Is there anything more terrifying than a Nuclear War?

religion

>>1685173
yes, & humanities

>>1685173
Life.

>>1685173
Abortion

>>1685173
anime

>>1685173
Hillary getting elected

Nuclear War and a Huge Spider

conventional war

Black people

File: 1469152101896.jpg (305KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1280x1280px

Hello.

>>1685173
Making love to a beautiful woman

attractive women

>>1685173
Hillary Clinton

For a serious answer (I can already tell that you're thinking: "A serious answer? On 4chan, of all places?" But anyway...), I would suggest biological warfare.

Consider: While the effects of chemical weaponry and nuclear fallout can be geographically contained (relatively speaking, of course), bioweapons are far less discriminate. With our era of rapid travel to just about anywhere in the world, a hyper-pathogen created in a lab and released on a battlefield (or as part of a terrorist attack) would easily spread far beyond its original confines, perhaps infecting most of the population of Earth.

Go look at examples like the Black Death and the Spanish Flu, then think about the effects of a bug that's been engineered to be exceptionally hard to counter through most available medical means...

>>1685173
a post-chemical warfare scenario is even worse than a nuclear one

File: nuclear_war-judgement_day.jpg (172KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1280x720px

>>1685173
No.

>>1685173

That there is a big chance that once humanity leaves this mortal plane of existance, little to nothing will remain from us.

File: Victoria.jpg (203KB, 800x1471px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 800x1471px

I'm so fucking tired of people going on and on about how terrible war is. Yes i'm serious, and all memes aside. In war, there's winners and losers, just like in every single other aspect of life, love affairs, economical, housing, even just the lottery. Cleary war is horrible for the loser, and quite enjoyable for the winner who takes all the spoils. And so war is only horrible if you presuppose that you are the loser. People need to literally man the fuck up and start having more victorious attitudes to life, fuck. Inb4 i'm a really really edgy faggot for legitimately holding this opinion. I admit, on one hand it was much better back in the old days, but on the other hand, if the Romans were introduced to nuclear intercontinental missiles i'm sure they would tremble in their sandals too, like we do.

>>1686277
not to mention the fact that countermeasures to weaponized pathogens would quickly lose efficiency due to the fact the damn things will evolve to withstand it

To me, nothing is more terrifying than the concept of nothingness.
Not pain, not death, just nothingness. Not even knowing that you are nothing. No senses, no thoughts.
That's what I fear the most.

bees

>>1686318
>And so war is only horrible if you presuppose that you are the loser.
Slaughtering soldiers and civilians would have a tremendous psychological impact, even if you were the winning side and didn't lose any men and material at all, which is never the case.

War is always associated with costs, and almost always with very high costs, sometimes so high costs that, in hindsight, you wouldn't even be happy about winning and would prefer the war to not have happened at all.
WW1 was horrible to all sides involved, even the winners, and we all know how horrible a nuclear war would probably end up being. It is simply wrong to say that war "is only horrible if you presuppose being the loser".

>>1686318
You realise that the only people able to win in a war are those who survive, and odn't get supremely fucked up by seeing combat, right? War is terrible for those that fight, as well as for those that die.

>>1686318
You should read lord of the rings.
Not even joking.

File: Sduck.jpg (66KB, 811x408px)

66KB, 811x408px

>>1685173
Isolation.

>>1685202
Hillary getting elected is, exactly Nuclear War.

>>1686377
This guy gets it.
Fuck bees. Or rather wasps and hornets.

Nuclear war is bad, but at least you can see what is killing you. Although, related to the mildly ignorant fool who said "you can win a nuclear war", you cannot win once nukes start flying. Nobody does.

Chemical warfare is really scary to me, because I don't like the idea of something invisible basically shutting down your nervous system. Biowar isn't any better

Dying alone

> implying I don't beg for a nuclear war every single day

>>1685173
Two nuclear wars

>>1686277
>>1686290
Would a nuclear war include chemical and biological warfare by default? It seems like in that occasion they would go all out

>>1685173
In which case are you more dead?

