Hey /k/ let's talk about nuclear weapons; personal, military, or otherwise.
>>28332446
I would create a nuclear bomb in the dimensions of a soda can, then randomly distribute them to vending machines
>>28332454
/thread
>>28332446
>Hey /k/ let's talk about nuclear weapons
how about no. any time we try to have a thread about nukes without Oppen it always ends in pure retardation. it's like psy ops and biological warfare threads. really, any unconventional warfare thread in general
>>28332446
Ok.
>>28334765
Oppenheimer!
>>28334788
Anon!
>>28332446
I got nuttin
>>28334793
Nice. Is that yours?
>>28334811
>Came free with my B-47.
Nah, was in a /hr/ thread, Their shit is on point when they aren't obsessing over feet and such.
So Oppenheimer, would you say that DEFCON (the game) for what it is, is a pretty good way of playing out your nuke fantasies?
Nuclear bombs are more a political weapon designed to prevent the owner from getting shit from other countries.
It's the main reason why WWIII with the Soviet Union didn't happen.
They aren't exactly practical since the fallout would make any area you use it in hazardous for years to come.
>>28334851
As far as a game, sure its fun.
>>28334852
>They aren't exactly practical since the fallout would make any area you use it in hazardous for years to come.
This isn't really all that accurate and has a lot of variables.
>>28334852
Last time I checked Hiroshima is doing pretty good...
>>28334888
See when I've played DEFCON I've always gone for mainly a defensive play until right at the end when everyone depletes their counterforce and but still hasn't fully switched their silos back over onto BMD.
Am I doing it right?
anyone know how i can build a davy crockett underbarrel mount for my ar15
>>28334977
Do you win?
Then you are doing it right
>>28334991
Yeah.
I was just curious on how much of the theory you can put to use with what the game gives you, not that I put much educational stock into it though.
>>28335036
They are not even comparable. It would be like using Battleship to study naval tactics.
>>28335047
But we need armored ships to provide arty for troop landings and will be able to also take hits and keep going!
Seriously though, that's fair enough.
I'm still reading through the book you recommend me a while ago (limited nuclear war: 21st) and I'm just wondering if there's anyway that you can put the theory to use? Or is it just all stuck to thought experiments?
So who is this Oppenheimer guy?
Is he like another antman or something
>>28335146
My boy.
Oppenheimer is the one of the few people on this board or website that you can seriously consider as an actual authoritative opinion on the subject that they talk about.
His is nukes and nuclear accessories.
Is NUKEMAP realistic?
>>28335144
>I'm still reading through the book you recommend me a while ago (limited nuclear war: 21st) and I'm just wondering if there's anyway that you can put the theory to use?
In what way?
>>28335177
Yes.
>>28335177
A small caveat, it is the most realistic available. It has some flaws, but those are limits in available data and the format he is using rather than errors in implementation.
>>28335146
Oppenheimer used to do nuclear policy for the US govt. Now he's with an anti-nuclear NGO, and for some reason finds it a good use of his free time to make sure chucklefucks on /k/ receive correct information about nukes. Or maybe that's part of his job. Either way, he is just about one of the few people who will say anything intelligent about nukes on this board.
Also, he believes it highly likely there will be a non-test nuclear weapon detonation in the next 85 years.
>>28335216
>and for some reason
You guys are funny, and I like to talk about guns as Anon when I'm not posting here.
>>28335199
Do you enjoy playing fallout?
Specifically when using a Fat man launcher?
Also why can't we legalize personal nuclear weapons ;_; muh freedums.
>>28335280
>Do you enjoy playing fallout?
Yes.
>>28334765
In the NDAA in 1994, congress banned the development of nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 5 kilotons, but this ban was later lifted in 2004.
Will we ever see new development in ultra low yield weapons like the W54? Or has it potentially already been done?
>>28335280
That 10mm Walther PP though. I'd pay a decent amount to bring that into reality.
>>28335333
>Will we ever see new development in ultra low yield weapons like the W54?
Its possible.
>Or has it potentially already been done?
Probably not.
Question for OPpenheimer. I work in nuclear power, and we hear a lot about the security of spent fuel, as well as accounting for it and various other limitations. Now, it's my understanding that spent fuel could really only be used as a weapon in something like a dirty bomb, at least practically. I understand the logic there, it has extremely high dose rates and an asinine half life. But most of the policy we have that regulates it seems to stem from old cold war nuclear weapon concerns. Is it possible to use spent fuel to make a fission device? Or were dirty bombs a concern even back in the 60s/early 70s?
