As everyone here probably knows, Trump has ordered a new Nuc

>>33343331
no one here gives a fuck

>>33343568
My bad

>>33343568
I do.

File: kerbal space islam.jpg (36KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 720x480px

>>33343568
i do

>>33343588
>>33343593
Ok. 2 out of like 1000 people care.
No one else does. Fuck off to reddit. We are here for guns.

>>33343634
Shut up you stupid faggot, go shitpost somewhere else where your opinion matters even remotely

>>33343634
Newfag get out I summon the all knowing Oppenheimer.
>Please come back I miss you

>>33343331
>that feel when you will probably perish in a nuclear exchange within the next 4 years
Praise the /k/ube, for there is no holier manner of death.

>>33343568
I do

>>33343677
You are in one of his threads now. He posts as anon.

>>33343331
That's great but when is the old senile cuck gonna take putins cock out of his mouth and remove the NFA? Everyone talked about how he's a man of action and loves gun rights but it's almost April and I still can't buy an M4 or a suppressor without being extorted by the Feds.

>>33343693
You die to free the American slaves.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvGO_dWo8VfcmG166wKRy5z-GlJ_OQND5
Videos of Nuclear tests.

>>33343568
>>33343634

You're a left handed nigger. Nukes are as /k/ as it gets, even if we're talking policy and not just watching webms

>>33343331
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLfCnGVeL4 Thread theme

File: 1487864911169.png (68KB, 1193x473px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1193x473px

According to humanities technology charts and accounting for exponential growth....


We should have something like an order of magnitude more powerful than ICBMs in the works.

Before I die, we should have handheld weapons so powerful the government should consider full auto slug throwers "primitive" in the same way black powder is considered primitive.


Consider that.

Pic related. Imagine how insane battleships would be today if we kept building them.

The charts speak for themselves.

>>33343634
Are you sure you just aren't the only person who """"doesn't""""" care?

>>33343864
Well physics doesnt work like that, my dude.

>>33343871
Yes. Look at all the replies. This is clearly a topic /k/ likes.

kys

I care, but not entirely sure what it means. Lamence terms anyone?

>>33343766
I know that, but a nuclear thread feels empty without being able to page search Oppenheimer and scroll through a short book about nuclear warfare

>>33344044
What would you like to know?
To sum up, the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review was pretty aggressive but most of it was killed by congress.
The same guy is doing the new one. Expect it to be even more of the same and unlikely to be killed this time.

>>33344089
I hate to ask questions and sound dumb but I'm just not educated on the subject. For starters whats a Nuclear posture review? are they checking on the state of our systems and maybe proposing new types or?

>>33344111
Ask all you like.

NPRs are reviews of the nations nuclear strategy and its place in our overall strategy.
The first one was in 1994, and was ordered by the executive branch. All of the once since were ordered by congress and largely just more of the same.
The 2002 was an exception but it was largely undone by congress and Obamas 2010 NPR.
This one is ordered by the Executive and being drafted by the same guy who did the 2002 so it is likely to be very radical.

>>33344151
Sounds like it will beneficial, and rings alarm bells. If they're re-evaluating tactics it must mean they've taken serious consideration of having to use said weapon systems.

>>33344089
Play spot OPpenheimer posting as anon!
>>33344151

File: 1427069938268.jpg (409KB, 1280x1030px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1280x1030px

>>33344287

Naw man, be cool about it. Ever since OPpen went back to being anon it's annoying seeing people try to guess when it's him and trying to get senpai to notice them. If you think it's him just let it be and appreciate his input. I've been loving his knowledge since the early days when he started threads with pictures of trinitite. He's a valuable asset around here, let's not do all we can to run him off

>OPenheimer if you're here, just be the you you've always been

OPenheimer?

File: 1475677236454.png (678KB, 850x464px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 850x464px

>>33343634
>/k/: WEAPONS
>nukes aren't weapons
Kys

>>33343634
kys m8

>>33344362
Naw man.

Naw.

It's witchhunt time.

>>33344180
>serious consideration of having to use said weapon systems.
Maybe.
Its more likely they are planning to reverse the last few decades of neglect that US nuclear forces have endured.

>>33343882

Our destructive and creative nature can create things scientists think is impossible.

There were legit scientists saying nuclear weapons could ignite the earths atmosphere, legist scientists saying CERN could create a mini black hole that could grow into a solar system consuming beast....

We just say "fuck it" and flip the switch anyways.

Its actually AMAZING we haven't destroyed earth yet.

Look at humanities home, where civilization started. Its all desert. Its barren of life and we made it that way.

>>33345505
>There were legit scientists saying nuclear weapons could ignite the earths atmosphere, legist scientists saying CERN could create a mini black hole that could grow into a solar system consuming beast....
Not legit, no.

>>33343331
Can somebody in the know give me a good rundown on current icbm/bomber/missile defense? How many nukes would find their targets in a war?

Suck my cock

>>33343634
Fuck off

>>33343568
>Fucking Nuclear Posture Review
>/k/ doesn't care
Choose one and only one.

>>33345912
>How many nukes would find their targets in a war?
most of them

>SSBN's
>Nuclear bombers

There is zero point to these
Why not just build mobile ICBM's. Truck & Rail & ship borne.

