Nukes Thread 2: Atomic Boogaloo

>>34492987
Not one single development.

>>34493227
Is there a place where you'd draw the line?

>>34493227
So, the South African nuclear program. Why?

>>34493243
As soon as they demonstrate the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the US with a missile that is more than a technology demonstrator.

>>34493280
They wanted to get a deterrant.

>>34493386
>As soon as they demonstrate the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the US with a missile that is more than a technology demonstrator.
Is that just the delivery platform, or does it include the RV+warhead too?

>>34493386
>As soon as they demonstrate the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the US with a missile that is more than a technology demonstrator.

How do we distinguish between technology demonstrators and an actual weapon?

>>34493411
RV is the main thing.

>>34493421
Details about the vehicle. Mutiple tests for one.

>>34493444
Is there a way to make a meaningful distinction between a deliverable nuclear warhead and a technology demonstrator without images of the warhead?

>>34493444
What are North Korean RVs like? Are they shit? What are the main obstacles for a country like North Korea in improving them?

>>34493386
To deter who? They were the only nuclear power on the continent, were they worried about the soviets or something?

>>34493227
>>34493386
>>34493444
He has spoken

>>34493238
We HAD a de facto malaria cure. It was invented by a corporation and almost wiped out malaria everywhere that it was used for nearly three decades.

It was later outlawed by a government, that went so far as to lean on every other government to force them to outlaw it.

>>34494188
Why didn't you name it and cite supporting sources?

>>34494197
I would bet money he's talking about DDT

>>34494214
Ding!

>>34494214
DDT Had terrible consequences on the environments it was used on.

>>34494188
Saying DDT is a cure for malaria, is like saying genocide is a cure for petty theft, you retard

Every Arms Control Wonk who's chimed in on the opinion pages about North Korea's ICBMs has concluded that we need to accept reality that North Korea is a nuclear armed state and there's nothing we can do about it. Is this actually the realistic and probable course of action?

>>34494633
Probably. If it was a different situation (wew Iraq..) a preemptive strike might be feasible.

NK has all their arty in range of SK and dug in OTOH, so any war would have guaranteed casualties, so a preemptive strike doesn't look as good vs waiting it out, investing in missile defense and seeing if they're rational.

>>34494633
>Is this actually the realistic and probable course of action?
Not really.

>>34494666
Are you speaking strictly towards first strikes with conventional weapons?

>>34494214
for the record, you arguing with a different anon now.

>>34493650
Maybe you should research the history of South Africa in the 70s and 80s.

>>34493650
Much like the izzies, the plan was to deter the fact that all of their neighbors hated them and wanted them dead

>>34492513
>Well now I am confused.
>You just told me:
>there is no difference between a state, a corporation, a union, a mafia, or a church

I've re-read the posts a couple of times and I simply cannot understand how someone of above average intelligence who is arguing from total intellectual honesty could fail to understand that I was making a point about how a state is not morally superior to those other assemblages of humans. in fact, I still decent the assertion that they all have an equal moral imperative to act against the will of any not aggressor human. zero moral imperitive, in fact.

only and extremely stupid, or pedantic person would misunderstand my comment to mean that the results of state action are the same as the results of mafia action for instance. at least the mafia generally only kills other criminals and peddles a product some people want.

so which one is it, Oppenheimer? are you lacking in reading comprehension? or does the prospect of the loss of the nation state, and therefore your industry and livelihood, necessitate sophistry on your part to attempt to shield the small minded from thinking outside the box kindly provided by our masters?

>>34495393
inb4 some pedant tries to argue the invalidity of my point because of the typos.

File: 1272210147552.jpg (47KB, 737x501px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 737x501px

>>34495393
Go be edgy somewhere else.

>>34495426
this is the board that originated the murdercube meme. fuck right off.

File: 1496838373365.jpg (56KB, 720x615px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x615px

>>34495393

>>34495393
>are you lacking in reading comprehension?

Neither.

You said
> "nation states are just groups of people. there is no difference between a state, a corporation, a union, a mafia, or a church. all groups of people suffer the same debilitating effects of group think, fear of innovation, and compromised moral judgement."

Then you trotted out this:
>private citizens, working together do in fact feed billions, eliminate diseases, and send probes into space. They do so using corporations and charities. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and the Catholics would like a word with you.

I am just going by your own words. You said there was no difference between a state and a corporation. You said that "all groups of people suffer from the same debilitating effects of group think, fear of innovation, and compromised moral judgment."

If that is the case, Is Bill Gates not the head of a corporation? Is Microsoft not a "group of people"?

You did not qualify your statement. You said all groups of people suffer from the same issues, then you trotted out several people as examples when they are only capable of the things you mentioned because they are parts of 'groups of people'.


I also detect a hint of hostility and anger in your post. I have offered none of that to you. In fact, I have offered you respect, telling you that I believe that your opinions are sincere and that I respect you and them enough not to attempt to change them. To this point, I am still not attempting to persuade you. I am only confused by your words, and seek to understand the contradiction inherent in them. Why would me asking you to explain them cause you to respond in such a way?

>>34495393
>States, corporations and charities are all the same and are bad!

Well what about these things?

>Those don't count they were done by Corporations and charities.

lolwut

>>34495502
This is one of those guys who gets off on starting internet fights with anyone outside his hilariously tiny ideological bandwidth, so don't take him up on it

>>34495502
I am trying to disabuse you of the notion that government is special. first, the the notion that there are things that only government CAN do is patently false.

second, the realization that there is no moral difference between the private citizen and the government agent, just like there is no moral difference between the actions of the state and a church or corporation, is fundamental.

there ARE differences between the results of state action and the actions undertaken by all other groups of people. and government is allowed to claim the lie of moral superiority to avoid consequences for their actions, which is unacceptable.

these differences in results, and the lie that there is a difference in moral culpabilitculpability are what give rise to government power, and the fawning adoration of the state by the stupid.

coercion by all other groups of people such as corporations, churches, and increasingly unions, is no longer tolerated. mafia groups are prosecuted and punished. it is time for that last evil bastion of coercive power to be exposed for what it is. a banal institution composed of corrupt and generally useless individuals, whom actively deceive their victims into patriotism.

once we have disposed of the idea of the state, in order to prevent it's reemergence, especially at the hands of communists, then why would it be any controversy for polish or Japanese people to possess defensive nuclear arms. especially if you believe, as I do, that private people are NOT moral and responsible that the tyrants who rule us, petty and otherwise.

these differences in results, and the lie that there is a difference in moral culpabilitculpability are what give rise to government power, and the fawning adoration of the state by the stupid.

