Are nukes even all that bad?
Yeah, sure, the radiation and shit, I got it, that sucks, but it's not like it lasts forever. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki today. Hell, look at the nature around Chernobyl. It's not like a nuke turned the places into permanent wastelands.
So why the taboo on nukes?
Is being killed by conventional means any less deadly than being killed by a nuke?
Not as bad as the movies and media portray them, but that being said weapons we have today are literally millions of times more powerful than those pathetic little firecrackers we dropped on the Nips.
>>30388495
it's not that, it's the collateral damage and destructive power. No battle could be fought in any mostly unpopulated area with the threat of these things because the opposition would just bomb the shit out of it. That would force wars to take place inside of cities and places with civilians. It's just a bad idea to allow nukes to be used in war.
Using one nuke takes the gloves off. If it is a recognised nation state that takes the gloves off then they ought to expect to cease to exist.
Such is the use of nukes.
>>30388495
Nukes were created during a time when it was okay to kill women and children in bombing. Bombers just weren't that accurate, so if a Jap or Kraut baby was killed in a bombing, who cared? Collateral damage, it's their own damn fault for being born a Jap or Kraut! Well, times have changed and we don't think like that anymore. You can't kill anyone without looking like the bad guy. Nukes are now useless for those who have them (Outside of Iran, North Korea, etc.) because they can no longer kill indiscriminately without losing major influence on the world stage.
So there's not so much a taboo on nukes as a understanding that they'll harm your side (morally) as much as they harm the other side (physically)
>>30388548
But two nukes have been used already by a recognized state.
>>30388548
There is an escalation process.
Cold War. Pew pew pew. ;)
>>30388569
>Kill Radius is BIGGER than the launcher's firing range
Why America?
>>30388560
The third one might make for interesting times for all.
>>30388575
No it wasn't. The problem came if you shot it upwind, you would be hit by fallout.
>>30388577
Technically the third one was Nagasaki, but I guess most people don't count Trinity, do they?
>>30388575
To protect Europe from ruskies just sending a gorillion tanks through the Fulda Gap
>>30388583
Or if you didn't have a shell scrape to hand.
Duck and cover was in the handbook.
>>30388586
Nuking yourself doesn't count.
Many countries have tried that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
>>30388594
>Nuke the Fulda Gap
See, that's what I've always wondered, sure a nuke in the Gap would stop that first wave, but unless you're going to be constantly nuking it, other waves will be able to pass through just fine, right?
As long as you march straight through (skirting the epicenter of course), you should be able to get through a blast zone without too many radiation complications, yes?
Or am I misjudging how much radiation a nuke creates?
>>30388495
>So why the taboo on nukes?
The infrastructure damage caused by the explosion has a huge effect on your economy, as well as your ability to govern areas that have been subjected to nuclear attack.
>>30388549
>So there's not so much a taboo on nukes as a understanding that they'll harm your side (morally) as much as they harm the other side (physically)
If you have to use nuclear weapons, what other people may think of you after the fact doesn't matter.
>>30388615
You hit the forward troops near the battle area, and also logistical targets in the rear. This halts the advance and makes it difficult to bring up reinforcements.
>>30388495
they are over exaggerated, especially the ones we have, sure you could make ones that are fucking huge as shit, but most of them are like large bombs, nothing more, they aren't some magic thing that kills everything everywhere, they just go boom
Too pure for this world, too beautiful
https://warisboring.com/no-you-cant-have-a-small-nuclear-war-67af859bb1e5#.j76mvfeva
>>30388869
sigh
>>30388895
Get out of here Death, Destroyer of Worlds
>>30388560
at a time when nobody else could retaliate with nukes
>>30388801
Just boom.
Everything in this picture has been "retired".
>>30388913
Japan has never had nukes, so that doesn't really change anything.
>>30388923
If you start shooting something these days then someone else will get upset with you. If they can retaliate with the same level of force then they will.
WW1 started with Archie Duke getting shot btw.
>>30388938
>>30388940
I'm confused. Even if we give the Russian nukes in 1945, you actually think they would have responded with a nuclear attack if the Americans had gone through with their own attacks on Japan?
You realize Russia was also at war with Japan in 1945.
>>30388669
Thanks for enlightening us, Nuke God.
Any good books I can get to learn on all of this stuff?
>>30388804
Is the warping on the photo just damage from age or from the nuke itself?
>>30388952
You stupid ass nigger, NO ONE ELSE HAD NUKES. NO ONE COULD COULD RETALIATE EVEN IF THEY WANTED. EVERYONE WAS AFRAID OF THE NEW WEAPON. KEYWORD NEW, IT WAS A NEW FUCKING WEAPON.
>>30389469
Yes, yes, but you're implying that had others had nukes, they would have responded with a nuclear attack just because American attacked Japan with nukes.
I'm not arguing the possession, I'm arguing the intent. No one would go to nuclear war with another nuclear country on behalf of a third nation.
>>30389534
You're a retard
>>30389553
1945, every nation has the bomb that has it now (America, Russia, China, etc.) and America bombs Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You think ANYONE attacks America with their nukes in response?
>>30388523
so hard
>>30388923
>that doesn't really change anything
Just like your post!
>>30388597
>Duck and cover was in the handbook.
Pretty much all you can do. Most deaths from a nuclear blast are from blast and the heat wave, so ducking and covering is the best expedient defense against that if you don't have time to get anywhere else
>>30389714
If you're close enough you need to duck and cover to survive the blast then you're already close enough to receive a large enough dosage of radiation that you're going to have complications, if you're not dying outright within a month.
Might as well just blow your brains out.
>>30388895
Holy shit Oppenheimer is alive. Been awhile since I've seen you on.
>>30389845
I've been around
>>30388615
We had a lot of the small tactical nukes. The idea was thr Soviets would send multiple divisions at once, and (on top of the plane dropped bombs and ICBMs) there'd be at least one Davy Crockett shot at each battalion. So, 4 battalions per brigade, 2-4 brigades per division, 2-5 divisions=32-80 tactical nukes just on the first wave (on top of the multi megaton bombs and ICBMs).
