alternatives
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
so what are our alternatives to nuclear weapons and why dont we use them, surely we can make extremely devastating bombs that arent radioactive. because... i mean... nuclear weapons are probably the worst thing to ever happen to our species.
>>30246629
A large enough conventional explosive maybe.
Nuclear weapons use smaller payloads anymore, IIRC. Meaning civilian casualties would be lower
>>30246675
yea but id like to see, some kind of mad scientist come up with a super weapon, kind of like what you would see in a command and conquer game. i.e. a proton collider or some shit. something that would be benign to the environment. the best we're doing right now is point defense lasers, half assed mac cannons, and microwave guns lol
>>30246629
>What are chemical and biological weapons?
>>30246715
those are weapons that are not explosive anon. unless youre talking about napalm or something, which.. i guess could be explosive
>>30246629
We could show the enemy a picture of Hillary Clinton's face.
>>30246629
modern nuclear weapons aren't nearly as dirty as most people think they are
>>30246762
that would only work on uncorrupt governments methinks. probably just give everyone else nightmares. i was about to say something, but i think it would be considered treason, so ill not.
>>30246760
I was under the impression that you wanted an WMD different from nuclear or radiological weapons.
>>30246779
how do you figure? they still scatter radiation throughout the environment and atmosphere. and ground zero would be virtually uninhabitable.
>>30246783
yes non radioactive, but still explosive and devastating
>>30246629
>nuclear weapons are probably the worst thing to ever happen to our species
Liberal Democrats and SJW's are the worst thing to ever happen to our species.
>>30246793
sjw's ?
>>30246792
There are none.
>>30246793
I concur.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sKulBlYqI40
the last detonation in this vid is pretty good, still not big enough for my taste though.
>>30246629
well, the whole point of a nuclear weapon is that the nuclear reaction allows a relatively small bomb to create a fuckhuge explosion. I mean, to create a comparable explosion, you'd need a fuckhuge amount of conventional explosives, or figure out some other kind of magical reaction that can do the same, but without the radiation.
Also, no, nuclear weapons are not the worst thing to happen to our species. They are one of the best things. They've basically created a world that is extremely peaceful compared to the pre-nuke time. Before nukes, world powers were having gigantic fucking wars every decade or two, with massive numbers of casualties and civilian/collateral damage. Post-nuke, the world has slowly became more peaceful, and there have been less and less major wars, especially between major world powers. Much of that comes from the fact that world powers aren't kicking the shit out of each other anymore.
>>30246629
Nuclear weapons disperse far less radation than you think they do
>>30246788
because modern nukes do a much better job of using the nuclear material rather than using most of it then spreading the rest around the detonation site like WW2 era nukes
>>30246788
Even early, less efficient bomb didn't do much of that. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, look at how many radiation-related deaths, cancer cases, etc there were.
>>30246827
tl;dr why do you type things? do you think it matters that you type things?
>>30246827
yes, i agree they have created peace, but that also means the planets population is growing much faster, which is also bad.
>>30246848
i see. still though, no radiation is better than little radiation. and besides, who doesnt like the advancement of military technology.
>>30246715
this
i'd much rather be nuked and die in a flash of fire than try to survive a chlorine or phosgene gas attack attack
>>30246884
agreed, chemical weapons arent very good either. im just saying i think it would be better to drop say 100 bombs that are less devastating, rather than 1 bomb that will have repurcussions for a long time. because even if modern nuclear weapons dont release as much radiation as they used to, the second one country fires one everyone else will too. and i dont think a 1000 nukes going off is going to be very good for anyone.
>>30246877
lol.
First of all, you seriously think that war actually causes enough deaths to keep the population low? not even close.
Also, the population is fine. Don't buy into the crap about "muh overpopulation".
>>30246898
I'm fairly certain that the world has gotten to the point where if one country launched a nuke, nobody else would fire one. I mean, imagine one of those scenarios like Pakistan giving a nuke to some terrorist group who sets it off inside the US. Is the US going to nuke Pakistan??? no.
