What's the current state of US's nuclear defense and

Uh, fine? Approximately appropriate for a credible first strike posture.

Russia's is not automated, automated deterrence is an autistic meme. Conducting a nuclear war is not the thirty second countdown to Armageddon it is often implied to be, constant coordination, decision making and bargaining is required. Automating your deterrence is idiotic because when responding to a strong, successful and unanticipated first strike blindly retaliating is moronic. The enemy will trade every bomb you drop for five until you're forced to capitulate.

As for your tech question, improvements in fuzing on the US SLBM warheads has lead to a big increase in US counterforce capability compared to Russia who are still having major problems updating their ICBM / SLBM inventories.

http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

Improvements in warhead yield are politically pointless anyway, but guidance and fuzing improvements are a big deal. ICBMs historically have huge CEPs which limits their use as counter force assets and restricts SLBMs to counter value retaliation. However with the new fuzes and planned manouvering warheads the US can use them to attack military targets reliably while Russia can only realistically expect to hit CNC bunkers or reinforced Silos with air dropped or larger unitary ICBM warheads.

Effectively the US can realistically threaten to win the exchange, or will soon be able to, and in planning a response Russian decision makers would be faced with a choice of pointless revenge descending in to unfavourable tit for tat city trading or capitulation.

>>34078451

>Is it automated like Russia?

Russia's isn't, their missiles are probably require far more man hours to make launch-ready than ours too.

>>34078763
Oppenheimer, please just trip again. Yoi were the epitome of what a tripcode was for.

My opinion at least. Thanks for the info.

>>34078795
Newfag actually. I'm tfw nogunz so I don't browse /k/ as much as I would.

I come here for threads like this and other aerospace stuff.

>>34078763
>However with the new fuzes and planned manouvering warheads the US can use them to attack military targets reliably while Russia can only realistically expect to hit CNC bunkers or reinforced Silos with air dropped or larger unitary ICBM warheads.

Why? What's the difference?

>Conducting a nuclear war is not the thirty second countdown to Armageddon
You think a nuclear war would be limited to one strike every now and then? That we would trade a strike on LA for a strike on St Petersburg?

On top of the post above, it has dawned upon me that I have no idea how a nuclear war would happen in the first place?

What exactly would trigger Russia/China to fire on the United States? What purpose would that achieve when they could simply invade neighboring countries if international relations come to this stage? In which case, how would a proxy war devolve into a home front when we're both removed by a massive ocean?

>>34079043

Calling Putin's waifu a shit.

>>34078930
> why fuzes

The target area a warhead needs to detonate in to cause x overpressure to a target is 3 dimensional. If a warhead over shoots, it may pass through this area anyway, but because it is set to explode at a fixed altitude it will explode after it passes through. There are diagrams in the article I linked to visualize senpai.

The "Super-Fuze" adjusts the height of burst to compensate for overshoot/undershoot, meaning that the systems chance to kill per shot goes up. This is only mainly relevant for military targets because cities are big targets and don't take much psi to damage. However, SLBMs and ICBMs topped with MIRV warheads have historically suffered from low accuracy. This means that the chance to kill is too low to risk using them in a pre emptive strike unless you are willing to assign many warheads to each target to brute force it.

1/2

>>34079148
2/2
If you are going to threaten a first strike, (which is preferable to purely deterrent forces like UK/France for various reasons) then you have to work out how big your salvo can be, and where you will attack. The sane approach is to try to limit the enemies retaliation as much as possible. The even more sane approach is to leave his civilian centres alone, because you know you won't hit everything, some subs will get through, he will have bombers in the air (SAC).

You want not to annihilate him, because that is not possible with the current stockpiles and building up such a gigantic stockpile as would be needed is politically impossible. You want to put him in a situation where he can be blackmailed.

If the US salvo kills 95% of the available retaliatory forces, and the US has still has its entire SAC, then it would be madness for Russia to retaliate at all. Especially if the US deliberately avoided targeting cities. Then the US can credibly issue ultimatums like "Bomb NYC, we will kill every living thing in five of your cities, and still have hundreds of warheads left over in case you feel like continuing on from there".

Before these fuzes neither the US nor Russia had enough warheads actively deployed to threaten a first strike that could credibly neuter retaliation. Now the US can, without having to build more warheads/subs/break any treaties because they just made their existing sub based assets much more flexible instead of having them pigeonholed into counter value city targeting. This is doubly troublesome for Russia because the subs can get in closer to reduce the warning times, unlike the old first strike threat of large single warhead ICBMs or SAC bombers.

Read "On Thermonuclear War" by Hermann Kahn, it's specific scenarios are outdated now but it's still the best introduction to seriously thinking about this prospect.

>>34079043

>>34079171
Then all the more reason to have an automated system? If the first strike can be crippling to the point of capitulation, then you want to have a system that can react and match his strike instantaneously, without relying on the panic of a few key decision makers within a window of a few minutes.

Also, if your army is decisively inferior, isn't your only chance of victory to push into the missile race and capitalize on nuclear blackmailing? In which case a nuclear exchange would always escalate to full blown annihilation attempts because that's the only thing you can do.

Just pitching ideas to make sense of all this.

>>34079343
1/2 The first thing an attacker would do is airburst a warhead in the upper atmosphere, the resulting radiation fries those fancy early warning radars.

So, the defender's first actual warning is a brief track of one missile, then you're blind. So, you don't know which silos have launched and which he's keeping in reserve, or where his bombers are coming from, or where his subs fired from, or what assets your going to have left in five minutes. But from that point you would need to be distributing targeting information.

Missiles in silos take say 5 mins to ready at the maximum alert level. Ok in theory they can sit in the final stages of launch 30 secs to ignition but that's expensive and draining on the silo crews.And prone to accidents or unauthorised behaviour, so it's very impractical. Aircraft in the air will still have hours to fly before they can start removing things from play. Subs can't be communicated with most of the time. They come to comms depth only so often, for periodic updates.

If you want to limit the damage, you need to be hitting the right targets, the aircraft on the ground, the silos that aren't empty, subs in port.

The attacker won't be able to launch more than a few hundred warheads on missiles, and he would want to use multiple per target to increase his odds of killing the target. Both countries have tens of silos and hundreds of viable airfields that can be used to service bombers in a pinch, and a dozen subs or so. It's a lot of targets. Then he has his bomber force (probably off the ground before the missiles are fired) to mop up with. If you do start firing back you're gonna suffer for it as the attackers SAC is already closer over their targets and they will prioritise attackers. But it's even more for the defender who will have to deal with all this after they have taken a hit.

1/2

>>34079343
>>34079515
2/2
Automation means a reflexive response to preset, likely pointless targets. Or else, attacking civilian centres automatically, but that would provoke a similar response from the attacker who would be rather insistent the robot is turned off.

Automating means throwing away your ability to make decisions about the best way to pursue the war, and even if that is usually to capitulate, if capitulation is the sensible option that stops ~1-2 million deaths and humiliation from turning into hundreds of millions of deaths and eternal irrelevance and poverty on the world stage, why would you give up the best option in advance?

At first glance it might seem like it offers a better deterrent value, but you have to program it in advance. What triggers it? When it detects a nuclear explosion within your borders? What about tests? Earthquakes? Solar events? Coronal ejections can look a lot like that air-burst to take out your Radar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

This guy overrode the semi-automated early warning system, but had it been on full auto it would have triggered an attack alert (not fired anything, but reported a weather rocket as an attack).

Do you really want to preprogram every possible permutation of when to fire and when not to for all of these and everything that might happen in future?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls/

It's better to have human decision-makers, who can make real judgements.

