Nuclear Navy
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
![300px-Ticonderoga_&_Laboon_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0xGDedU.jpg "300px-Ticonderoga_&_Laboon_[1].jpg")
Why isn't everything in the US Navy, bigger than or equal to a destroy, nuclear powered by now?
Are the gains in speed, endurance, and space for other things, not worth?
Also, why not bring back 16 inch guns with modern fire control?
No, too much cost for negligible gain.
They tried with nuclear cruisers in the 70's and 80's and discovered it wasn't worth it.
>>28390278
Again, too much cost for no gain.
>>28390278
1. no one knows how to make those guns anymore.
2. guided weapons do it better and cheaper
>>28390288
>1. no one knows how to make those guns anymore.
It's not some lost arcane art.
>>28390283
>wasnt worth it
>what is unparalleled hotness
>>28390254
Cuts down on the number of ports they can use. IIRC a lot of the overseas ports don't want anything nuclear there.
Also cost. Burkeswarm is for a reason.
>>28390254
Congress whined about the money
>>28390844
That's not true, it's only New Zealand which is hardly a strategic port.
>>28390844
You mean NZ?
>>28390844
Is a nuclear reactor REALLY more expensive than giant diesel engines and perpetually refueling it?
They put reactors in every sub, so it can't be THAT expensive
>>28390844
>Cost
Tell that to the Zumwalt.
>>28391771
The expense is really finding the autists to run them. Enlisted Nuc engineers are really fucking hard to get into the Navy and keep them there. The ones that are on the carriers are already overworked and undermanned, every ship you add stresses the system even further.
>>28390254
Why not make massive YAMATO/Bismark tier battleships, that no one would want to fuck with
>>28391910
But finding engineers to maintain conventional engines on ships is easier?
>>28391953
The normal engineers have to do schooling for like 3 weeks to 6 months depending on their job. ASVAB ranges are probably 35-80 also depending on the job. Nucs are 90+ on ASVAB, require high school diploma (no home schoolers), and 2 years for nuc school.
>>28391953
>keep
If you go navy nuke you can walk out of the navy into a 6 figure job at a civilian power plant, and thats not even engineers, thats operators. Diesel operators don't require as much training and don't make as much private sector so they are easier to train and retain
>>28391987
>>28391999
Why don't they just make reactors that are easier to operate then?
Problem solved
Also raise wages.
>>28392164
you must be new to the MIC
>>28392164
>Also raise wages.
They already get E-5 once they get out of their 2 year A-School and are max bonused on everything.
>>28391942
>massive YAMATO/Bismark tier battleships
Bismarck wasn't a massive battleship and certainly not in Yamato tier.
>>28391771
>They put reactors in every sub, so it can't be THAT expensive
A sub NEEDS to be able to function out at see for months at a time. Most of them leave Norfolk/San Diego and literally don't surface again for six months when they come back to Norfolk/San Diego. If they do it's for a couple hours to resupply something.
>>28392364
>see
sea
>>28390303
OK, let's put it differently - the factory that made them is no longer in business. Everything would have to be from scratch, would cost a fuckton of $$$
>>28391910
Maybe if they didn't treat nukes like human dogshit and abuse them they wouldn't have this problem.
>>28392364
Look up this weird thing called isotope separation. Tiny reactors (compared to 1GW electric output blocks) require highly enriched fuel. The price of that is just nuts.
Also, once you're done with the craft, you can't just sell for scrap, you have to demount all the irradiated machinery and dispose of it as nuclear waste. Also lot$ of $$$
>>28392399
My older brother was a nuke.
I figure the best things they can do to get happier nukes.
1. rotate them around more. After two times going out to see. They get a shore duty or change to a different type of ship. So you could go carrier, shore, fast sub, shore, carrier, missile sub, shore, carrier.
2. give all nukes BAH and BAS by default. no one likes living in the barracks and eating in mess halls. an apartment off base and food in the kitchen will make them happier. Especially when they come back from a cruise and can go straight home.
3. give them that 20 year retirement at 15 years. this also helps getting the ones that stay in to Chief and higher.
>>28392505
>They get a shore duty or change to a different type of ship. So you could go carrier, shore, fast sub, shore, carrier, missile sub, shore, carrier.
You can't just be assigned to a sub, it's volunteer only for good reason. You also have to go to a whole other school just for sub shit.
>>28393371
require all new nukes to sub volunteer when they enlist.
Give them an additional $150 a month in pay for this. In addition to my previous suggestions.
A large part of the reason is that if a reactor costs more than conventional engines plus lifetime fuel costs, they won't do it. But if it was my decision, everything short of cutters and patrol boats would be nuclear. Naval reactors have an amazing safety track record, so having a reactor on board would massively increase on station time and speed, plus with the advent of railguns and lasers, it would be extremely useful
>>28390254
Holy fuck the costs alone
>>28394440
You get a huge increase in capability for that cost. Imagine a Burke that can run at full speed all the time for twenty years. That doesn't need to replenish at sea, because it has more space inside for food, AvGas, munitions, pocket pussies.
Electricity to spare for future energy hungry weapon systems.
>>28394474
>Imagine a Burke that can run at full speed all the time for twenty years. That doesn't need to replenish at sea, because it has more space inside for food, AvGas, munitions, pocket pussies.
You think nuclear vessels run at full speed all the time for 20 years without replenishing?
>>28391942
Anti-missile systems would need to improve greatly for that to work. Granted, FEL systems are really progressing fast.
>>28394510
not the whole twenty years.
but that 6-12 months of a cruise, yeah
replenishing at sea is the most dangerous time for a ship, outside of being shot at. if we can reduce replenishment events. we improve ship safety and ship on mission up time.
>>28394541
Carriers do replenishment all the time though.
>>28394560
5000 people and dozens of aircraft. They still the better endurance than conventional carriers.
>nuclear destroyer
Tried it. Half of it ended up as MARF.
Everyone hates MARF.
>>28394577
I see what you're trying to say, but no. They're not cheap enough to justify the marginal efficiency gain, combined with the fact we don't have the facilities to handle hundreds of more reactors in fleet.
>>28394616
Maybe with better low maintenance reactors. Modular drop in/drop out systems that can be replaced for servicing with minor refitting rather then a major yard job.
Of course, that's a long time in the future. By the time it's a real thing Lockheed might have it's fusion reactors working and the point might be irrelevant.
![maxresdefault[7].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HaB5fd5.jpg "maxresdefault[7].jpg")
>>28394775
We have cranes that can lift entire carrier islands.
Design a Destroy/Cruiser to have the back half of the super structure and the reactor section come out in one piece. Then you just drop in another superstructure/reactor section. Which will be a refurib from the previous ship of the class that came in.
With rail guns and directed energy weapons the post zumwalts might benefit from a Vigina class reactor
>>28394775
By the time you come in for a reactor refuel your due for major yard upgrades anyway
>>28394578
marf?
>>28390254
Purely political.
Over the lifetime of the ship nuclear is far cheaper, even more so when you factor in the cost of shipping fuel to the ship, but as some have said, many countries have banned nuclear ships from their ports.
>>28395348
Why are countries scared of nuclear ships?
>>28396099
Several European ones, New Zealand, several South American ones.
>>28396164
I think he asked "why", not "which".