File: kiaShundm0727SantokuKnife14big.jpg (23KB, 600x336px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x336px

>>33343634
kys
> knife, to keep this post weapons-related

>>33343331
hey OPie
maaaaaybe you could consider making /ng/ (nuke general) threads? along the lines of the tank ones?
have you seen the "new" nuke videos? if so, what do you think about them?

>>33346659
SSBNs are actually essential for two reasons, namely that they can deliver an unstoppable first strike and that they can deliver an unstoppable retaliation strike

>>33346687
>namely that they can deliver an unstoppable first strike

This is a bad thing

>and that they can deliver an unstoppable retaliation strike
So can any sort of mobile ICBM

File: Ids nud mee, ids nud mee, I ibs no fordunabe son.jpg (345KB, 1200x854px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1200x854px

>>33343568
>Nuclear weapons
>Not relevant on /k/
It is a struggle to ignore retards like you

>>33346698
> So can any sort of mobile ICBM
not really. what if the enemy invades? what if the enemy can somehow tell nuke-laden train carriages (or trucks) from normal ones?

>>33345505
There is only so much energy in an atom.

>>33345912
Currently about 90%-95%
Maybe more.

>>33346659
SSBN's give you the ability for a quick strike with minimal warning time.
Bombers allow you to hit targets of opportunity, and allow you to escalate if needed to show resolve, while still able to recall.

>>33346677
No thanks.

>>33346698
>This is a bad thing
depends on how you look at it.

File: l1UFlRF.png (51KB, 208x240px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 208x240px

>>33346732
>Maybe more.

>>33346732
eh. was worth the asking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnrLY-phipw

>>33346732
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE

>>33346838
Forgot to add that the LLNL videos are really interesting. Lots of great shots in there.

>>33346732
>90-95%
So is it worth it to invest into nuclear defense systems or instead invest in more population preparation like building bunkers, encouraging food stockpiling, etc

>>33346732
So where do you see nuke tech going if the review ends up being 'we need more, better and faster' nukes? Are hyper sonics the next leap or is it detonation related?

Are MIRVs the future?

>>33347025
Defense systems.

>>33347036
They will probably want to stay away from MIRVs with more then 3 or 4 RVs.


Without a clear withdrawal from newSTART there wouldn't be much point to anything more.

>>33343331
How long would a nuclear war be expected to last? Would a crippled country spend its last days trying to make one last nuke? Would an invading army of tanks get hit by nuclear artillery?

I could see very little shits being given about proliferation once nukes started flying, I'm sure if the war lasted any length of time we would start seeing some brutal shit being developed.

>>33347114
For most of the Cold War, the idea was that the whole thing would be over in a few hours.
In the later stages, the US started planning to fight what was called the "Long War" which was an exchange spread out over weeks.
On either of those time frames, it would be unlikely to see any changes like you describe.

File: B-47ATO.jpg (137KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x600px

>>33343568
fuck off /pol/

>>33346659
>Why not just build mobile ICBM's. Truck & Rail & ship borne

>ship borne

Like a submarine?

Mobile systems are dumb because of the security concerns. You can't hide something traveling with a company of security troops and the radio traffic as they move is going to make sure any enemy listening knows right where they are anyway. Plus they aren't survivable in the least. The silos are already built and are tough to knock out. A launcher on a train is both new infrastructure and easy to take out.

>>33343331
The MC4700 is the fancy pancy fuze on the W76 mod 1 isn't it?

So, if all goes to plan, when do we get to see some new dank test videos?

>>33347162
Would a conventional war be expected to follow?

>>33346732
Do you think the US will seriously consider mobile basing for it's next ICBM?

>>33343331
>1) Outright replacement of ICBM, SSBN, and Bomber forces
I'm assuming this is meaning "the shit is old and we need new versions" and not consolidating all of these things into missile trucks like point 5, right?

>>33347248
Boris shooting low today

>>33347271
No, thats a very Russian thing to do.

>>33347248
Yes.

>>33347255
No. If (huge if) there is testing, it would be underground.

>>33347271
Probably not.

>>33347286
Correct. All new versions of those systems.

>>33347288
do you think we'll replace systems with totally new, fully better systems, or just continue the trend of (for lack of a better description) accurizing what we already have?
I'm curious as to how GBMDs will be improved.

>>33347301
>No. If (huge if) there is testing, it would be underground.

I was under the assumption that a brand new design will need at least 1 full on test.

>>33347301
Are there any open source documents on how the MC4700 works?

I'm curious how the fuze is supposed to be able to detect it overflew its target. Side-facing radar perhaps that can discern between grass and concrete silo hatches?

>>33347311
nah, not unless we come up with something that's completely new (read: the development of thermonuclear new)
they'll do inert drops and crash tests and all that good shit but I'm fairly certain the age of detonations are done.
at least ones we'll ever know about.

>>33347306
New systems, more ABM sites. This plan is set to be complete in the 2040s, we'll need new missiles by then.

>>33347306
New systems.

>>33347311
Not if its based on the LLNL design submitted for the Reliable Replacement Warhead in 2002. It was already tested.

The LANL design would need to be tested.
Probably.

>>33347315
FAS has a good write up on it. Do you have access to LexisNexis or JSTOR?

>>33347348
I have access to a lot of archives through uni. Never had a paper I couldn't access.

>>33347343
>New systems, more ABM sites.

to clarify the question, and I'm pretty sure you couldn't tell me, I was curious about what sort of flaw they want to correct with improvement.
maybe it's just more accuracy, which is great, but maybe they're gonna have kill vehicles fly out of the mother missile like goddamn fletchettes. fuck if I know.

