Realistically
What are the chances of a nuclear war?
What are the chances of North Korea striking the US as of this year?
What are the chances it'll be another world power?
What are the chances it hits the East Coast?
>>30084121
Why are japs so bad about understanding how rockets actually work?
>>30084131
It was the 90's man, no one understood how rockets work
>>30084121
>What are the chances of a nuclear war?
not very high
>What are the chances of North Korea striking the US as of this year?
slim to none
>What are the chances it'll be another world power?
see above
>What are the chances it hits the East Coast?
only East Coast the gook could hit is the Nipland East Coast
>>30084181
Could you elaborate?
>>30084121
>What are the chances of a nuclear war?
Unlikely.
>What are the chances of North Korea striking the US as of this year?
None
>What are the chances it'll be another world power?
Unlikely
>What are the chances it hits the East Coast?
If a nuclear power is going to strike, they're going to either go full retard OR do a limited tactical strike that won't warrant full retard retaliation
Realistically? About 0%
Nuclear war would change daily life for every human on earth. Why would we do this to ourselves?
>>30084196
Pretty much one wants to be the one to start throwing nukes. Even fewer people want to be the ones to start throwing nukes at the US or Russia since both countries have enough nukes to wipe out almost anyone dumb enough to.
NK likes to talk a lot but they have no real ability to strike North America. At best they could hit the southern gooks or nips and our assets there. Yeah Kim likes to talk a lot but he has to realize how dumb it would be to actually initiate an attack.
What other world power would want to open that can of worms? Chinks? Naa, we're a huge trading partner with them and as much as they might dislike us or be annoyed by us it would be really dumb economically for them to attack the US.
Gooks don't have the Capacity to hit the Eastern Coast of the US. Obviously Washington DC/Maryland and Virginia are full of targets and if someone was going to attack they'd want to hit them.
>>30084131
The real question is, do the rockets understand how we work?
>>30084249
>limited tactical strike that won't warrant full retard retaliation
No, any nuclear attack will be responded with more nukes. If the Norks shot off a nuke at anhy of our forces, every nork nuclear capable site will be glassed 10 minutes later. There's no such thing as a "limited" nuclear attack since that is the ultimate escalation of force.
what chinese cartoon is this
About the same chances of OP not sucking dick.
>>30084291
Is nuke thread, not shit waifu thread
>>30084295
>There's no such thing as a "limited" nuclear attack
Sure there is. Most modern exchange scenarios revolve around it. It's one of the reasons the US hasn't adopted a No First Use policy, except against non-nuclear states.
Donald Trump might make a conventional war with China possible, unlikely tho
>>30084121
>What are the chances of a nuclear war?
Low
>What are the chances of North Korea striking the US as of this year?
Infinitesimally small.
>What are the chances it'll be another world power?
An order of magnitude smaller than the above.
>What are the chances it hits the East Coast?
That what hits the East Coast?
>>30084295
>There's no such thing as a "limited" nuclear attack since that is the ultimate escalation of force.
100% not true.
>people are actually replying to this shitty thread
>>30084905
>makes the obviously spurious claim that it isnt true
>no counter-argument
>no facts
>no citations
>nothing
you're on a 9/11 truther level right now
>>30084960
http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=21511
There are only three countries that can start a nuclear war: Russia, China, or USA. The rest of them have pitiful weapons or are peaceful western countries. Now we can say that Russia and USA definitely don't want to nuke each other because of parity. That leaves us with USA and China. China will definitely not want to initiate a nuclear attack with USA because of serious disadvantages and it'll make them look crazy for using nukes for a bunch of rocks on the sea. We are left with USA...
>>30084131
I have no idea what's physically wrong with that clip.. Can u please explain
>>30084974
you left out India and Pakistan
>>30084960
He has had that conversation with retarded trolls like yourself at least a hundred times.
Read a book.
>>30084969
Is it possible that a (smallish) nuclear attack on, say, a suburb of Seoul would not cue nuclear retaliation?
