I don't want to intrude on anyone's roleplaying thread and I don't have the time to go to every thread so I just decided to make this. You can use this post as you wish.
1) NATO nuclear sharing is a program where the US agreed to keep nuclear weapons available for use by NATO allies. The weapons were stored and secured by the US, while the hosting nations possessed the delivery systems.
2) There are 50-60 B61 nuclear weapons in Turkey. The exact mods are not public, but would likely be a mix of Mod 4 and Mod 7.
3) The weapons are stored in whats called a Weapon Storage and Security System. These are underground vaults that will store 2-4 weapons and when activated raise the weapons up for access.
4) Bypassing the WS3 without authorization would require enough force that the weapons themselves would likely be damaged or destroyed.
5) Even if the weapons are accessed, they contain safety features that prevent unauthorized use of the weapon. Attempting to bypass these systems physically would render the weapons inoperable.
However, even if the weapons could never be deployed as nuclear weapons, the US would not allow the weapons to become compromised. If the US had reason to believe that the weapons were about to be seized, there are contingency plans that involved everything from personnel on the ground blowing them in place to airstrikes from nearby assets.
The number of times SKYKING is repeated in a message is meaningless.
DEFCON warning system website is little more than fan fiction.
>>30643332
Thank you based OPpenheimer for clearing this situation up
>>30643332
I've been gone a while, hope you're well OPpenheimer.
>>30643332
Forgot to add that none of the aircraft in TAF inventory can deliver nuclear weapons.
And yes, it is silly to keep nuclear weapons to give to a country that can't use them at the point in a crisis when they need them the most.
What if i wanted to take one to just put in my living room to take shots on and shit?
Here's a picture of what the WSSS looks like, the weapon and it's carriage lowers into the ground
>>30643332
>>30643421
Answers a lot of questions I had last night. Thanks Oppenheimer.
Is there such a thing as a nuclear security QRF? Would they ever try to retake physical control rather than just destroy the devices themselves?
>>30643481
>Is there such a thing as a nuclear security QRF? Would they ever try to retake physical control rather than just destroy the devices themselves?
They have NEST, which would deploy with some special operations force, but nothing specifically for that. I'm sure that the special operations forces train for that.
>>30643332
What exactly are these "mods"?
I believe this kind of info should be stickied because we have these dumb fucking skyking threads at least once a week and they are filled with all sorts of stupid.
>>30643537
They are B61's with different features. The Mod 4 is a tactical weapon with selectable yields between 40 and 170 kilotons.
The Mod 7 is a strategic version with yields that go up to 340 kilotons.
>>30643559
What makes an aircraft nuclear/non N capable ?
>>30643567
They have to be wired for the weapon. Training for the proper delivery of the weapon is vital as well.
>>30643567
Just a guess but from what I heard (at least on the Tsar bomb) the biggest issue was finding something that could handle the weight of that monster so maybe something similar
>Be able to carry it.
>Be able to fly at high enough altitude to not get caught in the blast.
The Tu-95V that carried it was basically a "tuned"version of the normal tupolev with reinforced structure and reduced weight to increase the carrying capacity.
How well is a WS3 protected? Looks just like a hydraulic lifted frame.
>>30643559
>The Mod 7 is a strategic version with yields that go up to 340 kilotons
Dear OPpenheimer,
a weapon becomes tactical or strategic based on the range of the delivery platform, not on the yield of the weapon itself.
For example, a nuclear free-fall bomb like B61 can be delivered by F-16, F-15, F-4, Tornado IDS.
The range of all these aircraft is below the 5500 kilometers, which means B-61 bombs cannot be delivered to strategic distances.
If B-61 is equipped on something like B-1, B-2 or B-52, however, they become strategic weapons, since they can now be delivered to beyond 5500 km.
The yield is largely meaningless in this differentiation. For example, there are plenty of Russian tactical warheads with yields of 500 kt.
Cheers.
>>30643721
A weapon becomes tactical or strategic based on its intended target.
A 100 Kt W76 deployed against a SAM site to allow bomber penetration is tactical.
That same W76 deployed against an oil refinery is strategic.
A B61 delivered by an F-16 against a port is strategic. A B61 deployed by an F-16 against a bridge is tactical.