>>28396264
The places listed should also answer "why" pretty succinctly
Over a decade ago, Congress required the Navy to produce a report for ever large class produced in the future showing why it shouldn't be a nuc.
Navy has produced said report for LPD-17 and DDG-1000, I believe. Burkes don't require one, because they're legacy.
Personally, I think that we could do a lot better with a modern reactor design; even the VA's new reactor is a traditional PWR at its heart. It *should* be possible to use more automation, fewer watchstanders, and more efficiency, but it would require a lot of political push and R&D funding.
All that said, if polywell, Lockheed, Focus Fusion, or anybody else hits breakeven, ships will be just one of the multitude of things affected.
>>28396099
They aren't. It's left wing virtue signalling. Started during the Cold War to show how principled and independent they were.
>>28396264
It should be obvious.
It's the double hippie whammy of nuclear and military.
>>28390254
Pic related is every non-sub or carrier Ship the US has ever fielded.
We don't use large guns like battle ships because it causes too much collateral damage and storage of explosive powder for it is risky. Also the laser and the rail gun will be on the new lcs class, they just tested the laser on the uss Ponce out in Bahrain last year
Where're my ships of the line with over a hundred guns? Fucking 'modern' ships, I swear.
>>28399259
Ticonderoga cruisers have 122 VLS cells.
>>28399299
And not a single one of them carries a gun.
You fucking retard.
>>28399318
>Over the horizon ranged remote controllable smart weapons? Fuck that, gimme guns - Bismarck for life!
>>28399299
>Ticonderoga
>>28399318
>And not a single one of them carries a gun.
>You fucking retard.
I think you'll find that its you who's the "fucking retard."
>>28396966
You talk about only military ships
The US could go into commercial ship production with a modern reactor design.
Shipping lines would love cargo ships/cruise ships/etc that cruise at 30+ knots, instead of 15.
>>28399601
Cargo ships won't cruise at 30+ knots even with nuke propulsion. Efficiency saves money and businesses like money.
>>28391771
>Is a nuclear reactor REALLY more expensive than giant diesel engines and perpetually refueling it?
Yes. To think otherwise is a huge fallacy. To think that nuclear reactors are something you just turn on and thats you free forever is one of /k/'s biggest mistakes to think.
Nuclear propulsion is far FAR more costly than conventional. Not only do you have astronomically higher setup costs, you also have vastly more specialized personnel to run it (with accordingly higher rates) and to boot, a lot more of them too. They all need fed, watered and paid. You also have all the other needs of reactors to take care of. The much more expensive spare parts and at the end of life you have fucking HUGE decommission costs.
Just because you don't see refueller tankers doesn't mean that nuclear reactors don't need refuelled either. They have enormous costs to refuel.
They are not cheaper. They never have been.
>>28399722
Speed also saves money, a ship moving twice as fast moves twice as much cargo.
>>28390303
There is an absurd amount of work that goes into making those kind of barrels, and the tooling and materials are probably very, very rare. Not to mention that everyone who knows how to make them is retired.
>>28390254
>Why isn't everything in the US Navy, bigger than or equal to a destroy, nuclear powered by now?
What's Enterprise's decommissioning cost again?
>>28390278
Modern Fire control isn't better than the one they already have.
>>28399763
You're an idiot.
Do you realise how expensive liquid fuels are? Do you realise how many millions of dollars of fuel they guzzle every week?
Yes they have a high start-up cost, yes they need better trained personnel, but the fact is a Cruiser will run its entire life on a single fuel loading worth less than $100m.
Nuclear, when you're not dealing with retarded NRC red tape only costs $2-3b/GW. It will be even cheaper given cooling on a naval vessel is far simpler than on a power station.
Nuclear decommissioning only runs at a hundred million or so for a small reactor like those used in ships. For the US Navy it's almost routine.
>>28399774
>There is an absurd amount of work that goes into making those kind of barrels
True. but nothing that modern engineering cant do. Infact there's a lot more that modern engineering could do, through use of CAD/CAM and Finite element analysis, etc, that would allow improvements in production if they were ever actually needed (which they arent.)
> and the tooling and materials are probably very, very rare.
Not really, no. the tooling for rifling of really fuckhuge barrels is unlikely to still be around, but the rest is still used.
> Not to mention that everyone who knows how to make them is retired.
Really isnt a major issue. its not some lost art, just an application of existing skills in a different area. It really isnt as difficult as you'd think - any well-educated engineer could probably work out the best processes within a few days of design work. they'd probably have a few problems, which will be recorded in older notes, which allow a solution.
>>28399844
>I have no understanding of realities; the post.
>>28399828
i'm pretty sure guided ammunition would greatly improve the accuracy tho.
it's just the range sucks so much.
>>28394361
>require
>to volunteer
gg Stalin has it all figured out
>>28399856
>I'm retarded and can't actually rebut what was said.
>>28394578
>>28395301
Modifications and Additions to a Reactor Facility, where the S7G reactor was tested?
Google-fu, bitch. 4 seconds.
>>28399895
>I think I have a better knowledge of economics and logistics than the us navy joint chief of staff and senior admirals....
>>28390288
>no one knows how to make those guns anymore.
we dark age of technology now
>>28399913
>dark age of technology
>not begining the age of strife
>>28399601
Double to quadruple the manning and training requirements and minimum quintuple the hull costs plus worrying about pirates trying to capture hulls to sell nuclear materials to interested parties. Extremely stupid idea. Merchant shipping and architecture revolves around the concept of cheap but reliable hulls with low maintenance requirements and lowest possible cost per nautical mile per ton costs. Add nuclear power and you've blown all that out of the water for maybe 30% more speed (plus yet more wear and tear).
Maybe you should take five minutes and think about what the industries you're commenting on actually need to operate at best efficiency before you comment on them.
>>28399763
This.
>>28399844
>idiot
Jesus fuck. Go read a book.
>Do you realise how expensive liquid fuels are?
Less expensive than paying almost another entire crew (military) or four times the crew (merchant) to get and stay trained at a masters or graduate level in nuclear engineering and then man every ship (even in port at minimum requirements) at all times. Not to mention nuclear fuel and reactors carry massive up front costs.
>Nuclear, when you're not dealing with retarded NRC red tape only costs $2-3b/GW.
Not even close to the ballpark on actual implementation costs in a new class.
>Nuclear decommissioning only runs at a hundred million or so
Where are you even getting these bullshit numbers?
>>28399777
the ghettoprise has eight nuclear reactors instead of the normal two
so the costs are higher
so?
>>28399777
>>28400001
Not to mention that none of the costs are even finalized yet. They're STILL working out final storage options and STILL trying to finish storage sites. Everything is still fucked on final nuclear materials storage. No one includes these storage costs in decommissioning figures, or includes severely optimistic processing and storage costs.
>>28400021
that's more a political thing than anything else
>>28399987
Not the guys you replied to.
>Nuclear, when you're not dealing with retarded NRC red tape only costs $2-3b/GW.
>Not even close to the ballpark on actual implementation costs in a new class.
Currently average cost for Sub reactor construction is around $100 million and Carrier is $200. Mind you that is just construction. This doesn't include acquisition, test/development, install man hours, test run/test crew, stupid amounts of certification for reactor/hull/materials/hallways/pet fish/pumps/reservoirs/hamster wheel/etc cost either. That's were most of the money comes into play, especially when those certifications have to keep being renewed rather frequently.
