Do you think it's possible for the Nuke Taboo to be broken

>>30009794

It depends on who is doing the striking.

You can have a limited nuclear war.

>>30009952
This, if for some reason the Jews nuke Iran, it won't cause WW3.

I got 50 bones on Pakistan losing a nuke.

>>30010145

Nations nuking nations will most likely lead to a full scale international crisis.

A nuclear terrorist attack however will most likely lead to only conventional war in response, not further nuclear war.

As long as it's not a head of state pushing the button, we should be fine.

What about a nuke in naval combat? Is it more acceptable than on land?

>>30010202
it'll be fine as long as its not a permanent member of the UN security council doing the nuking.

Any other state would just get the SecCo members multilaterally declaring war on them, probably then glassing them with nukes from all member states

>>30010254
No. More acceptable than glassing L.A., if by a small margin.

>>30010254
If it wiped a navy of its ability to mitigate more attacks either conventional or nuclear, the only logical response would be launch before it's too late.

>>30010202
>Nations nuking nations will most likely lead to a full scale international crisis.
The nuking nation will certainly be in some deep shit. but unless the nation getting nuked is nuclear capable OR the exchange is clearly limited to these two nations, other nations are unlikely to turn the keys and go full on MAD world here.

>>30010352
>OR the exchange is clearly limited
whoops, should be isn't

You should have nuked Vietnam when you had the chance. Now, it is taboo.

>>30010377

You kidding? It's been taboo since 1945

The reason Fatty Macky was fired by Truman is because he wanted to use Nukes on the chinks in Korea when they intervened in '51

Nukes were taboo'd long before Vietnam started

>>30009794
>Nuke Taboo to be broken without the world falling into MAD?
Yes.

>>30010254
To some degree. You don't leave craters in the ocean.

>>30011995
>>30012006

Oh, Oppen I've been meaning to ask.

How significant was the loss of the Iranian listening post by the Caspian sea?

>>30009794
I saw this thread and though it would summon Oppenheimer. I'm honestly surprised it only took 12 posts.

>>30011995
Do you know what China or India's policy on NUTS is?
Would they just go full MAD in the case of a nuclear attack by the other?
Are there any books on the topic you can recommend?

so if NK nuked the south it would most likely lead to a full scale fucking by the rest of the world but likely not a nuclear response

>>30012096
>I'm honestly surprised it only took 12 posts.
I have been pretty busy the last few weeks. Im stuck in a crap hotel outside of Kirtland and finally have some free time so I thought I would check in.

>Do you know what China or India's policy on NUTS is?
Its hard to say with conviction. Very little is known about actual Chinese nuclear strategy is beyond what they have released.
The good thing about having flexibility in your strategy (like NUTS) is that you can free yourself from some degree of having to anticipate the other guys actions with great probability.
You can be prepared for whatever decision he makes.

Paper Tigers by Jeff Lewis is a good one on Chinese Nuclear Weapons.

>>30012108
Depends on what North Korea had remaining and if they had more weapons ready to go.

>>30012234
>>30012244
Out of curiousity, did you see the thread from yesterday? The one where someone said to preemptively nuke Russia and China for their land?

>>30009794
Tactical nuclear strikes, maybe.
Strategic, never.

>>30012108
Depends if China would still stand by them.
Probably not.

>>30012340

I didn't bother reading that thread beyond 25 posts.

You know how Listerine can string everything out.

>>30012234

Anyway, even though you can't answer my question, you might get a little laugh out of what inspired it.

(search 'listening post' in the transcript)

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Meetings/Meeting%20Transcripts/210612snow.pdf

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

Basically a journalist traded his footage of the listening post for an opportunity to film the Iranian Foxbats.

>>30012450
*Iranian Tomcats

>>30009794
Meh depends. If Isis nukes NY you probably won't see MAD, same if the US or China or Russia nuke one or the others troops in some deserted or lightly populated remote area.

>>30012340
Yes. It bothered me that it was archived by the time I saw it.

>>30012450
Why do they call him Listerine?

>>30012824

He claims to drink Listerine when he can't afford real alcohol.

>>30012824
>Why do they call him Listerine?

because he's a big guy

he drinks mouthwash instead of booze, because apparently it's cheaper. i don't believe this personally so i think it's really because he's fucked in the head.

he's a sad and kind of pathetic guy and sometimes i actually feel sorry for him. but then he acts like a total circle-talking fucktard and refuses to listen when people explain stuff nicely, so it invariably descends into people explaining stuff not-so-nicely, like why his mother is a worthless whore and why he should kill himself publicly.

>>30012824
i have a question, if a nuclear weapon was used in naval warfare, what effect would the detonation have on radars and sensor equipment? say a swarm of missiles is downed but for some reason a nuclear warhead detonated, what kind of interference would we see, what kind of effects?

i imagine that all the em radiation over the specturm would do something, but i don't know what exactly. any resources you could point me to?

>>30012846
Christ almighty.

>>30012990
It would would cause severe radio propagation issues. For hours possibly.

how about a "defensive" nuke strike? scorched earth with nukes.

>>30013027
what would've happened if we nuked saddam?
I don't mean after we rolled in, like when he was at the border doing his buildup.
what if we just turned keys on a few minutemans?
would it be WW3 or would desert storm never have happened if so?
secondary, less retarded question;
how viable was the use of the 20kt katie shells that the iowas could deploy?
if they were used, why would they be used, against what, and would they be effective more than conventional shells would be?

>>30013027
yeah, thought as much, didn't know how long it would propagate.

if it's in the radio end of the spectrum, what's this going to do to radar detection? i imagine it would also fuck up targetting of weapons as well, for both sides.

>>30009794
No. It's specifically designed to kill as many civilians as possible.

...unless Israel were to use it, then for some magical reason it would be justified. They keep using white phosphorous on civilians and no one seems to bat an eye.

>>30013055
If we nuked Saddam the world would be a total hellhole unrecognizable to us. And not because of Mad Max but because you would have up ended the order and broken all existing rulesets in about 30 minutes.

The 16" shells would uave been used against hardened targets and troop formations. In addition, airfields and the like would have been viable targets.

Enemy naval forces were also viable targets.

>>30013081
Radar would be effected as well. Performance would be degraded badly.

>>30013306
can you point me in the direction of a technical work on the uses and effects of nuclear weapons? i have a physics degree so i don't mind if it's fairly dense.

>>30013538
DTRA EM-1.

what if a technology develoips that ensures first strike victory without defending nation having a chance to retaliate with nukes?

>>30013639
So basically every year before 1949?

File: lu2kkKpfcns.jpg (86KB, 604x436px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 604x436px

>>30010145
yeah man I'm sure nuking one of Russia's key allies won't cause a global nuclear war

>>30013605
can't seem to find a download that doesn't require a security clearance.

>>30013801
Its unclassified.
You should be able to at least find the 1972 version.

>>30013829
yeah, i just found what appears to be the chnage 2 (?) version from '89. looks like a monster. it'll go on the list with all the other shit i'm reading in my spare time. thanks.

another quesiton, should i register with the national academies press? they have so much stuff.

and a good wine to go with beef wellington. needs to mask the taste of a heavy sedative, i've got a hot date tonight.

>>30013907
Post the link please. I would like to add it to my reading list copypasta.

And I would register.

And a merlot would do nice. Napa Valley.

>>30014041
just opened it, it seems to be the 1972 version with revisions up to '81, with deletions, first volume from what the link says, @ 835 pages long

https://archive.org/details/DnaEm1CapabilitiesOfNuclearWeapons

>And I would register.

will do. there is just so much good stuff

>And a merlot would do nice. Napa Valley.

thanks

File: 20160520_185803.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>30014200
I checked again. Yes it is (U).

