Is this how nukes work? >first strike to hit all enemy nukes

>>32666419
we don't know as its never happened before

we'll all be the first to know when it does

>>32666419
No man, they work off nuclear power and atoms and shit

File: 1458173187523.jpg (142KB, 483x740px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 483x740px

>>32666419

>Enemy of freedom launches nuke
>It fails to reach far enough, and fizzles where it does land
>US of A turns that country into Somalia with cancer

That's how it works sonny boy.

>>32666419
>nuking cities for no strategic reason
when will this retarded 1950s meme finally die?

>>32666502

>destroying large population centers has no strategic benefit

When will this meme die?

>>32666419
No you faggot
>first strike SLBMs fire, immediately after ICMBs fire
>SLBMs impact in 15ish minutes, ICBMs in 30
>Country being attacked fires all nukes at attacking country
>Every major population centers of both countries is destroyed within the hour
>there are no winners

There is no such thing as a "first strike" you respond before the missiles even hit.

Doctrines of the US and Soviets during the cold war was as follows:

Russians would strike American strategic interests, missile bases, naval bases and command centers. Really anything that could launch a nuke was a target.

The US targeted major russian cities and industrial centers.

The idea was this showed russian that the US wasn't planning on using it's arsenal as a first strike platform.

Not sure if this still holds true, or what other nations nuclear targets look like.

Basically dont live in bumblefuck nowhere in the US. You'll get nuked.

>>32666511

"Strategic" bombing of cities are extremely ineffective. I can't remember the name of the fella who did the study, but he worked for RAND.

>>32666517

This also assumes that the vast majority of targets are countervalue targets.

And are you sure? Because who has a good nough command and control to generate targeting solutions for their entire strategic arsenal within 15 minutes, launch and then hit their targets?

>>32666532
>Doctrines of the US and Soviets during the cold war was as follows:

What era? It changes and evolves throughout the cold war.

>>32666548
>to generate targeting solutions for their entire strategic arsenal within 15 minutes

You generate them before hand, I am at least 99% sure there is a "fuck Russia" button SOMEWHERE in the US.

That's why the Russians built that gay ass train.

WHERES THE NUKE
NOBODY KNOWS
IT MOVES
FUCKING MAGIC I TELL YOU

>>32666548
SIOP, they bloody well should have plans ready on what to shoot at a moments notice

The US at least went full circle on nuclear strategy.

From civilian targets to military targets back to civilian.

Much of the cold war however was a fabrication by US war hawks and the SAC to get more funding. The US had the capability to win a nuclear war into the 70s since the soviets lagged behind in tech and were very slow to actually put weapons into service in significant numbers.

For example the missile gap was a complete fabrication and intelligence estimates of the number of soviet missiles. Differ by a factor of at least two throughout the period depending on if you look at air force intelligence or the CIAs numbers

>>32666563

Where are they stored? On site or off site? Do the crews know which solutions leads to what target? How big of a window do you have between detection, confirmation, communication, verification and launch orders? At what point can you tell the difference between a countervalue strike and counterforce and do you have time to re-target you forces?

>>32666566

You mean the declassified one from the sixties?

>>32666592
>From civilian targets to military targets back to civilian.

Why? How does hitting civilian targets bring you closer to "winning" conditions?

>>32666621
>How does hitting civilian targets bring you closer to "winning" conditions?
>there are no winners

MAD my dude, and no matter what Opp tells you, it's still a thing.

>>32666621
Whos gonna fight you if there are literally no more russians?

You need a massive amount of nukes to knock out military targets compared to cities. Nuke silos are small and blast hardened. More than one warhead is needed to reliably knock out a hardened silo which created a circle of more nukes on both sides.

No one expects to actually fight a nuclear war anyway and for deterrence knocking out cities is fine.

>>32666517
>Targeting population centres

Funny.

>>32666689
>are literally no more russians?
Nukes aren't that bad, there will be huge casualties but neither Russia or the US could reduce the other to complete combat ineffectiveness with nukes alone.

>>32666621
If your defensive nuclear doctrine is to hit the enemies industrial areas and population centres, you are basically protecting against the assumption that they will first strike you with nukes and fuck you up, but at least you prevent any enemy hope of a large scale invasion or conventional attack because they would suffer a massive loss of morale as well as have no industrial capacity to wage war.