>>28335199
>In what way?
Alright, so in the way that I, the typical joe, can apply my learnings in some sort war game exercise without having to be part of the DoD or STRATCOM?
So I'm given a scenario and must make decisions based upon from what I know and what's going on in the scenario.
>>28335396
Let me add real quick that I understand that the unspent portion of the spent fuel(the vast majority of it) is uranium at too low of an enrichment to be useful for that, so I guess the remaining components are what I'm wondering about. I didn't think any of them lent themselves to fission.
>>28335396
Yes, you can take spent fuel and extract Plutonium.
That can be useful if you want to make a nuclear weapon.
>>28335400
>can apply my learnings in some sort war game exercise without having to be part of the DoD or STRATCOM?
Well, it's mainly directed at policy decisions. By the time you get to the point where your nuclear weapons are an issue in a scenario, your nuclear posture has already been set. All thats left at that point is to carry it out...or not.
>>28335431
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel/
>>28335472
But if the opponent has or is believe to be in possession of nuclear weapons isn't your whole posture and rules of engagement right from the get-go in the scenario going to be around not making him cross the nuclear threshold but being still able to achieve your objectives?
>>28335544
Did I just repeat back what you just said to me?
>>28335216
>Also, he believes it highly likely there will be a non-test nuclear weapon detonation in the next 85 years.
>>28335223
Wait why does Oppenheimer believe that?
>>28332454
Appreciated
>>28335472
Gotcha. I didn't know how feasible it was to extract anything from it, that sort of thing. I work in the "dumb" side of nuclear power.
>>28335544
>isn't your whole posture and rules of engagement right from the get-go in the scenario going to be around not making him cross the nuclear threshold but being still able to achieve your objectives?
Yes but how you do that is subject to your capabilities as well as your opponents. An example would be if you have the money to build 500 ICBM silos with advanced missiles and MIRV buses, as well as the room to place them.
Or do you only have surplus Soviet rockets on TELs?
These are policy elements that are beyond the scope of most wargames.
The decision to build a massive ICBM silo complex takes years to come to fruition.
>>28335582
>why does Oppenheimer believe that?
Declining security of nuclear weapons, rising turbulence in some nuclear weapon states, and on a long enough timeline, the probability of almost anything is 1.
>>28335603
It's feasible enough that the equipment used to break the cladding off used fuel elements is restricted under the NPT.
Oppenheimer, What features will the Minuteman III replacement missile have?
When do you think will they be replaced?
Will it be heavy Peacekeeper like missile with a lot of space for many mirvs and complex silo system?
Or will it be large number of Midgetman like missiles?
>>28335630
Regarding posture, I was talking with family from Russia, and they were worried about the official "reconsideration of the threshold beyond which Russia will preemptively use nuclear weapons" specifically that it is rumored to be lowered according to an interview with some general.
They wanted to know how the US might respond if Russia nuked a smaller city, like Kraków. Because the attitude among some of putin's advisors is "they (the us) are fucking wimps and won't do anything" and that attitude is terrifying
>>28335630
Which states do you consider most prone for a potential "missing nuke" scenario?
>>28335724
As an additional note, we guessed that a lack of retaliatory strikes would be taken as a sign of weakness by the Russian command, and further use of nuclear weapons would happen without regard to previous diplomatic efforts to prevent it.
One person said it probably depends greatly on the president. I thought you might find the question interesting
>>28335630
This is a question from another thread entirely, but do you think there was any intelligence value in attempting to recover a Soviet SS-N-5 in 1974 from the wreck of the K-129, as the CIA contended? Or do you think it should have been left with the wreck in a more limited operation focused on crypto like the USN wanted?
And given the outcome of Azorian, do you think its possible another attempt was made for an SS-N-6 from K-219 in the eighties?
sorry for the questions but actually informed opinions on these things are hard to come by
>>28335724
>They wanted to know how the US might respond if Russia nuked a smaller city, like Kraków.
As Poland is a full member of NATO, it would be more likely than not that NATO would respond with a nuclear response.
>>28335766
1)Pakistan
.
.
.
.
2) Everyone else.
>>28335809
>This is a question from another thread entirely, but do you think there was any intelligence value in attempting to recover a Soviet SS-N-5 in 1974 from the wreck of the K-129, as the CIA contended?
