What happens in a full nuclear strike, do you fire all you have at the same time? Or do you fire some and keep some in reserve, hoping they don't get destroyed in a retaliatory strike of course.
>>28240718
Well done, France. I'm proud of you guys.
I don't think it matters
>>28240718
Most nations are committed to only using atomic weapons in defense, after being attacked by weapons of mass destruction.
Depends who you are. The US/USSR (later Russian Federation) adopt a two step program where a first-strike is launched at identified targets, launch sites, ect in attempt to kill some weapons before they fire, while a second sight is launched after to kill any targets that survived the first exchange and hopefully end the war.
Most other nations, in the event they are attacked with weapons of mass destruction they would launch a single massive retaliatory strike intended to overwhelm defenses and end the war.
>>28240718
We had 23.5 Million nukes in 1983?
[spoiler]I know that isn't correct, but I see that the thousands/hundreds distinction is a bit unnecessary.[/spoiler]
>>28240718
>France now has more nukes
S A V A G E
Disarmament was a mistake.
>>28240718
> Implying any of these countries got rid of any nukes
>>28241108
They did. It's well documented that a lot of them were turned into fuel for nuclear reactors.
>>28241108
A deterrent weapon is pretty fucking useless if nobody knows you (still) have it.
>>28241263
>get rid of some nukes
>still keep enough to genocide another country
It's such a half-arsed step to take seeing as total disarmament will never happen, what is the point in only cutting half your dick off if you want to turn into a pussy?
>>28241263
Sure they were ; )
>>28241313
so you can still enjoy sex but be a pretty woman with your new pussy
Has the UK's stockpile of ICBMs gone up or down since '83?
I know the drop from 320 nukes since then to 225, is largely attributable to them retiring their WE.177 nuclear bombs during the 1990s and switching to an entirely at-sea deterrent
>>28240718
>people really believe these numbers
>>28240774
We had 23,500 nukes in 1983. The "thousands" means we had thousands of nukes.
The countries below had a number of nukes measured in the hundreds.
>>28240718
This is the worst thread ever.
>>28240718
>There's less than 20000 total nukes left in the world
>And less than 5000 active warheads
Things have really wound down since the Cold War days, haven't they? I'm kind of glad, really.
>There's enough nukes in the world that most nuclear powers could utterly fuck the other nuclear powers if things happened, thus allowing deterrence
>But there's not enough nuclear firepower to extinct humanity if deterrence fails and a cascading full nuclear exchange of most active warheads takes place
>>28242782
>There's less than 20000 total nukes left in the world
nonsense, those numbers represent declared strategic weapons
no international body keeps track of things like gravity bombs, nuclear tipped cruise missiles and nuclear ammuntions
>>28241872
He just meant it was redundant.
The graph is already clear without that, and according to most conventions, if you say thousands - 23500 and hundreds - 320, it implies that you have 23500 thousands (23 and a half milions)on one side and 320 hundreds (32 000) on the other.
>>28242847
If you don't have categories, the scaling is off.
>>28242810
doesn't Israel have hundreds of warheads but havent decalred any? I'd also bet that South Africa still has a cheeky warhead stashed away somewhere
>>28242900
Israel's official policy is neither to confirm nor deny that they have nuclear weapons.
Best guess, they have 200-300.
Mandela actually dismantled the South African nuclear program after apartheid ended.
>>28242912
He dismantled it, or he said he dismantled it?
>>28242917
Well, the reason South Africa had nukes is that they were an apartheid state surrounded by black nationalists and gommies.
Once apartheid ended, so did all of the potential invasion threats.
>>28242929
It's a wonder why Australia never followed that path, considering the cold war domino effect theory and being next door to the world largest muslim population
>>28242941
ANZUS means that anyone who fucks with Australia can expect to be freed shortly.
South Africa needed nukes of their own because they were a pariah state.
As different as the US and USSR were, they both hated colonialism.