>>32666677
>It's so because of this illogical war theory perpetuated by ignorant politicians and Greenpeace.

>>32666419
Whats the point of nuking nukes if there will be no nukes here when nuke hits the target?

>>32666722
I like this guy.

>>32666621

look up videos from preserved meuseum Atlas and Titan silos

they get a message telling them which target package to choose and they put the code into the computer

the silo plebs never know they are shooting at

Engels-2 or an SS-18 silo isn't going to move prior you nuking it so SAC can plan things in advance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fJ3lhGeptw

as far as how the ICBM actual finds its target it is the old "the missile knows where it is" internal navigation(with astro backup on SLBMs )

>>32666502
Within OP's post, the reason for the targetting of the cities is deterrence.

The message is pretty simple. 'If you attack our strategic weapons we will launch everything we have at your cities'. It wasn't because there was some sort of 'win the war' value in it, it was deterrence pure and simple.

An enemy might be able to take out most of your weapons, but if even one missile (with multiple warheads) escaped the attack the retaliation damage could be far beyond what an attacker was willing to accept in real terms.

This still operates as a part of nuclear deterrence to this day, if somewhat unspoken.

>>32666716
Depends on what you mean by combat efficiency.
There's no way there will be a long war after both countries have emptied their arsenals since the logistics would be totally fucked on both sides.
Both sided would however be able to launch a considerable amount of nukes.

>>32666532
>The idea was this showed russian that the US wasn't planning on using it's arsenal as a first strike platform.

The idea was to deter the Russians from attempting an attack, because the Russians would not be able to e 100% sure they could get every missile.

There was concern that the Russians could conceivably destroy the US arsenal while retaining enough left over deliverable warheads to force the US to surrender. We relied on the threat that if even a few of our missiles (and multiple warheads) survived the retaliation would be horrible for the Russians.

If this was a credible threat or not remains to be seen. Certainly missile defense platforms can change that equation (which is why the Russians see them as First Strike enablers).

For one, if the Command and Control component were shocked in an initial attack and a response were delayed, the Russians might be able to deliver a very credible counter value pure threat that could deter the US from retaliating at all.

>>32666677

That's not answering the point and even if you wish to dismiss Oppen, you surely can't dismiss Herman Kahn who also thought that it was winnable.

>>32666689

You are ignoring the issue that killing the Russian population does not significantly diminish their arsenal or command and control. You've now given them the upper hand as they have now little to protect, but have plenty of ways to harm you. Think longer term, post-war.

>No one expects to actually fight a nuclear war anyway

But that's wrong, deterrence only works if you believe and understand the logic of it. Why would you keep parity with an opponent that doesn't give a shit about consequences?

>deterrence knocking out cities is fine.

That if you want your own cities to make up the bulk of targets. Which neither Russia or the US has that problem. Counterforce can be as much as about taking out other targets as being a target adsorption pad in its own right.

>>32666548
>Because who has a good nough command and control to generate targeting solutions for their entire strategic arsenal within 15 minutes, launch and then hit their targets?

It depends, as others have pointed out. For basic targeting of Counter Value (cities, etc) you could pre-program your targeting and select from a menu.

Being able to detect what silos launched, build a targeting plan that hits only the silos that did not launch, and then hit those targets with your silos before they are destroyed is a challenge. It is one of the reasons why retaliation is forced in the direction of Counter Value and not Counter Force.

The US likely has the capability to do that today, certainly at various points during the Cold War it did not. The Russians never had that capability in all likelihood and certainly don't today.

muh dead hand

>>32666741

The idea is not to empty your arsenal, you want to keep 50-75 for future deterrence and possible countervalue strikes.

>>32666728

Heh, I know I just kicking up discussion. The top way to have any discussion on 4chan is to take a position you don't agree with / ask questions in ignorance.

>>32666799
>I
*I'm

Typing this all by mobile is hard.

>>32666764

This is why I think a nuclear war is winnable, Russia could launch a first strike destroying 65-75% of the US arsenal. But as long as Russia keeps a couple hundred warheads it can threaten a countervalue strike if the US decides to use it's remaining nukes. If the US did decide to use what it had left what would they be targeted at? Russian silos are all empty, most of the mobile launchers have expended their warheads too. There would be literally no point.

>>32666722

It is magic. Don't got to explain shit.

