Are nuclear weapons the most useless weapons in mankind's

File: AaaaaahMotherland.jpg (19KB, 400x229px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x229px

>>32706940
It would be fun though.

>>32706940
They preventet WW3 so no... they were the best peaceceepers in mankinde

>>32706940
Wgich is the entire point of having them. Deterence.

>>32706940
Oppenheimer Oppenheimer Oppenheimer

It works like the Beetlejuice thing, right?

Ending civilization doesn't sound like such a bad idea...

>>32707023
not anymore

>>32707023
F

>>32707021

They deter themselves

You're paying the mob protection money to keep the mob from fucking with you

They're useless

>>32706975
>but do the russians love their children too?

>>32707051
You're kidding me. He fucking ded?

>>32707064
No, just not around

>>32707079
Oh, that's not so bad. Good mood saved.

>>32706940
>you basically can't use them at all
sooooooooooo, what about the ones that are set off around the world still. the thousands tested since WW2?

>>32706940
They are "used" every day for deterrence you mong.

>>32706940
Only solution so far to retaining a passable World Peace.

Its a shitty weapon, but the only needed detterent.

File: Background Nuke.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>32707064
He turned off his trip a while back and said he was just gonna be an anon.

>>32706940
OP is retarded.

>>32706940
>You can't use them without setting off a chain reaction that ends with the death of civilization, which means you basically can't use them at all.
that's the point. no one goes to war with each other because no one wants a nuclear holocaust

>>32707178
Woah. I've never seen that footage before...

It looks very dramatic.

File: 1417156980071.gif (3MB, 381x308px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 381x308px

>>32707257
Im not so sure about the "no one" part

>>32706940
>You can't use them without setting off a chain reaction that ends with the death of civilization
That statement isn't remotely true.

>>32706940

This is entirely nonsense.

You can have nuclear escalation and still de-escalate. The us of nuclear weapons can bring about de-escalate as both sides must consider if they wish to continue. The idea for the supposed 'red nuclear line' is very dangerous as it demands an all-out attack with an all-out response, instead of a progressive level (think like tactical/theatre/strategic) escalation that one can step back from.

And they're in use. Their existence and the will to use them deters opponents 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 3 weeks a month etc.

>>32706940

They're going to be old hat once weather control becomes viable. Who needs to nuke something when you can just make a big-ass hole in the atmosphere and bake an entire country, or better yet, cover the enemy in storms so they can't even launch their own nukes without a high risk of said nukes getting disrupted in the wind and detonating in their own territories?

>>32707023
>>32707040
>>32707051
RIPIP based Oppenheimer

>>32708624
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain.

>>32707057
you're a special kind of stupid, aren't you

>>32706940
They're actually marvelous at destroying things, that's why we keep making them. The problem is too many people made them. Considering we know now that air burst detonations don't create fallout cesium isotopes it's really an excellent weapon. There are just a lot of logistics that go along with it, like having a reliable delivery platform that isn't a Muslim in a van. Provided air wars were still a viable strategy they are the perfect aerial counter to formations of fighters and bombers. So really, it's the political strategies that are meaningless.

>>32706940
Warheads stop wars

I don't get why we are not seeing some Russia's nuclear artilery rounds flying over ISIS territóry

>>32708690
too soon though anon. He still had some good in him :(

>>32707057
>They deter themselves
No they deter others. You're not deterring your own nukes, you're deterring other nukes. If the enemy has nukes and you don't, you're at risk of being nuked with no defense.

>>32706940
>Are nuclear weapons the most useless weapons in mankind's history?

no they're actually such effective weapons that possessing them means you don't require any other weapons to prevent your country being invaded by a conventional force regardless of its size or technological superiority

>>32709278
What happened to Oppie? Leave for good? I last I heard he still posts and shoots guns

>>32709278

Sure, but stupid faggots like >>32707023 are part of the problem. "Durr hurr nukes, call opp." You need expert opinions to add clarity to contentious debates, not to point out beyond the pale retardation like this OP.

>>32710560
On occasion. Rarely with his trip.

>>32707062
IN EUROPE AND AMERICAA, THERE A GROWING FEELING IF HYSTERIA

Physical Chemist here.

I know very little about Atomic Weapons and am completely unqualified to answer questions about nuclear warfare.

Ask me anything.

>>32711326
Has anyone ever tried separation on Urnaium ore using the Purex process directly to get just pure U and not the other daughter products? Would butyl diglyme work?
Did some gold refining in my day, and came across a scary article on someone might use solvent extraction and spin that in a centrifuge for enrichment.

>>32706940
Did your parents have any children that lived?

>>32712674
Solvent extraction is one method used for seperating Uranium from ore but separating isotopes from each other with pure chemical processes is essentially impossible because isotopes one element have essentially the chemical properties.

>>32714200
essentially the same* chemical properties

>>32709008
Nobody wants to be the first guy that gets the okay to get nuked during a real war.

America only got away with it because they were the only ones with the bomb at the time.

>>32707178
what kind of aircraft is that?

>>32706940
>You can't use them without setting off a chain reaction that ends with the death of civilization
That's wrong though. You can't use them without extreme environmental backlash that would probably turn neighboring countries and their allies, but you could certainly glass regions of the Middle East or Africa with no fear of local Nuclear retaliation.

Plus with the Cold War political climate thawing it's becoming steadily more plausible to justify limited nuclear strikes without incurring immediate retaliation from half the globe. A MIRV launch is unthinkable but a single controlled strike on a non-civilian target could possibly be justified

>>32706940
>>32707057
>he can't grasp the concept of MAD
annihilate yourself

>>32715978
In what situations would a single nuke be a better alternative to conventional weapons?

Only one I can think of is maybe deeper penetrating bunker busters.

>>32715926
Martin B57 Canberra I think.

File: 1249899508746738533.png (192KB, 636x327px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 636x327px

>>32706940

(((MICRO NUKES)))

You can use em without setting off a giant nuclear war.

You just threaten someone to do something or pay large amounts of money... if they dont...

You have someone go park a CAR somewhere and it blows up huge and people say it was a Truck Bomb

(even though its actually got 10 times the firepower of a Ryder truck, but they dont know that, they just say it was a big bomb - its hard to tell when its in that 50-300 ton range)

Radiation goes away real quick, before anybody thinks it might be radioactive, the world just thinks and reports it as a truck bomb.

Pic related. Especially if it happens out in bum-fuck-egypt where nobody cares about.

Its easy to not report on it, and threaten reporters with disappearing if they say anything.

> all these people died, just look the other way, the world will forget them