Nukes

I know that back pack nukes are real, I also know by back pack it was still fuck all huge and you may as well have had a full size coleman fridge on your back.
But what would the realistic blast radius from one of these things be? Like 2 city blocks or a small town?
I envision them being used to take down say a massive factory or power plant , other than the radio-active dust would the surrounding community be effected?

Good talk way to start a thread

>>34463992
>But what would the realistic blast radius from one of these things be? Like 2 city blocks or a small town?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSi2IRXrhSo
probably quite a few city blocks

>>34463992
Fireball would be about 20 m in diameter.
Blast effects would kill or seriously injure everyone out to about 150 m.
Lethal radiation out to 500 m.

Give or take.

you're probably referring to the Special Atomic Demolition Munition, or as we refer to it as the SADM. Was never "officially" used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

File: DavyCrockett.webm (753KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 1920x1080px

>>34463992

>>34463931

The two most likely years for a nuclear exchange were 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis) and 1983 (Able Archer 83, Stanislav Petrov Incident). In 1962, bombers would have been the primary strategic weapon system, whereas by 1983, ballistic missiles both submarine-based and land-based had become the dominant means of nuclear deterrence.

File: 1492125368860.jpg (11KB, 200x196px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x196px

>>34466052
>No mention of the third and most likely year for nuclear exchange. 2017.

>>34466261
2018
Sometime after early March but before the middle of May.

>>34466261
If it's not a nuclear exchange in the same sense as 1945, we're not doing it right.

>>34466292
Why the wait until spring 2018?

>>34466292
N...No OPP. You're meant to tell us everything will be okay. Why that date?

>>34466324
If I had to guess, it's because we're out of time and North Korea's conventional arsenal and small allotment of nuclear weapons are enough of a threat to warrant a nuclear first strike to protect South Korea and Japan.

>>34466310
>>34466324

Spring planting is in full swing. Max radiological damage for corn and barley and rice. Catching hay and alfalfa before its been harvested.
Petrochemical feedstocks near annual low.

>>34466350
Wouldn't planting mean there are less people in the cities so North Korea could survive an attack better?

>>34466324
>You're meant to tell us everything will be okay.
They probably will be. But we are in somewhat murky waters.

File: DudeWhat.png (246KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 480x480px

>>34466350
I'd think we'd limit it to concussive annihilation rather than radiological genocide.

>>34466379
>>34466391

Thats for a first strike against the US. If you had your druthers, thats when you would want to strike.

>>34466399
Missed you, Opp. Hope you're doing ok.

>>34466399
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification, Opp. Good to see you. Shame it's not for better circumstances.

>>34466399
To be clear, thats for just wholesale killing. Something you might be doing if you had a limited arsenal and wanted to maximize your impact and could chose the time and place.


>>34466413
Was doing fine until the 4th.

>>34466433
I'll be around more for a few weeks.

Night Anons.

>>34466439
What's wrong Opp?

>>34466447
Goodnight Oppenheimer.

>>34466454
On the 4th, North Korea did force us to make a choice to set one of two terrible international precedents:
>Nuclear Weapons are an assured protection against intervention by the United States
>The United States normalizes nuclear warfare

>>34466399
Opp is the only good trip.

>>34466439
>Was doing fine until the 4th.
oh no

>>34466473
>On the 4th, North Korea did force us to make a choice to set one of two terrible international precedents:
>Nuclear Weapons are an assured protection against intervention by the United States
>The United States normalizes nuclear warfare


Which one did we choose?

Does anyone know if there are any publicly available photos of a thermonuclear secondary?

>>34466473
>On the 4th, North Korea did force us to make a choice to set one of two terrible international precedents
Yeah, but between the Norks and Iran, this choice was coming eventually.

>>34466520
Are you out of your fucking mind?

>>34466520
there are photos of the exterior of the entire package, but i don't think there are any photos of the secondary itself.

>>34466520
FBI detected

>>34466518
>Which one did we choose?

As far as I know we haven't chosen yet. Inaction sets the Immunity precedent by default.

File: giv me the nucc.png (17KB, 439x441px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 439x441px

Cobalt bombs are best bombs

>>34466530
We already have a very good idea on what they look like. I was just wondering any actual photographs exist.

I can find photos of primary stages.

>>34466520
Sure bro, you want any complimentary enriched uranium with that?

>>34466520
The funniest part is that you don't understand how funny that is.

>>34466675
Not him

Whats funny about it, is it spekal?

>>34466561
Not of any modern one.

>>34466695
It's not actually as ridiculous as everyone is making out, but think about how classified everything related to nukes is.

Then think about someone snapping a photo of the insides of a nuke and just putting it on the internet.

To clarify the secondary is the part that makes the really big boom.

>>34466675
There are leaked photos of nearly everything. You're a fool to think that it's impossible.

>>34466724
Don't get why nukes are so classified

They'll release instructions on how to make it, and how it works, but metioning them, and pictures of them are evil apparently.

>>34466399
Hey opp.

In your opinion, what's the best way to handle North Korea at this point?

I've got a couple ideas, but I'd rather see yours before posting my armchair general'ing.

>>34466739
So lets assume I had photos of a secondary. Do you understand how many very serious laws I would be breaking if I posted it?

>>34466752
The amount of time between the conception of nuclear weapons and the realization should tell you that you both do not know how to make one and do not understand how it works.

>>34466752
>They'll release instructions on how to make it, and how it works,

If that was the case then Iran and North Korea would of had Nuclear weapons an age ago.

>>34463931
Plutonium metal in pits is solid, but the alpha decay of plutonium produces helium. How is buildup of helium and fracturing of the solid metal dealt with?

>>34466788
Google searches can tell you how to make dirty bombs, but to get the materials, and to actually make one, that takes time

>>34466788
>would of
"would have", anon.
alternatively, "would've"

>>34466752
Material relating to nukes is the only information that is considered secret from the moment it is created.
All other information has to go through a process to be classified, but not nuclear weapons info.

There may be a lot of information out about them, but the details, things you might get from a photograph are still secret.

Even information in some wikipedia articles are technically secret and people w security clearences cant discuss it, even though its in wikipedia.

>>34466820
English is not my first language so I am sorry.

>>34466810
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMUEFZXkmDA

>>34466752
The basic theory is fine because, while you can make educated guesses on how to go from nuclear theory to a weapon, that takes time, resources and infrastructure. Generally the kind of things that get noticed.

what you're talking about is the precise information that allows one to go from theory to practicality, for that you don't need the infrastructure, or even the vast amounts of resources. With that kind of information you can skulk about quietly collecting just what you need over time.

>>34466818
All a dirty bomb is is a conventional explosive salted with nuclear material. Unless it's something stupidly hot with a half life measured in years instead of thousands it's going to only slightly increase cancer risks and incite panic.

>>34466818

I've kinda wondered that myself actually.

>>34466818
>anything radioactive + ANFO

I don't think you know what a "dirty bomb" is.

File: HomemadeNuclearReactor.jpg (66KB, 527x342px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 527x342px

Has anyone here accidentally made a nuclear reactor before?

>>34466917

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

>>34467160
That stuffs fucking cool, I remember watching a video a while back about that stuff, I was amazed

>>34466783
If you've never signed a document saying you'll keep it a secret, none.

>>34466810
The amount produced is small enough that it can escape though the grains. The voids created do cause pit damage though leading to their replacement every few decades.

File: Nuke1.jpg (324KB, 1024x676px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1024x676px

From AP.

File: Nuke2.jpg (312KB, 1024x676px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1024x676px

>>34467934

File: Nuke3.jpg (381KB, 1024x676px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1024x676px

>>34467943

File: Nuke4.jpg (315KB, 1024x676px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1024x676px

>>34467956

>>34467934
>>34467943
>>34467956
>>34467964

These are photo op pics. CSA mockups and the like. Not pics of secondaries.

>>34469533
No shit Sherlock.

Did I say they were secondaries at any point?

>>34466788
Making the actual nuke isn't the hard part, it's making the ingredients. Plutonium and tritium are a pain in the ass to make, and uranium (used in the easiest type of bomb to make) is astronomically expensive to make in any useable quantity.

>>34469626
Woah. Sorry man. Didnt mean to upset you. From the context of the thread (with the guy talking about pics) I thought thats what was being posted.

Sorry I made you upset. Hope your day gets better.

