M.A.D.

Hope the nukes manage to destroy every single person that knows how to mamufacture nukes, while not destroying the planet or population beyond time's repair.

>>2368377
Uniting to fight aliums

>>2368377
Inventing a time machine and killing Einstein, and the Curies, and anyone else involved in the advancement of nuclear theory and technology.

>>2368377
I always thought it was a neat concept that in the Master of Orion games (which are sort of like civilization but in space) the humans are the diplomatic faction because the lore is that humanity was the only race to develop nuclear weapons prior to the ascension of a global hegemonic superstate which has caused human diplomacy to be far more complex than anyone else's

>>2368377

MAD has actually been considered obsolete for a long time now. The prevailing doctrine is NUTS.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/1025/madtoNuts.pdf

>>2368377
What the fuck are "tactical" nukes?

>>2369486
>MAD
>NUTS
Kek

>>2369495
Strategic Nukes - High yield ICBMs & Nuclear Sub launched missiles. Typically used against static targets like opposing ICBM silos or cities. Used to achieve a STRATEGIC outcome (adversary's nuclear retaliation capabilities are diminished or his population centers destroyed to force a capitulation etc...)

Tactical Nukes - Generally smaller yields like launched from a plane or even deployed from the infantry level like in the case of the "Davy Crockett" to achieve a TACTICAL outcome (destroy an opposing hardpoint so your forces can advance for example). The targets for a tactical nuke depend on ever shifting circumstances on the tactical level, whereas your strategic targets generally remained unchanged (cities & silos typically dont move but armored columns & opposing armies/hardware do)

This was a bad explanation but that's the gist of the difference. Maybe someone else will explain it better

>>2369564
Wont the radiation make the place ininhabitable for decades ?

What's the benefit of this over artillery or carpet bombing ?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

>>2369495

This is a tactical nuke. Basically, it is a nuclear bomb sized small enough that it can be carried by an F-16 fighter jet. In terms of power, it is 300 kilotons or 20 Hiroshimas. This roughly 1/4 as powerful as the B-83 nuclear bomb which is designed to be carried by larger aircraft like the B-52 or B-2. The B-83 can reach 1200 kilotons or 80 hiroshimas.

The US had a fairly large supply of these suckers stored in Turkey until relatively recently when the country was declared too potentially volatile (politically speaking) and the nukes were sent back to the US.

>>2369495
A way to make a bad gamemode like Domination or Capture the Flag end easier

>>2370093
iirc airburst bombs often leave very low amounts of radiation after detonation.
this is why hiroshima and nagasaki aren't abandoned no-go areas right now.

File: 800px-Armata_samobiezna_2S7_Pion.jpg (213KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 800x600px

>>2370093
>>2370093

>What's the benefit of this over artillery or carpet bombing ?

With carpet bombing you need multiple aircraft doing many repeated sorties to have the desired effect. A tactical nuke only requires 1 aircraft to make it through, and if you successively hit the target you don't have to make additional sorties because the target is guaranteed to be fried. And of course, the nature of nukes means that you don't actually have to hit the target (or group of targets) directly, just get kinda close.

Artillery can actually be considered a tactical nuclear weapon if nuclear artillery shells are being used. During the cold war both the US and especially the Soviet Union manufactured special long-range artillery pieces for this exact purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bey1mYOvREE

Pictured is the 2S7 Pion which was designed specifically to project nuclear shells towards distant targets. It fires comparatively slow compared to more conventional artillery, but the idea is that if you're firing a nuke, you don't have to shoot very many times anyway. Russia still has vast quantities of these guns, although most of them are now in storage. Russia has used them in both Ukraine and Syria to hit fortified positions with conventional shells from very great distances, with artillery crews using commercially available drones to scout out potential targets.

>>2369483
That's quite clever, is the game good?

File: nuke2.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TYUyKmqPMA&t=1351s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCHfDR3dzOw

>>2370093
Let me explain my understanding of current Russian nuclear doctrine with an example:
>Russia accidentally a whole Baltic state
>America attempts to counter-attack
>Russia deploys tactical nukes to stop them
>if America uses strategic nukes in accordance with doctrine, then Russia will too, and tens of millions of innocent Americans will be killed
>Russia believes that America is not insane enough to escalate to that level simply to prove a point, and will either get NATO to back down entirely or use tactical nukes in kind
At least on paper, Russia feels that if they escalate to one step short of suicide NATO will never be able to bring themselves to go to the final step of actual suicide in a full-scale strategic nuclear exchange. They assume that someone somewhere will go "no, this is retarded" when the option of blowing up everything comes up. This is risky, but they still can't fight off the whole of NATO conventionally.

>>2369505

It sounds like a joke, but isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection

>Nuclear utilization target selection (NUTS) is a hypothesis regarding the use of nuclear weapons often contrasted with mutually assured destruction (MAD).[1] NUTS theory at its most basic level asserts that it is possible for a limited nuclear exchange to occur and that nuclear weapons are simply one more rung on the ladder of escalation pioneered by Herman Kahn.[2][3] This leads to a number of other conclusions regarding the potential uses of and responses to nuclear weapons.

>>2368377
>Is there any alternative to this insane balancing act?
ally with the nazis to kill all jews
no nukes are developed

oh wait ww2 is over haha lads

>>2368377

Massive conventional ground-wars.

Nukes are the only thing that's spared us from that type of war throughout the century.