Yes. Design details would tell you a lot.
>And given the outcome of Azorian, do you think its possible another attempt was made for an SS-N-6 from K-219 in the eighties?
My opinion is that Azorian was more successful than we have been led to believe.
>>28332454
>what is critical mass
>>28335630
Ah, okay.
In regards to the "non-test nuclear weapon detonation in the next 85 years", do you think a dirty bomb or an actual weapon is more likely to be used?
>>28335582
>>28335603
I'm pretty much with Oppenheimer on this, though that doesn't mean anything.
If it is a dirty bomb, from my understanding the yield doesn't even need to be anything of significance since it just needs to enough to be delectable and to cause some casualties because of the radiation sickness, right? Because of the (pardon the pun) political fallout and peoples fear from their own misconceptions with just the simple news line of "NUCLEAR ATTACK ON X COUNTRY" much like a typical terrorist attack that, statistically kills very few people but the fear and propaganda has its own worth.
>>28335871
that's why you shake the can up before you put it in the machine
they open the can and it's all "surprise"
>>28335905
Yeah. When we had to do some DHS training, they pretty much drilled it into our heads that the most dangerous part of a dirty bomb is the explosive component, by far. The radiological concerns will be annoying to clean up, more than anything else.
Another thread turned into oppenfag cocksucking
k is the most autist board here
>>28336415
Yep, well call us when your opinion has any actual worth brah.
>>28332454
Ever seen sum of all fears? They dress up a nuke like a vending machine and you reminded me
>>28335905
>do you think a dirty bomb or an actual weapon is more likely to be used?
I think a dirty bomb is more likely to occur, but it will not be a major event beyond what the media does to pump it up.
>>28336788
They'll inevitably call it a nuke and stores in the US will be stripped bare for a few weeks even if the attack doesn't take place on the mainland.
Fucking normies.
>>28336788
>>28336817
Agreed.
>>28336817
I think that they will call it a dirty bomb but make huge graphics packages that proclaim "10 TIMES BACKGROUND RADIATION LEVELS" with no context to whip up panic.
Oppenheimer what was your personal favorite nuclear delivery method from the cold war era. The F-111 is my favorite probably because there's a static display near me at what used the be Kelly afb and they're just so sexy
>>28336854
Coincidentally, mine is the FB-111
>>28336870
I'm in the field of aircraft maintenance and one of my teachers spent a majority of his career as a crew chief for fb-111s. He always talked very highly about them
>>28336870
We also have a b-58 on status display and that thing is just absurd. Definitely a cool plane
>>28336903
Only sat in one briefly. Always liked them.
I would pay all the money for a simulation of one.
>>28336939
>you will never be a B58 pilot on earth's last day
>you will never look over to your copilot and whisper
>"Let's hustle."
>>28336959
Why even live on this earth anymore.
Frogfeelingmelancholy.mp4
Would a Fat Man fitted with modern guidance systems, proximity triggers and a improved explosive system still be a viable weapon in modern armies or are they completely outclassed by modern systems?
>>28336996
>Would a Fat Man fitted with modern guidance systems, proximity triggers and a improved explosive system still be a viable weapon in modern armies
No. Too heavy.
>>28336996
We can't make a warhead small enough not to put the user at risk.
>>28337027
I think he was talking about the Fatman bomb dropped on Nagasaki
>>28337037
I was indeed. How about the Little Boy? Same situation?
>>28337070
Same deal.
Little Boy was 15 Kt and weighed 10,000 Lbs
W70 was 10 Kt at 450 lbs
>>28334765
Ooh it's the legend himself in the flesh.
I don't really have anything to ask since i'm not well enough versed in the subject to really discuss it.
I suppose i could ask if you have some recommendations about some relatively light books about nuclear weapons i could have a look at one day.
Have a webm.
>>28337150
Here is a reading list i put together sometime ago:
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
>>28337262
>no Command and Control
>no Dead Hand
>>28334957
Better than Detroit as of 2015
>>28337262
The question is, where do you start?
>>28337150
>you will never spend your last moments removing capitalist from horseback while riding through clouds of dust and radiation
>>28337318
Depends on your interested
>>28337335
What kind of topics are there?
>>28337318
I would suggest the history of nuclear weapons in politics. Op suggested to me a while ago, and I have read, the book "The Nuclear Express." Great book, and contained lots of neat events and facts I didn't know happened, as well as how prevalent espionage really was.