>>34078451
Slowpoke here, according to the news the US is still working on that missile shield. They're conducting a missile intercept test next week to knock an ICBM out of the sky over the pacific, just in case the Norks go berserk. Their success rate so far is bordering on 50/50 and that's against easier targets than ICBMs. The Pentagon compares the maneuver to knocking a bullet off course with another bullet.

So yeah. Sounds super. I'm sure Ronnie Raygun would jump for joy. Go go star wars.

>>34079657
It's not the same as Star Wars, what they're talking about is making anti-ballistic missile variants of the Standard SAM and stuff like THAAD/Patriot to create an integrated layered defense.

The Russians actually have a competent ABM system, but they agreed to limit it in scope to certain things so as not to upset the balance of power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system

It uses nuclear tipped SAMs to resolve the "bullet with a bullet is so hard yo" issue, but it is a different political entity to the US ABM network which is really intended to stop the Norks sperging out too hard.

>>34079657
>in case the Norks go berserk*

Someday, I mean. I realize its not something that can happen right this second, but the idea is, given enough time, Best Korea will eventually be able to use their missiles to attack something besides empty ocean. And with all the big bad shit Kim talks, the US plans to place more interceptors near LA. Most of them are still up in Alaska, though.

>>34079698
>The Russians actually have a competent ABM system, but they agreed to limit it in scope to certain things so as not to upset the balance of power.
Weird. I didn't think Russia was such a soft touch. Ballistic missile superiority sounds like something they'd love to flex. What did they get out of keeping the status quo? Did NATO threaten to bum rush them?

>>34079515
>>34079581

The premises of your argument are that

1. All forms of detection will be fried by a single missile.

2. Launching capacity is limited to a few hundred missiles in the first stage

For the first one, does a single missile affect the entire atmosphere? And even if yes, I find it hard to believe we haven't come up with either systems that can resist and pierce through that level of radiation, on top of technological alternatives to conventional radars.

For the second one, do we have only a few hundred conventional silos at our disposal? Is this the best the country can do?


but then you have that next point

>Automating means throwing away your ability to make decisions about the best way to pursue the war, and even if that is usually to capitulate, if capitulation is the sensible option that stops ~1-2 million deaths and humiliation from turning into hundreds of millions of deaths and eternal irrelevance and poverty on the world stage, why would you give up the best option in advance?

Why would this be an option? If your enemy can get away with chipping a part of your country he already conquered you. The point of an automated system is precisely to show that you aren't going to submit even if it means mutual destruction?

Or is your point that in some cases you would be in a position were you could merely cripple the attacker while he has the opportunity to annihilate you? If so then why would he stop at a 2 millions? Why not go all out and tank your last blow while he asserts himself as an unchallenged world power?

The last point I have interrogations on is the idea that we can't set up an adequate trigger. When I look at the complexity of civilian mass market softwares I have a hard time believe we can't program an AI with the same criteria decision makers would base their decisions on, leaving diplomacy aside. Which also goes back to my first issue with the state of detection systems.

Just to be clear I'm certain that by civilian standard your assessment is flawless. If we go by conventional knowledge thrown our way following what the defense agencies judge worth making public.

I'm doubting the validity of technological estimates, when the best cards are probably still hidden within their hands.

>>34079736
They get to avoid a costly arms race that might lead to situations where one side holds a decisive advantage. And to keep the yanks ABM systems limited too, to keep the status quo.

This isn't your game of Civ with your mates. Literally nobody wants to kill millions of people just because they think they can get away with it if they do it now but if they wait six months they know the other guy will be in the leading position and they don't trust him not to do take that chance so better do it now? But shit, then I'll never get re-elected...

It's not worth being the harbinger of Armageddon, just for the sake of it. And that's where a new arms race would go, which everyone can see in advance so nobody wants it.

>>34079755

1. Well, no it's the gamma radiation burst that fries the radars so direct LOS is needed. Given how large the US and Russia are, and the fact you would want some redundancy sure it would take several warheads. But you don't have to hit them, and the warning time is very very low.

2. It is limited because that is how many are in silos or on subs at the moment. Warheads per missile is limited to 4 per the START treaty. The number of missiles in a firing position has a hard limit due to the number of subs or silos.
According to estimates from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists the US and Russia keep ~1700 warheads on operational alert each, including bombs and ballistic missile warheads. The rest are in storage (another ~3000 each).
Cheating START means bringing the storage stockpiles online which would be telegraphed by increased activity and you bet both sides are watching that very intensely indeed. Same for bringing more subs operational than usual. My country keeps at least two of our subs in port at any one just to avoid looking suspicious, even though they could at times have 3 out.

1/2

Yes as I said, a published automated system has great deterrent value. But once deterrence fails it is a massive liability. Also, it has to retaliate in proportion to the attack. Tactical nuclear use? Conventional conflict? Where do you draw the line? These are all considerations that need to be made on the merits of each case. A system that looks sufficient could be put together but the consensus is it's just not feasible to put together a full fledged AI just to figure it out. And the political environment may change, the US military is an extension of the US govt. and with regards to nukes is very serious about it's ethics towards the civilian population, only letting National Guard staff the silos and such so as to prevent them from becoming removed from civilian control.

Besides if you publish your rulebook in advance, you let your enemy know exactly what he can and cannot get away with. Nobody wants to hand that kind of information over.

If you publish your AI has a "no first use" policy, then anyone with superior conventional forces has nothing to fear. You also have to justify your policy to your own people. Good luck explaining why the people of Dayton are disposable but the tarmac strip next to them is worth ending the world over.

And about the launch capacity, the US stockpile in 1991 was 19,000 warheads, now it's 4500 and Russia has gone from 30,000 to about the same. Arms reduction treaties.

>>34079767

You're right I only have access to public information, but a lot of this stuff is just physics. Public thinktanks publish a lot of information about nukes. You can find a hell of a lot if you're interested, much more so than you can about say, SSN forces, because it's in the public interest.

File: Why Elmo Drinks.jpg (44KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x610px

>>34080060
>>34080066
3/3
Some Sauces
https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

https://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/publications1/TrimmingNuclearExcess.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions#Radar_blackout

(I was wrong it's not gamma radiation, it's electromagnetic noise generated by ionization of the air.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christofilos_effect

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/On_Thermonuclear_War.html?id=EN2gtPTjFd8C

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bqYQBgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_similarbooks

>mfw I kept this tab open for 4 hrs because of the Captcha problem

I need to get out more

>>34080066
>You're right I only have access to public information, but a lot of this stuff is just physics.
this is why i love /k/, every now and then you run into weaponized autists

>>34080153
Now let's not be jealous of his power level...

>>34080153
>>34080183


I can own nothing else to weaponize here in bongistan. Not even a bike wheel.

File: IMG_0771.jpg (335KB, 1920x1285px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1920x1285px

>>34078451
Dude we use lasers now. Do some fucking research before posting you fucking nigger.

>>34078451
>What's the current state of US's nuclear defense and what's your stance on it?
Good for accidental launch or a rogue state.

>Is it automated like Russia?
Russia's defenses are not automated.

>Were any improvements in technology made since the 80s?
yes.


>>34078784
>their missiles are probably require far more man hours to make launch-ready than ours too.
There ready time is probably pretty close to US times.

>>34078795
Thats not Oppenheimer.

>>34078763
>ICBMs historically have huge CEPs which limits their use as counter force assets
The opposite is true.