>>34469651
Making a powerful but 'small' nuclear weapon is a serious challenge.

>>34466775
>what's the best way to handle North Korea at this point?
Work the following deal with China.

Regime change in North Korea.

China offers no support to the DPRK and assists financially with integration with the south after the collapse of the nation.

US and China agree to a demilitarization of the Korean Peninsula. UN forces will leave, China will not sign any agreements to station forces inside the newly unified Korea.

The US gets rid of the DPRK, the Chinese get US forces off the Asian Mainland. Korea gets unified and substantial economic assistance from China and the US while remaining a US ally.

Bump for more nukes

>>34470611
Kinda the way I was leaning. Regardless on whether it becomes a military or economic resolution it'll take coperation between the US and China... otherwise it really does turn into a ituation like Mercs Playground of destruction painted out...

Never could capture song alive or stop the missiles from firing come to think of it.

>>34472211
Keep in mind that scenario is extremely unlikely, but it is the best way forward.

Please more nukes.

>>34463931

Bump. More nuke gifs please.

File: nuke1.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>34472708
should I dump?

File: nuke2.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34472742

>>34472742

Yes please

File: nuke3.webm (3MB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x576px

>>34472772

>>34472238
what do you think is the most likely scenario?

File: .45 stoppin powah.webm (3MB, 1164x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1164x720px

>>34472785

File: nuke5.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34472821

>>34472820
Not him. The most likely scenario in my mind is we test the stealth capabilities of the F-35C against North Korean radar around their nuclear and rocket facilities.

File: nuke6.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>34472836

File: charge of the right brigade.webm (3MB, 710x400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 710x400px

>>34472849

File: nuke8.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>34472859

File: nuke9.webm (565KB, 490x360px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 490x360px

>>34472868

File: nuke10.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34472914

File: nuke11.webm (939KB, 490x320px) Image search: [Google]

939KB, 490x320px

>>34472927

>>34466016

looks like a JDAM in terms of power :(

File: DPRK fallout.jpg (127KB, 750x490px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 750x490px

>>34472820
This.

File: nuke13.webm (510KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1280x720px

>>34472963
Ok last I've got, hope somebody enjoined/saw something new.

File: israeli-pm-worried-over-further-unsc-resolutions26536_L.jpg (64KB, 645x320px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 645x320px

>>34472973
oyyyyy.

do you have any idea when, if you are opp?

>>34472973

Why that difference about the fallout? The yield of a B61 and a W88 is "only" like 100 kt. It is because one is a groundburst and the other one an airburst or what?

>>34466526
And Pakistan. And Israel.

>>34473091
Because with the B61 you can find a sweet spot where you can deliver enough PSI to a hardened target to destroy it but the fireball makes less contact with the surface, resulting in less fallout.

Higher yield weapons produce a larger fireball, and thus more fallout. Being able to deliver the B61 accurately is the issue.

File: fallout.jpg (79KB, 750x550px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 750x550px

>>34473461

>>34472821
what are those vertical condensation trails on the right there and what causes them

>>34473566
Smoke rockets. Its so they can analyze the blast wave

>>34473576
Oh I see. I thought it was some kind of weird physics side effect that goes with nuclear explosions

>>34466724
>think about how classified everything related to nukes is
So classified that admin pogues in a logistics squadron spread rumors about nukes on standby at Kadena...

>>34472840
And if they shoot one down?

>>34472859
Wtf? Actual military exercise or movie footage?

File: japtrap.jpg (82KB, 536x719px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 536x719px

>>34463931
Fuck japs. I only wish we had 10 more bombs for those dirty nips.

>>34474133
>he doesn't know about the various military exercises involving the charging of infantry into nuclear hot zones

>>34474047
People will say all sorts of things to feel important.

>>34474334
No, I knew about that. But this one looks more absurd than most.

File: reeeeeeeeeeeee.jpg (84KB, 692x478px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 692x478px

>>34474369
that's the chinks for you.

>you will never be the chink at 0:55

File: 1494033753086.png (192KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 500x375px

>>34472859

>Hundreds of infantrymen charge directly towards the mushroom cloud
>Soldiers armed with swords riding on horseback alongside other horsemen armed with kalashnikovs.
>Everybody wearing gas masks

Not sure if this is stupid or metal as fuck. I'm leaning towards the latter.

>>34472947

Brings to mind the imagine of some enormous beast imprisoned below, finally forcing its way to the surface.

>>34472965
10,000 to 20,000 pound TNT equivalent yield.

File: Trident II.jpg (616KB, 2448x3092px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 2448x3092px

I don't know why, but when it comes to nukes, I get a Poseidon sized boner.

Have a picture of a Trident missile.

>>34476348
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ule5veFsisQ

The sound of that rocket motor is something else.

>>34473091
Two reasons:
The B61 Mod12 is a ground penetrating bomb so fallout is more confined.
The W88 uses a dirty HEU tamper in its secondary while the tactical B61 mods use an inert tamper, reducing fallout.

>>34476515
Both of these are incorrect.

>>34474379
Can you take a more shitting photograph?

>>34476523
It's public knowledge the Mod12 is a ground penetrating bomb, so I'm not sure how you can claim it's incorrect.

>>34476540
It can be used for Earth penetrating strikes. That is not its only method of delivery.

It is false that a penetrating B61 would produce less fallout than an air burst.

The W88 is not inherently dirty.

The difference in the levels of fallout actually come because the B61 can be bursted at a height that allows it to destroy a hardened target while minimizing fallout, while the W88 can not due to the difference in yield.

Your claim that the fallout reduction is based on the B61 penetrating the surface is incorrect.


This is explained here >>34473461
and here >>34473466

>>34470611
how the fuck are we going to get soldiers wasted on soju then? think about that smarty pants.

>>34476584
>It can be used for Earth penetrating strikes. That is not its only method of delivery.
I never said it was exclusively an earth penetrating bomb

>It is false that a penetrating B61 would produce less fallout than an air burst.
It would depend on target hardness, but against hard targets like bunkers (i.e. very hard) it will produce less fallout. With the W88 and the B61 you would need a surface (or near surface) burst to kill them. If you're already at the surface, going underground will reduce fallout.

>The W88 is not inherently dirty.
It uses a HEU secondary tamper so it will be more dirty than a weapon that uses an inert tamper. Whether you want to call that dirty is subjective. It wasn't designed that way to make it dirty, it was designed that way because a HEU tamper is an easy way to bump up yield without increase weapon mass and kill Soviet nuclear silos.

>Your claim that the fallout reduction is based on the B61 penetrating the surface is incorrect.

Against softer targets perhaps, but you don't use an earth penetrating bomb against soft targets, do you?

File: height of burst.png (81KB, 794x372px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 794x372px

>>34477029
>It would depend on target hardness, but against hard targets like bunkers (i.e. very hard) it will produce less fallout.
Incorrect.

>With the W88 and the B61 you would need a surface (or near surface) burst to kill them.
Incorrect. See: >>34473466

>If you're already at the surface, going underground will reduce fallout.
The B61 does not penetrate deep enough to contain the fallout. All it does is exacerbate it.

>Against softer targets perhaps, but you don't use an earth penetrating bomb against soft targets, do you?
Again.
You won't be deploying the B61s in penetrating delivery.

Pic related.

>>34477105
wait a minute, if you're able to pick between types of bombs when creating attack plans (see >>34472973), why are you even including the higher yield warhead option? wouldn't the lower yield bomb do the job?

are you just trying to maximize the probability that you'll get a good hit? as in, the W88 is for when you want to absolutely destroy whatever you're targeting, but the B61 can be used when you're okay with potential failures (for example, if you're going to be dropping more than one bomb on the target)?

>>34477195
>why are you even including the higher yield warhead option?
You aren't.
>>34472973
is a look at two separate options. It is presented to illustrate the difference in using the W88 and the B61. It is not an attack plan that uses both.

>if you're going to be dropping more than one bomb on the target)?
Most of the time you are going to use more than one weapon on any target, even if it's W88.

>>34477195
>if you're going to be dropping more than one bomb on the target)?
If you will note, the W88 option uses 2 warheads per target, while the B61 option uses 4 per target.

>>34477105
>Incorrect. See: >>34473466
Your yield to kill a target with a no-contact airburst starts approaching zero very quickly past 2000 PSI hardness (the joys of a logarithmic scale), leaving you with no option but to use surface or underground burst. Unless you're claiming the Norks can't build high hardness shelters (and the US could do it in the 1960s so pardon my scepticism).