A) Killed in a nuclear bomb blast; or

B) Killed by a sharpened stick.

>>1687333
this guy gets it, theres obbiously nothing more terrifying than a nuclear bomb blast/

>>1687333
Don't even

File: big guy.jpg (49KB, 470x706px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 470x706px

A big guy.

>>1685173
democracy comes pretty close

File: 1472981993380.jpg (29KB, 410x595px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 410x595px

Libertarianism

Losing a nuclear war.

>>1685173
c o m m u n i s m

>>1685173
narco-communists

>>1686361
>Not even knowing that you are nothing. No senses, no thoughts
this is precisely why i fear death

>>1686361
So what you fear most is something you literally cannot experience

>>1687340

Right. And now we will prepare to defend ourselves against a man wielding a banana.

>>1687330
theoretically no, but those theories aren´t worth shit, like the ones who speak about "tactical" nukes

A real war. Nuclear war is quick, and if you're lucky, painless. You're simply engulfed in fire. Unless, of course, you die of radiation sickness

File: limited nuclear exchange.png (474KB, 1905x921px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1905x921px

>limited nuclear war
What did they mean by this

>>1687583
assholes who fail to see nuclear war for what they are: 100% political weapons, not military

>>1685176
>nearly cut me with that edge kid

>>1687717
why should I believe you, some dumb asshole on the internet, over two obviously very qualified and most certainly knowldedgeable policy people.

>>1685173
Airborne Ebola with a week-long incubation period.

File: main-qimg-78a91e6d0e86889b643b66df57ea70a5-c.jpg (69KB, 572x369px)

69KB, 572x369px

>>1687760
control of the nukes is in the hands of the head of state, ever wondered why?

>>1685173
Engineered super plague

>>1688135
The president of the United States is also the supreme military leader.
Also its still up to the nuke crews to decide whether to launch, iirc.

>>1688135
he's the commander in chief you dolt

>>1688135
He doesnt actually control the nukes just the ability to give the order to fire

>>1687298
kek

>>1685173
The aftermath of a nuclear war

>>1686318
What's it like permanently living in 1913?

>>1685173
Global Communism.

>>1685173
Visitation

Having a Mac

>>1687330
UK Cabinet documents speculated that Chemical weapons would be used, but not biological. Biological is too much of a loose cannon, more than nukes. In fact nukes are in some respects, safer than Chemical or biological.

>>1686847
This

Women in power

>>1685173

Not having one.

File: 20160913_191317.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>1687362

Only on point comment in this thread.

>>1687583

They meant this:

(1/2)

File: 20160913_191505.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>1687583
>>1690187

>>1686361
this, mortality as a concept just fucks me up senpai

>>1687183
>Although, related to the mildly ignorant fool who said "you can win a nuclear war", you cannot win once nukes start flying. Nobody does.

Define "winning"

>>1687330

The real answer is that it depends. Chemical weapons at the strategic level aren't a thing, so beyond their limited deployment at the tactical level, they wouldn't be used in the same say that nuclear weapons are.

Biological is typically off the table due to the unpredictability.

So when we're talking about IBCMs and SLBMs they won't be relevant as they would be ineffective compared to a nuclear one for removing counterforce.

>>1687427

Tactical nuclear weapons are a thing. Their yield and deployment and delivery method define whether they are considered tactical or strategic.

>>1685378
>>1685380
k

>>1690316
war is very much like making love to a beautiful woman, first you scope out the terrain and probe different areas, then you bring out the big guns and target key areas for the spearhead, once penetration has been achieved you keep moving until the final thrust

>>1685173
a massive loss in biodiversity paired with an exponential rise in human population and climate change. As a biologist I feel like everything I love is disappearing beneath me.

File: 1472232233072.jpg (138KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1920x1080px

>>1685173
Full scale biological warfare. There are diseases stored in Fort Detrick that make radiation poisoning seem like a sweet death in comparison.

>>1690710
Looks like we need a nuclear war to cut down on the human population then.

