Nuclear War Plans circa 1956

>>28286876
cool

Holy fuck, thanks for the heads up oppenheimer.

>>28287875
You are welcome.

>>28286876
Yuo probably make the best threads on this board, also,
yes fresh oppenhiemer thread

>>28286876
If you don't think this is some of the coolest shit ever then get the fuck outta my face

>>28286876
Why Berlin? That would have just fucked West Berlin too.

>>28287930
>http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/

>but multiple flyovers of Red Square during a 1954 military parade created fears of a “bomber gap” in Washington.

Was this the parade or was it a different year where the same exact 6 or 7 bombers flew in circles to give the impression they had more?

>>28287976
Sacrifice West Berlin for the rest of Europe.

>>28287976
Major Transportation hub, lots of military facilities

>>28287992
I dont recall actually.

>>28286876
>Moscow had 179 ground zeroes.

Does this mean that they were going to hit Moscow with 179 nuclear weapons or just had 179 potential targets in Moscow?

Wait, Beijing? Is that only in case of a war with China or is it just lol commies do it.

>>28288031
179 nuclear weapons.

>>28288034
im gonna go with lol commies do it

>>28288034
democracy is non-negotiable friend

>>28288034
better dead than red

those salty old niggas was cold as ice
>What is particularly striking in the SAC study is the role of population targeting. Moscow and its suburbs, like the Leningrad area, included distinct “population” targets (category 275), not further specified. So did all the other cities recorded in the two sets of target lists. In other words, people as such, not specific industrial activities, were to be destroyed. What the specific locations of these population targets were cannot now be determined.

>>28288052
Holy balls, why though? I understand the logic behind crippling their political and military command structure, but after 20 or so bombs would there even be anything left to blow up?

File: Bombs away Lemay.jpg (86KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x739px

>>28286876
>This is me not giving a flying fuck

>>28286876
I remembe4 when I believed in Santa, in God, and in Nuclear weapons. Guess which ones I don't believe now that I've matured and been around for awhile?

>>28288097
god and nuclear weapons? why don't you fuck off an not derail the thread

>>28288090
>but after 20 or so bombs would there even be anything left to blow up?
Given the inaccuracy of the weapons at that time, probably.

>>28288097
Santa?

How did you learn so much about nuclear war Oppenheimer, was it all on your own or was it work related (MDA or something like that)?

>>28288090

Redundancy. Remember in '56 that ICBMs weren't a "thing" yet so these were going to be bomber sorties. Bombers are easy to shoot down and it would be really embarrassing if you're trying to fight an honest nuclear war and all of your bombers bound for the enemy's largest city got shot down because you under-committed.

>>28288121
>was it all on your own or was it work related
School and work related.

>>28288095
realest nigga

>>28288120
I guess that makes sense. It just seems unreal that one city would have that much ordinance dumped on it.

>>28287992
Yes actually. The Reds only had a few Bison bombers and could only produce them at a fraction of the speed of Boeing with their B-52s. The Bison also had inferior range iirc, making it impractical for CONUS strikes but perfect for Europe.

>>28288090
shit wrong quote
>The “systematic destruction” category would be struck with atomic weapons only. As suggested, that might not have made much difference for cities like Moscow and Leningrad which had numerous air power targets, along with the surrounding population, which may well have already been destroyed with thermonuclear weapons. This planning occurred years before U.S. defense officials decided that there should be a “withhold” option to spare Moscow in order to leave someone to negotiate with.

>>28288095

Lemay was a brilliant commander, but a god damned psychopath.

I'm just glad he was our psychopath.

>>28286876
thanks for that

>>28288178
This.

>>28288090
Because fuck them

>moscow completely flattened within first hours of conflict
>remaining soviet nuclear equipped units now leaderless in a country whose major population centres (alongside said units' families) are all gone
>no one to tell them to start/continue bombing, but then again no one to tell them to stop

Seems like a brilliant plan.

>>28288116
The only people who derail threads on /k/ are the ones who reply to the comments because they end up making more shit posts than that troll.

This is an objective fact. Stop derailing threads and ignore people you think are trolls. /k/ doesn't understand this.

>>28288095
#BASED

>>28288095
>Call McNamara, I don't give a fuck.

>>28288086
Hah, and to think people on /k/ spent years saying populations would not be targeted in the event of nuclear war, only military assets.

Holy shit, OPp... that's savage.

>>28288249
Nobody on this Bulgarian macramé board understands this.

>>28288361
1956

>>28288393
Can you explain why a strategy suitable for weaker and less nukes would be obsoleted?

>>28288361
moved to the coast and im between Diablo Canyon NPP and Vandenberg AFB. yea, im a lil paranoid about the day ill need my 1000000spf

>>28288361
Nobody says that. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between counterforce and countervalue though.

>>28288393
Im curious and I figured you would know why. When I see guides on how to shelter after a nuclear attack it says to not smoke. Any reason why? extra cancer?

File: lelmay.png (46KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 229x220px

>>28288095
>you will never make a war plan including nuking population centers and food supplies to ensure systematic destruction of billions of people.

>>28288361
it's called the plan including both counterforce and countervalue targeting options you triple nigger

>>28288427
Because when you have less nuclear weapons you have fewer targets you can hit.


>>28288460
You can inhale alpha and beta particles that might otherwise be harmless outside your body.

Also it decreases Air quality in the shelter

>>28288514
>Because when you have less nuclear weapons you have fewer targets you can hit.
But those few are clearly the higher priority targets, right?

>>28288361
This plan is from 1956 when the primary means of delivery was as an unguided free fall bomb from a B-36 or B-52. Nowadays they are retardedly accurate and much more likely to hit their targets and as a result, hardened targets like nuclear missile silos are much more vulnerable. I'm hoping Oppen can confirm this but Russian and Chinese SLBMS are supposedly much less accurate and as a result are more of a second strike weapon used against civilian population centers?

>>28288560
You would hit the higher priority targets first, yes

>>28288090

I read in a book about nuclear war (dont recall the name) that they would kind of double stack targets. for example Cities, people, and facilities, would all be targets and they would each have their own weapon targeted to them. So you could have one bomb for moscow, one bomb for the kremlin, and one bomb for stalin. but the list would get alot bigger than this.

>>28288627

Oh I forgot to add this is assuming stalin is in the kremlin at the time. Basically one City could get hit more than once depending on what buildings are in it, and one building could get hit more than once depending on who is assumed to be occupying it.

Oppenheimer maybe you could answer this for me though. what is the likely hood of Canada being attacked at the height of the cold war, assuming MAD doctrine is in effect.

For example I live in a Saskatchewan, would refineries here be bombed to ensure the crippling of north America? and would the BOMARC and Genie missile sites be hit before the states. (its my assumption that these where here in order to shoot down bombers and missles on their way to the US)

File: 1382131029398.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

>>28288097
Go on...