File: unrwa_school_sequence-10.jpg (109KB, 584x336px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 584x336px

>>30013155
Shits brutal

File: unrwa_school_sequence-09.jpg (200KB, 584x409px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 584x409px

>>30013155
Would be absolutely terrifying.

>>30014224
that's a nice shiny picture, rather than the photocopied ringbound file in the link. who gives a shit, it's the real deal. thanks for the heads up, that is fucking golden.

File: unrwa_school_sequence-17.jpg (45KB, 340x476px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 340x476px

>>30013155
Ahmed doesn't know water won't help

>>30009794
pakistan vs india

or terrorists steal a pakistani nuke

saudi arabia nukes iran maybe

>>30014295
>>30014308
They will pay... harder than they did last time.

>>30014369
can we infuse that shit in napalm and drop it on isis?
that would be fucking glorious.
fuck babies, scorched earth all the way

>>30012893
>he drinks mouthwash instead of booze,
They do this on the Reservations.

>>30014396
Just put it in clusterbombs and your wish will be granted Adolf Lucifer Stalin.

>>30014369
Dont support leaders who pick fights with people who are willing to burn your children.
Don't like it? Be better people.

>>30014407
>CBU97 filled with WP bomblets
holy shit yes
also my tripfag name is gonna be Adolf Lucifer Stalin now, thanks anon

>>30014429
>tripfag name

Please don't.

Unless you have a legit reason to trip don't.

>>30014429
lol you're welcome. I've always been fascinated and horrified by clusterbombs and Nukes and flame weapons chemical warfare bio attacks. War should be as ugly as possible. People would fight it less and less children would die.

>>30014457
>people would fight it less
debatable
>less chilluns would die
until your flaming chem/bio clusternukes went off in their town ofc

>>30014429
Goyim got his edge on today. Keep those walls high. You NEED them.

>>30014496
More at first by far for sure. But over centuries of way decreased conflict due to the severity of this kind of war might count for more chilluns than we currently have. Compared to what we have now where the pain of war can be so distant it seems like fantasy.

>>30014369
Source this was IDF? And I may be wrong, but that doesn't look like a white phosphorus burn...

>>30014540
wtf are you talking about man.
people will continue to use the most effective tools to inflict the most damage on their opponents in conflict.
the advent and use of mechanized warfare, chemical weapons, and machine guns happened over a tiny span of human history. It did nothing to decrease the frequency of war.

>>30014369
When was this? The Gaza War?

>>30014406
he's a felon as well so probably

>>30014716
Because they agreed to outlaw their use

File: removethyself.jpg (204KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 900x900px

>>30014716
Nukes combined with global economic integration actually did decrease the frequency of great-power war.

>>30014369
>>30013155
This isn't the board for schizoids to ramble about shit that's way over their own heads. You meant to post that on
>>>/pol/

Now fuck off

>>30015969

go away kike

>>30015969
fuck off reddit

Listerine actual here, I had fuck all to do with the naval threads yesterday.

And I've got a legit learning disorder so that's why despite all your explaining, I still don't get educated very fast.

>>30013708
but the nation that has that technology isnt an altruistic stable superpower with a conscience like the united states

>>30014369
>literally 'muh chilluns' post
Oh, wow. Civillians actually die in conflicts. Who would have thought.

>>30014322
If the house of Saud and the Persians start glassing each other, the whole world will become much more interesting and much less inhabitable. The situation would probably involve every nuclear power on earth weather or not we want any part of it.

>>30014716
Yes, actually it did. Every decade since 1945, fewer civilians die because of warfare. We are now looking at death tolls in the thousands instead of literally one hundred million between both WW1 and WW2. War is getting less frequent and safer while we keep developing deadlier weapons.

>>30016464
how you manage that is that you take pro-active steps to learn around your disorder. self-awareness is a big help here.

what exactly is the nature of your disorder?

>>30018496
>We are now looking at death tolls in the thousands instead of literally one hundred million between both WW1 and WW2.

you seem to be ignoring the last 13 years of warfare.

go and check out the death tolls. remember that it's been low-intensity non-conventional warfare since the iraqi invasion finished as well.

basically you're wrong.

>>30018520
actually, it's 15 years. start from afghanistan.

>>30009794
Involving terrorism is one possibility. Perhaps it's a terrorist nuke or maybe a response to a terrorist attack involving WMDs.

Maybe also use of a tactical nuke to hit a reactor, centrifuge or something of that nature.

>>30018526
Have one million people died? Have 40 million died? Fuck man, even Rawanda was worse. Get gud. Faggot.

>>30018643
Btw, because you're stupid. My post referred to the rate of deaths. The wording may not be clear to you but;
>Every decade since 1945, fewer civilians die because of warfare.
is referring to the rate of civilian deaths. That would mean (deaths/decade) which for short conflicts can be extrapolated by calculating (deaths/year)×10.

Iraq and the 'Stan were a cakewalk.

>>30018656
I'm so salty right now I replied to myself instead of >>30018520
But fuck it.

Someone could probably get away with nuking Raqqa.

I'm a little surprised Russia didn't make an example out of them.

>>30018643
>>30018656
>>30018643
citing 800 000 people dying in record time doesn't help your position because the if you're talking about 'rates' like you're saying now in this post

>>30018656
>Btw, because you're stupid. My post referred to the rate of deaths.

you just blew yourself the fuck out of the water without realizing. that should have been obvious.

tadd somalia, as the famine was caused by civil war (hasn't stopped), as was ethiopia in the seventies. don't forget vietnam and cambodia in that decade too.

you've got the civil war in the balkans that happened in the 90s as well. you've also got the ongoing post-desert storm fighting in iraq.

the civillian death toll from iraq for gulf 2 is put at up to the 2 million mark. so far we've already got about half a million in syria. remember as well that these are not full scale conventional wars between the major powers of the world like world war one and two.

these are just the cnn wars also.

you're looking at the two largest wars in the history of mankind and then drawing a conclusion based on the massive death toll that you get when the major industrial powers go total war. we haven't seen it since, because they discovered nuclear weapons and it went cold. you used absolute numbers (while at the same time talking about a 'rate'). what you should have done is look at the number of civillian deaths per conflict for every military one. have you done that level of study? no?

if you're an american and you're at the mall then sure, everything is peachy. if you're living in the middle east right now i don't think they're having as beneficent a 'rate' of civillians dying, especially when you realize that these aren't major powers rolling millions strong mechanized armies across two continents. america tries to reduce civillian casualites. other don't give a fuck, these just aren't major players and they don't have the firepower to create the same kind of absolute numbers.

your methodology is whack.

>>30009794

It us possible, both the Russian and French doctrine have options for using nuclear weapons without invoking MAD

First off, the French have always stated that nukes are an acceptable answer to an "existental threat"to France, like say the red army rolling through south-Germany. in this case, teh first response is a tacitcal nuke on the most forward units, coupled with a diplomatic message to the USSR to knock that shit of. Only after that are they going to attack the nation itself. The key here is a strike on an agressive military target, on neutral ground.

Modern Russia meanwhile hold on the the concept of a "de-escalatory"nuclear strike, which is basically the same concept. If a ground war with for instance Europe or China would go wrong, they nuke a small town near the border, and request to negotiate terms, preferably per-ante-bellum. In this case, the Idea is to demonstrate the danger of a full countervalue strike, and their willingness to do so, and offer the others a way out.

Of course, if it works is another matter, one that few people are willing to test.

>>30019015
>the Russian and French doctrine have options for using nuclear weapons without invoking MAD
The US does as well.