>>33347330
They're going to develop a new primary, that will require a few small tests. The whole shebang will need a test if it is to replace our current stock.

>>33347369
They already have primaries that met all the modern safety standards and have been tested i.e. W83 (probably not suitable for an ICBM but whatever), W87, W88.

>>33347367
Reliability, ease of maintenance, survivability

>>33343568
i do. youve been shitting up quite a few threads. want to talk about it, my womanly friend?

>>33347369
They dont need a new primary.

>>33347365
Start with the FAS article and then use that to get terms for the academic dbs.

>>33347367
Accuracy and response time. Survivability.

>>33347448
But will they really enter a new warhead into service without a test?

File: air force madea.jpg (3MB, 2784x1848px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2784x1848px

The real question is: How will the Air Force manage to have more nuclear incidents as often as it did during the Obama administration?

>>33347479
Of course

>>33347465
Yes. They wont need it with the LLNL design.

Will this new posture include telling the president knows what the nuclear triad is?

>>33343634
FUCK YOU. YOU SAD LITTLE FLOPPY MAGGOT, YOU JUST MADE ME THROW A HALF DOZEN KNIFE HANDS AT THE DOG. SHE'S A GOOD DOG, DOESN'T DESERVE YOUR KIND OF ASS FOOLISHNESS. THIS IS A WEAPONS BOARD. NUKES ARE WEAPONS. YOU MISERABLE FUCK DRIBBLE.

>>33343766
I kinda suspected he might be OP of this particular thread.

>>33344362
>pictures of trinitite

I remember those days. Life was so simple back then.

>>33343331
>1)1) Outright replacement of ICBM, SSBN, and Bomber forces

The bombers as a strategic nuclear platform have been basically irrevelant. If it isn't compatible with the B-21, I don't see it happening.

>3) New warhead design is likely
I doubt this, due to test bans

>5) New bomber will probably be new design unrelated to the B-21 and focus on cruise missile delivery. (This is in line with 2002 NPR)

Highly unlikely to be seriously implemented imo

>>33344374
Ssshhh. Don't scare him away. He can be very skittish. Ask relevant questions about nuclear policy and shit. He likes that.

>>33347330
>at least ones we'll ever know about.

GEOINT and MASINT are very good these days

>>33343568
>>33343634
Chug bleach.

>>33345505
>We just say "fuck it" and flip the switch anyways.

We say no such thing. We either say "hey, y'all lookit this" or we say "hold my beer for a sec" and then we flip the switch.

So, any idea if American nuclear forces are still on Launch on Warning posture as Bruce Blair seems to think?

>>33347662
>telling the president knows
Do what now?

>>33348086
>The bombers as a strategic nuclear platform have been basically irrevelant. If it isn't compatible with the B-21, I don't see it happening.
This is incorrect.
Bombers have an important role as escalatory tools. You can order them into the air, or increase their readiness in a manner that is easy to see, and they are always able to be recalled.
Bombers are also able to hit targets of opportunity that ballistic missiles can not.

>test bans
You won't need to test the new warhead. In any case, the CTBT has not been ratified by the US.

>Unlikely.
Perhaps.
However a notional cruise missile carrier could be a lot cheaper than the B-21, and could be acquired quickly. Putting the nuclear mission on a different AC would be useful from a treaty accountability standpoint.

>>33348160
>Launch on Warning
Probably. This doesn't tie the NCA into it, however. It is possible that the attack may be of a nature that the NCA decides to ride it out, and develop a response specifically tailored for the situation. You might see a few hours pass before the US retaliation begins.

>>33346659
>shipborne

Already done. They're called SSBNs. Truck and rail are fucking stupid, because they rely on fixed infrastructure that's easily identified and interdicted.

>>33348206
Not to mention a higher proportion of your forces are down for maintenance at a given time due to the complexity of a mobile system vs a fixed silo.
So you need to compensate with a bigger force, and your opponent sees your bigger force in raw numbers and decides he needs a bigger force to match your raw totals and then you need a bigger force to match his...

>>33346732
>Currently about 90%-95%
Maybe more.

Any idea on how many will fail to detonate?

That percentage range you gave, does it include both countermeasures and Murphy's Law? Or do we not have a good idea on how many will fail due to random mishaps?

>>33344046
But faggots like you are part of the reason he doesn't trip to begin with...

>>33348294
>Any idea on how many will fail to detonate?
Hard to say.
Reliability is a closely guarded secret, but to say that modern warheads are probably 90% reliable is close. Older ones maybe as low as 80%.

There are exceptions. (See W76 below)

>That percentage range you gave, does it include both countermeasures and Murphy's Law? Or do we not have a good idea on how many will fail due to random mishaps?
That is just the percentage that would not be intercepted. It's also optimistic.

It does not include Murphy's law. Something like that can't be accounted for. The W76 was thought to be one of our most reliable warheads.
Then in the late 90's close examination of the design revealed that it was very likely that fewer than 30% would function. There was also a possibility that the flaw was so fatal that none of them would have worked.
The flaw was addressed in the SLEP, but this is an example of how you can not account for things you don't know.

>>33347162
>which was an exchange spread out over weeks.

Which would raise hell with the civilian population. Not so much from the casualty perspective, but not knowing if/when the war's over and waiting for the next strike to turn you crispy or dust you with fallout.

