cold War gov'ts, two competitors constantly trying to undercut each other economically. With post-Cold War governments, where asymmetric warfare and terrorism are prominent, destabilization of governments is not what the West wants. Peaceful transitions are the safest, and what they want.
To use your business analogy, if you put someone out of business, you risk making a bunch of the company's disgruntled employees go after you and your company, with legal action and violence in the case of the more unstable individuals.
>>23986310
not op, but considering that there were survivors of hiroshima less than a mile from ground zero in the basement of a bank (re: concrete building) that came out with only minor bruises I'd say you'd be safe as long as you were not directly under ground zero
>>23986239
>Show me the way to this information, please.
The fact that SM-3 is not intended as a ICBM interceptor is completely open and well known. The very fact that the US continues to pursue the rather more troubled GBI for homeland defense should be a clear indication of that. Just look at the size difference between the two missiles.
But even under the original plan for GBI sites, the assumption that being closer to Russia in Poland makes them better is flawed. Even against Southwestern Russian missile sites, because they'd be tracking over the poles, you'd need a very rapid reaction to get a side hit, or else you'll end up in a doomed tail chase. Against missiles sites more centrally located (never mind SSBNs) you're doomed. That's not even going into the absurdity of locating defenses to your homeland beside the border of a country that possess a significant advantage short range nuclear forces. But if you want a more in depth look at the perils of interception:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13189
As for Russian propaganda:
http://rt.com/op-edge/209695-war-russia-nato-missile-defense/
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/12-11-2014/129015-russia_nato_nuclear_surprise-0/
Russia has "5000" tactical nuclear weapons (Kristensen claims half that, though in this case I'll believe his number is closer). Russia has S-400s already deployed that can defeat ICBMs, and so will the new S-500.
>>23986462
>destabilization of governments is not what the West wants. Peaceful transitions are the safest, and what they want.
"They" do not appear to be very good at it, if that is the case.
>you risk making a bunch of the company's disgruntled employees go after you and your company, with legal action and violence in the case of the more unstable individuals.
My sentiments exactly.
>Pussy Riot got a harsh sentence
IIRC, they got an amnesty. If I did something like that in a mosque or a sinagogue here in Canada I would be convicted under "Hate Crime" laws and the whole country would hear nothing but condemnation of me from the media,
>>23986310
Yes they would survive the initial blast.
>>23986462
>billionaires have no place determining internat'l policy in my opinion
I would agree with you, but they have far more of an impact than any election.
>>23986586
Then why after this billionaire coup did Ukrainians (in elections Russia itself accepted as valid) vote in anti-Russian pro-European parties?
>>23985891
Evidence that the Colour revolutions are the result of Soros?
I listened too a podcast from a historian/NATO expert and he basically explained that the colour revolutions are almost entirely the doing of NATO since before basically every colour revolution, that Government did something that severely pissed NATO off, even if it was a NATO member. He even says that the name colour revolutions and the colours, are likely just a marketing PR trick pre-planned out of a New York marketing firm.
http://fromalpha2omega.podomatic.com/enclosure/2014-11-01T01_52_13-07_00.mp3
Here it is.
>>23985891
>Convince me otherwise.
How about the fact that the Russians have violated virtually every single arms control treaty they have ever signed?
>>23982677
>5) I don't know what's under Denver International Airport. Sorry.
I know you're not going to answer this, but maybe someone in this thread can tell me about this conspiracy theory or link to it?
I've never heard of this, sounds like it could be hilarious.
>>23986674
See: >>23986674
There's some cool shit hidden under Canberra the capital of Australia.
Most of it has shut down/moved elsewhere since the Cold War though.
Would love to get down into some of those abandoned communication bases and such.
>>23982677
Is there a book that I can read that will give me a good gist of it all?
>>23982771
What environmental concerns does underground testing present? Does it pollute the water? Where are these tests traditionally done?
What happens with over-ocean tests? Is there nothing to "become irradiated" and its not a concern?
>>23986715
OPpenheimer.
I'm not 100% sure those links did what you intended for them to do.
>>23986748
>What environmental concerns does underground testing present? Does it pollute the water?
Not if you do it properly.
>Where are these tests traditionally done?
The US did it in Nevada, Soviets in Kazakhstan.
>What happens with over-ocean tests? Is there nothing to "become irradiated" and its not a concern?
If it is high enough then the concern is minor, but still more than an underground test.
If it is low enough that it touches the surface then it produces fallout.
>>23986766
Ahem, yes well then.
>>23986674
see >>23986219
>>23986576
How close to ground-level could the bomb detonate before the subway is fried?