>nuke a small town
More likely a military target near the edge of the battle area.

>>30009794

Pretty unlikely, although there do exist doctrines for using tactical nukes if things get beyond bad. If 20,000 tanks suddenly roll on a country that's nuclear armed, yeah, they only option really is the nuke them and hope for the best.

We've had a precedent for the last 71 years that we'd never use nuclear weapons in combat again, simply due to the risk of MAD. It becomes progressively easier to say 'yes' once you've gotten over that initial hurdle, not unlike those people who get addicted to drugs or gambling.

No one is really sure if a rogue state / group setting off a nuke counts toward this, and frankly I don't want to find out. Statistics say *eventually* a nuke will find it's way to someone who's willing and capable of setting it off, though.

>>30019015
And to be clear the US and Russians both consider it possible to use strategic weapons against each other in a limited manner.

>>30019132

I never really heard about a US doctrine for limmitid usage of nukes, not since the early cold war at least, and especially not with strategic weapons.
As far as i know, the US has it's current "no first strike policy" because they really don't need them, since they can basically take anyone in a conventional war and win.
Breaking the nucllear taboo would be bad for them, since it takes away the absolute advantage they posess currently.

File: image.jpg (159KB, 1280x974px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1280x974px

>>30014331
>be arab
>attack Israel
>get rekt

>g-guise I'll get u next time!

>>30019162
The US does not have an explicit no first use policy, except with non-nuclear armed nations.

The US has planned for limited nuclear war since the 1970s.

>>30017373
> altruistic stable super power with a conscience

Holy crap, those are some rose tinted glasses you have there.

>>30019162

Soviet Union had the luxury of declaring "no first use" policy because Warsaw Pact would have crushed NATO. NATO couldn't afford such a luxury and everyone expected the usage of nukes in Germany at least.

>>30013739
>think Russia will cause its annihilation over a theocratic backwater with little vital permanent strategic interest

>>30010377
we should have nuked the Chinese in the Korean War and ended the communists before they got nukes.

>>30013739

Iran and Russia are not really allies. It's a more ambiguous relationship.

>>30012108
doubt that very much, if they launch one nuke the NK may launch more and they may be able to hit Japan, this is unacceptable and the US would surely drop 20-30 nukes on NK.

The sad part is, if you wargame it, this is the most likely scenario. NK is not likely to just reform its way out of existence, like the Soviet Union. There's no Gorbachev up there; East Asians are highly hierarchical and they aren't going to just rebel against their rulers. At some point NK will go out with a huge bang and millions will die, I can't see any other way around it absent some sort of top-tier coup by Chinese special forces or something.

>>30019662
Lol what's nk gonna do? Strap warheads to bottle rockets? Lol even China is hatin lil kim lately. They'd get plowed by China for disturbing it's economic boom it's having before we even knew what was going on. Literally deserves invaded worse than Nazi Germany.

>>30019694
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Operational_delivery_systems

They are at most a couple of years away from strapping a nuke to one of these.

>>30018514

I'm pretty sure it's mostly brain damage and trauma. Parasites, self inflicted, etc. Fucking cats and their poisonous parasite infested claws and poop, man. I'm sure the environment I live in has taken its toll.. I'm pretty sure my habit of drinking sweeteners from tin cans has had an effect as well. I've also been diagnosed with ADD which means it basically took meth to get me past a few grades.

In general I'm a fucking mess and I've pretty much deemed myself unsalvagable, I'm pretty much just trying find a way to enjoy life until I die.

My dad and his dad both died very young so by that thinking I've got about 20 years if the pattern continues.

>>30020016
I didnt know that. Ill take more time and be more patient if you have questions in the future.

>>30009794
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/underwater-nuclear-explosions-how-deep.html

>>30019015
wouldn't the mere launch of a nuclear missile targeted at a border town in china be enough to trigger china's nuclear magdump before the explosion even happens?

>>30019501
Compared to the Soviets, they are Crystal clear.

>>30010377

You just have to know though that there's a scenario where in a full-scale nuclear war the US has a warhead or two headed for Hanoi just for the fuck of it. Pyongyang too. Even if they're not involved.

>>30020432
Depends on the situation. Its possible that China's own thinking on the matter is that the rewards of continuing do not outweigh the risks. It all depends on what is at stake.

>>30020163

I'm mostly incredibly thick headed and dense.

I don't think I'm like... handicapped legitimately. Just stupid enough to piss people off, really.

>>30020594
Hypothetically, if a south american or african nation were to develop or accquire nukes, how much would this effect global policy and military doctrine towards them? I'm given to understand south africa was forced to give up their nuclear programs by us and other nations, would we see a similar situation in my hypothetical scenario?

>>30009794
Favorite part of that picture is how you can see the ship inside the column of water.

Just stop and think the force required to stand a ship on its end like that.


Not to mention how fucking high up it is.

>>30020664
I try to never ignore any ernest question.

>>30020735
The rest of the world would try to force the nation to give up it weapons, but if they are not members of the NPT, options are limited.

>>30013739
>The United States is solely responsible for the shit hole that is the Middle East.

Yeah man, it wasn't the British or the Ottomans or anything.

File: BS_Anne.png (475KB, 544x669px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 544x669px

Since this is now the general nuke thread I have a question for you Oppenheimer, how over-exaggerated are the 'EMP attacks' in modern media? For example, what effect would a nuke have if it were detonated in space over the United States, I assume it wouldn't black out the whole east coast, but what would the effect be?

Thanks ahead of time.

>>30015969

I wouldn't call 155 schizoidal rambling. It was a general observation, with a particular criticism of Israel. That seemed to really needle you, I wonder why?

you seem to be confounding legitimate criticism of the Israeli regime with stormfront posters. If you can't tell the difference between the two, you're a fool

>>30010193
I mean, America lost a couple already. I'm sure there's more than one floating around after the USSR fell. They lost a bunch of engineered bioweapons too, this is confirmed.

>>30020965
Its difficult to say. It is almost certainly not as bad as depicted in things like "One Second After".
It would still be really bad, and probably the single biggest disaster in US history.

>>30021066
There are no missing nuclear weapons that are still capable of functioning as nuclear weapons.

Also, what confirmed missing bioweapon?

>>30016464

Listen dude, don't drink mouth wash that shit will kill you. Do what actual alcoholics do: MD 20/20, 40oz malt liquor, box wine (this is cheapest option actually I did the math), if you have a little capital invest in a keg.

Obviously you should get help for your drinking problem if you can, when you're ready. But in the meantime please stop drinking mouth wash. You can make your own pruno for free, all you need is a plastic bag and a little resourcefulness.

Google "pruno"

Oppenheimer, What is the US's anti-nuke defense like? I know we've got those big phalanx guns that spit bullets at incoming missiles, but surely if theres a large ICBM coming at us, we'd be able to do something about it, yeah?

>>30015969
/pol/ is pro israel retard

>>30021088
Dunno about missing but ussr accidentally leaked smallpox, anthrax, and Marburg virus during deliberate testing in open air. I'm sure the wind and rain saw some of that "lost."

>>30021088


Sorry man, I'm mobile and don't have a source on that right now. But basically the US and the Soviets both had pretty sophisticated programs to develop bioweapons and the capabilities to rapidly produce it and distribute it. Stuff like selectively breeding smallpox and ebola to be antivirus resistant.

Thankfully they realized that this is a box nobody wants to open and both countries have publicly shut down their offensive programs. But even today USA and Russia are the only two countries with smallpox samples. Ours is in a CDC freezer in Atlanta iirc.