>>1685173
Antimatter war.

>>1686277
>he's never heard of the Cobolt bomb
xD


>Assume a cobalt bomb deposits intense fallout causing a dose rate of 10 sieverts (Sv) per hour. At this dose rate, any unsheltered person exposed to the fallout would receive a lethal dose in about 30 minutes (assuming a median lethal dose of 5 Sv). People in well-built shelters would be safe due to radiation shielding.

>After one half-life of 5.27 years, only half of the cobalt-60 will have decayed, and the dose rate in the affected area would be 5 Sv/hour. At this dose rate, a person exposed to the radiation would receive a lethal dose in 1 hour.

>After 10 half-lives (about 53 years), the dose rate would have decayed to around 10 mSv/hour. At this point, a healthy person could spend 1 to 4 days exposed to the fallout with no immediate effects.

>After 20 half-lives (about 105 years), the dose rate would have decayed to around 10 μSv/hour. At this stage, humans could remain unsheltered full-time since their yearly radiation dose would be about 80 mSv. However, this yearly dose rate is on the order of 30 times greater than the peacetime exposure rate of 2.5 mSv/year. As a result, the rate of cancer incidence in the survivor population would likely increase.

>After 25 half-lives (about 130 years), the dose rate from cobalt-60 would have decayed to less than 0.4 μSv/hour (natural background radiation) and could be considered negligible.


>The 5.27 year half life of the 60Co is long enough to allow it to settle out before significant decay has occurred, and to render it impractical to wait in shelters for it to decay, yet short enough that intense radiation is produced.[
> and to render it impractical to wait in shelters for it to decay, yet short enough that intense radiation is produced.
> and to render it impractical to wait in shelters for it to decay, yet short enough that intense radiation is produced.

Literally nothing you can do but die.

>>1686361
“Death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist” -Epicurus

>>1691080
Theoretical weapons don't count, bucko.

>>1691108
It's only theoretical because why would they make and deploy it, there is no reason, yet.

>it's theoretical
>except everything about it has been planned and created
>it just hasn't been physically made yet
;^)

A cobalt bomb could be made by placing a quantity of ordinary cobalt metal (59Co) around a thermonuclear bomb. When the bomb explodes, the neutrons produced by the fusion reaction in the secondary stage of the thermonuclear bomb's explosion would transmute the cobalt to the radioactive isotope cobalt-60 (60Co), which would be vaporized by the explosion. The cobalt would then condense and fall back to Earth with the dust and debris from the explosion, contaminating the ground.

The deposited cobalt-60 would have a half-life of 5.27 years, decaying into 60Ni and emitting two gamma rays with energies of 1.17 and 1.33 MeV, hence the overall nuclear equation of the reaction is:

*Maths equation*

Nickel-60 is a stable isotope and undergoes no further decays after emitting the gamma rays.

The 5.27 year half life of the 60Co is long enough to allow it to settle out before significant decay has occurred, and to render it impractical to wait in shelters for it to decay, yet short enough that intense radiation is produced.[5] Many isotopes are more radioactive (gold-198, tantalum-182, zinc-65, sodium-24, and many more), but they would decay faster, possibly allowing some population to survive in shelters.

That's how you make one.

>>1691123
>deploy it,
They literally can not deploy it without causing massive damages to surrounding areas, let's hope it remains theoretical.

It's everything bad about the nukes x10. It's focus on radiation damage, not explosive damage.

>>1691123
>>1691136

The worse thing about this weapon? If done right ONE BOMB CAN THEORETICALLY KILL EVERYONE ON THE PLANET.

The only problem is when tests were done in the 50's it under performed. They have had over 50 years to work on this monstrosity.

>>1691156
You would need a teraton grade explosion to kill all of humanity and thats only happened once back in the Ordovician period.

