Nuke thread

not nuke related but relevant to something going on in afghanistan :)

the USA just put 6 MOABs here and might use it within the next week

shits gonna be cash, will prob feel it from my fob

File: 1469481298327.jpg (886KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 3000x2000px

Nuclear power!

File: operation crossroads baker subsurface detonation.jpg (694KB, 2966x1557px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 2966x1557px

>>30755382
>have this as my work ipad's background
>workmate glances at it for the first time
>"gee wiz, nice generic photo of some tropical paradise, pretty gay background you fucking fa-"
>...
>holy fuck"

>>30755401
those eyes scare me

File: image.png (7KB, 417x357px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 417x357px

>>30755382
>trying to summon Oppenheimer
>mfw i forgot to save the last thread he dropped some based knowledge in

Oppenheimer, if you're out there, I might have some questions about NPT and such.

>>30755782
https://desuarchive.org/k/search/username/OPpenheimer/tripcode/%21%21bd8BUj0eKSN/

>>30755674
what the fuck anon

>>30755913

Oh good desuarchive is back.

>>30756224
What, never seen a loli before?

File: is this the face of mercy.jpg (3KB, 90x110px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 90x110px

Are nukes Fourth Generation Warfare?

>>30757303

Go back to jerking to trains, Lind.

>>30757303
Only when delivered via biplane.

Is it possible for a non state organization to even acquire the material needed to manufacture a weapon?

File: ar234.jpg (115KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x768px

>>30757338
What about one of these?

>>30757303
>>30757311
>>30757338
what am I missing?

>>30757416
Of course.

>>30757338

Now THATS what I call Cavalry spirit!

>>30757420
An unparalleled work, both as a novel and as a didactic piece designed to teach strategy and tactics to the layman

>>30757303
>William S. Lind (born July 9, 1947) is an American monarchist, paleoconservative, columnist, Christian, and a light rail enthusiast
>light rail enthusiast

Oppen, there's a prevailing myth around Nth nation's nuclear forces for what targets would be selected in the event of making a second strike. Most believe that it would be exclusively countervalue targets.

Is there any real truth in this?

>>30757842
There are multiple considerations here so its hard to give a definitive answer.
How long you have to execute the retaliatory strike, as well as what your remaining forces have as selectable target options, factor into what you can hit.
Targeting options are limited, and can take time to change.
In general your preferred retaliatory options would be primarily countervalue in nature, but not exclusively.

>>30758056

Thanks for the answer.

It is a response to a believed decapitation strike. Warheads are yet to impact, but are set in their trajectory.

Would there be any attempt for a coordinated strike or would each weapon site follow a set plan based off what little has been passed on?

Slightly different question, but wouldn't SLBMs be best used on counterforce and not wasted on countervalue?

File: image.jpg (96KB, 541x625px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 541x625px

Oppenheimer: given our current situation with nato and Russia, what do you think are the odds of a nuclear exchange happening should things hot?

>>30755397
What would it possibly be used against?

>>30758209
>Would there be any attempt for a coordinated strike or would each weapon site follow a set plan based off what little has been passed on?
There is a phase called Attack Conference where the NCA, CINC of NORAD and STRATCOM will determine the nature of the attack and what the options are.
Part of this is an understanding of what nuclear forces will likely be available. The response will be to fire the ICBMs that are have been assigned countervalue targets while holding the ICBM's that have other targets.

While it might be possible to assign them all new targets, it would be cutting it rather close. The hope is that the command and control system will be able to establish itself in the wake of the first strike, perform damage assessment on the opponent, and use surviving weapons to deter further strikes (war termination) or to strike targets in a follow up attack.

As for SLBM's they can perform a valuable role in even a retaliatory strike by hitting enemy air defenses to provide gaps for bomber aircraft. US SLBMs have a key role in a first strike by being able to hit countervalue targets and command and control targets with little to no warning.
As retaliatory weapons, they are still useful for being survivable and in a position to hit countervalue targets after there has been a damage assessment.

>>30758336
>what do you think are the odds of a nuclear exchange happening should things hot?
If things get hot as in Russian and NATO troops shooting at each other in the streets of Warsaw? Pretty likely.