Meaning, if it was suspected the Norks didn't really have much else to throw out, would a conventional response not be an option rather than a retaliatory strike?
Or would it be all bets off, nuke Pyonyang, and invade?
>>30084960
>trying to argue with oppen about nukes.
Welcome to /k/. How has your first day been so far?
>>30085010
>Meaning, if it was suspected the Norks didn't really have much else to throw out, would a conventional response not be an option rather than a retaliatory strike?
Yes. Outside the possibility that the US is aware of some very hard facility that might require a nuclear weapon, the response is likely to be conventional in that case.
>>30085010
My guess is, if they thought NK didn't have anything else to throw, it would be a conventional response.
>>30084994
>India
That meme is pretty funny.
>>30085039
Just to clarify. Nuking Pyonyang would be a high priority in terms of nuclear response to NK, yes?
If I'm not mistaken, destroying capability (enemy nuke sites) is a higher priority than logistic or political targets. In the case of NK though I assume a vast majority of their operational ability is based out of Pyonyang.
What I'm trying to ask is if nuking Pyongyang is maybe a higher priority when dealing with neutering their capability compared to a country like Russia.
>>30085075
Maybe if there's a fear NK will use additional nuclear weapons and they want to go for a quick decapitation strike.
>>30084969
>>30085010
>>30085019
>no links
>blatant appeals to authority
Nah I'm not buying it, fuck you, you're a faggot and everyone who likes you is a deluded little shit. You CANNOT get away with this stuff in the real world, big fucking surprise that you're peddling it on the fucking asshole of the internet.
If you're such a great and cool and smart person, then
1) why can't you give me even just a single fucking link or counter-argument or ANYTHING except this gay "no ur wrong" shit? like just 1 fucking thing.
2) why are you posting here? like who the fuck do you think you're fooling? oh yeah I'm such a nuke expert, that's why I'm wasting my time replying to shitposts on 4chan! duhhhh!
in conclusion, get a job. grow up. quit behaving like a child.
>>30085075
>Nuking Pyonyang would be a high priority in terms of nuclear response to NK, yes?
Not really.
>If I'm not mistaken, destroying capability (enemy nuke sites) is a higher priority than logistic or political targets. In the case of NK though I assume a vast majority of their operational ability is based out of Pyonyang.
With the very limited number of weapon facilities, it is relatively simple to take them out.
Then you can avoid the horrendous civilian casualties that would result from hitting Pyongyang while still accomplishing the same goal.
>What I'm trying to ask is if nuking Pyongyang is maybe a higher priority when dealing with neutering their capability compared to a country like Russia.
For the DPRK, so little is known about their command and control system, that hitting Pyongyang is a crap shoot. You may sever the command and control, preventing further attacks, or it may have no effect.
By hitting the weapons facilities themselves, you can be sure there will be no further response.
>>30085119
>1) why can't you give me even just a single fucking link or counter-argument or ANYTHING except this gay "no ur wrong" shit? like just 1 fucking thing.
I did.
Here: >>30084969
>quit behaving like a child.
Perhaps I could be more like you, and hurl insults and and froth with rage?
>>30085119
So, what exactly is your position here? That any use of nuclear weapons will trigger massive countervalue strikes? 'Cause you know, you didn't provide any sources for that either.
>>30085119
You fucking idiot. He did give you a link. Are you retarded?
>>30085142
>continues to completely avoid the question
I'm out. Have fun, kids.
>>30085142
Get em
>>30085142
kek
>zero
>none
>absolutely zero
>none whatsoever
ITT: tripfags get BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
>>30085161
>anotherdayontheairfarm.webm
>>30085156
>continues to completely avoid the question
By providing you with a link to a book that is titled "LIMITED Nuclear war in the 21st Century"?