>>34495541
^^here's one of them now.

>>34495650
Oppenheimer BTFO. Stick to your nukes you fucking calculator.

>>34495650
The human approach to institutionalized power is the same across all organizations. Blaming Government for being Government is insane, because corporations, churches, mobs, etc will all behave exactly like people, but usually with fewer instruments of public accountability.

>>34495650
>I am trying to disabuse you of the notion that government is special.
I get that.
What I don't get is that you said ALL groups of people suffer from the same failings, then presented several groups of people as examples to emulate.

I am afraid that, as I said before, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I think that the things that you have posted in the previous thread and this one provide anyone interested in your point of view an excellent example of your particular ideology. If it appeals to them, then so be it.


>>34495681
Yep!

>>34495723
Back on the subject of nukes...
>>34494633
>[arms control wonks have been publicly stating] that we need to accept reality that North Korea is a nuclear armed state and there's nothing we can do about it.

Is this actually the most realistic and probable course of action? Is it the best course of action?

Oppen, is the US government concerned about a state or non-state actor retreiving a nuclear weapon from the sea floor? That Sovet boomer with 40 odd weapons (regardless of the condition) would enable a group to hsve a notable arsenal and would have a ver good idea of fusion weapon internal geometries.

What are they doing to top this? Retreiving weapons from the sea floor would be easier than starting a nuclear program from scratch.

>>34495723
Thoughts?
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/628342/North-Korea-s-new-ICBM-secret-compartment-render-US-defences-USELESS

>>34495846
To put it bluntly, it would be utterly impossible to execute such an operation covertly, so the threat index is quite low.

>>34496177
The US did it.

>>34496189
True, but I'd bet a lot that the soviets knew what they were doing there, and a non-state actor trying that play is another ball game all together

>>34496317
>Just letting a nation steal your classified technology.

Lol, no.

File: Charlie-DN-ST-84-01564-1S.jpg (449KB, 768x369px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 768x369px

>>34495846
K-219? It wouldn't be unprecedented, look up the story of K-129 and Project Azorian, the CIA worked with Howard Hughes to cover up an attempt at salvaging a sunken Golf-II class in the mid-Pacific.

And I've heard rumors floating around that K-219's missiles were already retrieved sometime before the Soviets found the wreck. Sub shit gets spooky real quick when you go past the official record.

>>34495846
The only state actor that really has the resources to pull something like that without being flaming obvious is the US, and I'd bet that there's a close watch on anyone with the necessary gear to attempt such a retrieval, which wouldn't be as hard as you thing, because it would involve some exceedingly specialized equipment
Plus if somebody DID assemble all the requisite gear and there were indicators that they were moving it to the area of a possible warhead, the US would most assuredly take action to prevent a retrieval, or in the worst case, catch the material in transit

>>34496475
The submarine lost two missiles (two warheads each) when they exploded, likely ejecting the warheads into the ocean. I know a lot of people misrepresent that as people having stolen the warheads.

>>34496519
Scratch that, they carried three warheads each.

>>34495814
>Is this actually the most realistic and probable course of action?
No. I think that some form of action is coming. It may be a year or so, but something will happen.
Now It would not shock me if some sort of deal is reached.

>Is it the best course of action?
No.

>>34495885
Clickbait.

>>34495846
>Oppen, is the US government concerned about a state or non-state actor retreiving a nuclear weapon from the sea floor?
No.

>That Sovet boomer with 40 odd weapons (regardless of the condition) would enable a group to hsve a notable arsenal
Not after all this time at the bottom of the sea.

>and would have a ver good idea of fusion weapon internal geometries.
Maybe. Not sure what they could do with it.

>What are they doing to top this?
Nothing.

>Retreiving weapons from the sea floor would be easier than starting a nuclear program from scratch.
Doubtful. Any nation capable of retrieving the warheads unnoticed would be capable of building the warheads from scratch.

>>34496475
>Sub shit gets spooky real quick when you go past the official record.
My opinion is that there is a very good reason why exactly what was recovered from the wreck is classified.


Have a good evening, /k/.

File: USS_Parche_(SSN-683)_off_Pearl_Harbor.jpg (914KB, 3951x3154px) Image search: [Google]

914KB, 3951x3154px

>>34496519
The version I heard was that when the Soviet salvage DSV went down to look at the wreck, they found the missile bay hatches apparently pried or cut open, and all the weapons missing.

Then there's the idea that K-129 was setting up a false flag strike to lure the US and China into a nuclear war. Allegedly there are some anomalies in the crew manifest (regular was 83, Yeltsin awarded the Order of Valor to 98 sailors). The theory is that a group of hardliners, possibly KGB or another intelligence agency, attempted a mutiny and unauthorized launch to draw the US and China into a war, eliminating the two key threats to Soviet dominance in one swoop.

>>34496580
>My opinion is that there is a very good reason why exactly what was recovered from the wreck is classified.

K-129 (Azorian/Glomar Explorer) or K-219? Because there's damn good evidence that more was recovered off the former than anyone's admitting, and the latter lines up a bit too conveniently with the still-classified activities of the USS Parche (a modified Sturgeon-class nuclear fast attack boat, the most decorated ship in US Navy history despite never officially seeing combat).

>>34496580
>No. I think that some form of action is coming. It may be a year or so, but something will happen.
>Now It would not shock me if some sort of deal is reached.

Thanks Oppenheimer.

File: nAs60rH.gif (260KB, 549x720px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 549x720px

Oppen is in bed, post weapon diagrams

>>34494188
Are you talking about DDT? It's still in use. Bugspray is not a cure for a disease. That's like saying condoms cure AIDS.

File: 1497243715558.jpg (7KB, 219x219px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 219x219px

>NK's piddly ass 10 kt nukes versus the US's 1.2 MT tops nukes
>NK's dozen or so nukes vs the US's enormous stockpile of weapons ranging from bombs dropped by plane, to short range cruise missiles, to SLBMs, to full on ICBMs
>NK's single purpose nukes vs the US's low yield tactical nukes and moderate to high yield strategic nukes
>NK's single delivery system vs the US's missile silos, stealth bombers, SLBMs (ensuring retaliatory/second strike), drones and so on
>anything NK can throw at the US vs the US's extremely capable anti-missile defense systems

99% sure that when the media says "a Nork missile fell into the sea of Japan" it really means the navy shot down a fully functional missile over the sea of Japan.