Opie, what is the most effective way to render a plot of land uninhabitable for the rest of time? Without vaporizing it of course, that would be boring.
>>28337490
Cheers!
>>28337262
I have a question. How many 100 megaton bombs would it take to completely remove Madagascar from the map? This has to do with something i did math for long ago, but i dont remeber my answer and i think i was slightly off.
>>28337499
dig up all the dirt and put it in a volcano
>>28337935
Again, without absolutely destroying it or wiping it off the Earth. I'm mostly looking for radiation.
>tfw no 200km^2 absolute killzone to generate nightmares for our enjoyment
>>28332446
I own a really powerful microwave.
>>28334851
Thanks anon. Googled it, saw it was 80% off on steam and got it. Good game
>>28338595
Good
I'm tired of beating the AI and same damn 10 players that make up the entire online community over and over.
What would be the procedure if an organization with no ties to a country (such as a terrorist group) somehow managed to launch nukes at America, or any other western country? Would everyone just nuke everyone in sight, or we would we target the country in which the nukes are coming from.
>>28338692
>launch nukes
>plural
If they are able to launch a missile, they probably have state backing. If they can launch multiple, they definitely do. Either way, if nukes are being launched at America, we would probably be able to hit back at the launch sites without having to justify it to anyone.
Bumping to see if Oppen is still around
>>28338692
We would not nuke anyone unless it we could find a nation that was directly culpable and even then its doubtful.
So Oppenheimer, I have questions for you.
My roommate is a Bio student and a long time ago we argued about whether a full nuclear exchange would kill all people on the Earth.
>I said its not likely
>People aren't that stupid
>I don't think most nations will be able to output the amount of nukes needed for such.
He thinks:
>Even at minimum the radiation will poison everything
>America's arsenal alone will cover most of Russia
>The world will be covered in ash
Could you inform on whether any of this is true? Citations of you can so I don't need to hear "MUH BIOLOGY"
If there is a screencap from a previous thread that would be nice too cause I know you've talked about this before.
>>28334765
i barely know a fucking thing about nuclear weapons/power/devices/ect, but i learn a little more each and every time you post Oppenheimer.
I love you, we all love you. thank you for teaching us.
>>28339705
>Even at minimum the radiation will poison everything
>America's arsenal alone will cover most of Russia
>The world will be covered in ash
My keks have produced the TNT equivalent of 10 Megatons
I'm a (molecular) biology major and I will tell you no.
>>28339705
>My roommate is a bio student
>bio student
>student
Remind him of this. He is not a biologist.
>>28337335
I got one. How accurate was "The Sum of All Fears" in describing an evaluation and response to a nuclear detonation?
>>28336870
Does the US need an FB-111 replacement? I know there were talks at one point of the replacement being a stretched F-22.
Will the Minuteman replacement be designed for a single warhead or will it be designed for much more but only loaded with one warhead?
>>28337135
Aren't modern primaries about the 5kt mark and only weight 50kg or so?
>>28337262
>No "Managing Nuclear Operations"
I'm wondering about the restrictions on civilians for nuclear armament. Does the second amendment, etc., protect my right to build and subsequently own (not use) a Hiroshima Fat Man? Can anyone give me specific restrictions on this? It's 2:00 am and I can't Google for shit. All I'm finding is government restrictions on other governments.
>>28342881
If you can actually enrich uranium, chances are you're already on a government watchlist.
>>28342889
Yeah, okay, but I'm asking for you to give me more specific laws on it. Also, the Fat Man didn't use enriched Uranium
>>28342911
Yeah it used Plutonium 239. Which you get from bombarding Uranium. You can't just obtain any of these materials
>>28342881
Destructive Device, man. You'd have to be able to legally manufacture DDs for a start.
It's hypothetically legal, but it's realistically impossible due to the cost and prerequisites for construction.
You'd also be constantly monitored by at least a half-dozen government agencies, and likely suspect to frequent inspections, once you did build one.
As far as I know, there are no laws that say, "no citizen can own a nuke," though some cities in CA will not allow you to, and you are subject to misdemeanor charges for ownership/use.
>>28343003
If I remember correctly during the atoms for peace program some private companies had nuclear weapons under their control.
>>28342954
>You can't just obtain any of these materials
Gee thanks friend :)
I actually don't have $50,000,000+, so I can't afford to construct it, but your vague answers which included no laws really helped me a lot!