After the collapse of the USSR they found some abandoned facilities in Siberia set up for industrial scale bioweapon production. No strains, just the equipment. We also got a couple of defectors that were scientists involved in the program. Nobody knows what happened to those strains of super bugs they developed. Hopefully they were destroyed but... all you need is a freezer.

>>30021173

I actually do make my own wine. It's good stuff. I use a 12oz can of concentrate, 2 liter bottles, and a cup of sugar. I'm fortunate enough to have actual wine yeast ATM. Bread yeast makes hangover wine.

The thing is my family is always fucking with my stash because they get pissed or something, and because I live in a dry city and have very little money mouthwash is literally my only option sometimes.

Alcohol makes me feel better. It makes me happier. Everyone else has the cash or insurance to spend on doctors and medicine, I do not.

>>30021254
The US has Ground Based Interceptor missiles that can perform interceptions of ICBMs.

>>30021454
>Nobody knows what happened to those strains of super bugs
This is not the same thing as asserting that the weapons are unaccounted for.
I am aware that both nations had active biowarfare programs, but none of those weapons are lost and unaccounted for.
Ken whatever his name is is not 100% honest either.

>>30021088

What about from sunken nuclear subs?
K-278 sunk and by the time they went down there to investigate the wreck 3 years later, there was a mysterious torpedo shaped hole leading to the torpedo room... And it had nuclear torpedoes.

You think they would be keen to announce the entire world that nuclear bombs are missing?

>>30021592
Who has the capability to recover something 5,200 ft down that also doesnt have their own nuclear weapons?

In any case, it would be impossible to seperate the crushed wreckage of the warhead from the crushed wreckage of the rest of the submarine.

>>30017373
>Moving goal posts
and
>US is an 'altruistic stable superpower with a conscience' let alone in the 1940's

>>30020486
Meant to include this here

>>30021641

>>30012893
I'm sure Listerine costs more here. Can get a small bottle of cheap vodka for £6 or a medium bottle of Listerine for around £4. Get more out of the vodka. Anyway. Just fucking make some booze. Grandmother used to make alcohol from some veg/fruit and sugar.

It would have to be something where Russia, China and the USA agree is ok, before actually use.

Like nuking the shit out of ISIS, or North Korea.

>>30021615
True. Curious, What if some magical way the plutonium of the warhead got out into open water. Say someone just dropped some overboard, or an attack in transport got loose enriched materials into the water or something. Would the plutonium still be useful?

>>30009794
Of course. Sooner or later 3rd world countries will start flinging nuclear shit at each other, and they don't possess nuclear arsenals for MAD.

>>30021746
China Would not let us nuke a country they share a border with. They and Russia would just tell the US they were handling it and probably would.

>>30020763
not just stand it up, that ship almost definitely left the water and went end over end

nukes are so fucking daunting

File: doubt.jpg (8KB, 170x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 170x250px

>>30021276
>/pol/ is pro israel retard
Have you ever been there?

>>30021717

Listerine here.

I don't drink ACTUAL brand name Listerine.. I get the Equate version. It's like half the price.

And, yes, it's cheaper than buying cheap booze.

The price difference is very substantial.

>>30012893
Listerine is cheaper, the homeless in my city steal it on sundays because the liquor stores are closed. Apparently, the green kind gives you the runs so usually they only go for gold.

>>30009794
Prove to me there are things such as 'Nukes'

Do not post bomb tests. You're all retarded anyways.

>>30021454

A while back on a certain board I happened to lurk a thread where one of the posters in it said that it was quite possible to develop a bio weapon to kill a specific person only. Said person claimed to have majored in a field related to microbiology.

Would this be correct?

>>30010145
28 countries in the war in Afghanistan began WW3 and it is going on right now.
this war is on your mind and on your people.

It won't be fought with nuclear firestorm.

most likely precise drone strikes targeting powerful individuals in causes.

This is not Peace Time friend.

>>30022921
Im not sure that this matters to you, but I hope one day you will be okay.


>>30023209
At least post the link to the guys webpage.

>>30023213
they will blast you with EMF before they waste money engineering a bioagent to murder a specific person.

>>30023229
link to what son?

that's my informed opinion. I don't have some schmuck to point to and say LOOK I'm RIGHT

>>30023229

I hope so too, thanks.

It's not really my decision to make.

You don't get to decide where or when you're born, when you go bald, or which genes make addictions hard overcome. That shit gets chosen for us. In reality, we have very little control over our lives and circumstances. I gotta roll with the hand I've been dealt just like everyone else.

>>30012108
China has said publicly that they wouldn't back NK if they shot first, so its unlikely one of their dollar store missiles will bring about more

>>30023313
Take up Tarot nigga

>>30023229
>>30023313
[spoiler]https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080227225917AA2VPpK[/spoiler]

>>30023296
The NukeLies website. You should feel right at home there.
I miss the "NUKES ARENT REAL" crowd. Havent seen much of them outside of /pol/

File: french_nuclear_test_01.jpg (102KB, 600x298px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x298px

>>30023365
>NUKES ARENT REAL

What do those people think happen to Nagasaki and Hiroshima then?

>>30023365
Nuclear Power =/= Nuclear Powered Bombs

'Nuke' is an idea and none of you have any first hand experience to tell anyone else otherwise.

Same thing with Aids or Cancer, Degenerating diseases, they don't even need names. but we give them names.

then if a Nuke is in the collective mind then what are you afraid of admitting that you have never seen one and most likely never will.

I said in a post earlier this is not a war of explosives, this war is with words and thoughts.

>>30023418
burden of proof relies on you not me. I could careless whether they exist or not, They just scare you anyways. that's all they do.

You're missing the point if you are trying to argue their existence or not. It's about Accepting that they exist whether they do or not because the IDEA is so threatening that to accept it is to know of a danger and is to be safe.

>>30023420
I was referring to the people who think that nuclear weapons arent real. I didnt say anything about nuclear power.


>you have never seen one
I have.

>>30023436
>burden of proof relies on you not me
You would not accept any evidence I would put forth.

What else do you have?

File: Hiroshima_Dome_1945.gif (202KB, 406x640px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 406x640px

>>30023436

What killed 70,000 on the morning of August 6, 1945 in the city of Hiroshima?

>>30023478
I'll let you chose his most likely response.

A) Conventional bombing that was covered up

%) It doesnt matter because its just an idea to keep you scared and fight the war of ideas on the front of truth and space cows.

File: trump peace sign.jpg (55KB, 1200x678px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1200x678px

>>30009794
>Do you think it's possible for the Nuke Taboo to be broken without the world falling into MAD?
We'll probably find out next year.

>>30023500
>A) Conventional bombing that was covered up

Why hasn't there been a SINGLE witness who has come forward to dispute the "Single Bomb" history then?

Why hasn't there been a single Hiroshima survivor who tells tales of conventional bombing? Why do they all have the same story of a single blast?

>%) It doesnt matter because its just an idea to keep you scared and fight the war of ideas on the front of truth and space cows.

How does a weapon capable of killing tens of thousands in a few minutes not matter?

>>30023500
what the hell is a space cow and why do you keep taking your trip off?

Yes, Evidence from some life magazine.
sound is a better weapon than fire
that's all I am saying, more cost effective too. You don't turn a nuke on and then off when you are done.

try not to get offended man. You'll have better conversations if you are sticking up for conventional history 24/7

>>30023524
>Why hasn't there been a single Hiroshima survivor who tells tales of conventional bombing? Why do they all have the same story of a single blast?

How many of them have you spoken to? You would never hear the truth because they wouldnt let it see the light of day.


>How does a weapon capable of killing tens of thousands in a few minutes not matter?
Because its ideas. Not bullets.

Something like that.