They're shooting real missiles with functional explosive warheads at Japan, and the navy isn't being straight with the public.

File: master alarm.jpg (8KB, 189x266px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 189x266px

>>34497703
>drones and so on
are there actually drones that have nuclear payload?

>>34495393
>state is not morally superior to those other assemblages of humans.

Morality is a moving target. That being said, a state is the only entity which can legislatively define morality. The other groups you mentioned may enact a customary morality that is only binding on the members of that group. Legislated morality affects all within its scope. Group morality does not.

A state acts on behalf of everybody within its boundaries. Your other listed groups do not, actually being exclusionary to a greater or lesser degree. By the simple fact of representing everybody within its borders, a state assumes a higher moral plane.

That you've rejected the concept of the primacy of the state indicates that your thinking is rather narrowminded, and incomplete. You've started the process, arrived at a point you liked, and camped there. You need to pursue the line of reasoning to a full conclusion.

>>34497728
Yeah, and it's called, uh, the "minuteman" or something?

>>34495567
He keeps talking about morality. I think it would be educational and entertaining to pin him down on that, get him to explain exactly what he means.

>>34492987
>A N T I M A T T ER W A R H E A D S

>>34497791
very funny you cunt
drones as in fixed wing aircraft, not ballistic missiles with a navigational computer

>>34497822
>why would this need to exist

>>34497822
>>34497839
They're usually just called Cruise Missiles.

>>34495650
Yeah, powerful groups of people (that arent me) are bad, so lets subject those admittedly individual entities to another, more powerful group of peoples that represent my individual desires!

the state is there so that no violent conflict about which of your insidpid, scum-sucking dogma's can occur; the entire point being that a single, majority ruling body is the safest way to do things for the higest number of people.

If you can't see the forest for the trees, which we can't as a species, you might as well agree on what trees to look at

>>34497857
last time i checked cruise missiles dont hang around to loiter for several hours over a target, plus their weapons payload is not detachable and neither does the aircraft survive a succesfull strike
or am i wrong
you cunt

>>34497880
Since you apparently mean drones as a non-expendable delivery platform, no, these do not exist, and are not seen as a good idea.

I mean if they really, really wanted to, the US could probably tape a B61 to a UAV of some kind if some retarded one-off mission demanded it, but it sure as shit is nowhere even vaguely close to a thing in normal doctrine

File: 5388-old-man-laughing.png (246KB, 415x295px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 415x295px

>>34497966
>swarms of MQ-1 with nukes duct-taped to them
>everytime you shoot down a drone a B61 drops with
>everytime theres a tactical nuclear explosion

sounds like a good "you did it to yourself" solution imho

>>34494341
>>34494356
I bet you still think that Silent Spring was factual.

>>34497748
The state does not represent me.
morality preexists the state. it cannot be legislated.
I started from the assumption of the supremacy of the state, while employed as a baby killer for the state. (A co. 16th Engineers, 1AD, U.S.Army.)
>>34497871
who is most powerful than the state? I want less powerful structures, not more.

>>34499745
>who is most powerful than the state? I want less powerful structures, not more.
People will self organize with the largest power structure they can stably construct and will attempt to acquire more power over time. Artificially dismantling your government is tantamount to discarding a tank for a bicycle and rifle because it's a more accessible standard of armament for everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlH7OuWiPb4

File: winn95.gif (17KB, 438x270px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 438x270px

Ah the nostalgia.

File: 1474377542858.gif (251KB, 581x720px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 581x720px

>>34496987
i have the rest

File: 1474377634806.gif (147KB, 672x354px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 672x354px

>>34502141

File: 1474377697162.gif (83KB, 418x318px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 418x318px

>>34502155

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy6-ZKWCoH0&t=194s

>Operation Crossroads was a pair of nuclear weapon tests conducted by the United States at Bikini Atoll in mid-1946. They were the first nuclear weapon tests since Trinity in July 1945, and the first detonations of nuclear devices since the atomic bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. The purpose of the tests was to investigate the effect of nuclear weapons on warships. The Crossroads tests were the first of many nuclear tests held in the Marshall Islands, and the first to be publicly announced beforehand and observed by an invited audience, including a large press corps. They were conducted by Joint Army/Navy Task Force One, headed by Vice Admiral William H. P. Blandy rather than by the Manhattan Project, which had developed nuclear weapons during World War II. A fleet of 95 target ships was assembled in Bikini Lagoon and hit with two detonations of Fat Man plutonium implosion-type nuclear weapons of the kind dropped on Nagasaki, each with a yield of 23 kilotons of TNT (96 TJ).

pretty rad for 23kt...

File: 1337129965936.jpg (94KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1200x720px

what are the chances that NK would try an EMP weapon vs normal nuke attack? Seems like accuracy is less of a concern if you were planning to detonate over CONUS vs strike a particular target...

how bad would this be? is it all fan fiction or would it wipe out everything non-hardened?

>>34502259

I don't see what motivation they'd have, no matter how effective it is it would guarantee a reaction. The Norks don't have any reason, with such a limited arsenal, to strike us with an actual nuke (say they could hit California), much less an EMP attack, either way it guarantees retaliation and EVERYONE besides them has a bigger, better arsenal. They're just gonna keep doing their launches and waving their dicks as a deterrent to being fucked with because we don't want even that one strike to happen. Actually striking out with one nuke is the opposite of a deterrent to being fucked with

>>34502293
>The Norks don't have any reason
they're also pretty fucking crazy, like a cult-nation, who knows

>>34502293
>tfw Belgium has a larger, better nuclear arsenal, than Best Korea

>>34502357

I'm still laughing imagining the day we do a giant training exercise or increase sanctions or Trump shoots his mouth off, SOMETHING that actually pisses off Kim enough that he says "THAT'S FUCKING IT" and decides to actually launch a real nuke for the first time, and it blows up 100 feet off the launch pad and showers the area with radiation

>>34497709
Sure, kiddo

>>34492987
yes hello

>>34496665
Certainly interesting and playable, though many things are technically plausible if almost none of the official stories can be trusted.