So, yeah, there wasnt going to be the ability to skirt the epicenter.
>>30388917
They retired ladders?
>>30390978
And wheels, can you believe it?
>>30391113
That's such a shame.
Everyone try this website.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Nuke your hometown, see what happens.
>>30388801
Well i mean in a lot of tests the blast turned all the sand into glass. Look up how much heat you need to turn sand into glass.
>>30391626
Or you could ask this guy, newfriend. >>30390202
>>30388801
>but most of them are like large bombs
yeah, they're large bombs, as in 250 000 T bombs, or two hundred and fifty million kilograms of tnt. so sure, 'large'.
i am not sure you understand the scale you're talking about here.
>>30391772
Naw I see what he's saying.
The point is is they operate on the same principles as every other bomb except with radioactive fallout added. In the movies, those physical laws are exaggerated to the point of absurdity.
It's in a similar vein to when you see someone throw a grenade in a movie and it creates a huge fireball that blows people back and takes down a building.
>>30389568
MAD you dumbass
>>30392773
MAD only works when conducting a nuclear attack on another nuclear nation. It doesn't apply to an attack on a non-nuclear nation with no nuclear allies.
You dumbass
>no mention of operation plowshare
You niggas gotta go read a book
We could have a LOCKLESS PANAMA CANAL - A STRAIGHT RIVER FROM OCEAN TO OCEAN - but nooOOO they had to shut it down because of 'radiation concerns'.
>>30388895
W-what is the problem here?
>>30392773
in 1945?
apparently you are so ignorant of history that you don't realize that ALL of those countries were military allies in 1945, and ALL of them were fighting japan
so why the fuck would these allies nuke each other for nuking their declared mutual enemy while they were still fighting that enemy?
BECAUSE MAGIC SPECIAL HEAD-CANNON THAT'S WHY
you fucking tool
>>30388575
>Davy Crockett
Remember the Alamo
>>30392986
Kuabara Kuabara?
>>30388495
Launch enough nukes and the skies will be darkened for long enough to end most life on this planet. Nuclear disarmament has to happen. I propose we have NASA built interplanetary MIRVs and just nuke mars to shit.
>>30393101
>Launch enough nukes and the skies will be darkened for long enough to end most life on this planet.
What a crock of shit
>>30392934
>warisboring
The last thing anybody should ever do is take the advice of liberals regarding the defense industry and matters of warfare.
>>30393165
What're you on about? The liberals just want to keep a war going, just hard enough, that the enemy isn't significantly reduced in power, and we can keep the fighting going for several decades. Just like the conservatives.
Hehe
Up shot knot hole
>>30388520
is that the heat igniting everything then the shockwave from the blast?
>>30393273
Yes. Thats the thermal pulse.
>>30389714
>>30389839
Nobody seems to understand duck and cover.
Its not going to protect you from a near hit but nobody expected it to.
It was to prevent unnecessary casualties from the flash and flying glass from the windows. People at ground zero are going to die either way, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki had thousands of preventable injuries including blindess.
Because if one gets used, THEY ALL GET USED.
It's a "cats out of the bag might as well" all or nothing thing.
>>30393640
I dare anyone to find a dumber post than this one.
>>30393785
in this thread or over all of /k/?
>>30393795
All over /k/
>>30394018
i feel you're setting the bar kind of low here
>>30394018
I support gun control.
>>30394048
Fuck yourself
>>30394086
He asked for a dumber post. I gave him one. Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers.
>>30394048
Thats cheating. You cant make some stupid post with the full knowledge of the challenge and the intention of winning.
You have to find a post that was earnest somewhere on this board that is dumber than that guy's.
>>30394104
Thats not really the spirit of the challenge now is it?
>>30394108
>>30394113
Ok, I'll go out and search.
Bay of pigs alt history
Kennedy goes ahead with invasion as planned
10,000 marines storm beaches of cuba
Cuba uses the artillery based tactical nukes it has
7,000 US casualties instantly
USA nukes havana and engages russian fleet
>limited nuclear exchange
>unlimited nuclear retaliation
With mammals extinct scorpions battle spiders for supremacy
>war never changes
>>30394131
Godspeed.
>>30394131
Welp
You didnt have to go too far. This guy wins >>30394153
>>30394108
>How would centaurs be utilized in a modern military /k/?
>>30382432
just lol at not wanting a nuclear war
>>30394203
Ok well you get to pick. Yours?
Or this moron's >>30394153
>>30394312
i'd say centaurs, given they don't even exist
we could keep this game up all day though. another round?
I touch w88s every day. So yeah, they aren't too bad
>>30394595
Bullshit
>>30388575
To save germany from the russians at the gap..... And get rid if some left over nazi too.
>>30388575
>repeating this dumb meme that can be debunked with 20 seconds of Googling.
>>30392934
Beyond War is Boring?
The scenario they tested has the Soviet side being incredibly dumb and choosing to commit nuclear seppuku at the first sign of a nuclear attack... Their entire article is based on the people they chose to pretend to be the Soviets being morons.
The fact is the enemy "government" should have been briefed on nuclear warfare theory and should have had staffers who are experts in the area on hand. I think there is no doubt given how closely the political and military leadership were aligned in the USSR that would have been the case in Moscow. Instead it sounds like they took amateurs who had been fed the MAD bullshit for many decades and had them play pretend.
>reading this thread as a physicist
I can't tell you about the economic or political implications of using nuclear weapons, but I can assure everyone in this thread that none of you have even the faintest shred of an idea of the kind of energy that is released during a nuclear explosion on even the kiloton scale, and the kind of implications of such an event. There's a reason NORAD is under a literal mountain.
You can't use them because, despite what some of the posters here said, we know from history that if one of us starts using them commonly, everyone will. This has been the case with every other weapon in history, every atrocity committed during wars. The primary difference being that there is no other extant weapon that can utterly eradicate an entire city's worth of people at a time (inb4 people try to insist there is--there is not).
You do not simply employ a weapon that could quite literally eradicate humanity. You don't even take the chance. Anyone who says things like "we should just nuke them!" is demonstrating a profound ignorance of the ramifications of using such a device. The reason MAD exists is because your governments actually understand this, and realize the only reasonable time to use nuclear weapons is if an enemy has used them first, because--at that point--you're fucked anyway.