>>23986513
Wow I never knew that, pretty amazing. Though I'm guessing that was a pretty small payload compared to what's on today's launchpads.
>>23986602
Victoria Nuland is caught on tape bragging about how "we bought this coup and we want YATS(eniuk)".
If you throw enough money at the chosen canditate the sheeple will vote for him. Just look at Obama's first election. How anyone actually thought that he could lose is beyond me. He had FAR more air time than McCain.
What triggered the whole shitshow on the square was an issue of a serious budget shortfall. The Ukies needed 15 billion. The IMF said we'll give you six (or something), and you have to submit to "shock therapy" and destroy your economy and social safety net. Putin said, "sure, he'res the money". How dare he.
As a western Slav who speaks Ukranian (not well, but well enough) I can say that Ukranians (born there) on average are simply not as intelligent as the rest of the region. Most of the intelligent people of that nation left during the russian revolution, and most of the ones who didnt were killed. Then the engineered famine took another chunk out of them demographically. That's just me hypothesizing
If you make the mistake of bringing up Russia, any critical thinking they have left goes out the window and you get nothing but vitriol and sputtering rage.
It's understandable. Try explaining to descendants of holocaust survivors about anything Nazi Germany did that was "good". The mistake that gets made, is that the ideology that Putin represents is not a Marxist or Stalinist one. Nor were the atrocities commit ted against the ukranians dictated from the perspective of "Russian" dominance, but rather a whim of Stalin's madness.
I can't for the life of me imagine why (especially at the time) ANY country would choose to align themselves with the EU. All of them except for the Benelux, Germany and France have gone to complete shit in the last two years.
I'm sorry, Ive been derailing this thread. Let's pick this theme up elsewhere.
>>23986824
Actually looking back I made a mistake. The 1 Km HOB would penetrate to the subway level.
> Let's pick this theme up elsewhere.
Perhaps if there was a politics board or something....
>>23986608
I don't have any links handy. Sorry. I'm at work on a self imposed nightshift making sure some troublesome machines keep running.
Basically what it is though, is NGO's promoting "liberalism" or "democracy" with a distinctly culturally marxist tone. Right on their websites frequently they claim affiliation to the Soros Group of Foundations (or something).
He spends billions on this shit every year. He basically owns "the Left" as far as the world outside of North America is concerned.
>>23986834
>I'm sorry, Ive been derailing this thread. Let's pick this theme up elsewhere.
No, you don't get to go leaving bizarre assertions unchallenged.
>Putin said, "sure, he'res the money". How dare he.
I think this clinches it. You are implying that Russian money comes with love and kindness while IMF money comes with destruction.
>>23986175
because muh secret nwo base
all joking aside there probably is something under there, because Denver, being in the geographic center of the US, is a huge trading post and stopover (and a base of operations for the air force and norad). But I doubt it's anything more than just backup ATC equipment. Of course muh dik would love it if they had an underground hanger or something
>>23986882
How far away from 'ground' zero would I have to be in order to survive if I was in the subway tunnels? Also, would the blast absolutely destroy/cave in the subway tunnels, or are you just talking about gamma radiation, or what?
>>23986928
Then make a thread, I don't want to wreck this one. I'll follow the conversation as far as you want. /pol/ is full of shitposters and retards so I never bother going there
IMF money, historically DID come with destruction as far the former USSR was concerned.
If you look at the austerity bills the current ukie parliament adopted you will see what I mean. That's what triggered the seperatists. Pensions slashed, the mines where everyone works in the east sold or mortgaged for pennies on the dollar, national treasures and relics hawked as collateral.
>>23986965
From one Km HOB? Hard to say but 1000 Meters is probably a minimum.
The blast would cave in the tunnels for a radius of about 500 to 800 meters from the hypocenter. Radiation would not be an issue until you left the tunnels.
>>23986797
Any books you recommend or no? I never know why you don't answer certain things (not in a bad way, I appreciate the replies, just saying).
Anyway, another q - are there bunkers that can't be #rekt by several nukes with a penetrator warhead?
>>23982677
would nukes really be fired i don't see any benifit in it unless haliburtan decides to make nukes than we would be having nukes fired every where
why fire a nuke that costs the government million and millions and the private contracters nothing when you could fire a JDAM or send in hundreds of missles owned by haliburtan and private companies ??
Back on topic,
Is there any personal protective equipment that the average person can afford worth getting at all? What about those old russian surplus geiger tubes?
>>23987003
What in the fuck are you talking about?
>>23986991
Yes several books. Sorry.
http://www.amazon.com/Limited-Nuclear-War-21st-Century/dp/0804790892
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10269.html
http://www.amazon.com/Strategic-Nuclear-War-Superpowers-Contributions/dp/0313241929
http://www.amazon.com/Strategic-Nuclear-Targeting-Cornell-Security/dp/0801495075
Those are good ones.