>>30023524
That's what I am talking about, use that brain my nigga.

It's conjecture until you ask the questions, Open Hammer or whatever the fuck has got a hard on for what the History channel repeats every fucking fall.

Get out from under your rock and Observe Space and Time, DO Not Allow people to TELL you what it is, You can decide.

>>30023531
>try not to get offended man.
Oh dont worry. This is very entertaining to me.

>trip off
Im not. Why would I? I am interacting with you just fine.

>>30023561
multiple replies from someone typing exactly like you do

what is entertaining about spaghetti?

>>30023548
>Open Hammer or whatever the fuck has got a hard on for what the History channel repeats every fucking fall.
Who is getting offended now?

>>30023360

Listerine here. My only internet access is a shitty kindle and I can't copy/paste atm for some reason.

>>30023572
Am I wrong?

>>30023568
>someone typing exactly like you do
Really? Explain.

>>30023580
oh well some Woman's Mother died 8 years from liver failure or something sped up by the Equate/Listerine chugging,

Just sayin you'd be happier smoking the grass enjoying some fine alcohol.

>>30023584
>Am I wrong
Oh yes. Very.

File: Atomic_blast_Nevada_Yucca_1951_(better_quality).png (1MB, 700x877px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 700x877px

Will a nuke set off in a mountain pass make that pass unusable by enemy forces?

How hard is it to protect soldiers to get them to pass through a nuke-blasted zone?

If I was a hard-ass general who didn't give a fuck, how long after I force-marched troops through a nuke-blasted zone would they succumb to radiation poisoning and become useless to me?

>>30023587
If you are going to nitpick just hold your horses buddy.

>>30023597
filtered

>>30023600
>Will a nuke set off in a mountain pass make that pass unusable by enemy forces?
It can.
>How hard is it to protect soldiers to get them to pass through a nuke-blasted zone?
The main issue is decontamination after the march. You can protect them to a large degree, but you have to remove all fallout from vehicles and equipment before it will be safe for unprotected troops to operate it.
>If I was a hard-ass general who didn't give a fuck, how long after I force-marched troops through a nuke-blasted zone would they succumb to radiation poisoning and become useless to me?
With no protection? Hours to days.

>>30023614
Awww. Thats too bad.

>>30023645
Opp does Canada have any sort of nuclear weapons?

>>30023661
No. They don't need them.

>>30023677
My Canuckistanian friend was saying that they have some that they have stored away. Is he thinking of something else?

>>30023750
In the Cold War they had nuke-tipped AAMs and such under a dual key arrangement. They never had their own, independent weapons though.

>>30023750
They had a few nuclear weapons under NORAD (Genies, I think) but they were gone by 84 or 85.

>>30023781
Question Mr Oppenheimer!

Are there any audio/visual records of atomic tests that still haven't been released to the public for reasons of classification, difficulty in digitizing the info, misplaced archives, etc? Or are photos, videos, and sound recordings we have today all that will ever be released?

>>30023817
>Are there any audio/visual records of atomic tests that still haven't been released to the public
Yes. A lot.

>>30023831
Neato! Does the gov have a schedule for their release?

>>30023863
Nope.
All nuclear weapon information is considered secret from the moment of its inception. It all has to be declassified before it can be released and that is a long process.
On occasion they will do a mass declass but those are rare due to a few mistakes preciously.
The guy who runs the Nuclear Secrecy blog might be able to tell you more than I can as he fights to get stuff all the time.
You could email him.

>>30023908
Will do.

>due to a few mistakes preciously.
Could you elaborate on this a bit? Did someone accidentally leak classified info?

>>30021546
Hey Op, I read Ken Alibek's book on bioweapons recently, how likely is it that global powers still have a full NBC suite of weapons in stock/ supply/ manufacture?

>>30023213

Hmm, a bio weapon that only targets a specific person would be unfeasible. Even if there were any way to do it, you'd need tissue samples from that person to key the weapon to them, at which point it'd be easier for eveyone involved if you just stabbed them

Now, as for a disease/weapon that doesn't spread beyond its initial target? You'd either have to be close enough to poison them directly (since you have something that simply cannot spread) or you have something that can be activated under specific circumstances. That wouldn't make it any more or less specific than, say, a bullet or a relatively small explosive.

Just throw a rabid bat through the window, fuck it.

hey Oppenheimer, on a personal level, how do you feel about the US scaling back its nuclear forces?
I get that some of it was old, outdated stuff (like the B83) but some of the treaties (SMART 2) are kinda neutering us.
I get we're trying to lead by example for Russia and Iran (and similar nations) but are we putting ourselves at risk? Those countries aren't scaling back and following us for the most part.

>>30022921
Take your fucking whiny blog posts to /r9k/ and stop shitting up legitimate discussion threads

>>30023436
why do you not think nukes exist?
what is hiroshima and nagasaki?
that much destruction couldn't have been brought by a single bomber sortie unless it was absolutely massive, to the point where it would be a day with an aluminum sky.
what about castle bravo? or the grabel shot?

why do you believe nukes aren't real?
I'm not trying to make fun of you. I want to know why you doubt their existence.

>>30024044
Biotech progress has gone exponential, think Moore's law.

DNA keyed biosols are only the beginning - they're the JDAM of bioweapons. A cheap, area-effect, yet low or no collateral weapon with plenty of standoff. A smart flu released into the city propagates itself, but kills no-one except the target...that's too revolutionary to ignore.

Today it would take a group of PhDs to build. 40 years from now...a lab tech straight out of college could do it in their garage. Special forces will do it with field kits, instead of learning how to make car bombs.

The really expensive, nation-state scale weapons will do stuff like programmable activations and loitering, or detecting targets based on the isotope ratios in their bones to discriminate based on how long someone has been drinking local water.

Hey Oppie! I just finished reading On Limited Nuclear Warfare in the 21st Century. Are there any other books that you would recommend?

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

3MB, 1280x720px

A question for Opp if he's still here (and sorry if it's been asked before):

How likely could a terrorist organisation acquire a nuclear weapon from Pakistan? I've heard nothing but bad things regarding Pakistan and it's possession of nuclear weapons, both in terms of corruption and actual security around their nuclear stockpile.

>>30024111
>Taking his bait

>>30024144
>>Taking his bait
there are some really fucking stupid people. I wouldn't be surprised if some didn't believe that nukes existed.
I'll try to answer your question;
unlikely at present.
if they wanted to steal a nuke, they'd need a shitload of men, planning, resources, all of that.
they'd have to punch through the paki lines, into a base, still a bigass warhead, and hightail it out of there. not an easy job.
or they could buy one.
but that's really fucking expensive. and that's even assuming that a paki nuke officer could even be bribed to just "lose" a nuke.
so for now, unlikely.
in the future, god knows.
>>30024137
I'd recommend Command & Control by Eric Schossler.
talks about the Damascus Arkansas Titan 2 incident mainly, but it also talks about the development and mishaps with the first nukes, SAC and its mistakes, all the way up to the end of the cold war.
get it in audiobook form as reading it is kind of dense and hard to follow, but it is a very good listen/read.

>>30024121

I was thinking more in terms of what someone would be willing to do today, but I see your point. Still, the problem with the flu scenario is that people gonna people & virus gonna virus. Someone thinking they have absolute control of what a virus will do once released is a moron and a half. I don't doubt someone might try it in the near future, but there will be collateral damage. A big chunk of it will come from people bravely ignoring PSAs and like, rubbing onions on themselves to combat the flu or whatever.

>>30024111
don't feed it

>>30024137
On Thermonuclear War by Kahn, despite its age, is still the go-to reference guide on the effects and consequences of large scale nuclear warfare. If you want to know what an all out conflict in the nuclear age would look like, this is one of your best resources.