>>28288627

Last thing to add is I forgot this is a 1950s map, the book I read was from the 80s and talked about MIRVs and ICBMs

>>28288095
614 represent

>>28288462
>russia has billions of people

interesting that there is only one target for all of china....to me if they went though with this all that would do is insure china becomes even stronger with the soviets out of the way/sufficiantly weakened.

File: 7422368_126686773298.jpg (71KB, 700x968px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 700x968px

>>28288869
>Not even reading OPs link that included China, Germany and Poland.

>>28289069
At the time they'd probably still just add up to a billion plus change, unless he was talking about some On the Beach type of scenario.

>>28286876
i don't really get warsow, a city that was probably still in ruins from ww2 at this time.

Can someone post the nuke webms that circulate here frequently?
Not seeing a Webm thread running, but I want to show my gf the webms

File: 1448524743646.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>28289382
This is the only one I have

File: sprint missile.webm (866KB, 484x360px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 484x360px

>>28289382
I've got this one.

File: atomic.webm (174KB, 484x360px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 484x360px

>>28289412
And this one.

>>28289422
Thanks~
Got the one they detonated in the atmosphere?

>>28289026
during this period china was literally nothing at all. it wasn't even a threat. korea was korea because there was the chance of escalation with the soviets, not the chinese, who after their initial gains had their shit pushed in. in 1956 china was so non-developed that if you nuked beijing then you would have put them out of the power race for a century.

File: 1438921973923.jpg (125KB, 1024x679px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x679px

>>28289431
Those are the only two I have sitting around, hopefully someone else will be along to post it soon.

File: Screenshot_2015-12-22-17-44-55-1.png (56KB, 540x315px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 540x315px

Some one should photoshop these phrases onto a picture of lemay.
>>28288095

"Senior advisor to president kennedy"
"Strongly advocating military action that likely would result in nuclear holocaust"
"Strongly advocating"
"Nuclear holocaust"

File: bombs away lemay.jpg (193KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x739px

>>28289522
t. paint pro

File: 1450835504961.jpg (190KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 600x739px

>>28286876

>>28289567
Saved and I am going to use this for shit posting on other boards

Oppenheimer I have a question.
How effective are tactical nuclear weapons (lets say no larger than 100 kilotons) against modern MBTs. I mean, if there was ever a coffin to survive a nuclear blast it would be a 60 ton vehicle with depleted uranium shielding and a superstructure specifically designed to survive explosions. I know neutron bombs were designed to circumvent this problem so atomic weapons must have been repetitively (key emphasis on this word) ineffective. What do you think?

>>28288695

>canada
>a target

Depends on a lot of variables, again there's a big difference between pre-ICBM and post-ICBM strategy

But assuming the latter, targets would be mostly airbases. There's nothing much of value worth hitting in Canada since Canada itself is irrelevant. Most of the shit Canada would face would be fallout from Montana and the Dakotas becoming wasteland.

File: obj279.jpg (33KB, 500x345px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x345px

>>28290134

Ain't OP but ruskies made a tank conceived to not losing his shit in case of a nuclear explosion on the battlefield.

>>28288487
>triple nigger
I would never have anticipated that one day even "double nigger" would not be offensive enough for 4chan.

>>28290748
After a while everything loses its punch on 4chan, you damn dirty smoothskin.

>>28288572
I've been wondering Oppen, what would happen if the US or USSR "won" a counter force strike. They successfully destroyed 95% plus of the enemies weapons and intercepted any counter attack. What would the victor do? It doesn't seem like you'd just sign a peace treaty and take tribute from your now eternally mortal enemy. Were there ever plans drawn up for post nuke invasions or exterminations?

>>28290668
Why quad tracks?

>>28290888
Why trips?

More tracks means more victory for Russia!

>presumably it's some kind of contingency. I don't think these entered mass-production.

>>28290863

This is an interesting question. Considering that invasion of either country is and has been, since the atomic age, effectively impossible.

Is it a case of finally reaching the point of "I've had enough of your shit" resulting in nuclear exchange, then examining who came out worse, then either treatying faced with the threat of more of the same or one country laying on its back for copitulation (again, impossible)?

What's the end game besides "man, we sure did fuck them up. Way worse than they fucked us up. That'll show em, ok now everyone continue to be awesome now that we fucked em up good"

File: 01658434.jpg (64KB, 600x438px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x438px

>Moscow to be hit with around 200 weapons
>This was mostly before ICBMs
>This means pretty much waves of aircraft coming and just nuking the city over and over
Holy fuck. How do the planes even find their targets after the first few? Do they just fly into Moscow airspace and think "Yeah, here's good enough. Bombs away!"

>>28291241
Flying by instruments

>>28288095

OPpen...or really anyone here. If LeMay was given unrestrained control...could it be easily said we would not be here posting?

>>28289522
>diffused
Kennedy surrendered and then lied about it.

>>28288095
>In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings, and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city. Aircrews at the tail end of the bomber stream reported that the stench of burned human flesh permeated the aircraft over the target.[16]
Jesus fuck.

>>28293102
>U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay commented, "we went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another, and some in South Korea, too."[302] Pyongyang, which saw 75 percent of its area destroyed, was so devastated that bombing was halted as there were no longer any worthy targets.[303][304] On November 28, Bomber Command reported on the campaign's progress: 95 percent of Manpojin was destroyed, along with 90 percent of Hoeryong, Namsi and Koindong, 85 percent of Chosan, 75 percent of both Sakchu and Huichon, and 20 percent of Uiju. According to USAF damage assessments, "eighteen of twenty-two major cities in North Korea had been at least half obliterated."[305] By the end of the campaign, US bombers had difficulty in finding targets and were reduced to bombing footbridges or jettisoning their bombs into the sea.
An absolute madman.

>>28291281
Yeah with the windows blocked so they wouldn't be blinded.
There was a pretty cool movie with B-52s about this, I can't remember the name.

>>28288095

Only if he was alive to defeat ISIS.

>>28286876
>Charts to show the size of certain nuclear explosions superimposed over a map of DC for scale

1953
Goes all the way up to 5 Megaton
(kek)

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2011/12/30/friday-image-bullseye-on-washington-1953/

>>28293131
He'd still have some dick sucking lawyer-in-chief in command though.

>>28293102
>>28293116

>If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.

>>28293130

By Dawns Early Light.

It's an alright movie. Sort of a reverse Dr. Strangelove.

>>28293102

It gets better

On the night of March 9, 1945, LeMay sent 346 huge B-29 bombers loaded with napalm from the Mariana Islands (Guam, Saipan and Tinian) to Tokyo. The first planes dropped their incendiaries on the front and back of the target area -- like lighting up both ends of a football field at night. The rest of the planes filled in the middle. More than 16 square miles of Japan's capital city were gutted, two million people were left homeless, and 100,000 were dead. It didn't end there. Washington gave LeMay the green light as his bombers burned 64 more cities. He used the World Almanac and just went down the list by population. Altogether, an estimated 350,000 people lost their lives.