However, it is still very very unlikely that things will get hot, but I will say that it is not as unlikely as I thought last year.
Still very unlikely.

>>30758391

Is there much in the way of literature that you can point me to about 'Attack Conference'?

Here's an interesting question. Lets say you are Nth nation's policy adviser. Nth nation is in a defence pact with several other nations. Nth nation has a limited, but resilient stockpile. Nth nation's leadership has been given an offer in secret by X nation, that if Nth nation stands down and allows the pact to be attacked without a retaliatory strike, it will be spared. How would you as a policy adviser, advise a government that seems favourable to such a deal?

>>30758391
In terms of what goes into making nukes, what is the ratio of the main components it is made of? I mean things like fissile material, explosives, shielding, etc.

File: rlly makes u think.jpg (195KB, 1069x1462px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1069x1462px

>>30757422

Do u like mum

Can nukes be refined or improved upon more than their current design, or is the payoff not worth it?

I know extra stages could be added (ie Tsar Bomba original design), but then at a certain point excess energy is wasted up into the atmosphere

Are there any potential improvements on mass of material to yield? Thus making the size of the bomb smaller than ever for blast? Or have we pretty much peaked what we can do with the existing periodic elements?

File: 1419298263812.png (11KB, 307x462px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 307x462px

>>30757689
>monarchist

>>30760445

https://desuarchive.org/k/search/subject/Let%27s%20Read%20Victoria/

Enjoy

>>30758994
Managing Nuclear Operations is the book you want.

As for advice, I would strongly advise them not to do it.
Then I would resign rather than work for people who even considered it for a moment.

>>30759414
Not really sure what you are asking. Ratio to each other?

>>30760090
There are some things that you could do that might increase yield by increasing the time that the fissile material is close enough to sustain a nuclear reaction before the energy of the reaction blows the material apart.
However any increase would be marginal and likely not worth the effort.
As far as design influence on fusion yields, I cant really say.

>>30755382
Who is this oppenheimer guy youre all on about

>>30762700
Kinda. Now that I think about it, a better way to put it would be how much of a nuke is actually the nuke. Like, what percentage of it is actually uranium or whatever and how much of that is just shielding.

>>30762708
>Who is this oppenheimer guy youre all on about

Confirmed real life authority on nuclear weapons and policy.

One for you Oppenheimer. Is it probable that a nuclear first strike against North Korea by the United States (even in a scenario where North Korea is preparing to use their own weapons) will increase the likelihood of other nuclear powers using nukes for their own foreign policy objectives?

>>30756260
>>30755913
Any news as to what the problem was?
Did any of the stuff inbetween its downtime get archived?

>>30762700
What kinda books do you like reading on strategy and tactics, both on nuclear and non-nuclear warfare, management, etc?

>>30757391
Possible? Yes.
Plausible? Hell no.

>>30762700
This thread reminds me, could you go into some detail reguarding Anzia's 10,000mt nuclear bomb? I always wanted to hear your input regarding it.

Also, do you know of any cases where exposed naturally occuring uranium has been leaked into something like a water supply and contaminate tribes/villages? Was thinking of that last night.

>>30756260
>Used to be Desu Storage.

>>30762745
https://desuarchive.org/desu/thread/1250/

Think that should answer your question

>>30762841
Thanks komrade!

>>30757420
Possibly the shittiest, most offensive masturbatory generation war tract to be set in post-apocalyptic America. The main characters are wehraboo Mary Sues that are always right to a quantum scale. The opponents are idiotic stereotypes straight out of South Park. There's periodic gratuitous edgelord violence contrasting pleasant scenes about nature and trains. Time and time again he proselytizes 4th gen warfare as the ultimate battle doctrine while getting virtually every military fact wrong along the way. He ignores logistics, blames military automation on female incompetence and uses T-34s to conquer New England. His utopian society bans modern technology for civilian use but somehow perfects cold fusion.

It got so bad people were posting fanfiction refuting the story's events or claiming the last third was just a Hitler-in-bunker tier denial fantasy.

>>30763350
Wtf? Not the guy your responding to but... damit now I have to google this guy brb.

My grandfather literally spent 40 years working at a Russian nuclear weapons factory, true story.