>Bunkers
As far as I know there are no impervious bunkers around. You can make them difficult to destroy, but not impossible.
>>23987004
What are you trying to protect yourself from?
If its fallout, then yes, you can find respirators online. Detection equipment can be expensive, however.
>>23986834
>I can say that Ukranians (born there) on average are simply not as intelligent as the rest of the region.
And they need Russian masters to look after their best interests. And the shill comes out.
>>23987025
>>>/pol/40168893
Here it is
>>23987026
militry industrial complex; i am saying
there is no motivation to use nukes which would cost less and not benifit weapons companies. I.e when you could use more expensive weapons that are made by companies owned by haliburtan ?
>>23987052
Thanks, now to pick one.
>>23987054
No, you fucking trog. I never said or implied that. Take it to the new thread
>>23982677
OP who makes these nukes who exactly would profit if one would be fired ?
>>23986991
If they really want it gone they can just continuously bomb it. Mine is ~300 feet down in granite supposedly should survive everything.
>>23987052
How good are bunker busters vs granite these days?
A little late to the party, but I had a question about suitcase nukes.
My dad was a Nuclear Weapons Technician back during Vietnam. He said they had received some briefings on Russian nuclear capability and that the suitcase nukes, because of their size, were unreliable. He seemed to remember something like a 50% chance it wouldn't go nuclear (just detonate the HE).
Is any of this ture?
>>23987069
Not one single thing you said makes any sense. To be capable of building an indigenous nuclear weapon you need an enormous investment into precursor technologies and systems (all of which can be owned by "haliburtan") , not to mention delivery systems (again "haliburtan")
>>23987088
>No, you fucking trog. I never said or implied that
You did imply that Russian loans were offered with no painful strings,
>The Ukies needed 15 billion. The IMF said we'll give you six (or something), and you have to submit to "shock therapy" and destroy your economy and social safety net. Putin said, "sure, he'res the money". How dare he.
something that is completely laughable and only serves a shill's argument. Maybe you should fuck off to your pol thread after all.
>>23987069
But think of the huge amounts of cash Haliburton can get through reconstruction contracts!
It's a miracle that we haven't used them already.
>>23987093
Lockheed Martin owns Sandia National Laboratory....
Enjoy...
>>23987098
>How good are bunker busters vs granite these days?
Nuclear ones?
Pretty good.
>>23987129
Soviet nuclear weapons reliability was a matter of some debate. I think thats probably about right for that time period.
>>23986928
No he implied that Russian money came in sufficient quantity and IMF money did not.
>>23987052
Are those rubber ponchos any use?
Against fallout, yes
>>23986990
Would there be any reason for a belligerent to launch warheads that would detonate 1-2km over their targets instead of detonating on impact? Thanks for staying with this thread by the way!
>>23987145
I'm in the new thread waiting.
>>23987170
Yes they keep it off your skin.
>>23987172
Yes, airbursts are the preferred method of employing nuclear weapons. You only surface burst if you are attacking a hardened target.
>>23987063
Oh boy....
>>23987069
Go ahead and name the weapons companies that are owned by Haliburton. Because even if we take your utterly retarded "if the US is attacked with nuclear weapons it will base its response on the most expensive to benefit contractors" fucking Lockheed is twice as big as Halliburton.
>>23987190
enjoy being with your caliber of people over in /pol/, and please stay there
>>23987161
>Nuclear ones?
>Pretty good.
t-thanks, no sleep for me tonight.
>>23987192
>airbursts are the preferred method
Not once did I imagine I would learn so much when I opened /k/ a few hours ago.
>>23982677
out of curiosity, what's your opinion of the "Megatons to Megawatts" program?
>>23987369
Good idea.
>>23987524
Well, I'm boned.
>>23987688
Thats not a depiction of an actual nuclear attack, anon.
It shows possible targets. Not probable targets.
>>23987700
That's... comforting?
Whatever, I'm just getting a kick out of this thread since I grew up with my dad's stories about his time as a nuke weapons guy in the chair force.
That and I'm drunk.
>>23984627
Why is thomasville, georgia a target?
>>23987700
Well they were more probable when the US had 12000 warheads pointed at it rather than <2000.
>>23987945
FEMA Federal Regional center
>>23987971
Not really.
Great idea, or greatest idea?
>>23982677
Is there a definitive book or series of literature that I could read to better understand US Nuclear strategy and policy?
what would be the most ideal shelter and equipment for surviving a fallout?