> Russia can only realistically expect to hit CNC bunkers or reinforced Silos with air dropped or larger unitary ICBM warheads.
Their land based MIRVs are very capable of hitting US hardened targets.

>>34078930
>You think a nuclear war would be limited to one strike every now and then? That we would trade a strike on LA for a strike on St Petersburg?
It's possible.

>>34079043
>What exactly would trigger Russia/China to fire on the United States?
It comes down to Russia/China believing that the consequences of NOT launching are worse than the possible retaliation that would come, or believing that they have an absolute advantage over the probable end state for both sides.

>What purpose would that achieve when they could simply invade neighboring countries if international relations come to this stage?
Hard to say without understanding the context of the crisis.

>>34079148
>This is only mainly relevant for military targets because cities are big targets and don't take much psi to damage.
You don't target cities. You might be targeting a facility or somthing inside the city, but the mass targeting of urban areas is something not done in decades.

> SAC,
Doesn't exist.

CONT

>>34079343
>Then all the more reason to have an automated system?
Both the US and Russia (China is assumed to have a similar opinion) want someone to have ultimate launch authority. They never wanted to have a system where the decision to launch was removed from a human.
There have been times where false alarms have been generated, but a person exercised his judgement and prevented a terrible accident.

>>34079515
>The first thing an attacker would do is airburst a warhead in the upper atmosphere, the resulting radiation fries those fancy early warning radars.
Kristensen is a big fan of this strategy and I'll never know why. It has a role in some attack options but both the US and Russia have space based sensors that would be unaffected and still able to track targets.

>>34079767
Transparency in your missile defenses is generally a good thing. While some sensitive information may be hidden, the overall capability of your system is not something you want to hide. If you let your opponent fill in the blanks on your capability, he often times will create the worst case scenario. In terms of creating a missile defense, this can actually be incredibly destabilizing.

>>34080066
>And about the launch capacity, the US stockpile in 1991 was 19,000 warheads, now it's 4500 and Russia has gone from 30,000 to about the same.

US Launch capacity is at about 1400, Russian is at about 1760.

>>34080819
>>34080783
>>34080832
Is that you opp?

Can you answer a question? Has any country ever laid out plans to target Australia or new Zealand in a nuclear attack? do you think that might happen in the future, considering NATO might be up against China in the next few decades?

>>34080851
>Can you answer a question?
Yes.

>Has any country ever laid out plans to target Australia or new Zealand in a nuclear attack?
Yes. During the Late Unpleasantness the Soviets would have had a few targets that were related to US Early Warning and command and control. Targets near Woomera, Exmouth are still possible targets, but not likely ones.
Keep in mind that both sides had plans to target economic targets in other nations to prevent possible use by the enemy. This doesn't mean that they would have, but it was a possibility they considered.

>do you think that might happen in the future, considering NATO might be up against China in the next few decades?
With China, it would be safe to say that they have plans to hit countervalue targets in Australia, but there are plans for all sorts of things. The most likely (but not the only) reason China would target Australia is as a retaliation for a first strike by the US. If the Australians were part of whatever the precipitating crisis was, it would be possible that they would be struck.

>>34080924
>Targets near Woomera, Exmouth are still possible targets, but not likely ones.
I can understand Exmouth considering it would be tendering nuclear submarines, but why Woomera?

>it would be safe to say that they have plans to hit countervalue targets in Australia, but there are plans for all sorts of things.
Does this reflect Chinese doctrine or is it more of a "We need to make a plan for literally every possible occurrence" thing? I'd rather not get blown into the wind by the chinks.

>>34080957
>Woomera?
Meant Pine Gap.
>>34080957
>oes this reflect Chinese doctrine or is it more of a "We need to make a plan for literally every possible occurrence" thing? I'd rather not get blown into the wind by the chinks.
Aspect of nuclear war. You don't have time to make plans on the fly. So you make plans for all sorts of possibilities so you just have to pick up the phone and say "Do Plan A1".

>>34080783
>You don't target cities. You might be targeting a facility or somthing inside the city, but the mass targeting of urban areas is something not done in decades.

Is this because targeting cities is an inefficient way to allocate your limited first strike/counter strike assets that would be better spent on destroying the enemy's command structure/launch capabilities? Is this the case even when talking about countries aiming for weak -> strong deterrence? If it is the case, what do countries aiming for weak -> strong deterrence usually have as the targets for their nukes?

>>34081006
>Is this because targeting cities is an inefficient way to allocate your limited first strike/counter strike assets that would be better spent on destroying the enemy's command structure/launch capabilities?
Suppose I want to destroy your oil refining capacity. I have a possible target, a city with an oil refinery. I have two choices. I can target the refinery, which is on the outskirts of the city. Or I can target the center of the city.
Hitting the center of the city would kill a large number of people, some of whom undoubtedly work at the refinery.
However the refinery, while damaged, is largely intact. Even if it is not operational, it could be used for spares for other refineries. If it can be repaired, you can bring in workers from outside the area, other cities that werent hit, and have it back up and running.

If I hit the refinery itself, it wont matter how many workers you can find.


>Is this the case even when talking about countries aiming for weak -> strong deterrence? If it is the case, what do countries aiming for weak -> strong deterrence usually have as the targets for their nukes?
Countries who want only 'Minimal Deterrence' like China, target in the same way. Killing people is not as efficient as destroying where they work.

>>34081046
Thank you for the insight. I understand now, and what you say makes perfect sense in terms of strategic considerations. About some things you said earlier:

>US Launch capacity is at about 1400, Russian is at about 1760.

Is this capacity just immediate launch capacity or total? How many are the Chinese estimated to have?

Also, what's your take on the North Korea situation? My understanding of it is that nothing has seriously changed apart from the US now responding to their saber rattling with its own and that they are going full speed ahead with the development of nukes in order to become de-facto independent from China and protect themselves from being overthrown by the international community. Is this correct? Do you know of any situations in which the Norks would deploy a nuclear weapon other than their sovereignty being at risk?

>>34080990
>>Meant Pine Gap.
Fair enough. Is there any chance that JORN would be hit in a Chinese engagement?

>>34081131
>Is this capacity just immediate launch capacity or total?
This is a bit of a complex question. The US has several categories of its nuclear weapons.
Active are weapons that are mated to delivery systems or ready to go. This would include TNWs but the US doesn't actually have any so its all strategic. This is the number used in NewSTART.

You also have the Hedge stockpile. These are weapons that are in storage and would be available in hours or days. This is not counted, and the US doesn't disclose its make up, but its probably several thousand B61's W76's W78s B83.


Then you have the inactive stockpile. a Few thousand W62's, W78s and W69. These are awaiting dismantlement.

There is another category that exists, but it is not official, and that is dismantled warheads. Sitting in cardboard boxes in PANTEX are components from dismantled nuclear weapons. A warehouse full of them. In storage at Oak Ridge are the pits from these weapons. It would be possible, given a few months, to reassemble these into functioning warheads.

>How many are the Chinese estimated to have?
A few hundred.

>Also, what's your take on the North Korea situation? My understanding of it is that nothing has seriously changed apart from the US now responding to their saber rattling with its own and that they are going full speed ahead with the development of nukes in order to become de-facto independent from China and protect themselves from being overthrown by the international community. Is this correct? Do you know of any situations in which the Norks would deploy a nuclear weapon other than their sovereignty being at risk?
For the most part. The US wants to impress upon the DPRK that having North Korea in possession of a credible threat to the US is unacceptable.
The DPRK probably believes that the US is bluffing and is unwilling to wage a war over it and that the ROK isn't either.

>>34081158
It is possible.