>>30395391
The slippery slope here is quite astonishing.
But I guess your major was physics, not logic, yeah?
>>30395431
>catchphrase, buzzword logic fallacies
>thatll teach 'em!
Please stop, your personal misinterpretation of logic holds about as much water as a colander.
How long after a tactical nuke is detonated until the area is safe for human inhabitants again, assuming you let nature so the work and send in no clean up crews?
>>30395460
What a refutation.
Your entire argument is nothing more than "Things can't be different for different cases"
>>30395391
> that could quite literally eradicate humanity
The problem with physicists is that, frequently being socially incompetent autists, they fall for cold-war era propaganda because it sounds good instead of doing the basic physics they ought to apply which disprove it.
Shit, you probably take Carl Sagan seriously after the Gulf War oil well fires.
>>30395391
>There's a reason NORAD is under a literal mountain.
because there are nukes. not nuke. notice the s. plural.
>if one of us starts using them commonly
we used them twice. on major cities, even
>You do not simply employ a weapon that could quite literally eradicate humanity. You don't even take the chance
we did. twice.
>>30395391
Good thing your a physicist and not a military leader then.
Your argument is crap. Also, when did we have a historical example of using a nuclear weapon leading to a nuclear holocaust?
>>30395556
>we used them twice. on major cities, even
Using nukes back then when the US was the only nation to have them is no where near comparable to today, when almost every major power has nukes.
>>30395484
>>30395530
>>30395556
>>30395557
>armchair experts believing they are authorities on anything
People like you are why no country practices direct democracy as a primary form of government. You are the people who vote to leave the EU and then go home and google search what the EU is.
>>30395630
Holy shit, a voice of reason appears. Prepare to be shouted down by the ignorant few who believe their internet circle-jerk to provide a forum of intellect, authority, and credibility.
>>30395669
Well, if you'd been paying attention, you might have noticed that we have an honest-to-goodness nuclear planner from a think tank in this thread.
If you intend to stand on your background as a physicist to promote your theories, perhaps you might first pay some attention to somebody who actually does this stuff for a living?
Or is it just easier to read Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and listen to NPR, without actually doing the math yourself?
>>30390978
I hope so. I hate ladders.
>>30388495
>Are nukes even all that bad?
>A couple of nukes here and there
no
>50,000 nukes or whatever it was at the height of the cold war
yes
>>30395727
please ignore the trolls
>>30388495
>>30388801
If you think nukes are anything less than a total game-changer you're completely clueless.
Once upon a time, war was something that made sense in some circumstances. It was possible to wage war and gain from it. It was possible to conquer land and people and suffer only minor damage to one's own country.
This is no longer the case. Had the Warsaw pact and NATO fought WW3, it would have been unlike any other war in history. Both sides would be completely and utterly annihilated. There's no winner.
Modern nukes generally fit into 2 categories - countervalue and counterforce weapons. The counterforce weapons are the smaller, more accurate ones designed to take out enemy nukes. Those ones aren't necessarily civilization ending. It's the countervalue nukes that are the game changers.
These countervalue weapons can destroy entire metropolitan regions. They'll use MIRVs so that one missile can have 12 warheads. Each warhead will be a few megatons. Just one of these weapons would wipe out NY, when I say NY I mean Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Long Island, even much of NJ. Gone. With one fucking missile. The explosive power of the weapons will knock out almost all infrastructure, and the thermal energy will set the entire region on fire. Everything that can burn will burn.
Think about that. Even if you just got knocked out and cut and got a broken leg... how the fuck would you survive? There are no hospitals, there's no electricity, no running water, no sewage... no heating, no A/C, no hospital equipment will work, ambulances are gone and usless anyway because all the roads are gone, covered in rubble... almost all the paramedics are dead anyway.
Just think about it. Even if you weren't injured. Even if the radiation dose you got wasn't lethal, but just enough to make you sick...how would you survive? Again, there's no water, there's no food. All the crops are dead, all the farmers are dead, there's no gasoline
>>30395071
It's true. Missile technician, US navy. There's like 200 of us total or some crazy low number. Mainly in charge of maintenance of the Trident II D5 missile. Interesting stuff
What's even more interesting is the case of Wen Ho Lee, the guys who stole the plans and gave them to China. When America tried doing something about it, we choked so hard he ended up suing the damn country and won!
>>30396138
cont:
There's no fuel to run farm equipment, there's no fertilizer. Food production drops off to nothing. Combine that with no electricity or medicine, and basically your civilization comes to an end.
Now, I'm not saying nukes would make the human race go extinct. Even if we blew up every single nuke on the planet at the same time, it's very unlikely all humans would die. But it would end civilization as we know it. Maybe 1%, maybe 5%, maybe even 10% of humanity would survive a full scale nuclear war, but most of them would revert to a pre-industrial standard of living.
>>30396165
>But it would end civilization as we know it. Maybe 1%, maybe 5%, maybe even 10% of humanity would survive a full scale nuclear war, but most of them would revert to a pre-industrial standard of living.
Try 50%, in the WORST case scenario.
Come on man, you really think Humanity has the ability to kill 9 out of every 10?
>>30396191
in a full nuclear exchange? Yes, upwards of 90% could die. Did you read my post? Most would die from injuries and illness and living in a medieval world
>>30396211
>Medieval
What books have you been reading that you think we have anywhere near the number of nukes needed to do that to the entire world?
Try reading On Thermonuclear War by Herman Kahn
Full nuclear exchange would be horrifying, but not as apocalyptic as a full civilization step-back.
>>30396265
Everything I said was accurate with regard to Russia and the US. Would Australia or South Africa suffer this much? No.
Russia alone has over 100 MIRVs and 800 MT countervalue weapons, in addition to hundreds more Kt counterforce weapons. If even 50% of those hit the US, in addition to a conventional weapons invasion, yes, 90% could easily die
>>30396283
>Everything I said was accurate with regard to Russia and the US. Would Australia or South Africa suffer this much? No.