>using an almanac to determine bombing targets

>>28293204
>using an almanac to determine bombing targets
absolute looney toons

>>28293204
pretty much this is what oppenheimer's link looks like.
a retard saying
>bomb all airfields
>oh and bomb the capitals too, because of reasons
>and bomb them over and over

>>28289998
>>28289567
Wont let me post the one a guy on /wsr/ made for me

>>28293039
Chyeah bruh he tacticooly withdrew out of respekt for da cubun people and for safetey of damerican peeps, ya dig? With a spade? GOT DEEEEEEM FILFY RUSKIS YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW

>>28293424
Shut your mouth, its proper doctrine for the time.

>>28288514
What does that even mean? When you make 1 million dollars a year you decide not to buy food because that's for poor people?

>>28288427
>>28294123
>>28293424

Read through the entire article. The full target list was in the thousands. SAC picked every single building/factory/depot/airfield of any significance and assigned a nuke to it. The size of said nuke was dependent on how important/hard to kill the target was. Yes, many of these targets were pretty damn close together and hitting all of them at the same time would have been complete overkill, but the plan was never to hit them all at once. SAC had various attack plans that called for attacking certain targets. Depending on the situation, they would select a few hundred or so of them that were most important right then and there to hit first. Nuclear war was never about throwing everything you had all at once, it was about waves of attacks. If the first wave does the job, ok sweet we don't escalate. If follow up strikes are needed, you pick your next few hundred important targets or re target ones that warrant a second hit and then attack again.

SAC had a fucking plan for EVERYTHING, that's why anything that was even remotely important was logged, assessed and assigned planned tasking for attack. You really think SAC had the bombers and missiles to go after every single target they had? No way, the list was well into the thousands. Just becasue there were 5 targets all within a mile or two of each other didn't mean they hit all 5 at once unless they really needed to, they might hit one or two and then come around again later on if it was needed.

>>28290863
>>28291110

Any nuclear exchange that would be fought during the Cold War would be the result of a conflict over Europe. If the Soviets or US executed a successful first strike, the Victor would then press his advantage in Europe with the aim of accomplishing his goals there.
An invasion of either side was extremely unlikely.

>>28291627
I don't know about the US, but the Communist world would be a distant memory

>>28294123
Since you need food to live, it's a priority.

More like, you make 20,000 a year and you don't go to the movies anymore.

>>28287976
The wall would have saved them.

File: Know_that_feel.jpg (14KB, 400x449px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x449px

>>28294281

>>28290668
Ha! It looks like one of the Metal Slug tanks. I love it.

>>28288052
I would not care to face anybody who survived that. They might have some unresolved anger issues.

>>28288228
I think it was Heinlein who coined the term "spasm war". It's where the corpses keep kicking each other because there's not enough brain left to allow a shutdown.

Countries are like rattlesnakes. They can keep striking for hours after they've been killed.

>>28295143
There is a lot of inertia to stopping a nuclear war.
And it can be a catch-22.
You want to limit the ability of your opponent to issue orders to attack you, but at the same time you want to enable him to shut it down if you achieve interwar deterrence.

>>28293131
Mud huts doesn't burn very well.

>>28294265
You say you don't know about us, but what would the targets list look like in the west in 1959, if it's really any different from the map we've had floating around for a more modern scenario?

>>28290668
looks cockroach-inspired.

>>28290927
Da, comrade. You is of understanding soviet engineering.

>>28293159
>Trump & LeMay in command of nuclear weaponry

Holy shit. BRB, imma start digging.

>>28295422
everything burns

>>28287875
>>28287976
>>28288086
>>28288090
>>28288178
>>28288199
>>28288228
>>28288361
>>28288386
>>28293102
>>28293116
>>28293204
>>28293238
>>28293424
I thought that mutually assured destruction meant destruction, not pussyfooting around. LeMay might have had aspergers, so he took that literally and made sure that destruction meant absolute and total eradication, also known as, destruction.
I don't get why all of you act so surprised. Then again, I'm german and school here might have been a bit more hands on about this stuff. The Iron Curtain was a constant reminder about this. When your society expects being blown to shit on the whims of two people in countries far, far away, with weapons so insanely powerful that you can't possibly imagine the damage they could cause, history lessons get... weird. They made damn sure that everyone in history class understood what MAD meant.

>>28291241 see
>>28295090
Gotta make sure they will never be able to stand up again unless you want to get counternuked in the not too distant future.

>>28297466
quoting those 14 other people really drove your point home, thanks

>>28293131

>america
>defeating their own proxy

ayy

>>28289411
What the hell are the trails of smoke?

>>28287976
Gotta break some eggs...

>>28298050
I believe those are from rockets fired just prior to detonation, and were used to more easily view the progression of the blastwave at known distances.
Or I may be completely wrong, but that's what I recall reading someplace.

>>28298050
they're left by rockets fired up just before the explosion specifically to leave the trails
it's used to measure the blastwave

>>28288095
>>28288462
>>28289958
>>28293102
>>28293116
>>28293204

OPpenheimer and friends, is it bad if I'm sexually attracted to Bombs Away LeMay?
I mean, the thought of roasting enemy flesh with the blistering, purifying light of nuclear fire...
Who wouldn't be turned on?

>>28294308
Thanks Uncle Trump

>>28297466
Fucking moron.

>>28296927
Yes, because in 1956, the Soviets had very few weapons.

>>28297466
The issue is not with MAD, but rather LeMay's willingness to force the issue.

>>28299068
>I mean, the thought of roasting enemy flesh with the blistering, purifying light of nuclear fire...
Gives me nightmares.

File: oppenheimer dream.png (22KB, 1337x175px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1337x175px

>>28299455
>nightmares

Reminder that Oppen is insane.

>>28288086
This is the big revelation here. Countervalue targets were included in first-strike plans.

Then again, perhaps it has to do with >>28288120
>the inaccuracy of the weapons at that time

I wonder if the target balance stayed the same after ICBMs proliferated

>>28286876

So basically, it was "Just let LeMay rape the everloving dogshit out of them.".

>>28299592
>ICBMs proliferated
In general no. By the mid to late 70's there was a shift to counterforce strikes as the prevailing strategy.

>>28299543

Fuck you. Oppie is a goddamned legend here.

But LeMay was a fucking nut. Even McNamara said that LeMay was the best officer of any service he'd ever met, but he was brutal beyond compare. Of course, the obvious counter to that was the fact that being in charge of SAC, the man was literally in charge of murdering entire nations with nuclear fire. Like, that was his job. So he'd pretty much have had to be a brutal bastard to even seriously plot that shit.