>>32666822
That was the basic plan, if there was one, for the Russians winning a nuclear war.

Today, that isn't really possible. In all likelihood if the Russians attempted a First Strike against the US, and managed to destroy every single warhead that was not on a sub, the US would retain a larger deliverable warhead force than the Russians have.

One possible scenario for the US is to simply absorb the Russian First Strike and retaliate as best dictated from that point. Partly in order to remove the chance of a response to a false positive attack.

I do believe though that the US could do that, following the basics, to the Russians. Destroy ninety something percent of their weapons, retain most of ours, stun their command and control so that we would have hours (maybe longer) before the Russians could retaliate at all and force a surrender during that period.

But it is unlikely the Russians could do that to the US at this time.

During the 80's though? The Russians might have been able to pull it off at some points. The deterrence of the threat of an auto US response against their cities either worked - or the Russians weren't as crazy evil as we believed.

File: 1333769562197.jpg (56KB, 944x719px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 944x719px

>>32666799
>The top way to have any discussion on 4chan is to take a position you don't agree with / ask questions in ignorance.

Shhhh, don't fucking tell them

>want to know more about something
>ask for information
>nothing

>want to know more about something
>simply be as egregiously wrong as possible
>around the world the "someone is wrong on the internet" alarms go off and you are immediately corrected by a million different people, some of whom will inevitably find something said by one of the others incorrect and correct them, etc. etc. etc.
>just sit back and watch, write some shit down, fact check and do a bit of googling on the parts that are contentious, and boom, you now know things.

>>32666882

It's true and we're all guilty of it.

>>32666796
2/3rds of the Minuteman silos are in "Reserve" and not in a readiness state (no nukes sitting on top).

So Russia would definitely be taking a massive chunk of the US bite out of the game by hitting the silos, as more than half won't launch right away anyway.

Their biggest issue would be the Ohio class and their replacements in the future, those are the biggest retaliation sticks.

>>32666975
Ohio is pretty much the only lyrics deterrent necessary these days.

What they do t tell you is the minutemen aren't for nukes anymore. They aren't actually sitting around without nukes on them. Well, technically they are, but there's something else on them now.

They're for aliens.

>>32666995

Spooky

>>32666502
Of course cities would be hit in an all-out nuke fest...
You'd hit neutral cities too to prevent other countries from taking you over while you are weak

>>32667022
>You'd hit neutral cities too to prevent other countries from taking you over while you are weak
This is how you go from limited exchange to literal Armageddon.

>>32667022

That's wasteful.

>>32667022
Can we shoot some at our own cities while we're at it, to prevent civil war?

>>32666477
>he never heard that over 40% of the Minuteman rockets back in the '60s would of failed to reach their destination due to design and maintenance flaws
Not sure what slavshit's percentage of failure would of been, but the 40%+ on the allied was proven.

>>32666419
Nuclear sites are much more numerous than you may think. They used to be even more numerous. I would encourage you to google nike missiles (named after the goddess of victory not the company) they used to be EVERYWHERE and its no secret either

File: Deployment_of_Nike_Missiles_Within_Contiguous_United_States.png (99KB, 500x271px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x271px

>>32667105

>Live in Detroit
>Entire city and outlying suburbs were circled with concentric rings of Nikes
>Must protect Arsenal of Democracy from Red bombers flying over the poles
>Airbase to the North of Detroit to intercept bomber
>Airbase is named after the first person to ever die in an airplane crash...
>Detroit is the only American city ever to surrender to a foreign invader
>Grow in the 80's with a father who owned a PMC
>Get tutored in military science
>Realize that in WWIII Detroit would be smoking radioactive crater

>>32667105
I'd like to think the ruskies made "Adidas" missiles because they didn't realize that the nike missiles were named after the greek goddess.

And that some gopnik somewhere during military service went and painted the three stripes on them.

I'm only thinking about it because I consider it a hilarious concept. I know it's a "will never happen" thing but still.

>>32667183
Turning Detriot into a smoking radioactive crater would only be an improvement

>>32666419
no.

File: large_000000 (7).jpg (59KB, 754x800px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 754x800px

>>32666511
We strategically bombed cities in WWII, literally burning some places to ground. Remarkably enough, the populance don't particularly care.

Admittedly the shock of nuclear bombardment is another thing altogether.

