Modern Warefare
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
How exactly do you 'win' ww3? Over at /pol/ they're say that NATO is mobilizing but it kinda let me to wonder how you fight a war with nukes on either side. Discuss
You win WW3 by being too pussy to launch nukes on either side, and instead send countless men to their deaths and drop a shit ton of bombs until one side gets tired and says "oh shit I'm sorry" and gives up.
>>30652399
>how you fight a war with nukes on either side
if you absolutely have to, very awkwardly
>>30652399
>let me to wonder
You're either stupid or this is a bait thread.
>>30652434
I'm sorry I worded that badly, English is my third language
>>30652399
>it kinda let me to wonder how you fight a war with nukes on either side.
First, you don't. That's the whole point.
Second, you fight by proxy, or in peripheral regions that don't directly threaten the nuclear-armed enemy.
Third, you wait for your enemy to launch first. If they launch against your own nuclear arsenal (a "counter-force" attack), then you launch against his nuclear arsenal. This assumes your arsenal is hardened/dispersed enough to launch an effective counterstrike after being hit itself. US ICBM silos and SLBMs meet this requirement.
Fourth, if he launches against your population centers (a "counter-value" attack), then you launch against his. The ability to guarantee the annihilation of your enemy's cities and people is the essence of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), and is the one and only guarantee that a nuclear war will never be fought.
There is also Nuclear Utilization Target Selection (NUTS). This is the principle that nukes can be used in a limited role without triggering a MAD exchange. NUTS might be employed by or against an enemy that doesn't have the arsenal for MAD.
>>30652442
Go to a board speaking your first language, brown skin.
>>30652399
>He hasn't watched wargames
You win by not playing the game silly
>>30652399
>NATO is mobilizing
that's rich
>>30652419
You assume NATO vs. Russia or similar symmetric case. There are other more likely scenarios. Like a fundamentalist setting off a nuclear weapon in Tel Aviv.
Face it: nuclear weapons was high tech in 1940's. Today countries like Pakistan and North Korea possess such weapons. Iran would like to have this too. Pakistan very helpfully named it the "Islamic Bomb". Go figure.
>>30652399
Either you launch nukes, see what survives then fight a conventional war, or you fight a conventional war, or something in between.
>>30654288
Not necessarily.
After a nuclear cleanout you might want to follow up with bio agents. Experience from Hiroshima is that people will survive and return. About 2 km from ground zero was a bank building in brick. Everyone inside died. Two days later it was back in business (source: the nuclear museum in Hiroshima).
So if Israel need to delete Gaza strip it can be done with nuclear fire but it is best to follow up with say anthrax after the fires die down.
Ignorant civvie here. What about the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons versus the use of "strategic" nuclear weapons in a conventional war? ICBMS would trigger a response that could cause MAD, but what if it was done with bombs and missiles carried by aircraft and has a smaller radius and destructive power compared to an ICBM? Will it trigger a "strategic" nuclear response or will it trigger a "tactical" nuclear response? Will MAD be put in effect due to the use of "tactical" nukes?
>>30652399
Make your opponent crumble from the inside.
>>30654454
Read thread
>>30652578
>>30654400
Maybe, and hear me out here, brick buildings in general survived because we just firebombed the shit out of those cities like everything else. Too bad we for sure have nukes now that can actually lead to the world ending.
>>30652399
Infiltrate the media and brainwash your enemy's children into fighting for you.
>>30654665
>Your enemies children
You mean the future transnational gamma slave
>>30654553
>nukes now that can actually lead to the world ending
Nukes can wreck anyone's day. They will not end the world. human resilience should not be underestimated and the Japanese experience shows that.
What can go well beyond a bad day is genetic warfare. That is seriously scary stuff. The world might not end but humanity would. Wikipedia has a bit about this and some media leaks in the past. It is very much not science fiction.
Because of MAD the usefulness of nukes themselves has been limited to just having them sit there at all times. People who run the world have a top priority of maintaining "sociaty".the last thing the good ol boys club wants is anarchy or an apocalypse. They have control of you when we are in a sociaty. If the world goes into MAD, than the people that feel they matter the most right now will be king of nothing
>>30656039
>the last thing the good ol boys club wants is anarchy or an apocalypse.
And then there's that 'guy'.
That's just it too... no point in being the royal highness of a glass parking lot
>>30652399
Give up all global trade, rebuild society from ground up, literally go on war path across the globe. And most importantly be competent and good at managing things.
>>30652399
It's simple.
You ally with the US and when stuff start you hope they will defend you too with their plane-mounted anti nuke laser/orbital anti nuke laser/computer virus that cause enemy nukes to blow up in their silos/computer virus that cause nukes to change their path mid-flight to rain down on the enemy.
Duh
>>30656039
Classic thinking based on symmetric warfare. This guy >>30656076 knows better. Middle East fundamentalists just do not think like you and me.
>>30656080
>That's just it too... no point in being the royal highness of a glass parking lot
That is not their concern. Instead they think of the express ticket they get to paradis complete with 72 virgins. Also look at their cost/benefit position. They believe it cannot get worse (they are mistaken) so they will do anything (which is even worse).
as long as there no extreme civillian casualties no nukes will be launched. If Russia or NATO commits a genocide or whatever they will obviously launch some. And most nukes arent even ready to be launched. Or can only be launched by plane or submarine, its all a ruse. Maybe 500 nukes are ready to be launched at all times worldwide
you build a bunch of neutron bombs and neutron an entire continent, all of them except yours actually. and then you repopulate by deporting your illegal aliens and their supporters.
while we're at it let's plant the right fauna and flora, and fix the invasive animal species across the globe.
>>30652399
Has anyone said "exactly how it is being fought right now and for the last 15+- years" as an answer yet?