OP, I know a full nuclear exchange would have a pretty catastrophic effect on the United States infrastructure, economy and government, but what about the food supply? A lot of those fallout trails go over some pretty important farmland...
>>23989439
We feed the irradiated food and crops to the old and sick who will likely die before they develop serious issues, and the young and healthy eat stored foods for a season until the worst of the radiation dissipates.
>>23982826
>>23984706
Holy shit, the windup on that thing, as the generators warm up...
>>23984706
God damn, what is it with these ones that's just so fucking creepy?
There's one in the Metro: Last Light trailer that I actually like hearing.
This one? Fuck it. Nightmare fuel.
>The trailer in question. Siren at 1:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95LF-JBRMOs
Excellent thread as always.
In the event of a full exchange between NATO and Russia, roughly how many warheads do you think would be directed at targets in the continental United States? I've heard somewhere in the 4-5 hundred neighborhood.
>>23990893
Probably about 1500 currently.
>>23991394
Wouldn't Russia need to save some for China?
>>23987209
okay but if you look at every militry move usa does it is to benifit the weapons company you can see it all the time
wars have been prolonged for political reasons and weapons contracts there is no country that can stand the might of america yet it still some how manages to lose
>>23991533
Their non strategic arsenal should be enough to deter China.
>>23991606
>wars have been prolonged for political reasons and weapons contracts
Ah yes of course. Lockheed can't get 300 F-22s, but it can get wars prolonged. Of course if the Iraq war hadn't been so prolonged, it probably would have gotten another 200 FB-22s on top of that. Because the top defense companies live off high value procurement contracts, and lengthy wars tend to defer that spending in favor of operational expenses. The principal costs in lengthy ground wars are not weapons contracts, they're logistical ones, for maintaining hundreds of thousands of men half way across the world. There's plenty of money and contracts in that, but those contracts are not dominated by Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop. That is not even factoring in the fact that lengthy counter insurgencies cause constant questions to the value of the high cost conventional forces in the first place.
> there is no country that can stand the might of america yet it still some how manages to lose
Yes, if we just simply look at war as a simple matter of "might" then sure. If we look at history with a more nuanced perspective we might notice that firepower is no guarantee of victory in wars of nation building and counter insurgency, as the Soviets, French, Japanese, British and hell the fucking Romans have all learned. But no it's much simpler to blame all our woes on those evil weapons companies.
But since from this post >>23987003
you seem to think nuclear forces entirely government produced you should really stop talking.
>>23991629
>Their non strategic arsenal should be enough to deter China.
Well I wouldn't count on many Backfires surviving through a full exchange with NATO, and aren't the rest of their tactical forces too short ranged to seriously threaten China?
>>23990829
>tfw MetroGhost mom still singing him a lullaby 20 years later
>>23982677
What do you think of the chances of global thermonuclear war happening with Russia's money having rapid inflation and not getting their iphone fix?
>>23984627
Whats the target in Oklahoma?
(NW AR here, that would be the only one close to me)
>>23982677
How many sleepless nights do you have because of Pakistan?
>>23988273
Greatest Idea for a fucking first strike.
Send them on regular civie plane routes so everybody in enemy country thinks they are civie planes (and heeey, they look like a 747 on the radar too)
But I'd use AGM-129 because muh stealth so the planes would have a realistic chance to make it home.
Can the 3M14 LACM carry nuke?
The P-700 AShM supposedly can carry nuke, how far does a modern ship have to be to not get irradiated by 500kt travelling around 10m from the sea surface?
>>23991629
Can you give us some examples of subjects that you wouldn't be able to talk to us about in finer detail?
>never with the US army
>knows about nuclear weapon locations but can't talk about it.
what kind of work did you do OP?
Also which locations are in danger of getting nuclear vaporized if WWIII hits?
>>23992456
>Can the 3M14 LACM carry nuke?
Yes.
>>23992500
>>never with the US army
The US Army is the only service that no longer possesses any nuclear weapons.
>>knows about nuclear weapon locations but can't talk about it.
The locations of all American nuclear weapons (except boomers on active patrol) is complete public information.
>what kind of work did you do OP?
Holy shit, right from the fucking OP:
>>Worked with nuclear strategy and arms control with 2 different agencies (Bureau of Verification and Compliance, Office of Nuclear Deterrence) and currently work for an private sector group involved in anti proliferation policy.
>>23992511
my bad must have read over it
If i took all the americium 241 out of an ionization smoke detector and put in in a some food would that be enough to Alexander Litvinenko any one eating it?
Do nuclear bombs (like the B61) still have a role on the modern battlefield or have cruise missiles taken over the tac nuke role completely?