So what happened with the nukes? The US decided to confiscate them because the Soviets were being naughty?

>>34503000
What did that take you, 4 weeks on an EC2 instance?

>>34503190
nope, i just got lucky by having some guy on /bant/ do it for me

>>34503200
Oh good. Another trip. Are you at least educated in something?

>>34497728
The BGM-109G Tomahawks were retired, but they fit the bill. Even Loon and Regulus missiles did.

File: GyrodyneQH-50_5380.jpg (863KB, 2000x1388px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 2000x1388px

>>34497728
Also, the DASH could carry a nuclear depth bomb.

>>34503231
i actually never use this trip, but it's my favorite of the ones they made me.
#smgUM11t !olLnukeB/6
#Wm*=5kVD !3Do1nukeSs
#YcIpUp=r !nukerGGZmA

you guys can have the rest

also to answer your question, my understanding is somewhat basic of mechanisms, however i do seem to find a lot of joy in simulating and predicting outcomes of how wars would break out and play out

How many nukes would we need to reliably destroy the entire NK artillery line and most of the DMZ including the mines, assuming we used a single strike to minimize their ability to retaliate, and we used overkill to account for potential interception?

>>34503404
nuke the nukes :DDDDDDDD

>>34499745
>The state does not represent me.

If you are physically within the boundaries of the state, it represents you to some degree. If you are a citizen of the state not only does it represent you, it's also your agent. Your inability to recognize that fact is tantamount to a toddler hiding from others by putting its hands over its eyes.

>morality preexists the state. it cannot be legislated.

I would argue that morality and the state were developed as concept simultaneously. That aside, you're using morality in such a vague fashion that I suspect you haven't really nailed down a definition of the term, and that you're still refining your personal moral values.

Morality is legislated all the time. That's what laws are, consensus morality. Social norms drive morality, laws reflect and define those norms.

>>34503449
So you're a tripfag, that can't contribute meaningfully to the topic, browses /bant and is younger than the Nork nuclear programme.
Here's a (You), now fuck off

>>34503710
>no fun allowed
but to honestly answer his question it would primarily depend on the nukes used
Let's say you're using a bomb with the power of Castle Bravo. 4.5 mile fireball. 6,500 feet (2,000 m) wide crater 250 feet (76 m) in depth. Keep in mind that there are also secret tunnels that go underneath the DMZ and connect the two Koreas. The DMZ being about 160 miles (250 km). I'm too lazy to keep doing conversions so I'll stick with metric. Essentially it would take 125 Castle Bravos to put craters across the whole thing, but seeing how it's by the Japanese sea, due to fronts, the fallout would travel farther. This is hypothetical, because one carrier couldn't carry 125 Castle Bravos, and an airspace that restrictive, even when holding two nukes, would probably have a hard time getting there stealthily.

>>34503841
lets assume its a do or die worry about the fallout vs potential SK lives saved (really we mean it rest of world it totally isn't just because we can) kind of scenario.

1. Can we currently deploy enough ordinance to do the job? I'm gonna assume the answer is "NO" if the method of deployment is all castle bravos etc instead of mixed deployment. I'm gonna assume we don't have enough B-2's or Subs to do this with a single deployment vehicle type either so we'd have to rely on ICBMs or some manner of mixed deployment.

2. Assuming yes, we can do it, would we still have enough nukes left in reserve to continue functioning as a deterrent for the U.S.'s safety. I have no idea if the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal would be large enough after such an operation to maintain effectiveness, which may be a reason it never happens.

3. Assuming 1 and 2, how sick would it be?

https://webmshare.com/7rJnX - Error: Audio streams are not allowed.

>>34503841
The US doesn't anything like Castle Bravo. We wouldn't need to put craters across the entire DMZ.

>>34504028
>1. Can we currently deploy enough ordinance to do the job?
If, for some bizarre reason, we felt that nuclear weapons were the best tools for counter-battery, yes, we have enough to do that.
>2. Assuming yes, we can do it, would we still have enough nukes left in reserve to continue functioning as a deterrent for the U.S.'s safety. I have no idea if the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal would be large enough after such an operation to maintain effectiveness, which may be a reason it never happens.
It would depend on the world situation at the time. If it was like the current one, yes.
If we were in the grips of some major crisis with Russia or China, it might not.

>3. Assuming 1 and 2, how sick would it be?
The sickest.

>>34505092
How easy would it have been, during the cold war, for a high ranking NATO officer/pilot in nuclear sharing country to get his hands on a nuclear device, and would he have any chance to set it off?
(I heard some tall tales from former soldiers in the Bundeswehr, was wondering how much truth there was to it)

I can't help but feel that North Korea's aims are a deterrent rather than a realistic first strike scenario. They may have ten or twenty nukes that vary in range from 3 to 10 kilotins, but the US has well over 5,000 weapons that utilize various delivery methods from MIRVed ICBMs, to SLBMs, to bombs dropped from planes. These weapons probably range anywhere from low yield 100 ton TNT equivalency tactical nukes on up to 1.2 megaton strategic nukes, the largest (known) yield of any nuke in the US arsenal. NK assuredly knows that attacking the US, SK, or Japan will result in their complete annihilation, which is why I believe their aim is a deterrent since even a 10 kt nuke can kill hundreds of thousands and destroy the economy.

>>34505191
>How easy would it have been, during the cold war, for a high ranking NATO officer/pilot in nuclear sharing country to get his hands on a nuclear device, and would he have any chance to set it off?
Next to impossible.
Given the jumbled mess that was the nuclear command and control for NATO, it would have been unlikely he could have used it even in a war.

>>34505317
>I can't help but feel that North Korea's aims are a deterrent rather than a realistic first strike scenario.
Of course. That doesn't really change anything, however.

>>34505317
Deterrence is the usual goal for acquiring nukes, why else? Still need a credible delivery system.

>>34505369
>Still need a credible delivery system
You doubt their ability to build a missile that can reach LA? They have already developed reentry vehicles.

>>34505369
North Korea only needs a nuclear deterrent to preserve a power structure that will be threatened by their own future actions.

>>34505462
>They have already developed reentry vehicles.
No they havent.

>>34505601
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the main trick with reentry vehicles is making them fly straight (or where you want them to go in general) instead of going off course because of heat damage, right?