>>28299631
>Oppie is a goddamned legend here.
yeah but hes an insane legend

>>28299455

> gives me nightmares

Which is the entire point, though. For the last 200 years, every advancement in industrial warfare has been billed as "the weapon to make warfare inconceivable". And they all failed. Poison gas, rapid fire artillery, machine guns, breech loading rifles, air power.... all they did was give people new and exciting toys to murder each other with. But nuclear weapons? Nobody for 70 years has seriously tried to use those. There has never been a major weapons technology that has basically sat unused for seven decades. Will it be used? Of course. On a long enough time scale, nuclear war is inevitable. But it will take a spectacularly crazy or stupid set of leaders to kick one off. And people like that very rarely end up in a position to do that.

Nuclear weapons have given us the greatest peace of the modern era. You and people who do what you do helped deliver that.

>>28299648

Well, you can't win em all.

>>28297466
>I'm german
I can tell, fucking autist. Kill yourself

>>28286876
You crazy motherfucker.
Welcome back.
Hope nobody DOXXs you again now that the old archive is dead.

>>28299752
>>28286876
Also, can you explain to me the NUTS policy?

>>28299543
>Occasional bad dreams make you crazy
Nigga Oppenheimer is the closest thing that /k/, a board dedicated to weaponry and warfare, has to an authority on one of the most effective and horrifying ways to kill hundreds of millions of people at once. I imagine that might effect him a lil bit, be damn shocked if he was 100% "normal". But that's cool, because he knows his shit

>>28299683
>Nuclear weapons gave us peace
>not international trade and globalization
Pls

>>28299763

Oh, bullshit. There was international trade in 1938 and it didn't do jack shit to prevent the largest armed conflict in human history. If anything, it just gave people more to fight over.

The threat of everyone you love being either roasted alive or dying in a shitty burned out building while puking blood? Now that shit gets your damned attention.

>>28299755
>NUTS
So with MAD, you have a crisis, and as it escalates, you reach some tripline, and all the nuclear weapons fly.

With NUTS, rather than a sudden escalation to all out nuclear war, you have options and steps within that. The idea is that by limiting your use of nuclear weapons, you can accomplish 2 goals:
1) You can buy time for negotiations over a crisis to work.
2) You give yourself the option to achieve 'Interwar Deterrence'. This is where you have reached a point where the opponent can see that further nuclear strikes will not gain him an advantage, and that you are willing to stabilize and not escalate further.

It has some weaknesses.
1) It assumes that your opponent is willing to find a solution other than a massive general exchange.
2) It assumes that your messages (both diplomatic and those conveyed through the language of attack options) are understood clearly by the opponent.
3) It assumes that you clearly understand the goals of your opponent.
4) It assumes that both sides command and control infrastructure remains intact enough to still control their respective strategic forces.

The biggest assumption is that a nuclear war is 'winnable'. Not everyone believes that.

Jesus

>>28299763
Different anon here, I'd say both are relevant. Nukes put limits on bad behavior. Globalization is both an incentive to play nice and a threat against bad behavior.

>>28299849
Your professional opinion on whether a nuclear war is winnable, if so which nations would you believe have the best chance of recovering intact from a nuclear exchange?

>>28299849
I've spent enough time around your threads to know they are winnable.
Welcome back man, fuck the faggot that revealed you.

On top of that, interestingly, I am attending TAMU and pursuing Nuclear Engineering

Do you know any new and extensive LFTR or MSR research that is going on?

>>28299829
>I don't understand economics: the post
Protip: fascists weren't big on trade. Neither were communists. They took by force. Look who fought each other.

>gives more to fight over
Mercantilism is a long dead ideology anon. Trade is not a battle.

>threat of annihilation
Yea what a peaceful time that was. The Korean war, Vietnam war, Latin American conflicts, Bay of Pigs, missile crisis, Afghanistan invasion, all the Israeli-Arab wars, the Gulf War, and all the other hundred or so Cold War era conflicts.

>>28299849
>Not everyone believes that.

I think I speak for most of us here when I say: /k/ does.

>>28299887
Cold War was absolutely nothing compared to the history immediately preceding it, and what everyone thought would follow the World Wars. Things settled down as the Cold war dragged on, until you get to the present day in the most peaceful time ever recorded.

>>28299887

> Non-arguments: The Post


I'll take a dozen bushfire wars over actual valuable places getting bombed any day of the week. Nobody gives two shits about rice niggers getting blown up in a jungle nobody has ever used for anything constructive. Burning Europe is way more costly.

These days though, it might be a mercy.

>>28299873
>whether a nuclear war is winnable,
Yes. It is my opinion that if you want to prevent a nuclear war, you must be willing to fight to win it, and most importantly, your opponent must believe that you believe it.

>if so which nations would you believe have the best chance of recovering intact from a nuclear exchange?
So many variables here its hard to say.
US, Russia, and China top the list due to their size and number of high value strategic targets that would limit the number of warheads available to economic targets.

Other nations are all towards the bottom of the list. Small geography, comparatively fewer strategic targets...

>>28299887
>Yea what a peaceful time that was
Compared to the bloodbath the previous decades were, its not as bad, comparatively.

>>28299887
Actually senapi, fascism doesn't have one set definition; it's an overarching theme.
Most fascists love trade, just not trading worthless currencies.

>>28299913
You'll all be speaking Spanish long before we start speaking arabic m8.

File: gondola.png (17KB, 1154x860px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1154x860px

lurkfag here

Do you guys think nuclear war would ever happen in this century? what about at all? I'm hoping that all this economic interdependence does something to deter any escalations but in the back of my mind i'm spooked

>>28299887
http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
This should help you understand.

>>28299936
>Do you guys think nuclear war would ever happen in this century?
I think it is more probable than not that a nuclear exchange will happen in the next 85 years.

>what about at all? I'm hoping that all this economic interdependence does something to deter any escalations but in the back of my mind i'm spooked
It will help, but desperate men do desperate things.

>>28299910
>>28299913
You guys completely missed the point.

Nukes did not stop conflict at all. They dissuade the use of other nukes.

>>28299928
Bloodbath? I don't think you realize how many millions of people died at the hands of various dictatorships outside of war during the Cold War.

>>28299931
History doesn't agree with you.

>>28299947
So what's your plan in the event of the worst?

>>28299936
Any response to this post is going to be opinion
but if you're asking this anon, yes. I've read enough history to know what seems absolutely unthinkable and terrible to one generation will eventually be nothing but a tool to a later one. Superpowers may not light the big candles, but I'm pessimistic about regional powers abstaining. Notably India and Pakistan, or if a SEA war got nasty enough, China and India.

However, I'd bet on seeing nuclear terrorism before the actions of a nation state.

>>28299950
>History doesn't agree with you.
Actually it doesn't agree with you.

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf

>>28299950
>history doesn't agree with you
It does desu senpai.
Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pero, all of them loved trade.
But trading a worthless currency that only hands profits to the international merchants isn't worth anything.