>>1691169
Did you read anything? It doesn't "explode" big. I mean, it's a nuclear explosion. But the point is it deposits so much radiation so quickly nothing can survive, and it puts the land in such a state it's unusable for a lot longer than regular nuke. One bomb is also capable of blanketing the entire planet in so much radiation everything dies within 30 minutes, and those in shelters will be dead in a few years as there is literally nothing you can do, you can't go outside to clean the ground, you can't do anything.

Not everything is about explosive power.

>>1691181
Again, it takes all the after effects of the nukes and multiples it ten-fold. It's not an explosive weapons. It's 'radiological' warfare.

>>1691181
Teraton explosion would blanket the planet in a dust cloud for thousands of years that it would kill everything on the land that isnt an insect that can go underground.

>>1691190
>Teraton explosion
Kek. They do not work the way you think they do. They do not have much more power than 100 megatons, they explode into space, they are TOO big. It would essentially be a Tsar bomb while yeah, massive. It is in no way scarier than a weapon which makes the planet unusable for everyone, which is its explicit purpose. There is no point in a Cobalt bomb.

I mean what point is there to developing a weapon whose sole purpose is actually the destruction of the planet? Killing people is an after-effect of the Cobalt bomb, destroying the world is the goal of it.

>>1691123
>there is no reason, yet.

There's literally no reason.

Full retard and high yield warheads are unnecessary due to the improvement in rockery and weapon accuracy. Most warhead CEPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable ) are good enough that variable yield and lower yield warheads have a accept level for their purpose this weapon much like the Tsar bomb is pure propaganda and has no real use.

File: kaboom.png (246KB, 1336x666px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1336x666px

>>1691205
A teraton is 1000 gigatons or 10000000 megatons retardo.

Heres a nice hint how fucking powerful this explosion is.

The air blast radius is what you need to pay attention too not the heat range.

>>1691226
>this weapon much like the Tsar bomb is pure propaganda and has no real use.
Kek, that's funny because the last thing we heard of anything ABOUT the Cobalt bomb from actual authorities was in the 50's. THe only reason I know about it is because I was listening to a talk but Jacques Fresco and he simply mentioned it.

>and has no real use.
Eh, I can see many uses for the Tsar bomb outside of warfare, destruction of meteor's being one, terraforming being another, or at least mining projects on other planets, nukes were actually theorized to be used in building projects, they actually wanted to dig the panama canal with nukes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare

I do not understand how you can say they are working on the CObalt bomb for purpose propaganda purposes but it's kept under wraps for 50 years? Depositing radiation has much more of an effect than killing people. Romans did it with salt, muricans are looking to do it with Radiation.

>>1691231

This weapon would cause a first strike scenario if it was in serious development.

>>1691251
This weapon would completely kill everyone in America. What this doesnt show is the impact causing a mega earthquake on the North American continent.

>>1691231
>here is a picture from a very reputable online source as to how big it is.
It's literally, like literally factually wrong. It would blow into space, the actual damage it causes would have no more than a 100 megaton nuke, because most of it would be in space.

If actually implemented a tetraton nuke would damage the atmosphere more than anything.

You can find all this out with a simple google search.

>>1691263
The Yucatan meteor was in the gigatons yet blocked out the earth, stop talking already retard.

>>1691271
Kek.
>here is a theory
>it's evidence

Did you miss the part where nothing in that theory is proven? xD

Impacts are also not at all similar to explosions?

>>1691250

Because, as a weapon, it disproportionate for its targets and would be ineffective due to the numbers it could be deployed in.

>Depositing radiation has much more of an effect than killing people

Despite the prevalence of this myth, killing the population is not the primary goal of most nuclear nations, whilst of course there are exceptions, we're primarily talking about Russia and the US. Both of which regard counterforce targets as their real MO.

>This weapon would completely kill everyone in America. What this doesnt show is the impact causing a mega earthquake on the North American continent.

It would not, but like I said. It would trigger a pre-emptive strike. This makes it worthless as a weapon. You literally give your opponent a reason because you destroy any parity between you and them. The risk to him is too great that the cost of fighting a nuclear war is more attractive than *not* fighting a nuclear war.