Mass evacuations aren't really feasible in a scenario like that, I could even see travel restrictions holding people where they're at.

>>33348201
>Bombers have an important role as escalatory tools. You can order them into the air, or increase their readiness in a manner that is easy to see, and they are always able to be recalled.

In what amounts to empty threat due to their vulnerability to IADS, or the same general rung of escalastion as SSBNs with VLO bombers or conventional bombers armed with long-range nuclear cruise missiles.

>Bombers are also able to hit targets of opportunity that ballistic missiles can not.

Such as?

>You won't need to test the new warhead. In any case, the CTBT has not been ratified by the US.
International blowback and pressure would be enormous, and it would be very likely generally destabilize international politics - a counterproductive effort when you are trying to theoretically maintain or improve national security and international stability.

>Putting the nuclear mission on a different AC would be useful from a treaty accountability standpoint.

Hadn't thought of that. Good point

>>33348400

You are on fucking meth if you think a nuclear-armed strategic bomber is ever an empty threat.

>>33347261
I'm not the expert in this thread, but I suspect that there wouldn't be a conventional war afterward. There might be one beforehand, which could get out of hand until the nukes fly.

After an exchange conventional forces would most likely be in a high alert posture, gradually easing off as the focus shifted to recovery and reconstruction.

File: 1489833831137.jpg (17KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x320px

>>33344021
Yes, look at the over 100 replies.

>>33348426
If you have to close for a bombing run, you have to go through the air defenses on the way to your target.

If you have cruise missiles with a standoff that the bomber can't be intercepted or VLO features to get past air defenses and provide ambiguity as to its location, it's a similar level to escalation (as I understand it) to SSBNs on patrol except with less loiter time and with significantly more vulnerable basing to things like depressed-trajectory SLBMs

>>33348370
>Mass evacuations
There were/are plans for evacuation of target areas. Only FEMA is really aware of them, but they do exist and are accessible at your library.
Crisis Relocation Plan claimed that they could move 150 Million people in 2 days from high risk areas to rural areas.
Main issue is that no one has really told the rural areas that they are going to be hosting these people.

And one hundred other issues big and small with the CRP.

>>33348400
Where to begin...

>In what amounts to empty threat due to their vulnerability to IADS,

The Bombers will have plenty of time to move toward their targets before needing to worry about any IADS.
In any case, the bombers wont need to worry about IADS because they wont be trying to penetrate it. Thats the role of the cruise missiles.
As for the IADS itself, one of the key roles of SLBMs is SEAD. By the time you have ordered the bombers to launch their cruise missiles, you are committed, and that IADS is disintegrating into clouds of vapor, or you are mopping up, and the IADS has long since been flattened.

>or the same general rung of escalastion as SSBNs
SSBNs are not traceable. Bombers are very visible. Dispersing them to ready airfields is very visible. Keeping Bombers in the air constantly is clearly noticeable.
All of these things can signal a willingness to escalate very clearly, and give both sides a chance to talk it out. You cant do that with SSBNs.
If you flush all your SSBNs, you have no idea when they might launch. They could hit their targets tied up at port.
Bombers give you time, even after they begin flying to their launch points.
Stealth aircraft are the same way.
Conventional bombers have a key role in deterrence.


>Such as?
Mobile launchers, mobile command posts, targets that were missed by the first strike, previously unknown 'pop up' targets.
Bombers waiting outside the range of the (now non-existent) IADS can receive orders to hit these targets much faster than SLBMs.

>>33348496

>If you have to close for a bombing run, you have to go through the air defenses on the way to your target.

There are ways around that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/why-mattis-should-support-long-range-stand-off-nuclear-cruise-missile/

>>33348518
>All of these things can signal a willingness to escalate very clearly, and give both sides a chance to talk it out. You cant do that with SSBNs.

Or it could result in a use-it-or-lose-it risk-acceptant mentality. The visibility seems to me to be an answer in source of a question with regards to the institutional intertia towards non-VLO bombers as strategic nuclear platforms.

>>33348496
>If you have to close for a bombing run, you have to go through the air defenses on the way to your target.
Nobody is expecting to drop gravity bombs on targets after fighting though an IADS.
You are either launching cruise missiles.
Or you are waving at the craters where the SOCs used to be on your way in towards your target.

>If you have cruise missiles with a standoff that the bomber can't be intercepted or VLO features to get past air defenses and provide ambiguity as to its location, it's a similar level to escalation (as I understand it) to SSBNs on patrol except with less loiter time and with significantly more vulnerable basing to things like depressed-trajectory SLBMs

There are multiple, very visible steps that you have to through between "Netflix and Chill at the O-club" and "Fire!" when you are talking about bombers.

This is not true with SSBNs.
They are either in port, or ready to hit their targets. There is not in between.

>>33343777
Trump is an urbanite. He doesn't care about guns.

>>33348562
>Or it could result in a use-it-or-lose-it risk-acceptant mentality.
Cruise missile don't pose that sort of threat.
Flushing bombers is escalatory.
Launching SLBMs, or ICBMs is committal.

>>33347207
>>Why not just build mobile ICBM's. Truck & Rail & ship borne

Why don't you THINK before you post?

>>33348568
/k/ told me he was /our guy/

>>33348652
/k/ was fooled, or /k/ lied.

>>33348580
>You are either launching cruise missiles.
Whose role in the rungs of escalation seems to be to dubious

>Cruise missile don't pose that sort of threat.