File: P-500-Bazalt-Sandbox-1S.jpg (287KB, 768x353px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 768x353px

>>34492987

Why didn't the USA ever embrace anti-ship nuclear missiles?

File: tricone.jpg (24KB, 580x411px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 580x411px

>>34505662
>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the main trick with reentry vehicles is making them fly straight (or where you want them to go in general) instead of going off course because of heat damage, right?
Accuracy is an issue, but the first problem that must be overcome is protecting the warhead. The RV must be able to protect the warhead from the stresses of reentry, and this is a formidable challenge. Accuracy somes second.
The RV for this missile is probably a blunt-body. This also explains the design of the nose cone for the HS-14. It is a shroud instead of the triconic RVs seen in mock up form in DPRK photo ops. (see pic for example of triconic)

While the DPRK can probably fit their existing warheads in the mock up RVs, these RVs would not fit on the HS-14, but a blunt-body RV could and would explain why the HS-14 had a shroud. This would seem to indicate that the existing DPRK triconic RVs are probably unlikely to survive the reentry forces you would expect from an ICBM RV, but the blunt-body probably could.

This has several ramifications for the missile. Blunt body RVs are inaccurate. They are also heavy (comparatively). The more weight, the shorter the range. With a tri-conic RV, the range of the HS-14 could be closer to 9000 km. This would mean the max throw weight at that range is probably close to 400 - 500 kg, which is about the weight of the lightest DPRK warhead (it is thought) without an RV of any kind. When you add in the blunt body RV, you get a max range of about 7000 km.

So with the test, it seems clear that the only RV the DPRK has for its ICBM is an untested blunt body RV which limits range and accuracy. So they need to do some more testing on this RV, to have an actual weapon system.

>>34506072
>So they need to do some more testing on this RV, to have an actual weapon system.
How are they going to test the RV without getting a dose of Astronomy In A Can?

>>34506138
Test flights with test RVs. Loft it, have it come back down, monitor the telemetry to see how the RV performed.

>>34505601
There most recent ICBM test had a reentry vehicle.

>>34506175
*their

>>34506161
And at what point in this will the US do something? Surely we're not going to wait until they have a bomb capable of hitting Seattle until we do something?

>>34506194

Dude, the US has had many legitimate excuses to invade NK for decades. Yet nothing is ever done. Why would this change now?

>>34506213
My thinking is that the US doesn't want an extremely drunken and irate version of Iran having nuclear weapons to begin with.

>>34506175
It had a shroud. Some people think they see an RV, or two, but I am unconvinced.

>>34506194
>And at what point in this will the US do something?
I would imagine that they would want to strike before the DPRK has the capability to reliably deliver nuclear weapons to a US city.
That's still got some time there, so they will probably like to exhaust some diplomatic opportunities first. They may attempt to buy time by bolstering US BMD capabilities in the meantime.

Of course, the current US administration is proving somewhat difficult to predict, so they may have a different calculus at work here.

>>34506286
Question, Opp.
If you were to write yet another cheesy 'Loose Nukes' spy novel, where would you personally choose as the origin for the material?

>>34506286
>somewhat difficult to predict
In what way?

>>34507031

Do you not read the news at all?

>>34506794
Pakistan.

>>34507066
I avoid paying to get lied to.

everything I've seen him try to do, I expected. I also expected that the Republican Congress would block him every chance they got.

what is so hard to understand about the man? he is pretty simple to figure out.

>>34507243
>I avoid paying to get lied to.

I didn't even mention a news source. Are you implying there is not one single news source that can be relied upon? Not even the ones that obviously have a bias, but that just state "today this person said this" and leave it at that? Does that not sound like insanity to you? I hate to risk derailing a perfectly good nuke thread but seriously, that's an edge so sharp you could split an atom with it

>>34507295
>Are you implying there is not one single news source that can be relied upon?

almost.

I get my news from multiple people/groups who predicted all of this. those people are NOT ideologically identical to each other, either. but they are at least competant. and almost NEVER on t.v.

100% of "reporters" who have been shocked or surprised by D.J.T. are either hacks who were never that good at their job, or are just political propagandists.

rule of thumb; if it's on cable t.v... it's fake.
if it's in a newspaper, it's an outright lie.

What's the chance of the US resuming nuclear testing? What would it take to do so?

>>34508699
I don't think we need more tests since no significant weapon technology change has happened. At least as far as nuclear devices.
Missile testing is the best we'll get.

>>34506794
Pakistan/KSA

>>34507031
The conflicting statements between what he says/tweets vs what is actually done.
There are events just this past week that are real head scratchers.

>>34507406
Oh.

>>34508699
Probably not. We would need a novel warhead design.

>>34509933
Did the RRW designs get to point where they could use testing before their cancellation? Did they get a number like other warheads?

>>34509933
Hey Oppenheimer,

quick question - since the Best Korea is neighbouring with both Russia AND China... would that mean that cause a problem for US should they ever need to retaliate with nukes agaist the Korea? Like, would they just call Russians and say "We are totally not launching anything against your naval base, our target is 200km away in Korea, don't panic please. Also, sorry for that fallout in Vladivostok". How about Chinese, would they not mind that there is a new nuclear firing range to the south of them? Or do these concerns mean that US should and will intervene before Norks get their grip on a reliable delivery platform, properly working boosted warheads of small size and thoroughly tested RVs with multiple decoys? Bonus question - are we going to see some action there in 2017? Should I get my popcorn ready?

>>34496423
You'd be surprised the cold war was a lot about looking tough while also trying your hardest to prevent a war. The fact that it was covert gave the Sovets the luxury of not acting on it.

>>34498381
From Wikipedia "The international treaty that banned most uses of DDT and other organochlorine pesticides—the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants—included an exemption for the use of DDT for malaria control until affordable substitutes could be found.[70] Mass outdoor spraying of DDT was abandoned in poor countries subject to malaria, such as Sri Lanka, in the 1970s and 1980s; this was not because of government prohibitions but because the DDT had lost its ability to kill the mosquitoes.[70] Because of insects' very short breeding cycle and large number of offspring, the most resistant insects survive and pass on their genetic traits to their offspring, which replace the pesticide-slain insects relatively rapidly. Agricultural spraying of pesticides produces pesticide resistance in seven to ten years.[78]

Some experts have said that restrictions placed on the agricultural use of DDT have increased its effectiveness for malaria control. According to pro-DDT advocate Amir Attaran, the result of the 2004 Stockholm Convention banning DDT's use in agriculture "is arguably better than the status quo ... For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."[79]"

>>34510350
The US wouldn't have wasted the effort trying to keep it secret if they wanted the Soviets to know.