You should see why Germany rocketed out of the depression, they legislated a labour backed internal fiat currency and an international bartering system. Pretty genius

>>28299950
>I don't think you realize how many millions of people died at the hands of various dictatorships outside of war during the Cold War.
I don't think you understand how many people were killed in the first half of the 20th century.

>>28299950
>Nukes did not stop conflict at all. They dissuade the use of other nukes.
Nukes dissuaded the expansion of a conflict. World War 1, though provoked by many factors, got the spark it needed to get moving from an assassination in a backwater of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Korea and Vietnam were both bigger than that, but they stayed, all told, minor conflicts compared to what they could have been.

>>28299971
That's not why Germany left depression anon

>>28299972
Far less than those that died during the Cold War actually. Lrn2statistics, tripfag

File: war deaths.png (339KB, 1054x587px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1054x587px

>>28299950
>>28299998

>I don't think you realize how many millions of people died at the hands of various dictatorships outside of war during the Cold War.
Do tell....

>>28299998
>Far less than those that died during the Cold War actually.
Yeah?
Lets see your numbers.

>>28299998
Holy shit anon, literally ignoring what is laid out in your face.
Fascism doesn't equal "I HATE TRADE", it equals "I will only trade actual things".
Their industrialization and militarization helped, but renovating the entire economy and eliminating the crushing debt and unemployment was Hitler's own doing.

Get the fuck /out/

File: 1408397319720.jpg (80KB, 600x534px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x534px

>>28299998
>That's not why Germany left depression anon
Tell that to 1938's' man of the year anon.

Go on I'll wait.

Had a small chat about the probability of the USA being able to decapitate modern China in a first strike allowing for essentially minimal return. Is that possible if the USA decided to plan this out for the next two weeks and move shit for it to happen? Assume China didn't have spies all over the U.S would they be able to tell we are preparing to nuke them before it is too late?

>>28300005
>war deaths
Not what I'm talking about. Try reading next time.

Use a pic with sources next time too.

>>28300017
You can look for them on Google for yourself. WWI alone had less deaths, at 38 million, than the Chinese Great Leap Forward.

That's just one country compared to one world war. Think about that.

File: turgidson.gif (21KB, 300x187px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x187px

>>28299873
>whether a nuclear war is winnable
Of course a nuclear war is winnable, we just have to strike first. I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

>>28300049
*ecxuse me, wrong key. 18 million deaths in WWI.

File: papersplease.jpg (107KB, 1024x898px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1024x898px

>>28300049
How would you use nuclear deterrence to prevent a famine by a retarded Chairman?

>>28300041
If there was no precipitating crisis, the US would have very little difficulty in attacking China with no response. This is unlikely.

However, even during a crisis, the US would have a good chance of hitting China and having only a moderate response.

>>28300049
>You can look for them on Google for yourself.
So you haven't actually sat down and counted them?
I understand.

>>28300049
>Use a pic with sources next time too.
Where are yours?

>>28300073
What power do you have to tell someone else how to run their country? You don't. It's impossible if you are equal countries.

>>28300082
I have though. I'm not going to spoonfeed to you what is common knowledge. Being catty doesn't help your argument.

This thread seems to have drifted off course quiet substantially.

>>28300108
Thank a retarded anon with no historical literacy, here
>>28300106

>>28300093
Which is why statistics from the Great Leap Forward are irrelevant to a discussion about the relative peacefulness of the Cold War.

>>28300106
Burden of proof nigga.

>>28300106
>I'm not going to spoonfeed to you what is common knowledge.
Asking for your methodology is being catty?

>>28300073

Kill all the Chinese.

>>28300130
Possibly a good idea, but politically unfeasible.

I blame Nixon.

I would love to see if s Soviet version of this report (i.e. What they're strategy, target lists, etc) is available to see.

Oppenheimer, it is my personal dream to witness an airburst.
How likely is it that there will be one in my lifetime (I'm 19 now)?
If there is one, how likely is it that there will be enough warning/announcement that I'll be able to situate myself for spectating?
Is there anything that I can do to increase my odds of fulfillment?

>>28299971
>You should see why Germany rocketed out of the depression, they legislated a labour backed internal fiat currency and an international bartering system. Pretty genius
I bet you think WWII got America out of the Great Depression too. Fucking retard.

>>28300167
No, but it did help; not to the significance of enslaving every American to the state did, but the mass mobilization sure helped.

I hate FDR with a passion.

>>28288869
They do in video games.

Billions of evil ruskies die every day in those games.

>>28300106
So I went to wikipedia, and did some mathematics. Here are all the Cold War era conflicts I could find that were over about 50,000 dead.
I used only the highest estimate I could find.

Great War of Africa 5,400,000
Korean War 1,200,000
Vietnam War 3,800,000
Iran–Iraq War/First Persian Gulf War 1,000,000
Biafra War 1,000,000
Soviet war in Afghanistan 1,622,865
Ethiopian Civil War 1,500,000
Algerian War of Independence 1,500,000
Bangladesh Liberation War 3,000,000
Colombian conflict 220,000
Lebanese Civil War 150,000
Islamic insurgency in the Philippines 120,000
Ugandan Bush War 500,000
Kashmir Conflict 110,000
Mozambican War of Independence 88,500

For a total of 21.118 Million
Add in the Great Leap Forward, (45 Million) and you get
66.188 million total killed from 1950 on.

From 1939 until 1945, the total killed was 85 Million.
So for the Cold War era, you have 1.6 million killed per year, on average.
During the 6 years of WWII you have 14 Million per year.
If you add in WWI, you get a total of 105 Million, or 10.5 million per year.

So, it is your move.

>>28299683
>>28299683
> But it will take a spectacularly crazy or stupid set of leaders to kick one off. And people like that very rarely end up in a position to do that.

Won't be a country. Pakistan will lose security and a rogue actor will steal a device and blow it

>this thread
Stick to nukes, Oppenheimer. You actually know about that.

>>28300164
>How likely is it that there will be one in my lifetime (I'm 19 now)?
That you personally will see an airburst? Infinitesimally small.

>If there is one, how likely is it that there will be enough warning/announcement that I'll be able to situate myself for spectating?
Unlikely.

>Is there anything that I can do to increase my odds of fulfillment?
Not that I can think of, Anon.
Sorry?

Why is it that I see two seperate Oppenheimers, one with a capital P and one without
>Oppen vs OPpen

>>28300291
OP used to be when I started the thread.

>>28300277
I thought thats what we were talking about?
You wasted those doubles, anon.

>>28300290
>That you personally will see an airburst?
luckily we live in an era where everyone has an HD camera in their pocket.
Now we just have to figure out what percentage of those cameras will capture the burst and how many survive the event.