>>30643523
Do you have books or websites you recommend to read up on how nuclear weapons are handled/deployed across modern nations? It's an interesting problem between the competing needs of the ability to quickly deploy the device and yet having the device completely secured against threats.
If you ever find yourself in Tucson AZ, I'll buy you dinner if you visit to the Titan missile museum with me.
>>30643721
>>30643756
Sorry but you're just wrong OPpen.
USAF AAC handbooks (contemporary to 2013) classify weapons based on delivery platform range. Obviously won't post the passage myself but knowing your background I'm sure you can find a copy.
>>30643332
So all those spy movies where terrorists steal a Soviet nuke and threaten the world with it will never happen!? ;_;
>>30643893
Not without the time to take it apart and manufacture their own device.
So just add a bomb making montage.
>>30643889
You may be correct, but from a civilian policy standpoint it is been defined by target. To my knowledge the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff viewed it the same way.
The reason for this is exactly due to the Russian weapons you mentioned. By classifying weapons by target, rather than distance, you can keep the Russians from hiding otherwise strategic nuclear weapons under the name of tactical nuclear weapons.
The Russians do not need 5500 km nuclear weapons to hit strategic targets in Europe, but does that mean that Russia is incapable of waging strategic nuclear war on Europe?
Not at all. These weapons are, at the end of the day strategic weapons because they are designed with strategic targets in mind.
>Bypassing the WS3 without authorization would require enough force that the weapons themselves would likely be damaged or destroyed.
Couldnt you cut through the system rather than blast it apart or brute force it?
>Even if the weapons are accessed, they contain safety features that prevent unauthorized use of the weapon. Attempting to bypass these systems physically would render the weapons inoperable.
Of course. But simply by acquiring the weapon, they could likely reverse engineer it no? Or simply harvest the nuclear materiel and build a rudimentary rifle nuke?
Also, what is your opinion with M.U.F.?
>>30643756
>A weapon becomes tactical or strategic based on its intended target.
You are wrong, Oppenheimer.
B-61 assigned to NATO bases in Europe is not covered by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which specifically defines strategic level of weapons based on the range of the delivery platform.
Only weapons which can be deployed on long range heavy bombers are counted as strategic and are covered by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
All nuclear weapons which fall outside of New START are tactical (by definition).
In New START, the range of the aircraft determines its strategic status, not the type of target it is used against.
Here's the relevant paragraph from the Protocol.
>>30643991
The Mod 7's in Turkey are in place for US aircraft, not Turkish.
>>30643980
>But simply by acquiring the weapon, they could likely reverse engineer it no?
Not Oppenheimer (obviously). American nuclear weapons feature Permissive Action Links, without the proper electronic authorisation, these will actually set off the high explosives in a way that won't result in criticality (i.e. bomb is blown to shit but no mushroom cloud) if the bomb is sufficiently tampered with. The designs of fission weapons aren't exactly secret but the production, even if you have plutonium, is still a massive undertaking. Let's say you have enough plutonium for a weapon, first you have to form it into a pit, which is extremely tricky because plutonium has a myriad of solid phases as it cools down and, once cool, it's both extremely mechanically hard and flammable when finely divided. Next, you have to produce explosive lenses which are a little easier to design and make than they were in the 50s because of more powerful computers for simulations and CNC manufacturing systems but precision has to be maintained all the way from the formulation of the explosives that go into the lenses to the matching of the fast and slow portions. I'd go on but, suffice to say, it's a pretty challenging process and if you had a few hundred thousand dollars to kill as many people as possible, you'd be better off growing microbes. (cont.)
>>30643971
>By classifying weapons by target, rather than distance, you can keep the Russians from hiding otherwise strategic nuclear weapons under the name of tactical nuclear weapons.
The Russians do not need 5500 km nuclear weapons to hit strategic targets in Europe, but does that mean that Russia is incapable of waging strategic nuclear war on Europe?
Not the guy you are responding to, but you are wrong here.
All strategic arms treaties with Russia so far have determined weapon types by range, not target.
In the 70's, there was a big hoopla about Tu-22M being a strategic aircraft and Russia and US specifically agreed between themselves that Russia would delete Tu-22M's refuelling probe to prevent it from being counted as a strategic aircraft.
Instead of a counter-CONUS aircraft, Tu-22M became counter-Europe operational-level bomber.