But you'll still stand by your earlier NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN HUMANS figure?
>>30396025
>>30396296
sorry I should have said for the combatants involved.
All of Europe and N.A, fucked. India/Pak fucked, much of China fucked
so it depends who has nukes and who does not
>>30395391
>You do not simply employ a weapon that could quite literally eradicate humanity.
Are you being hyperbolic intentionally?
>>30396138
>There's no winner.
How do you define winning?
>Modern nukes generally fit into 2 categories
Incorrect.
Nuclear weapons are not split into categories in that way. It is the attack options that determine the nature of a weapon.
W76's were tasked with air defense suppression in some attack options, and in others with E95 designated ground zeroes.
>Each warhead will be a few megatons.
There are no MIRVs with multi megaton warheads in service.
>Everything that can burn will burn.
Not accurate.
The thermal effects from Glasstone et al were found to be overstated.
>>30396146
>What's even more interesting is the case of Wen Ho Lee
He didn't give them anything of value.
>>30396165
>But it would end civilization as we know it. Maybe 1%, maybe 5%, maybe even 10% of humanity would survive a full scale nuclear war, but most of them would revert to a pre-industrial standard of living.
Most targets are far from urban areas.
Most cities will be physically undamaged from weapons effects.
>>30396283
>Everything I said was accurate with regard to Russia and the US
Not much of what you have said with regards to weapon effects has been accurate.
Oppenheimer, as I understand it what happens is if a country nukes another country shits on like donkey kong, but what happens if a country nukes itself - in an aopefully limited capacity- to counter invasion?
I think world in conflct had that scenario, russia invades us, us cant quite beat it back so drops a nuke on seattle or something like that.
>>30396346
>There are no MIRVs with multi megaton warheads in service.
IIRC the US doesn't have any multi-megaton warheads in service, with the remaining stockpile of multi-megaton nukes (which were all air drop weapons) have been dismantled.
>>30396377
s/with/and
>>30396368
>counter invasion?
It would be escalatory, and the opponent is faced with three broad options.
1) Halt or withdraw to prevent escalation.
2) Respond proportionally to the attack (tactical warhead at a military unit.)
3) Escalate in an attempt to demonstrate resolve and deter further nuclear weapons uses.
>>30396346
what your'e saying is accurate if a nuclear exchanged happened today.
What I'm saying is accurate if a nuclear war happeend 5 years from now, following diplomatic breakdowns and a small buildup of weapons. You seem to forget that it's unlikely a nuclear war will happen this year. I'm talking about a scenario where a nuclear war would actually be likely, such as 5-10 years from now.
Do you know how quickly the US could build mt MIRVs? Give the US military 1 year and they could easily triple their stockpile of weapons. Don't fucking kid yourself.
You feel safe because our stockpile as of June 25 2016 wouldn't wipe out every major nation on earth? It woudl take only a few years of bad breakdowns in diplomatic relations and a buildup of forces for that picture to completely change.
>>30396377
>IIRC the US doesn't have any multi-megaton warheads in service, with the remaining stockpile of multi-megaton nukes (which were all air drop weapons) have been dismantled.
Or awaiting dismantlement.
>>30388615
>Or am I misjudging how much radiation a nuke creates?
you are misjudging the idiocy of Russian tactics.
>Da Ivan, keep sending new recruits to that German machinegun nest. eventually they will run out of ammo or one of our little peasants will actually hit something.
>>30396394
I see, thank you. Would there be any communication between the two sides such as "stop invading me or i'll set off a nuke" or would the first they know of it be either the detonation or their intelligence indicating such?
Also can you recommend any resources to read further into nuclear conflict.
>>30396404
>What I'm saying is accurate if a nuclear war happeend 5 years from now
No its not.
>Do you know how quickly the US could build mt MIRVs?
Yes.
>Give the US military 1 year and they could easily triple their stockpile of weapons.
Nope.
Near term pit production is 30-50 per year.
Thats if they use a design that's in production. If its a clean sheet design, which they would most likely have to do, then production is even slower.
If the US wanted multi megaton MIRV warheads it would take at least 5 years and a resumption of a testing program.
>You feel safe
Nope.
>because our stockpile as of June 25 2016 wouldn't wipe out every major nation on earth? It woudl take only a few years of bad breakdowns in diplomatic relations and a buildup of forces for that picture to completely change.
Unlikely for the reasons stated above as well as the lack of launchers that could be returned to service.
>>30396418
>Would there be any communication between the two sides such as "stop invading me or i'll set off a nuke" or would the first they know of it be either the detonation or their intelligence indicating such?
Depends. It is possible that the side that is thinking about it will attempt to warn the other guys, but then its also possible that they would not want to. Depends on the exact circumstances.
>Also can you recommend any resources to read further into nuclear conflict.
I have a reading list I'll try to find for you.
>>30396470
>I have a reading list I'll try to find for you.
Thank you.
>>30396418
>Also can you recommend any resources to read further into nuclear conflict.
On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner
The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan
Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérèse Delpech
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser
Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang
Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford
>>30396470
okay so extend it to 10 years.
The OP was talking about nukes in general. He didn't ask if Russia could wipe out American agriculture today.
Everything I said is accurate. In a full-scale exchange where both sides launch thousands of MT warheads, what I said would happen, will happen.
Nukes are a game changer. Everyone who survives the bombing dies quickly due to no electricity, food, water, or medicine.
>>30396404
>You feel safe
Why do you think I'm up at 1AM?
>>30396368
REMEMBER CASCADE FALLS
>>30396470
>If the US wanted multi megaton MIRV warheads
I can't think of a realistic scenario where we would.
>>30396494
Fuck, and here I was thinking I was the only person to have ever played that game
>>30396487
What if we used magic to counter-act the effects?
What then?
>>30396470
Your own source claims that Russia, as of right now, has 525 ground launch vehicles with 1800 warheads in total, in addition to 55 bombers carrying another 200 warheads, and another 200 on submarines.
Even if the ground launchers could only fire two rounds, getting off 1000 of their warheads instead of 1800, that would be 1400 nuclear weapons headed for the United States.