>>30763374
www.legit.ru

File: K-19 funeral.jpg (48KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1024x768px

>>30763374
>>30763374
Does he glow in the dark, or does he glow in the grave?

>>30757303
LIGHT

Is EAGLE GUARDIAN outdated?
Is there a newer opplan?

>>30762717
New guy here. The answer, as with all engineering questions, is "It depends."

All you REALLY need to get a fission bomb going is a fairly large sphere (softball-ish) of fissionable material wrapped in carefully shaped high explosive charges, with a detonator and synchronized timing switches (all explosives have to go off at nearly the same instant, to absurd accuracy).

That kind of bomb can be made very small (11" diameter and 16" long), but will be very wasteful and inefficient. However, if you use that material as the core of a FUSION weapon, it becomes more powerful, more efficient, and much larger.

Google "special atomic demolition munition"

>>30763350
What's the name?

>>30763778
Victoria, by William "Teutonic Caboose" Lind.

The author writes papers and commentary pieces now.

What would the effect of a nuclear blast near civilian airliners in flight be?

Ideally distant enough so as to not obliterate them outright from explosion effects.

Would any kind of EMP-effect damage onboard systems? If so, would the effect be universal (i.e. all your electrical gauges go dead) or would it be possible for it to kill certain systems and leave others active?

Note that I'm thinking here of airliners with some sort of manual reversion in the flight controls (So 707 to 737 ish, though things like DHC-6es and private Cessnas are also included) instead of more modern fly-by-wire craft.

Finally, assuming something would damage electrical systems, would this extend to the engines? (I'm unaware of how aero-engines work. My uneducated guess would be that piston engines would be fried, but what about turboprops and jet engines?)

Despite my number of questions posed, if a proper answer would require additional parameters I can try to provide them if needed.

>>30763925
you'll have bigger problems than electrical damage to worry about first if theres a possibility of an EMP affecting the aircraft

File: chern1.jpg (124KB, 1257x652px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1257x652px

>>30755382
How concerned are you about nuclear power plants leaking/melting down in the US in the event of major earthquakes, for example along the New Madrid fault line? For reference, Would you say the Fukushima reactor is more of a dirty mess than it is generally reported to be? Not trying to beat a dead horse, but Fuku is still leaking as far as I know.

I have followed http://elenafilatova.com/ on her wanderings through Chernobyl and studied the cumulative and ongoing effects from meltdowns and accidents at various reactors over the past several years. While the threat of limited nuclear strikes is concerning, several nuclear power plants failing catastrophically along a major water source in the US seems to be a reasonable threat, even considering the backup and safety mechanism in place.

File: silo_804.jpg (73KB, 804x426px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 804x426px

Thought this was pretty interesting to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPZlGLBRQ4E

>>30764853
I got this one, Opp.

I'm a Health Physicist with my state's Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program. While Fukushima is absolutely a shitshow, the ongoing leaks do not represent a threat to public health, due to the nature of the leak, and the degree of dilution.

As to the potential for multiple failures, one must bear in mind that in 6 months time, Fukushima would have finished upgrades, which were already underway, that would have given them the ability to survive the 9.1 earthquake and 40 foot tsunami that hit. Bear in mind, it took BOTH those things, in conjunction, to cause the accident; either one by itself would have been survivable.

There were other plants closer to the epicenter which were hit worse and were OK. The key is defense in depth.

Since the accident, plants elsewhere have been implementing upgrades that would allow them to survive Fukushima style events; those which are so wildly improbable that they were not used as design basis casualties before. Those upgrades are largely complete in the US.

There is a massive amount of misinformation and exaggeration present in the world around civilian nuclear power, mainly due to a lack of scientific understanding, and a propensity for fear mongering and exaggeration. Fukushima has, if anything, been exaggerated. It's still an utter fucking shitshow, but we're not going to see the extinction of the Pacific Ocean and half a million thyroid cancers. That's just plain bullshit coming from people who are terrified of things they've chosen to be afraid of.

File: 12771652_1061459753895877_7882112382575318685_o.jpg (108KB, 1364x2048px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1364x2048px

>>30765209
Cont'd:

The statements made about death rates in the image about Chernobyl are based on extrapolations from very low doses of radiation to very large populations, based on the Linear-No-Threshold model of radiation damage. It's a beloved model I was first taught in the Navy Nuclear Power Program that is used for planning and regulatory purposes, that isn't backed by science; the scientists who first implemented the philosophy basically said "we know it's probably not true, but we're going to play it safe until we know better."