You keep pointing back towards that graph but we're not talking about softish targets here. Lil' Kim is going to be in a very deep bunker.

>The B61 does not penetrate deep enough to contain the fallout. All it does is exacerbate it.
Ground penetration allows you to use an order of magnitude lower yield to kill the same target. When faced with a surface burst with a high yield and an underground burst of a much lower yield, the underground is probably going to preferable.

>Again.
>You won't be deploying the B61s in penetrating delivery.
They just spend billions of dollars R&D'ing and producing the Mod 12 with a ground penetration capability. They're not going to not use it when a suitable target presents itself.

All of this also assumes the North Koreans can't jam GPS. The moment you lose that accuracy is the moment you have to go back to high yields.

>>34477239
>is a look at two separate options. It is presented to illustrate the difference in using the W88 and the B61. It is not an attack plan that uses both.
oh, right. sorry. i'm retarded.

>Most of the time you are going to use more than one weapon on any target, even if it's W88.
how is that supposed to work, then? do you use them at the same time? a few minutes apart? i find it hard to believe that a bomb could survive a nuclear explosion within a few km without exploding.

>>34477274
>They just spend billions of dollars R&D'ing and producing the Mod 12 with a ground penetration capability. They're not going to not use it when a suitable target presents itself.

The B61 Mod-12 isn't going to be ready until 2020. If this goes down before then, the Mod-12 is not in the cards.

>>34477305
At which point this entire discussion goes out the window because the US doesn't have any other guided high-accuracy nuclear weapons and can't perform the high-accuracy mission without them.

>>34477327

The Mod-11 is a dedicated penetrator that provides low accuracy bunker busting with a 400 kiloton warhead.

>>34477239
Here's my plan for decapitating North Korea:

It would be a gigantic shock and awe air campaign designed to neutralize the nuclear sites and stockpiles as quickly as possible, basically:

>Move every available aircraft you have to bases in Japan, SK and bombers to Guam
>Launch a massive synchronized air assault, first wave would be a SEAD mission and fighter sweep with Growlers, Hornets, F-22 and Eagles smashing gaps through air defenses
>While this is happening have B-2s raining down MOPs, bunker busters and B-61s over every nuclear facility, buried ones specifically
>When the Air defenses are cleaned up within a few hours now comes the critical part of sending every attack/strike aircraft you have and killing as many artillery/MRLS and Erector launcher before they can rain hell on Seoul
>Now that they are toothless get in A-10s and AH-64s along with the other strike aircraft assisting with airstrikes on the hordes of screaming gooks

>>34466752
They wont. I saw one documentary once about this guy who made a replica she'll of fat man and he learned on his own that common info floating around the past 60 years doesn't match the design and the FBI paid him a visit a few days later. I only saw the documentary once before it was presumably pulled.

Assume every single detail of how a bomb works/operates has been intentionally wrong for the past 70 years

>>34477274
>Unless you're claiming the Norks can't build high hardness shelters (and the US could do it in the 1960s so pardon my scepticism).
Feel free to show me them.

>You keep pointing back towards that graph but we're not talking about softish targets here.
Neither is the graph.

> Lil' Kim is going to be in a very deep bunker.
He's not the target.

>They're not going to not use it when a suitable target presents itself.
They will when they don't need to.
They can destroy the targets using the lower yield options at higher altitude, and minimize fallout, or they can destroy the targets with higher yield option and maximize fallout.

The entire key is that they can destroy the targets without extensive fallout. You are claiming that the picture depicts the B61's being used in earth penetrating mode when the source of the picture itself is telling you that its not.

Would you like for me to spell it out for you?

>All of this also assumes the North Koreans can't jam GPS. The moment you lose that accuracy is the moment you have to go back to high yields.
The B61-12 doesn't use GPS. Test drops were showing hits within 15 Meters of the target without GPS.


Lets keep track of your central error here.

Your initial claim here: >>34476515
>The B61 Mod12 is a ground penetrating bomb so fallout is more confined.
Claiming that the fallout was reduced due to the use of the B61's Earth Penetrating capabilities.

This is refuted by the pic here, >>34477105
Where it is explained that the reduction in fallout is due to the use of lower yield weapons with high accuracy.

>>34477327
>At which point this entire discussion goes out the window because the US doesn't have any other guided high-accuracy nuclear weapons and can't perform the high-accuracy mission without them.
100% false.

>>34477348

Oh what I'd pay to see this

>the movie they make 10 years later better do it justice and not have a goddamn love story fuck everything up

>>34477274
>All of this also assumes the North Koreans can't jam GPS. The moment you lose that accuracy is the moment you have to go back to high yields.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-most-dangerous-nuclear-weapon-passes-critical-test-14403

>While the B61-12 was originally believed to utilize the Global Positioning System to enhance accuracy, the NNSA explicitly states that is not true. “Although the tail-kit assembly guided the test unit, the B61-12 nuclear weapon will have no additional capabilities from the legacy B61 nuclear weapons and is not GPS-guided,” the NNSA stated.

>t should be noted that while JDAMs are often described in the media as “satellite-guided bombs”—the weapons actually use inertial guidance with GPS positional corrections. Thus the lack of GPS capability would only slightly reduce the accuracy of the B61-12.

>>34477409
>and not have a goddamn love story fuck everything up
So long as it's not made by Hollywood, there will be no love story.

File: 1494042953183.jpg (12KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 259x194px

>>34477415
>Thus the lack of GPS capability would only slightly reduce the accuracy of the B61-12.
INTEGRAL WINDUP
NT
E
G
R
A
L

W
I
N
D
U
P

>>34477573
> Indeed, during the initial phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the U.S. Air Force used JDAMs to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s GPS jammers with negligible impact of the weapons’ accuracy.

File: 1494016591050.gif (238KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 300x169px

>>34477608
>Indeed, during the initial phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the U.S. Air Force used JDAMs to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s GPS jammers with negligible impact of the weapons’ accuracy.
That's pretty cool, actually. Integral windup always fucks me over with my own projects so it's nice knowing there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

>>34466350
Why are food and water supplies rarely mentioned as nuclear targets, as opposed to say sizable settlements an tactical military assets?

>>34477369
Like, U238 is fissile and the whole enriching thing is a decoy.

>>34465558
he sounds like he's speaking underwater
something about that is just so comfy

>>34472742
What always amazes me about nuclear tests is how picturesque and sublime they look

>>34477374
>Feel free to show me them.
Ah yes, because US intelligence reports on the topic are in the public domain.

>Neither is the graph.
The graph only goes up to 3000 PSI at 0.3 kt. Missile silos get a lot harder than that and I would suspect bunkers that don't need to launch missiles (i.e. they're a deeper and don't have a concrete silo lid on them) can get ever harder.

>He's not the target.
The US is fond of decapitation strikes. There will be other military leaders that needs to be offed as well.

>The entire key is that they can destroy the targets without extensive fallout

Not past 3000 PSI, which I have said repeatedly. Past 3000 PSI you need yields lower than what is provided by the B61 while your accuracy requirements increase exponentially.

>You are claiming that the picture depicts the B61's being used in earth penetrating mode when the source of the picture itself is telling you that its not.

The picture doesn't say anything about airburst. It says low yield options which could easily include ground penetration bombs.

I'm curious. If high-accuracy, low yield weapons and high yield weapons like the W88 cover every possibility, why bother with a ground penetration capability at all? Your entire argument is based on their being no need but it's clear the USAF does think they have a need for it.

>>34477415
Interesting stuff.

I didn't think it was possible to get that kind of accuracy with inertial guidance.

>>34478041
>Ah yes, because US intelligence reports on the topic are in the public domain.
not him but
http://www.terry.uga.edu/media/events/documents/Newhard_paper-9-6-13.pdf
information can leak out in a lot of ways

File: side looking glance.png (191KB, 419x398px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 419x398px

>>34477780
Why would that be true?

>>34478073
I don't know, but just think how awesome it would be.

>>34478069
True, but a lack of public data is not proof a nation lacks a military capability.