The public would never have known if they never made an announcement about it.

>>34499745
If their is no state the warlord that shoots you and takes your stuff with no acountability is the ultimate power.

>>34507406
You think in todays wistleblower society if a major news outlet was outright fabricating everything they say you wouldn't have some underpaid staff writer defecting to the competiton evey week with an embarrassing story for a quick buck? You don't think with falling ratings MSNBC or CNN would kill for something like that would kill the other liberal network? Look at how the other liberal networks attacked CBS and Dan Rather over the fake documents about Bush

>>34509933
Oppie, have you ever read 'The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940-1945'?

>>34510552
That is in fact happening.

>>34510306
>Did the RRW designs get to point where they could use testing before their cancellation?
They would use the W89 which was already fully tested and implemented all the newest safety features.

>>34510312
>Like, would they just call Russians and say "We are totally not launching anything against your naval base, our target is 200km away in Korea, don't panic please. Also, sorry for that fallout in Vladivostok". How about Chinese, would they not mind that there is a new nuclear firing range to the south of them?

The US would call both prior to the strike to let them know the exact details. It very likely that any nuclear strike would not use weapons that would overfly Russia or China.

>Or do these concerns mean that US should and will intervene before Norks get their grip on a reliable delivery platform, properly working boosted warheads of small size and thoroughly tested RVs with multiple decoys?

It is in the US interests to do intervene before they get to that point regardless of what China of Russia think.

>Bonus question - are we going to see some action there in 2017? Should I get my popcorn ready?
Probably not.

>>34510572
No. Should I?

>>34511182
>Probably not.
so early 2018 to late 2019?

>>34511182
>The US would call both prior to the strike to let them know the exact details.

Such warning has to be delivered even to the low level command - to make sure that radar operators don't panic, that general alarms are not sounded everywhere, that every ABM battery does not engage...

So I am starting to think that even a short notice warning would have to be spread out rapidly and thus it may not be a well kept secret (eg that in 2 hour time there will be limited nuclear attack). This gives more than enough time and justification for Norks to launch first as a preemptive strike.

>>34511274
>Such warning has to be delivered even to the low level command - to make sure that radar operators don't panic, that general alarms are not sounded everywhere, that every ABM battery does not engage...
That's not how Russian command and control systems work.

>>34511182

This question was posted in a previous thread I think, but went unanswered.

During the period of nuclear tests, did every nuclear detonation have to be authorized by the president or could the DoE set off the devices themselves?

>>34511302
>During the period of nuclear tests, did every nuclear detonation have to be authorized by the president or could the DoE set off the devices themselves?
The president was aware of the cycles and briefed on them, but DoE ran the day to day operations. DoE would give the president the overview of the planned operation (x # of detonations, projected dates, yields) and he would approve it. Details were available (what exactly they were testing) but how in depth the briefing the president got was up to the president.

>>34511328
Do you have any thoughts on this?
http://russianforces.org/blog/2017/07/is_it_too_late_to_have_an_info.shtml
What do you think about the fraying of the INF Treaty? What are the politics of the INF Treaty nowadays?

>>34511328
http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling071017/

Thoughts?

>>34511413
>>34511500
Both of these are on point.

Is Best Korean radar, AA, etc EMP hardened or would an EMP strike be suffiecient to blind their detection? Can that be done without effects in neighboring nations?

>>34511558

Hi there Oppen, what are your thoughts on the RS-26 Rubezh and the RS-28 Sarmat?

>>34507243
>>34508699
>>34509897
Hello samefagging nigger

>>34512011
The last post is me, the top two are another anon.

File: 63y3WSb.jpg (239KB, 800x463px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 800x463px

>>34505779
The Soviets had no real bluewater surface navy, nor any need for heavy sealift or merchant shipping like NATO. They'd have been a waste of money. The reason the Soviets focused so heavily on AShMs and nuclear torpedoes is because of American carrier superiority, and the need to interrupt REFORGER as much as possible if Europe went hot.

>>34503063
The US might have nabbed them for research purposes, to get a look at what the Soviets had. Certainly wouldn't be out of character for the era.

>>34511936
Obviously not Oppenheimer, but God, the Sarmat is such a meme. How did the "this can destroy France or Texas" meme even start? Is it even going to be spectacular in any way, beyond simply being an updated replacement for the aging R-36M? You know, besides carrying a bunch of warheads so that Russia can continue to put all of their weapons in their nuclear sponge for some reason.

>>34496987
>>34502141
>>34502155
>>34502164
Where are these from? These are super interesting, especially the gun-type warhead design. I've never seen anything like that before. Didn't think it was seriously considered beyond Little Boy.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (46KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1280x720px

>>34492987
*blocks your path*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAJdE3fN-Jo

>>34507031
Trump's not a politician. He doesn't act like a politician, nor does he have the reflexes and instincts of a politician. But he is in a political job.

>>34512443
I'd guess advancing a nuclear deterrent is cheaper than buying more ships and planes and such, but I'm pulling that out of my ass.

>>34512571
I just don't think it's good for survivability. Russia should make sure its best ICBMs are SLBMs. America's Minuteman III is so obviously a nuclear sponge - we now have one warhead per missile and it's in the middle of nowhere. To me, it seems like Russia is going to make the Sarmat the backbone of their nuclear arsenal on the strategic scale.

I'm sure they'd get them off the ground in time in a real attack scenario, but putting your best missiles in fixed silos doesn't seem like the best strategy to me.

>>34512640
Russians drink a lot.

File: hmmmm.jpg (6KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x300px

>>34512659

>>34511182

Opp., in your opinion, is NK looking to perfect a relatively inaccurate single payload fusion device as the quickest path to having a real deterrent, or to waiting to successfully develop a MIRV or Decoy MIRV system to maximize their strike capabilities? Does this change the US's approach to dealing with them?

>>34512687
Russia usually understands what the best solution to their strategic goals are but then go home and get drunk. Then they come to work the next day with an attempt to improve a solution that more closely aligns with nostalgic solutions that worked when Russia was ascendant in a field.
So instead of slbms, they prefer land based mobile icbms.