>>28400028
>political realities are not practical realities when it comes to nuclear power
Autism speaks. Why does it think anyone should bother to listen?
>>28400031
>This doesn't include acquisition, test/development, install man hours, test run/test crew, stupid amounts of certification for reactor/hull/materials/hallways/pet fish/pumps/reservoirs/hamster wheel/etc cost either.
So... 95% of the actual cost?
Right.
Any of you knuckleheads actually bother to look into how much it's going to cost the US to modernize it's nuclear fuel facilities and build new fuel and breeder reactor facilities to keep producing fuel for military reactors into 2040? Thought not. Any of you bother to read at all on this? Or even realize we can't even produce Plutonium-238 for RTGs to power space probes, craft and satellites since we stopped making Pu239 for nuke weapons? NASA has a stockpile of about 70lbs currently, and Russia isn't selling any more of it since they stopped making it too. We're currently dropping billions to reaquire a capability we had in the 1970s which was little more than a waste byproduct of nuke weapons manufacture. The state of nuclear power materials processing in the entire world, much less the US, is absolutely bottom basement compared to the 1970's, and it makes every issue you so blithely handwave an order of magnitude more costly and difficult. Just keeping nukes trained to man subs is an ever more difficult task.
>>28400079
They are already making more PU238, you could probably make PU239 in every civilian nuclear reactor.
How many billions does it cost every year to keep the fleet fueled?
That shit isn't free. It's not like maintaining/operating a large diesel engine is any less complicated than a nuclear reactor.
>>28400192
They just made like a golf ball sized piece of it for NASA. It was newsworthy because it hasn't been done in 40 years
>>28390278
Get the fuck out
>>28400192
>They are already making more PU238
NASA is having to pay the DOE to make it, and they still haven't even figured out how to chemically separate the Pu238 and the Np pre-enrichment precursor at the same efficiency as the reverse process from the 1970's. Do you even bother to read a thing about this shit you're talking about?
Instead of shitposting on /k/ and showing your ass to the world, take the time instead to go fucking read a book.
>>28400270
That yield alone cost roughly sixteen times what the first pellets cost in the 60's after accounting for inflation.
>>28392383
Modern barrel making machines could probably do it quickly. It's not the 40s anymore
>>28395348
Pesonnel costs aren't, and refueling is long and expensive
>>28400304
>thinking the US is anything close to the metal fab and milling capabilities and skills per capita it was in the 1940's
>>28400314
Don't bother anon. He hasn't even got a passing acquaintance with reality.
>>28399844
I Don't Read DoD Studies: the Post
US Navy is the largest single consumer of oil on the planet.
Moving most of the surface fleet to nuclear power would help increase national security. As our ships will be able to fight still in cases of global oil shortage.
>>28400028
It's still fucking money and still necessary
>>28400339
Yet their oil consumption is dwarfed by the merchant sector in the US alone, much less China. Why are you comparing apples and apple seeds? If you look at the USN, you have to look at US merchant shipping as a whole.
>>28400303
"“Once we automate and scale up the process, the nation will have a long-range capability to produce radioisotope power systems such as those used by NASA for deep space exploration,” said Bob Wham, who leads the project for Oak Ridge’s Nuclear Security and Isotope Technology Division."
The 50 grams is a demonstration, next they'll be making more..
>>28400452
>next they'll be making more..
Which totally doesn't cost anything, right? Because scaling up is never where the costs are in bringing lab science to production, right? It'll totally not cost eight times as much per gram as the process of enriching Np to Pu and then separating Pu238 and Pu239, Guize!
>>28399765
Do you not know what the word efficiency means?
>>28400475
yea ok m8 because in this time with robots and computers, it's so much harder to do things than 40 years ago.
>>28401259
I am a trained machinist, welder and mechanical engineer. I've been working in suspension systems design and production for tracked and wheel vehicles for over a decade. I also spend much of my free time in amateur historical research on industrial and production methods and trends, especially here in the US for the last century. So I believe I have some basis to comment on modern workforce capabilities and production per capita at all levels. Yes, technology has made design and serial production faster and easier in many ways. However, the incredible carnage of the middle lower class skilled labor force in this country compared to just two generations ago has left some serious native capability issues in the US. Globalization has been great for the corporate bottom line, but terrible for the preservation of US per capita practical production skills rates.
Now, do you have anything more to say on the subject beyond "we got robots and computers and shit now"?
>>28401259
You're completely missing the fucking point that it's a brand new process. It isn't separating Pu239 and Pu238 after enriching Np. Now, because they want NO weapons grade Pu239, they're using a totally different bombardment process to produce only Pu238 and leftover Np (which gets recycled). They have to work out and then upscale into production a brand new process which is intrinsically slower and more difficult.
>>28401390
so its all politics burning money in the fireplace, gotcha.
>>28401566
Nuclear science, production, utilization and disposal will forever be some of the most politically involved processes in the world, regardless of country. Gauging practical realities and implementation will ALWAYS require a very close weather eye on the ever shifting political landscape. The US is far from alone in this. Consider, for a moment, just how far reaching the political and sociological fallout from Chernobyl has been in Russian and Ukrainian populations.
In this matter, separating the problems of science, engineering, production, implementation, operation and disposal from the problems of politics in an attempt to consider "the realities" is just disposing of the actual practical realities of the problem itself.
Think about why Project Pluto was never put into production. When looking at nuclear, the aspects to consider are many and not all of them are bottom line cost against efficiency oriented.
>>28401708
Hell, just look at anything space&nuclear related. The design for upper rocket stages run with liquid helium/hydrogen and nuclear reactors were almost flight ready in the 1960/70's. But the combination of budget cuts, lack of a clear objective and the political hassle of putting anything into space with a nuclear reactor killed all the designs.
>>28402775
Wasn't there still serious problems with nuclear thermal rockets
Not to mention ISP is pretty irrelevant because fuel costs are negligible
Look at what spacex is doing, apparently it costs them under 20 million a rocket, then they land the first stage back on the ground.
>>28392192
Now stop me if I'm an idiot, but couldn't the Navy use some kind of special rank for nukes, like Specialist or Warrant Officers in the army? That way they can get special pay and privileges to encourage more people to become one, while giving them no extra command authority/
>>28402809
They already get huge pay incentives, especially to reenlist. Still the USN has a devil of a time holding on to them, even with the civilian job market slowly dying.
>>28399601
>putting nuclear reactors on commercial ships
>the same commercial ships that get hijacked by pirates all the fucking time
>what's the worst that can happen?
>>28402862
>allow those commercial ships and crew to put small arms on them
>never get hijacked again
>>28402872
So now we've gone from multiplying the current crew by 4 to adding yet another multiple for trained ships defense and more expense for weaponry.
You don't understand a fucking thing about how commercial shipping works at any level. The cost per mile for one of these ships to just operate (ignoring all the added building costs) would be double a current ship, if they're lucky.
>>28402872
Obvious answer, but the problem is all these countries that don't like foreign ships with foreign crews bringing small arms into the ports.
Maritime PMCs usually throw their firearms into the ocean before they go into territorial waters. Then buy new firearms in the country that won't allow them to bring in firearms. Tossing those firearms out when the go to the next port.