>>34478153
that's what i'm saying. north korea may not have a stock exchange, but it has a large economy and therefore many places from which information about their military capabilities can leak out.

are they manufacturing more concrete all of a sudden? if so, do you know what they're using it to build? no? maybe it's something they're trying to keep under wraps. you can gather that sort of information from some illiterate worker in exchange for a few cigarettes and some porno.

>>34478171
I think that's a bit more challenging in a heavily insulated nation like North Korea.

>>34478171

Not got a fucking clue what you're talking about, have you?

>>34478171
Gee, if only there were an allied nation filled with people who speak the same language and are of the same ethnicity willing to recruit agents in North Korea, and could obtain this data for us.

>>34472742
pls dump

>>34472947
that doesn seem safe for the enviorment :|

>>34472868
What happened to that boat?

>>34478583
Likely crushed like so much tin foil by the pressure wave and ripped apart, and rapidly sunk. The vapor condensate appears to be a coincidence.

>>34478492
already posted all I have, sry.

>>34478508
at least it's not releasing radioactive isotopes in to the atmosphere

Back in the day when they still did nuclear testing, did the president need to authorise each test with codes or did the DoE testers just bypass the PAL system?

>>34477675
I know the feel of integrator windup. Have to recalibrate far too often.

>>34474113
With what exactly?

>>34476283
I don't fucking know what that means. Nobody knows what that means. When was the last time 99% of people saw anything to do with TNT? It's a dumb, outdated measurement and we need something people have actually seen. Why not Tianjin? Blast energy of a small nuke could be measured in ".78 Bootleg Fireworks".

>>34479444
Holy shit I just realized the only video I've seen of Tianjin was an edit.

>>34479444
Right, so we'll just start telling people the W88 warhead has a yield of 2*10^15 Joules. I'm sure everyone can easily visualise that.

You're an idiot.

>>34470611
>us or sk letting china anywhere near sk
China will never own nk in any world beyond ones where china won ww3.

>>34463992
Most recent Jack Reacher book has 10 of these things missing in 90's Germany

>>34477730
>lets nuke the airable farmland of this place we want to take over and or change over to a regime we like
A fight with nk wont be some scorched earth shit where we leave nk a fucking impassable wasteland.

>>34478041
>Ah yes, because US intelligence reports on the topic are in the public domain.
So you have no reason to suspect that they have super hardened facilities. You are just inventing that out of desperation.

>Missile silos get a lot harder than that
They don't have missile silos.

>I would suspect
You mean wildly conjecture.

>The US is fond of decapitation strikes. There will be other military leaders that needs to be offed as well.
We are not talking about a decapitation strike. We are talking about a counterforce strike.

>Not past 3000 PSI,
But you have yet to show that they have facilities that are hardened to that degree.

>The picture doesn't say anything about airburst.

The pic here >>34477105 and here >>34472973
are from the same source! The entire paper is about using them above the fallout threshold.

The quote is:
>Low yield weapons could do the job and remain ABOVE the fallout threshold.

> why bother with a ground penetration capability at all?
Because you might need to use them against a target thats not the North Koreans.

>Your entire argument is based on their being no need but it's clear the USAF does think they have a need for it.
Your entire argument involves inventing capabilities the North Koreans do not have.

Here:
http://russianforces.org/podvig/2008/06/the_window_of_vulnerability_that_wasnt.shtml

The hardest Soviet/Russian silos were 1,500 PSI.
You are trying to tell me that the North Koreans have build silos twice as hardened as the Soviets and Russians did.

Such a claim requires proof.

>I didn't think it was possible to get that kind of accuracy with inertial guidance.
Because you don't know what you are talking about.

>>34479783
>The hardest Soviet/Russian silos were 1,500 PSI.

That's hilarious.

Most sources put Soviet missile hardness at much higher than that. FAS gives 4000 to 6000 PSI for Satan silos for example. More modern Russian ICBMs will be much harder.

For comparison Minuteman silos are 7000 PSI.

If silo hardness was as low as your source claims (and the source they give for the figures is vague), then US planners have grossly overestimated the capability of Soviet nuclear forces.

The US knows exactly the composition of Soviet silos as they spent the 90s helping nations demolish them. Despite this they've spent a lot of money and effort to develop the MC4700 fuze which assumes very hard silos.

>>34479845
>For comparison Minuteman silos are 7000 PSI.
You mean 2,000 PSI.

>>34467731
you've never heard of a born secret have you?

>>34466846
>old clocks, fertilizer, and diesel

>>34479783
>So you have no reason to suspect that they have super hardened facilities. You are just inventing that out of desperation.
Building a deep hardened bunker is not a technically challenging task. Almost any nation could cut into a mountain with suitable rock and build one.

>They don't have missile silos.
Being deliberately asinine doesn't help this discussion. It was quite clear I was using ICBM silos as a comparison for hardness. Superhard silos are simply an example of technical feasibility.

>We are not talking about a decapitation strike. We are talking about a counterforce strike.
The US has no interest in giving Kim or his deputies a show trial.

>are from the same source! The entire paper is about using them above the fallout threshold.
I can't magically tell that two images came from the same document or even which document they came from. You did not provide a source for those images.

>Because you might need to use them against a target thats not the North Koreans.
Nice explanation. It really makes you look like you're commenting from a position of knowledge.

>The hardest Soviet/Russian silos were 1,500 PSI.
Most accounts put Soviet silo hardness in the upper thousands. As >>34479845
said, the number comes from a mystery source that's not easily found ("Figure drawn from Vitalii Leonidovich Kataev papers" can these figures be trusted and why do they widely differ from everyone else?). I'm also sceptical of claims from Russians that puts them in the light of "poor soviets crushed by the evul capitalists" and "russia wasn't really a threat to the West :'("

>>34479915
The US Government in the Progressive Case tried to claim "born secret" and failed.

>>34479878
The first silos were 2000 PSI (Minuteman 1), later silos were 7000 PSI.

>>34479925
>Almost any nation could cut into a mountain with suitable rock and build one.
Then you should have no problem showing the capability then.

> It was quite clear I was using ICBM silos as a comparison for hardness.
No. It is quite clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

>The US has no interest in giving Kim or his deputies a show trial.
That has nothing to do with what is being discussed. We are talking about a counterforce strike on North Korean nuclear weapons. The entire discussion is about the use of B61s to destroy DPRK nuclear weapons with little fallout.
I should not have to explain what counterforce is to you.

>I can't magically tell that two images came from the same document or even which document they came from.
I told you that the test was referencing the graphic.
The paper is Spring 2017 issue of International Security. Pages 9-49. If you have academic database access, you can read it yourself.


>Nice explanation.
I can see I need to keep things simple for you.

>Most accounts put Soviet silo hardness in the upper thousands.

Contemporary accounts do.

>the number comes from a mystery source that's not easily found
Because its not online?

Pavel Podvig is an acknowledged expert in the area of Russian nuclear weapons.

>I'm also sceptical of claims from Russians that puts them in the light of "poor soviets crushed by the evul capitalists" and "russia wasn't really a threat to the West :'("

You have reading comprehension issues, don't you?
Thats not what the article was saying.

Here are the things you are wrong about so far.
1) That the Graphic here: >>34472973 depicts B61s being used in Earth Penetrating mode
>Wrong
2) That the B61 uses GPS
>Wrong
3) That the B61 accuracy would not be sufficient without GPS
>Wrong
4) That North Korea has targets in a counterforce attack that are hardened to more than 3000 PSI
>Wrong

File: this fucking guy is a moron.png (160KB, 685x591px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 685x591px

>>34479925
Please stop posting.

>>34463931
the fact that there are still people that think that murica threw the nuke on japan to make them surrender shows how little they know about that era

>>34479931
The legality of Born Secret has never been challenged in court, on the expectation that the Supreme Court would strike it down as Unconstitutional.

>>34479498
Ok faggot, tell me the size of a crater made with 200 lbs of TNT.

>>34472973
Why would low yield weapons detonated at high altitude be as effective as high yield weapons detonated from a much lower altitude? That's very counter intuitive

>>34482575
They wouldn't. Low yield weapons detonated at the surface or underground with high precision means large energy transfer to target with minimal fallout. Higher yield weapons that transmit sufficient energy without accuracy need to kick up more fallout.

>>34482627
You are a moron.