Heck, I bet that if Russia launched an ICBM at the US right this moment, the US wouldn't return fire. They'd try to shoot it down and whatever, and then Russia would become the villain of all history, the US would become the great charitable saviors who staved off nuclear holocaust by not starting a nuclear war.
>>30246629
>saved millions of lives
>saved untold tens of millions more
>gave peace in civilized world after it was dropped
>worst weapon
It's quite possibly the greatest device ever conceived
>>30246629
Alternatives to what purpose?
Strategic nuclear weapons have some really niche roles such as bunker busting, for which we have the MOP.
For just blowing shit to smithereens we have carpet bombing runs, thermobaric weapons, and incendiary bombs (Daily reminder the Tokyo firebombings were far more devastating than Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
In regards to nuclear deterrence, good question. Outside the realm of Metal Gear, probably something that one-ups the nuke, like matter-antimatter bombs. Biological and chemical weapons aren't nearly as effective at mass casualties as nuclear weapons but still invoke a large international uproar because they're absolutely terrifying.
Pure fusion nuclear weapons (initiated by antimatter, or high-intensity lasers) right now are laboratory scale bulky, so their power/weight ratio is equivalent to ordinary HE.
But if we use antimatter, or wait till high-intensity lasers become more compact, it's possible to shrink them down to almost any size because they don't need a critical mass.
A 1 to 100 ton yield bomb could fit in the palm of your hand or the warhead of an ATGM.
Two big things: pure fusion has no fallout, which is the main problem. The residual radioactivity is actually less than using DU tank ammo.
But there is also still the neutron pulse in the initial burst. It has a higher collateral damage radius than conventional bombs, so using it inside cities is a no-go unless you like giving every civilian and friendly troop inside 1km lethal radiation sickness.
>>30246942
For deterrence (or terrorism, or national self-defence, or really just about everything that isn't conventional near-peer war) smart bioweapons are the next big step.
Imagine a flu that's transmitted normally and harmlessly across populations, but has delayed super-ebola effects on anyone whose DNA is on it's target list. It's like a virus that jumps air gaps or a smart bomb that loiters for months and doesn't need targeting.
>>30246970
Interesting. Although I would doubt cave dwellers would be able to get a weapons grade biological weapon facility.
Personally I think we should drop the fear of nuclear weapons and go back to some of our 1960s-era erection for spacecraft powered by nuclear propulsion -- pulse propulsion, nuclear rockets, nuclear reactor rockets, etc. It could be a neat incentive for disarmament.
>>30246629
>nuclear weapons are probably the worst thing to ever happen to our species
Nigger nuclear weapons are the best thing to happen to our species.
The only reason WW3 hasn't happened yet is because of nuclear weapons.
If not for nukes we wouldn't have had the economic or technological progression that has enabled you to sit around and shitpost on /k/ all day.
>>30246629
This is the worst thing to happen to our species.
>>30247645
i agree, i really hate those kardashians
>>30247645
agreed, race mixing is a crime against humanity
ok, i see you guys point. maybe theyre not the worst thing that has ever happened to out species, we still need an alternative to nuclear weapons though. when open war does break out again. and it will. one side is going to lose. and theyre going to get desperate, and i dont doubt for a second that they would push that shiny red button.
>>30246909
>Heck, I bet that if Russia launched an ICBM at the US right this moment, the US wouldn't return fire. They'd try to shoot it down and whatever, and then Russia would become the villain of all history, the US would become the great charitable saviors who staved off nuclear holocaust by not starting a nuclear war.
That would be hillarious
>Ok, Private Ivanov, today, we bring the USA down !!
>Da, Comrade President. And though millions comrades will die when the yanks hit us back, we shall prevail and make Mother Russia great again !!
>LAUNCH DA NUKES, IVANOV !!
