this is a general discussion for nuclear weapons of all types.
from improvised terrorist nukes to full on city destroyers, discuss it here.
>I live X miles from a target, what can I expect?
watch these videos;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOFDFogc6Gk&nohtml5=False
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE_bw4ME9v8&nohtml5=False
as they are the most relevant to today's weapons.
but you can watch this one too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzoeXkdxKuc
first point of discussion;
are nuclear gravity bombs still useful?
not "bombs" in the sense of any nuke, but bombs dropped from planes over a target.
the US still has a massive number of them and I personally think that we need missiles in their place, missiles seem more useful.
but of course, this is just an opinion so discuss away.
> are nuclear gravity bombs still useful?
no
Has anyone read it?
>>29540960
Tactical nuclear weapons have eclipsed the city killers. Why destroy entire cities when you can strike with precision where you want and leave the rest for conquering?
>>29543392
i mean 15,000 kilotons
Slotin's demon core aftermath pictures when?
>>29543621
from all the reports on it i've read/seen/heard, why in the FUCK would you want to see pictures of that?
could we ever see nukes used in our lifetime?
not in a full doomsday exchange, but more of a ending final blow like they were used in WW2.
What kind of effect would a global nuclear war have on communications?
Is it possible they could be disrupted enough to fracture nations? (i.e. nationalist attempts to break off from the USSR, or a particularly liberal state government attempting a separate peace before communication with washington is "properly" restored because the evidence available to them suggests washington wants to keep fighting.)
I want to use a nuclear war as a handwave for that kind of fragmentation in the history of my alternate history. (As well as odd situations springing up as a result of US forces in Europe doing all kinds of crazy shit based on how they decide to move forward from "We have no current orders from home.")
I accept it's probably unrealistic to some degree, but what's the mos realistic way something like that could be handled? Detonations outside the atmosphere?
I basically want highly limited radio communication only (to the point a liaison aircraft becomes useful for transporting information.)
>>29543718
>more of a ending final blow like they were used in WW2
No, because in August 45, nobody else besides United States had nuclear weapons and even United States were only assembling one more Fat Man and had nothing else at hand.
>>29543718
>could we ever see nukes used in our lifetime?
Maybe between something like India and Pakistan.
>>29540960
>Nuclear Weapons General
Please no. Let's not turn one of our few quality arguments into general shitposting again. Please.
>>29545555
Sexy leg
>the UK and France will not surrender their arsenals in your lifetime
>the UK and France will not combine their arsenals into a "european" arsenal to become a vaguely credible power in your lifetime.
Why must we live in this world of half-way housing. :^(