>>34080066
>The US military is an extension of the US govt. and with regards to nukes is very serious about it's ethics towards the civilian population, only letting National Guard staff the silos and such so as to prevent them from becoming removed from civilian control.

Not true, USAF Missiliers man alert stations, USAF nuke maintainers do the wrench turning and USAF security forces do the protecting. You don't see any large numbers of ANG pulling any real duties with the silos.

File: Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg (38KB, 300x303px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 300x303px

>>34078451
>implying nukes actually exist

>>34081476
Are you insane?

File: 1477688826056.jpg (32KB, 160x150px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 160x150px

>>34081491
>replying to stale bait

>>34081491
On 7 April Donald tested his nuclear capability by a-bombing Syria.

The US a-bomb didn't work, of course!

So Donald ordered a massive Tomahawk cruise missiles attack instead. But all missiles missed the target in Syria or were shot down.

So Donald launched a single MOAB attack in Afghanistan 13 April instead! MOAB? The GBU-43 bomb contains 11 tons of explosives and is known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb. It is dropped by a slow plane up in the air on the target on ground.

We don't know what the target was. A hospital? A wedding? 11 tons!? But don't worry. None of the 4,000 U.S. a-bombs and nuclear warheads work! They are all 100% propaganda and disinformation agreed, bilaterally, with the enemy, since 1945. Now Donald intends to go along alone. Unilaterally.

Why cannot Donald slow down a little. A few months in office and bombing everywhere ... with useless bombs! It doesn't work!

>>34081889
This is great work.

So how would a nuclear exchange, even if its onesided, reflect on the rest of the world, in terms of nuclear fallout and radiation clouds and all that good stuff?

File: Missile_control_LM-1.jpg (228KB, 879x826px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 879x826px

>>34080819
>Russian space based early warning

Much of what I've read has stated Russian early warning systems have lagged behind the US, to the point where their ground assets are really the only credible ones. Can you talk to the Russian space based detection capability?

>>34082327
>Can you talk to the Russian space based detection capability?
They launched second satellite of a new EWS 2 days ago..

>>34082327
They lack a robust launch detection network, but they have the ability to track exoatmospheric ballistic targets and deliver that data to the ground in real time.

>>34082540

Looks like EKS was in such development that the MoD had to settle in the courts. Getting launched 6 years late is not inspiring. Given the predecessors weren't particularly cutting edge, what's to say the new ones are that much better?

File: Pebble2_001.png (184KB, 696x527px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 696x527px

I’m surprised there is so little interest in Brilliant Pebbles and push to resurrect the program.

It always seemed to me like an 80’s ideas that belongs in the 2020s: clouds of small, smart cheap components, machine learning, automation, high level of decentralization. If SpaceX, Blue Origin and the crowd of other new/old space fulfill expectations to bring down launch costs dramatically, it’ll be much more affordable, and imaginable to put up the thousands of interceptor satellites needed. Miniaturization and A.I. has vastly improved, hugely so since the 80s when Brilliant Pebbles was conceived. Surely we can build much smaller, cheaper and thus populous interceptors? This has been a fashionable trend in satellite technology: SmallSats, CubeSats, Elon Musks’s humungous internet satellite constellation.

>>34083262
>let's put hundreds of thousands of tiny, extremely dense projectiles going at ridiculously large speeds into earth orbit
>nothing could possibly go wrong
did you not learn anything from Project West Ford, Ronald?

>>34083325
This is a common criticism made by people who don't understand that the volume in LEO is extremely vast. Paint flecks and random space debris is one thing, discrete easily tracked small sats in quickly decaying orbits is another.

>>34083393
>a manned spacecraft gets punctured by one of your autism droplets and the people inside it die a horrible death
>"well dude there was only a 0.001% chance of that happening due to how big space is lmao"

try bringing that to NASA and watch how quickly you get decked by the people who worked on columbia

File: 1480433699346.png (375KB, 763x960px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 763x960px

>>34083262
Do you want kessler syndrome? Because that's how you get kessler syndrome.

>>34083405
>>34083426


Columbia's loss had nothing to do with space debris. You have a cartoonish understanding fueled by hollywood fantasy and hysteria .

By it's nature Brilliant Pebbles interceptors must be launched to low earth orbit where residual atmospheric drag in combination with solar wind and lunar perturbation is significant enough to pull down everything pretty quickly. The issue of space junk is only a problem at higher orbits.

>>34083534
>Columbia's loss had nothing to do with space debris.
do you have autism? the implication was that your proposal poses a large threat to manned spaceflight, and that people who have experienced tragedies like columbia would be strongly opposed to your proposal (and for good reason).

>By it's nature Brilliant Pebbles interceptors must be launched to low earth orbit where residual atmospheric drag in combination with solar wind and lunar perturbation is significant enough to pull down everything pretty quickly
that's not an argument, and brilliant pebbles is completely irrelevant. just use a fighter jet to launch an interception missile if you want to take down something in LEO.

Hey Oppenheimer, I'm an undegrad planning to write about the North Korean nuclear program.

Is there any way I might be able to contact you for questions/guidance since there aren't any nuclear weapons experts among the faculty that would be supervising this project?

Regards,

anon

File: dcx16.jpg (38KB, 720x474px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 720x474px

>>34083566
YOU are the only one being emotional about it, and in a very misdirected away. Brilliant Pebble's interceptors sit as low as possible because ICBMs follow flat, suborbital trajectories. Rapidly reusable launchers like DC-X were a big deal in the 90s not just because they are necessary to put up the initial multi-thousand constellations of space based interceptors, but also to loft replacements. The interceptors were expected to be attrited relatively frequently do to atmospheric drag.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#Low_Earth_orbit_.28LEO.29

>Manned missions are mostly at 400 km (250 mi) and below, where air drag helps clear zones of fragments. Atmospheric expansion as a result of space weather raises the critical altitude by increasing drag

>>34083833
i know how this works, fuckhead. your proposal is fundamentally flawed. creating a gigantic cloud of titanium bullshit then expecting literally every vessel launching into orbit to just navigate around it without flaws is such a stupid idea it doesn't even deserve consideration.

>>34083878
>doesn't even deserve consideration.
Orly


>Brilliant Pebbles later became the centerpiece of a revised architecture under the Bush Administration SDIO.
>John H. Nuckolls, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1988 to 1994, described the system as “The crowning achievement of the Strategic Defense Initiative

How's that for 'consideration'. Brilliant Pebbles was literally the leading SDI system considered when ballistic missile defense was in vogue. People vastly smarter than you and institutions vastly more resourced than your basement battle station 'considered' and endorsed Brilliant pebbles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

>>34083965
>People vastly smarter than you and institutions vastly more resourced than your basement battle station 'considered' and endorsed Brilliant pebbles.
sucked in cunt, i live in the attic.

>>34083973
Your mom's attic, is that right?

>>34083983
no, my sister's.

>>34078451
The entire concept is dangerous. In South Korea it may lead American planers to think that they can attack North Korea at a reduced risk of Tokyo getting nuked, which is bad if they are gambling on say a 30% chance of a sucessful attack.

>>34079736
>Weird. I didn't think Russia was such a soft touch.
They were not. In 1972 they agreed to limit their deployment in exchange for the US not developing it's own ABM system. The US unilaterally withdrew from the treaty in 2002. Bush clamed the US was not bound by a treaty with the USSR dispite Clinton era agreements that the treaty was still valid between the US and the Sovet successor states.

Under what scenarios do you guys see Tokyo being nuked? More specifically, in what scenarios does North Korea, China and/or Russia target Tokyo as a population center?