>>28343003
Genuinely, thank you.
The article was a good read, especially the $1,000 fine part.
>>28343012
Correction, I meant Swords to Plowshares.
>>28343013
>>28342911
>Patriot act
Happy now?
>>28339705
Just tell him that the US has about 1500 warheads and ask him if the thinks that's enough to 'cover' Russia.
>>28342661
Book was excellent.
>>28342692
>FB-111 replacement
Probably not. It was an interim solution in the first place.
>Minuteman replacement
Hard to say but it will likely have a single warhead. That could change down the line.
>Managing Nuclear Operations.
It's a little dense for casual readers.
>>28342881
Destructive Device and there is a specific law that restricts unlicensed possession of nuclear materials.
>>28335582
Dirty bombs aren't very difficult to make, just rig up some radioactive material with explosives and blow it all over the place like confetti. Decontamination could end up being massively expensive and time consuming.
With regard to actually nuclear weapons, a loose nuke is always a concern and there is a real risk that Pakistan or Best Korea will get themselves into a fix and go full retard.
>>28343003
Fuckin' Califags
>>28343811
> Decontamination could end up being massively expensive and time consuming.
Only because our nuclear regulatory authorities use the LNT model. If they used radiation doses based on actual evidence the standards they would need to clean everything to would be much lower and less costly.
>>28342881
I would start by demanding my right to own nuclear weapons, but only as a ploy to settle for a mortar carrier.
>>28343003
Can you imagine if they made you get insurance for your nuke?
Bamp for nuclear glory
>>28332446
>Personal
What a glorious country!
>>28348019
technically legal but if you try it, expect to have a car crash on an empty road with no witnesses in the near future
More OPPEN
>>28337499
not oppen but I'd probably recommend a 3 stage device with 100 megaton yield detonated directly on the ground. the 3'd stage tamper being made out of material, that when irradiated with fast neutrons transmutates into a gamma emitting radioactive isotope with a rather long decay chain.
>>28351244
A cobalt tamper, be more specific, man.
The USSR already devised a doomsday weapon. It was some rickety ass cargo ship full of h-bombs and fissile material and anchored into a soviet fjord. If the US or somebody suprise attacked them with nuclear weapons, the crew would detonate the warheads, turn the surrounding landscape into radioactive fallout and more than likely poison and kill everything on the planet within 5 years.
I read the US wanted a similar system in the 50's where they packed Mt of the Holy Cross near Camp Hale full of warheads to turn the mountain into fall out that'd get carried on the prevailing upper atmosphere right across Russia and Europe and China. The whole northern hemisphere.
>>28351368
>The USSR already devised a doomsday weapon. It was some rickety ass cargo ship full of h-bombs and fissile material and anchored into a soviet fjord. If the US or somebody suprise attacked them with nuclear weapons, the crew would detonate the warheads, turn the surrounding landscape into radioactive fallout and more than likely poison and kill everything on the planet within 5 years.
>I read the US wanted a similar system in the 50's where they packed Mt of the Holy Cross near Camp Hale full of warheads to turn the mountain into fall out that'd get carried on the prevailing upper atmosphere right across Russia and Europe and China. The whole northern hemisphere.
Where did you read this?
>>28343822
There isn't sufficient human data at low doses to discard LNT. You need a massive dataset to pick the effects out of the noise. Decontaminating down to that level will still be very expensive/time consuming. Radio-nuclides can embed themselves into building materials and require extensive manual demolition (dust = bad) or removing layers of material until the samples come up clean.
>>28337335
Oppenheimer. what's your professional opinion on "Nuclear Matters: A Practical Guide" ?
>>28342881
>>28343003
This guy tried to make a breeder reactor and the Feds rolled him up like a carpet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
I imagine that they'd do much the same to you, regardless of legality.
>>28334957
and that bomb was also technacly a dud
>>28351590
>What is Chernobyl
>What is Guarapari beach
>What is Ramsar
>What is routine medical imaging
>What is uranium mining
There are more you stupid twat. Look them up.
>>28351368
>A cobalt tamper, be more specific, man.
Cobalt 60 although very radioactive only contaminates a area for a century. I believe the anon asked how to make a area completely uninhabitable for the rest of time(A long time). normally cobalt would be preferable but not when long term radioactive contamination is the goal.
>>28351432
Oh boy
Did that anon say something that he wasn't supposed to?
Dear Oppenheimer,
Why did no country ever establish a nuclear deadman switch aimed at every population center in the world?