Any pirate trying to get nuclear fuel out of ship's reactor would probably just end up killing themselves. I don't think they have the knowledge and access to safe handling equipment.
>>28402825
Carrier nukes get worked like dogs.
Sub nukes have to live on submarines. Which is just oppressive.
there isn't much in the way of shore duty for nukes.
>>28402799
>Wasn't there still serious problems with nuclear thermal rockets
Not sure, really, but from what i've read they had designs that ran for several hours combined on test stands. And they would only be activated/critical while in space, having been lifted into GTO by a Saturn V-ish launch vehicle. But this was back when NASA was hoping to go to Mars almost straight after the Apollo Program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#History
>Not to mention ISP is pretty irrelevant because fuel costs are negligible
I think it has more to do with fuel economy and the like. Same reason we use Ion engines on Dawn. You want the lightest and most efficient probe, and its speed isnt that big a concern. With a human mission beyond lunar orbit, its the same restrictions, only now you want as big a speed as possible to cut the travel time. In comes the nuclear thermal rocket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
What I love about the SpaceX-project is that it would allow modules to be launched much cheaper, and then assembling them in space. If only someone would give Elon a few tons of plutonium and some old drawings of the NERVA-design...
>>28402959
Musk is going to be a Bond villain in your life time.
>>28402946
Not least because of minimum manning levels required for reactors in port or even drydock.
I can't think of a single other enlisted military MOS which requires a higher level of technical proficiency, higher constant danger of catastrophic failure due to inattention or incompetence or higher general non-combat work stress and work load than nukes. The sheer responsibility laid on even E-2s as nukes is staggering.
>>28402989
As long as i get to be one of the henchmen in his hollowed out volcano lair....
>>28402959
Mass fractions across the board are increased by orders of magnitude when you're talking about manned interplanetary flight. Radiation shielding mass alone at present tech levels would cost insane amounts of fuel to get to Mars in a reasonable time frame. When you consider nuclear engines, you have further necessary shielding and manning, plus a ton of extra mass, which may not be offset completely in fuel efficiency.
>>28402993
I've said it earlier in the thread. Nukes should be given BAH/BAS once they are sent to fleet.
Nukes should get to retire at 20 year pay, at 15 years.
There needs to be more nukes.
Nukes need to get a low stress shore duty position every couple years.
>>28403022
increased speed reduces the shielding you need.
putting the nuclear propulsion at the end of a really long boom reduces need for shielding.
If you have a lot of power to spare, because nuclear power. You can use a magnetic field to protect against some of the radiation.
>>28403022
There is no question that a nuclear rocket to go to Mars would devote less of it's mass, for the same speed, as a conventional rocket. A "simple" disposable gas core NTR would make the mission far faster and allow more payload then any practical conventional rocket.
You don't get an order of magnitude increase in mass and shielding can be minimized by putting it on the end of a 100 meter boom and putting a small shield near the engine to shield the rest of the craft. The increased weight of the engine is offset by the vast increase in energy density of fuel and the fact that no oxidizer has to be carried for reaction mass.
>>28402799
Rocket equation. It's not about the cost of fuel, it's about the weight. Starting from the ground 99% of your fuel is used for nothing but to lift fuel.
>>28403038
>Nukes should be given BAH/BAS once they are sent to fleet.
Agreed.
>Nukes should get to retire at 20 year pay, at 15 years.
Agreed, even if it does cause further short term manning shortages. Call it a "retire at 15 at full or retire at 20 for full and a half" and it might work.
>There needs to be more nukes.
Been a problem since the late 1970's. The USN is always thirsty for nukes. Thank God they didn't start lowering requirements too far to get them, and held to the spirit of Rickover's pants-shittingly-terrifying standards.
>Nukes need to get a low stress shore duty position every couple years.
Agreed, though again this causes more short term problems for a theoretical long term easement.
>>28403063
>increased speed reduces the shielding you need.
But you've added a whole bunch of mass for the reactor. Decreased length of passage is not a given. Furthermore, remember that there's no Van Allen belt to shield them once they get to Mars orbit. If they're to spend any kind of time in orbit or the ship is expected to survive long periods in orbit, there would need to be significant shielding regardless of passage duration.
>putting the nuclear propulsion at the end of a really long boom reduces need for shielding.
Very debatable whether this would cost more mass than just properly shielding it toward crewed compartments and sensors.
>If you have a lot of power to spare, because nuclear power.
Increased power comes at a much higher mass fraction per watt increase in nuclear than it does in solar after a certain point. I'd have to look at the numbers again, but you may not conceivably have much more power available than the 30MW available in a Virginia class' S9G. Remember that MASS is always the enemy in efficient space travel and fuel fractions are a bitch. Even nuke propulsion still has to carry some form of reaction mass.
>You can use a magnetic field to protect against some of the radiation.
Don't have the tech for this right now.
>>28403022
>>28403063
Has anyone seen any design ideas regarding a manned mission to Mars that didn't require a nuclear reactor of some kind? Either for power generation or both power and propulsion?
As far as i can tell, all of these designs will involve heavy shielding anyway, and a large separation between reactor and habitat area. And part of this shielding will have to be there anyway, just to protect the crew from space radiation.
So if you are going to be putting a reactor for power and heavy shielding up there anyway, you might as well put a nuke-engine up there as well. At that point you have so much mass that it needs a big kick anyway.
>>28390712
It has a clothes line at the very front!
>>28403098
>A "simple" disposable gas core NTR would make the mission far faster and allow more payload then any practical conventional rocket.
Yes, but again there are still massive problems to be worked out in getting that much mass moving that quickly and keeping the squishies alive inside along the way. Cosmic and solar radiation is the number one issue, and the only current answer is prohibitive mass in shielding.
>You don't get an order of magnitude increase in mass and shielding can be minimized by putting it on the end of a 100 meter boom and putting a small shield near the engine to shield the rest of the craft. The increased weight of the engine is offset by the vast increase in energy density of fuel and the fact that no oxidizer has to be carried for reaction mass.
As I noted above, according to a couple NASA studies, the structural support mass needed for such an arrangement may yet cost MORE mass than just shielding a hull flush reactor toward crew quarters.
>>28403122
I need to lower my usage of the word "anyway" it seems....
>>28403122
Nuke power is currently the only way to do it, even in the near future the only other answer in the pipeline is still nuke: Fusion instead of Fission.
I'm just pointing out that it's not an instant slam dunk, even with working long range nuke propulsion. There are millions of challenges to solve and things to balance.
>>28403155
Yeah, i completely agree. And a lot of politics are in the way of anything getting done.
>>28403144
You need less shielding if you get them on a 3 month transfer orbit rather then 15, and the speed isn't really that intense. You'd require no more shielding to protect from micrometeorite impacts then you'd want on any interplanetary craft.
The human sleeping area is where you need shielding. Putting them in the middle of the water tanks would do it.
As far as the support mass? A simple ti alloy triangle girder with a thin lead washer to shadow the ship on the reactor end would be fine. You'd need a larger "washer" in the event you wanted to move it closer, but you could hang the radiators and reaction mass off the girder too, so it's not like it would be wasted. (Assuming you don't want to tuck the living quarters into a reaction mass tank. Hydrogen would be crappy for shielding, but if you are using argon then it makes pretty decent radiation shielding until it's damn near empty.