>>28300300
More than likely and digital camera close enough to record the explosion will have its CCD destroyed in the first few moments.
But that's conjecture on my part.

>>28300108
There's always one in an Oppenheimer thread.

Len Brownell Senior actually met Curtis Lemay. Len Sr. was at an Air Force shooting range in Germany in the late 50's shooting hos .357 and someone started screaming at him that he was 'shooting up the hangers" for the target. it was Curtis Lemay. Len Brownell Sr. was an A1C. Ouch!

>>28300519
>shooting up the hangers
It's Curtis LeMay. He was acting on instinct to deny the target logistical support with overwhelming firepower.

My dad said that once Curtis got it out his system he actually was pretty cool.

>>28300659
your dad took CLMs cock up his boipucci?

>>28301257
Nah, just talked guns for about half an hour with no "sir" required.

>>28300164
>Is there anything that I can do to increase my odds of fulfillment?

Go into politics. Rise high enough, you can make it happen.

So on an unrelated note, what exactly happened to Oppenheimer that made him stop posting? I saw in >>28299752 that
>" Welcome back. Hope nobody Doxxs you again now that the old archive is dead"

Why would someone DoXX Oppenheimer?

>>28300297
I like it better with the lowercase p

>>28299936
Some damn thing will happen. It always does. This is why you strive to maintain a stock of basic supplies and necessities.

>>28301732
never forget that we're on 4chan, man

>>28299543
Dude, a lot of people have the slo-mo running dreams. You're always too late in those. It sucks. Mine usually involve Drake's Passage and a watertight door.

>>28289258
Pretty sure the soviets just repaired the factories and a few important buildings. Seems like a pretty worthless target.

>>28289422
Which one was that?

>>28293116
Is that why north korea is still such a shithole?

File: warsaw1956.png (16KB, 507x179px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 507x179px

>>28289258
>>28302013

>>28302076
NK in the 50s/60s and into the early 70s was richer than the South.

>>28295422
Idk nuclear fire might crack the shit heaps

>>28288462

God, the thoughts.

> god, I miss blowing shit up
> McNamara is here. I hate McNamara.
> This chair hurts my ass.
> Fucking Kennedy, that faggot.
> I wish I was back in a bomber dropping napalm on rice niggers.

>>28299998
Dude you're anonymous stop trying to damage control

>>28297570
It makes me happy that you counted.

>>28297985
Do you buy the foil for your hats in bulk?

>>28286876
Hey Oppenheimer, how do you get into your field of work?

Also, any recommended reading?

>>28300160
Fire off nukes like bottlerockets in the general direction of the US

>>28302295

More like Tu-95s loaded to the gills with bombs on one-way runs to exterminate as many population centers as possible.

>>28302089
So 15 targets?

>>28299935
Lol no.

>>28289159
>autism

>>28300268
ITT, anon argues history with Oppenheimer, gets BTFO, and we get nuclear strategy do/k/ument which has been recently declassified and published.

And they still say /k/ fell off.

>>28300268
>>28302501
Also, we got based Curtis LeMay memes.

>>28302089
Either the railroad interchange or the repair yards would alone be worth a bomb if there was an active ground war in Europe.

>>28302277
>>28302288
>tfw those wasted dubs....

Sometimes shitpoasting just isn't worth it.

>>28295422
Chlorine triflouride. Enjoy.

>>28295090
I work with a former nuclear launch officer.

Long story short, when a nuclear war happens, we dont go light. The nukes are on timed launches once you turn the key. Often one bunker controlled a cluster of launches.

Imagine ground zero, its been nuked, and you have waited a week and are crawling out of your bunker. Boom. nuked again.

and again

and again.

A year later, another nuke. fuck you.

As the now heavily degraded internal power supplies of a minuteman begin to flicker into obsolence, 10 years later, the timer ticks off again. fuck you....another nuke.

the war is over, everyone is dead, and the nukes keep falling.

That was how you prevent a war. By making sure no one ever wants to fuck with you.

>>28300082
>only a moderate response.

What would that response look like? How many nukes might it be? From what source? What targets?

>>28304122
There are a lot of variables that can change the answer to any of these, so consider these as ideal examples.

>What would that response look like?
6-10 missiles. Number of warheads would depend on the exact surviving weapons.

>How many nukes might it be?
10 to 24 warheads.

>From what source?
Mobile launchers, SLBMs.

>What targets?
The default targeting for the Chinese is mostly likely countervalue. The targets would be cities and economic targets. The Chinese would be unable to issue orders to change targets so whatever missiles were able to get off the ground would be random, and so would the targets.

>>28298063
more like throwing the whole carton against a brick wall and then stomping on the remains

>>28304299
>The Chinese would be unable to issue orders to change targets

Are you saying that China has 'launch on attack' orders that can be executed by separated local commanders?

>>28304299
This thread spawned over on pol by the way.

>>28302290

He's recommend this book before.

Though I'm not sure if that's still in his favor:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Limited-Nuclear-War-21st-Century/dp/0804790892

>>28304514
No, changing targets takes longer than issuing a launch command.
Release authority in China is held jointly by the Central Military Commission and the General Staff Directorate.
Some SAC commanders are thought to have pre delegated launch authority based on alert status of their units, but this is not certain.

Even if they do have release authority, it would be extremely unlikely that they would be able to have the ability to change targets, and even more unlikely that they would have the time and knowledge needed to change those targets if they did have the capability.

>>28304519
Yes, I was going to comment, but its impossible to make a dent in the nonsense over there.

>>28304535
I recommend it.

What's the closest date we have for the equivalent Warsaw Pact plans?

Could someone put them together to see the reality of the MAD that could have been back then?

Possibly expand it with the calculated success rates for these sorties so we have an even better idea of how would the post-launch world look like.

>>28304554
How many nukes did we even have back in the 50's?

>>28304621
>What's the closest date we have for the equivalent Warsaw Pact plans?
To the best of my knowledge we have not seen any "Strategic" plans from the Warsaw Pact.
This could be because the Soviets simply lacked a true strategic plan in the way the US did, and rather had multiple 'Operational' level plans. We have seen 'Operational' level plans from the Warsaw Pact that are as recent at the 1960's, if I recall correctly.

>Could someone put them together to see the reality of the MAD that could have been back then?
No, because at that time it would not have mattered. MAD was the only game in town.

>Possibly expand it with the calculated success rates for these sorties so we have an even better idea of how would the post-launch world look like.
Planners on both sides had very pessimistic views on the post attack world at that time. I doubt the clear knowledge of the others intentions would have made it any different.

>>28304647
The US had about 3,000.
The Soviets about 150-200

>>28299849
I seem to remember that the Soviets did not have their own version of NUTS, instead they kept MAD - which made NUTS absurd. The interesting thing is, they failed to tell the US that in case of an all out war, they'd keep firing until they were out of ammunition - rendering the whole idea of using this as a deterrent obsolete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_%28nuclear_war%29

>>28304678
>To the best of my knowledge we have not seen any "Strategic" plans from the Warsaw Pact.