File: Carl_von_Clausewitz.png (598KB, 485x616px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 485x616px

>>32666419
>>first strike to hit all enemy nukes and command and control centers
Yes.
>>enemy uses it's remaining nukes against the attackers cities
What? No. The enemy uses their remaining nukes agains the attacker's remaining nukes.

>>then either a second strike against the enemies cities or both sides call it a day
Then both sides call it a day, because nobody wants to be the first to start nuking cities.

Or somebody misreads the cues and escalates to cities anyway. Or somebody is losing badly in a ground war, and starts nuking as part of a scorched earth fallback strategy. Or some madman goes straight to cities because he doesn't have enough arsenal to go for a counter-force attack, and he hopes that the threat of counter-value will deter enemy action (looking at you, Best Korea).

>>32667183
>Detroit is the only American city ever to surrender to a foreign invader
???

>>32667927

16 August 1812 General Hull surrendered Fort Detroit with no fighting to British Forces under Maj. General Brock

After the war Hull was court-martialed and sentenced to death by firing squad for cowardice but his sentence he was later pardoned.

>>32667096
>would of
>would of
I want to kill you then I want to kill your entire family and rape their corpses

>>32666419
M.A.D. prevents that from occuring, unless the people in control of the nukes are nuts such as North Koreans. Luckily they can't afford an arsenal big enough to destroy an entire country as large as ours.

By first and second world countries I only see nukes being used against sea vessels (they're the one thing that can easily drop an aircraft carrier) and in a drawn out total war if all means of diplomacy have been exhausted. I'll be long fucked off innawoods in some neutral country by then.

>>32667074
Well, alright. Ah fuck it. Nukes for everyone!

>>32668226
>MAD

The "MAD is current doctrine" meme needs to die. It's not like the US has seriously intended to use strategic nukes since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

File: 1417901501188.jpg (30KB, 542x720px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 542x720px

I know Opp is in this thread, but he hasn't been fully materialized, it's more of a partial summon type deal. Chant it with me, we can bring him into his true form.

NUCLEAR WINTER

FALLOUT MAKES PLACES UNLIVABLE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS

A SINGLE NUKE IS ENOUGH TO LEVEL NEW YORK
NUCLEAR SUBMARINES ARE UNDETECTABLE AND CARRY 16 MISSILES WITH SIX WARHEADS A PIECE

THEY CUT THE TSAR BOMB TO 50MT BECAUSE THE FULL YIELD WOULD HAVE SPLIT THE EARTH IN HALF

MAD IS THE ONLY THING KEEPING US FROM NUCLEAR WAR

>>32667183
Oh, wow so that's why Russia has so many nukes pointed towards Florida.

Let me summon Oppenheimer

THE ARADO 234 IS A PERFECTLY VIABLE NUCLEAR WEAPON DELIVERY PLATFORM

>>32668314
>THEY CUT THE TSAR BOMB TO 50MT BECAUSE THE FULL YIELD
> WOULD HAVE SPLIT THE EARTH IN HALF
>SPLIT THE EARTH IN HALF

my sides

>>32666419
What happens when a nuke hits a silo? Does the second nuke detonate?

>>32667785

>Or somebody is losing badly in a ground war, and starts nuking as part of a scorched earth fallback strategy.

I see you Belka

>>32668314
>THEY CUT THE TSAR BOMB TO 50MT BECAUSE THE FULL YIELD WOULD HAVE SPLIT THE EARTH IN HALF
Have people actually said this? Please tell me it's just a joke.

File: grilled_chicken_3.png (493KB, 1806x929px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1806x929px

1) Hit russian population centers.

2) While US is safe behind an ocean, Russia has plenty of countries right next to them, ready to "thank" their remaining civilian population for everything they've done.

I think it would be the end for Russia, for real this time.

File: 1480358185605.jpg (15KB, 255x204px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 255x204px

>>32666502

Once it becomes total war, cities will be strategic targets. And wars with nukes are probably total wars.

>>32666502
Total war involves everyone and everything, and cities are the heart of most developed nations' GDP. It also works out strategically since no one will attack you if you threaten to nuke their cities in retaliation...

>>32666502
You are real fucking stupid arnt you. It's a weapon of pure attrition.

>>32666548
>"Strategic" bombing of cities are extremely ineffective.
Murrican education :DDDD

>>32666419
Second strike IS the retaliation.