Could you elaborate why?

>Flushing bombers is escalatory.

And this sort of nuclear blackmail seems to rely heavily on mirror imaging, and is the wrong step to engage in against an opponent with (full of shit as he often is) Rezun-style Battleaxe mentality.

>>33343331
There is literally nothing wrong with warhead replacements. Obama and the deems should've been hung for killing the RRW as it was blatant treason.

>>33348518
Since you seem to know a lot about nukes, do you know of any quality open-source material about Iranian nuclear development, both historical and recent?

I'm curious about why they've been 2-5 years away from nuclear weapons since the revolution, and whether North Korea might be sharing nuclear weapon technology.

>>33348698
Excuse me, I meant to say

>in spite of as full of shit as he often is

with regards to Suvorov/Rezun

>>33348698
>Whose role in the rungs of escalation seems to be to dubious
In your opinion

>Could you elaborate why?
Cruise missiles are not capable of holding hardened targets like silos under threat.


>mirror imaging
Thats not nuclear blackmail.
Thats signalling a willingness to escalate.

The Russians understand escalation very well. The use of an escalatory act to attempt to bring about a halt to further escalation is right out of their playbook, and it was pioneered by them.
US doctrine of interwar deterrence is identical to Russian current doctrine. It is a signal that they would well recognize.

Sortieing your SSBNs would look like commitment to them, not escalation.

>>33348742
The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation
By Danny B. Stillman and Thomas C. Reed

>>33348788
>In your opinion

Certainly. That should be implicit.

>Cruise missiles are not capable of holding hardened targets like silos under threat.

Thanks.

>Thats not nuclear blackmail.
>Thats signalling a willingness to escalate

Presumably in pursuit of a strategic or policy goal to obtain concessions or engage in coercive bargaining. I don't see how that's not nuclear blackmail, or why this would deescalate nuclear tensions.

>>33348793
Thanks. Will read.

What's your opinion of Victor Cha as a North Korea expert, especially concerning their nuclear policy. I tended to agree with his perspective in Nuclear North Korea, but I'm not sure how his opinions have changed or predictions have panned out.

>>33348864
>pursuit of a strategic or policy goal
At this point, we are in a crisis and looking for a way out. There is not further goal than that.

> I don't see how that's not nuclear blackmail, or why this would deescalate nuclear tensions.

There is an entire doctrine built around this, and there is not enough bandwidth here to explain it.

I will provide you with this, which, if you are interested, explains in excruciating detail why both the US and Soviets (now Russians) adopted this kind of policy.

https://www.amazon.com/Managing-Nuclear-Operations-Ashton-Carter/dp/0815713134

For a more contemporary take, incorporating smaller nuclear powers, read this:

http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=21511

It boils down to one side seeing the resolve of the other, and being willing to find a way out.
"Woah, this is serious, but its not THAT serious, lets just calm down."

>>33343777
yeah you're right, its April. He's playing politics, my bet is he is going to repeal it the year of or before the election so he can rally his base again and get reelected easy.

>>33348987
>At this point, we are in a crisis and looking for a way out. There is not further goal than that.

Over what? This is such a pertinent issue to any scenario, and I don't see why you are glossing over it. A nuclear crisis with North Korea is going to be different from one with Russia.

>There is an entire doctrine built around this, and there is not enough bandwidth here to explain it.

How real is it? Because there is often a disconnect between nuclear theorists and the politicians and military whom would actually carry out a nuclear war.

I'm happy to check out the reading list.

>It boils down to one side seeing the resolve of the other, and being willing to find a way out.

In the quintessential nuclear crisis of the Cuban Missile Crisis, escalation prompted only further escalation. The crisis was solved ultimately by diplomacy, while escalation only brought things closer to the decidedly less than preferable outcome of a nuclear war.

>>33343568
>>33343634
I do

>>33349242
>This is such a pertinent issue to any scenario, and I don't see why you are glossing over it.
Because it doesnt matter. Deterrence is deterrence. While deterrence changes depending on the crisis, the idea of reestablishing deterrence mid crisis is uniform. What you have to do may be different, but the key is that you can.
Having bombers gives you the option to use them to those ends. It may work in some situations, it may not in others.
Thats why I avoid specificity.


>How real is it?
Look at the authors.
Look at Russian doctrine.
Look at their respective systems and see how they are designed to work in that policy.

>because there is often a disconnect between nuclear theorists and the politicians and military whom would actually carry out a nuclear war.

No there isnt. There is sometimes a disconnect between the politicians on one side and the theorists and military on the other.
The military and theorists largely agree.


>Cuban Missile Crisis, escalation prompted only further escalation.
Poor conclusions.
It was the spectre of continued escalations that forced the two sides to find a desperate agreement.
Also, Able Archer 86 should be the touchstone for escalation not the CMC.

>>33349405
Meant 83. Able archer 83

>>33349405
This was an enjoyable debate. I definitely learned a lot, even if I'm not 100% on the same page as you.

>It was the spectre of continued escalations that forced the two sides to find a desperate agreement.

I'm contending that it should not have gotten to that point, considering that it was almost a coin toss on going to nuclear war. Iirc, the DCI's personal judgment was that fighting was the better choice, but he decided to report the analyst's judgment. That's one incident of politicized intelligence away from nuclear war, and it should not have escalated to that point. And it was unmistakably escalation of nuclear threats that brought things to that point.