I was referring to the stuff like the Warsaw Pact plan of counter-attack the Poles unveiled in 2005.
But that was about 2 decades later (complete delivery by missiles) and doesn;t even include the targets in the US mainland.

>>28302076
Probably not: http://eml.berkeley.edu/~groland/pubs/vietnam-bombs_19oct05.pdf

File: deadhand.jpg (231KB, 1032x581px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1032x581px

>>28304710
The Soviets did develop a strategy similar to NUTS. Dead Hand was not the doomsday machine that is often reported.
It was a communications system like our ERCS

>>28304732
Strategic attacks on the US have never been released and likely exist as extensions to Soviet operational plans in Europe rather than separate spheres of warfare.

>>28300164
vote Trump.

>>28304678
To be honest I am quite disappointed the US fucked around for so long and didn't actually push the button/call in the bombers.
We would have erased all of Russia, no more communism ever and a world united with the USA would have been able to push forwards.

>>28304768
Hey Oppie got a link to that site?

>>28304811
russianforces.org
Pavel Podvig is the best option for open source info on Russian strategic nuclear forces.

>>28304768
I stand corrected.

any other book recommendations? what do you think about these?
http://www.amazon.com/The-First-War-Physics-1939-1949/dp/1605981974
http://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1450971184&sr=1-1&keywords=command+and+control

>>28304833
I have not read the first one, but Command and Control is good.

File: preview_5350_1443210132_5bd5669ceac852d71eb60066c44bef02.jpg (69KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x360px

>>28288034
COMMUNISM IS DEATH

>>28304519
That /pol/ thread is a real shitshow.
Those guys are total morons.

>>28302594
This isnt /b/, no one cares about dubs here, we like to occasionally buzz past a intelligent discussion

>>28298050

Refrigerators

>>28302524
This is a great day for the North American Continent!

>>28304120

Could an IBM be capable of sitting for a decade without just going inert?

>>28302314

And watch them all get smacked into the ocean by Nike missiles.

>>28305477

Some of them. Others would get splashed by fighters.

But enough would get through to kill several US cities.

>>28305416
Unlikely.

>>28300164
Enjoy getting flash-blinded.

>>28301732

some people really dislike public employees or people who publish ideologically opposite information to theirs.

also this is such a great thread to post this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t039p6xqutU

cheers

File: the future is bright.jpg (249KB, 541x380px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 541x380px

>>28295422
We can turn them into glass iglos.

Bonus points if you come back later and retrieve them for use as swimming pools.

>>28305119
Speak for yourself nerd
>check em

>>28293116
>US bombers had difficulty in finding targets and were reduced to bombing footbridges or jettisoning their bombs into the sea.

Oh god top fucking kek. Taxpayer dollars at work right there.

Was there any evidence supporting the nuclear winter or were we basing that off the global cooling as a result of repeated surface tests?

>>28306917
The studies that support nuclear winter make several assumptions that would not occur or would be very unlikely to happen.
They assume that one warhead will be given to one target.
They do not account that the majority targets will not be urban areas.
They do not account for the reality that many urban targets are not in the center of of the area but can be found on the edges.
They do not account for modern fire codes and materials.

In the end, none of the studies are reliable because they start with flawed assumptions

>>28302314
So really big firecrackers that can blow up the world?

Neat! I remember there being a few pictures floating around an Oppenheimer thread a few years ago with "projected soviet nuclear targets" but I never saved it. It had the escalation from 500 - 1000 nuke scenarios.

Just gathering information to shut down everyone who screams "muh nukes muh china" in debates because it's fucking obnoxious.

>>28306988
Talking about Nuclear Winter, some people hold the opinion that if not even <arbritary % of warheads currently existing> were detonated, the whole world would be doomed because of it.
Is that something that could really happen or is it just too complex of a thing to able to calculate how the lasting effects of concentrated nuclear exchange would affect the world?

>>28307284
You can calculate the effects of a given attack option, but there are so many variables that the results could not be used for other options.

>>28302109
Can i get more info on this?

>>28307454
how would a hypothetical india-pakistan exchange play out?

>>28309508

I honestly don't know, if neither of them spergs out and only target eachother, it could be the one exchange that wouldn't lead to mad

>>28309508
India and Pakistan glass eachother.

There would be a shortage of "refugees" and
cLooless people.

And the rest of the world wouldn't care.

File: 1440362075468.jpg (114KB, 485x723px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 485x723px

>>28309508
>>28309595
>>28309657


>https://youtu.be/_peUxE_BKcU

D E S I G N A T E D
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
E
D

>>28309508
Rapid escalation, mostly countervalue targets, mostly P95 targeting.

>>28309877
What's P95?

>>28309928
P95 and E95 are circles that contain 95% of an area's Population or Economic activity.
If you want to kill people, then you target the P95 Designated Ground Zero (DGZ) of that area.

>>28309978
Oh joy. Maximum death, minimum military advantage.

>>28309978
Why that strategy? As opposed to counterforce?

>>28310027
at a guess it's probably because they both lack enough strategic warheads to pull it off; IIRC pakistan has a bunch of sub-50kt tacticals and not very many strategics, and india is similar

>>28310018
Pretty much.

>>28310027
They do not have effective counterforce weapons.
It will go from battlefield tactical use, to limited counterforce, to countervalue very rapidly, perhaps in just a matter of hours.
It is the prototypical general exchange/escalation feared during the Cold War, but on a smaller scale.

>>28310108

Hey, Oppie....

How likely is a nuclear conflict with China as opposed to one with Russia and what would a conflict with China look like?

>>28310162
>How likely is a nuclear conflict with China as opposed to one with Russia and what would a conflict with China look like?
Both are very unlikely, but the Chinese conflict is even less likely.

Currently a nuclear conflict with the Chinese would look like a massive US first strike against China with massive destruction. The Chinese response would be limited, but would still see loss of American lives on a level unseen before, and the destruction of several cities.

The US would be in severe economic and social upheaval and might take decade or more to fully recover.
The PRC would be destroyed as a functioning state and might never recover.

>>28310223

Thanks.

What would you say would be the most likely scenario that would result in a strategic nuclear exchange involving the US and what do you think that would look like?

File: Which country is the dark side.jpg (2MB, 2784x1848px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2784x1848px

>>28293130
>blinded
This is still a problem our pilots may face today. We have improved technology rather than using curtains. There's one model of nuclear-flash goggle that had explosive inside the goggle to protect the user from blindness. Sounds funny.

http://www.flightgear.dk/flash.htm

>>28310273
>likely scenario that would result in a strategic nuclear exchange involving the US

Most likely?

Currently I would say between the US and Russia, and it would look like a large initial counterforce exchange and a sequence of smaller mixed counterforce/countervalue exchanges over the following weeks.