>>30643980
>>30644031
(cont.)
>build a rudimentary rifle nuke
That's only really possible with HEU. I don't have much information on the B61 primary but, based on the series, I'd lean towards it being a plutonium or plutonium-uranium alloy pit which is unsuitable for a gun-type weapon (spontaneous fissions happen too frequently with plutonium, causing the weapon to either melt before firing or fizzle during firing).
>>30644031
>The Mod 7's in Turkey are in place for US aircraft, not Turkish.
Primarily US, but potentially also Turkish and German tactical aircraft.
In any case, they are not subject to any Russo-US treaties, since they are not counted as strategic weapons.
B-61 Mod 11, to the contrary, as only deployable from heavy bombers, so they are counted as strategic nuclear weapons. Though only by proxy, since bomber nukes are counted artificially, as 1 bomb per aircraft, regardless of actual arsenal.
>>30643332
If the weapons were seized by force and damaged/rendered inoperable by the failsafes, could the nuclear material still be extracted and used in either another nuke or a dirty bomb?
>>30643980
>Couldnt you cut through the system rather than blast it apart or brute force it?
That would be extremely slow and you might be disturbed in your work by some pissed off Americans. Generally, they take a dim view of people going after their nuclear weapons.
>>30644042
>>30644078
Im not debating the Treaty definition of strategic vs non-strategic.
I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between the mods in Turkey. The B61 is a strategic weapon. It is designed to be delivered against strategic targets. We can get bogged down in the semantics of what is a strategic weapon vs a tactical weapon all day long and never get anywhere.
I will stay with my explanation as a strategic weapon is one designed to be deployed against strategic targets, as that is the one that provides the most clarity when discussing these things.
You both are welcome to demand adherence to the other definition, and in that respect you are correct.
Sorry for any confusion.
>>30644111
>damaged/rendered inoperable by the failsafes
I think you might be picturing some circuits fizzling out. The way the systems protect against tampering is by setting off the high explosives in a subcritical fashion. Anyone attempting this would find a lot of the plutonium in their lungs, which are now several feet away from other parts of their body, and on fire. If you were a nasty terrorist interested in a dirty bomb, you'd have more luck tracking down an orphaned ex-Soviet RTG source, like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE5T0GkoKG8
>>30644038
>>30644072
>>30644165
By the way, please do correct me if I've made any mistakes, Oppenheimer.
>>30643980
>Couldnt you cut through the system rather than blast it apart or brute force it?
Sure.
Might take you quite a bit of time and the weapons are likely to be harmed by dripping molten metal.
>>30643980
>But simply by acquiring the weapon, they could likely reverse engineer it no?
They could if they had the facilities to do so.
>Or simply harvest the nuclear materiel and build a rudimentary rifle nuke?
Yes, but they would have to fabricate new cores from the material.
>Also, what is your opinion with M.U.F.?
I don't know what that is.
Sorry.
>>30644132
This is not semantics, Oppenheimer.
This is literally how Russia and US determine which weapon is strategic and which weapon is tactical. There are pretty narrow definitions, all dealing with range, either of the delivery vehicle or of the weapon (in case of self-propelled missiles).
You are free to have your own definition, if that suits you better and is more helpful to you, but I've given you the official criteria for "tactical" and "strategic" nukes which are used to bilateral treaty monitoring and verification.
>>30644186
I have never heard of the system being able to intentionally detonate the high explosives to prevent tampering.
>>30644072
It would fizzile, but you would still get some form of nuclear yield (how much is hard to say, from a few tons to a kiloton or so) and that would be sufficient for the purposes of a tactical weapon.
>>30643608
Look at image in >>30643439
Nukes from modern nations armaments have been reduced greatly in physical size.
Nukes can be carried by jets as small as f16s, but they must be fitted with the proper weapons systems to arm and deploy. A two seater is a minimum as well, with two person control being a requirement for nukes.
>>30644200
>This is not semantics,
It is.
This is argued over constantly.
>You are free to have your own definition,
It is not my own definition. You are right to say that there are many, but this one is not mine alone.
It does offer the most clarity in my opinion.
>>30644188
Materiel Unaccounted For
Apparently a small amount of weapons grade nuclear materiel is just "lost" every year.
What's the status on russia's missing soviet suitcase nukes, Oppenheimer?