>>1691293
>Despite the prevalence of this myth, killing the population is not the primary goal of most nuclear nations, whilst of course there are exceptions, we're primarily talking about Russia and the US. Both of which regard counterforce targets as their real MO.

Key word most. Cobalt bomb is an exception. What use does irradiating the planet to an usable degree have, past killing the inhabitants? Like you can argue it's to move hem out of the area, that's fair. But one bomb can theoretically coat the planet - it has no purpose.

The next part was not me, so I will not reply to it.

>it disproportionate for its targets and would be ineffective due to the numbers it could be deployed in.
If done correct, you only need ONE (1) Cobalt bomb. And you can make the world's land uninhabitable for about 150 years.

>>1691305
>If done correct, you only need ONE (1) Cobalt bomb.
It could be blown from your backyard, and you could destroy the whole world. At one stage we need to stop creating these weapons for the purpose of weapons. CObalts have literally no purpose past radiating the environment.

Nukes and other types of explosive weaponry have many uses, we just aren't using them yet.

Human morality limits our destructive power, not the other way around.

>>1691305

When we talk about nuclear war, we talk about Russia and US. These are the only nations that would have ability to field such a wunder-weapon to the correct scale.

>If done correct, you only need ONE (1) Cobalt bomb. And you can make the world's land uninhabitable for about 150 years.

You would need several. A single warhead or bomb is not sufficient for a creditable deterrent from a logistics stand point, warheads and missiles must have maintenance periods. Neither would a single warhead or bomb be sufficient to disable or destroy. Counterforce targets have 3-5 warhead assigned to them for varying reasons, for example CEP and survivability (a single one can easily be intercepted by defences).

>>1691365
**Neither would a single warhead or bomb be sufficient to disable or destroy all counterforce targets

>>1691365
>You would need several.....

Dude, what you are saying is literally wrong. You would not need several, it IS theoretically possible to use only one, ONE (1), and coat the world in radiation, like, that's why it's so fucking scary. One bomb can actually destroy the world. You could pop it in your back yard, meaning missile defences are pointless, and the bomb would do the rest. DOing this you could also take counter-measures to increase your own rates of survivability and deal with the fall-out. Everyone else is fucked.

Everything you are saying comes from an inherent misunderstanding of what a Cobalt bomb is. It's not an explosive weapon, it literally coats the world in radiation, so quickly, and so violently the whole point of it is to destroy the world through radiation poisoning.

>Theoretically, a device containing 510 tons of Co-60 can spread 1g of the material to each square km of the Earth's surface (510,000,000 km2). Radiation output from 1g of Co-60 over one half life is equivalent to 44000 GBq, which is sufficient to kill any inhabitants. If one assumes that all of the material is converted to Co-60 at 100 percent efficiency and if it is spread evenly across the Earth's surface, it is possible for a single bomb to kill every person on Earth. However, in fact, complete 100% conversion into Co-60 is unlikely, as 1957 British experiment at Maralinga showed that Co-59's neutron absorption ability was much lower than predicted, resulting in a very limited formation of Co-60 isotope in practice.

This next quote is the scariest part.

But is big so I will make another post.

>>1691409

>In addition, another important point in considering the effects of cobalt bombs is that deposition of fallout is not even throughout the path downwind from a detonation, so that there are going to be areas relatively unaffected by fallout and places where there is unusually intense fallout, so that the Earth would not be universally rendered lifeless by a cobalt bomb.[7] The fallout and devastation following a nuclear detonation does not scale upwards linearly with the explosive yield (equivalent to tons of TNT). As a result, the concept of "overkill" - the idea that one can simply estimate the destruction and fallout created by a thermonuclear weapon of the size postulated by Leo Szilard's "cobalt bomb" thought experiment by extrapolating from the effects of thermonuclear weapons of smaller yields - is fallacious.[8]

> As a result, the concept of "overkill" - the idea that one can simply estimate the destruction and fallout created by a thermonuclear weapon of the size postulated by Leo Szilard's "cobalt bomb" thought experiment by extrapolating from the effects of thermonuclear weapons of smaller yields - is fallacious.