>>30024063

I'm not whining or complaining.

I'm responding to people actually fucking talking about me.

I didn't post in this thread until someone blamed it on me, also.

I guess I have fans or some shit.

Seems likely a new cold war is going to start up again. Russia would of and still would use their nukes if they didn't think NATO would send them back to the stone age in response.
Iran/pakistan/ are the most likely to use them. Iran is just all fucked up if they would of won in iraq they'd probably be a lot more hostile than they are now.
NK probably wouldnt use them unless their social hierarchy collapses.
Anywhere in South America or Africa get ahold of it they'd start using them.

>>30023470
>I have.
Details please, I want to know.

>>30024417
Oppenheimer, you said you had a reading list copypasta. Would you mind linking or posting it?

>>30023964
There was some stuff that went out about Continuity of Government that wasn't reviewed yet. Nothing really major.

>>30023987
I really do not know.

>>30024052
>how do you feel about the US scaling back its nuclear forces?
I am against it when done unilaterally. I am against it when it limits our capabilities vs our potential adversaries.

>>30024137
On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner
The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan
Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérèse Delpech
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser
Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang
Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford

>>30024144
>How likely could a terrorist organisation acquire a nuclear weapon from Pakistan?
In my opinion it is the most likely avenue that a terror group would acquire one.

Overall it is a lower risk, but still significant compared to other options.

>>30024221
Or they could have it compromised from the inside. They had several naval officers turn and tried to help turn over an entire frigate to a terror group just a year or so ago.

>>30025059
See above.

>>30024966
Stood next to a W53 and B83. Nothing exciting.

>>30023213
Yes it is theoretically possible but really impractical and the tech just isn't there yet.

You could engineer a microbe or retrovirus to target a specific DNA pattern, for example. But we can't really do this yet outside of highly specific experiments in the lab.

This technology would also be useful for fixing genetic birth defects, repairing damage caused by radiation exposure, curing cancer, and other way more sci fi stuff.

>>30025081

Oppen, do you think America's foreign policy needs to be more respectful towards other nations?

Do you think anti-American sentiment is just at this time?

>>30021546
I mean if we don't have a record of their destruction and nobody knows what happened to them that is the definition of unaccounted for.

A bioweapon strain can be stored in a single test tube in a simple freezer. We have to assume they're out there somewhere.

>>30025137
>Oppen, do you think America's foreign policy needs to be more respectful towards other nations?
I think our foreign policy is hopelessly mired in domestic politics.
A clear, consistent policy is what is needed. It is so bad that many of my peers are resigning. I may do the same. Recent events have demoralized me to some degree.

>Do you think anti-American sentiment is just at this time?
No. America has always been the focus of some level of resentment. It is not a recent phenomenon.

>>30025168
>nobody knows what happened to them
Except that we do know what happened and none are unaccounted for.
The poster I was replying to stated that there was a "confirmed missing bioweapon"

>>30020965
Not that much at all and yet hugely so in oehr respects. I'd be bad for a lot of civilian infrastructure but outside of radio communications and radar being disrupted temporarily, it wouldn't do much to military-grade stuff. A lot of subterranean or otherwise "naturally" hardened civvie electronics and power systems would similary be only temporarily knocked out.

Overall, it wouldn't suddenly stop society wholesale, but it'd still be a fucking big disaster.

>>30021320
Dude, bacteria and virii like that have a rather limited lifespan outside a host or a specifically-designed storage medium.

>>30009794
Sure, as long as the weapons are small and relatively clean. Think Davy Crockett, not The Day After.

>>30021254
There's a few ABM-capable systems around, but they've got a limited pk ratio (IE, you need multiple shots to be guaranteed to take out a single warhead). They're not really meant for defending against another big nuke power going full tilt because building and deploying enough for that would be really fucking expensive and the attempt itself would seriously risk setting off an exchange because it'd force a "use it or lose it" dilemma on the other side. What current ABM systems are actually here for is being kind of an insurance policy that gives you extra leeway in case of a small-scale launch that might or might not be nuclear or in case that some third-rate player like North Korea goes full retard.

>>30021767
I probably would. You'd also be more likely to find a needle in a five by five mile field of haystacks than finding that on the bottom of the sea.

>>30025206
who exactly is Oppenheimer? I don't want to scare him away because I heard he was dox'd and he seems like a really cool guy, but I'm curious about why he's so knowledgeable. He seems to be speaking from a position of authority.

Coax Pakistan into nuking India, let their war go on for as long as we need it to, test some ubersuperduper weapon on Pakistan in retaliation, move in and annex both and use them for training sites and tourist attractions.

>>30023600
>Will a nuke set off in a mountain pass make that pass unusable by enemy forces

No

>How hard is it to protect soldiers to get them to pass through a nuke-blasted zone?

Not very hard at all, all modern militaries have some form of NBC protection in their warehouses just waiting to be given to the troops

>If I was a hard-ass general who didn't give a fuck, how long after I force-marched troops through a nuke-blasted zone would they succumb to radiation poisoning and become useless to me?

Depends on the bomb, but given a tactical-sized nuke, you could easily march across the drop zone and be out before you've received any kind of harmful dosage of radiation.

The amount of dosage needed to induce radiation poisoning is about 400 mSv and you're not going to get that even if you just walk through a blast zone.

Now, if you set up camp and spend some days there, yeah, you'll get fucked up.

>>30025618
The issue is fallout, anon.

>>30025408
I would like to second this question. Oppenheimer, could you tell us a little about yourself and background without breaking OPSEC?

>>30025578
If they nuke each other it'll make a lot of it not so useful, and it will fuck the global economy in the ass. To say nothing of the global food supply.

The fallout and damage to crop lands and lost markets and threat to shipping channels that pass through the indian ocean and South East Asia is too severe.

>>30025578
Background on that webm please

>>30025636

Shake off your coat and stomp your boots when you're past the blast area

You'll be fine, trust me

>>30014308
Didn't UNRWA report they had found rockets inside their schools (which were basically come-all shelters) in addition to the multiple Israeli intelligence reports about militants using UNRWA shelters as munitions stockpiles to protect their weapons from the bombings?

>>30025692
Tuesday in India.

>>30025721
Lol.

>>30025692
>Pig eats baby pajeet
>Adult pajeets aren't able to stop pig from eating baby pajeet in public

>>30026015

I'd suspect the poor creature was dead before the pigs got to it.

>>30013739
So the US is responsible for Ukraine, Chechnya, and the Balkans now?

>>30014295
I've heard stories about WP leaving charred corpses with parts of the outer clothing intact.
Those sound like wild tales.
Coming into contact with chunks of WP is obviously really bad but does the smoke carry active chemicals and does it react with the water in lung tissue or even skin?

>>30025765
India or Africa? Those people are dark as fuck but I admit I'm not good at identifying races

>>30026414
Started reading into it myself.
Seems te be total bullshit and propaganda.

>>30026461
It kind of hard to tell from a limp lump being chewed by a pig.Try comparing adults. People from that region have dark skin but different physical builds, facial features and bone structure. Personally I can't find negro women attractive but indian women...

>>30018791
>comparing a long string of ethnic genocides to warfare
I get both sides of this argument, but I just wanted to interject that these are not at all comparable. Rwandan or Serbian genocide have nothing to do with the type of warfare we're seeing in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

>>30025206
What recent events?

>>30027053
Pretty sure it's this.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7044e805a95a4b7da5533b1b9ab75cd2/group-helped-sell-iran-nuke-deal-also-funded-media

>>30026414
White phosphorus reacts with oxygen instantaneously and at low temperature. I've held a trip flare on the end of a 6' post, lit it, submerged it in a puddle and then took it out. It stopped burning underwater, and then started again when I took it out.