The idea is that any increase in dose of radiation, no matter how slight, carries a proportional increase in the lifetime risk of developing cancer, and that there is no minimum dose, without which, cancer will not occur. The problems with that are twofold; one, we're constantly bathed in radiation at all times. Background radiation is widespread and pervasive. All life on Earth evolved in this environment, and has evolved means of defense and repair. Look up a "Cloud Chamber" on YouTube for a good representation. The other problem is that studies just don't back up the LNT theory, because once you get to levels that really aren't even that low (<10 rem/yr, which is double what Fukushima cleanup workers get, at worst), you lose the statistical evidence for cancer causation in the background noise of all the other cancer out there.

So, the numbers they've claimed for deaths are pure bullshit. The outside groups who support those numbers are twisting studies of people exposed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki into forms that are detached from the actual research.

>>30765354
>>30765209
still waiting on Oppenheimer, but thanks for the reassuring info that those disasters were actually nothing to worry about.

you do sound like a propaganda machine, sorry.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/11/national/nuclear-refugees-tell-distrust-pressure-return-fukushima/#.V5elWPkrJGE

>>30762783
I put together a reading list. I dont have it available, but you can find it in the archive.

>>30763925
If the explosion is at about the same altitude, the risk would be negligible.

If it is at the altitude desiged to maximize EMP, there could be some effects, but given the nature of EMP and the safety features built into the aircraft, it is unlikely to cause it to crash.

>>30764853
Im not concerned about US nuclear reactor safety.

>>30765406
Well, when you know things, and you're sick of listening to people ignore educated individuals and listen to fearmongers, you sound like that. This is /k/, for shit's sake; we've seen enough anti-gun BS to recognize the idea.

There are a number of interesting things from that piece that caught my eye, but the general idea is that they fudge the science and concentrate on the fear. For example, they say they're measuring 4 microsieverts in her village, which is 100 times the background in Tokyo.

Bullshit.

The only way you're measuring 4 microroentgen/hr in an urban area is if you have your monitor on a tall pole, on top of a building, on a day with great air quality. Which is probably where they got that number; some university's fixed instrumentation. Then they're comparing it to a ground level reading inside a building. That would, on average, be 5x their "Tokyo" number; a street level Tokyo number could probably be 10x their claim. So, yeah, that number they give for her home IS too high for reoccupation, but it's not 100x normal, and the fact that they're fudging numbers makes it even more suspect; that may have been the number for the hottest spot in town.

They're also misinterpreting the ICRP guidelines, which is typical.

They're also misstating the thyroid cancer rate, since they're including benign and asymptomatic cancers that never would have been detected otherwise, and probably some that aren't even cancers. That's what happens when you scan EVERYONE; you find all manner of benign abnormalities. More than half of thyroids have abnormalities, and if you test all of them for cancer, you cause more negative outcomes than you prevent (biopsies are invasive procedures, and hospitals and clinics are breeding grounds for MRSA and C-Diff).

What happened there is a horrifying situation that has to be dealt with carefully. However, it was NOT the end of the world, it was an incredibly unlikely event, and the lessons learned have been applied.

>>30765765
To clarify, 1 microsievert = 100 microrem. I also strongly question their use of sieverts for a unit of exposure rate; it should be in Gray.

>>30765765
>What happened there is a horrifying situation

exactly. So when you write it off as a "shit-show" and then come back and say it was horrifying, what exactly are you saying? That everyone outside of your organization are intellectual babbys and fuck up all the readings and calculations?

>>30765551
Hey Oppenheimer, in your professional opinion, if North Korea were to use a nuclear weapon, would the US respond in kind?

>>30765819
I'm saying
>it was NOT the end of the world
and the effects should not be exaggerated. They should be accurately measured, taken into account, and then responses should be based on the objective realities of the situation.

People will, someday, be able to safely go home. Some have already done so. Other areas may need more work. And the accident does not serve as an indictment of nuclear power in general.