A Cobalt bomb is nothing like a normal nuke, that's the whole fucking point. You are using nukes as an example and reasoning to deny the power of a Cobalt bomb, when the creator has told you that cannot be done as a Cobalt bomb works outside these parameters.

The WORST part is we have heard very little since 57.

>>1691409
>>1691417

You can keep repeating this, but it does not make it true. You are ignoring the reality of it.

A single warhead or bomb is not enough for a credible deterrent, it is not logistically feasible. A single warhead or weapon (including its delivery method) must undergo maintenance. A single warhead or bomb is not survivable from attack, all nuclear powers understand this. This is why they invest in several or submarine based platforms.

Again, a single warhead or bomb is not sufficient to destroy both the extensive counterforce targets of both Russia and US or please explain to me how harden counterforce targets outside the air blast radius will be damaged. The radiation will do extensive damage to countervalue targets, but not counterforce, which is the primary thing to target if you wish to "win" or continue to have an inter-war deterrent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterforce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervalue

>>1691482
>is told you cannot extrapolate the 'destructive power' of a Cobalt bomb from generic nukes
>continues to extrapolate the destructive power of a Cobalt bomb from the power of the nukes

You can stop at any time.

>You are ignoring the reality of it.
That's rich. Because you know, you are doing exactly what is said you cannot do in order to keep your argument. You are also shifting the goalposts to what it means to 'win' the war. When it's got literally nothing to do with the 'destructive' power of a Cobalt bomb. Nowhere have I said are they actually going to use it? They probably will not. That in no way takes away from the power of a Cobalt bomb.

Again, feel free to stop at any time.

>Again, a single warhead or bomb is not sufficient to destroy both the extensive counterforce targets of both Russia and US or please explain to me how harden counterforce targets outside the air blast radius will be damaged.

>is told you cannot extrapolate the 'destructive power' of a Cobalt bomb from generic nukes
>continues to extrapolate the destructive power of a Cobalt bomb from the power of the nukes

>>1691498

If you look over my posts, I have never denied the destructive power. I have only explain it is not a viable weapon for said reasons.

>>1691482
>or please explain to me how harden counterforce targets outside the air blast radius will

Are you literally retarded? Cobalts do not rely on the fucking AIr Blast radius like a generic nuke? That's the whole fucking point? What the fuck does an air blast radius have to do with a weapon which coats the world in so much radiation in such a short amount of time nothing can live?

It's actually besides the point.

It's like saying guns are bad weapons because the blunt force trauma inflicted by pistol whipping someone is noway near the power of a mace. Therefore maces should be used and guns should not.

They are 2 different weapons, and you cannot use generic nukes to see the power of a Cobalt, like, it's literal fact. He is repeating it because you are arguing from ignorance (ignoring that most vital point).

>>1691508
Kek, then what you are saying has literally no point. What are you even doing?

YOu are still flat out wrong.

If you understand HOW the Cobalt bomb works, then you know just how destructive it can be. Russians for example 5 years from now could just start dying, because the Americans set off a Cobalt bomb and controlled the fallout so it hit the Russians only. It would literally come from nowhere, and everyone would be dead within 5 years, everyone. There would be nothing they could do, by the time they detect the radiation, it's too late, they have 30 minutes.

Like, you are STILL extrapolating the power of a Cobalt from the power of generic nukes. YOu simply cannot do that, they are not the same thing.

ALl you can say is 'no' and then continue to argue from a pointless platform.

>>1691526
I'd say biological warfare is still even more terrifying given it cannot be controlled what so ever

that nice little virus that supposedly only targets people of russian descent suddenly shows up back in the states having upgraded to "all of humanity" and there's diseases with symptoms that rival even the most serious cases of radiation poisoning

>>1691516

Because the radiation does nothing against counterforce targets and explained reasons. I have repeated myself because you are not understanding what I am saying.

>It's like saying guns are bad weapons because the blunt force trauma inflicted by pistol whipping someone is noway near the power of a mace. Therefore maces should be used and guns should not.