I don't care if those weapons are "small" .25MT warheads. 1400 of them would be enough to make the United States as much a part of the world as Babylon. It would exist only in the history books.
>>30396487
>Everything I said is accurate.
Only in your carefully crafted world of head canon.
>In a full-scale exchange where both sides launch thousands of MT warheads, what I said would happen, will happen.
And in my world Cybernetic Grover Cleveland from the past uses his mystic amulet of Missile Defense to destroy the Russian missiles.
In the case of cybernetic Grover Cleveland showing up, what I said would happen would happen.
Both of those scenarios are equally probable.
>>30396413
Can you tell us more about soviet tactics?
>>30396522
In January 2016 Russia was estimated to have 525 strategic launchers and about 1800 nuclear warheads. In its September 2015 New START data exchange Russia reported 526 deployed launchers with 1648 New START-accountable nuclear warheads.
The Strategic Rocket Forces were estimated to have 299 operational missile systems that include missiles that can carry 902 warheads. These include 46 R-36M2 (SS-18) missiles, 30 UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) missiles, 72 road-mobile Topol (SS-25) systems, 60 silo-based and 18 road-mobile Topol-M (SS-27) systems, and 73 RS-24 missiles.
[Strategic Rocket Forces...]
The Russian strategic fleet includes 10 operational strategic missile submarines with SLBMs, whose missiles can carry 160 missiles with 704 nuclear warheads. Five operational Project 667BDRM submarines are based in the Northern Fleet. These submarines carry 80 R-29RM (SS-N-23) launchers. One Project 955 submarine with 16 Bulava SLBMs on board is also based in the Northern Fleet. The only remaining Pacific Fleet base hosts two 667BDR (Delta III) submarines, which carry 36 R-29R (SS-N-18) missiles and two Project 955 submarines with 32 Bulava SLBMs.
[Strategic fleet...]
The Russian strategic aviation consists of 66 bombers that carry an estimated 200 long-range cruise missiles and bombs. The bombers are 11 Tu-160 (Blackjack) and 55 Tu-95MS (Bear H). The bombers can carry various modifications of the Kh-55 (AS-15) and Kh-101 cruise missiles and gravity bombs.
[Strategic aviation...]
In November 2015 Russia launched the first satellite of the new-generation early-warning system, EKS. The satellite is currently undergoing tests.
[Early warning and defense...]
>>30396497
>I can't think of a realistic scenario where we would.
Me either.
>>30396520
>>30396538
>1800 warheads in total
450 Minuteman silos. 2.5 Warheads per Silo. (Note that the LCCs are not targeted in this scenario. You will see why)
Barksdale, Minot Air Force Bases: 6-8 warheads per base.
Peterson, Offutt, CMOC, CFB Winnipeg: 4-6 Warheads per base.
EW and Command and Control infrastructure: numerous targets, total of 250 warheads.
SSBN facilities, and Naval Communications infrastructure: 30-50 warheads.
The Russians are down to 170 or fewer warheads. They still have not hit any NATO nuclear weapons facilities, nor does this account for reserve for Nth Country deterrence or follow on strikes.
No cities have been directly targeted.
No industrial facilities have been directly targeted.
While the damage would be catastrophic, and millions may be dead, the idea that the government stops working or that cities are all blasted ruins is not accurate.
>>30396522
>Cybernetic Grover Cleveland
I'd game with you. Just as long as Teddy makes a guest appearance for an adventure or three.
>>30396548
in a counter-force strike, yes. What about a countervalue strike?
It's interesting that every Nuke thread becomes a Oppenheimer Q&A thread.
I'm not complaining mind you, it's nice that the one person on this site that actually knows what he is talking about is willing to answer the questions of others.
>>30396548
Quick question. What's your favorite quote about nuclear weapons?
>>30396561
In a countervalue strike then its even less.
A countervalue strike assumes that the Russians are responding to a US first strike, because a countervalue strike makes no sense without it.
The Russians would have no idea which weapons have survived or not, and there will be no real way to coordinate the remaining missiles.
Some of the missiles will still be targeted on US counterforce targets, and the Russians would be hard pressed to retarget them in the time available to them.
Most Russian weapons would be caught on the ground, and, depending on the effectiveness of the US strike, less than 15% of them might reach their targets.
>>30396580
"Yes, by all means, drop that fucker, twice if necessary."
-Captain Frank Ramsey
>>30396562
>It's interesting that every Nuke thread becomes a Oppenheimer Q&A thread.
I generally have /k/ open on my other monitor. When I need a break or something, I'll search the archive for "Nuke" "Nuclear" or something.
Sometimes I'm in other threads as anon, asking why sa/k/uya thinks PTR's are only for poor people, or trying to understand the people who buy all the helmets and body armor, or lurking.
>>30396601
Thanks.
>>30396635
>asking why sa/k/uya thinks PTR's are only for poor people
don't bother
if you ever get the chance to speak to him, he always responds to this with "lol can't handle the bantz?"
really kind of a grating personality 2bh
>>30388523
The US doesn't keep many weapons past the 1mt range for the most part.
>>30394131
Aw jeeze. You really don't have to do this, anon...
>>30393299
how did I know about thermal pulse in my nuke dreams? i always felt the heat..
>>30396667
Speaking of dreams. From my Oppen folder.
>>30396635
Because Sakuya knows it grates anons. It's part of that whole tough guy thing.
>>30396674
>It's part of that whole tough guy thing.
But he's in a dress...?
Half the fun of this place is figuring out what the hell is going on.
>>30396654
>The US doesn't keep many weapons past the 1mt range for the most part.
For good reason. Big warheads need a lot of nuclear material to build, big delivery vehicles to deploy, and since all energy is distributed spherically, most of that extra tonnage is wasted on nothing. In extreme cases, the energy of a high yield warhead is literally vented into space.
>>30396673
Why do you have a "Oppen Folder"?
>>30392884
Super gay, right? People are such fucking faggots. We could also build harbors anywhere the fuck we wanted, but NO.
>>30388542
i need that in HD, for wallpaper raisins
>>30396667
Because fire is hot?
Dumbass.