>>33349573
You can argue that the crisis should not have happened, but it was both sides displaying a willingness to escalate that brought about the end of the crisis.

Another case can be made for the 73 war. The Soviets showing a willingness to escalate forced the US to bring Israel to heel.

>>33343634
chop your dick off with a rusty Kalashnikov bayonet, slavaboo.

>>33349726
>You can argue that the crisis should not have happened, but it was both sides displaying a willingness to escalate that brought about the end of the crisis.

I think you misunderstand. I'm arguing that escalation brought the crisis one politicized intelligence report from nuclear war, and that generally engaging in brinkmanship exacerbates the impact of such politicized intelligence reports, since policymaker decisionmaking is heavily informed by their intelligence. Ergo, escalation is not desirable.

>>33349799
>I'm arguing that escalation brought the crisis one politicized intelligence report from nuclear war, and that generally engaging in brinkmanship
The doctrine of 'Escalate to deescalate' is not brinksmanship.

Your thesis that we were just a coin flip from nuclear war is deeply flawed.
Attempting to tie the conclusion of the conflict to a single decision by the DCI (which may not have even happened) is simplistic at best.

Kennedy knew what Eisenhower knew. The US had a major advantage over the Soviets in terms of nuclear weapons. There was no question about what the outcome of the war would be, it was a question of whether the result was worth it.
The US was escalating to show the Soviets that they were willing to go though with their intentions.

It was this that gave the Soviets pause. It was this that gave BOTH sides the time to find an agreement to end the conflict.

>>33350255
>Attempting to tie the conclusion of the conflict to a single decision by the DCI (which may not have even happened) is simplistic at best.

I respectfully disagree. Discounting the effects of bad/politicized intelligence on policymaker decisions in a crisis scenario is recklessly optimistic.

>The US had a major advantage over the Soviets in terms of nuclear weapons. There was no question about what the outcome of the war would be,

By my understanding of Blair's analysis, US command and control was deficient to an extent that a Soviet first strike would significantly disrupt if not all portions of the nuclear triad during the 60s because of degraded C3I. Similarly, there were a number of practical difficulties in the readiness of American ballistic missile force. American superiority was not nearly so clear cut as you seem to think.

>The US was escalating to show the Soviets that they were willing to go though with their intentions.

An escalation that started from a strategic decision to place strategic nuclear weapons in Turkey. The crisis did not exist in a vacuum as was exacerbated by tit-for-tat escalation. To say that escalation deterred the crisis is fallacious because escalation effected it.

>>33350395
>Discounting the effects of bad/politicized intelligence on policymaker decisions in a crisis scenario is recklessly optimistic.
It is. Thats not what I'm doing however.

>By my understanding of Blair's analysis, US command and control was deficient to an extent that a Soviet first strike would significantly disrupt if not all portions of the nuclear triad during the 60s because of degraded C3I.

Completely nonsensical.
The Soviets had 36 SS-7 ICBMs in 1962. These took three hours to roll out of their hangers and fuel.
It is likely that only about 15 of these were even ready in October of 1962. Their accuracy was limited and they would have been hard pressed to take out any US command post.

The US, on the other hand had 54 Titan I missiles. These missiles were in hardened silos, as opposed to the soft hangar facilities the Soviets had for their SS-7s.
They also needed much less time to fuel and ready than the SS-7's and were much more accurate.

In addition, the US had over 120 Atlas missiles of various makes.
As for readiness, SAC reported between 130 and 180 ICBMs on alert throughout the crisis.

At least 3 SSBNs were on patrol during the crisis.

Lets not even get into the bombers.

American superiority was not only evident, it was overwhelming, and Kennedy knew it.

>An escalation that started from a strategic decision to place strategic nuclear weapons in Turkey.
So here I'm going to ask you to make up your mind.
If we are going to go down this road, then we can go all the way back to Yalta for similar examples of this 'escalation'.

Why don't we keep it focused on the crisis, or even better, focus on one of the other crises where this doctrine is even more evident?

>To say that escalation deterred the crisis is fallacious because escalation effected it.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.
I NEVER said the crisis was deterred.
I said that NUCLEAR WAR was deterred because of the escalation.

>>33350395


Continuing.

The US and Soviet Union both knew that the US had an overwhelming superiority in nuclear forces.
The US could have executed a first strike against the Soviet Union that would have destroyed them.
They might have been able to kill several million American's to be sure, but that would have been nothing compared to the damage the Soviet Union would have sustained.


The US demonstrated their willingness to follow though with their threats, and had the capacity to do exactly that.

The Soviets were faced with the option of escalation, or discussion.
They stopped the ships, and this gave the Soviets and the US the time to work out a diplomatic solution.

The US escalation, forced an end to the crisis.

Soviet intention of escalation did the same in 73.

Able Archer is another example of escalation leading to the diffusing of a crisis.

>>33350395
If you would like to see the Russian version of this doctrine, you can read about it here:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_05/dc3ma00

http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation

>>33350630
>The US, on the other hand had 54 Titan I missiles. These missiles were in hardened silos, as opposed to the soft hangar facilities the Soviets had for their SS-7s.
>They also needed much less time to fuel and ready than the SS-7's and were much more accurate.

>In addition, the US had over 120 Atlas missiles of various makes.
>As for readiness, SAC reported between 130 and 180 ICBMs on alert throughout the crisis.