>>30765909
Also, in keeping with my feelings on gun grabbers at CNN, NPR, and elsewhere, news outlets shouldn't publish ignorant pieces that use biased information to boost their ad revenues by inducing fear that leads to irrational actions.

>>30765209
I am a supporter of nuclear power, and wish the Thorium stuff would get finished and refined for deployment.

It's interesting to hear that the Fuckmeshima plant was about to get conventionally cooled systems to backup the thing if the power was lost. A lot of people don't know that GE told Tepco to get the upgrade. There was a plant some 40 miles south of Fukmeshima that did survive similar tsunami damage and power loss. They didn't end up with the steam explosion and hydrogen popping.

The one thing that irks me was the fuel storage pools catching on fire. Now that would not be a crowd pleaser.

Also, the Japs use MOX fuel with more plutonium in it so that probably mucks with fallout exposure simulations. It would be the first time that huge amount(tons) of 24.4K half-life metal toxic material has been spread about.
Since Plutonium is shorter half lived, it would decay and produce daughter products faster.
I guess that would be a good thing on an ecological scale for decay, but humans don't live that long.

The anti nuke pundits claim that even a .01 micro gram dust particle of Plutonium is almost a certain lung cancer death. It's hard to know since it wasn't in the environment to compare to the baseline or become the baseline since it decays relatively fast in the geological time scale.

Fortunately for everyone, those storage pools didn't run out water, and catch fire. That would have been horrible.

>>30765891
Not Opp, but iirc the US has a policy of ''use WMD's against us, we'll send more your way''.

If it's directly targeted at US civilians and it hits, expect NK to look very, very bright within the hour.
If it's directly targeted at US civilians and it misses or it's intercepted, there's a minor chance at a nuclear exchange, pretty big chance of US forces invading NK, and a pretty slim chance of nothing happening (except laughing at the NK for failing this hard).
If it's aimed at SK, and it hits Seoul, the SK is going to retaliate hard, China is going to take their hands off NK, and once the latter is clear, the US will probably invade as well.

>>30765891
If NK possibly had more ready for use and the only way to stop them quickly was nuking them back, probably.

>>30766517
The Brits most assuredly warned Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War. They stated that if chem or bio was used against the troops, that they would respond in kind with their WMDs.
Well, the only WMDs that Britain had on the books officially at the time was nukes.

Now that's chilling

>>30765765

I heard that the monitoring stations near Fukishima were scrubbed in a 30-40 meter radius around each detector to "provide a more accurate reading versus close sources."
It doesn't make any sense unless you wanted to officially record the radiation at a lower background that what it really is.
Most detectors cannot discriminate a far source while reading a closer hot source. So are they trying to reduce the total count or provide some basis for accuracy? Some of the emissions are short range (alpha, beta), but the gamma records would be skewed even less since it penetrates further.

FFS, if you want a reading and total count over days and weeks, you wouldn't sanitize the area with pressure washers since that is what you are looking for. Right?

>>30767562
This was about the detectors in the outlying areas in nearby towns including Tokyo.

File: ranger_able_1kt.jpg (28KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1280x720px

>>30755382
MOABS are not nuclear powered. It's chemical powered. Unless its a new version like the RNEP nuclear bunker penetrator . Say its B61 hardened for delivery with a MOAB or a rocket.

Speaking of going retro..,.
A Durandal Paveway rocket powered missile runway smasher with a 1KT Ranger-Able nuke would be a party stopper for a single building or airport. :()

>>30755644
KEK.
Does anyone know which ship got flipped up vertically on the right hand part of column base surge?

>>30755382
One thing ive always wondered, what kind of defense do we have against ICBMs? Youd think after this much time of the technology being around we'd have some way to intercept/nullify them, making the entire concept of your typical missile flinging nuclear warfare scenario look as barbaric as trench warfare.

>>30768210
Additionally, what would the next progression be after ICBMs become a dead end? Aircraft guided nuclear payloads? Shorter ranged nuclear missiles delivered from offshore? Dirty bombs smuggled in? Given how incredible the distances are that ICBMs have to travel to get from russia/china to the US, I just dont get how we lack the capability.

File: 1397020043537.jpg (126KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1024x768px

>>30768305
Anti-Ballistic Missiles have been fielded since the seventies if I recall. Tricked out Patriots do the job now.