>>34513060
I know that they use a lot of road mobile ICBMs which seems like a good solution for potential adversaries in Europe or China. But can they hit the US? I'm honestly not very well-versed in Russia's nuclear arsenal and delivery systems to begin with. Undoubtedly, if they can, the accuracy isn't as good as it could be on silo-based ICBMs or SLBMs.

>>34513114
I doubt a path to war with Russia except wounded pride and dual escalation in Syria or Ukraine, they can only hope for a limited exchange possibly not on either homeland and a US post war collapse we ourselves cause.

>>34513295
I'm not necessarily implying a conflict is going to happen, but the delivery systems have to be as capable as they can be. That's the backbone of a credible deterrent, is it not?

>>34513314
Unless you have volume of fire I suppose.

>>34513413
Sure, but that hasn't really been the strategy since the world had 60,000 warheads. Reduced arsenals, better accuracy, lower-yield warheads. Russia just doesn't do it as well as the US, I suppose.

Never really did.

>>34511936
Sarmat is having some pretty serious issues. We will see if they can iron them all out.
Both systems are more or less part of a modernization cycle.

>>34512640
>I just don't think it's good for survivability. Russia should make sure its best ICBMs are SLBMs.
Thats difficult to do and maintain a consistent level of deployed systems.

>America's Minuteman III is so obviously a nuclear sponge - we now have one warhead per missile and it's in the middle of nowhere.
They are more than that.

>To me, it seems like Russia is going to make the Sarmat the backbone of their nuclear arsenal on the strategic scale.
We will see.

>I'm sure they'd get them off the ground in time in a real attack scenario, but putting your best missiles in fixed silos doesn't seem like the best strategy to me.
Its not a bad strategy either.

>>34512709
>, is NK looking to perfect a relatively inaccurate single payload fusion device as the quickest path to having a real deterrent, or to waiting to successfully develop a MIRV or Decoy MIRV system to maximize their strike capabilities?
I don't think so. I think they want the ability to reliably deliver a nuclear warhead to targets inside the US. It doesn't have to even be big in terms of yield. Putting a decoy system is possible, but would be challenging given their throw weight issues.

>Does this change the US's approach to dealing with them?
Not really.

>>34513114
>But can they hit the US?
Oh yes.

>I'm honestly not very well-versed in Russia's nuclear arsenal and delivery systems to begin with. Undoubtedly, if they can, the accuracy isn't as good as it could be on silo-based ICBMs or SLBMs.
Its not, but its good enough.

>>34513577
>America's Minuteman III is so obviously a nuclear sponge - we now have one warhead per missile and it's in the middle of nowhere.
>They are more than that.

It just seems to me that America's most important strategic missile is the Trident II. Highly survivable weapons platform, and arguably the best missile in its class with regards to accuracy and payload capabilities. The Minuteman III just seems so much less capable in comparison, and you know that the silos themselves play an important role in absorbing Russian warheads in a strategic exchange scenario.

Unless there's something else special about them that I've overlooked. I like to think I have a decent enough knowledge of this topic, but probably not.

>>34513577
Okay, I'm starting to think I'm a 4chan noob. I double posted and fucked up the formatting. Let me try this again. Sorry if I'm grilling you with these questions, you can ignore them if you so choose.

>Sarmat is having some pretty serious issues.

Like what, exactly? British tabloids would have me believe the SATAN 2 (!!!) is doing just fine as a France- or Texas-destroyer. /s

>Thats difficult to do and maintain a consistent level of deployed systems.

What do you mean by this? Like I had mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not as familiar with Russia's arsenal as I am with the US's (which I'm still probably not that familiar with, judging by your reaction to my Minuteman III comment).

>Its not, but its good enough.

Is the "rule of thumb" that doubling a weapon's accuracy has the same effect on lethality as making the warhead yield eight times larger true? Is furthering increasing accuracy on today's ballistic missiles not worth it because they already fulfill targeting needs, or is there room for improvement? I understand they're already huge improvements over the first ICBMs, what with their CEPs something like a kilometer or at least several hundred meters.

>>34513657
The numbers of MM RVs do not fluctuate with patrol patterns.
Mk 21 RVs are the most accurate overall, with the Mk V slightly trailing. US W87s and W88s probably have the same single shot pk, with a slight edge to the W87.

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages and they work well together to cover each other.


>Can you elaborate on this?
Russian SSBN patrol rates are very low, with little capacity to surge numbers. Even under the best of circumstances, the Russians could not rely on their SSBN fleet to function as its major deterrent.

>>34513844
>Like what, exactly?
We are not 100% sure. Ejection tests that were scheduled to begin in 2015 will not take place until the end of this year, at least. Krasmash is under some criticism from the MoD about issues with the missiles pushing back other tests from last year to this year and maybe beyond. The program looks like it is having some significant issues.

>What do you mean by this?
The number of deployed weapons would fluctuate as patrols rates increase and decrease, subs undergo maintenance that can take a dozen or so tubes out of service at once.

SSBNs have their advantages, but they have their disadvantages as well.


>that doubling a weapon's accuracy has the same effect on lethality as making the warhead yield eight times larger true?
In general yes, but there are many more factors that go into calculating WLS and SSpk than accuracy and yield.


CONT CONT CONT

File: Apocalypse-tank.jpg (334KB, 1200x588px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1200x588px

>>34505779
That's a good question. Plenty of nuclear cruise missiles fitted for ships, but no ASCMs...

>>34512232
The Soviets had a larger navy in the mid 60s to 70's.

>>34513844
>>34513974
There is a very logical school of thought that says that further accuracy is not desireable mainly do to the perception of instability you might introduce into the strategic balance. You have a good idea of what the other guys systems are capable of and you have mathematical models that tell you how many targets of X hardness would survive if attacked by Y weapons of Z type and so on. You structure your response and overall strategy based on those models. If you introduce something that upsets those models, then you might cause unforeseen responses as the other guy attempts to address the disruption. FAS et al strongly fall into this camp.

In general, improved accuracy makes counterforce strikes more likely to succeed. If you are in the camp that believes that, prior to a hypothetical accuracy increase, counterforce strikes were never likely to succeed (Kristensen) then suddenly making them possible is a huge change.

If you are in the camp that counterforce options existed that had good chances of success already, then not much has changed.