>>34083609
email me.

>>34083973
>sucked in cunt,
Ausfag detected, I haven't heard that term since '91 in Yr 7.

>>34084361
I know you've used a few emails, and I'm not sure which ones are throwaways. Which one should I use?

>>34084721
Not him but, email all of them and he'll reply from one/send you the correct address?

>>34080060
>>34080066

Shit thread is still up. Might as well ask if you're still here.

1. Are conventional radars our only means of detection in this day and age?

2. Could a silos be 'high capacity', capable of sending several warheads at short intervals?
Don't you think it is within the realm of possibilities that the US has set up hundreds more of hidden silos scattered across the world, or developed fully automated subs that can receive communications under detection depths?

> the US military is an extension of the US govt. and with regards to nukes is very serious about it's ethics towards the civilian population
Do you really believe that after the NSA and all the shit the CIA has always pulled. And the monstrous shit corporations get away with on top of that?

Who exactly controls the nuke launching systems? What incentives do they have to hold plebian ethics in high regards when they could act like ambitious driven pyschopaths?

>>34086484
no idea about the rest but early warning systems detect rocket launches optically i think.

>>34080851
>>34080924
Everything you've been told about modern warfare is a lie. WW3 will last a few minutes before it will be all over. Their doctrine is total annihilation, don't think a single nation will be spared because it is 'neutral'. Germany never waiting for Belgium's declaration of war to step all over it.

In the context of a nuclear exchange between the chinks, Russians and Americans they will spare no cobalt infused warheads to ensure that no single country stands on its feet to reap the world after them. Don't believe the lie that yields and civilian centers don't matter anymore, they will be the first targets. This is how they want to keep you asleep.

>>34086600
The face of mental illness.

>>34084361
Come back we miss you.

We lost moot.

We can't handle losing you too.

Do you work at Google with moot now?

the Chinese are advancing at leaps and bounds far faster than anybody predicted. The real question is how far have they gotten with true doomsday weapons like "rods from god" or red mercury cluster bomblets. Research in the 1960's studied the possibility of ravaging whole grids on the map with the equivalent of nuclear napalm from orbit, using dirty payloads of plutonium or cobalt to maximize the radioactive residue after the deed. I have PDFs of declassified documents from the Rand Corporation that studied these tactics the same way they talked about artillery fire or simple manpacked nukes.

It's important to point out that surviving inside a shelter underground with proper entrances and ventilation baffles is still very possible even if you were beneath a swath of nuclear napalm. It is survival aboveground in a small basement or concrete building with minimal protection that would be impossible in a target zone. Correctly constructed Vaults survive the worst science-fiction horror you could imagine aboveground and the research conducted with live nuclear weapons proves it.

P.S. I have a good friend in the Air Force who told me twenty years ago that the espionage that resulted in the loss of red mercury was worse than the leakage of the secret of the hydrogen bomb - he told me the U.S. government has been trying to recover gracefully ever since it got out and they planted a comprehensive cover story that it was all a "hoax" they used to trap terrorists with. He told me the stuff permits nuclear reactions in devices the size of golf balls and it was one of the deadliest weapons ever stolen from Los Alamos lab research.

>>34087598
>red mercury
Why do nuke threads always attract these kinds of retards.
Oh Oppen, how I miss you.
How we all do.

File: 53163685_p0.jpg (1MB, 2024x2024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2024x2024px

>>34087598
>In April 2009 it was reported from Saudi Arabia that rumors that Singer sewing machines contained "red mercury" had caused the prices of such machines to massively increase in the Kingdom, with some paying up to SR 200,000 for a single machine which could previously have been bought for SR 200.[23] Believers in the rumor claimed that the presence of red mercury in the sewing machines' needles could be detected using a mobile telephone; if the line cut off when the telephone was placed near to the needle, this supposedly proved that the substance was present.

>In Medina there was a busy trade in the sewing machines, with buyers seen using mobile phones to check the machines for red mercury content, while it was reported that others had resorted to theft, with two tailors' shops in Dhulum broken into and their sewing machines stolen. At other locales, there were rumors that a Kuwait-based multinational had been buying up the Singer machines, while in Al-Jouf, the residents were led to believe that a local museum was buying up any such machines that it could find, and numerous women appeared at the museum offering to sell their Singer machines.[citation needed]

>There was little agreement among believers in the story as to the exact nature or even color of the red mercury, while the supposed uses for it ranged from it being an essential component of nuclear power, to having the ability to summon jinn, extract gold, or locate buried treasure and perform other forms of magic. The official spokesman for the Riyadh police said that the rumors had been started by gangs attempting to swindle people out of their money, and denied the existence of red mercury in sewing machines.[24]
Holy shit I hate the third world so much

File: 1485869518535.jpg (29KB, 413x438px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 413x438px

>>34087642
>Organisations involved in landmine clearance and unexploded munitions disposal noted a belief amongst some communities in southern Africa that red mercury may be found in certain types of ordnance. Attempting to extract red mercury, purported to be highly valuable, was reported as a motivation for people dismantling items of unexploded ordnance, and suffering death or injury as a result. In some cases it was reported that unscrupulous traders may be deliberately promoting this misconception in an effort to build a market for recovered ordnance.[21]

>An explosion in Chitungwiza, Zimbabwe that killed five people is attributed to a quest to reclaim red mercury from a live landmine.
Fucking christ why are brown people so retarded

>>34087642
Notice how this kind of bullshit conveniently happens in Saudi Arabia and other close vassals of the pentagon?

Chimps like you just never learn. Just like with the flying saucers of the 50s led to the government agencies to fabricate UFO panics and sightings to stain the credibility of the few genuine accounts of flying prototypes.

>>34078858
You're a rare breed anon.

The kind of poster that this hell hole needs.

File: 219d6d7e730cec7e4fe6593626d06e62.jpg (187KB, 730x1024px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 730x1024px

>>34087674
Whatever my dude, whatever floats your goat.
But please, try taking your lithium if just for tonight.
Don't do it for me or any of us.
Do it for you family

Oh and for anons hungry for more retardation and scientific literacy the wiki page for this shit is solid gold
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury

File: 1464457074095.jpg (61KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x450px

>>34087686
*illiteracy
Cursed autocorrect
Oh and here's another cherry for you all
>As mentioned earlier, one of the origins of the term "red mercury" was in the Russian newspaper Pravda, which claimed that red mercury was "a super-conductive material used for producing high-precision conventional and nuclear bomb explosives, 'stealth' surfaces and self-guided warheads."[5] Any substance with these sorts of highly differing properties would be suspect to most, but the stealth story continued to have some traction long after most had dismissed the entire story.
You heard it hear first folks
Red mercury is magic dust that makes western tecnik that's too complicated for simple slavic minds work.
You can't make this shit up

>>34086484
The NSA/CIA dont fuck with people just because anon.

I'm not going to argue that they're perfect, or even good. But I certainly wouldn't say they do evil things on purpose.

>>34084718
Yeah cheers grandpa.

>>34080066
There's not a single air national guardsman in my missile field. And it crosses state lines.

>>34086484
>1. Are conventional radars our only means of detection in this day and age?
No.
>2. Could a silos be 'high capacity', capable of sending several warheads at short intervals?
Yes, but it would be expensive. Its easier to just build more silos, and in addition, if someone hits the silo, you only lose the single missile.