>>30644211
>I have never heard of the system being able to intentionally detonate the high explosives to prevent tampering.
My understanding was that, on some weapons, even trying to open up certain portions would result in a sub-critical detonation. This is based on second hand anecdotes of codes needing to be given to the PALs prior to weapon servicing. I can't find a totally trustworthy written source that backs this up (it's mentioned on Wikipedia).
>that would be sufficient for the purposes of a tactical weapon
Fair point, I guess that's good enough for a would-be thief.
>>30644297
There are none.
>>30644273
Oh. I was trying to relate it to your picture.
Its a risk but one that is negligible.
>>30644305
>My understanding was that, on some weapons, even trying to open up certain portions would result in a sub-critical detonation.
Interesting. I didn't know that.
>>30644320
>There are none.
What, they found all of them? All 80+? Or did they never exist?
>>30644273
HEU does from fuel assembly fabrication facilities because it's benign compared to plutonium (so it can be machined with the same precautions as a heavy metal like lead) but it happens at a consistent and expected rate so a theft would present a noticeable spike.
>>30644340
I do not believe they were ever missing.
Heading out for lunch.
I'll return in a few hours.
>>30644349
I personally believe that the confusion stems from the vast amounts of fissile material that went unguarded after the fall of the Soviet Union. Records in Moscow were lost or forgotten and a lot of recoveries only came about through the honesty of locals (such as in Project Sapphire). There was a lovely description in The Dead Hand of cannisters of plutonium protected by an '[American] Civil War-era lock'.
>>30643332
I humblely ask any mods to sticky this thread.
Thank you.
>>30643548
Leave it. It's best to let the stupid accumulate in one or two threads, instead of permeating the entire board.
>>30644455
>I personally believe that the confusion stems from the vast amounts of fissile material that went unguarded after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Not 'vast', though some was in dodgy situations.
Most of the so-called "loose" Soviet fismat could be attributed to 3 scenarios:
- Medical isotopes smuggled out of research institutes.
- Industrial fismat smuggled out of chemical processing plants
- Some amount of fismat left out in Kazakhstan that was being prepared for weapons' testing.
The first 2 pose no danger of actual bomb proliferation (though the get the most press), the third one was the most serious, since there were actual explosive devices left at Semipalatinsk in 1991.
Sig Hecker has some interesting stories about Russian, American and Kazakh teams working to secure fismat at Semipalatinsk. All of it was eventually recovered and secured.
Most of the cases you hear about since then are of the medical/industrial type. Enough to impress a journo or to fool some idiot jihadi, but certainly not enough to construct a serious nuclear device.
>>30644580
I agree that the majority was non fissile but the half-ton of HEU recovered by Sapphire meets my definition of 'vast' and that was only uranium. There was definitely also poorly guarded plutonium floating around elsewhere.
>>30644660
I personally feel like Hoffman exaggerates the severity of Project Sapphire a lot.
Sapphire was done with full knowledge of US and Kazakh governments, all material was accounted for and under guard and the hand-over from Kazakhstan to US was fully approved.
Hoffman presents the whole thing as some kind of Mission: Impossible episode, but if you get down to the facts, Kazakhs had a bunch of fuel of nuke subs that they didn't want to deal with and wanted to get rid of. United States facilitated the removal. The end.
>>30644764
That's fair, it wouldn't be the first time I've read something of his of which I have other sources and found him to have exaggerated slightly. I was under the impression that neither the Kazakh or Russian governments were aware of the uranium before it was brought to their attention (though I imagine someone somewhere in the Russian system knew). I was more talking about other fissile material mentioned by Hoffman but not recovered as part of Sapphire.
>>30644814
>I was more talking about other fissile material mentioned by Hoffman but not recovered as part of Sapphire.
It's been 25 years and it hasn't surfaced anywhere.
Either all HEU/Pu was recovered, or its existence was exaggerated by scammers, of which there were many.
I imagine there were lots of enterprising folks who wanted to get a quick buck from some bedouin sheik just because they had some scrap metal and a pinging Geiger counter.
How much of it was actually HEU or even LEU is doubtful...
>>30644894
That's a very good point. I hadn't considered that it could just be akin to red mercury.
Okay, so in the lights of the recent events, is it wise to keep storing nuclear weapons in Turkey ?