Keep in mind this is EXTREMELY unlikely.

>>28310328

As always, thank you.

>>28310342
Very welcome.
.

I'm going to bed, /k/. I may check in a bit later, but I will probably not post anything in depth.

I hope you all have a good day tomorrow, full of new funs and fun related accessories.
No matter how you believe or what you believe, I hope that God will keep you, and protect you all.
Goodnight, /k/

>>28310369

Take it easy, man.

>>28286876
Welcome again mr, from colombia!!

>>28305416
Doubtful. It is interesting that the solid rocket boosters need less care than the liquid fueled boosters needed for less sophisticated warheads. This was a big win for China when they started using warheads that were very similar to the US's W-88.

I am pretty sure the warhead would need service once in a while. Otherwise, maybe the fission device would not set off the fusion part. [spoiler] There was a part in Tom Clancy's The Sum of all Fears (the book not the damn movie) where he goes off on a technical riff about using 20 year-old tritium that has been poisoned by its helium decay products. [/spoiler]

The LGM-118 Peacekeeper, RS-24 Yars and RS-26 Rubezh have/had liquid powered rocket motors in later stages or for maneuvering.

The LGM-30 Minuteman, RT-2PM Topol, RT-2PM2 Topol-M, DF-41, Agni-V and Agni-VI use solid rocket boosters.

Wikipedia believes that the Jericho III is a nuclear armed ICBM which entered service in 2011. It might carry 750kg warhead or three low yield MIRVs.

>>28297466
>Then again, I'm german

This explains everything.

>>28288097
>now that I've matured and been around for awhile?

Learning how to use the toilet hardly counts as maturing.

Oppenheimer, how far away are we to 4th gen nuclear weapons?

>>28312217
Still farther ahead than India.

>>28304827
you're the champ, champ.

>>28305416
doubt it. dust would get in the power box and all over the mother board. if you tried to turn it on to play your leet vga games the fucker would probably short out.

>>28297985
What's it like believing everything on the internet and being so gullible? Russian propaganda departments thank you.

>>28286876
just saw target list at Poland

>nuke some village - 2 bombs

>>28286876
>nuking civillians intentionally
>nuking warshaw pact countries and china as well for a good measure
great diplomacy there usa. soviet propaganda was actually right in one thing, american leadership were psychopathic warmongers.

>>28314221
Is this bait?

>>28314325
just people who skimmed the report, didn't read the thread, and do not understand the subject.

>>28299947
that's comforting

>>28299763
Bongcunts tried international trade and globalization from 1870 to 1914, shit does not work.

why is it that people talk about the cold war / WW3 they always mention a nuclear exchange but never the use of biological and chemical WMD? i remember i've read somewhere some time ago that the soviets had a detailed plan to poison to Potomac river in a SHTF scenario

wouldn't a WW3 feature some sort of combined use of all WMDs?

>>28316256
Most delivery methods would probably be used for nuclear weapons. Bioweapon research in the US ended decades ago, and Biopreperat in Russia either shut down or vastly curtailed research around the fall of the USSR anyway.

In the scenario of full nuclear exchange, using a missile to send a load of nerve agent or Marburg virus would be a waste compared to a warhead.

>>28286876

thank you based Oppenheimer

this will help me with my CMANO scenarios

>>28290543
If I remember correctly, the unclassified stuff from 1980's USSR only had Vancouver & Halifax getting one ICBM each.
Just to close the ports & kill any of our navy at dock.

>>28316535
Vancouver? I live there. Halifax? I study in NS, so....am I fucked from either blast and or rads?

File: By_Dawns_Early_Light.jpg (87KB, 900x585px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 900x585px

>>28293130

>>28316256
Chemical and biological were always (to my understanding) mostly tactical or theater-level weapons. You wouldn't bother wasting intercontinental payload capacity on chemical warheads (biological might happen depending on how the war is going), but hammering binary VX or Sarin shells on the Fulda Gap is entirely possible.

>>28299879
you want to be on physicsforums, not here

>>28288228
>it's hard to figure out if an enemy has surrendered while you are attacking them

Congratulations, you've independently figured out what the world has known for a hundred thousand years.

Your check is in the mail.

>>28316648
But here is more fun.
Physicsfourms don't get dedicated autists like Oppenheimer

>>28316786
> Physicsfourms don't get dedicated autists like Oppenheimer
the nuclear engineering section is all autism all the time

>>28316832
But it's not the pure unadulterated autism that is 4chan.

>>28316576
Not likely, our military is even smaller than before. We're probably not even on anyone's target list these days, which I'm fine with.

Oppenheimer, what chances would there be of any significant number of people dying from nuclear radiation if, say, all nuclear weapons in existence were detonated over the span of several weeks during successive exchanges? Would we have to worry about all food and open water in targeted countries being poisoned? How long does radiation take to dissipate?

>>28317062
>all food and open water in targeted countries being poisoned?

Not even if every nuke could magically be delivered and both sides cooperated to make it happen.

>>28316576
Generally speaking the rule is, if it doesn't launch a nuke or tell a nuke to launch it is not considered a target. There just aren't enough nukes that can be delivered to targets to hit any extra stuff just for the 'what if' of it.

>>28300049
So what you're saying is that even though after the advent of nuclear weapons deaths from armed conflicts have severely dropped off, nuclear weapons didn't actually achieve their goal of causing a reduction in deaths caused by armed conflict because... they didn't stop anybody from starving millions of their own people?

Someone is retarded anon, and that someone is you.

>>28317114
What about just a significant proportion, then?

>>28317307
Be a bit more specific, what country is targeted by what country and how many of their nukes are they using?

At this point, even if Russia and the US cooperated they could not do what you suggest to just the US (the much smaller of the two countries in physical size).

Food and water really can't be turned radioactive. Rather you can get fallout (dust) on them. Which would require you to of course get the dust on them. How would you go about doing this to most 'food' in any case?

Generally speaking we use a 7/10 rule for radiation. That is, every 7 hours radiation falls to 10% of what it was.

So, hour one you have 100% of radiation. Seven hours later it is at 10%. Forty nine hours later you are at 1% of starting (two days). 343 hours you are at .1% (we tend to talk about it being two weeks).

Most suggestions are that in location that would not receive fallout should be fine 'just in case' at two days. If you expect to get 'some' fallout you should try and shelter for 2 weeks.

Other considerations would be that many explosions might be air bursts (no fallout) and that individual targets would receive multiple hits, thus limiting total dispersion of fallout. There is also the problem that Russia and the US only have about 1500 or so deliverable nukes each (that could strike each other).

>>28301732
There was also that one time where he keep disproving a buttmad russian shill on its bs claims, and the vatnik threatened to dox or call his employer because he felt disrespected (was also demanding respect from him) by being proven wrong several times.