>>30396687
>being a tripfag
I
>>30396673
>>30396687
>Oppen Folder
Does anyone have a screen cap of that one anon who stalked every post from some /sp/ tripfag, and did things like printing out the individual posts and hanging them up?
>>30396703
>being a tripfag
An appropriate use of a tripcode is to indicate an authoritative source.
>>30388801
This person is so retarded I want to cry
>>30396721
>>30396703
>Being a tripfag
>Being suprised when weirdo autists make files about you
I mean, c'mon.
I got cut off earlier.
>>30388520
>literally millions of times bigger than those pathetic little firecrackers we dropped on the nips.
so we have giggaton yeilds then?
>>30388895
I feel the same...
>>30396750
jeez anon stop taking the word literally so literally you turbonerd
>>30396758
Ikr literally literally doesnt mean "in reality" anymore.
>>30396548
What about a full nuclear exchange between the US and USSR at the height of the cold war? Does it become more of a doomsday scenario?
>>30396758
>>30396781
>being okay with the bastardization of terminology to the point where a word means its exact opposite
This meme needs to die.
>>30388669
What if all the world's nukes were used (including americas) were used on one 25 mile radius area during the height of the cold war when humanity had the most nukes?
>>30396687
why not?
>>30397041
This is known as Detroit, Michigan
>>30388495
Any questions?
>>30397111
Why would you deploy large, expensive warheads that waste so much of their energy when you can destroy more targets with more warheads using the same amount of nuclear material?
>>30397111
Literally the third reply posted the same picture, read the thread before posting mate.
>>30397140
Tl:dr
cause its Friday and I have beer
>>30388495
>It's not like a nuke turned the places into permanent wastelands.
it still has a lasting effect in terms of chronic illness and birth defects
most of the problem is that some radioactive isotopes are bio available and absorbed by contact with water or dust
>>30388575
>>30388583
that is why you keep the jeep running and facing opposite launch direction
although why they did not make it Jeep launched in the first place...
>>30397041
still wouldn't match the millions of nukes required to cause another mass extinction
>>30397129
it's true that a MIRV with smaller warheads is more efficient for an air strike, then again, such a device is more expensive and difficult to make. It's relatively easy to make one mega-assfucking huge bomb and deliver it. Even shit-tier countries can handle that.
If you're just an evil fuck and want to cause the most harm possible, a Tsar Bomba type bomb could be just as deadly as a MIRV - you just need to use it in a ground or slightly below ground burst. Let it sink a bit into the ground and then go off. The blast radius will be less than the combined ones from a MIRV, but the amount of radio-active material ejected into the atmosphere will be cataclysmic. A 30-40MT ground burst would create an enormous lethal radiation zone that would last for years. Imagine doing that do every major metropolitan area.
>>30396491
Why are you up at 1AM, what is scaring you?
It would take amazingly little effort to destroy the entire civilized world and then some. That's the problem.
>>30397227
I thought the problem with the tsar bombs is that its fireball was almost too large for the earth's atmosphere to contain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPJjMJ48CdY
>>30397236
Communities are resilient, societal structures not so much.
>>30388495
They're fake.
They've made them up to scare you into thinking there are some "communists"(lol communism would fall in 2 years if anybody would try to do this stupid shit) countries that want and can(even if it existed they wouldn't be able to make shit as they'd have 0 GDP) destroy you so you'd agree on higher and higher taxes.
>>30393046
>>30388615
No, you are being silly. Germany isn't some kind of logistical nightmare where you have to find areas like Fulda Gap to push your armies through.
The whole "hold the red hordes in the Fulda Gap" is worthless exactly for this reason, WP would just attack on the wide front with attack on FG being there only to tie majority of NATO forces while they're being encircled.
>>30397284
depends what you mean by atmosphere. Yes, some of its energy leaked out into the troposphere. It's horribly inefficient to use for an air blast. In a ground burst it would be the ultimate "fuck you" to a small country, like the UK. Just two of those fuckers could make the entire UK uninhabitable for decades, and make agriculture impossible for a century.
Again, this is why I said nukes are game-changers. They don't work the way conventional bombs work. Even if you survive the heat and blast, you've only just begun to get skull-fucked.
Conventional bombs work by directly killing people. If it goes boom and doesn't kill you, you're fine. Nukes are different. How are you going to be fine when all the water in your country is so radioactive you can't drink it, and when all the soil is so radioactive you can't grow anything in it, and even if you could you couldn't eat the crop because it would kill you?
A civilization doesn't last long without food and water. When I said 90% casualties I wasn't exaggerating. Not the day of the blast, not the week, maybe not even the month, but a couple years after the war you'd be lucky to have more than 10% of your population left.
>>30393140
Nuclear winter desu sempai.
>>30392236
Youre actually talking about the atomic reaction thats happening on the sun vs a chemical explosive reaction. Only different because of scale but the difference in power is infinite
>>30395391
>I cant tell you about the political implications
>talks about the political implications
>>30393140
>implying hundreds of mushroom clouds of dust and smoke that reach 200km height wouldn't result in a nuclear winter
>>30397501
It wont.
Ask me how I know you are new.
>>30397372
You dont know much about fallout, bruh.
>>30397129
Cold War dick waving
>>30388495
Yeah the nature around Chernobyl isn't that bad looking and all but if you try and take a walk in the red woods then you're going to die from radiation in like 2 hours.
Better buy some antirads or vodka s.t.a.l.k.e.r.
>>30397372
So that's why Nevada is a wasteland and Vegas is uninhabited... Oh wait.
>>30389568
you are actually fucking retarded...
>>30397372
You greatly overestimate the amount of nukes we have if you think it possible to contaminate even a simple majority of the world's total fresh water sources.
>>30397501
>Implying it will
Guess how many major volcanoes ALL THE NUKES IN THE WORLD would equate to in terms of particles ejected into the atmosphere
>Pro Tip: It's a number that's less than one
>>30397759
>take a walk in the red woods then you're going to die from radiation in like 2 hours.
You fucking idiot, the Red Forest's HIGHEST reported radiation levels today are a single roentgen per hour.
You need to be exposed to at least a hundred roentgen per hour for many hours in order to create fatalities in humans.