>Don't you think it is within the realm of possibilities that the US has set up hundreds more of hidden silos scattered across the world, or developed fully automated subs that can receive communications under detection depths?
No. Silo manufacture is extremely difficult to hide from intelligence operations. Beyond that, both sides are reluctant to kill everyone because, contrary to popular belief not every one in a leadership role is brutally insane and almost all have a strong self preservation streak.
The risks of your secret silos being discovered are substantial. It would quite possibly lead to nuclear war.

If you ever want to learn more about why its bad to have secret nuclear missiles all over the place, google a little known event called 'The Cuban Missile Crisis". You might find an article or two written about it.

As for fully automated subs, the risks of losing the subs are great, the lack of a human crew limits them to preplanned operations.


>Who exactly controls the nuke launching systems?
The President of the United States, or his lawful successor.

>What incentives do they have to hold plebian ethics in high regards when they could act like ambitious driven pyschopaths?
Because they like being alive.

File: 1484780998103.jpg (58KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 540x405px

>>34087799
You're doing god's work, anon.

>>34084361
We miss you baby
please forgive us

>>34086600
Go to bed grandpa the cold war is over

>>34078795
>Oppenheimer
Who?

>>34089445
....lurk moar.
Oppen is a somewhat respected tripfag who knows more about nukes than most of us. He's been doxxed a couple of times and is hailed by the oldfags. Except Phil. But that's a personal issue between them.
Anyways, he knows more than most of us because he has access to nore sensitive information and a better grasp on the subject. He has not, and will not give you classified info. But he will give you a thorough and detailed explanation if you give him a worthwhile question.
>Pay attention because you'll learn some things from him

>>34090602
>But that's a personal issue between them.
Do tell

>>34091235
Phil's retarded quest to antagonize literally everyone included opp at one point
It basically went like
>Opp: strong government control and coordination of survivors would be vital to post-nuclear rebuilding
And then Phil chimped out all "don't need no government, I'd kill you if you tried" ect, and opp engaged with his retardation which made Phil chimp out even harder

>>34091591
brb going though the archive. I need to read this. what was opps retardation?

>>34091591
Found it. Deosnt seem like Oppen went retard, but it did reinforce my opinion that Phil is a scumbag.

>>34087598
>>34087642
>>34087674
"red mercury" doesn't even exist.

>>34091786
It's a shame that the likes of Oppenheimer and Dragon must contend with goons like this. Sure, a little pressure to keep them awake is nice, but for what they bring to this place, they don't deserve fuckwits spitting on them, and definitely not doxxing. Fuck...

>>34092157
my point exactly.
did you even read my post?
>>34087642

>>34087680
I'm not as good as the other guy tho.

>>34091786
As in opp decided to engage with the retarded shit phil was doing
I mangled it a little

>>34093008
he is very controlled, it seems like he just wants to correct falsehoods wherever he goes, even if that includes arguing with a retard to get more falsehoods.

i saw one of his posts where he said he had nightmares about nuclear war around the end of the cold war. how old is oppenheimer? like 60?

>>34093065
40's

>>34091786
Links, you homosexual.

>>34093065
I believe Oppenheimer is in his 60's. 63 to be more precise but I can't tell you for sure. If it was him that posted it he didn't have a trip on which is normal as of late. But he has a certain way with words so I can usually tell when it's him.
But this is a mongolian basket weaving forum after all so take it with a grain of salt.

>>34093205
40's

>>34093241
is that you oppenheimer?

>>34087598
>the Chinese are advancing at leaps and bounds far faster than anybody predicted

stealing technology wholesale on a national scale enables all types of possibilities here.

>>34093107
>>34093205
>>34093241
Either of these is too old to be on 4chan

>>34078451
>What's the current state of US's nuclear defense and what's your stance on it?


Fucking ridiculous.

Google "Nike-Sprint" or "Sprint Missile".

Zero to Mach 10 in five seconds.

We are standing still, twiddling our thumbs hoping shit does not happen.

File: 543045LupinIIIPartIIlupiniii18453680400300.jpg (28KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x300px

>>34093991
>tfw we have an entire gaggle of old men on /k/
>tfw the oldest confirmed is a 75+ year old trapper and consummate outdoorsman who originally came here for the chinese cartoons
Oh and hi chinkposter, glad to hear you're still butthurt you couldn't drive Oppen out for good

>>34094050
I'm pretty sure there was even one guy that fought in a colonial war in Africa or some shit.

>>34093991
You're forgetting that /k/is a weapons board that attracts a lot of people. Most of the veterans who were part of the 2003 surge are in their mid 30's. Those from the days of the cheap Nuggets are in their late 20's. And any Gulf vets that show up from time to time are at least in their late 40's.
>Shush now little newfag, the adults were having a talk about super serial stuff.

THAAD continues to be garbage that can only reliably kill SCUDs

>>34094031
Discontinued in the 70s retard.

>>34094358
Im a moron: The post.

File: 1495863855772.jpg (147KB, 1280x868px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x868px

the next war will be nuclear because nukes are the only thing left the U.S. military has that actually work. The orbital platforms and space planes are where most of the money is being spent. The reason they have been doing press releases about these things recently instead of keeping them secret is to try to intimidate their enemies with some of the last crap left over from the Cold War that hasn't rusted out or fallen apart from lack of maintenance.

I have this feeling I have gotten from twenty years of reading everything I could get my hands on about this subject that this last stuff is nightmarish. It's death shroud cobalt-60 salted weapons and other devices for wars where nobody gives a damn anymore about how many civilian casualties. The point becomes civilian casualties. If you don't attend to your own civil defense you should not expect your government to expect that you will survive the use of these weapons. When they were first put up there, it was intended seriously that they should serve only as the ultimate deterrent, never to be used. The current administration is a wholly different group of men, with wholly different psychology. They are going to use them.

Amerkwa has no future. It can go out with a bang or it can go out with a whimper.

>>34095221
You are a fucking idiot.

>>34095228
Nice rebuttal, faggot.

>>34094367
because of politics, not technology.

FFS, some of you kids.

>>34095221
>cobalt-60 salted weapons

samuelcohen.kek

>>34095233
I don't rebut nonsense.

>>34095252

Sprint and Nike-Hercules are a far cry from the ABM systems of today. They don't even use HTK and they use neutron flux from a low yield nuclear detonation to ATTEMPT to destroy an incoming warhead.

The only apt comparison is the difference between trying to do calculus using an abacus and doing it using a supercomputer.

>>34095273
Not an argument

>>34095252
Which basically means they kept doing it, but in secret instead.

>>34095267
Another Jew.

>>34095298
Jews are really good at designing ER and thermonuclear weapons

>>34095298
You know what else?
Nuclear weapons really run of powdered unicorn anus.

Your ideas have exactly the same amount of supporting data as the above statement.

>>34095283

Save there are little to no ABM systems currently that can compete. simply because silly "treaties stagnated development.

Name one that had the performance of Sprint.

Also, your analogy is flawed. When trying to intercept a multitude of targets, you do not try for a point defense, you try for an area defense, as far from the target as possible. Sprint did this. . 37 miles up.

>>34095321
Sprint never went for area defense. It was low-yield kT W66, it had enough neutron flux for maybe a few hundred feet beyond the detonation point to actually cause sufficient enough weakening of the RV to ensure aerodynamic destruction.

The neutron flux only has a length of a few microseconds before it dissippates meaning it has no significant long lasting effects.

The idea of comprehensive ABM in the terminal phase of re-entry is already flawed.

You can't defeat N+1. MIRVs already made Sprint and Nike-Hercules basically irrelevant.

Sprint was and is a technological marvel, but that doesn't mean it's better then anything new.

>>34095360

Again, name what replaced it.