For now this country is still a -rather important in the region- member of the NATO, but if things were becoming even more unstable politicaly, and if the regime was becoming more and more radical, wouldn't it be a good idea to move the nukes somewhere else ?
>>30644940
>Okay, so in the lights of the recent events, is it wise to keep storing nuclear weapons in Turkey ?
It's not just Turkey. Kleine Brogel has pretty shitty security as well.
The reason why US keeps nuclear bombs in Europe is because if it removes them, Eastern Europeans will scream that US is abandoning them to Russia.
Those bombs serve no military purpose (they are not going to be used in any kind of conflict), their role is to reassure Europeans that US got their back.
I'm pretty certain US would rather remove all tac nukes from Europe already (as they did with Japan and South Korea), but nobody wants to pay the political price for the right-wing backlash that would ensue.
>>30643332
>Attempting to bypass these systems physically would render the weapons inoperable.
Define "inoperable", will you?
Because it seems like using them as dirty bombs is feasible
>>30645016
Certainly, but it would be easier to steal a radiotherapy or welding x-ray source than take on a US base. Stealing a nuclear weapon would paint a target on your back so massive that it borders on the absurd.
>>30644997
But as you said, those nukes are more or less useless, removing them wouldn't cause so much trouble isn't it ?
I believe what's really important are the bases themselves and the number of troops stationned.
>>30645189
>removing them wouldn't cause so much trouble isn't it ?
Practically it would have zero effect on NATO security or on US nuclear deterrence posture.
It will upset a bunch of Poles, though and it will open whichever administration that makes this decision to political attacks in Washington. You know: "Evil Russia, durr hurr, abandoning our allies, durr hurr, stab in the back durr hurr"
It's not fucking rational, but that's what will happen.
Removal of US tactical nukes from Europe will need to be pretty tightly choreographed so as not to cause an unnecessary shitstorm in a teacup.
Here's the kicker: Russians have set removal of US nukes from Europe as a precondition for any further nuclear negotiations. So if US wants any cuts from Russia, those bombs have to go first. And it's not something that Russians will trade for, it's their precondition for even coming to the table and talking.
>>30643332
Finally someone who isn't a flaming rerard.
>>30643332
>If the US had reason to believe that the weapons were about to be seized, there are contingency plans that involved everything from personnel on the ground blowing them in place to airstrikes from nearby assets.
I wonder if that would involves anything from RAF Akrotiri. Certainly would make sense.
>>30643439
red tip is a shape
black tip is the real deal
>>30646490
>I wonder if that would involves anything from RAF Akrotiri. Certainly would make sense.
More likely Aviano.
>>30643439
What is shielding the sides? Could one just tunnel next to it and slowly cut their way in with something less destructive but very time consuming?
>>30645270
>Here's the kicker: Russians have set removal of US nukes from Europe as a precondition for any further nuclear negotiations.
aka they have no real intention of negotiating and they put up a requirement they thought would be unpalatable
>>30647528
Really?
I don't know, if time was of the essence to drop an airstrike, a flight of Tornadoes or Typhoons would work.
>>30643332
Needs to be stickied.
>>30647580
>aka they have no real intention of negotiating and they put up a requirement they thought would be unpalatable
It's both.
- Russians have no interest in further cuts
- However, if Americans compromise on many of the issues that Russians actually care about (missile defense, tactical nukes in Europe), Russians would consider minor strategic cuts
It's a win-win for Russia. Either they sit comfortably where they are now, or they get a bonus from Americans and then do minor strategic cuts (for example, to 1000-1200 warheads)
>>30647666
that's /pol/'s job
>>30643332
>The exact mods are not public, but would likely be a mix of Mod 4 and Mod 7
Is this the yield that they're dialed into?
I thought that was easily changeable at a moment's notice. Only setting it when they're about to be deployed.
>>30647765
Oh jeez, I probably should have read the thread.
>>30644200
You know I don't work in this field like Oppen does, but I tend to agree, traditionally strategic weapons like ICBMs are not going to be wasted on strategic targets at close ranges. However, a traditionally tactical weapon with a larger yield may be useful to engage the strategic target and so the weapon is employed strategically. Oppen's right this is semantics.
just shut down the atoms lol
>>30644165
>bombs set to blow selves up if you sneeze at it wrong
>80 years of maintenance without accidents
>accidentally install and fly real nukes by accident without incident
>crashed planes with nukes, no incident
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY I KNOW THAT'S BULLSHIT?