>>28242941
We can already beat them conventionally and the population is afraid of nuclear-anything
>>28242992
Australia is coming around on Nuclear energy, just wait for the report from South Australia's royal commission
>>28242941
Indonesia isn't much of a threat, they're divided and dysfunctional and we've basically always had a significant conventional edge over them
are australia and indonesia not on good terms?
i guess ive never considered the political climate around australia
you guys have something like NATO as well?
>>28243063
Eh, we've had amicable to neutral relationship for ages now, although there was a bit of edginess in the very early cold war period and more recently in the 90s over East Timor. The previous PM (Abbot) Kinda slashed and burned our diplomatic ties with them over a whole bunch of stupid shit, but it wasn't anything serious enough to do any lasting damage.
We don't have NATO but we do have ANZUS, good military ties with Singapore as well, and more recently we've been buddying it up with the Japs.
>>28243115
we are a global partner to NATO, don't think it really means much. But I think the rest of SEA would have our back against Indonesia
>>28240718
>do you fire all you have at the same time?
In the last decade of the Cold War, both sides were prepared to fight what the US called "The Long War" which was a nuclear war that could last weeks or months, consisting of multiple smaller exchanges, rather than one massive one.
A single massive one was still a possibility, but it was not the only possibility.
>>28242810
Somewhat true, but it is possible to have reasonable estimates on arsenal size based on other factors, like material production.
>>28242900
>doesn't Israel have hundreds of warheads
Yes.
>>28243124
And if they don't we can beat them all anyway.
>>28243134
Make you wonder how far Australia could go if we fully mobilised and drove up through Asia. Our ability to produce our own jets would probably get us to China
>>28242810
>no international body keeps track of things like gravity bombs, nuclear tipped cruise missiles and nuclear ammuntions
No, instead the number is check by treaty. The US and Russia have to allow their counterparts to inspect their stockpiles.
>>28242941
Australia was looking at acquiring weapons in the 50s and 60s. The idea was eventually abandoned after the fallout of the Vietnam War.
>>28243151
Only with strategic weapons.
>>28243161
there's a documentary on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVkcYyljYm8
Fortress Australia sounds fucking badass
>>28243171
>>28243127
Thanks Mark for clearing that up.
>>28241081
You're goddamn right.
>>28243127
>Yes.
Just because they say so?
>>28242955
>As different as the US and USSR were, they both hated colonialism.
What an ironic statement
>>28241796
UK only has SLBMs
>>28241809
I believe the West's numbers more than the East's purely for the transparency difference in governments. Nuke's have shelf lives though, it would be stupid to stop manufacture completely.
>>28242912
>>28242917
>>28242929
Mandela did not disarm SA. The Apartheid government did because they didn't want the blacks to get their hands on the nukes (not that they would have done anything, Mandela was a smart duded). Plus disarming makes you look good (see Ukraine and Kazakhstan)
>>28244656
>purely for the transparency difference in governments
I'm pretty sure that unlike the US, Russia actually allows the observers to its stockpiles.
>>28240718
>nuclear non-proliferation treaty
>France proceeds to get more nukes
>>28244753
Hey, as long as they don't proliferate em
>>28244720
easy there Ivan, what you up to at yamatau then?
>>28244192
There are reliable methods to estimate warhead numbers.
>>28244656
The US have lots of parts available for the refurbishment program.
>>28244753
NPT doesn't prevent existing nuclear powers from building more weapons.
>>28244964
Does the refurbishment program include new fissile material? Or is it mostly just upgrading the trigger mechanisms and missile avionics?
>>28244938
Such as?
>>28244847
Same as at Dyatlov Pass.
>>28245145
You estimate how much fissile material they could have based on their available reactors, and based on that guess how many warheads they could make from that material.
>>28245231
The question is do they actually have it at all?
![tumblr_m1wqh9oamP1r2mtzq[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tq998Sd.jpg "tumblr_m1wqh9oamP1r2mtzq[1].jpg")
>>28245179
>that flag
HERETIC DETECTED!!!