Surely the threat of killing everyone would make you pretty immune to invasion, right?
>>28334765
What do you believe is the safest state in the United States for during and after a nuclear attack, terrorism or otherwise?
>>28357086
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
>inb4 everything
>>28355504
I'm pretty sure he's just full of shit.
>>28354869
not that guy, but a lot of those aren't controlled environments and still leave a lot to the unknown.
>>28355487
>only a century
>>28335814
Any reason why India isn't considered a special case like Pakistan when talking about losing a nuke?
>>28358208
Compared to Pakistan, India is totally stable and has it's shit together.
Seriously, Pakistan is a civil war vs. Islamists waiting to happen. Their idea of security for nuclear weapons is to load them into delivery trucks and drive them from place to place without convoys, in much the same way as UPS would ship t-shirts.
>>28357186
Somewhere with a low population and minimal strategic importance.
>Wyoming?
>>28357186
>>28358618
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?t=1bcac8b56072b4d24dbc494bd95686a4
>>28358271
Holy shit.. Are they're actually any good reasons for not purging that country in a preemptive nuclear fire?
Also, just for the hell of it, here's a Soviet-era launch authorization device.
>No, I have no idea what it says.
>I do know you're supposed to lay a punchcard from a special deck over those little white circles, which presumably pushes the right sequence of them to allow launch.
>>28358651
Bad for politics.
Rumor has it the US has Special Forces on station ready to grab as many nukes as possible if they winds start to turn, something the DoD categorically denies.
>>28358651
Hm. If you didn't take out all their nukes somehow, they'd pretty much instantly use whatever's left against India, and then we'd have to trust that India's response would be reasonable, lest it spiral out of control.
That's my conjecture, anyhow. I'm no nukespert.
>Designated Fallout Streets
>>28352758
Wait, really? Why do you say that? I'm extremely intrigued by that statement.
>>28355504
>Did that anon say something that he wasn't supposed to?
No. I had just never heard that before.
>>28357086
Outside of movie villains, positive control of the nuclear arsenal was considered of prime importance.
>>28357186
>What do you believe is the safest state in the United States for during and after a nuclear attack, terrorism or otherwise?
Oregon.
>>28358208
Stability. Better access control of their arsenal.
>>28358618
>Wyoming?
You would die or radiation sickness in hours if you were in anything other than the far west of the state.
>>28358651
The deaths of millions of people.
>>28352758
What?
>>28359702
Me too.
>>28335223
I'm betting India Pakistan myself.
>>28359702
>>28359747
I believe that something like a tenth of the material actually underwent fission; which would qualify the bomb as a "fizzle" by most standards.
thing was overbuilt to hell and gone
>>28359867
That was the design. The fizzle is when it is unexpectedly low, below the expected yield.
>>28359888
i agree. i'm saying that the extreme overbuilding and therefor low material fission ratio is what made the thing 'technically a dud' as anon is saying
>>28359894
I understand that. My point is that a dud is something that is unexpected, or far below the design yield.
Little Boy may not have used much of its available Uranium, but that was expected. The yield was in line with estimates.
You can describe it as inefficient, and it certainly was that, but I would say 'dud' is not accurate.
>>28359925
I don't disagree, i was just suggesting that whoever was calling the thing 'technically a dud' was doing so on that basis. sorry if I wasn't clear
also, how much is known about pakistan's tactical warhead program? I remember hearing that they were going to put some sort of sub-kiloton weapon into service? do you know anything about that?
>>28359925
Oppen, I'm >>28337499. How do we render an area so radioactive that nobody would touch it for a millennium, minimum? Or otherwise inhospitable, really, as long as the land is still there and not a plane of glass or crater.
>>28360049
A millennium?
I suppose you could dump used fuel elements and other waste on it. Turn it into a central repository for all the waste your generate.
>>28357770
Tbh with lead lined trucks and gear etc.... You could probably leave your doomsday "vault" in 30ish years (although you would need to travel possibly hundreds of miles before you could escape to normal radioactive levels)
>>28360071
Any way to do it in a short period of time? I'd like to see what adapts to a radioactive dump, though.
>>28360620
>Any way to do it in a short period of time?
Not that I can think of.
In case you hadn't spotted this one Oppen
>>28357435
>>28360665
Well, okay. Thanks. What would a look like going off in a high atmosphere, high gravity environment? Like a gas giant.