I'll concede the general point, but you are overlooking a herculean effort made to bring the missiles on alert and tie them into the command structure. And I actually can cite my shit for this one. Estimates of their readiness were rather liberal.

>I said that NUCLEAR WAR was deterred because of the escalation.

And that appears to me to be a fallacious argument because escalation brought the situation to the point where nuclear war was a plausible decision.

Other than that, have a good afternoon. I'll look into your escalate to de-escalate material.

>>33350875
>but you are overlooking a herculean effort made to bring the missiles on alert and tie them into the command structure. And I actually can cite my shit for this one. Estimates of their readiness were rather liberal.

No Im not.
Even at the outset of the crisis, SAC had more than 8 times the missiles ready to go than the Soviets, and that's just land based missiles.

The US still had several SSBNs.


>And that appears to me to be a fallacious argument
I think you miss the point that deterrence itself is predicated on nuclear war being a plausible decision.
I
You are saying that without escalation there would have been no possibility of a nuclear war. This is mistaken.
Deterrence depends on the possibility of a nuclear war. If there is no possibility of it happening, you can't deter anyone.

Kenya has absolutely no ability to use its nuclear forces to deter anything.

Once the Cuban Missile Crisis began escalation was inevitable. If that escalation was poorly handled, the Soviets might have perceived that the US was not serious, and mistakenly called the US bluff.

By making clear, very visible, escalations, there was no doubt that the US had the resolve to carry out its stated intentions.

That is what escalation control is all about. Showing, with no ambiguity, what your resolve is.

In the example that started this, deploying bombers is one of those signals.

You seem to think that there was only one way to escalate and that it results in a nuclear war. You are incorrect. Mixed signals caused by half measures can cause the other guy to believe you lack the resolve.

On the other hand, coming on too strong can make him believe that war is inevitable, and that he should strike now.

Instead, by controlling your escalation, and making it clear, you can both demonstrate your resolve to fight if necessary, while still showing that there is time to talk. That is what ended the CMC, and many crises since.

>>33348607
Might want to take your own advice sport. I was replying to someone else. It's pretty clear if you weren't blinded by cum shots while trying to post from the neighborhood gloryhole.

>>33348518
>There were/are plans for evacuation of target areas. Only FEMA is really aware of them, but they do exist and are accessible at your library. Crisis Relocation Plan claimed that they could move 150 Million people in 2 days from high risk areas to rural areas. Main issue is that no one has really told the rural areas that they are going to be hosting these people.

I find the civil defense aspects of nuclear war fascinating. Would you have titles or other information for those un-classified documents? I'm pretty sure FEMA would have bungled it and you'd have had a lot of rural authorities turning city dwellers around at gunpoint, like some areas did during Katrina.

Not to mention most of those rural areas wouldn't have been able to actually host those evacuees anyway unless the FEMA and the state/local Emergency Management Offices were doing tent cities and stockpiling food and medication.

Smartest thread on /k/ desu

Here's some good shit to read on current U.S. nuclear systems and programs.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1264213?needAccess=true&

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33640.pdf

>>33351544
My favorite thread on /k/

Why do you do it not-Oppenheimer?

Surely us neckbeards and anime-watching degenerates are less interesting conversation than think-tank people?

>>33351690

Maybe he likes educating people about nuclear shit. A more aware populance is a smarter populance.

>>33351690
I like talking about it with people are are interested in it.
Few people are actually interested in nuclear policy and 99% of the ones that are are more into non-proliferation and goal zero than an honest examination of deterrence.

Its hard to find people who want to think about the unthinkable. A lot of them consider education about it a bad thing.
They would rather the majority of citizens have misconceptions about nuclear weapons and nuclear war. They believe that attempting to explain the nature of nuclear conflict will reduce the fear of it.
If people are less fearful they might be more willing to start one.

I think that knowing about it actually make one less likely. If the citizens know more about it, they might be more afraid, rather than less, in my opinion.

So no, there arent a lot of people willing to delve into this stuff. Plus you guys are pretty funny.

>>33351804
Iran guy again. What do you think about the possibility of North Korean technological collaboration with Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

My general assessment is "probably not" because of (a) the Ayatollah's (of Rock n Rolla) fatwa (b) their refusal to respond in kind to chemical weapon attacks (c) their trajectory of seeking international engagement to avoid becoming an international pariah like North Korea (d) 30+ years of Iran is 2-5 years from a functional nuclear warhead assessments which haven't panned out and often come from biased sources (e) willingness to comply with more stringent IAEA inspections as part of JCPOA

Is this a reasonable assessment/what is your opinion? What else, besides the Thomas Reed book do you recommend looking into because it's hard to find sources that aren't blatantly politicized?

>>33351804
Have they ever explained how goal zero is supposed to be possible?

The goal of zero nuclear weapons seems like an utter fantasy to me.

>>33352208
Tbh, the issue is going from current arsenals to a few dozen.

The step from a few dozen to none seems easier than reducing from hundreds or thousands to a handful.

>>33343331
interesting thanks for posting this

File: image.png (4MB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1242x2208px

>>33343331
>everyone else modernizing their missiles and warheads
>Russia alone has three separate missile programs going
>But if the US modernizes their 49+ year old fleet, it's dangerous

What the fuck is this shit?

>>33353336
>What the fuck is this shit?
You being stupid and ignorant.

