Stanislav Petrov, the man at the centre of the 1983 nuclear attack false alarm died quietly a few months ago. It seems only now people in the West are realising he died and are running stories on it. As usual, the media playing up the 1983 incident at "the closest we've ever been to nuclear war". Looking at it, I'm not convinced however particularly when Able Archer and the Cuban Missile Crisis exist.
I suspect a real out-of-the-blue attack would not start with a few ICBMs launched from the US but instead would start with attacks on radars and other c&c from SLBMs and possibly Pershing 2s. The USSR would not be so itching to commit national suicide and launch on warning, instead they would ride through the attack and retaliate counter value.
I'm certain if Petrov had handed the information off higher they would have made the same conclusion he did and (rightly) believe this "attack" was lacking all the hallmarks of an out-of-the-blue attack.
Maybe Oppenheimer can add to this.
Most likely they would have thought this was an attempted decapitation strike on Moscow, capitalizing (heh) on the assumption that a "true" strike would involve everything being launched. (See Pearl Harbor)
Except a decapitation strike would be suicide without also expending thousands of weapons to destroy the USSR's ICBM arsenal.
If you're going to decapitate the enemy you may as well go all in and get the rest of your targets.
>Light and easily concealable
>pretty cheap compared to other models ($400)
>sexy, fits nice in hand
Is it worth it or should I look somewhere else? I want a compact in 380 or 9mm but if the price was right maybe a .45
Not everyone eats as much as you do fatass, my hands are too small (they're normal size) to carry a double stack
ITT- Cartridges you wish existed. I'll start:
>.40 S&W necked to .30-.27 caliber with .22 saboted bullet
>5.56 performance in any common handgun/PDW
Sabots are underrated.
something like a 17. hmr or 22. but the casing is a thicker, but smaller than a 9mm and has a case thats as long as a 7.62x39 and a bullet that's as thick as the case so a thin but long round so you can stack them deep in a magazine without sacrificing powder but the round is still a lower power round but high velocity.
What could have been done differently in World War 1/The Great War that would have ended the conflict earlier and prevented so many lives from being lost? Specifically, what could have caused one side to succeed over the others much, much earlier, regardless of side.
I study this conflict a lot and it just seemed to me to be at the worst intersection of warfare technology and conscription.
Pic and video related.
If Germany had built a bigger navy, they would have starved the UK into submission instead of the UK starving them.
Also, the Ottomans were severely lacking in having a navy as well. They owned 3 straits, they should have been able to prevent the Dardanelles campaign.
If the Germans managed to close the weak point in their lines at the Battle of the Marne and prevented the British from cutting into them, they *might* have been able to force France into submission and take Paris. Everybody was exhausted at that point, and if the French had lost at the Marne there would have been nothing left for them to do.
if the british had allowed the colonial troops to be under their own command that would have done wonders for the allies. if you do reading about what the australians and the canadians did at the end of the war it was insane. or even better, instead of putting general haig as overall commander, put Monash as commander. monash was a fucking mad man who under stood the war and the germans, two things that haig lacked.
seriously, the commonwealth forces were/are really under rated because of the failures of the british command.
Ok /k/ überpoorfag here. Whats the rundown with cheap optics? Are they any good or should they be completely avoided? Pic related is one brand that you can get in the cheap, but will they hold up to innawoods use?
I keep hearing Chinese optics have come a long way, but I really don't know if they're any good to spend my small amount of fun money
NcStar is fucking trash. Like, if I owned an airsoft gun I wouldn't put NcStar shit on it. I bought some BUIS from them once on a lark, and I swear I could hear them rattling when I moved the rifle around.
Ok, Ncstar is a hard pass. don't waste your neetbux. Chinese products getting better means like. Primary arms and vortex products are actually pretty decent at the 150-200 dollar range. (for normal plink/mall ninja uses) But cheap shit will always be cheap shit. They might hold zero (woo) but you won't get any use out of their "high end features" like mil scopes and dial-able turrets. unfortunately you get what you pay for in most if not all instances.
The TRS25 is the best bang-for-buck RDS I've encountered yet.
Got mine for $40
I'm trying to find a gun that is made from 1880-1960 and doesn't commonly come to mind quite like a Garand or Nugget. What does /k/ suggest?
Sorry for the nooby question, but what is a good starter rifle for extended home defense?
Very, very, very tight budget. So things like "go to gun fair to buy" and the like is also helpful.
I just went through Irma and things almost got nasty in our neighborhood due to looting, and people trying to steal goods.
I have a ruger 10/22 but I want something actually damaging. Im also not convinced a 10/22 has any amount of scare factor to deter people.
It also jams consistently, so if anybody has a fix for that let me know. I use CCI ammo with it but still get jams. Maybe a new ejector?
So, /k/, how'd I do with my first firearm purchase?
Feels good to hasguns, imo.
Good job buddy, revolvers are fucking great. now clean your desk, it is disgusting.
How do the angled sights work on 3-gun setups?
Why were Jap tanks in WWII so bad? They were good at enginerring - their planes and ships were good. Pic related is the pinnacle of their tank design late war and only a handful were built. They obviously had limited resources, espeically fuel, but they knew the value of tanks from fighting the Red Army on the Mongolian border in the 1930s so you would think they would have taken them more seriously.
They really had no enemy with good tanks. Nationalist China had a few FT-17's, but Khalkin Gol reminded them they had to at least vaguely try.
But they decided to go for fast and small which was good against T-26's and BT-5's but not so against M3 Stuarts and M4 Shermans. By the time they had modern armor and 75mm guns, it was '45 and they decided to keep it for homeland defense.
No money put into new designs. Tanks were not a major part of their doctrine by that point of the war as the major land battles in China had already been won with tankettes that were in essence refined version of the breadboxes you find in the Middle East. Had there been any major battles on the mainland, you can bet they would be cranking out Type 3s in mass.
And actually, they did try experimenting with the OI, trying to utilize the same philosophy that drove their naval design: single superior vehicles that were stronger than the mass-produced competition. But it was impractical for the obvious reason that it could not really be transported where they needed it.