>>30647777
Quads confirm. Always read the thread before posting.
>>30643332
>DEFCON warning system website is little more than fan fiction.
About fucking time someone reputable says this wihout being ignorantly discredited. I've been to their teamspeak servers before and read on their history. They've been doing this for 30-35 years. The administrator of the site has his own set of closed connections in the military. Not to mention that they have their own dedicated teams to reasarch radio transmitters, attempt to decode them, and teams for monitoring Air, Ground and Naval traffic. You faggots on /k/ missed alot of shit several months ago when Russian military traffic increased when heavy fighting in Donbass airport escalated. Not to mention the interception of a Russian Destroyer in the Black Sea by a US Destroyer and the current dick waving and nonviolent interceptions between US and russian jets in Syria. And this was when they had a teamspeak server set in. If anything, Defcon Warning System is as reliable as the Middle East War Threads.
>>30649639
Remember when they told everyone that the US and Russians were shooting at each other?
Remember when just a few hours ago they were telling everyone that there was shooting and explosions in the AFB in Turkey?
DWS is full of retards.
>>30643332
Oppenheimer, wtf are you? Some sort of nuclear engineering nerd? Why do a good swathe of people on this board take what you say as factual at face?
>>30643759
>>30643481
Look up the USAF Ravens
>>30649742
>Remember when they told everyone that the US and Russians were shooting at each other?
I was there at their teamspeak server. An interception=/= Shooting each other.
>Remember when just a few hours ago they were telling everyone that there was shooting and explosions in the AFB in Turkey?
Did you missed the part where the term "unconfirmed" was in their post? Let alone it was a copy pasta from the LiveMap Website? The same map our boys in the Middle East Threads use. Work on that reading comprehension
>>30649994
He popped up a few years ago, at some point someone doxxed him. Turns out he was exactly who he said he was.
>>30650068
Well here is the question. If they are so plugged into the system and have connections in the military, why were they fooled into posting unconfirmed reports based off tweets (that they never posted, I might add) while the USAF et al were telling everyone the exact opposite?
Wouldn't their top notch connections in the Military tell them more than rando tweets?
>>30650102
But who did he say he was? Ive been lurking for a long time and hes been all over, but I still don't know anything about him/her
>>30650137
Worked for the government for a while, State Department I think, and currently works for a NGO promoting non-proliferation policy as a senior researcher.
>>30650102
>why were they fooled into posting unconfirmed reports based off tweets (that they never posted, I might add) while the USAF et al were telling everyone the exact opposite?
More like informing everyone to keep an eye on it. The key word in that post is "unconfirmed". Using logic here, it as a way to say stay tuned until confirmations from official sources are explained.
>Wouldn't their top notch connections in the Military tell them more than rando tweets?
Only the admin (From what I've witnessed so far) has those private connections. I can guarantee you there are limits to such connections depending on the ranks, and field of specialization his connections are in. Most of the information that are run by the staff and volunteers are based from traffic radar information, media updates and attempted radio decoding. Like I said in my first post before, they're as good as the Middle East War Threads.
>>30650215
No, they are as good as God Like Productions roleplay threads.
>>30643991
Tactical and strategic have always been loose categories, like genres of music. During the SALT talks way back when, Russia considered certain of their weapons tactical because they could not reach America. The US considered then strategic because they could hit Bonn and Paris. So on and so forth. They are political terms more than hard definitions.
>>30644273
Is this a real term or did Hideo Kojima just make it up?
>>30650258
>No, they are as good as God Like Productions roleplay threads
Sure. Until you work with them, you ain't got shit but /k/'s opinions
>>30650377
And all you have is your tales of silliness.
Lads I'm designing a CMANO scenario based on the Turkish coup.
What Tom Clancy-esque possibilities could you make out of this situation? Can be following the coup or an alternative outcome of the actual coup. Conspiracy theory interpretations of events welcome.
>>30650364
http://nsspi.tamu.edu/nssep/courses/nuclear-material-accountancy/material-unaccounted-for-(muf)/material-unaccounted-for-(muf)
Google next time you fucking philistine.
