So, as I've learned, basically everything the general population believes about a modern nuclear war is wrong. It will not end the world, it would not cause a nuclear winter or firestorms, civilian losses would not be much bigger than in WWII, and so on.
So, if massive employment of strategic nuclear weapons is actually entirely feasible and workable strategy that will not end the world, and nuclear deterrence is a sham essentially, why haven't anyone resorted to its use yet?
>>29986154
Because the leaders of the nation's like being leaders.
Nuclear war isn't a fucking cakewalk. It'll destroy loads of infrastructure , etc. We all lose, that's why.
OPPENHEIMER , I summon you!
Because the political leadershit comes from what you call the general population and usually is not educated enough to understand neither the physics of nookular combat any further than "oh shit thats scary", nor the stragegems that would play into something like a global thermonuclear war. This results a general "nukes are bad mkay" attitude, supported by ignorance, misunderstandings and 50's memes (>fallout) which stops them from ordering nuclear forces to deploy.
>>29986154
Because thermonuclear warfare isn't something you can just shrug off just because things wouldn't actually end up like Fallout or On the Beach.
>>29986154
because nuclear war is the kind of shit that you know how it will start you have no fucking idea how it will end, even is the civilian life loss is "no greater than WWII" that's still a fucking good for nothing catastrophe
>>29987915
wow..
>>29986154
>So, if massive employment of strategic nuclear weapons is actually entirely feasible and workable strategy that will not end the world
The same argument could be made about chemical and biological weapons, why do you think we don't use those?
>nuclear deterrence is a sham essentially
MAD is (somewhat) a sham, deterrence isn't. Any device that had the ability to destroy massive amounts of territory, kill scores of people or soldiers, and to deny any use of an area in the immediate future is a viable deterrent.
Also
>Something that results in an 60 million deaths is an 'entirely feasible and workable strategy'
What the fuck is this new edgy shit. Nuclear exchange even limited would not end well and have huge consequences across the planet. Not to mention a nuclear exchange would be backed up with chemical and or biological weapons as well.
>>29986154
>civilian losses would not be much bigger than in WWII
Instead of over a few years, these casualties would occur over a span of days.
What I want to know is what is so taboo about using tactical nukes against a military target
>>29988173
They're wmds? Most armies/countries would rather not escalate from conventional warfare into the wonderful world of wmds, any use of nukes would result into escalation with both sides using them and more than likely, total war with no restrictions, gas attacks on population densities, nukes dropped on every airfield or anything of strategic value, population densities, possible biological warfare somewhere in there? tl;dr it would escalate things to a level most people don't want to go to, and death on an untold scale.
what is countervalue, the thread
>>29986154
My best guess would be that before the cancellation of MAD doctrine in the 70s, there actually might have existed a threat of world annihilation, because those nuclear bombing runs would have mostly hit cities, so there might have been a nuclear winter and such. Even that can't be a certainty.
In the late 70s, the USSR went into a rapid decline, so even though now with new a precise WMDs and cancellation of MAD, there was no need for US to attack USSR - it would peacefully collapse on its own, saving the US the hassle of a war.
Now, if in the next few decades USSR and/or China manage to constitute enough of a geopolitical threat to US, there will probably be a total war, with WMDs of all kinds deployed unrestricted by all sides.
>>29988232
If this type of logic actually existed within imperial leadership, nobody would ever use heavy howitzers/poison gas/strategic bombing for the fear of the enemy doing the same.
It's different in asymmetric/proxy warfare, but in a total war between two empires all bets are off, if you're not using a good weapon or a tactic, you're just helping your enemy to win, and waiting until he himself deploys it against you.
>>29988474
>If this type of logic actually existed within imperial leadership, nobody would ever use heavy howitzers/poison gas/strategic bombing for the fear of the enemy doing the same.
False, and that logic exists, very obviously.
>It's different in asymmetric/proxy warfare, but in a total war between two empires all bets are off, if you're not using a good weapon or a tactic, you're just helping your enemy to win, and waiting until he himself deploys it against you.
Except using extraordinary means may not be called for even in total war, if for no other reason than risking retaliation. Furthermore, it's not usually in your best interest to attack a civilian population mate, both in the immediate future and distant.
Also
>Poison gas
>Which isn't used anymore
>>29986154
>why haven't anyone resorted to its use yet?
Name one recent conflict where a nuke would have been proportional.
>>29988697
Cold war
>>29988721
kek, this guy
>>29988697
What I'm saying is - why not start one? Why, say, wouldn't US attack Russia to secure its water resources and land, and neuter its potential for being a big player? Why not nuke Three Gorges dam, see how high China's GDP is then?
>>29988739
You must be underage. It may look nice to you but I dont really want to get nuked, even if there is no nuclear winter.
>>29988739
>Let's start a nuclear war with China and Russia
>>29988739
Did you make sure to take your meds today anon? We're worried about you.
>>29988172
That's assuming they hit cities. Decapitating strikes designed to be used against other nations nuclear weapons are a thing. That's also why ours were designed with a use 'em or lose 'em mentality, such as Trident being hidden on the quietest nuclear submarine ever, or the Minuteman being able to be fired within a minute of the EAM being received.
>>29988739
>Why not nuke Three Gorges dam, see how high China's GDP is then?
More like
>Let's see the world economy collapse
and
>Let's watch the entire planet turn against us and bother our bum rather roughly
>>29988474
Also, almost every conflict ends officially, but there is still some guerilla actions, terrorism, and continued strikes by factions who might break off on their own. In the chaos of regular conventional warfare, evein WWII there were rogue Nazis and Allies settling scores and continuing the fight in small batches.
Well now those small groups might have tactical nukes, or a sub full of city busters.
What if Khaza-poopistan decides to take advantage of the chaos and nuke Russia just in revenge for the good old Soviet days. Did they get rid of all their nukes or WMDs for sure?
Final orders from the PM on British subs might say the captain has the option to drop on on Berlin for a settlement of WW I and II finally...etc..etc..
>>29988739
>>29988757
What I, or any one citizen wants is irrelevant. I'm talking about the interests of state. Opp explained to me that basically a modern (not 50s and 60s) world war and massive nuclear exchange would not cause the cliched apocalypse (Fallout, Threads, etc). That this idea is simply wrong.