Spartan suffered the same fate as Sprint,

So far you've offered nothing to offset the losses suffered , other than "oh it would not have worked", when a few moments of 'the googles" will point out that "at least, it was better than what we have now".

Come on, at least defend your position. "We" had some form of quasi point defense against NREV, and now, we have jack and or shit.

>>34095305
And also good at lying.

>>34095317
I'll give you some links if you stop being a whiny bitch.

>>34095397
As far as I know we never did replace it.
It was a final line defense option anyway and the advancements of MIRVs made it almost moot.

>>34095407
Links had better be to credible sources or at least compiled from credible sources.

Otherwise take it to /x/ or /pol/.

>>34095424
if you're just going to abuse the report function until one mod reflexively deletes a post we should probably end there.

>>34095416

Except both worked, and were far better than what we have now.

>>34095397
>retard defends his opinions with "come on" and "please, kid"
at least try.
>mirv makes nike and sprint irrelevant
>treaties on both sides make any of this useless
>sprint's only advanced feature was going really fast
>modern guided missiles much more precise and do not require large warheads anyway
>retard still argues that muh sprint is better based off wikipedia articles and cracked.com
pure pottery

Ukraine held a significant stockpile of the USSR's nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War that they gave up in the 90s because they were unable to actually use them as-is due to the Russians being in control of the authorization system. What would it have taken to reprocess these complete but unusable nuclear weapons into ones that were usable and under their control?

>>34095444

And to you, name what replaced them, other than hollow promises by empty politicians?

Ignoring your silly jibes, of course.

File: 1457617004872.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

>>34095437
>I have no sources other then the darkest depths of my rectum so I'll fall back on the old standby, my massive persecution complex
If you're going to stroll in babbling about red mercury and salted bombs you could at least bring some godlikeproductions or abovetopsecret links for us to laugh at

>>34080783
>Good for accidental launch or a rogue state.
No.

>>34095552
Yes.

>>34081006
Intentionally avoiding the targeting of civilian population can be beneficial for other reasons. By negating their weapon systems, the enemy's leadership may be more willing to negotiate an amenable outcome if their civilian population is held hostage.

File: USA2.jpg (36KB, 707x490px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 707x490px

>>34095552
Are you upset?

>>34095497

The concept of N+1 makes the idea of comprehensive ABM basically irrelevant.

Replacing it doesn't mean anything because even MacNamara realized it was retarded to try and do comprehensive ABM without bankrupting the entire country.

ABM only works for protecting against limited threats and

A.) will never work against mass raids except in certain scenarios

B.) the scenarios comprehensive ABM works theoretically in there is a significant Pk reduction because the phases of ICBM flight it covers, interceptors are significantly susceptible to countermeasures of all types.

>>34095283
The US had HTK in 1964 with ARPAT.
UPSTAGE was intercepting MaRVs in 1972.

>>34095712
The real advantage of ABM systems is that they complicate targeting. Even if they have very low Pk, they still have to be accounted for. This can force you to use two warheads instead of three because you need three to get to the DE required for the option.
This reduces the overall number of targets your enemy can hit because hes having to divert more warheads to compensate. In the Cold War this didnt matter, because you could always build more warheads.
Today, there are limits on warheads. Even a marginally effective ABM system can reduce the number of potential targets by as much as a third.

>>34095537
>space planes
http://www.rense.com/general31/dom.htm

>nukes are the only thing left the U.S. military has that actually work
http://takimag.com/article/the_golden_dodo_bird_in_the_sky/print#axzz1iwc43Epl

>China Almost certainly calibrating space based weapons
http://gizmodo.com/5859081/why-is-china-building-these-gigantic-structures-in-the-middle-of-the-desert

>The real power in the Third World War will come from hypersonic nuclear glider drones
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/stratcom-china-moving-rapidly-to-deploy-new-hypersonic-glider/

>Doomsday devices
https://www.wired.com/2007/09/soviet-doomsday

>The Bush administration reduces the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal that are part of the public record
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/18/bush-approves-significant-nuclear-stockpile-reduction.html

>Why? Well, why not? If you've got a couple hundred ten megaton cobalt bombs with pinpoint accuracy in orbit
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm

Sheeps like you live in a fantasy, built because you know you have nowhere to escape if even 1/10th of these predictions turn out to be true. So hopelessly dependent on the narrative, you will fight to the death to uphold it.

Many sources from mainstream '''''''real''''' news (because plebean brained savants like you will slurp that shit up but call off beat, enthusiast websites 'fake news') that I accumulated over the years all conveniently started returning a 'server not found' over the reign of Kenyan in chief Obumer. I wonder why.

>>34095804
This is one of the analysts you are bringing up:
>Scott Locklin works on quantitative finance problems in Berkeley,

The easily refuted nonsense he wrote in 2012 about the F-35 should have clued you in that he, much like you, is ignorant about defense affairs.

Not to mention that none of those are actual academic sources. Your first rense article comes from Pravda.

lol. You are one delusional moron.

>>34095771
>ARPAT
A successful demonstration of HTK on a live re-entering target wasn't achieved until 1984. This was the first time that an ABM had performed an intercept without using a nuclear payload.

ABM systems complicate targeting but are more expensive then building more missiles. Building the ABM infrastructure to sufficiently cause enough disruption is so expensive that it's not feasible.

Google "Glenn Kent Thinking about America's Defense" and go to Page 202 and start reading if you need it explained completely.

>>34095841
>ABM systems complicate targeting but are more expensive then building more missiles.
You might have a valid point if NewSTART wasnt a thing.
But it is.

File: scales.png (813KB, 711x975px) Image search: [Google]

813KB, 711x975px

>>34095804
>he actually did it the absolute madman
I'm a bit underwhelmed to be honest. Most of it is just fluffy clickbate trite
though http://www.rense.com/ is quite nice, has that stanky web 1.0 schizophreniacore web design like old infowars or timecube.
4/10 you can do better

>>34095882
I can go on all day but the truth is I compiled most of these a long time ago. Many links are broken now and Im too lazy to test each and every single one of them for your sorry sapiens mind.

But despair not, yee of little faith! If you stick around this thread I'll dump some more in a short while.

>>34095856
Regardless of newSTART, GMD has been making strides. The new EKV block has a test scheduled later this year.

SM-3 is still making strides and later block versions will be basically impossible to get around if properly positioned in the baltic or arctic.

>>34095841
>Building the ABM infrastructure to sufficiently cause enough disruption is so expensive that it's not feasible.
Not accurate at all.
While with the Soviet Union, an increase of .02 in pD was largely insignificant, that would translate into a reduction of about 15% of current Russian targeting.
Beyond that, Russia doesn't really have the option of building more missiles, as they are limited in the number of warheads they deploy and must provide verification. While their current systems do carry extensive penetration aids, the number of possible targets is still fixed. Additional decoys eat into throw weight, and would even further reduce the number of potential targets as space that would be used by RVs is instead given to penetration aids.
Never mind the fact that your DE still needs to be met.

>Google "Glenn Kent Thinking about America's Defense" and go to Page 202 and start reading if you need it explained completely.
If you think that what Kent is saying has relevance in todays strategic environment, you are mistaken. Kent had very valid criticisms of the modeling when the Soviet Union was around and they were able to build as many warheads or missiles as needed.

But this is a different time.

>>34095918
Agreed.
While it will never be a reliable shield, it does its mission. It complicated Russian targeting, and protects against accidents and rogue nations.