>>28245054
>new fissile material?
No.
>>28245262
Yes, they have nuclear weapons.
>>28244340
>imperialism and colonialism are the same thing
>>28240718
how many does israel have?
>>28245842
They can overlap though. Example 1: China in Zambia.
>>28245990
I think 90% of the time you can't have colonialism without imperialism, but you can have imperialism without colonialism.
>>28240718
What happens to all these nukes once UK & France become muslim-majority countries?
>>28248339
Not sure thats a legit worry.
>>28248339
I'd be more worried about the Muslim country that already has nuclear weapons.
>>28248339
What happens to your worldview once you look at an actual fucking demographic chart?
>>28245356
>Yes, they have nuclear weapons.
Just because they say so?
>>28252038
There are plenty of indications that they have nuclear weapons.
>>28252085
Is the defense bill Chocolate Nixon just signed going to do anything to revitalize our sagging nuke forces?
>>28241303
I dont think hes seen Strangelove
>>28252085
Such as?
>>28252085
Has there ever been any SGT Bilko level fuckery by any country having it's stockpiles inspected?
>>28240718
cheeki frogs
>>28240718
Is there any actual practical reason to have multiple thousands of nukes?
It seems like a waste of money and resources
Wouldn't it make more actual sense to have 500-1000 nukes and spend the money saved on things that will actually be used?
>>28242912
I call bs on that. If israel has more than 80 nukes it would be a miracle.
>>28252481
>Is there any actual practical reason to have multiple thousands of nukes?
dick waving
>It seems like a waste of money and resources
it helped kill the soviet economy
>>28252481
>Is there any actual practical reason to have multiple thousands of nukes?
Second strike capability.
If in a first strike situation X enemy nukes can take out Y number of your nukes then in order to ensure a second strike capability of Z nukes you need to build Y+Z total.
Look at the UK, they calculated that for minimum deterrence they needed to at least ~25 warheads after a first strike, which required ~180 warheads total. If you want hundreds or more warheads in a second strike the requirement for total numbers increase similarly.
>>28252481
If your enemy has thousands of nukes, then you need thousands to destroy them.
>>28240718
The Frogs have more nukes now than in 83?
Porque?
>>28252632
>The Frogs have more nukes now than in 83?
To keep ahead of UK and China. It feels so good to be an actually completely irrelevant country, but you you are still worlds #3 nuclear power.
>>28252644
The bongs are tier-1 keks
But do you really think the FFL could beat the mongrel fucking hoards? China is a growing power, but no Euro country could ever be strong enough to stand against them.
>>28252650
True, but France has still means of force projection, an aircraft carrier several helicopter carriers, expedition forces and enough nukes to make to make a full out war with them unattractive. They still use this to hold their sphere of influence in the francophone world.
Has to to do with the French psyche, they need to be La Grande Nation, and being boss over some 3rd world countries makes them happy. Also, really nice places to make holidays.
>>28252717
The Germans were split, but in the Cold War the French were very independent. They even left NATO for a while, right?
They have a decent Navy and the ties of Lingua Franca, so they to force project more than most Euros. Hell Brittania hasn't had a real spat since the Falklands, and [pic related]
They were tied up in Vietnam, which pulled them into the post WWII world like most countries weren't.
Honestly, I still consider France possibly our closest Ally.
At the very least, they retain the spark or liberalism. It won't be Germany but France that reclaims Europe.
>>28252730
Sorry, [pic related]
>>28252730
>It won't be Germany but France that reclaims Europe.
well, "reclaiming europe" is basically the french national tradition
it doesn't make them very popular
>>28252769
There have been a lot of claimants to the mantle of "reclaiming Europa". But I agree that the French have the best claim. The Brits aren't continental, the Germans are Protestant, the Spaniards are Moors and the Italians are basically Byzantine.
John Dark 2016
>>28252769
>well, "reclaiming europe" is basically the french national tradition
>it doesn't make them very popular
They haven't tried that since Napoleon, and sucked ever since on European wars. But they are pretty good at fighting spear chuckers, they still are dominant in all french speaking africa, plus they hold some nice turf from their imperial times.