>>30767762
USS Arkansas (BB-33)

>>30765891
If they had more in a ready state, yes.

>>30768210
Few. GBI are the only weapons with even marginal effectivness.

>>30768933
How would policy-level decisions effect that answer? I was arguing with a student from the Citadel a few months ago who thought that the US was too scared of China to nuke North Korea if the DPRK escalated (with nukes) first.

>>30769496
China wouldn't back NK in a nuke fight, because China lacks both the number of IBCMs and armed subs to successfully retaliate (or I guess strike) the US and lack the countermeasures to stop the US from responding in kind with a strike of their own. This isn't even going into the fact that China's leadership has a much from vested interested in the US relationship than it does with NK on the worst of days. Without the US China ceases to exist within a matter of months.

>>30769496
>How would policy-level decisions effect that answer?
Do the North Koreans have more nuclear weapons ready to fire within a few hours?
>Yes
Then issue orders to STRATCOM to fire N number of Trident missiles at those facilities we know about in X minutes. In X-30 minutes send a message to Russia and China that we are responding to an immediate nuclear threat by the DPRK and describe in detail what our actions will be.

If the North Koreans took it upon themselves to fire a nuclear weapon at the South, it would be in China's best interest to kick off the DPRK Regime Change-a-palooza before the US really had a chance. If not, the US and ROK have the advantage in shaping whatever comes out of the ashes of the DPRK.

By acting quickly, the Chinese may even be in a position to help the ROK in unifying the peninsula. After all, if there is no DPRK, then there is no need for US forces on the peninsula. By giving the ROK the support it needs, as well as an earnest promise to stay out of internal Korean affairs, the PRC may be able to convince the ROK that they don't really need the American's there after all.

On the other hand, supporting the DPRK after they nuke the ROK really only ends in one of two ways:

1) China gets drawn into a sudden nuclear war with the US, and everyone loses, but China loses harder than everyone else
OR
2) China gets to watch the US and ROK and anyone else the US can wrangle up roll the DPRK up like a wet blanket. Then its USA FOR EVA time as billions of $ pour in and the US builds a lot of new security installations to help it's dear friend ROK keep an eye on the guys who supported the guys who dropped several kilotons worth of nuclear fission on their them.

>>30769647
>>30769739

So, essentially, the Citadel student was probably wrong and speaking out of her depth.

Thanks, for the responsese

>>30769647
(that we know of)

>>30768893
Thanks!

>>30767762

It wasn't flipped. It was fucking smeared.

>>30769739
Two questions, one serious and the other less so.

Is there a minimum in order for nuclear retaliation to be on the table? For example, suppose the North Koreas launched an ICBM towards New York but it was a dud and ended up only injuring a couple of people in Times Square. Would retaliation on the part of the US be a serious proposition?

Secondly, do you have a favorite nuke test?

File: kilt.webm (3MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 852x480px

Oppenheimer,

Is it true that the USA keeps anti-ICBM defenses ultra secretive because they don't want to promote potentially hostile nations (China) from building absurd numbers of ICBMs to defeat said defenses?

>>30770042
>Is there a minimum in order for nuclear retaliation to be on the table? For example, suppose the North Koreas launched an ICBM towards New York but it was a dud and ended up only injuring a couple of people in Times Square. Would retaliation on the part of the US be a serious proposition?
If the US for some reason rode out the attack before responding (perhaps they believed that the North was not any risk to launch more) and it was a dud, then it would be unlikely that the US would consider a nuclear response.
The decision to use nuclear weapons against an actor like North Korea is not the damage that will be done from the precipitating attack, but rather the prevention of further attacks in a manner that is rapid and has the highest chance of success.
While deterrence of further attacks (i.e. everyone considering this in the future should watch carefully what we are about to do) is a factor, but not the overriding one.

>Secondly, do you have a favorite nuke test?
Upshot Knothole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dflLFFZcZ0w
Followed by Castle Bravo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2I66dHbSRA

>>30770122
They are pretty open. By keeping everything secret, you can fill in whatever you want, and that can lead to an arms race or even a strike if the other guys start to think that you are on the verge of rendering their arsenal impotent.
By being open and showing them that the ABM system poses only a minimal capability they can prevent this.