WP will not stop burning until it is done.

>>30025408
>>30025663
He is someone who has a history of contributing good content to /k/. Every time he posted something interesting I would double check it with info I could access publicly and it checks out. It only took me a few hours of reading every time. That's why I like him.
He's respected here because he is accurate, not because of his position.

Whenever I have a question about nukes I post it in one there threads OPP delivers.
Also I like the random bits and pieces of detail that get scattered throughout these threads.

>>30009952
lol, okay kissinger

>>30025356
Lololololll did you even third grade health class? Fucking viral particles are never living to begin with. How can something not living, that uses no energy in any cellular process, die? It is literally a strand of DNA with a protein key waiting to bump into a matching cellular lock autonomously. Bacterial spores do live and can die, but not simply due to time outside of a host. They form spores which just like plant seeds can wait dormant and viable for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years. The smallpox spill infected a person on a ship fifteen miles out to sea. Educate yourself damn...

>>30028065

But anon... our bodies cells and molecules are made from dead matter. If the whole is the sum of its parts, then we aren't alive either. If viruses aren't alive, they sure do a good job moving places and doing things.

I guess we, too, are just dust in the wind?

>>30028372
You are high

>>30023548
Holy shit! Get a load of this faggot. Opp is objectively the best trip on this board and has been for a long time. Don't be such a newfag.

>>30028724
Bruu, try the website. Never have i seen any trip post with such wit, sourcing, or personal experience. Very few have all three traits. Not to mention he doesn't seem to be a hard asses racist.

File: scorpion.jpg (89KB, 716x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 716x600px

>>30021615
K-219, Scorpion, and Thresher are all remarkably intact, given that they were pressure vessels filled with water once they hit serious depth.
K-129 was too from accounts of Azorian, but we can't exactly fact check what happened after.

>>30028835
>K-219, Scorpion, and Thresher are all remarkably intact
They were crushed, anon. If not from surpassing crush depth then from the impact with the seabed at 30 or 40 miles per hour.

The few ideas where a nuke could be used without MAD occurring would be if

> Your country is being invaded and you use a tactical nuke in your own country.

> Regional conflict reaches boiling point where neighbors who both have nukes send them at each other, without a need for other countries to send out their own. Pakistan and India come to mind.

>Terrorist use one.

> ridiculous thought but if a war on a colonized planet occured nukes their could be used with an agreement that the conflict would not spread to Earth.

>>30028878
Crush depth varies on the pressure differential between each side of the vessel. If the ship has flooded, allowing pressure to equalize, it may not crush at all.
And if the hull can survive that in good enough shape to attempt recovery, a re-entry vehicle would more than likely be in good enough shape for a nuclear power to study.

File: The free ride is finally ending for white women.gif (97KB, 625x461px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 625x461px

>It's a based Oppenheimer rolls in and drops wisdom like Chad making drunk girls panties drop thread

>>30028954
>If the ship has flooded, allowing pressure to equalize, it may not crush at all.
Considering than not all of the sub needs to flood for it to sink, and considering that damage control efforts by the crew likely sealed many compartments off, implosion is more likely than not.
And no, nuclear warheads exposed to deep ocean will not be in any useful condition.
You are also ignoring the impact of the hull into th sea floor and the damage that would cause.
There is nothing that could be gained from such an effort.

>>30026015
the pig was smart enough to not get within poo range.

File: USNS_Glomar_Explorer_%28T-AG-193%29.jpg (551KB, 1280x833px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 1280x833px

>>30028999
>Considering than not all of the sub needs to flood for it to sink, and considering that damage control efforts by the crew likely sealed many compartments off
definitely not, but there's not a bulkhead in the world that will hold once a sub has lost control of its depth. You can listen to the old sonar recordings of sealed bulkheads failing in chain reactions as the subs sink. But generally main compartments can definitely survive intact if flooded, as often happens when shit goes seriously sideways. They've always been built as tough as possible, after all.

There were a few groups who thought that extremely low frequency crypto shit had a good enough chance of surviving a ride through 2 miles of water and the sudden stop at the bottom to invest seriously in recovery, after all- and that was with shitty first generation commie sub construction.

>>30023220
Saved.

>>30020735
inb4 DINDU NUKING

>>30012893
How do you recognize Listerine since most posts are all from Anonymous. Can you track the ids regardless, or is there a trick on following posts?
Other than recognizing writing style. How? Janitor positions granted access?
Inquiring minds want to be paranoid a bit.

>>30010254
>What about a nuke in naval combat? Is it more acceptable than on land?

People are asking this a lot given the existence of the DF-21. When you start using nukes for tactical strikes, you're not threatening your enemies very existence directly - but you *are* wiping out scads of their conventional military capability all at once, which indirectly increases their chances of losing the whole shebang (being invaded and conquered because you nuked all their military asserts.) At the very least, they're going to start firing nukes at *your* conventional assets to even the score. And if some of those assets are located too close to shore, or maybe on the outskirts of a city... bad, but if it's a satellite uplink station and a vital part of your kill-chain for further nuclear strikes...

Escalation is a whore. Nobody wants to fuck with it.

>>30020592

>As Commander in Chief, President John F. Kennedy was surprised to discover that the Joint Chief's of Staff (JCS) master nuclear war plan, SIOP-62 (Single Integrated Operational Plan for fiscal year 1962) required a massive attack against targets in the USSR, Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) regardless of whether the latter countries were involved in the triggering crisis or not. Everything nuclear in the US arsenal was to be launched or carried to well over a thousand targets in a massive, single and prolonged attack dubbed by some unknown wag as a "wargasm". The plan provided no real options between not attacking at all and expending every available nuclear weapon in one hugely destructive strike. That SIOP-62 was a significant improvement over what came before says much about the chaos that surrounded American nuclear war planning in the 1950's.

>The principle elements of SIOP-62 were deemed to be sound so Strategic Air Command (SAC), the JCS, the President's National Security Council (NSC) and other agencies went to work on SIOP-63; preparing at least five-additional optional responses and the specialized target lists they required. By 1962 over 400 civilian and more than 600 major military sites had been identified as probable high priority targets in the USSR alone and the total number of potential targets numbered into the thousands. Many had more than one aim point and multiple weapons assigned to ensure complete destruction (usually with a generous overkill allowance) and SAC planned to deliver in excess of 3500 megatons (MT) to targets in the Soviet Union without using the Navy's Polaris submarines. Even today most of the specifics of the various historical SIOPs and associated target lists are highly classified.

>>30025168
>A bioweapon strain can be stored in a single test tube in a simple freezer. We have to assume they're out there somewhere.

There's been numerous documented cases of Russian nuclear weapons going "walking" for a while. But the shit Bioprepreat made that might have gone walking is what scares me fucking shitless.

>>30029530
I doubt they would be interested in creating zombies if that's what you mean.

Probably just massive death, nothing to concern yourself with unless you have the funds to buy an airtight shelter and operate in NBC gear.

>>30025081
Respects Oppenheimer.
Which one of those sources listed would cover the use of MIRVs, and the use of multiple warhead simultaneously cause a super shock wave. I have heard that a six of smaller nukes is more devastating that one large of course, but what about the additive and subtractive shock waves and heat blasts?
I mean it would be great to see a test where the building is pounded from one direction, then another. Weakened one way and torn asunder even though it was far enough from one blast to be hit from another direction.

Does the current inventory of nukes have the capability to be salted with zinc, gold, chlorine or cobalt? That would really turn the area into an area of denial for even NBC due to instant emissions of really short half lived fallout.