But thats about it, politically they get cucked by Germany in the EU, and since their economic sucks it'll stay like that.
>>28252819
>>28252632
because the chart is bullshit.
I wanted to make a big explication about the "why's" and "the "how's" yesterday, but quite frankly it's not worth it.
tl;dr :
>the french produced several versions of mostly the same warheads by re smelting them during the last 20 years.
>The TN71 was transformed into the miniaturised and stealthy TN75.
>The TN80 evolved into the TN81.
>Both these weapons are now being transformed (again) into TNO and TNA.
>TNO : 100kt fixed yield. or 150. Sources varies. The TN75 from which it is designed was a rheostatic weapon, with yieds going from 5kt to 120kt. Demonstrated in 1995 in fangataufa test site, with the collaboration of DARPA at the time.
>TNA : 300kt yield, same as the TN81.
>The TN75/TNO are for SLBM
>The TN81/TNA are for supersonic aircraft launched ramjet missiles. TN81 for the ASMP, TNA for the new ASMP-A (double the range, at more than 600km and mach2+, possibly mach3+)
On SLBM's :
the french issued in less than 25 years 3 versions of basically the same weapon. Yet they were 3 full programs. The M4 missile in 1985, the M45 in 1997, and the M51 in 2010.
Fun fact : all these missiles have something in common : their size. Very close to the Trident II D5. However, where the Trident can achieve a 12000km range, the M51 can only achieve an 8000km range. Because the third, high manoeuverable stage was scrapped. M45 was a 4500km weapon, just like the M4 (enveloppe was basically the same).
Originally, the M5 should have successed to the M4 and feat the same capabilities than the Trident II D5. Logical, considrering there were M1, M2 and M3 prior. But, being considered too expensive, the program was altered into the "half new" M45 and the "almost what we wanted" M51.
Currently, the french are replacing the remaining M45 by M51.3 and the last TN75 are being resmelted into TNO. There are about 40 ASMP-A in line with their TNA warheads.
France may end up with less than 250 nukes in 2018.
>>28243301
Back to you tom.
>>28244649
Yeah, sorry I meant SLBM not ICBM
>>28243177
Fuck I love K for videos like this about my country sometimes.
I wonder what post nuclear weapons are cooking right now.
>>28252730
>decent Navy
Is the french navy the only relevant branch of the french armed forces, excluding the FFL?
Is it the only one worth joining?
>>28243177
I love the idea of a fortress Australia.
Strong miltary.
Strong economy.
Strong national values.
Not the USAs bitch.
And of course little fucks given.
>>28252131
Yes.
>>28252263
Mordecai Vanunu
>>28252333
Not that I know of.
>>28252481
>Is there any actual practical reason to have multiple thousands of nukes?
Depends on how many targets you have.
>spend the money saved on things that will actually be used?
The US uses their nuclear weapons every day.
>>28253906
>Mordecai Vanunu
This is rather indirect. I am not trolling or baiting, I genuinely want to know why do people believe Israel has nuclear weapons. I have not seen a single direct evidence that they have them so far. In the end everything just sums up to "they say they have them".
>>28256042
Vanunu gave details about the Israeli weapons program.
US intelligence has seen enough that internally they believe that they have them.
The French who helped them start their weapons program believe that they have them.
The Israelis have built delivery systems that only really make sense for nuclear weapons.
What sort of direct evidence do you require?
>>28243161
>>28243177
>>28253281
>fortress australia
Hah. Good fucking luck trying to pull something like that off. You people are almost as badly pussywhipped as England at this point.
>>28256103
He's either dumb or trying to elicit you
>>28252038
They don't say so though, they refuse to deny or confirm that they have nuclear weaponry.
>>28252819
>and sucked ever since on European wars
>WW1
you are fucking stupid
no denying they got owned in WW2 tho