>>33353498
Op literally went full OMG NEW ARMS RACE OY VEY

>>33353628
Wow. You are really fucking stupid.
Are people like you aware that you lack critical thinking skills?
Do morons like you know that you are intellectually outclassed, or do you really think you have a handle on issues you open your mouth about?

>>33353336
Hey do me a favor.

Go into the OP and let me know where exactly it says that the US started this arms race?

While you are doing that, I'll address your points.

>everyone else modernizing their missiles and warheads
So is the US.
>Russia alone has three separate missile programs going
The US has several in the works as well.
>But if the US modernizes their 49+ year old fleet, it's dangerous
This is not stated in the OP.

Now I have a few questions for you.

1) Are you unaware of the US modernization programs that have been ongoing for their nuclear weapons for about two decades?

2) If you are unaware of these programs, do you still feel that your opinion on this subject is based on a solid premise?

3)Are you aware of the existing nuclear weapons modernization budget that is near $1 Trillion over the next 30 years along with new platforms and systems?

4)If you are unaware of this, do you still feel that your opinion on this subject is based on a solid premise?

5)Are you aware that most of the US fleet is far less than 49 years old?

6)If you are unaware of this, do you still feel that your opinion on this subject is based on a solid premise?

I'm actually very optimistic about this...

Nukes are really cost efficient a la Eisenhower's doctrine, and could potentially eviscerate the military-industrial complex. Deterrence works. Mutually Assured Destruction works.

It's 2017 after all. Massive conventional formations is so outmoded. Nuclear proliferation ftw. Can't wait for diy 3d-printed in your garage designs.

>If you want peace, prepare for (nuclear) war.

>>33348518
>And one hundred other issues big and small with the CRP.

It looks like FEMA pulled the plug on the CRP in 1987. They still pay lip service to the concept, but there's been no funding or action in that direction for decades.

>>33343331
For what fucking point? Why do we need more nuclear shit?

>>33354367
>need

>>33354367
>need
Bill of rights.

>>33354370
>>33354374

Let me rephrase it.

For what fucking point? Why does Trump want more nuclear shit?

>>33354380
To maintain deterrence.

>>33354398
Fuck that shit. Just make better defense systems.

Fuck. I hate nuclear weapons.

>>33351116
>Instead, by controlling your escalation, and making it clear, you can both demonstrate your resolve to fight if necessary
Sounds like a ritual between two rival mates. Mmm...

>>33354533
The fact that you posted this, shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>33343777
Yeah, I'm still waiting for all the shit people kept telling me he'd do in the first month. The HPA isn't even out of committee yet and nothing has happened with it for over a month. All I've really got so far is the NRA telling me I need to buy more guns because the leftists are coming to get me and that I need to support every other thing Trump does no matter how unrelated to guns it is.

>>33343788
What do you have against left handed faggots?

File: 1480995478683.jpg (197KB, 650x544px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 650x544px

>>33347179

>>33354533
>I hate.... weapons.
and yet, you're still here.

>>33353841
Are you retarded?

He's criticising groups like FAS who shit on American nuclear modernisation while ignoring Russian advancements.

>>33345900

Uhhh, yea. Its documented that our scientists were praying and personnel laying prone inside bunkers figuratively miles away from the first nuke test site.

They honestly didnt know how powerful it was going to be.

>>33346732

>only so much energy in an atom

Actually there's nearly unlimited energy. Atoms are made of particles. Atoms aren't the end. Go to Planck scale energies and see them defy time and space.

We do not yet comprehend the power we have to manipulate these forces.

We literally stopped building castles, battleships, etc not because of technology gain, but a realization of our ignorance and fear of investing in useless endeavors.

We dropped the first atomic bomb before the Wright Brother died. We landed on the moon about 30 years after Orville died. This sequence of events happened that fast.


I can't imagine the shit we have today.

I'm banking on Star Trek level tech.

>>33356730
>Actually there's nearly unlimited energy.
E=MC^2

Thats how much energy is in an atom.
Unless you have a better idea then you should write a paper.

Or just stop being retarded.

>>33354773
You're god damn right I do not but I stand by what I said.

Fuck nuclear weapons.

>>33355165
Weapons /=/ nuclear weapons

>>33356730
>They honestly didnt know how powerful it was going to be.
They were not certain, but they had a decent idea.
In science there are few absolutes. But scientists attempt to be precise. So even though there is a .00000000001% chance of something happening, the scientist will still say that its possible.
Then morons like you get all bent out of shape.

>>33357459
>You're god damn right I do not but I stand by what I said.
What's it like to be so afraid of something that you enjoy being ignorant about it?

Your advice would have resulted in the very nuclear war you are so terrified of. If you bothered to educate yourself, however, you might understand a little better

File: IMG_2120.jpg (69KB, 775x441px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 775x441px

>>33343634
You're so upset

>>33343568
>>33343634
Retard

>>33357459
>You're god damn right I do not but I stand by what I said.

Why do people always have strong opinions about shit they know nothing about?

>>33359616
Thats /k/ in a nutshell

>>33354380
Same reason Clinton, Bush, Obama want it too.

>>33359616
Dunning-Kruger effect in action. People who are stupid massively overestimate their skills and knowledge.

>>33343331
>If you are disappointed you didn't get to experience the arms race of the Cold War, don't worry. You will soon enough.
I guess this means I get to experience a second one?

>>33343568
>>33343634
Wrong