>>30014331
Hahahaha.
Haven't you had enough of the jews kicking the shit out of you?

>>30029060
>There were a few groups who thought that extremely low frequency crypto shit had a good enough chance of surviving

Which is a lot more useful than a nuclear warhead when you already have thousands of your own.

>>30029530
>There's been numerous documented cases of Russian nuclear weapons going "walking" for a while.
Enlighten me.

>>30029566
If you want that then you want the DTRA EM-1.

>>30029380

THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE ME.

I'm always getting accused of shitting up threads I don't bother posting in.

Just because "surely this guy must be the one that drinks Listerine because I think this guy is so stupid".

>>30019585
>ended the communists before they got nukes
USSR had the bomb in 1949.

Realistically, if Russia fired all of its nukes to the US at once, how many would we be able to intercept?

>>30025081
Thanks for the books, Oppie! :)

>>30031762
Less than 12 probably.

>>30030515
>Enlighten me.

This is a book you should read: http://www.amazon.com/One-Point-Safe-Leslie-Cockburn/dp/0385485603

Just skimming the book, here:

>9 pounds of enriched uranium stolen from a Red Navy warehouse, not recovered for eight days, and only because someone turned the thieves in

>two men drove out of a bunker in Zlatloust 36 with two strategic nuclear warheads in the back of their truck, November 1993

>One person placed a pellet of cesium in their pocket and died of radiation poisoning before they could find a buyer

The rest of the book does a very good job of defining the extremely poor security the Russians have been able to afford for their vast stockpiles of Cold War warheads, and anti-proliferation efforts to stem the issue. But honestly, it's so porous and thin, sooner or later someone's going to make off with a complete bomb.

>>30032223
Interesting, thanks for the book rec. Do you have any more info on the Russian bioweapons program? All I know is what I read in the Hot Zone and that was a few years ago so I don't remember details really.

>>30023470
Which ones? I've seen SLBMs when I was on the sub, (those Tridents right).

Also Oppenhiemer, is it wrong that I am scared of bioweapons and old me is scared of nanomachines/nanotech more than nukes?

>>30032256
Nanotechnology isn't real anon. It's just a meme from kurzwiel transgender transhumans in California. There is no technological pathway to building nanometer sized machines.

Bioweapons are very real though and you should be very afraid of them.

>>30032223
That book is almost 2 decades old, and none of the stories about missing nuclear warheads was found to be supported by actual evidence.

>>30032250
Read The Dead Hand, by David Hoffman. It's a history of the Biopreperat system informed by a bunch of interviews with Ken Alibek, who was second in command until he defected- but it's actually very readable because it was written by a NYT journo.

>>30032250
>Interesting, thanks for the book rec. Do you have any more info on the Russian bioweapons program? All I know is what I read in the Hot Zone and that was a few years ago so I don't remember details really.

>All I know is what I read in the Hot Zone

Oh boy. Required fucking reading for you: http://www.amazon.com/Biohazard-Chilling-Largest-Biological-World--Told/dp/0385334966/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463942497&sr=1-1&keywords=biohazard

The tell-all story as given by the man who used to be second-in-command of the Soviet bioweapons program. He defected to the West.

The shit you read in this book will keep you up at night.

>>30032309
>There is no technological pathway to building nanometer sized machines.

Yes there is. We're many decades if not centuries from realizing it on a mass production scale and/or managing effective computer control of them, though.

>>30032319
>That book is almost 2 decades old, and none of the stories about missing nuclear warheads was found to be supported by actual evidence.

Far as I remember, there *aren't* any stories in there about complete, working bombs that are actually known to be missing. There's several asshole-puckering close calls, however. I don't know how much the security of those stockpiles has been improved since the 90s - the 90s were immediate post-soviet collapse, so shit was chaotic and things were barely holding together (if they held together at all.) Maybe shit's been straightened out under Putin's regime, but given the rampant corruption in Russia... well, let's just fucking hope, you know?

The real question is how much raw nuclear materiel went walking and was never found, or accounted for - apparently Soviet documentation wasn't good at the best of times. Shit like that guy who slipped the cesium pellet into his pocket and went walking. Not necessarily fissile materiel, either - nasty radioactive shit is bad enough.

>>30032379

It's odd that more people aren't discussing the fact that Iran could build a "dirty bomb" warhead for their SRBM/MRBMs right now. One of those airbursting over the Vatican would be nightmare enough.

Now, here's the real question: do you think that book's bullshit, or do you know? "I know" is a valid answer, here.

>>30032426
>>30032426
Dirty bombs are fairly overblown as a threat.
The explosion is more of a threat than radioactivity spread by it. If a country can build a delivery system, they should be able to invest in building a proper fission device.
>One of those airbursting over the Vatican would be nightmare enough.
Why the fuck would Iran do that?
I may not like their politics but they seem pretty logical. Doesn't seem like them to invite the entire UN Security Council to come turn their country into a parking lot.

>>30032458
>Why the fuck would Iran do that?

They wouldn't. Having the weapon would be a deterrent. They seek Pax Irania; hegemony over their locality. Being able to threaten Italy, Athens, et al with MRBMs would be a big stick to keep the West from interfering with their plans.

In light of the missile shield, they'd want multiple weapons to saturate defenses.

>>30032458
>The explosion is more of a threat than radioactivity spread by it.

It depends entirely on what kind of radioactive shit you have to spread, and where you spread it. It's effectively a denial weapon. Deny someone the interior square mile of Athens, that's a bigger deal than a square mile of scrub-ass hillside with a few goats on it.

Then again I don't know how accurate Iranian systems are.

>>30029380

Whilst Listerine may deny it, his writing style can be recognised.

However, if you truly wanted to stalk you can, with or without access to 4chan's internal systems.

>>30032566
Eh, sort of. I've seen radioactive decon work, and while I don't have a particularly large knowledge of dirty bombs specifically, it would be more inconvenient and expensive to clean up than anything else. It's only going to be seriously problematic to people who get the contamination inside their bodies, breathing/eating/drinking, and while that sounds horrifying, I believe the number of people affected would be fairly low if the incident were managed correctly. As a rule of thumb, a dirty bomb would almost always be more effective if its high explosive component was used against a proper structural target.

>>30032880

Imagine the economic impacts of shutting down the New York stock exchange for two weeks, for instance. That's the kind of threat it presents. I've heard numbers like "depopulate New York's city center for a year" but that seems a bit... excessive.

>>30032379
>I don't know how much the security of those stockpiles has been improved since the 90s - the 90s were immediate post-soviet collapse, so shit was chaotic and things were barely holding together
They still knew how many warheads they had build, how many had been taken apart, and how many they had in inventory.


>The real question is how much raw nuclear materiel went walking and was never found, or accounted for - apparently Soviet documentation wasn't good at the best of times.
It would not be very useful for anything other than a dirty bomb and any significant quantities have been accounted for.

>>30033258
>They still knew how many warheads they had build, how many had been taken apart, and how many they had in inventory.

So as long as they scraped up the fucks to give or the funding there's nothing to have stopped Putins allegedly more competent regime from at least centralizing the stockpiles and parking some soldiers and tanks on top of it, in other words.

>>30033440
If you think that the Russians have little regard for nuclear security, you are mistaken.

>>30034123
Different anon, can you recommend some good reading on that topic? I'm curious.

Unrelated question, Is North Korea a nuclear threat to anybody but it's immediate neighbors atm?

>>30026582
Lolno, if you wanted, you could study some chemistry and see that the effects of WP are well within the realm of science. I bet you don't think concrete can be set on fire. ..