>>28403191
Politics to the degree at which NASA receives funding and political mission directives, but also massive technical problems remain. Anyone who says the ISS and space shuttle programs have been wasted money is an idiot. So much of the mundane practical issues that need to get ironed out get moved a little closer to full resolution every day aboard it. There are many areas in which we could be moving faster and going harder even within current budget constraints but the tech simply isn't there yet for a full up manned Mars mission yet. I don't expect to see one until they get controllable magnetic field shielding up and running. I'll be lucky to see it before I die (2040's if I'm lucky). It's damn exciting watching each baby step along the way, though.
I just pray they keep writing books and making films like The Martian and keep the public engaged and on mission.
>>28403259
hm?
Pretty sure water is adequate shielding
So its just a matter of putting sufficient tonnage up in space.
Of course anyone talking about nuke power in space can't be ignoring nuclear pulse propulsion.
That alone could do the mars mission, right now.
Single stage to mars.
>>28403246
>A simple ti alloy triangle girder
Massive, massive costs and not inconsequential mass to build a load/thrust bearing structure 100m long able to withstand maneuvering thrusters and have full multidirectional force support against an emergency tumble or roll.
>You'd require no more shielding to protect from micrometeorite impacts then you'd want on any interplanetary craft.
Again, you forget that there's no safe harbor in Mars orbit. Humans are not the only things in the ship requiring mass shielding. The ship itself has to survive and function in Mars orbit for the duration of the missions (multiple, because this isn't getting built without multi-mission reusability in mind). And if there aren't humans aboard, the reactor will be forced to monitor and regulate itself at the end of a long signal return trip from earth. The Mars mission will have other very important things to do while on surface.
>>28403122
Yes. There's a few different proposals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
Go to Mars after sending robots there that make rocket fuel. You don't have to carry nearly as much gas, and don't have to do tricky orbital meet-ups, all of the meetings are done on planet surfaces.
Mars One instead says "why come back?" and offers to send people one-way to Mars. Relatively small craft boosted from Earth, but a lot of them. May be a giant scam.
Then there's the NASA plan. To put a big fucking machine on a heavy lift rocket, put it into orbit, meet up with another big fucking machine loaded with fuel, send it to mars, drop a bit of it onto Mars, then a small ass return machine lifts people off mars, meets what is left of the big machine that left earth and it boost back to earth, shedding bits as it goes and taking two frigging YEARS to get home.
>>28403306
>can't be ignoring nuclear pulse propulsion.
Considering the fact that not even Russia is producing Pu239 anymore, and the ridiculous cost per AU of nuclear pulse propulsion, including the incredible design requirements of a ship able to withstand it, no. Not even close to possible considering the far more efficient proposals already in the works.
>>28403314
How much power do you think you need to build it to withstand? Even for a really big fucking NTR or VSIMR you'd be kicking around at less then a meter per second acceleration. You don't need a massive structure to withstand the stress of that. It's not going to accelerate hard or turn fast.
>No safe harbor on Mars
Earth orbit is, by far, the greatest impact danger zone. The atomic powered space boat would need to be armored only enough to protect it from dust beyond that. Shiny Mylar* and Kevlar blankets would do. Given a simple reactor design there's no reason it should requite constant monitoring that automation can't handle.
Not to mention the monitoring needed for a bunch of liquid hydrogen and LOX. That's far more likely to explode and kill you then a reactor.
*Shiny Mylar to keep it from absorbing heat from the sun or the ship's radiators.
>>28403340
You could use the plutonium from civilian nuclear power plants.
Cost wise? doubtful.
The number of nukes/necessary plutonium stays the same as you scale up size of the craft.
What "far more efficient" proposals exist, outside of spacex and only spacex actually reducing launch costs?
>>28403414
You can't scale externally pulsed nuke down much. The sheer fucking size you need to make it work means a huge and very expensive ship.
For more efficient, you could use a small fission generator coupled to a NTR or VSIMR. You don't need a huge engine, it can run for a long, long time.
>>28392364
Subs don't need to be able to be out to sea for months at a time. If the USN didn't have its head up its ass we'd forward deploy AIP attack boats in the South China Sea, Mediterreanean Sea, Persian Gulf/Horn of Africa and Baltic Sea to supplement our SSNs. We could even license build an existing AIP attack boat design to ensure interoperability with out allies and reduce cost.
>>28403414
>What "far more efficient" proposals exist
All of the various thermal and ion based nuclear proposals blow pulse propulsion out of the water on mass, vehicle complexity, cost per trip and required crewing. It's not even close.
>Earth orbit is, by far, the greatest impact danger zone.
Not talking about impacts. Talking about radiation, both cosmic and solar. Mars has no Van Allen belt. No molten iron core rotating to produce it. Not enough atmosphere on the surface for decent shielding for surface ops, for that matter. Early mars missions will be mole man arrangements.
>Given a simple reactor design there's no reason it should requite constant monitoring that automation can't handle.
Feel free to point out a single remote maintained and operated reactor complex in the entire world, then.
>>28403492
Nuclear submarines can stay under water as long as the food supply holds out.
How long can an AIP sub stay underwater?
>>28403492
>Subs don't need to be able to be out to sea for months at a time.
Yes. They literally do. Maybe you should actually read something about sub ops before you bother commenting.
>If the USN didn't have its head up its ass we'd forward deploy AIP attack boats
There are no current AIP or Diesel subs IN THE ENTIRE WORLD which are expected to regularly travel a thousand miles each way to patrol areas, which is pretty much minimum for the USN. This is a stupid idea.
>>28403460
>The sheer fucking size you need to make it work means a huge and very expensive ship.
Just because the ship weighs 100,000 tons doesn't mean you need to fill every inch of it with super expensive machinery, computers, sensors, all built through cost plus contracts in all 52 states.
>>28403493
>Feel free to point out a single remote maintained and operated reactor complex in the entire world, then.
every RTG ever made?
>>28403529
>every RTG ever made?
Show me an RTG making 30MW then.
If you think an RTG operates anything like a full up nuke plant, there is no reason to continue discussing this with you. Go do some basic research.
>>28403493
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen4_Energy
Or how about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHW-RTG
Granted, that one isn't in the ENTIRE WORLD. It's leaving the solar system, functional and unmantained after 1977
>>28403529
I'm wondering what happened to all the RTGs that were vandalized and looted in Russia. They had hundreds of RTG powered light houses during the Soviet Era. During the collapse of the 90s. Those light houses went with out security. Later they were all found to have been looted for scrap metal.
>>28403554
RTGs only have what, a 25% efficiency at best/?
>>28402930
The pirates might not know how to extract the nuclear fuel, but holding a nuclear reactor gives them much more leverage in terms of ransoms. Plus there's nothing stopping them from coercing the nuke techs or selling the reactor to your local rogue state/terrorist group.
>>28403493
>All of the various thermal and ion based nuclear proposals blow pulse propulsion out of the water on mass, vehicle complexity, cost per trip and required crewing.
Nuclear thermal ain't even that good, at least any of the solid core version actually produced. I doubt they can be launched from earths surface like NPP could, which would vastly reduce mission costs.
NPP beats both of them in terms of Isp AND total thrust
It's just the optimal way to do things to reduce stress, complexity, material demands, to detonate the nuke externally, rather than trying to confine things or control reactions.