>>34095905
Here bruh.
This website is full of good info. Keep fighting!
http://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/index.html

File: FJF.png (275KB, 487x766px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 487x766px

>>34095956
oooh baby this is some good shit.
Oppen, if you're still prowling around why don't you start a youtube channel debunking retardation like this?
I normally don't donate to shit on the internet but I'd sure as fuck donate to your patreon.

>>34095979
Oppen doesnt have the time since hes been hired to help draft the new Nuclear Posture Review.
He's going to MNGA. (Make Nukes Great Again)

File: rhet.png (777KB, 573x547px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 573x547px

>>34095983
Sad, but I understand.
Godspeed Oppen.
May you advice bring strength to the great American Empire

>>34096012
Pretty sure that was a joke.

>>34090602
Neither Phil nor Oppenheimer are old fags, unless they were posting for years under anonymous. They are well past the cut off. /k/ has very few oldfag tripfags, like bat guano.

>>34095945

Right...but we don't have a big bad enemy like the Soviet Union that's able to produce legions of ICBMs..

so what's the point of constructing a national comprehensive ABM shield that doesn't protect against anything?

SM-3/GMD serve well in protecting us for basically the foreseeable future, unless you see some other power rising up on Earth and building up a sizable ICBM force.

The Chinese don't seem interested in building up an ICBM force that even compares to the Russians and that's the only other country I can think of that would have the necessary capital to do it.

>>34096019
Eh, he's a busy man what with his think tanking and all that so it's not really far from the truth

>>34091591
>Opp: strong government control and coordination of survivors would be vital to post-nuclear rebuilding

Wouldn't we just invade mexico and move there? Seems a lot easier than rebuilding a nuclear wasteland.

>>34096026
yeah but then we'd have to live in mexico.
It's hot all the time, full of bugs, smells bad.
I'll take a nuclear wasteland personally

>>34096021
Oppenheimer was here when /n/ was /n/ews.

But nice try, newfriend.

>>34096030
>It's hot all the time, full of bugs, smells bad.

So was most of America before we altered the landscape to be more comfortable.

>>34096036
>Oppenheimer was here when /n/ was /n/ews.

I bet a newfag like you doesn't even know that /n/ was trains before it was /n/ews, so thanks for proving my point. Lurk more

>>34096022
>so what's the point of constructing a national comprehensive ABM shield that doesn't protect against anything?
There isn't one. I wasn't arguing for that.

>SM-3/GMD serve well in protecting us for basically the foreseeable future, unless you see some other power rising up on Earth and building up a sizable ICBM force.
No, I think what we have is in line with the current environment.

>The Chinese don't seem interested in building up an ICBM force that even compares to the Russians and that's the only other country I can think of that would have the necessary capital to do it.
Agreed.

>>34096021
Oppenheimer first came here in 2006. He was anon, and found it when we went looking online about buying an AR-15. In some forum, there was a screenshot of something from /k/. He came, and for some reason stayed.

File: Australia Nuclear War.jpg (174KB, 1252x913px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1252x913px

>>34080957
>>34080924
>>34080851
>Australia
This was the opinion of the office of National assessments in 1980, when nuclear stockpiles were much higher than they are now.

>inb4 people start knob slobbering on oppenknownothing
oops, too late

File: THAAD.jpg (391KB, 1320x338px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1320x338px

>>34079698
>THAAD
JUST FUCK MY MISSILE DEFENCE UP SENPAI

File: thiccpostboylink.jpg (182KB, 850x850px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 850x850px

>>34096254
sup chink, still eternally bootyblasted?
I'm sorry your country will never get to play with the big boys or be considered a genuine superpower but you shouldn't take your angst out on us.

File: Capture.jpg (388KB, 1582x1195px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1582x1195px

>>34096303
Cherrypicking, much?

>>34078451

Death Hand (Perimeter) is still online but it is meant to be turned on only in times of high tension. They thought of turning it into full-auto, but leaving this in the hands of a complete automatic system all the time is scary.

>>34091660
The 'his' was referring to Phil. Opp engaged with Phil's retardation, proving him wrong at every turn, which drove phil mad.

>>34095298
>Another Jew.
So were Einstein, Oppenheimer, Bohr, Teller, Ulam, and a bunch of others. Your point?

>>34091591
Katrina is still a raw wound for some people

File: Status6.jpg (63KB, 900x534px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 900x534px

>>34078763

>Effectively the US can realistically threaten to win the exchange

>>34096843
Is Oppie a redguard?

>>34097968
There is no proof that it exists.
It isn't the nightmare unstoppable weapon morons seem to think it is.
It doesnt really change the strategic equation in a nuclear war.

>>34096451
Dead Hand wont matter if all or most of the Russian missiles are destroyed by W76s with new fuses.

Also, Dead Hand =/= Perimeter.

>>34079043
>On top of the post above, it has dawned upon me that I have no idea how a nuclear war would happen in the first place?
>What exactly would trigger Russia/China to fire on the United States?

Modern Russia wouldn't fire on anyone, just like France or Britain has a lot of nukes they never intend to use offensively.

During the Cold War, as long as an attack from the West came, they'd nuke Europe to dust, similarly to what US would do if the East attacked.

China would never fire a single nuke, why would they? This is not C&C Generals, they are profiting from being the world's sole production superpower and being tied to every nation on Earth.
If China falls, the world economy, production chains everywhere, basic needs, all that goes to shit in an instant.

File: Libertado.jpg (36KB, 599x449px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 599x449px

>>34098009

Objekt 4202
Satan II
Zircon

>>34098064
Why would you post about something you are ignorant of?

>>34098064
>Objekt 4202
D2
>Satan II
Doesn't work, ejection tests delayed again.
>Zircon
D2

>>34097997
I don't believe so. He has yet to ask where the white women are, or tell us that he enjoys chicken, battered and cooked in hot oil, or the fruit of the watermelon plant.

You know there were a lot of white people there too right?

>>34078795
What the fuck? Oppenheimer stopped tripfagging? Is it because of the argument with Phil? >>34090602

>>34100180
chinks, slavs or buttflustered conspiracyfags like >>34087598
doxxed him, not phill.
phill just kicked and screamed as far as I know.

>>34100180
Had nothing to do with Phil.

>>34101780
I never doxed anyone, I dont give a shit about some government stooge who repeats the same rehashed 70s narrative on nukes.

And this is also why you don't use a distinctive identification on a community full of mentally ill creeps and pedophiles.

>>34102416
>I dont give a shit about some government stooge who repeats the same rehashed 70s narrative on nukes.
And I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of you BTFO of him in the archive, right?

Have at it. https://desuarchive.org/

>>34102416
>rehashed 70s narrative on nukes.
Interesting. What, in your opinion, have been the major changes in nuclear tactics since the 1970's?

>>34078763

You have to be at least 18 to post here, dipshit.

Oppenheimer was the tripcode guy that would contribute in nuclear themed threads. Guy had PHD level physics, strategy, and engineering knowledge. His name was in references to Dr Oppenheimer, the "I am become death, Destroyer of worlds" guy from the manhattan project

>>34078451
>thinking Russias nuclear armament is automated

where do these people come from?

>>34107095
I think I saw a youtube video titled "mrtva roka" (dead hand) that said that the Soviet Union built a machine that if it detected radiation in Russia it would nuke the US.

>>34107095
>>34107260
Its a commonly held belief. It is also mistaken.

>>34078451
GO AWAY VLAD, GO BACK TO PLAYING MARBLES WITH BEST KOREA!

>>34107260
>if it detected radiation in Russia it would nuke the US.

That's like building a machine that nukes the US if vodka and grief are detected in Russia.

>>34107057
Opp is policy, not physics or engineering.