>>30770331
>Castle Bravo
There is a beautiful serenity in that explosion. Not quite sure if that's the strangelove in me or not.

Opp,
Is there a nominal Simplified ratio for X# Kt/Distance impact Ratio where for ground and or Airburst Detonation for maximum impact on a Circular scale?

>>30770604
Simple? Not really. You have to factor in the hardness of your target as well as yield and height of burst.
You can select a height designed to maximize the area covered by a given PSI of overpressure. For example, if you want to destroy an urban area, you might maximize the burst for 10-15 PSI. The area covered will vary depending on the yield.

>>30770680
Do you enjoy answering our questions?

>>30763374
My great-grandmother's uncle worked in the Soviet nuclear program, so what?

>>30763546
In my case, he died of 'undetermined causes'. Also his wife and daughter iirc, though that may have been cancer.

>>30770704
Of course.
The vast majority of people dont find nuclear war/weapons interesting, and 90% of those that will discuss them only do so in the context of how terrible they are.
There are only two types of people who are interested in the in and out of nuclear strategy and policy: people who do it for a living, and they arent disposed to talk about it, and /k/ommandos.

Here we can talk about how to fight a nuclear war and no one bats an eye.

>>30770834
I've been wanting to ask you two things Opp.

First, as a last-minute defense against ICBMs, could you basically scatter-gat the sky around the area you think it's going to hit, dense enough to either deflect it from its target or destroy it? I'm trying to figure out if this is 100% autistic or not.

Second, did the Soviets actually have Dead Hand? I've seen like 98% pop-sci articles saying that they totally did, and a handful of places that say no, iirc including an internal memo where the Soviets said absolutely not.

>>30771021
No nation with nukes was or is dumb enough to create a system that could cause their destruction via mechanical/electrical failure. Same reason there's not an abort function on strategic ICBMs. Any system that can do something like that can fail or be tampered with. Isn't worth the risk.

>>30760980
>mfw finally taking the time to read all of that
>mfw no face
Why do I always miss the best threads here

>>30770865
I have a HOB of 3800 ft AGL, and radius of effect for 10 PSI (optimized) as about 1.5 miles. Thats for moderate reinforced concrete structures.

>>30771021
>First, as a last-minute defense against ICBMs, could you basically scatter-gat the sky around the area you think it's going to hit, dense enough to either deflect it from its target or destroy it? I'm trying to figure out if this is 100% autistic or not.
You would have a very minimal chance to hit it.

>Second, did the Soviets actually have Dead Hand? I've seen like 98% pop-sci articles saying that they totally did, and a handful of places that say no, iirc including an internal memo where the Soviets said absolutely not.
Perimeter was a system not unlike our ERCS. Some of their ICBMs had their warheads removed and replaced with radio transmitters. In the event of an attack, you could launch these rockets to transmit a recorded message.

Dead Hand was a proposed system to automate some features of this to where the rockets would launch automatically and issue launch orders to their strategic forces. The US (to my knowledge) never contemplated anything like this.
The Soviets never built (or installed) this feature for obvious reasons.

>>30771179
Asuka or Rei?

>>30771179
Cool, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions!

>>30771179
>HOB of 3800 ft AGL
Thank you.
>wishing Nukemap had a MIRV Impact Model for cross-froce impact analysis....

File: 1459889228563.png (729KB, 1600x1422px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 1600x1422px

>>30771303
>cross-froc
Cross-Force

Oppie,
At what Payload do Nuclear warheads go from Tactical to Strategic roles?

>>30771205
This is important.

File: 1460057253342.jpg (256KB, 499x618px)

256KB, 499x618px

>>30771205
>>30771618
>Rei

>>30757303
https://www.amazon.com/Victoria-Novel-4th-Generation-War-ebook/dp/B00PNU8XFG#customerReviews

>It actually has good reviews
how the fuck

File: wut.jpg (69KB, 665x598px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 665x598px

>>30772136
>>30757303
>>30760980
I want to believe this is satire. It reads like a /pol/tard threw it together in one coke-fuelled weekend after marathoning Blacktail videos and reading every bit of Sprey/Fighter Mafia produced literature ever published.