>>32668287
MAD is the only reason anybody owns nukes.

>>32667255
Dresden never forget, aryan blood is on your hands

>>32668674
I've heard people talking about the full 100Mt igniting the atmosphere, but i have next to no knowledge about this shit so i have no idea whether or not that's more ridiculous

Such a good thread going to waste

wheres Oppenheimer when you need him he knows all about the nukes and nuke accessory's esp Chinas

>>32666975
>2/3rds of the Minuteman silos are in "Reserve" and not in a readiness state (no nukes sitting on top).

That statement is completely wrong.

>>32669963
You're a retard.

>>32666502
Most cities also have important industry and military targets.

File: setforweed.jpg (3MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x3096px

>>32666728
>that style of launch panel
Ayy ive fucked with those before

>>32666548
>Because who has a good nough command and control to generate targeting solutions for their entire strategic arsenal within 15 minutes, launch and then hit their targets?
On another forum, there was a guy who's job through the cold war was planning nuclear strikes.
He and a bunch of other madmen would sit together in some pentagon basement and spend the afternoon redoing their targeting maps. They'd pin big circles on targets until they got full coverage. He told us a story about one meeting where they did this all day and then had celebratory whiskey and backslapping because they'd worked out how to reduce East Germany to cinders with 15% less nukes than before.

So all the targeting solutions are pre-calculated.

>>32666563
>You generate them before hand, I am at least 99% sure there is a "fuck Russia" button SOMEWHERE in the US.
Probably in the whitehouse bunker at least but basically yes. More of a button that tells people to enact prepared attack plans with sets of targets etc.

>>32666853
>The deterrence of the threat of an auto US response against their cities either worked - or the Russians weren't as crazy evil as we believed.
>the Russians weren't as crazy evil as we believed
I think you need to go away for some reeducation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8i2r85w_Js

True story, a guy I know took basically that point of view during the Vietnam war and talked back to the propagandist during his boot camp. He got sent to an indoctrination camp run by Catholic chaplins. He learnt to parrot what he was told and swear that communists were bad and then he was sent back to boot camp.

>>32666882
>just sit back and watch, write some shit down, fact check and do a bit of googling on the parts that are contentious, and boom, you now know things
At least one of the biggest differences between /k/ and /pol/. And a general disregard for -isms.

>>32666822

That was the plan until the Trident missile turned that plan upside down and force the Russians to re-think everything.

The GPS guided trident gave the US a second strike, counter force capability that could be launched from anywhere within 8000 km of the Soviet Union.

The Soviets also knew they could not track the Ohio class submarines in North Sea, nevermind in the mid atlantic, which was a NATO pond. The same could not be said for the Soviet's own Deltas and Typhoons.

A depressed trajectory shot by an Ohio from the Barents sea could hit Moscow in under 10 minutes. Unlike the Soviet's missiles, these would hit with enough precision to take out hardened bunkers and launch silos.

>>32666511
It does if you have enough warheads to hit them. Neither side has enough to really do this.

>>32666419
>>enemy uses it's remaining nukes against the attackers cities
This assumes that
1) The enemy has control of their nuclear arsenal
2) The weapons were assigned those targets prior to the attack.

In any case, there would probably not be enough warheads left to be a significant threat.

>>32666517
The time line means that doing this is very difficult to pull off. Under ideal circumstances, your missiles are taking off as the enemy warheads are arriving.

>>32666548
>generate targeting solutions for their entire strategic arsenal within 15 minutes, launch and then hit their targets?
The US has attack options that are given by the President. The Attack Option is sent to the nuclear forces who then assign their missiles accordingly.

>>32666566
This is accurate. Switching the existing targets can take time.

>>32666621
>here are they stored?
Inside the computers at the LCC

>Do the crews know which solutions leads to what target?
In some cases.

>How big of a window do you have between detection, confirmation, communication, verification and launch orders?
30 minutes, give or take.

>At what point can you tell the difference between a countervalue strike and counterforce and do you have time to re-target you forces?
When you get radar tracks. So about 15 minutes in.
You probably do not have time to switch targets at that point.

>>32666592
>From civilian targets to military targets back to civilian.
Not accurate.

>>32666677
MAD is part of Deterrence. It is not a stand alone policy and is largely out of favor for flexible response and limited nuclear warfighting.