Let me quote from the page directly in the synopsys of the book:
>These include identifying the factors likely to lead to limited nuclear war, examining the geopolitics of future conflict scenarios that might lead to small-scale nuclear use, and assessing strategies for crisis management and escalation control. Finally, they consider a range of strategies and operational concepts for countering, controlling, or containing limited nuclear war.
But no, you are correct. Limited nuclear war is clearly not a thing.
>>30085173
Lol. Where?
Where he posted a link and then you got mad claiming he didnt?
>>30085187
>repeatedly falling for bait this obvious
I actually feel bad for you. You appear to be genuinely autistic.
Also, your links don't work.
>>30085207
Works fine for me.
>>30084905
How could such a scenario occur?
Assuming an un-cucked president is in power at the time.
>>30085210
>is informed that his link doesn't work
>continues to say "nuh uh! ur wrong!"
have you ever, I dunno, considered that reality doesn't bend to your will? you actually have to be right about things, you can't just flail your arms and scream all the time.
>>30085207
Worked for me.
>>30085240
>links don't work
But they do.
>>30085207
Worked for me.
>>30085216
Cold War example would be a limited strike on US petroleum facilities by the Soviet Union.
The USSR does not target the US nuclear forces, and avoids firing SLBMs that would provide limited warning, and also limits the numbers of ICBMs in each salvo to avoid convincing the US that a general exchange was in progress.
The US sees the attack, knows that its nuclear forces are not under threat, and is not forced into a "use it or lose it" situation.
They can take the time to assess the situation and develop a response.
That response could be any number of things.
One option would be to do nothing.
Another would be to launch an attack designed to match as close as possible the damage sustained but the US. (60% of US refining capacity has been destroyed, so the attack on the Soviets will try to get as close as possible). This would attempt to deter further attacks by demonstrating US resolve to match the exchanges with the USSR.
Another option might be to respond but with an escalation. This would attempt to deter the Soviets from further attacks with the threat of escalation.
There are many variations and possibilities to the above, and its impossible to list all the options without having a detailed background.
>>30085273
>links
>plural
Wow, you are fucking deluded, retard.
>>30085282
Nah, that's a bunch of bullshit.
Try again.
>>30085282
It's a lost cause, I'm sure his definition of a non cuck president precludes anyone that wouldn't order a full parking lot retaliation strike.
>>30085119
day/k/are, everybody
>>30085286
Uh huh, sure bub.
Keep digging that hole.
>>30085297
You sound like the kind of person that wouldn't believe we landed on the moon if you were standing on it with an American flag sticking out your ass.
>>30084960
> Doesn't know and pray daily for the appearance of Oppenheimer in a cool nuke thread
I've seen the truth of the atom, he is bright and glorious and everything mankind is not! He is like the holy cleansing fire of the sun! MAY HIS LIGHT SHINE UPON US ALL
>>30085360
I bet if this faggot told you we didn't land on the moon you'd eat a mile of his shit just to say that you agree.
>>30085400
If there is no such thing as limited nuclear war, why does this book exist? >>30085279
>>30084121
If the US elects Trump, nuclear war WILL happen.
Oppen please tell me a story on nuclear policy
>>30085282
Now that the US has got rid of its tactical nukes what would happen if Russia took out some NATO airbases or something with nuclear tipped AS-4s or sub launched nuclear cruise missiles?
wouldn't the US responding in kind with strategic weapons be an escalation?
>>30084854
>>30085432
If there is no such thing as Hogwarts why do the Harry Potter book exist
>>30085436
Why? With whom?
>>30085448
Do you know russia has a limited nuclear strategy too?
>>30085445
>Now that the US has got rid of its tactical nukes
This didn't happen.
>>30085448
Harry Potter is entertaining fiction.
Are you suggesting that all the papers and books about limited nuclear war are fictional?
>>30085477
Are you suggesting that all the papers and books about Hogwarts are fictional?
>>30085508
Yes.
>>30085119
nice meltdown you faggot. what did you expect him to give you, a sloppy blowjob?