>>30648521
>bombs destroy themselves if you try to use them incorrectly
>years of storage and maintenance with no incidents
>yeras of flying them around with no incidents
>unarmed munitions involved in airplane crashes don't go off
>this is somehow impossible and you know better
k
>>30644225
KEK
OPPENHEIMER BTFO
Tripfags gettin' put in their place! SHIT SON!
>>30650634
Thanks. In years and years I'd never heard of the term being used in serious conversation.
>>30650498
And all you have is lack of evidential claims when I counterclaimed your arguments. Next.
>>30650878
ok?
>>30650953
SO bad he left the thread. omg
>>30649639
You are a high schooler living in Borger you fucking faggot.
Your original website linked to your high school's website with your full name included.
You have any book recommendations, Oppenheimer?
Targeting satellites would detect any nuclear launch on the planet.
Plus NATO has anti Nuclear device's which can shut down the atoms in a nuclear weapon making it useless
>>30643332
>Oppenheimer and BOOF make threads on the same day
Holy fuck
>>30650878
You realize /k/ would sell your organs on the black market to have more Oppenheimer threads.
Oppenheimer, you said Russia's precondition for negotiating is removing all the dumb bombs of Europe, right? Why don't we build nuclear cruise missiles that can be launched from F-35s to replace them with? It would be a very tactically/strategically flexible weapon, and maybe we could convince Russia to allow more missile defense since we moved all those bombs.
>>30648521
There has never been a broken arrow involving pit exposure which didn't result in HE detonation.
>>30651896
>Targeting satellites would detect any nuclear launch on the planet.
They can detect some ballistic missile launches. There's no way of knowing whether the payload is nuclear or not until the bright double flash comes. It was just generally assumed that any missiles leaving Russia on a trajectory for the USA or Western Europe weren't filled with flowers and warm greetings.
>Plus NATO has anti Nuclear device's which can shut down the atoms in a nuclear weapon making it useless
It does not for one simple reason: such a device might end up in enemy hands (I'm talking about a system built in to a bomb or warhead to remotely disable it, a lot of work actually went into making sure other nuclear explosions can't be used to disable our weapons and the Russians almost certainly did the same work). At most, you have cancellation codes on some missiles but not ICBMs and SLBMs. Nuclear weapons are protected against unauthorised use by requiring codes held by the top brass which are only issued prior to firing (unless you're the Royal Navy, then you use the threat of being locked up without tea to discourage senior officers from disobeying their orders).
>>30650626
Turkey closes the Straits, Russian navy challenges the closure, EU forces decide to support Turkey for reasons, US stays out of it but observes.
US declares NFZ near its bases, and begins withdrawing nuclear weapons for security reasons.
However, elements in the Turkish government believe the US is moving troops in, rather than nukes out and make plans to intercept the cargo aircraft bound for the US facilities.
Pretty far fetched but you have an interesting set up.
The roughly even Russian vs EU naval forces, with the EUs unpredictable ally, Turkey.
And what will happen with the US? Will they wind up shooting down EU and Turkish violators of the NFZ? Or will the US be forced to fight the Russians with the limited forces in the area?
Have fun.
>>30651896
>Plus NATO has anti Nuclear device's which can shut down the atoms in a nuclear weapon making it useless
What?
>>30649994
He does strategic nuclear planning for a living.
It's literally his job.
>>30653818
I think that's a Gundam thing, or something like that.
>>30649994
Oldfags remember the day when he posted a classified pic from the targeting system of an ABM, and he wrote something like "don't tell anybody I posted this stuff".
That's when his legend began.
>>30651171
>You are a high schooler living in Borger you fucking faggot.
>Your original website linked to your high school's website with your full name included
And the burden of proof is on you.
>>30652805
>Why don't we build nuclear cruise missiles that can be launched from F-35s to replace them with?
You do. It's called AGM-158. There is also NSM.
>It would be a very tactically/strategically flexible weapon, and maybe we could convince Russia to allow more missile defense since we moved all those bombs.
No, it's the opposite.
Russia wants tactical nukes out of Europe AND a reduction/elimination of US missile defence in Europe.
It will not trade one for the other. Both are anathema to the Russians.
>>30653836
>He does strategic nuclear planning for a living.
I hope I am not bursting your bubble, but writing thought leadership articles for places like the Brookings Institution is not the same as "strategic nuclear planning".