File: k kermit.gif (2MB, 400x260px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x260px

>>34482769

>>34482575
>Why would low yield weapons detonated at high altitude be as effective as high yield weapons detonated from a much lower altitude? That's very counter intuitive

If the lower yield weapons are accurate enough, you can deploy them at a height where they can still deliver enough PSI to destroy the target, but where they produce minimal fallout.

For a higher yield weapon detonated at the proper height to deliver sufficient PSI, it will produce copious amounts of fallout.


>>34482627
>Low yield weapons detonated at the surface or underground with high precision means large energy transfer to target with minimal fallout.
This would only apply if the explosion is contained underground. On the surface or if it is at a depth where the explosion breaches the surface, the fallout will be intense.

>>34482837
Peak overpressures drop off with increased altitude, and atmospheric coupling to create ground shockwaves is poor. Other than the bizarre chart in >>34473466 , I can find no literature that supports the assertion that a lower yield weapon with higher accuracy can achieve high PSI overpressures over a hardened target with any altitude, let alone /increasing/ altitude.

>>34482891
>bizarre chart
Yeah its published by some crazy tabloid called 'International Security' in their Spring 2017 edition.
But who ever heard of them, amirite?

> increased altitude,
You have a difficult time thinking in three dimensions, don't you?

You are moving the bomb closer to the target. Because the bomb is closer to the target due to increases in accuracy, it doesn't need to burst as low as it would if it was less accurate.

Imagine the bomb suspended in the air. Around it is a sphere that demarks the overpressure needed to destroy a given target.
Where that sphere contacts the ground, forms a circle that is a footprint of the overpressure.

If your accuracy is poor, you need that circle, or footprint to be bigger, so you have to lower the burst altitude of the bomb. But, if your delivery system is accurate enough, you can raise it, reducing the size of the circle.

Now, one of the effects of increasing the height of the burst is decreasing the amount of fallout. So, because the weapon can be delivered closer to the target, you can burst it at an increased height, which in turn reduces the amount of fallout.

>I can find no literature
I find that surprising. Do you read peer reviewed academic journals about this subject? I found it quite easily.

File: just crazy amirite.png (65KB, 728x563px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 728x563px

>>34482891
BTW, here is the text for the 'bizarre chart'.

>>34472821
Is there any account of how far away this was filmed from?

>>34483010
>>34483028

That would explain the discrepancy. They're talking about relatively soft targets like artillery shelters, when I was focused on heavily sheltered bunkers and similarly hard targets like North Korea's nuclear facilities.

>>34483106
>That would explain the discrepancy. They're talking about relatively soft targets like artillery shelters, when I was focused on heavily sheltered bunkers and similarly hard targets like North Korea's nuclear facilities.

No.
They are talking about hardened facilities.
Direct quote:
>In short, low-fatality nuclear counterforce is possible, but it requires low-yield weapons, and hence very accurate delivery.

That has nothing to do with artillery shelters and everything to do with hardened targets. It says several times that they are talking about hardened targets.

Just admit you learned something new today. It is ok.

>>34483149

I'll admit I learned something, but I have considerable doubts about the adequacy of the low yield weapons. High Performance Concrete has been in wide use in regular commercial structures for over two decades, boasting yield strength in excess of 19,000 PSI. For North Korea, this is Do or Die and I can't imagine they've skimped out here.

>>34483182
>High Performance Concrete has been in wide use in regular commercial structures for over two decades, boasting yield strength in excess of 19,000 PSI. For North Korea, this is Do or Die and I can't imagine they've skimped out here.
If you think that the North Koreans have managed to out do the Russians and US in Silo engineering, let alone nuclear hardening, you need to call area code 703 SevenSixSeven FourFiveFive1 and ask for Admiral Scott Jerabek, and tell him that you have read a peer reviewed article in the the #1 academic journal for international security and found some serious holes in it.

>>34483298
The primary deterrence strategy of both The US and Soviet Union moved away from silo based ballistic missiles before high performance concrete came into its own.

>>34483334
Yes I know, and you have found a major flaw in a peer reviewed academic journal.
You should let people know how smart you are.

>>34483334
I don't know if you know this, but there is more to the hardening of a target than the concrete.
The strength of the concrete was never the real issue in hardening, but rather the engineering of the design to reduce structural weak points.

File: stare.gif (2MB, 245x276px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x276px

>>34483367

>>34483399
No really. These guys who have published an article in a peer reviewed academic journal about the vulnerabilities of North Korean nuclear forces to a counterforce strike have been proven wrong.
That poster should be telling everyone how special and smart he is.

>>34483380
For the sake of learning, where is literature available on the limits of hardening against nuclear attack?

>>34483424
Do you have access to something like JSTOR?

>>34483420
Quite. He should be peer-reviewing. Anon probably lives in a basement, is he aware that publishing content to service-affiliated or peer-reviewed magazines like Armor or Proceedings typically entails monetary reward?

>>34483447
All he has to do is call Admiral Jerebek and say "Muh Concrete".

>>34483334
>The primary deterrence strategy of both The US and Soviet Union moved away from silo based ballistic missiles
Wait, what?

>>34483443
Doesn't look like it.

>>34483468
>Wait, what?
Alright, I draw the line at drawing Oppenheimer's attention; I'm officially full retard today.

I was under the impression that the US' primary strategic deterrent was the boomers.

>>34483485
>I was under the impression that the US' primary strategic deterrent was the boomers.
It is.
And ICBMs
And Bombers.
One of these does not have primacy over the other.
You may be thinking about SSBNs being more survivable, and that is true, but they are not 'primary'.

>>34483502
What's kept strategic planners from prioritizing additional silo hardening?

>>34483529
Expense, diminishing returns, end of the Late Unpleasantness.

>>34483538
Are 0.3 kiloton bombs adequate for destroying hardened underground structures?

>>34473091
The b61 is a dial a yield weapon which can be configured in flight for specific yield for intended target. Thats why its carried on aircraft carriers for delivery by carrier based aircraft. As a mobile air base its role in SIOP will change dependent on its location. Hence the need for different yields. Its also useful since there is so much redundancy in SIOP that munitions can be preserved for secondary targets once primary is known to be destroyed.

>>34470611

If we hit the Norks, what are the odds China would really hit us back?

>>34483606
If you can deliver them accurately, yes.

>>34483608

So the pilot can enter in a specific yield while en route to the target? That's some fancy talk right there.

>>34483697
Is a 100 Meter CEP accurate?

>>34483706
No.

>>34479406
Iraqis in GW1 got an F117 with nothing but luck and a high volume of fire.

>>34483811
Come again? The only people who shot down an F117 were the Serbians.

>>34479925
>The US has no interest in giving Kim or his deputies a show trial.
>>34479925
>The US has no interest in giving Kim or his deputies a show trial.

Like how we didn't for Saddam?

>>34483943
Ignore him hes a moron.

>>34483086
Sry, I don't know, this should be a 35mm close up of test grable, 15kt, fired by an artillery piece. You've prob seen the test from a different angle with the delivering cannon in the right lower corner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BECOQuQC0vQ
All I could find out, is that the cannon is 11km away.

>>34472973
aw come on dude dont irradiate japan again

>>34483943
The only reason Saddam got a show trial was he survived multiple attempts on his life and was captured after "combat operations" ended.

>>34483742
If you had a sprawling hardened bunker, say a few hundred meters from end to end, would a 0.3kt burst only destroy a small portion of it as you could only apply the necessary overpressure over a small area? Particularly if the bunkers was compartmentalised with heavy silos doors.

>>34483742
Hey Opp, out of all the abandoned nuclear programs of the world, who got closest to building an actual device?
(not counting the saffers, of course)

>>34485738
Just one, no.
But since you would be deploying multiple weapons per target, you could have high confidence you would destroy it.
The notional attack plan shown in previous posts, for example, show 4 weapons per target.
That would be plenty.

>>34485833
South Africa. They had some devices ready to go.

>>34485833
I didnt fully read your post.
Its hard to say, but Sweden is my bet.

>>34486317
What about the Lybians?

>>34486278
So how does that work? I can't see there being enough air in the bunker to propagate a heavy enough shock-wave to break down compartments if I'm imagining it like a tube being crushed in a small portion.

>>34486278
A nuclear war breaks out, what country do you most want to be in?

For the sake of argument, assume a three hundred warhead exchange between the US and the Russian Federation.

>>34486432
Only three hundred warheads?

As long as you're outside the US or Russia you'll be fine.

>>34486338
Not to my knowledge.