It boils down to all the nukes being aimed at either other nukes/silos/submarines or military installations, and the core civilian industrial factories would be hit with very precise tactical missiles that wouldn't cause any significant fallout.
With that in mind, it is obvious that a nuclear weapons today is a viable geopolitical strategy for a major superpower. Sure, there would be massive military and some civilian loses, the economy will be on the down turn for a while, but that's it. And on the upside you get total and permanent destruction of all geopolitical opposition.
>>29988816
...which they won't, as the doctrine has changed with the improvement of precision in ICBMs
>>2998873
>Minuteman #536, how can I help you mister president?
>"I want you to unload on China"
>I'm sorry sir, I think I misunderstood. A fire mission for the entirety of China, sir?
>"Yes, I have your colleagues working Russia over right now. It's too big of a country, they need to go"
>Alright sir, can I ask-
>"Actually, now that I have you on the line anyways, keep an eye on Europe. Don't want those bastards to get too handy at collaboration"
>>29988173
In 2003 The US DOD said that the SIOP plans for lowering the threshold for use of tactical nukes was considered. They said it was a serious option for "non linear combat actions at home and in the active theatre." (ergo, terrorism response anywhere). However it didn't explicitly say what kinds of attacks.
It wasn't a bluff, but an assurance to scare the crap out of the terrorists.
I wonder if the US response militarily has been reduced because we are under nuclear blackmail right now ?
>>29988819
What world? What bother? Nobody's going to critique a superpower that just obliterated its only real rival on the planet. In fact, I'm pretty sure every surviving world leader and their mother will immediately start waving American flags in a rather exaggerated manner, and the US president will get a Nobel Peace prize. This isn't Civilization m8.
>>29988843
US doesn't need Russia's land or resources, don't be retarded.
It's a hell of a lot easier to just buy resources you need.
>on the upside you get a total and permanent destruction of all geopolitical opposition
You sound like a fucking psychopath.
If the ICBMs start flying, some ax crazy motherfucker is going to pop an anti-satellite missile at the ISS to prevent its use as a fire control platform by the US or Russia. That makes me think that no nation contributing to the ISS is going to start a nuclear war against another member. That pretty much just leaves China to start shit They're a bunch of untrustworthy little weasels who have been locked out of space cooperation for fear they'd steal everything not bolted to the hull.
>>29988902
I don't see a problem with my logic. And US does need resources of Russia, mainly land a water, but also things like uranium and rare metals.
Taking them permanently without the hassle of diplomacy and commerce would negate the cost of the war in the long-term, and ensure complete and utter dominance of the United States.
>>29988916
I think ISS would be a drop in the bucket when we talk about potential costs of a world war.
>>29988843
>It boils down to all the nukes being aimed at either other nukes/silos/submarines or military installations
>Submarines
Please try to nuke a submarine. I dare you.
>and the core civilian industrial factories would be hit with very precise tactical missiles that wouldn't cause any significant fallout.
Or we could use regular bombs. Just a thought.
>With that in mind, it is obvious that a nuclear weapons today is a viable geopolitical strategy for a major superpower.
No it's not.
>Sure, there would be massive military and some civilian loses, the economy will be on the down turn for a while, but that's it.
>Because any of that is acceptable
>And on the upside you get total and permanent destruction of all geopolitical opposition.
No you don't. You don't at all. First, after WW2, it didn't take long to fix Japan. Second, by acting in that manner, you create centuries of hatred against you. Not exactly the "total and permanent destruction of all geopolitical opposition" you think.
>>29988895
>I'm retarded the post.
No country would tolerate such action, they would never allow such unaccountably. EVERYONE would turn against us, and we would lose.
>This isn't Civilization m8.
No it isn't. This isn't the game you think this is, one where you can get away with nuking someone for the lolz. Everything you say is wrong. And we might start out as the preeminent superpower here, but if we nuked preemptively for such idiotic reasons as you suggest, we would not stay a superpower for long.
>>29988697
Tossing a 1 KT Nuke on Mecca not during the hajj. That would get about 8000-10000 mudslimes at prayer on any given day. That would have been equal to WTC 3000 killled, the 6000 soldiers who died in Afghanistan/Iraq/ISIS conflict, and the some 30000 injured soldiers totalled.
Use a surplus airliner from the boneyard from the 2000 era, we have plenty.
They attack our "symbols of economic power", fine, teach them that their religion is pro-warfare and long term genocidal and murderous.
Economic trade and banking is not warfare , people opt to participate in it.
>>29988935
>And US does need resources of Russia, mainly land a water
Why on Earth do we need their land and water?
>but also things like uranium and rare metals.
Why on Earth do we need either of those from Russia?
>Taking them permanently without the hassle of diplomacy and commerce would negate the cost of the war in the long-term
No it wouldn't. It really wouldn't.
>And ensure complete and utter dominance of the United States.
Because only the United States and Russia exist. No one else. And doing that would turn any survivors against you mong, including American citizens. Nuking people is not a good idea.
>>29988935
>US does need resources of Russia
No they don't. The US is massive and doing fine for resources, it's trade deals added on top of that. If you're talking about those dumb niggers who want green grass in a desert city, that's just dumb niggers who want green grass in a desert city. Surprise, surprise. Weather doesn't work that way.
Nuking a country that will retaliate and contaminating a section of the country you're attempting to rape so you can have a new bottled water brand does not mean more water for rich desert faggots. Both parties come out with black eyes.
>>29988963
A 1kt Neutron Bomb, 1 km kill radius, 100m building destruction at 100ft airburst. Thankyou Mr. Cohen for inventing it. Clean fusion nuke, less fallout.
Maybe the families of the 19 Saudi hijackers might be there. Fuck em Curtis Le May style.
Measured response.
>>29988963
>>29989000
What in the fuck is wrong with you people.
>>29988963
Given what Islamic invaders - excuse me, "refugees" - are doing to Europe, we might now be justified in using a citybuster during Hajj.
>>29988963
Perhaps the reason no one has nuked the hajj for 5 digit casualties is because of the backlash from more than 1 billion muslims dispersed across the globe.
>>29988935
>America needs Russian water
You do realise we export water right?
>>29988739
>lets launch preemptive nuclear strikes against other nuclear powers for shitty reasons during the Pax Americana
It's so cute to see the younger millennials here.
>>29989007
Trolls trolling trolls.