>>28403523
>>28403525
Forward deployed AIP attack boats wouldn't need to travel thousands of miles, they'd already be in-theater. That's what forward deployment allows for.
I'm not suggesting we replace our existing SSNs with AIP boats. That's why I used the word 'supplement'. Please read and comprehend the entirety of a post before responding with name calling.
>>28403609
Could just buy semi-submersible freighters to carry them
Would be cheaper than a nuclear reactor
>>28403623
Imma gonna need to see a citation for that.
>>28403651
How much does the reactors in the new subs cost?
200 million each? more?
>>28403688
So in other words, this is just conjecture.
The base price of the reactors is just one aspect of the cost.
>>28403315
Doubtful the nasa plan will ever go anywhere
SLS will be cancelled whenever spacex finally launch their falcon heavy.
>>28403601
> I doubt they can be launched from earths surface like NPP could
The whole NPP design i can get behind, except for the "launch from surface"-part. Its not even practical to consider that being used due to the fallout and protests such a design would cause. Only probable if you like in some kind of crazy WH-40K or post-Trump world.
Its like saying
> "all AT warheads should be nuclear, its far more efficient"
which is true, but it is also so far removed from the realm of possibility that its just silly
>>28403788
The US/USSR tested thousands of nukes
Fallout wasn't particularly relevant.
Politically, the soviets could have done it, the chinese could do it today.
These anti-nuclear protestors should be treated as treasonous terrorists, desu. Most of them are paid, you can bet.
Peaceful civilian use for nuclear weapons is very different to military use.
>>28403730
Imagine a US naval fleet supported by a hundred+ small cheap diesel subs
With very small crews, like the new LCS.
>>28403568
There were like 19. And several of those were looted by the USN so as to keep the nuke material safe.
>>28403886
Okay.
But show me how that's feasible with studies or creditable opinions.
>>28403557
Gen4 is promising tech, but it's not there yet. It's also not unmanned.
RTGs have as much in common with actual full up nuke reactors as a motor scooter does to an F-1 car. Not remotely the same category. We're talking about 1500 watts output VS 30MW for something like what's in the VA class subs. Also, efficiency rates for RTGs are only in the 3-7% range. that's abysmal. They've yet to get a single one over 10%, and for the kind of energy density per mass unit required for a space craft, utterly retarded.
>>28403601
>thinking you could launch NPP from the surface
What are you, 12 years old? Fucking read a book. The only way any of this works is being sent up in pieces and assembled in orbit.
>>28392164
>easier to operate
On a good day operating a reactor is extremely boring. Its knowing what to do when things go wrong. Nuclear is very different from conventional because
>shutting down the reactor doesn't stop it from producing heat (heat melts the reactor)
>there are modes of failure that it is impossible to recover from, if you melt a reactor even if you don't kill anybody or contaminate the surrounding area youve still bricked hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment
>>28403688
>200 million each? more?
So less than just about the cheapest cargo container ship of any real size on the market?
>>28403834
There you go again with that pants on head retarded "political realities aren't practical realities" thinking. Come back when you're 18. Until then, GTFO.
>>28394361
>require to volunteer
You're a fucking retard. You DO NOT, EVER, FUCKING EVER, want to force people into sub duty that don't want it. There's a reason they get some of the best food in the navy and that's because it is literally one of the shittiest living conditions you can get in the services. They don't even allow you to sleep on the boat when in port, everyone is pulled off and stuck into a proper barracks or hotel.
>>28397317
Originally it was only supposed to stay on the Ponce for that cruise, but they liked it so much that they're keeping it.
>>28404018
Anon, don't bother. He'd rather sit on here and shit post like a retard than educate himself now that such glaring deficiencies in his knowledge base have been identified. He's more concerned with being right and winning interwebs arguments than actually having informed opinions.
In short, autism is speaking but it doesn't fucking mean we have to listen.
>>28399763
The USN has produced many studies saying the opposite.
>>28404045
>>28404012
They are not "political realities"
The entire anti-nuclear movement is created from the top down.
No politician gives a shit about protestors.
The protestors only exist to give legitimacy for certain actions they take
>>28404096
Provide a single one written after 1985.
>>28404096
But yet the USN has done the opposite to those many studies?
>>28404097
I can fucking hear the tinfoil crackling through my monitor.
>>28404119
Try growing up, thats the way the world works.
>>28396099
We don't want nuclear power plants here anymore, why should we allow foreign reactors on ships with doubtable security to enter our harbours?
>>28404119
i've been hoping to use this at some point
>>28404172
If you seriously think NIMBY and general nuke protesting is some sort of top down conspiracy driven and directed by shadowy people/orgs, then you're an idiot.
They're just misguided and often terribly misinformed/manipulated people that truly care about that shit not ending up in their back yards. People terrified by a lack of understanding of the science and actual engineering involved, who only know what Fox news or MSNBC tells them.
Not much different than the retards who believe the UN is going to kick down their door any day now and put them in a FEMA camp. People just like you.
>>28404209
Except it literally is shadowy groups who organize the protests, bus the people in, file the lawsuits, which are then not dismissed by the government.
These groups are funded and instructed to do these things.
Many of them are openly communist.
You honestly believe they are "grass roots" ? Someone somewhere is making money off it, and organizing it.
>>28404345
No. You're totally right anon. It makes way more sense that the commies are behind every single political mindset that you don't understand/don't agree with. Totally.
>>28404400
sure m8 because protestors have some magical power to make judges issue court orders, or make the NRC not allowing new nuclear reactors be built
While we're at it, I guess we can pretend that anti-nuclear organizations don't exist, and that everything is run by volunteers, yes?
>>28404400
As if the commies could possibly do something so clever. This is obviously the work of the shape-shifting reptilians. I'm sure i have a youtube-clip laying around somewhere that exposes it all. Just need to find it.
>>28404431
What completely fails to penetrate your conspiracy addled fog of paranoid ignorance is the fact that there are lobby groups and anti-protesting orgs for EVERYTHING. Fossil fuels, GMOs, free trade, globalization, etc, etc, etc. The list is literally fucking endless. Name a product or tech and I can find someone lobbying against it in 30 seconds. Go on.
Nuclear is just easier to protest because it the consequences of poor design or failure scare the shit out of even educated people, much less mass media ignoramuses. You can literally just point at Ukraine or Fukushima and then tell people they're burying the "same shit" in their state and they lose their fucking minds.
Your problem is you can't understand how an adversarial interests lobbying system works in politics and just assume the Illuminati are behind everything.
Do I believe all of our politics would be far, far better off without corporate, big ticket single contributor and large org based lobbying? Fuck yes. But that's democracy (yes, yes, autists I know it's not a pure democracy). For the whole thing to work, people have to stay responsibly informed (unlikely) and there will always be people whose entire careers revolve around gaming the system for advantage. All that said, it's still the best way to run a country.
>>28404519
>All that said, it's still the best way to run a country.
lol
>>28404549
Name a better game.
>>28404555
national socialism
>>28404571
I fucking hate how often what seems a reasonable, pretty well informed bullshit session turns into a fucking quagmire with crypto nazis on /k/.
Go the fuck BACK TO /pol/. And stay the fuck in /pol/. You're about as wanted or needed as fucking herpes here.