>>34486390
Well, you arent hitting it once. You are hitting it mutiple times. You take what you know of the structure, based on intelligence and observations, and then you use that to determine how many weapons and where they need to be.
You can build things that might require higher yields, but the principle is the same.
For the specific case of the North Koreans, there is no sign of hardened structures that would require anything like that. For many reasons, it is difficult for them to construct them.

>>34486432
The US.

>>34486577

Hey, Opp. If we went to blows with Best Korea... I mean, a full scale conflict where we responded to a Nork nuclear attack in kind, what are the odds that China would get involved?

>>34479915
It doesn't matter how classified something is if the people handling that information don't know it's classified. This notification is usually handled by having all involved parties involved sign one or more Nondisclosure Agreements.

>>34486765
With nukes, you know from the start that everything is classified unless someone tells you its not.

>>34466520
What the hell is a secondary? honest question I genuinely don't know how nukes work

>>34486839
So, you know the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Pure Fission devices. A mass of fissile material is collapsed into a critical mass with high explosives, releasing a bunch of energy as the heavy nuclei split apart. A thermonuclear weapon harnesses the energy of that fission bomb to trigger nuclear fusion in the "secondary," which releases a ton of free neutrons and a whole ton more energy (fusing elements lighter than iron releases energy, splitting elements heavier than iron releases energy). The free neutrons cause more fission, and generally make the boom way bigger.

>>34486805
Related question to >>34485833, did any of the WarPac countries ever have a nuclear program of their own?

>>34479728
Now look at it from the other side- NK knows they can't cause us strategically significant damage with their small arsenal. It would be perfectly logical for them to target our agricultural production. That gives them the most bang for the buck per each hit.

They don't get an immediate benefit, but they might disrupt our economy and food chain enough to keep us from invading. We would counterforce the living fuck out of them, and probably do some token countervalue, but we very well might not put boots on the ground if our productive capacity has been hit hard enough. The bottom line is, their regime survives the exchange.

>>34476348
>TFW Strangelove taught me to not only love the bomb but to LOVE the bomb

I don't want to live anymore knowing that I will never be able to engage in sexual intercourse with a nuclear weapon

>>34486805
Dot hey put Li6 or a tritium/deuterium mixture in the U238 cylinder for the second stage?

>>34487178
They've done both Lithium 6 and Lithium 7; an unexpected reaction path with Lithium 7 resulted in the unexpectedly high yield of Castle Bravo. Natural uranium and enriched uranium have also both been used in the bomb tamper to boost yield, and some designs have used inert materials to reduce fallout (prime example, Tsar Bomba). Specifics about individual weapon designs are generally not published.

>>34487178
>Dot hey put Li6 or a tritium/deuterium mixture in the U238 cylinder for the second stage?
Also, I misread your post. The design of the stuff in the center of the Secondary is one of the few things that's still genuinely secret about nuclear weapons and no one who knows can tell you about it.

>>34463931
I had a fucked up dream about the day the bombs fall last night

getting stuck in a bank safe inside an old fallout shelter building, and people crying, hair falling out and puking blood and teeth.

man that was a bad fucking dream.

>>34487178
The first bomb used deuterium. Later bombs were of the dry type using Lithium6 dueteride (lithium hydride) and a "spark plug" in the centre made from U235 or Pu239 to provide neutrons to fission the Li6 into tritium and He3.

>>34478041
Fatty's sister is the one running shit there. he's just the figurehead, since He is the SON OF THE GODS. I'd bet good money he just sits on his fat ass playing xbox, eating tendies, and getting blowjobs from a different woman everytime his dick gets hard.

>>34487425
Lol, I don't doubt that.

>>34487443
he lives the NEET dream. I salute him. I would RAFF if he posted on /bant/ or something sometime showing his Jimmy from GTA V giant game room like some shit from MTV Cribs.

>>34487474
actually now that i think about it, he's like the Chris-Chan of world leaders. all he needs is a sonichu medallion, and a self published comicbook.

>>34486805
I don't have time to read this thread tonight, but I'm glad you're back (with a trip).
Also, thanks for pointing me towards The Demon in the Freezer a few years ago; it was a good read.

Seems like a good place to ask. I know the intent during the cold war gone hot was to use nukes in conventional uses such as nuking a advancing armored column etc, but the intent was the nuke the shit out of the other country before an invasion yea? So the Soviet Union nukes the US/Europe and we return the favor, THEN the invasion beings? Always was super interested in this.

>>34482442
depends largely on soil composition and the weather

>>34466052
1995 Norwegian rocket incident was also a close call, who would've thought it was a good idea to give nuclear keys to Boris Yeltsin?

File: 1498451570971.png (754KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 1280x738px

>>34463931

>>34487867
The Russians weren't going to launch an attack because of a single possible "missile". Russia could have easily survived that to retaliate.

>>34463931

What would the actual length of a nuclear war be? Would fighting continue after the initial exchange of nukes or would both sides by so busy with rebuilding that they'd forget about the war? I've read novels where American and Soviet ships meet each other after a nuclear exchange and they almost immediately decide to cooperate to try and save as much of the human race as possible. Somehow, I just don't think that reaction is realistic, but I think it is plausible that both sides would agree to just give each-other space to rebuild. What do you think?

>>34487867

>1995

After the collapse of the Soviet Union? Very little chance of a nuclear exchange at that point in time.

>>34487736
It would depend largely on the exact circumstances of the crisis. Its possible that a standoff would begin over some issue, and that one side decides to detonate a nuclear weapon somewhere harmless (over the Atlantic) to demonstrate resolve, and the other side reacts to escalate and so on until you get to an exchange without the deployment of conventional forces.
It is also possible that the exchange would come during a conventional war where one side would seek to gain an advantage over the other.

>>34489496
>What would the actual length of a nuclear war be?
Depends on when it happened. In the early to mid cold War, it would be hours. Toward the late Cold War, both sides began to envision a nuclear war that might drag on for weeks or months. This would be more of a series of smaller exchanges rather than one massive one.


>Would fighting continue after the initial exchange of nukes or would both sides by so busy with rebuilding that they'd forget about the war?
Hard to say. It would depend greatly on the damage that each side had sustained. In my opinion, both sides would find it difficult to continue offensive operations.

>I've read novels where American and Soviet ships meet each other after a nuclear exchange and they almost immediately decide to cooperate to try and save as much of the human race as possible.
The Last Ship is a good book. Much better than the terrible miniseries that came out.


>Somehow, I just don't think that reaction is realistic, but I think it is plausible that both sides would agree to just give each-other space to rebuild. What do you think?
I doubt they would find friends. After all the other guys are the ones who incinerated your family. If some sort of command structure had managed to negotiate a ceasefire, then they probably wouldn't shoot at each other, but would not cooperate.

>>34489574
Do you think that North Korea's newest missile is a threat to the US? Can they even hit any specific target with it?

>>34489624
>Do you think that North Korea's newest missile is a threat to the US?
More the capability it represents rather than the actual missile, which is probably a technology demonstrator.

>Can they even hit any specific target with it?
They can hit urban areas.

>>34489574
In terms of escalation how would nuclear weapons go?

Would nuclear depth bombs and nuclear SAMs be the lowest? Then going up to surface ships, nuclear artillery against military targets etc...?

>>34489574

What is your opinion of Curtis LeMay?

>>34480137
That is a rather confusing statement given that surrender ultimatums were delivered before and after each atomic bomb delivery.

It's hard to imagine that humans would not have used nuclear weapons against each other at any point in the cold war if there had not already been a practical demonstration of the cost and effects of doing so. I would say that the bombing of Japan was a good thing because it gave the world a much clearer understanding of what was at stake in a nuclear conflict than any test could have done. Also my grandpa was supposed to be in the first wave to land on the Japanese mainland. I would most likely not be alive if Japan hadn't been nuked.

>>34489650
>More the capability it represents rather than the actual missile, which is probably a technology demonstrator.
Do you have a rough estimate of when North Korea might have a more capable missile? Say, able to hit California?

>They can hit urban areas.
So a CEP of like 5 miles?

>>34476508
What's the diffo between a miss and a fail? Failure to destroy?

Why do the all have a flat 20% chance to fail?

>>34477348
> It will work if nothing at all goes wrong and the world just stands by: The Plan.