>>29988963
>>29989000
>>29989013
>>>/pol/
>>29989015
So we make it seven digit casualties and dial in simultaneous strikes on all their capital cities.
>>29988993
Russia has lots of trees and land and metals, and gold and diamonds. In Siberia its vast, but expensive to harvest. China covets it hard core.
I don't think the Russians will sell it for cheap and divide up the rest of the world with the US.
Those pesky other 180 countries might do long term terrorism to the likes of which never seen.
You can actually get cheap, cheap land grants for single homeowners in Siberia right now from the Russian government. So go there and homestead it techno style.
Looking at Alaskan 20 acres for 6-74k depending on the lottery location. Vets get 25% off. Look it up.
>>29988958
Why don't you agree that it's a sound strategy? Of course there would be losses, but that is acceptable if the long-term benefit is permanent world domination.
Your point about Japan is actually a perfect support to my argument. Before 1945, Japan was fanatically opposed to the US. After it was nuked and invaded, its militarist culture was torn down, and Japan was reshaped to become on the main strategic allies of the US. It's exactly the same story with Germany. Today, these formerly powerful and militant empires have become vassal states to the US through conquest and post-war subjugation.
I also don't understand why would "anyone turn against us". Firstly, even if some leader would hate the US for the war (which they won't, politicians don't think emotionally), he must surely realize that if the biggest player (Russia) was just annihilated by the US, then his odds are even worse. And who would that leader be, anyway? Not anyone in the NATO, that's for sure. Not China - they would be too afraid to be next (and probably will be regardless of their actions).
>>29989044
The globe is covered with Islam bro. You'd have to crash the planet with no survivors.
Nice dubs
>>29989069
>The globe is covered with Islam bro. You'd have to crash the planet with no survivors.
Global nuclear war is better than letting Islam take over the world. We've already used up enough of the planet's resources that it might be impossible to start from zero back to the space age again, and Islam isn't a big fan of offworld colonization. We either put them down and start working our way out into the void or we doom ourselves to a Malthusian end game. We'd run out of resources in a century or ten and over 80% of the planet would starve anyways, followed by endless millenia of scrabbling around in the dirt until our species goes extinct or the sun goes out.
>>29989062
Is that you listerinefag?
I don't blame you, the glider thing was getting boring anyway.
>>29989102
>letting Islam take over the world
It isn't and can't. No one can or has. Stop.
>>29989102
>We've already used up enough of the planet's resources that it might be impossible to start from zero back to the space age again, and Islam isn't a big fan of offworld colonization.
I'm going to need a source on both of those claims.
Also, would you kindly fuck off to pol where you belong?
>>29989111
I thought this as well.
>>29988993
No one that matters, no. Remove Russia and China from the equation, and every other state left is either a subordinate, like Germany or Canada, or a potential WMD proving ground with zero hopes of retaliation. So the rest will fall in line, whether they like it or not.
Nobody would be "angry" with the US, nobody that matters, anyway. Certainly not the people. There would be parades in the streets, Texas will even stop grumbling about secession.
>>29989111
The what now? I'm just hoping Opp comes around, I hope he didn't leave this shit board.
>>29988739
Donald, no need to do that stuff to get elected.
Your current policy changes are good enough.
Have fun visiting KJU btw.
>>29989044
Warn them, the 7 digits might come up next. Jericho or Samson option like Israel. They pick the level of further response. Park a few boomers and surface on both sides of the Middle East .
>>29989129
Listen Listerinefag, I doubt Oppenheimer would even bother replying to you.
No point him typing out a few paragraphs when they'd just boil down to 'You're a fucking idiot with no understanding of the real world or how international affairs and politics work'.
It is nice to have a change of pace from the glider business, but I'd rather you stick to one topic, makes it easier to instantly dismiss a post involving it.
>>29989129
Everything you just said is wrong. For so many reasons.
>I'm just hoping Opp comes around, I hope he didn't leave this shit board.
I hope so too, just so he'd shut you down. Oh, and the reason this board is 'shitty' is because of people like you.
>No point him typing out a few paragraphs when they'd just boil down to 'You're a fucking idiot with no understanding of the real world or how international affairs and politics work'.
kek
Leave it to /k/ to make Nuclear war and 60 million deaths look like reasonable strategy
>>29989102
I don't want to go /pol. Tactically, after all the nuke exchanges are done, there would be a stockpile reserve. As resources get depleted or further causes happen, they will be used easier since everyone crossed the threshold.
No more moral high ground for anyone who participated, or sat on their hands and did nothing.
The mudslimes will go back to the mud, racing camels, and using bolt action guns until the ammo runs out. Then comes the horses and swords just like in 700-800 A.D. where they started their vast vision of the same thing forever. Basically turn the planet into a rats nest, shit in it, eat in it, and move to the next nest that's greener.
I hope the Mudslimes don't get astronauts and interstellar travel. We need to leave them behind in a few centuries.
Fucking day/k/are
>>29989157
I have no idea what you're talking about. As for Opp, I'm pretty sure he would answer if he was around, since he was the one who explained it to me first. Before that, I actually believed in the "nukes will cause apocalypse" nonsense from 1950s pulp fiction.
>>29989176
You people keep trying to bring ethics into this, when there clearly is no place for them within the realpolitik.
>>29989176
Ask Stalin or Mao, or Pol Pot, or the long term ultra rich 1% fist fucking the planet in a slow economic rhythm. If Lenin had nukes in 1920, WW II would have started earlier, and the Cold War wall would have been on the coast of France.
>>29989015
Just Neutron Bomb them all.
We can replace the flora & fauna a year later (minus muzzies)
>>29989203
No really Listerine, we know it is you.
>>29989173
Well, how about you explain where exactly I'm wrong, or, alternatively, leave this thread?
>>29987990
oh come on, what's a measly 60 million people you liberal sjw lgbt numale cuck
>>29989237
Who's Listerine? I don't really lurk here often.
>>29989203
>You people keep trying to bring ethics into this, when there clearly is no place for them within the realpolitik.
Nigger, from a purely utilitarian point of view, starting a nuclear war and killing million of people is a bad idea.
>>29989226
If Lenin had nukes in 1920, the world would be in Pax Russia
>>29988739
the real world isn't a game of civ you worthless fucking manchild
what the fuck is wrong with you
>>29989263
> starting a nuclear war and killing million of people is a bad idea
Explain exactly why, point by point, without invoking morality and/or liberal/humanist sensitivities.