![[not an argument intensifies].png](https://i.imgur.com/tWx9brZ.png "[not an argument intensifies].png")
>>30397501
>implying that nuclear weapons create firestorms
The ONLY reason people believe that nuclear winter is possible is because a bunch of anti-nuclear western scientists during the 1970's used faulty data and terrible climate models to make the argument (including Carl Sagan, who also famously stated that the Iraqi/Kuwait oil fires would cause a "nuclear" winter in the northern hemisphere).
The whole argument of nuclear winter is based on faulty data that makes sense to scientists that have no idea how nuclear weapons are used. They simply take the level of ash generated from the Hiroshima firestorm and blow up it a hundred thousand times to the size of today's arsenal, and put it into the climate model and call it a day. This is completely fucking wrong because NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT GENERATE FIRESTORMS IN MODERN CITIES. The only reasons that their was a firestorm in Hiroshima is:
>1. Hiroshima was literally made of wood and paper with almost zero non-flammable buildings, all crowded into a single flat area hemmed in by mountains and the ocean on 3 sides
>2. Hiroshima got a absolutely direct hit right in the center of this crowded jumbled mass of paper and wood and gooks
In a modern city that isn't made out of fucking paper, a nuclear weapon detonation would cause absolutely massive blast/structural damage; but no fire storm would be start because their isn't enough fuel. Thousands of scattered fires would break out, yes, but not enough to actually cause a self-sustaining storm of fire that would sent thousands of tons of ash into the atmosphere. The areas where firestorms COULD start (ie. suburbs shitboxes made of pinewood and drywall) are too spread out and/or too far away from blast zones.
>>30397664
Yeah I'm new because I actually try to argue a point instead of shitposting like you
>>30396548
>The Russians are down to 170 or fewer warheads.
Keeping in mind here nobody wants to use their last (or few) warheads. You always want to retain the ability to deter further attack - it can get worse is the message.
If you launch everything you have then you are at the complete mercy of the other side if they can respond at all.
The exact number of warheads that might be kept in reserve is likely a moving target to figure out, but a hundred plus probably is not a bad place to start the conversation when talking about US/Russia.
>>30399476
No you are new because this gets brought up in every nuke thread ever on /k/ and get btfo everytime. If you werent new you wouldnt say something that dumb without posting something that hasnt already been torn up to support your opinion.
>>30396654
I was under the impression that the US arsenal was in the 3-7mt neighborhood for most of our warheads,
Oppenheimer confirm or deny pls
>>30399526
B83 is the only weapon above a megaton.
The rest are 475 kt or less.
>>30399458
AND Regardless of this, nuclear winter advocates also completely misunderstand nuclear war tactics. In a nuclear wear, CITIES WILL NOT BE TARGETED. Only nuclear weapons, command centers controlling those nuclear weapons, and military bases will be targeted. The idea behind a nuclear war is too NEUTRALIZE THE ENEMIES STATE APPARATUS THAT IS ABLE TO CONTINUE TO WAGE A NUCLEAR WAR. Nuclear war is not about who can kill the most, its about who can destroy the other enemies ability to launch/deploy their weapons and thus gain the upper-hand in a theoretical second strike that can be used to sue for peace.
Thus, vast sections of America would never see a nuclear detonation. New York, Houston, Phoenix, and many more cities will be safe, as they have no military targets. The areas that will see nuclear detonations will likely be hit with numerous weapons and will be areas that are often outside of cities. Thus, even if a firestorm could be produced from nuclear weapons in built up areas per nuclear winter theories, the amount of ash created and ejected into the atmosphere would be far exaggerated by the climate models.
In fact, one of the worse places to be in a nuclear war on American soil is not, say, Chicago, but actually rural Dakotas or Montana, home to hundreds of Minuteman II missile silos. Some of these areas will see literally hundreds of nuclear detonations in the middle of fucking nowhere, all in attempt to destroy these missiles in their silos.
>>30399526
Ah yes. B83
>>30400039
These questions may be a little off topic, but while you're here...
1. What do you figure the chances are of a terrorist organization acquiring a nuclear weapon?
2. What would be their top 3 most desirable targets?
3. Are you going to help make America great again this November?
>>30400180
>1. What do you figure the chances are of a terrorist organization acquiring a nuclear weapon?
Over what span of time? Until proton decay? The probability is close to 1.
3 decades? .1 or so.
>2. What would be their top 3 most desirable targets?
Depends on who they are.
New York, DC, St. Louis/Denver/Kansas City
>3. Are you going to help make America great again this November?
No.
>>30400323
>St. Louis/Denver/Kansas City
Really?
Those are more important than, say, LA?
>>30400380
Just personal opinion.
If it was me, I'd try to strike in the middle of the nation with the implied statement being "We can do this to a city in the middle of the nation, we could do it anywhere."
>>30400323
>Over what span of time?
Near future. A decade or so.
>.1 or so.
But it seems so easy in the movies to get your hands on a nuke.
>Depends on who they are.
ISIS or some similar group.
>New York, DC, St. Louis/Denver/Kansas City
They seem to really hate gays. Maybe San Francisco?
>No.
Well, nobody's perfect.
>>30400478
>But it seems so easy in the movies to get your hands on a nuke.
So why haven't you done it yourself anon?
>>30400323
>No.
Just out of curiosity, who do you think you'll vote for and why? I'll understand if you don't want to reply/answer of course.
>>30400478
>A decade or so.
.01
>movies
Using the Force seems easy in the movies as well.
>Well, nobody's perfect.
I suppose. I don't disagree with Mr. Trump on a lot of things, but the things I do disagree with him on he is so far out there that he is dangerous, in my opinion.
Democrats are Democrats.
Libertarians have become pro gun control.
I find myself wandering in the political wilderness this year.
>>30388575
Certain death range was less than a third of maximum launch range. It's just that the minimum arming distance was less than the certain death range.
>>30400533
>I suppose. I don't disagree with Mr. Trump on a lot of things, but the things I do disagree with him on he is so far out there that he is dangerous, in my opinion.
What issues specifically, if you don't mind sharing? Is it stuff like his lack of knowledge on the nuclear triad?