Oppenheimer seems like a right-wired chap, but let's not get overenthusiastic.
I know this is 4chan, but I get a sense there are a few people with good knowledge of the matter in this thread. Oppenheimer just stands out because he is a tripfriend.
>>30652734
only newfags who like being tripcucked lol
no one who's an actual /k/ oldfag gives a shit about OP
>>30653836
No I dont.
>>30653882
I dont have any idea what you are talking about.
>>30653940
>Oppenheimer seems like a right-wired chap, but let's not get overenthusiastic.
Agreed.
>>30654021
True /k/ oldfag here.
Oppenheimer is the only credible person on /k/ and he's the only one we can be sure is not full of shit. As a nice plus he's not a /pol/ shitter because he has a job.
>>30650039
Phoenix Ravens provide security for planes they're not dedicated to nuclear weapon QRF or anything like that. They take a like 3 week course, get a tab, become a douche bag, and then perform fly away missions. Mind you normal SF airmen do the same fly away missions without the ultra oper8or 3 week course.
>>30653815
cheers m8. good ideas, ill credit you if it gets published
>>30650626
Reminder that Tom Clancy was whacked by Obama's orders
>>30654692
Source
Crit this take on Oppenheimer's CMANO scenario lads - the twist is that the kebab attacks you because they think you're planning a countercoup:
-
"May 9, 2017: Erdogan has relaxed border controls with Syria. 2 million migrants are naturalized, ostensibly a humanitarian gesture but likely a move taken to change voting demographics in his favor.
Unrest follows quickly and Erdogan is ousted in a coup. HUMINT suggests it is led by Islamists within the military, supported by coordinated street gangs.
The new Turkish military government immediately closes the Bosphorus Straits to Russia. General Alper Kut issued a statement: "Today marks the end of Turkish appeasement. Russia must immediately withdraw their bombers from Latakia Airbase and stop bombing innocent women and children if they wish for sea lanes to become open again."
Russia responds with ultimatum that if the Bosphorus is not re-opened within 48 hours, "Victory celebrations for the Junta will turn to mourning."
In light of the tensions, the US adopts a neutral stance and quietly organizes an airlift of B-61 nuclear bombs out of Incirlik AB.
Friendly Forces:
(Turkey)
-Incirlik AB
(Mediterranean Sea)
- Nimitz CSG
- USS Essex
(Europe)
-Volkel AB
Signal: EMCON State C (Unrestricted Emissions)"
>>30655334
So, a military coup displaces Turkish civilian authorities, but instead of focusing on shoring up internal support and consolidating their power within Turkey, the plotters decide: "Hey, we don't have enough internal problems, let's fuck with Russia in one matter that Russians are GUARANTEED to take extremely seriously".
Your scenario is full of holes, to be frank.
Also, a more detailed ORBAT would be nice. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss, since do not know the correlation of forces.
>>30655334
>>30656042
Why not have RAF Akrotiri as a wild card?
>>30654692
Yes. Obama is a plant by ultra rich saudi nationalists and everyone knows it.
>>30653882
He said don't tell anyone you dumb nigger
good thread
>>30654071
I wasn't saying his info is wrong\shit, I'm stating that people suck his dick way more than before.
Best to take your rose colour tinted glasses off too, bud. /k/ is near borderline /pol/ subboard.
>>30657532
>way more than before
who would have thought building a reputation via factual knowledge takes time but constantly increases your fanbase?
must be rocket science.
also /k/ hates /pol/ with the force of 9000 suns for shitting up our threads with their bullshit memes and anger, poltards are just too retarded to realize that.
Can somebody give me a summary as to what's going on? Work has been keeping me so busy so I haven't been able to see world events. Is Turkey salty or some shit?
>>30657842
After the coup, Erdogan is purging secularism from the military and judicial system, and stamping his feet at the evil US CIA.
So now we have a bunch of nukes in a country that appears to be on the brink of being the world's newest Islamist shithole. Egg on face
>>30657737
>i speak for /k/
look asshole, Ill side with crazy poltards before i side with milquetoast moderate apologists like you.
you're part of the problem and you aint /k/
>>30657881
see, shitting up threads with uncalled anger, just like I said.
>>30653914
which means both should be high priority on the list of things that stay right where the fuck they're at