>>29989239
I have. Before. Repeatedly. No country on Earth, including the United States, would tolerate a preemptive and uncalled for nuclear strike against Russia, China, or literally any other country. The attacked country would immediately become viewed as the victim and everyone would rally around them as they all process to annihilate the United States leadership. They would destroy our economy, and when we attack in retaliation, they would rape us with ease. During all of this, the entire civilian population will have begun taking up arms to remove the evidently tyrannical government. Doing what you seem to think is a good idea, would result in the destruction of America you moron.
>>29988843
>What I, or any one citizen wants is irrelevant. I'm talking about the interests of state.
if you haven't noticed, you live in a free republic, and therefore what you and any one citizen wants actually counts for something.
holy fuck, what is wrong with you. are you 12? you have to be at least 18 to post. go back to jerking over photos of bismark.
>>29988895
>In fact, I'm pretty sure every surviving world leader and their mother will immediately start waving American flags in a rather exaggerated manner, and the US president will get a Nobel Peace prize.
>This isn't Civilization m8.
>>29988437
Mmmm. No.
Just because your neighbors are whittling big sticks, doesn't mean you plow through the picket fence riding the 30 ft. log you were cutting down over the last 40 years complete with "Major Kong wuz Here" carved into the side, and roll over them.
>>29989176
Well, WWII killed about 50 million. And the long term effects probably killed another few. Someone strategically though it up, and made it start, and it spiraled out of control. Or did Hitler/Stalin/US/Britain even cared of the consequences? Did they really listen to the people who are supposed to own the real power and control that shit?
So maybe we all had it coming because not enough cared to stop it.
>>29989289
>Resentment, foreign and domestic
>Economic consequences, foreign and domestic
>Environmental consequences, foreign and domestic
>Social consequences, foreign and domestic
>Any other number of things
If I have to explain how these things can have negative results, you're retarded.
Also
>Having millions die is A OKAY because I think it is!
Kill yourself desu
>>29989129
>we killed everyone we trade with
>huge amounts of shit we produce offshore is gone
>we've lost tens of millions of our own people, vital infrastructure is gone and our economy is ruined
>millions of survivors need critical medical care, which we can't give because we're fucked
>let's more to siberia for all their resources!
you're just a fuck up. you're not even a troll, you're not even pretending to be retarded. and you're not funny either so what's the good in you?
>>29989305
Do you have any proof to those statements?
If we look onto recent history, US' invasion of various nations throughout the past few decades have only been met with some sporadic terrorist resistance, which has not influenced its military-industrial complex in any significant way. Thus, we can surmise that the world remained inert in the face of the US invasions (never mind the politicians and their empty threats)
Again in recent history, Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea was not met with a significant economic, and with no military response from the world whatsoever.
If we go further into history, XX century is littered with examples of the world ignoring invasions and military actions of other nations. When Germany invaded Poland, no one batted an eye.
>>29989354
Again, you're becoming emotional. There is no place for emotion in geopolitics.
As for environmental and economic, consequences (or rather a lack thereof) I'm sure Opp would explain it better.
>>29989257
fuck off listerine. no one likes you and we're sick of your shit.
>>29988895
Alright let's take a walk down the crazy road:
>America nukes China and Russia
>severe refugee crises ensues
>global depression ensues
>Europe infuriated by Russian refugees and sudden oil infrastructure
>Global economic embargoes slapped on the US for being a psychopathic regime responsible for more deaths than the USSR and Third Reich combined
>open bounties declared by many in durkastan and third world regions! no longer safe to be American
>riots in our own streets because the president fucking nuked two nations and got us nuked in turn, calls for his impeachment and even execution
>panic all over may be worse than actual nuke damage
>us govt loses any sense of legitimacy
>medical resources stretched
>energy infrastructure collapsed in the short run! how many Americans are ok with losing power or regular blackouts?
Let's not forget the possibility that some leaders in our nation in the aftermath may go rogue, because the president is a god damn lunatic who just hobbled three generations for no reason.
>>29989396
>Do you have any proof to those statements?
Do you?
More nukes have been detonated for "research and development" purposes than currently exist. If the testing hasn't put us in Fallout: Real Life, then thermonuclear war won't do it either.
What it CAN do is cripple an economy and lead to mass scale riots.
One nuke to NYC and let's see your debit card work.
>>29989129
>every other state left is subordinate
And what do you think British or French nuclear SSBN commanders are going to do if you try to turn their nations into "potential WMD proving grounds"?
>>29989119
>It isn't and can't.
>t. Achmed bin Taqqiya
It's got the middle east, about half of Africa, and a big chunk of southeast Asia (Indonesia, and part of Mindanao Island in the Philippines), and it's colonizing Europe one rapefugee at a time. Even Russia and China have been dealing with Islamic rebels for decades. Many of these countries have nuclear weapons.
>>29989147
I think we're waiting until we get enough of our infrastructure moved away from petroleum to do that. Trump's plan for the wall includes an assload of nuclear powerplants and an electric high speed rail network, so electing him is a good next step in that regard.
>>29989203
Ok Listerinefag, whatever you say.
Opp did explain that nuclear winter is bullshit, he didn't mean that nuclear weapons are suddenly something that should be used like conventional weapons.
Just go back to masturbating about armoured assault gliders whilst high off your tits on mouthwash.
>>29989396
>There is no place for emotion in geopolitics.
You're wrong, and considering the emotions of the people is crucial in determining the effects of your actions.
>As for environmental and economic, consequences (or rather a lack thereof) I'm sure Opp would explain it better.
Just go read his posts in desustorage, because Jesus man, you are wrong. There would very easily be consequences. Most of what OPp gave have stating MAD and nuclear winter didn't exist, that the world wouldn't end, and what our doctrine is and how it has changed.
>>29989396
>Do you have any proof to those statements?
WHERE IS THE PROOFS
you started this thread.
the burden of proof is on you to support your position that no one would care, that the president could even order such an attack without being removed, that tens of millions of americans wouldn't die immediately and millions more wouldn't die later, that the american economy wouldn't be crashed with no survivors, that the world economy wouldn't follow it, that any nuclear armed country left wouldn't take retributive action against the us, that any conventionally armed country wouldn't do the same against a now crippled state, that the idea of using nuclear weapons to secure russian resources is in any way, shape or form anything other than completely delusional faggotry, you completely delusional faggot.
you are the cancer of this board.
so cancer, prove your shit.