Poor analogy.

>>1691526
>Russians for example 5 years from now could just start dying, because the Americans set off a Cobalt bomb and controlled the fallout so it hit the Russians only.

Yes, but how would the use of such a weapon prevent the Russians from a counterforce or countervalue strike? It would not. That is my point.

>Like, you are STILL extrapolating the power of a Cobalt from the power of generic nukes. YOu simply cannot do that, they are not the same thing.

They are strategic weapons. At the strategic level, you would use them in the same mindset as tradition nuclear weapons. As a deterrent ageinst your opponent.

In your mindset what would be the policy behind such a weapon? Why would such a weapon be deployed when it does not prevent the Russians from countervalue strikes?

>>1685173
A woman's vigina

>>1691553
>Yes, but how would the use of such a weapon prevent the Russians from a counterforce or countervalue strike? It would not. That is my point.

So you created something which has literally nothing to do with this thread, and that's what you want to argue?
>Cobalt bombs are not a powerful weapon because it will force the russian to counter attack
>only powerful weapons can destroy the ability of a counter-attack
o-okay.
>Poor analogy.
Kek, literally 'no'. I was just joking, but you went ahead and did it.

Actually done with you. Feel free to reply to this post line by line, I won't be replying to you, again. Sure, as I said over and over again. The Cobalt bomb is a pointless bomb. That just adds to the horrendous nature of it.


>>1691552

Indiscriminate killing is much more scary than discriminate killing. IMO anyway, the thought experiment of this bomb created a new term of "radiological warfare" it took the idea of fallout and radiation from the nukes and turned that into a weapon.

If you are given the virus you could create an antidote, we have no real way to deal with mass levels of radiation except putting it really far underground, that cannot really be done when the whole world is covered.

>>1686361
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jxepnIG1yQQ

>>1691572

My reason for replying to you was to help you understand that these cobalt weapons are not to be feared as they are not viable when you apply actual nuclear strategy or game theory to them.

You don't even nessaryily have to believe me, it even highlights what Herman Kahn (one of the founders of nuclear strategy) said on them.

>In the 1960 book On Thermonuclear War, nuclear theorist Herman Kahn mentions cobalt weapons with the implication that they're militarily irrelevant or irresponsible (there's a chapter largely devoted to the drastically destabilizing nature of attempts to use nuclear blackmail with "doomsday machines" such as cobalt bombs or other radiological weapons)

>Cobalt bombs are not a powerful weapon because it will force the russian to counter attack
>only powerful weapons can destroy the ability of a counter-attack

My actual statements do not contdict each other and I am sory if I have been confusing.

Were these weapons to become deployable, the Russians would be forced into a situation that the cost of not doing a pre-emptive is great than not doing one. Not because they threaten Russian counterforce but because they threaten the very existence of the Russian people (in a similar way to nuclear weapons, but on a entirely different scale) and the world due to their destructive power.

>Actually done with you. Feel free to reply to this post line by line, I won't be replying to you, again. Sure, as I said over and over again.

Again, I'm sorry that you have interpreted my posts in such a way.

>The Cobalt bomb is a pointless bomb. That just adds to the horrendous nature of it.

Then we are in agreement.

>>1691572
there's no such thing as an antidote to a virus
you can vaccinate people against, if you have the time to properly study the virus that is, but once that thing is up and running you're treating symptoms and trying to get the body healthy enough its immune system can take care of it

>>1691620
>Then we are in agreement.

See>>1691205
>There is no point in a Cobalt bomb.

There was never a disagreement, you sperged the fuck out and got annoyed when you were called out for.

>actually replied line by line
wew.

>>1691620

This is what I get for using darkroom mode.

*necessarily
*contradict
*sorry

>>1691633
>There was never a disagreement, you sperged the fuck out and got annoyed when you were called out for.

If you read through the posts the only one who sperged out was yourself. Keep memeing, I tried to be educational, but you made a disagreement out of it.