>>30772634
It's serious. Read some of his other columns

File: Peacekeeper.jpg (1MB, 2982x1673px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2982x1673px

>>30755382
law student here, can you steer me towards some reading materials on nuke/deterrence/non proliferation policies/strategies/laws?
thank you!

>>30755644
Didn't some of the ships survive the blast but were inoperable because FUCKING RADIATION?

>>30766205
Putting your spent fuel rods UPSTAIRS in a bathtub that requires active pumping to prevent a steam build-up is nigh approaching Soviet-tier retardation.

That said, there were so many things that had to go wrong in order to make that retardation matter, that it's not even funny.

I don't believe that any US reactor stores fuel rods in a situation that requires active cooling measures, or that any have ever done so.

>>30768305
Hypersonic delivery systems. It's harder for ABM systems to intercept at high mach/endo-atmospheric.

>>30768933
What can SM-3 hit? Just IRBMs?

I thought that with the asat test, we showed that SM-3 could also go after ICBM busses, at least ones that overflew nearby.

>>30757303
>More recently Lind has advocated for police to have RPGs as standard issue, and for a return to death by hanging as a common sentence for crime in 'urban areas'.

>>30767478
>Moronic conscripts in Iraqi artillery misinterpret orders and shoot gas rockets at British troops
>50 bongs gassed, Baghdad gets glassed

>>30776263
>Baghdad gets glassed
And the world rejoices.

>>30770331
>Upshot Knothole
Mah nigga

File: 1466218066943.jpg (98KB, 800x494px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x494px

What type of pay loads do the Nuclear powers have at their disposal?

Do the Russians still have something near to the Tsar Bomba's size? Does the US still have B41's? Has anyone got enough material stored to potentially build something as big as the Tsar Bomba?

>>30776277
That goes without saying

>>30755382
should Ukraine have kept its nukes ?
or would that be to dangerous given the likelihood of capture

and who is currently or in the near future most likely to use a nuke outside of testing ?
i vote israel or india

>>30776356
>should Ukraine have kept its nukes ?
The Ukraine should of course of kept it's nukes. It could of used them the a) deter Russian invasion and b) bribe the EU to give monetary aid to keep the materials secure.

>and who is currently or in the near future most likely to use a nuke outside of testing ?

Best Korea, Pakistan. Now the Indians have S-400 The Pakis have no option but to use them.

Is laser isotope separation actually a big deal? or is it all smoke and mirror bullshit?

>>30778414

If I get the time, I'll tag the weapons available for each stage.

>>30771445
Its open to some debate. Some say range, some have a yield threshold, others say its determined by the target.

>>30774745
Their effectiveness is limited.

>>30776330
Few if any in the Mt range.

>>30776356
Probably too expensive for them.

>>30779049
What do you think of this discussion?

http://www.operatorchan.org/n/res/112706.html#112954

>>30779089
I think he's confused
like he heard about NUTS and thought that magically made everything in MAD wrong, when it just adds a caveat

>>30779089
You cant tell those guys anything. They already know it all.

>>30779133

Admittedly, understanding the relationship between MAD, NUTS and general deterrent theory can be confusing. Though I might be just projecting.

If I recall correctly, from "Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century", people did fear that limited use thinking would damage MAD, but if anything, it actually reinforced it.

I'll look for the paragraph if I can find it.

>>30774158
Well the whole thing was a disaster. The radiation damage to the environment was unrivaled until Chernobyl.

>>30776330
The largest current US weapon i believe is 2Mt still.

Most weapons the US use are variable yield so they can be dialed down or up according to mission.

The reason bombs were so large in the past was the inaccuracy of devilry systems along with cold war dick measuring.

A 500kt war head will (if it hits its mark) obliterate a strategic target just as hard as a 15Mt one will.

>>30779049
Asuka or Rei?

>>30779293
>The largest current US weapon i believe is 2Mt still.
1.2 Mt

>>30779610
I have never shopped at REI.

>>30779610

He's not going to give an answer, but he's clearly a Misato guy.

File: 1450118183495.jpg (44KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 604x604px

>>30779944
good taste mi amigo

>>30770331
>Upshot Knothole
Mah nigga...

Grable be able.