>>29989381
>we don't need to trade anymore, we take what we want for free, forever
>no need to import, we can no manufacture domestically and provide jobs for everyone, plus the coming automation revolution will render this moot anyway
>population losses will be recuperated, same for industry. negligible in long term, all the while, the opposition is destroyed entirely, there's no competition from overseas in politics, war matters, or economy.
>social consequences
please specify.
>any number of things
now you're just being enigmatic
>Having millions die is A OKAY because I think it is!
please stop being so emotional, you're not helping.
>>29989428
They are already subordinates, have been for decades. They will never oppose US, certainly not after the war.
>>29989417
I wasn't the one to make all these accusations about the supposed horrors of the nuclear war, I'm just here for Opp.
>>29989405
Well, first of all, I've never seen a refugee run though a minefield successfully. Or anyone, for that matter. Secondly, even without border control, finding refugees is not hard, it's the matter of having a policy that allows for their deportation.
Your point about embargoes doesn't stand - even North Korea manages to get by, with all the sanctions slapped onto it. And I don't think anyone would actually ever try sanctioning the US.
>>29988437
He's right. Some cities are built right next to major military bases. Even if it was a limited tactical strike, there would be cities busted. Can you blame the enemy for shortening the trip to the base and have urban sprawl around it?
If your side gets a few nuked cities of say 100,000 to one million people that just happen to be near a missile or airbase, would you consider it the beginning of MAD?
In real time the chaos leading to escalation would be hard to tell. Are those 300 missiles inbound in their boost phsae going to hit cities or the military(with some cities nearby)? You have 5 mins to decide on what launch on warning response to do.
Do you use the SIOP plan? The one determined by a computer whose logic may or may not determine the political outcome of such an action. Would that computer logic just look at value and counter value of targets only?
Maybe you can't trust the AI that was based on the cloud, dsitributed and the internet just went down due to a massive EMP sneak attack. ?
>>29987915
the reason fallout's universe exists is that according to the lore we made the mistake of putting miniaturized nuclear reactors in literally everything, which have gone unstable and degraded following the war
>>29989396
>Do you have any proof to those statements?
Common sense?
>If we look onto recent history, US' invasion of various nations throughout the past few decades have only been met with some sporadic terrorist resistance, which has not influenced its military-industrial complex in any significant way.
Are you genuinely retarded?
>Thus, we can surmise that the world remained inert in the face of the US invasions.
No you can't, that's wrong.
>Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea was not met with a significant economic, and with no military response from the world whatsoever.
Because they actually had a valid claim on it, because a referendum was held, because Crimea is ethnically and linguistically Russian, because because half of Europe was getting ready for war and decided not to because CRIMEA WASN'T WORTH WW3.
>If we go further into history, XX century is littered with examples of the world ignoring invasions and military actions of other nations
>Back when most of the planet was completely isolated from the Western world
>Back when it took days/weeks/months to get anywhere
>When Germany invaded Poland, no one batted an eye.
Yeah, okay. You are retarded. I'm out.
Who even is this Oppenheimer fag?
Is he like an antman but with nukes?
>>29989533
spot the newfag
>>29989405
>>America nukes China and Russia
If anything it'd be America nuking China while Russia either jacks off in the corner or joins in, which invalidates the entire rest of your post because China can't actually nuke us back if we get in a decapitation first strike.
>>29989527
ah yes, the dreaded common sense
top kek m8 keep it up
>>29989036
It's not /pol . The military has to present options to the civilian leader. He has a choice on the political gain, losses ad spin. I am not considering that. But generals, colonels, and tactical operators have to plan for it.
They are given rules of engagement and the threshold for nuke use has been lowered, deal with it.
>>29989436
>Islamic rebels=taking over
No.
>It's got the middle east, half of Africa, big chunk of SE Asia
So shit holes then, not proof that it'll take over.
>its colonising Europe
If you read the Daily Mail, yes, yes it is.
Islam isn't going to take over the world, that isn't realistically possible, although I'm sure you just love jacking off to your own sense of superiority because you know the truth and I'm just a sheep. Right? Gets your winky hard don't it.
>>29989491
>>social consequences
>The entire planet is mad
>Our citizens are mad
>These lead to the US not existing anymore
>now you're just being enigmatic
I'm being mysterious? Or hard to understand? Do you know what enigmatic means?
>please stop being so emotional, you're not helping.
>Stop being so emotional
Stop being an edgy 8th grader
>>29989497
and I may add that the lore makes sense.
early reactors were good, but if you just let them run unchecked for a few centuries, shit would go bad and meltdown, more so with really small ones.
>>29989533
he's a nuclear engineer or something and the most educated nuclear motherfucker on /k/
also he's sarcastic and funny, dude's awesome.
>>29989491
Opp isn't coming, stop saying his fucking name, he's stepped in turds more deserving of an intelligent response than you.
Cunt.
>>29989405
The sad part is that this is the gentle version. Nukes are a no win.
>>29989561
Nuking Mecca and killing all Muslims because 'muh islam is cancer' is pretty pol, and not a valid strategy, or at all k related.
>>29989564
>Islam isn't going to take over the world, that isn't realistically possible
Not by force of arms, no, but through alliances with leftist organizations in Europe and North America they might pull it off. There are already areas of major European cities that are effectively Islamic microstates, completely ignoring the host nation's laws, language, and culture. Please explain Molenbeek if you think I'm wrong.
>>29989491
>They are already subordinates, have been for decades. They will never oppose US, certainly not after the war.
Like fuck they wouldn't. You've just declared global free-for-all by obliterating nations willy nilly in peacetime and threatening the rest.
You would have Tridents coming down across the populations centres on the Eastern Seaboard if you Nuke/threaten London or Paris.
>>29989491
>even North Korea manages to get by, with all the sanctions slapped onto
So North Korean living standards are acceptable?
>>29989559
>I can't respond to anything you said in a meaningful way
>I know, I'll make a pointless remark that in no way refutes anything you've said
>common sense is stupid
Oh lawd
>>29989612
That's why you take out the SSBNs first.
>>29989556
>because China can't actually nuke us back if we get in a decapitation first strike.