>>28404584
the idea that human rights or free market or even freedom are intrinsically linked to democracy is one of the biggest lies of the modern age.
>>28404595
All a question of degrees. Again, find a single system that does it better.
I'm still fucking laughing about national socialism.
Now I'm really done. Not enough hours in the day to discuss a single fucking thing with retarded neo nazis.
>>28390254
There isn't enough autism to man them all with uncle ricky's step children.
>>28404519
You. I like you.
>>28404620
What do you mean degrees
They are completely unrelated at all, yet held up to be the single defining good of democracy.
The middle east is certainly better off with "dictators" than a democracy.
Africa was better off with apartheid
USA was best when the suffrage wasn't universal
And europe was better off with monarchies.
>>28394361
That precludes femme nukes.
>>28393371
Nukes don't go to BESS I thought.
>>28404700
That was my point, if they went sub that would be a whole six months more they'd need in schooling.
>>28394361
>require all new nukes to sub volunteer when they enlist.
>RE: How to never have a nuke applicant ever again
>>28394775
>Maybe with better low maintenance reactors
maybe non-nuclear reactors that don't need any fuel and don't produce any radiation and you don't need special school to run and cost less than a diesel and also produce electricity for the grid and tell you bedtime stories at night you fucking idiot child.
there are limits to technology you dumb fucking cunt. only so much can be done and it's being done already.
the real world is not wish fulfilment.
>Design a Destroy/Cruiser to have the back half of the super structure and the reactor section come out in one piece. Then you just drop in another superstructure/reactor section. Which will be a refurib from the previous ship of the class that came in.
yeah and we can crew it with butterflies and then we only have to pay them in nectar.
>>28404665
so much idiocy
so few words
congratulations. you have produced enough concept density in your weapons grade ignorance to actually be the world's first functioning stupidity quasar.
>>28404777
The founding fathers did not want democracy, and deliberately limited suffrage.
>>28404738
new reactor designs can't physically melt down
>>28404839
>The founding fathers did not want democracy, and deliberately limited suffrage.
I love how often fucking morons talk about the "founding fathers" like they were some completely homogeneous political group, instead of one of the most contentious and disparate group of leaders ever to found a country together. EVERYTHING that came out of the continental congress was slow, contentious and rife with compromises that made not a single one of them completely happy.
It's always easy to spot the fucking idiots around here who've been mind fucked by stormfags or whoever else. No research. No understanding. Only incredibly urgent and eye-wateringly naive opinion.
>>28404865
So... you're trying to tell me the S9G, for instance, has NO POSSIBLE thermal failure modes?
Are you completely fucking retarded?
>>28403609
>Forward deployed AIP attack boats
so now you're just completely dependent on foreign bases close to your enemy for you submarine ops.
oh wow you just put your crucial submarines within strike range of your enemy's tactical aircraft and they only need sr/mrbm to fuck you over.
>That's why I used the word 'supplement'
other than to make you happy, what possible reason.
>>28403886
>small cheap diesel subs
>diesel subs worth a damn
pick one.
>hundreds
fucking hell
>>28404595
because if you have no way of changing the government peacefully you're guaranteed to have to do it one day by violence.
what if your benign dictator decides you don't need all the at freedom? what then retard?
>>28404949
modern 3rd and 4th generation reactors do not.
>>28405006
A little violence never hurt anyone.
>what if your benign dictator decides you don't need all the at freedom? what then retard?
What happens when a court decides your freedoms are unconstitutional?
Same shit
>>28404665
>The middle east is certainly better off with "dictators" than a democracy.
>Africa was better off with apartheid
>dark people can't run countries
that doesn't mean white people have to put up with your faggotry.
>USA was best when the suffrage wasn't universal
eh
let's make the franchise based on land and education. still get to vote? i do, i have a science degree and land. how about you? because i'm deciding that high school doesn't cut it. neither does anything less than a bachelors.
and you know what, next congress i'm voting for indentured labor again. i don't see why i should have to pay you a goddamn thing you fucking wage slave.
>this is basically what the founding fathers believed.
i love how retards like you somehow think you're going to be at the top of the new system.
>>28405054
>A little violence never hurt anyone.
jesus fuck.
>What happens when a court decides your freedoms are unconstitutional?
how exactly can your constitutional freedoms be ruled unconstitutional. do you have no fucking idea about anything at all. bet you think obama can change the constitution by decree.
>Same shit
as what. your magic land dreams and fantasies?
>>28405025
Of course you have documentation of this. Of course you even have a fucking clue how nuclear reactors even work.
>>28405103
>how exactly can your constitutional freedoms be ruled unconstitutional.
Ask those bakers who were run out of business because they didn't bake a gay cake
What the constitution "says" is merely the opinion of 5 of 9 judges.
Appointed by presidents.
Rule by concensus is always a fucking disaster
>>28405200
ITT: another fucking stormfag moron that doesn't understand the concept of your personal freedoms and rights being limited by equally relevant freedoms and rights of others
>>28405200
>Ask those bakers who were run out of business because they didn't bake a gay cake
those cases haven't made it to the supremes yet. you want rule of law then you get a process.
>Rule by concensus is always a fucking disaster
arrogant fucker aren't you? without rule by consensus, why do you think anyone will give a fuck about your opinion?
why do you think you're not going to be the one that gets marginalized? do you pass the educational franchise test? the land franchise test? the political beliefs acceptable to the dictator franchise test? the political believes acceptable to the local commissar test?
the only reason that these systems attract you is because you think you're going to be the guy getting the power. doesn't usually work out that way.
>>28405336
>nuh-uh we couldn't do anything different, that would be HITLER! Who was just awful!
very open minded way of thinking.
>>28405421
>talks about preserving civil liberties and rights out of one side of his mouth
>suggests Hitler's methods were really the way to go out of the other side of his mouth
For just 25 cents a day, you can keep this poor stormfag from imploding due to cognitive dissonance. For 25 cents a day, you can save his life. Think of the kids.
the only thing this makes me think of is some sort of fallout-esque nuclear everything, which makes me think of a nuclear powered montana class battleship with some modern systems and that makes me happy
What if we just built so many boats we didnt have to move any of them? We could just step to the next one over if we needed to be a little more in that direction? Think of the fuel savings!
>>28406031
There were plenty of civil liberties in National Socialist Germany
It was a western country.
>>28406169
>fascism
>not a barbarian creed that's anathema to everything that makes Western civilization good
Maybe you'd be happier in China where they actually implement collectivist policies, fag.
>>28406193
Fascism was about restoring the things that made the west great
liberal democracy is about continuing to piss on them in favor of mob rule
No surprise the decline of the west continues.
>>28406169
If you were not a member of the Nazi party, you could not own guns after the mid 30's. Stop and think a minute about that.
Even if you were a member, you had to worry about the Gestapo or SS kicking your door down in the middle of the night and sending you off to a political dissident camp just because Hitler got a wild hair up his ass to nationalize your assets and give your factory to a favored Party crony.
Sounds like so much civil liberty they had to worry about bleeding their liberties right out their torn assholes.
>>28406232
He's gotta be a troll. No one is this stupid or ignorant yet capable of typing.
>>28406232
>things that made the West great
>Republics based on Northwestern European culture have been the world's most powerful states continuously since the time of the Dutch East India Company in 1602
There are people who follow your ideology of a powerful intellectual class ruling above the common rabble and exerting their will for the common good. They're called Chinese. That's the foundation of Confucianism, which is the foundation of Eastern political thought.