And you can win.

>>32666722
>>32666726
The likelihood of catching a significant portion of the arsenal on the ground is high.

>>32666689
>No one expects to actually fight a nuclear war anyway
This is 100% false.

>>32666793
Is not what you think it is.

>>32666975
>2/3rds of the Minuteman silos are in "Reserve" and not in a readiness state (no nukes sitting on top).
This is incorrect.

>>32669963
Deterrence is why people own nuclear weapons.
>>32675018
>More of a button that tells people to enact prepared attack plans with sets of targets etc.
There is not a button. There is a binder full of attack option. The president picks one, add any additional sub options, and tells STRATCOM what he wants.

>>32675780
>The GPS guided trident
Trident is not GPS guided.

>>32666419
https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788

>>32667255
Thats because America was controlled by the jew and the blood of whites is what their jew masters called for

File: Pluto_run.jpg (19KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 800x500px

>>32668314
>Y
The Soviets lowered the yield to 50MT to reduce the nasty dirty fallout effects in the atmosphere. Something to do with replacing the tamper and casing with lead instead of Urnanium/Plutonium.
The mushroom cloud reached the edge of space at 60km and the shock wave did echo around the planet at least 3 times.

The only easy way to ignite fusion was to use an atomic explosion. Fusion actually yields less than U and Pu on a per volume/unit/weight basis. Some 200 Mev versus 4-20 Mev per reaction and the energy density is lower in a fusion secondary. That's why they put a sparkplug and rod of U or PU, maybe even Thorium in the center of the secondary.
However, back in the Trinity days they did analysis of the fission heat, pressure, and energy requirements to fuse atmospheric Nitrogen and Oxygen and found the possibility impossible. They had it triple checked against the sick bet that Einstein and others had about doing that. It was a $5 bet that would be noncollectable if the Earth burned.

Teller, once had a schematic on a chalk for a very long multistage weapon that could damage the entire Earth with fallout. So unwieldy, that it was call BACKYARD.
10GT of fun:
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bigger-boom/

One military .5-9MT strategic nuke won't burn the entire New York to the ground. Google up nukemap and even use the Tsar bomba. However fires would be a problem and the economic usefulness would be in the shitter for a long time.

Same thing for EMPs, short term incredibly economic damaging, but you just pissed off all the xbox gamers who lost their internet and transistors. They will come looking for the enemy with their COD weapons and Battlefield 1 tactics.

MAD is a deterrent, but not a permanent fix. There is still the possibility of a terrorist strike or blackmail.

Besides, Project Pluto that flying reactor, a roving mach 3-5 cruise missile destroying the terrain with nukes/fallout. Project Pluto, cancelled.

>>32678527
>Urnanium
I know it's a typo but still.
A fissile material made of urns ???
What manner of necromancy is this ?

>>32668534
No.
It is just destroyed.

>>32666419
>hitting empty silos
What are you, an idiot?
No country has bothered to build auto-loading silos, so there is no point atm.

Strategic targets are production centers, military bases, depots, etc and maybe population centers.
Manpower is worthless in the modern age. There are absurdly more effective anti-personnel weapons than anything nuclear.

>>32681508
This is incorrect. You have a good chance of catching a significant portion of your opponents nuclear forces on the ground.

>>32681855
How?
Aren't modern strategic weapons always ready and pretty integrated?
Can't USA fire all of it's Minuteman missiles in a few minutes?

File: 4chan.jpg (74KB, 740x746px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 740x746px

>>32674058
weaponized autism killed Opp.

>>32681944
No. It takes about 30 min from detection to launch.

>>32681976
Hes been in the thread.

>>32682784
Where?

>>32681976
kek i trololololed that faggot into oblivion XDDD

>>32685408
>he can't recognize him without the trip
>>32676694
>>32676745

File: 20140717_152535.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>32681944

>>32667105
>>32667207
Nike missiles predate the damn shoes by a couple of decades.

>>32671231
Tasr Bomba was meant to be bigger. But a fizzle of that size is still hellaciously big.
No, the atmosphere will not fucking ignite. You can only force most elements to fuse, and pretty soon it takes more energy to fuse atoms than you generate, therefore no more chain reaction.
A bit of the atmosphere did "burn", but it was negligible compared to the bomb.