>>30085455
Everyone. A United States run by a loose cannon bigot is a threat to all of humanity.
>>30085551
>A United States run by a loose cannon bigot is a threat to all of humanity.
Sure thing. Everyone will nuke amuriga cause trump says Illegals must go.
>>30085282
Do you think the 1995 Norwegian rocket incident was as serious as it sounds? Is there a significant chance of a false alarm leading to an exchange?
ITT
>>30085579
It would be pretty ironic if we, the damn Nobel Prize country, were the reason behind a nuclear exchange. All due to some misunderstanding.
>>30085576
That's a human rights violation. Deporting immigrants, regardless of whether they're illegal or not, is equivalent to what the Nazis did to the Jews.
>>30086030
Do people actually think this, or am I just being trolled?
>>30086130
Gary Johnson's running mate does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-fS9l_4-Q
>>30086030
>This nigga
>>30085156
Found the vegan
>>30086030
>>30086030
> Deporting aliens is like the Holocaust
>>30086030
> Make Germany great again
>>30084131
>Why are japs so bad about understanding how rockets actually work?
Rule of cool overrides anything else in animation.
Plus i think there is some magic "at field" involved. Haven't watched it in a long time.
But End of evangelion has some metal ass shit.
Cant find the scene on youtube. But there is one part where the little bitch main character is surrounded and has a pistol to his head. The solider says something like "sorry nothing personal." The military chick comes around drops all of them and holds the guy that was going to execute the 13 year old little bitch against the wall and says the same like back to him before blowing him away.
>>30086230
They're not aliens, they're human beings.
They're hardworking people who just want better lives for their families.
>>30084121
Nuclear war will start when the faction that invented it feels threatened enough to preemptively strike the threatening faction that just doesnt give up, yet has nukes too.
When all the bravado is for nothing because the most stubborn and suffering ones refuse to back the fuck down, when they refuse to submit as the lower ones forever.
None of you shitposting about war know shit about actual war, let alone a situation that kills the internet.
You all die and noting is left of you. the end.
Be as edgy as you want, but you have no idea what you are talking about when you mention nuclear war.
>>30086324
>Cant find the scene on youtube. But there is one part where the little bitch main character is surrounded and has a pistol to his head. The solider says something like "sorry nothing personal." The military chick comes around drops all of them and holds the guy that was going to execute the 13 year old little bitch against the wall and says the same like back to him before blowing him away.
That sounds like a cringefest supreme
>>30084121
imho
If the troll currently kinging it in Best Korea's alcohol induced dementia kicks in he might order an attack. The question is whether or not his generals are stupidly loyal enough to actually go through with it. More likely they'll kill him and start negotiating. If some terror group like ISIS or Al Qaeda gets one they might use it, but if they're smart they'll stash it away someplace and start with the nuclear blackmail ala Spectre in Thunderball.
>>30084988
>clip
>>30086587
The one thing the internet was originally designed to survive was nuclear war. The old school kind where everything goes, no holding back.
You accuse every other anon in this thread of knowing nothing about nuclear war while having no experience in the subject matter yourself.
A nuclear war, of any degree, is unlikely to be the doom of mankind.
>yfw the autist having a tantrum with oppenheimer is whining in another thread
>>30085213
>>30084131
For starters, they're not just rockets, they're fuckhuge rockets bigger than eva units which I'm guessing are around 200ft tall. That means anything larger than your relative size will appear to move slower than there actual size. Also, I'm guessing those XBAWXHUGE missles have a delayed fuse so they can act as a giant battering ram to stun plus size targets. they are built to take out angels after all
>>30084121
>nuke war
very low
>norks attacking us
even lower
>another world power
the most realistic scenario is Russia's Dead Hand shit getting activated
>chances of East Coast
if Russia it will get hit if Chink shit then I don't think so
>>30085282
>a limited strike . . . by the Soviet Union
I don't think so.
http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/05.html
>>30088047
1) Suvarov left in 1978, and in any case was not privy to Soviet Nuclear strategy.