>>1691648
>he is still going
wew

File: 1450257901883.png (406KB, 598x447px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 598x447px

>>1691667
>if I shitpost hard enough it will save my ego

Yes, yes heaven forbid some who takes an actual interest in a subject shares their thoughts with others.

On the off chance that you do want to learn something though, I'd recommend stopping by on /k/. We've got a former US nuclear stratgist and proliferation consultant who does great Q&A threads with us. Just a thought.

>>1685173
Two nuclear wars.

>>1691572
I can recognize you, fucking australian sperg.

Two nuclear wars

>>1685173
my benis :DDDDDDDDDD

a nuclear war isn't scary the fear come from your death but if you can't even feel your death you don't give a fuck i'd prefer take a nuclear bomb than seeing my wife raped by a bunch of soldier while i'm getting stabbed by one of them

>>1685173
atheism

File: 1458694168931.png (1MB, 3622x1962px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3622x1962px

>>1685173
two nuclear wars

international currency transactions and the fall of bretton woods

data mining

a nuclear war can kill a man in body, but mankind as a whole would continue to exist. the complete erosion of privacy for the common person would kill humanity in soul while leaving some very scary animated corpses behind.

>>1686318
>And so war is only horrible if you presuppose that you are the loser
Sometimes everyone is the loser.

Someone post the thing about the WW1 trench bogs full of chemicals that people fell into at night, the touching mud and finding it's actually someone's decomposing face, the death gurgles of those who got stuck, etc.

Yes I think a weaponized virus or disease is much worse than nuclear war. My friend is a terrorism specialist and he tells me about how hard shit will hit the fan if there is a large scale outbreak of anything. Also I think I would rather have nuclear war than total anarchy because at least with nuclear war we die and don't have to suffer through a hellish existence.

>>1685173
Nuclear bombs don't exist

>>1685173
If serious: not having nukes to prevent larger conflicts. Not many realise that it's the weapon that helped us evade another world war with USSR

>>1685173
stepping on lego barefooted

>>1693403
“Winners never talk about glorious victories. That’s because they’re the ones who see what the battlefield looks like afterward. It’s only the losers who have glorious victories.”

>>1691620
How does Kahn actually handle the concept of a Russian counter attack against a doomsday machine? Once I've got my doomsday device, and once everyone knows, what does it matter if the Russians try to attack?

Catch a Russian tampering with device A (or more obviously, detect nuclear launches intended to neutralize the devices)? Well then, I'll set off every other device I have. As it's a doomsday device, what does it matter if the Russians counter attack once I've set it off? New York becomes a crater, but Everyone from Alaska to Vladivostok (taking the longest possible route, obviously.) has already died of radiation poisioning including myself.

I mean they could attack immediately when they find out I'm building it, but who's to say I am? And if they catch me, who's to say that immediately means war on their part? Perhaps they will give me an ultimatum, meaning I can at least try.

>>1693581
>Not many realise that it's the weapon that helped us evade another world war with USSR
I have my doubts. Even when we were at a nuclear advantage over the USSR, the tentative plan to do so was named "Operation Unthinkable" and the USSR was always far less expansionist and far more afraid of us than we liked to believe.

(They weren't good lil boys who din do nuffin, but they were as much paper as they were tiger.)

a gamma ray burst

>>1685173
two nuclear wars
>>1687298
fuck you

>>1685173
Seeing my Japanese waifu die ngl friend.

>>1690807

Like what?

>>1685381
>>>/pol/ you racist piece of shit

File: 12387897765.jpg (59KB, 496x409px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 496x409px

Complete jewish world domination

>>1685173
Being in a besieged city that's been starving for months and is now breached by vengeful invaders.
Having a family during this event.

File: 1461297359224.jpg (799KB, 1600x2211px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1600x2211px

>>1686318
The most victorious attitude is to assume that victory can be achieved for everyone.

Violent conflict can be transcended and left behind, and every man may work cooperatively for the betterment of his fellows. Not even a gommie.

>>1685176
cringed