>Libertarians have become pro gun control.
That's what happens when a party is forced to choose between values and a half way decent chance at success, they often choose success, no matter how bad it is.
>>30400491
Cost and because I'm pretty sure I'd receive some hostility when I try to register it as a DD.
Also, the only thing I'd want a nuke for requires a DeLorean, which themselves are expensive.
>>30400533
I know they are rather inaccurate when it comes to nukes but, have you ever played any of the Fallout games and if so what do you think of them?
>>30400599
>What issues specifically,
Everything flows from his contempt for policy experts. He says that nuance ruins US foreign policy and he has no time for it.
Example. He thinks that the US should, at a minimum, encourage Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons.
Do you want a nuclear arms race? Because thats how you get a nuclear arms race.
His "lack of nuance" is his most dangerous attribute.
>>30400650
Played every one of them. Enjoy them all.
>>30388495
A global nuke war, assuming we're not talking about 1980's levels of MAD, would probably play out similarly to the Black Death in that it will be a catastrophe that will leave a permanent mark on history and certainly fuck shit up for a while. But in the end it will be easily shaken off and we may even come back stronger from it.
Still nuclear war is terrible and hopefully it'll never come to that.
>>30397230
Skinwalkers
>>30388586
There were a whole lot more atmospheric detonations than that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
>>30400661
Do you think that Brexit could have any effect on nuke related matters?
>>30388495
How much do you like evaporating?
The biggest nuke problem is nuclear winter. Launch enough of them and you blanket the world with a cloud of radioactive ashes.
>>30401123
see >>30399255 and >>30399458
>>30388495
MAD is still in action if anyone ever used one. Even 40 some being sent by each side would fuck up the planet beyond belief, and in a total war with nuclear powers there would be way more than 40 sent by each side, and there would probably be more than one side.
>>30396304
Assuming he isn't a fudd, why isn't this guy a patron saint of /k/?
>>30401205
At least read the fucking thread before you post you faggot
>>30396522
Thank you based Grover Cleveland
>>30389224
google newton rings, its from the film scanning
>>30400661
But an arms race is inevitable. Between Trump on the right, and Sanders on the left, it's clear the traditional foreign policy of US as nuclear protector for the 1st world is no longer politically viable. Might as well deal with that reality as soon as possible, rather than have it just linger on under Clinton to collapse in the 2020s.
>>30395391
You're arguing a bunch of edgy teenage summerfags and their fag enabling tripfag. Don't expect to get far using logic with these idiots.
>>30403380
>scaremongering
>accusing others of not using logic
>>30400639
kek
>>30401325
I'm beginning to think it's trolling personally
>>30403380
>edgy teenage summerfags
>"Nuclear weapons and strategy operate differently than you think you do, and your claims are factually incorrect."
>Edgy
>their fag enabling tripfag.
Except he's more qualified to discuss this than literally anyone else in this thread.
>Don't expect to get far using logic with these idiots.
How about you substantiate your claims for one, or since you can't, just stop repeating shit your liberal arts teacher told you in the GED night classes you failed.
>>30388495
they stopped ww3 from happening
they're good in my book
>>30388495
>but it's not like it lasts forever.
foreveritude itsn't the concern. srsly nigger, think about nukes for a second.
at the outset, you get a big boomer...totally fucks everything.
ok, so if that isn't bad enough, though, you also get this fallout shit that's basically a chemical weapon that not only anally fucks the region, but also any region down wind.
Think of all the stink raised by chem weapons, and now attach it to a massively fucking awesome indiscriminate bomb that totally wrecks the ever living fuck out of everything.
That's why nukes are bad -- they're the most powerful weapon we have, and it should only be for a good reason that we ever deploy them.
>>30397332
you're gay. your dad is gay, and it is a line of faggots who accidentally fucked women all the way back to that faggot vercingtorix himself who created your line of limp wristed faggots.
nukes are real. it takes some mad autism to disbelieve in them.
>>30403920
>you also get this fallout shit
Not with airbursts, you don't.
>>30403834
>stopped WW3
B..but they almost made WW3 back when Russia out right invaded Ukraine. A chick named Heather Cole saved Russia, not nukes.
>>30403834
WWIII hasn't happened YET
This casual talk of nuclear warfare shows how immature some of the user base is here
>>30404302
without nukes, it would already have happened
>>30404412
Oh, shut up, you pretentious cunt.
>>30400039
What's the computer for? I thought PAL controls were integrated into the aircraft, or is it a diagnostics computer or something?
>>30400661
On the topic of an arms race, what do you think the likelihood of in the next few decades that Russia and the West return to nuclear testing and a nuclear build-up? I suspect it will happen with Russian dickwaving in the last few years.
>>30405438
There are mutiple PAL devices.
>>30404206
not nearly as much, but yeah...you still get fallout.
>>30405568
Okay, I'll grant that it isn't COMPLETELY eliminated, but it's nowhere near as dangerous as the scaremonger I was responding to made it out to be.
>>30399458
>nuclear weapon detonation would cause absolutely massive blast/structural damage; but no fire storm would be start because their isn't enough fuel
So what you're saying is, nuclear fire can't melt steel beams?
>>30405587
What about all those groundburts to take out silo, what about the massive amounts of fallout from that?
>>30399458
>no fire would start because no fuel
Confirmed for having zero fucking clue about how fire actually works.
>>30397075
kek
![Critical Close-up- Metal Gear Solid (part 2).mp4_snapshot_05.59_[2014.03.07_22.58.28].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oKPHIrI.jpg "Critical Close-up- Metal Gear Solid (part 2).mp4_snapshot_05.59_[2014.03.07_22.58.28].jpg")
Oppen, have you played Metal Gear Solid? Every time I replay the first one I can't stop rolling my eyes at the blatant anti-nuclear appeal to emotions with the cutscenes and codec calls.
I'm wondering how you feel about the first Solid entry if you've played it, and if not if you'd consider emulating it, and maybe even livestreaming yourself so we can hear or see you in the flesh.
I'd avoid the GameCube version and stick to the PS1 version, unless you religiously enjoyed the Matrix.