2) The poster asked for an example.
3) Post Cold War documents have laid bare a lot of late Cold War Soviet nuclear strategy, and it demonstrates that, contrary to Suvarov, the Soviets had begun planning for a limited nuclear war as an option as early as 1970.
>>30088105
I see. Thanks.
I got a few questions for Opp if you care to answer:
-If your tripname selection is any indication; do you share the same beliefs as Oppenheimer in his post-WWII time of wanting to limit/reduce/eliminate nuclear capabilities among major world powers, or just to prevent wackjob failed states from obtaining them?
-Obama (at least in public) seems to be saying that we need to reduce the nuclear weapons capability of all countries. Is this a horse and pony act, or do they actually want to reduce the capability of everyone? I'm under the impression that nuclear weapons are the only reason we haven't had major conflicts since their creation.
Obviously I'm not too well versed in the subject, just had some questions. Thanks.
>>30085119
Chill nigga lol
>>30085551
>being this brainwashed
Have fun voting for bernie
>>30088160
>-If your tripname selection is any indication; do you share the same beliefs as Oppenheimer in his post-WWII time of wanting to limit/reduce/eliminate nuclear capabilities among major world powers, or just to prevent wackjob failed states from obtaining them?
No. Oppenheimer was picked for me because I used to just go by OP. Someone suggested it, and it seemed like a good idea.
>-Obama (at least in public) seems to be saying that we need to reduce the nuclear weapons capability of all countries. Is this a horse and pony act, or do they actually want to reduce the capability of everyone? I'm under the impression that nuclear weapons are the only reason we haven't had major conflicts since their creation.
I judge him by his actions on this.
The number of warhead dismantlement has slowed substantially under his administration.
The number of warhead decommissionings has slowed substantially.
He has authorized expansion of pit production at LANL.
His defense spending has more than $1 Trillion earmarked for nuclear weapons programs over the next 10 years.
I would say he is saying one thing for domestic consumption while following the advice of Ashton Carter.
>>30088205
Ah, thanks for the insight. I forgot about LANL; I work with a lot of really old guys that worked there for decades and studied some related materials. I should pick their brains about it one day.
>>30088205
It's a stark change to his early rhetoric.
>>30088348
He has always said that he wants a world with few if any nuclear weapons.
His actual actions do not line up with what he says.
>>30085119
Err, this sort of thing *is* his job. Enlightening /k/ is just his hobby.
>>30085551
I think you felt too much bern, you should have put on some suntan lotion for your protection.
>>30088357
Do you think it's because he's a hypocrite, or because he's realised he can't achieve that in the current climate?
>>30086179
This is why, despite how much I hate the Establishment Republicans, I can't bring myself to vote big-L Libertarian.
>>30088426
Idealistic me is a libertarian, realist me is not, almost entirely because of the libertarian position on defence.
We can't have liberty if someone else is going to take it away.
>>30086473
You mean non-citizens who refuse to pledge any sort of loyalty to the nation they're occupying or its laws.
Or are you the "imagine no nations" type of idiot?
Getting so many people I know claiming the US should apologize for nuking Japan in WWII. Never mind that the firebombing of Tokyo was deadlier than either one. Ignoring the fact that Japan now actively tries to hide their own war crimes and WMD experiments (Unit 731, anybody?). And not bothering to consider that the US was ready to kill just as many through starvation and more bombing raids while blockading the islands. Japan was obviously hours away from surrendering when we dropped the first nuke which was why they didn't immediately give up afterwards, and we ought to apologize for winning the war.
Gah, sorry, the stupid.
Anyway, well aware with the USSR invading Manchuria, the war would have been over in a month or two, anyway. Speaking of which, Oppie, never seen this directly mentioned, but would it be accurate to say a major reason for the US using nukes was to discourage the USSR from getting cute with east Asia and the leftovers in Europe?