We wouldn't get that though, and even if we somehow did, you'd still have at least some of their bombers, subs, and silos retaliate.
>>29989491
Most of our services globally are capital goods also produced in Japan and Europe, or financial goods from NYC and co. After a nuclear strike the financial system is GONE. Kaput. Zip. It's easy to embargo someone when their main exports are toast and their economy was literally nuked.
And also the soviets tried to shoot people trying to cross the Berlin Wall, and the NK maintains a large DMZ with mines on both borders. People STILL cross. They snuck into the American sector in Berlin, people escaped North Korea, no border period is that strong, and the euro border is fucking huge. I doubt there are enough mines on the planet to actually make it super secure. Even the Israelis can't secure their border from tunnels, nor can the American border control.
North kore "gets by" via being a tyrannical state that goes against every single aspect of the constitution, from the freedom of speech to freedom of religion to right to bear arms to the right to equal treatment before the law. They use a deranged personality cult and deliberately starve the populace into submission.
As a side note they are overwhelmingly malnourished, poor, and scrape by in what we would call "tragic poverty". There is nothing to emulate in that. Their "getting by" wouldn't last long come election time.
They also, it's worth noting, have barely lasted 60 years, while the American republic has lasted over 200, and expanded since its inception. The NK have effectively stagnated.
>>29989491
>They are already subordinates, have been for decades. They will never oppose US, certainly not after the war.
Can you prove that claim?
>>29989491
>we don't need to trade anymore, we take what we want for free, forever
ahaha. aha. what? please child, explain how you think that is going to work. that's not proof, that's just saying so. where is all this manufacturing going to come from again?
there has never been a time when no one has traded or needed to trade.
>no need to import, we can no manufacture domestically and provide jobs for everyone, plus the coming automation revolution will render this moot anyway
no you can't most of your major manufacturing instructure was collateral damage and tens of millions of your population is dead. millions more are medical casualties. you can't do shit, even getting the next harvest is gong to be a struggle.
you keep citing opp, he himself said the us would stop being a major power and it would take decades for the economy to recover.
>population losses will be recuperated,
over generations, literally. you know how the birds and the bees work? oh wait, you don't have any experience with that.
>negligible in long term
huh. how long do you think it would take the usa to replace 60 million dead people?
>the opposition is destroyed entirely
you haven't been listening to opp at all
>there's no competition from overseas in politics, war matters, or economy.
quite the opposite
i have no fucking idea where the rest of your greentext comes from.
so where are the proofs you little retard? all i'm seeing is you posting childish shit which doesn't make sense.
>They are already subordinates, have been for decades. They will never oppose US, certainly not after the war.
this is not and never has been true. you know nothing of america's international relations.
>>29989559
holy fuck you're retarded.
let me dumb this down into a bar fight.
its a busy place and theres 3 dudes, sitting at the bar and talking shit, like normal.
suddenly, the biggest man stands up, and knocks out the 2 other men.
now, as everyone else in the bar has seen, even the bartender, this was unprovoked.
what the fuck do you think is gonna happen to the man who punched them?
that's the US.
>>29989436
Yes, make our oil and gas, fix the infrastructure, leave them behind is an easier option in the long run. In the short term, the enemies might attack us again like a bully.
One way to deter a bully is gut punch them so hard that they will not consider doing it again.
The US liberals and some on the right don't have the stomach to deal with real power-control-reaction logic in the real world.
Other countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and most of the Middle East have little value for human life. They will chess piece trade and lose millions to win ultimately.
When the prime opportunity for a small nuke strike or strategically possible first strike massively arises, would they?
>>29989609
It's an isolated area where there's a high level of Muslims, like China town or Jewish areas of London.
People from similar cultures/backgrounds/religions tend to clump together in foreign countries, go figure.
Guess what though, all those other waves of refugees and immigrants? Integrated, their kids soon realised that tits, takeaway and not praying seven times and day was pretty fucking good.
Conversion works both ways, why do you think older fundamentalists are so terrified of letting kids out of their grasp. Doesn't take long for them to stray, its why we should ban faith schools (ALL faith schools, Muslim, Christian etc).
>through alliances with leftist organisations
Who are controlled by the Reptillians right?
>>29989672
>Guess what though, all those other waves of refugees and immigrants? Integrated, their kids soon realised that tits, takeaway and not praying seven times and day was pretty fucking good.
Second generation Muslims are actually MORE likely to be radical than their parents.
>>29989612
Oh, come on, there's a million ways to justify a war with somebody. Russia is no saint, so toss a few wild accusations and repeat them enough, run propaganda campaigns and maybe top it all off with a false flag operation, and the world would think nuking Russia is the best idea ever. They did in the 50s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VBZu6mjAcA
>>29989660
He doesn't know what he's talking about, his brain has been addled by all that listerine.
>>29989642
And do you do this before or after you let them know what you're up to by attacking Russia and China?
>>29989653
>implying us follows the constitution
Isn't the problem with nuclear war is not the possible effects of a full-scale use of such weaponry, but instead the fact there doesn't seem to be a feasible way to end it? Instead, we get what Herman Kahn would call a 'wargasm'.
>>29989672
>>through alliances with leftist organisations
>Who are controlled by the Reptillians right?
Nah, mostly they have ties to George Soros. He's the one who funds pro-refugee efforts in Europe and the Communist fronts like MoveOn.org and BLM in the US. He's an evil SOB who sold out his own people to the Nazis just to save his own skin.
>>29989642
>That's why you take out the SSBNs first.
>Take out the unit that is designed to be dissapear into the huge oceans of the world
>Do it first
>No problem at all
>>29989682
Except the rest of the world isn't as retarded as you are, and other countries would realise the US is full of shit. Oh, and this isn't the 50's anymore you mong.
>>29989695
>Implying it matters when 95% of the civilian population wants you dead.
>>29989679
I didn't say it'd happen quickly, things generally don't.
Nuking Mecca isn't going to alleviate the problem fucko.
You know what will? Stop meddling in the Middle East and stop going on and on and on and on and on about it in the media for starters. You'd think we're up to our balls in terrorists here, more people are killed by their fucking kitchens than terrorists in the West.
>>29989684
i am so sick of that circle talking delusional little motherfucker. he needs to be punched in the head until he just stops. fuck i wish the mods would just ban his faggot ass forever.
he is the fucking cancer.