>Going good. A few more hours.
>A little bit more time. We should start detecting the yank counter-strike anytime now.
>Anytime now.
>Why they not strike back, Ivanov ?
>Where are my missiles, Ivanov ?
>What is this faggotery on CNN ?
>>30249552
> we still need an alternative to nuclear weapons though
We have at least two, anon: One is peace. The other is conventional weapons.
> when open war does break out again. and it will. one side is going to lose. and theyre going to get desperate, and i dont doubt for a second that they would push that shiny red button.
And what would your alternative weapon do about this situation? Either it would win the war for them, making it just as powerful and destructive as nukes, or it wouldn't and they'd just use the nukes anyway.
I mean, let's say they invent a magic incendiary, that packs all the Die in a Fire of the Dresden bombing into a payload the size of a Davy Crockett.
Which is the better alternative, anon? If you need help deciding,compare the firebombing of Tokyo to the nuking of Hiroshima. Which one really was worse?
>>30246788
>ground zero would be virtually uninhabitable.
>>30246715
...they're things that are incapable of permanently rendering industrial and military infrastructure unusable.
nukes don't just kill people....they destroy things too.
>>30249552
It's called guided bombs.
Look up Russian generals' commentary on precision weapons, starting with the early thought on recon/strike complexes and terminating in the practical test in their reviews of the first Gulf War.
Because blast effects dissipate as the inverse cube, a 2x increase in accuracy is an 8x increase in firepower. 10x accuracy, 1000x firepower. They literally considered GPS guided weapons more powerful than unguided tactical nukes - because they are, mass for mass.
>>30246629
>nuclear weapons are probably the worst thing to ever happen to our species
One of the best, you mean. They're the reason we didn't already have WWIII. Nukes are the international equivalent of carrying a gun in your daily affairs. They level the playing field and raise the stakes of violence by a tremendous amount, which makes people think twice before using it.
Frankly, a non-interventionalist nation could very well get rid of their standing army and just have a nuclear program, and remain just as safe as they are today, if not more.
Please read the Kearny report nukes aren't as bad as you think. Most radiation will dissapate within 6thmons and go back to normal levels in 5 years. Two of the dirtiest bombs dropped were on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they converted a very mall portion of their fissile material into energy compared to modern hydrogen bombs which are 90 or more percent efficient. Also the USA has only 2000 nukes ready to launch at any moment down from the world ending 88,000 we had during the Cold War. Russia also has a similarly small number to. Also one of the key elements for fallout generation is burst height. Modern weapons are airburst at a high altitude to increase their area of effect. The super weapons you are looking for are dumb anon. They are impractical due to size and energy usage. Why use a proton beam when a hypersonic re- entry vehicle moving at Mach 25 can carry ten tons of bombs. Or better yet Kentucky bombardment systems.
Look anon you are being a bit autistic in your world views. Nukes are great you want to know why because before world war 2 ended with the atom bomb humanity would have a major war every fucking decade. Nukes made largescale war too costly between major powers ensuring that the large nation states would at the most only engage in smaller proxy wars. Also a great replacement for tacticle nukes is cluster munitions such as the m 270 mlrs or fuel air explosives
>>30246629
>Nukes
>the worst thing to ever happen to our species
>NUKES
Try again. There's a little thing called biological and chemical warfare. The results are far worse and far more damaging than any nuke could possibly be.
>>30246629
Physics. Thanks to physical law, chemical bonds will always store orders of magnitude less energy than nuclear bonds.
That was easy. Next question?
>>30246629
>no force/force conflict since invention of nuclear weapon
nuclear weapons are the BEST thing to ever happen to our species
no wait... i miss real war...
>>30247645
The shitskins?
>>30246700
>proton collider or some shit. something that would be benign to the environment
hadron collisions are pretty fucking far from benign.
> nuclear weapons are probably the worst thing to ever happen to our species
the smell of summer is hanging heavy in here