>>30088415
Probably because he realizes the need for them, and has to 'sell' it to his base.
That's my take, at least.
>>30085119
autism
>>30088446
This exactly.
My position is a Constitutionalist with strong leanings towards the original intent of the Founders (including the anti-slavery parts that they tried, but failed, to get passed the first time).
Defense is one of the few duties that the Constitution explicitly allows the government to perform, and for good reason. As long as they're needed (which will likely be for the rest of our existence as a nation), an adequate set of nuclear options should be kept viable.
>>30084281
>Humans making bad choices that affect the future of our species.
Nope, never.
KYAGB
>>30088461
Not OPpie, but I'd say no, not really. The postwar lines had already largely been drawn (thanks Alger), and eastern Europe condemned to rape, pillage, and slavery. The questions involving Japan were much more important at the time Truman made the decision--hundreds of thousands of occupied civilians being murdered each month, tens of thousands of US POWs who would be executed in the event of an invasion, More US casualties than in the entire war to date (and millions of Japanese casualties) expected from an invasion after Okinawa, the famine that would have happened if we hadn't fed Japan that winter... there were (kilo)tons of reasons to drop the Bomb, especially since radiation issues weren't really known at the time, and not really any sensible ones against it (most arguments against were made *after* the war, when the KGB was trying to make us disarm).
>>30088461
>accurate to say a major reason for the US using nukes was to discourage the USSR from getting cute with east Asia and the leftovers in Europe?
Yes
Watch the 1995 Canadian docudrama "Hiroshima". It's really quite good.
>>30088461
http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461
This is a good read on the subject
- reasoning for why firebombs were used
- different Intel sources
- Japanese internal talks and talks with the USSR
- the planned defenses and the US invasion plans
- the fight between the branches over invade or siege
- other items such as other targets if nukes were not used.
>>30088448
A bit difficult to pledge loyalty to the US. Your immigration laws are painful to navigate.
>>30088726
Just ordered. Cant wait
>>30084295
>No, any nuclear attack will be responded with more nukes. If the Norks shot off a nuke at anhy of our forces, every nork nuclear capable site will be glassed 10 minutes later. There's no such thing as a "limited" nuclear attack since that is the ultimate escalation of force.
Nigga I know what you're saying, but remember that most nuclear war game theory/doctrine was written during the Cold War, when the US and the USSR had massive inventories of multi-megaton MIRV warheads aimed at each other. Given that extreme end of the power scale, a "tactical" nuclear weapon like those nuclear artillery shells, nuclear bazookas and other shit is pretty smalltime.
More to the point, tactical nukes presume a world in which you can fire them *without* the big shit being fired, because if you ARE hurling around multi-megaton nukes then why bother with the small shit? Instead of nuking one company of enemy troops at a time, wipe out the whole fucking division. The whole section of the frontline. Who gives a fuck?
Problem with tactical nukes is the question of if, how, and how easily it could trigger a slippery slope escalation to bigger and bigger shit. Even if the risk was real small, a 1% chance of FUCKING ARMAGEDDON isn't very comforting. So tac-nukes were always viewed with great caution as well. But the scenarios/potentials for limited exchange do exist. In the modern era, with rouge nations that can ONLY launch very limited exchanges, the potential of escalation doesn't exist, because they cannot escalate at all. Limited strike is their whole wad, once its blown, its blown. No need to glass them; glassing is for MAD or counter-force. They'd be shit out of force, so you can take your time deciding how to punish them, and punishment would probably consist of a tac-nuke on things they really don't want nuked. (Don't wanna piss off China by putting a cloud of fallout over their southern cities, after all.)
>>30085156
Jesus Christ you got shut down hard, retard.
>>30085207
>LOL I WAS JUST TROLLING
WOW. Hey, bro, protip, when you announce you're leaving the thread, it's a good idea to actually follow through.
>>30084334
>shit waifu