>>34489688
Escalations are more of how the weapon is used rather than the particular weapon.
In general weapons used at sea are thought of as less escalatory than weapons used on land.

>>34489710
He sure was an Air Force General.

>>34489780
>Do you have a rough estimate of when North Korea might have a more capable missile? Say, able to hit California?
Nope. They blew my personal timeline out of the water by a year or more on the 4th.

>So a CEP of like 5 miles?
Something like that.

>>34489818
>What's the diffo between a miss and a fail?
A miss is the weapon doesn't land close enough to destroy the target. A failure means that the weapon fails at some point. Anything from a loss at launch, to interception, to it just fails to go off.


>Why do the all have a flat 20% chance to fail?
A good ballpark guess by the authors. Real reliability figures are very hard to come by. Consider the fiasco with the W76.

File: 1394158223296.jpg (12KB, 200x255px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x255px

>>34490150
>Nope. They blew my personal timeline out of the water by a year or more on the 4th.
So... everything you've said on this topic is now invalid?

>>34490261
>So... everything you've said on this topic is now invalid?
No. My personal opinion of when they would accomplish their first ICBM test was off. That doesn't mean that everything else is wrong.
People make mistakes all the time. It doesn't mean that everything else they have done is a mistake.

>>34490304
>My personal opinion of when they would accomplish their first ICBM test was off. That doesn't mean that everything else is wrong.
But doesn't that change your opinion on how everything involving North Korea will go? If they're much closer to being able to hit the US mainland than before, wouldn't that make any potential US action more aggressive?

>>34490342
>But doesn't that change your opinion on how everything involving North Korea will go?
No.

>If they're much closer to being able to hit the US mainland than before, wouldn't that make any potential US action more aggressive?
Not necessarily. The US may choose to act at a different time, but those actions will not necessarily be more aggressive. The timeline is largely dictated by DPRK technological developments. The US response to those will be the same no matter the actual timeline of events, ceteris paribus.

>>34490411
>Not necessarily. The US may choose to act at a different time, but those actions will not necessarily be more aggressive. The timeline is largely dictated by DPRK technological developments. The US response to those will be the same no matter the actual timeline of events, ceteris paribus.
I see. So things have just accelerated.

Do you think that North Korea might be hiding another significant evolution in their nuclear program? Are we just supposed to wait until they try to make a proper thermonuclear bomb to find out what they're trying?

>>34490432
>Do you think that North Korea might be hiding another significant evolution in their nuclear program? Are we just supposed to wait until they try to make a proper thermonuclear bomb to find out what they're trying?

Honestly I think we're just running down the clock because of how truly, unforgivably awful it would be to exercise our only practical option for disarming North Korea while saving our allies without trying as best we can with non-kinetic options.

>>34490432
>Do you think that North Korea might be hiding another significant evolution in their nuclear program?
Anythings possible. So far the only surprises have been in the missile program, however. The weapons program is proceeding with few unexpected events.

>Are we just supposed to wait until they try to make a proper thermonuclear bomb to find out what they're trying?
I think the red line for US action has always been the ability to reliably deliver a nuclear weapon of any yield to the US. There are many variables in this equation.
If US missile defense can deliver a high probability of stopping one or a handful of DPRK missiles, that would extend the US tolerance for DPRK capabilities. One or a dozen missiles might not be seen as having the capability to 'reliably deliver a nuclear weapon' because of the capability to intercept them exists.
Under this circumstance, we largely have the status quo. North Korea with a nascent regional nuclear capability, but with minimal threat to the US itself.
This presents a problem for the DPRK. IF US BMD will always be ahead of the DPRK's ability to penetrate it reliably, they would presumably change to a different method of deterrence.

Understand that this is the DPRKs ultimate goal. They need the ability to deter US conventional action in the region. This allows them to secure their government against a US effort to Iraqi-fy them as well as giving them the ability to pursue larger goals in the region without fear of triggering US (or ROK or Japanese) conventional response.

CONT CONT CONT

>>34468272
what is that?

>>34490571
>They need the ability to deter US conventional action in the region.

I'm not really compelled by this line of thinking anymore. North Korea has effectively deterred American action against North Korea for sixty years with their conventional artillery pointed at South Korea. We haven't been interested or willing to hit their missile programs at any point because of the threat it represents to South Korea. If that was enough to buy them the development of a nuclear weapons program, I'd think they have an expectation that acquiring nuclear weapons buys them more opportunities to act than their conventional deterrent alone.

>>34490432
>>34490571
If they can not deter the US though threats directly to the CONUS, then they might see regional nuclear supremacy as the next best thing. This would mean abandoning intercontinental ambitions and focusing instead on regional delivery options. This would entail developing countermeasures against terminal interception attempts, but in the long run this might be cheaper than attempting to secure deterrence with a technological arms race between DPRK missiles and US BMD, which they would likely never win.

All of this in the context of US goals in the region, which is ultimately tied to preserving the ROK and the US power in the region. A nuclear armed DPRK with the ability to hold US cities under threat is not acceptable under current US policy, as it forces the US into the unpleasant paradigm of being forced to trade Seattle for Seoul. This is not unlike the arrangement in the early years of the Cold War. The US stated its willingness to trade New York for Berlin.

The major difference is that the US had recently fought a major war over Europe and was unwilling to let that effort go to waste with the memory of that so fresh. Currently, the US has no recent memory of a major war fought over Seoul, and thus the implication is that the US would have a harder time justifying the loss of a US city to defend it.

>>34490622

>>34490622
>I'm not really compelled by this line of thinking anymore. North Korea has effectively deterred American action against North Korea for sixty years with their conventional artillery pointed at South Korea.
That has mainly worked because the US/ROK conventional forces deterred DPRK action in turn. If the DPRK pursued a policy that the US deemed an existential threat to the ROK, it would have triggered a resumption of conventional war.
The US/ROK were deterred simply because the DPRK never pursued action whose consequences outweighed the consequences of a resumption of hostilities.
>If that was enough to buy them the development of a nuclear weapons program, I'd think they have an expectation that acquiring nuclear weapons buys them more opportunities to act than their conventional deterrent alone.

Good point. How is that different than the point I made?

>>34490702
>Good point. How is that different than the point I made?

Sorry, it's not different. I've got coffee and it still feels way too early today.

At this point I think North Korea's playing to win the Korean War once and for all. No Skin of China's or Russia's ass if they do win it by coercing US troops out of the peninsula before bludgeoning Seoul into submission with the threat of nuclear fire.

>>34490702

What Best Korea does is irrelevant. So they cook up Seoul, Tokyo and maybe Honolulu? The first two I don't care about. The third needs to burn.

What worries me is China. Are they really willing to go to war over King Nork and his shenanigans should he use nukes and we respond?

>>34479444
I know what a kilogram of TNT looks like. (The army uses metal cans with a convenient hole for your blasting cap. dark brick of material inside. like hardened brittle clay) I know what the blast feels like from 300 meters. I know what damage it does to soil and an old jeep. kilotons of TNT makes perfect sense to me.

why not you?

>>34490797
>What worries me is China. Are they really willing to go to war over King Nork and his shenanigans should he use nukes and we respond?

I don't think they are. North Korea's snubbed every one of China's offers for protection through China's nuclear deterrent. The only country North Korea's looking out for is North Korea, and China and Russia both know that the US cannot abide nuclear threats that can't be checked through other means.

>>34466520
t. Best Korean weapons scientist

>>34490728
>At this point I think North Korea's playing to win the Korean War once and for all.
Maybe. It's hard to say with certainty and in the long run it doesn't matter. The current US policy does not allow for the DPRK to be capable of deterring all US action in the region by being able to threaten the destruction of a major US city. The US is not concerned with whether or not the DPRK would actually intend to use that deterrence to pursue some policy goal; just the existence of that type of deterrence would be unacceptable to the US.

>coercing US troops out of the peninsula before bludgeoning Seoul into submission with the threat of nuclear fire.

It is very likely that the Russians and Chinese would like to see the DPRK succeed in forcing the US to leave the region, but neither would be willing to let the DPRK take over the ROK. Almost 4% of all Chinese exports go to ROK. Thats about $90 Billion.
For the Russians, its about 5% of all exports and $12 billion.
The vast majority of these goods are things like computers and ICs. These are not things that someone living under the DPRK would buy.

They would probably wave goodbye to the departing US forces and then proceed to show the DPRK that Master Blaster runs Bartertown.