>>29989642
Please explain how you think we'll do that
>>29989667
the problem with that is, if the US makes mushroom clouds rise, we are now on the MEs level.
you have to understand, the US is seen as a gentleman, someone of reason and class, if you were to personify a country.
isis, assad, whatever, are not seen that way. they are a homeless vagrant stabbing people for listerine money.
so when the homeless pile of shit does something retarded, it'll get arrested, but just thrown in the drunk tank, cause hell, he'll do it again.
now when the gentleman shoots the homeless guy outside of the bar, it all goes to shit.
>>29989682
So your preemptive strike out of the blue relies on a build up of justifications and public support on a global scale now?
>>29989533
He is a true to life nuclear strategist who works in the USA.
I forget all his qualifications but in his threads fantasy is BTFO and facts are held up by sources and reasonable arguments. He knows ten times as much about the actual topic than anybody here just because thats literally his normie job, looking at nuclear strategy and analysis. He surfs sometimes at work but it looks like he is not on today. Keep a close eye on the nuke threads he is always around and has been for a very VERY long time.
>>29989736
THROUGH THE POWER OF WORDS ON THE INTERNET
IF HE SAYS SO, THEREFORE IT DOES
YOU DON'T THINK IT BE LIKE THAT, BUT IT DO
>>29989735
If didn't kind of defeat the point of 4chan and other chans, I'd say that compulsory registration requiring a credit card coupled with a permanent user name would go a long way to ridding /k/ of cancerous shitlords.
It'd be awful empty though.
>>29989666
ok, good logic, but the talking shit part.. Shit as in accusing each other or insulting each other or threatening each other or blackmailing each other?
Because in the real world, that kind of shit is going on between governments, at a high level. They are talking calmly and smiling at each other in the UN while they do it.
Explain, what is unacceptable dialogue, and diplomacy?
>>29989695
>implying I'm not allowed to be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, pagan, or athiest in America vs. NK
>implying I would be allowed to say fuck KJ-un in NK
>implying I would even get a trial in NK for questioning authority via peaceful protest
>implying my parents and children wouldn't also be sent to a gulag because of my actions
>>29989736
'I'd *hick* use computers *takes swig of Listerine* on the ISS, use them to triangulate them or whatever *pukes Listerine along with a few teeth* satellites man, that's why I wear a hat all the time, gubberment spies man, go nano bots int he chemtrails *hick....swig*'.
>>29989764
Don't forget, the ruled swear jar would be filled for charity purposes. That would slow down the crap in the pipe also.
>>29989666
>what the fuck do you think is gonna happen to the man who punched them?
Nothing. If it was a bar in a civilized country, somebody might call the police. Except in your analogy, the bar is the entire world. So, nothing. People would be scared, some girl might ask the bully to stop the beating. That's it.
>>29989764
>It'd be awful empty though.
Probably because all the underagers wouldn't have credit cards
>>29986154
Because unlike WW2 you'd suffer the same amount of civilian deaths in 2 weeks as they did in 6 years.
This thread went nuclear.
How about you OP actually wait for oppenhimer instead of talking?
>>29989736
I assume we've already got SSNs keeping tabs on them.
>>29989764
yeah, i know. a lot of other forums with registration are no better sadly.
>>29989801
>This man just beat two mean senseless
>Now he's threatening everyone else while laughing and twitching weird
>We're all going to sit here and do nothing
>>29989801
except the bully lost an arm in the fight and is bleeding heavily and shat on the floor and now everyone is angry that they can no longer have nice things.
>>29989805
That's the specific point of making them register credit cards.
>>29989845
Nice goalpost moving there m8. Nothing in your original post about "laughing and twitching weird".
>>29989849
Nice addition, handily absent from the original post.
>>29989834
>SSNs
That is 1000% not how that works. That doesn't even make sense. The ENTIRE purpose of these subs is to hide and wait until given orders. That is LITERALLY all they do. Using some to find others ruins the point. And really, how the fuck do you think we found them in the first place? Earth's oceans are frigging HUGE.
>>29989857
if you weren't a fucking idiot you should be able to work out that no one is getting out of a nuclear exchange free. that should have informed your comprehension of the analogy.
you still think that the entire world would sit by at the end of it all and be scared of america. because you still think america wouldn't be harmed at all. you're still an idiot.
>>29989857
Not even my post friendo, just making it more accurate to what you've been saying.
>>29989849
This guy gets it.
>>29989834
>keeping tabs on brit/frog SSBNs
Oh you sweet summer child.
If only it were that easy.
The singular purpose of those boats is to hide until they need to launch. They are the best in the world at it.
They even occasionally collide into each other in the depths by chance, all the while being completely unaware that another submarine is nearby.
>>29989533
Oppenheimer's church. Worshiping the Almighty Bomb and it's holy fallout. High priest for this conflict and for all of eternity.
https://youtu.be/aWPvKxSA7nw?t=147
>>29986154
You're asking why nobody's using nukes... well... here's a counter-question:
What is it you think needs nuking?
What targets would the US, or any other nuclear power, actually need to deploy nuclear weapons on?
>>29989955
Guys. Why bother? OP is most likely an edgy millennial chicken falcon who browses /v/ and /pol/ and thinks real life is vidya gaymes. Of course, he will survive nuclear war, and get to mate with all the beautiful wimminz since all Chads and niggers are dead. In his mind, he's the MC. They get three lives right? And you could always rage quit and restart.
>>29988739
are you joking
>>29986154
The US gubment published its plan on the use of nuclear weapons. It describes the three types of nuclear attacks (attacking military bases with nukes, civilian populous with nukes, or infrastructure objects with nukes)
It includes maps of the most likely to be attacked places and which of those reasons it is likely for.
It also includes appropriate counter nuke strategy. I thought it was interesting.
Plus in reality do you think that china or Russia would actually benefit from dropping a nuke on new York city or even camp Pendleton. It would just send the whole world into upheaval against them.
Not to mention China really has no use for the united states. If they need natural resources they can just buy them.
>>29990336
On a battlefield? An ICMB or a bomb like B-83 is an instrument like any other airstrike such as a conventional MOAB or a B-2 carpet-bombing run.
An advancing armored division or a larger group of enemy forces would warrant a use of tactical nuclear weapon. A strategic weapon can be deployed to destroy an army group or a major amphibious force attempting to make a bridgehead.