"Western" culture is based off of republics, and has been since the time of Sparta (yes, they were in fact a republic) and Athens.
National Socialism is just another form of the barbaric oriental despotism that happens when a Western society collapses.
>>28406236
>you had to worry about the Gestapo or SS kicking your door down in the middle of the night
This is literally bullshit
The gestapo was mostly involved with race mixing cases. There were a handful of officers in each major city.
You act like the police don't kick down peoples doors & raid them in the modern day west all the fucking time.
>If you were not a member of the Nazi party, you could not own guns after the mid 30's.
More bullshit
Nazi germany had the most liberal gun rights in all of europe.
>>28406285
>Nazi germany had the most liberal gun rights in all of europe.
>The gestapo was mostly involved with race mixing cases. There were a handful of officers in each major city.
How's it going with all that revising history, asswhipe? Did you forget that we have little things called books and other primary sources that directly and incontrovertibly refute your retardation? Did you think no one was going to call you on being a fucking idiot?
>>28406279
>"Western" culture is based off of republics
And by "republic" you mean monarchy, yes?
>>28406317
>commenting on political systems
>doesn't even understand what a fucking constitutional monarchy or republic is
I'm done with this fucking moron.
>>28406316
I hope you aren't looking at conditions during total war as if they are indicatory of anything to do with national socialism.
Some shit is necessary during war times.
You can go look at the wikipedia page for nazi germany gun laws yourself.
>>28406317
>implying occidental culture isn't based on Hellenic and Roman civilizations
>implying the monarchies were anything other than a symptom of the general decline that happened in Europe after the Roman Republic failed
It isn't a coincidence that even Caesar didn't have the balls to name himself as king. The Romans had hated kings since Etruscan times.
>>28406342
>I hope you aren't looking at conditions during total war
As early as 1936, you fucking moron. Just because they were slightly more lax in very specific areas than the Weimar does not in any way make them "good" or "free". Also, if you're getting your historical information from Wiki you've got far larger problems than even I thought. But I'll play your game. From your own fucking article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory
>Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.[1] The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.[6] When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[4]:672 The laws were harshened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens.[4]:670,676 The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.[7]:533,536
>>28406342
They kept the ridiculously restrictive Weimar Republic laws for all but Nazi party members. Then they disarmed any sector of the population remotely considered "unreliable".
That would have included you, as a fat faggot living in your mother's basement, completely unproductive in society.
>>28406413
I have this suspicion that Action T4 would have killed most of /pol/.
>>28406427
Self hatred is a proven clinical basis for the inability to be a productive member of the dialogue and constantly engage in trolling.
In short, you're not wrong.
>>28400192
>you could probably make PU239 in every civilian nuclear reactor.
>>28406387
So jews and communists can't own guns, but everyone else can, whats the issue?
Felons can't own guns today in America, is that heinous oppression?
Talk about the gestapo being some oppressive force is mostly fantasy of jews.
>>28406413
You needed permits, it wasn't "ridiculously restrictive". The nazi members thing was only in the 38 law.
>>28406482
It blows my mind that people with an IQ above 70 actually believe this bullshit.
>>28392164
Nukes usually start out as petty officers after they finish training and the re-enlistment bonuses have been $100,000+ in the past, they're a lot lower now though. They really do deserve more pay for how stressful the job and training is.
>>28406510
It's 2015, we have the internet, its not necessary to still believe fantasies about Nazi Germany not being an open, western, liberal country.
Which is of course, diametrically opposed to the soviet union which was the ally of the USA.
>>28406533
Looking better than the USSR is something 90% of African shitholes accomplish. Just because Nazi Germany did in some areas means absolutely fucking nothing, and certainly not that it was "open, western or liberal". Go home stormfag. You're drunk.
>>28399913
The dark age of technology was the "dark age" when technology reigned. It was dark because it was "heretical". The Age of Strife was when technology got lost.
>>28406533
Nazi Germany was a totalitarian shithole, which is shown by how they split their population into classes, persecuting those they deemed undesirables.
USSR vs Germany was a situation with no good guys, only useful allies.
>>28406646
>which is shown by how they split their population into classes, persecuting those they deemed undesirables.
you mean LITERALLY like modern day america?
Where the population is split into classes based on race, gender, sexuality, etc ?
You honestly believe its somehow immoral/wrong to "persecute" communists, jews, or other traitors?
>>28406676
>everything is black and white
yup. it's a reject from the stormfront
>>28406676
In America, even a fag commie Jew nigger can buy a gun, so long as they're not a danger to anyone else. They can even run for office or write books about their political beliefs. This is a good thing, imo. If your belief system is so tenuous that you have to silence the opposition, no matter how ridiculous, then it deserves to be shaken up.
>>28406698
Just like 9/11 was a good thing, huh? Glad we agree :)
>>28402993
E-2 nukes are still in school. They don't have any responsibility yet besides doing well in power school.
>>28406676
>hurr my class society
actual cultural marxism here folks
>>28403529
>reactor complex
>RTG
One of these things is not like the other. You understand that, right?
>>28406698
Also: Allowing subversive sorts to run rampant spreading destructive ideologies is a-ok because???
>>28406707
Shit. He didn't build a strawman, he lit the whole fucking hay field on fire and built a tin foil fort in the middle of it.
>>28406742
Because in America, we have something called free speech. It doesn't just apply to batshit insane asshats like you. It applies to everybody. You should be fucking grateful, otherwise your retarded ass would be in a mental hospital or worse.
>>28406742
Because if your ideology and culture is strong and built on good logic, opposition and "subversives" will be generally laughed at and rejected without having to silence them.
Freedom of speech allows people to hear both arguments and make rational decisions about who is right and wrong.
![Kirov-class_battlecruiser[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AWIlSZN.jpg "Kirov-class_battlecruiser[1].jpg")
>>28390712
This to be honest.
There's only one thing the Soviet, now Russian navy has consistently had a decisive edge over us in: Aesthetics.
Expense. The cost of RCOH.
Limits construction options to 2 shipyards.
Does not take up less space than Diesel-electric.
Marine Engineer and NNSfag reporting in.
>>28406771
Frauds a crime, except when it comes to political ideologies I guess.
>>28406780
>Freedom of speech allows people to hear both arguments and make rational decisions about who is right and wrong.
This is a laughable concept
Do you let your kid figure out for themselves whether a furnace is hot?
Whether to run into traffic?
What of the millions of lives ruined because they were taught subversive lies?
Then of course, we enter modern day west, where the establishment is literally rigging elections to keep leftists in power.
>>28406829
>Frauds a crime, except when it comes to political ideologies I guess.
Good for you. You'd be getting assfucked in prison by a brown or black gentleman (your favorite) right now.
>>28404018
>>28404738
There are inherently safe 4th generation reactors that are extremely easy to operate and require minimal maintenance.
Gen4 is developing a HPM reactor made to get buried in the ground and left there for 20 years. The uranium nitride fueled designs are cool and much easier to license, but require minimal intervention.
That said, you don't know anything about atomic power and think it's SCARY because of the terrifying power of the atom.
>>28404949
S9G is a generation 2 reactor.
You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