>>34490906
>For the Russians, its about 5% of all exports and $12 billion.
The Russians have an interest in full blown reunification. Being able to put a pipeline down to South Korea would mean cheap energy for South Korea and tons of energy bennies for Russia.

>>34490972
>The Russians have an interest in full blown reunification.
Yes, but not at the price of having a US ally on its border. In recent years they have acted swiftly to prevent that.

>>34490972
To expound, the Russians would love a unified Korea, but one that does not have US troops all over it.

>>34490797
>The third needs to burn
please explain your hatred for Hawaii-bros.

>>34490999
>>34491008

Do you think the Russians and Chinese will back down with enough force of personality and base closures in South Korea if/after we act on North Korea?

>>34491008
>To expound, the Russians would love a unified Korea, but one that does not have US troops all over it.
True. A guarantee that US troops leave the peninsula would be the only sensible endgame.

>>34491053
john mccain would literally have an aneurysm on the Senate floor if god emperor trump offered that in exchange for ruskie and chink assistance/acquiesce to our removal of lil' kim.

>>34491086
That hardly sounds like a downside. If we can settle scores and disentangle ourselves of our obligations in certain international affairs in the process, we can set our attention on other pressing and unresolved issues.

>>34491086
>senile neocon would oppose the only sensible course of action in bringing about reunification without dragging china and russia into ww3
geez, i wonder why

>>34491117
>If we can settle scores and disentangle ourselves of our obligations in certain international affairs in the process, we can set our attention on other pressing and unresolved issues.
They're not even requesting that the US abandon Korea as an ally. They just want the troops out of the peninsula. If Korea gets attacked we can choose to intervene from our bases in Japan. Those aren't bad terms considering China and Russia have massive economic incentives not to invade a reunified Korea.

>>34491117
>downside
literally all of the media, including amazon dot com because they own a newspaper, and fagbook because (((reasons))) are in the pockets of the forever war party. just like McAmnesty. and shillary too, before she became irrelevant.

with over 9000% of normie media screeching about how terribru it is to "abandon our allies," how long until swing voters in Pennsylvania start to believe them?

>>34491180
>They're not even requesting that the US abandon Korea as an ally. They just want the troops out of the peninsula.
When was this offer made? I dont recall them offering to help dump Best Korea if the US would leave the Peninsula.

>>34491117
>disentangle ourselves of our obligations in certain international affairs
Why?
Serious question. What is the downside to the US securing its interests?

>>34491202
it is assumed that such an offer might be on the table, and that it might be desirable to the chinks. the u.s. bases in worst Korea really do piss the chicoms off.

>>34491219
>it is assumed that such an offer might be on the table,
By who?

>>34491202
Formally? No. No one is socially autistic enough to make such an announcement publicly. It is, however, common sense that US troops leaving while maintaining the alliance and the Koreas reunifying remains the best ending for all parties involved.

>>34491217
tyranny at home.

all empires either break up early, or eventually enslave their own citizens. usually around the time the citizens stop believing the imperial propaganda, and start refusing to pay for the military industrial complex anymore. it is vital that the empire be devolved while the people are still reasonably free.

>>34491217
>Serious question. What is the downside to the US securing its interests?

Consider things from a different point of view: we have a lot of interests. Each one of them demands attention, human capital, and physical resources to attend to, and the more we have, the more effort we need to put forward to protect those interests, no matter how much or how little they offer beyond existing As An Interest. In South Korea's case, we have a good reason to protect them from threats. If we can reduce our presence by solving the threat while keeping them as an ally, we save time, money, and human capital that's needed to protect them and can spend that human capital in other places. Our deficits are solid proof that we don't have the resources to sustain our expenditures.

>>34491228
>It is, however, common sense that US troops leaving while maintaining the alliance and the Koreas reunifying remains the best ending for all parties involved.

Sure. But that requires the US secure assurances that the others will stay out of the ROK, and the others will seek the same assurances from the US, which is difficult for the US to give because they have someone that is ostensibly a close US ally sharing a border with two nations with often conflicting policy goals.
So in the eyes of the US, or ROK, that might not be the best solution.

>>34491227
so far, at least two people in this thread.

it's called a discussion. the discussion is about hypotheticals. these discussions are sometimes pleasant to engage in. perhaps you should try it sometime instead of trying to argue from authority in an attempt to quash an idea you don't like.

>>34491247
Do you think the US would suffer economically from the inability to protect its economic interests abroad?

>>34491292
Wow. So very salty. I am sorry that you react so angrily to people asking you questions.

The context here: >>34491180 made it seem like there was an actual offer on the table and we were not speaking in hypotheticals.

Also, asking questions isn't attempting to quash an idea. If you fear that your idea might be quashed by asking questions about it, perhaps its not well formed and you should go back to the drawing board.
Most ideas welcome being challenged. It helps them to evolve.

>>34491268
>Sure. But that requires the US secure assurances that the others will stay out of the ROK, and the others will seek the same assurances from the US, which is difficult for the US to give because they have someone that is ostensibly a close US ally sharing a border with two nations with often conflicting policy goals.
There are these things called treaties, anon. These treaties can say things like "the US will not enter the Korean peninsula with military troops unless Korea is attacked." These would hold legal weight. The US does not need to secure assurances that others will stay out of Korea either. That's the point of having an alliance.

>>34491349
>The context here: >>34491180 (You) made it seem like there was an actual offer on the table and we were not speaking in hypotheticals.
No, I was not talking about diplomats coming on TV and actually saying that outright. In no context other than bizzaroworld does that even remotely make sense. It's also not entirely hypothetical either since modern geopolitics all but ensures that US troops standing at China's border would be an unacceptable end result for them. You didn't really challenge any ideas. You sperged because you don't have a functional understanding of how diplomacy and geopolitics work.

>>34491402
>These treaties can say things like "the US will not enter the Korean peninsula with military troops unless Korea is attacked."
So then the US would need to maintain a military capable of forcing its way into the Korean Peninsula and expelling the forces of anyone who attacked it, right?
Do you think that is easier or less expensive than having the forces in place?

>>34476025
Like something out of fallout

>>34491402
>No, I was not talking about diplomats coming on TV and actually saying that outright. In no context other than bizzaroworld does that even remotely make sense.

Well, I am sorry that I misunderstood you. I guess than can happen on the internet.

> It's also not entirely hypothetical either since modern geopolitics all but ensures that US troops standing at China's border would be an unacceptable end result for them.

Well, since such an offer does not exist at all, it is, by definition, hypothetical.


>You sperged because you don't have a functional understanding of how diplomacy and geopolitics work.
Thanks. Ill take that under advisement.

>>34491303
johnny McAmnesty's (and by extension, the CIA's) idea of American interests, and mine, vary vastly. In fact, I believe the permanent war party is a clear and present danger to American interests, both domestically and abroad.

No American company with over 90% of their revenue coming from non government sources, (i.e. the legitimate economy,) will EVER be negatively harmed by American military withdrawal to United States territory, while conducting international training and cooperation with allied countries conducted on temporary bases as needed.

Lockmart, Raytheon, Northrop, General Electric, et al, will be DRASTICALLY AND PERMANENTLY DAMAGED and John McCain and his bloody war pig caucus cannot allow that. Even though the military industrial complex supported foreign wars will only ever serve to train the jackbooted thugs for oppression here at home.

>>34491464
>No American company with over 90% of their revenue coming from non government sources, (i.e. the legitimate economy,) will EVER be negatively harmed by American military withdrawal to United States territory,
What if the US withdraws and the DPRK and the ROK have it out?
Do you think that the companies that export goods to South Korea would be negatively affected by that?

>>34491402
>You sperged because you don't have a functional understanding of how diplomacy and geopolitics work.
Pot, kettle, etc.

>>34491485
>What if the US withdraws and the DPRK and the ROK have it out?

North Korea wins.

>>34491423
>So then the US would need to maintain a military capable of forcing its way into the Korean Peninsula and expelling the forces of anyone who attacked it, right?
If the US failed to intervene before the Korean peninsula capitulated entirely, yes. The Koreans, however, could maintain their own military and fend them off while US forces enter.
>Do you think that is easier or less expensive than having the forces in place?
Easier? Probably not. Less expensive? Possibly. It is, however, the most feasible solution since it doesn't end in WW3.