>>29986154
Since we're talking about nukes, I thought I'd mention a fun fact.
US military manuals such as the FM-3-21-75 (Individual soldier skills) and FM-7-8 (Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad) make frequent mention of NBC hazards. And it's not like it's just a short section dealing with radiation and such - I found mentions in multiple chapters, like when a proper procedure for building a fighting position is described, there would be a mention of the effects of a close nuclear detonation on the position.
This leads me to believe that the command actively anticipates the use of tactical WMDs on the future battlefields.
If you were placed in a position to start WWIII in order to unite the world under a single flag, would the deaths be worth it? Do you play the long game and simply wait until your culture disseminates itself enough that nobody wants to fight, or do you burn the world down and rebuild from the ashes?
>>29990605
Well, there are a lot of crucial issues in the current world that would be much better handled by a unified government, such as climate change, the automation revolution and regulating Artificial Intelligence. How morally right a war of unification would be is up to each individual's opinion, and those should not have an effect on high-level decision making.
>>29990430
They're also more expensive than conventional explosive.
A lot more.
A MOAB costs 3.5mil per unit.
A Minuteman III costs 50mil per unit, plus another 15mil coming up for modernization efforts.
A B83 or B61 - I couldn't find exact cost figures for those, but it's more than the Minuteman III, so...
>>29990646
World government...
Because the top-down administration of a whole planet would be possible in any kind of productive way?
Look at the fucking UN.
Imagine if those collective heads of knuckle were dictating policy that directly affected you, your city, your state, or wherever you are that's far away from them, which has perspectives, wants, and needs they neither understand, nor care to.
The only thing a world government would be good for is foreign policy concerning ayy lmaos, which is a situation we are not exactly facing a pressing need to address.
>>29990773
Well, like I said, something like a B83 would be used against an army group, upwards 150k troops minus armor and support. The combined cost of conventionally fighting the same force, plus risks like possibility of loosing a B-2 would cost many times a cost of that bomb, and besides those straight costs there is a danger that that army group represents - like winning a key victory while you're mustering a conventional response, and losing you the war. If ROE permit, it'd say a no-brainer for a general officer.
>>29990847
Such a US-lead world government would be nothing at all like UN. UN has next to no decisive executive or legislative power, and is forced to acknowledge several contradictory opinions on every subject, resulting in inefficiency. A US-governed world would only have one ruling body, and its arguments would be backed by the US military.
>>29989736
>
If it was that easy to track and attack all subs at once, the big boys would have stopped making them back in the 50's and 60's. Those things are 2+ billion each to make now. That's a lot of airplanes and tanks. They must be serving their purpose well.
I just don't see a tech to see, shoot, and negate all of them at once. Maybe onesy twosey besides the 1-5 that are in active/passive contact. I hear the US sub commanders used to brag about photographing the hulls of Russian ships, but not very often at all.
>>29990917
That would be all well and good if we're actually fighting an actual army, backed by an actual nation, with enough clout to square up.
We don't seem to do much of that these days...
As for a US-led hegemony, well... /k/ of all places already has beef with the dogshit handed down to us by the feds in the form of all the ATF's bullshit, and some of the FBI's, as well as every other anti-gun edict handed down by the powers that be.
If the federal government of the US governed the entire world, I can't even imagine the shit-show that would be. Be a hell of a thing to see, but I'll be damned if it wouldn't be the same bullshit we have now, but on a macro scale.
>>29989805
First make them going 11b sign up so they see first hand that war and combat is truly hell. chaotic and traumatic at times, mostly boring and drone work.
>>29990353
No, Oppenheimer is not that.
Me: played real sports and shot real guns. Dealt with skinned knees on bicycle and motorcycle crashes. 12 car accident survivor(not my fault)
Grew up in the Cold War, have military family members who carried nukes sometimes.
Oppenheimer surpasses me and has explained things hardly known for many times.
>>29991046
Well, I don't think that the current spell will last. They called WWI "The Great War", and the "War to End all wars. And they probably said that about the Napoleonic wars, and the Seven Year War before that.
And they were, until the next one came along.
>>29991121
I wasn't saying there won't be more wars, but our current crop of conflicts doesn't seem to have a foreseeable use-case for the gnukes, which you had described as being used against a large standing army in some theater of formal war operations.
In order to have a fight like that, you have to have an enemy who *can* fight like that.
The US is the last superpower, and until India stops shitting in the streets and becomes the superpower they say they will be by 2030, we don't really have a even a hypothetical scenario on the modern battlefield that would necessitate their deployment.
>>29991490
Both Russia and China have capability to deploy field armies, as well as a large and growing amount of air and naval power, backed by stocks of WMDs and with more than a few geopolitical interests outside their borders. I'd say there's quite a possibility of a world war, should things escalate.
>>29987915
t. clueless armchair general high schooler
>>29988739
I hate this fucking board sometimes man
>open thread when there's only a few posts
>think OP's kind of dumb but it could still turn into a decent nuke thread
>come back to this bullshit with oppenheimer nowhere in sight
>>29991564
While yes, they could do these things, a world war is really everything to lose and little to gain for those nations.
China has more to gain by making nice, getting paid, and manufacturing all the world's cheap shit.
Russia... while our favorite belligerent Slavs, aren't really much of a military threat to the US. We like to pretend they're still the big, bad USSR (they do too), but we know they ain't even that. Sanctions would hurt them more than any bombs.
>>29991792
It doesn't have to make sense from the leader's perspective. WWI was as unwinnable for Austria-Hungary as WWII was for Germany, and yet both went ahead anyway.
If they have the military-industrial potential and they aren't clear allies - they are a possible threat.
>>29991847
>If they have the military-industrial potential and they aren't clear allies - they are a possible threat.
You realise alliances come and go right? Every country on Earth is a 'potential threat' to every other country. Shit, we were spying on our closest allies for years, and probably still are.
Also
>Underage Bait 2: The Pizza-Face Years
>>29991847
Well, I guess you got me there, but from that lens, any country that's not an utter shithole could be a potential adversary, even parts of our own.
I still don't know, even if another world war happened, if we'd up and go weapons-free on the nukes, but yeah, they very well could be used to remove a good whack of troops, armor, whutev'.
>>29988739
Please consider suicide.
>>29991893
>and probably still are
Most certainly still are.
Alternatively, god knows how many European spies are in various US departments.