>>28360703
To be honest, I do not know. Thats a little out of my lane.
>>28335814
Have you seen this? What's your take on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c4f4NJSB_4
>>28360795
>Vice
>nukes
oh dis dun be gud
>>28360795
Wait
They keep talking about a dirty bomb but aren't they buying a warhead?
>>28360795
This made my head hurt.
>>28360795
>VICE
Oh, boy! Credible!
>Can't wait for Buzzfeed's nuke special!
>>28360964
Why? Because they were just blowing this up to huge proportions or because it's all BS?
>>28360758
Alright. How's the future of nuclear reactors looking? This is probably my final question.
Great job VICE, You drove Oppenheimer away.
>>28360795
It's like watching a white suburban 16 year old try to buy weed in the city.
>Oh yeah dude I totally got that
>just give me the money, and I'll give you the nuke that's totally not mostly parts from a scrapyard with old computer pieces hot glued inside
>>28361029
It's all bullshit... Like most of Vice
>>28360927
tactical nuke
![220px-Peace_sign.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/2hHkNIm.png "220px-Peace_sign.svg[1].png")
>>28332446
CND
>>28362545
fuck your goddamn communist plot, hippie
Do you think of nukes were never invented and without nuclear deterance and MAD that ww3 would've broken out? Or how would the cold war play out of Russia never developed nuclear technology? How does a hydrogen bomb work? How small can a nuclear reactor get?
>>28337150
I recall some autistic fellow recently posting on /k/ that the Chinese did not use human wave attacks. should have them watch this vid.
>>28364100
Human wave was the poor description of Chinese mass infiltration tactics.
>>28363574
If Russia had never developed nuclear technology, there would have been no Cold War, as the Cold War was many things, yes, but a nuclear arms race chief among them.
It's laughable to think they wouldn't, though. That would mean that they actively didn't *want* nukes, which is absurd when you're locked in a struggle for supremacy against an opponent who already has a technological edge.
That's a big portion of the reason they built up their intelligence network to the extent they did: to steal nuclear secrets and advance their domestic program.
>>28332446
I found six mini nukes in an ammo box while searching some feral ghoul infested town today. Pretty happy about that.
>>28332446
Does anyone know what a nuclear mission order from the cold war would have looked like?
Why do you need a nuclear weapon when the kunny throwing knife( Which can also be used for stabbing because it is a knife) can do more dps than a nuclear weapon over shorter periods of time?
>>28362459
But a tactical nuke is not a dirty bomb, right?
>>28366048
>kunny
cunny*
[spoiler]Fun Fact: This word puts you on the sexual offender watch list[/spoiler]
>>28335280
>implying there are people that don't enjoy playing fallout
This isn't possible, anon
>>28360964
So what was that machined piece of metal?
They call it a warhead, then they call it a "plutonium detonator".
I thought nukes used contact/radar fuses to start the initial neutron igniter inside the core and ignite the surrounding conventional explosives around it in a timed fashion
What exactly would happen if India and Pakistan popped off, assuming the U.S. Russia, and China keep it cool between themselves?
Is it even possible?
>>28369414
We'd probably get some kickass liveleak videos of Pakis and Streetshitters duking it out in CBRN gear on a glacier with a backdrop of mushroom clouds
>>28369466
If either government survived, just how bad would it be for them politically?
>>28336578
Man that movie scared me when the bomb went off. Maybe I was just tired or something, but I mean, nukes are fucking scary, and I don't think enough people realize that. Everybody thinks the threat of nuclear annihilation went away when the Soviet Union dissolved.
>>28369484
I don't think there's a right answer without more details. Did someone "win"? Is one party seen as the aggressor? How badly did they get hit? How much is left of the other country? Is the UN getting involved?
It's a big question with a lot of variables. Either way, it'd be the most important geopolitical event of the century easily.
>>28335582
Because Pakistan is barely a state
Would a full nuclear exchange actually "destroy the world" with nuclear winter? I realize that it would be the most catastrophic moment in all of human history, but I don't buy that it would literally cause human extinction.
>>28370182
no. nuclear winter is at best a misconception and at worst a straight-up lie
>>28367176
That was people trying to scam idiots for some hard cash.
>>28370182
>Would a full nuclear exchange actually "destroy the world" with nuclear winter?
No.
>>28371586
What's the bet the CIA operating in Eastern Europe had a slush fund for buying anything remotely WMD-like?