>>34513844
>Sarmat is having some pretty serious issues.

Navigation issues, they had them about 3 years ago. They've since been worked out in subsequent tests.

>Russian SSBN patrol rates are very low, with little capacity to surge numbers. Even under the best of circumstances, the Russians could not rely on their SSBN fleet to function as its major deterrent.

Each Borei carries up to 16 Bulava missiles.Each Bulava carries 6-40 150 kt warheads.Give a 20% misfire/navigation chance. Give the US missile interceptor missiles a 49.5% chance of success(publicly stated and max, but that's extremely optimistic because it was touted for propaganda reasons, additionally by Obama). Squadrons will not be ready to react in 5-10 minute stand by chance.

They'd fuck us up with one sub if they wanted, and they routinely push a sub across the west coast as an exercise, and brag about it after.

>>34513974
>The number of deployed weapons would fluctuate as patrols rates increase and decrease, subs undergo maintenance that can take a dozen or so tubes out of service at once.

Ah, you're absolutely right about that. I can't believe I hadn't considered that at all.

So the Minuteman III and Trident II really compliment each other in this regard.

>WLS and SSpk

What are those? Now we're getting into terms I've never even heard of before.

>>34514071
>this entire post

Very interesting, thank you for this response. I like to think successful counterforce strikes are possible today.

>>34514101
No, ejection issues, my vodka-drinking friend. Plus the fact that it's still undergoing tests in 2017 when it was supposed to start fielding in 2015.

File: vulnerability of hard target.jpg (90KB, 750x567px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 750x567px

>>34514101
>Navigation issues,
Ejection issues.
Supposed to happen in 2015: https://life.ru/t/%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BA/811587?utm_source=rusnovosti&utm_campaign=redirect
Pushed to 2016: http://vpk-news.ru/news/31527

And now late 2017: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3342094

>They'd fuck us up with one sub if they wanted, and they routinely push a sub across the west coast as an exercise, and brag about it after.

Thats not the question. The question was why the Russians dont put more emphasis on deploying SLBMs.
The reason is that they don't deploy them at a pace to match what they can do with ICBMs.

>They'd fuck us up
>They'd
>us
For some reason, I don't think what you are implying here is accurate.

>>34514116
>WLS and SSpk
Warhead lethality score and single shot probability of kill.


>I like to think successful counterforce strikes are possible today.
I would say that you are probably correct. Pic related.

Night /k/.

>>34514242
Night, Opp. Thanks for the response.

Thanks for defining the terms. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm not following the graph. For instance, the W88 hits 80% of the time and fails 100% of the time? Graph doesn't have the greatest design, I don't think...

Thanks oppie, these last two threads are bringing up some nostalgia.

File: znWeZfU_d.jpg (38KB, 551x289px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 551x289px

Simple solution to the fucking mess that is North Korea:

Step 1: set up spy satellite above NK and search for signs of upcoming missile test

Step 2: build nuke with same "atomic fingerprint" as a shit-tier NK one

Step 3: move a B2 stealth bomber and said nuke to remote SK/JP airfield

Step 4: drop nuke on test site as Kim Jong Un and Co. Are watching and claim they scored an own goal while preparing for a first-strike attack on SK

It's that fucking easy.

>>34514627
that's not how this works
that's not how any of this works

>>34514132
The American navy test fires 30 year old missiles. Practice is practice.

Also, not a Russian.

>>34514242
Seeing as how both of you pounced on it, the earlier issues were navigation. In fairness, I didn't know about the ejection issues also. That's a good find.

>"Thats not the question"

This is the part I was referring to:

>"the Russians could not rely on their SSBN fleet to function as its major deterrent"

Erroneous.

File: image.jpg (94KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 400x399px

So is the US gonna invade the Norks soon or are we just gonna wait until Kim ends up on his death bed from being so fat, says fuck it, and nukes the shit out of South Korea/Japan/The USA?

>>34515079
>Erroneous.
The Russians have about 750 warheads on its SSBN fleet.
Of those only a handful are available at any given time.
In contrast, there are about 1000 warheads on ICBMs, and the vast bulk are ready all the time.
Further, in order to do maintenance on a single silo, only that silo is taken down. If you want to do maintenance on a single SLBM, the entire SSBN is unavailable.

So, no it's not erroneous.

>>34515612
And how many ballistic missile subs do they have right now?

Follow up question: If they take one down for maintenance, or even a few, can they still field 750 warheads?

And that's assuming that the reported numbers are true, which I don't believe for a second. Both sides have more, seems more believable. BUT, if you feel like taking such things at face value, have at it.

Now if a sub force fires 750 150kt warheads, keep the misfire/navigation chance of 20% like I said up there, give the American interceptors a 49.5% chance of success with no air action being able to respond in the 5-10m standby- again, nothing changes. 3x 150kt is enough to fully wipe out any west coast metropolitan area in heat and concussion damage alone, not even including radiation. Run the numbers. They could wipe the entire west coast even giving them a dismal fail rate and the interceptors a bloated success chance. Maybe you still count that as not a deterrent or success, but one active sub is enough in my book.

Im surprised no one has brought up the Davy crochet?

>>34515858
It's a neat novelty but unfortunately politicians decided tactical nukes aren't PC

>>34515858
>>34515945
The German's apparently tried to get it used. Could you imagine a truck technical mounting 20t of power on the back? Just casually nuking enemy companies?

File: west coast.png (1MB, 1583x1092px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1583x1092px

>>34515725
>And how many ballistic missile subs do they have right now?
12

>Follow up question: If they take one down for maintenance, or even a few, can they still field 750 warheads?
No.

>And that's assuming that the reported numbers are true, which I don't believe for a second.
Lying about how many nuclear weapons you have is not a good idea. Last time that happened, we got the Cuban Missile Crisis.

>Now if a sub force fires 750 150kt warheads,
They would have to sortie every SSBN they have. Thats a big red flag.

>keep the misfire/navigation chance of 20% like I said up there, give the American interceptors a 49.5% chance of success with no air action being able to respond in the 5-10m standby- again, nothing changes. Run the numbers.

You aren't going to hit one metropolitan area with 3 warheads. When you fire your missile, the Bus will release the RVs at the time where their ballistic path will take them to the DGZ.
If you have three warheads from the same bus, going to the same area, when the first one goes off, the other two will be destroyed. Its called fratricide.

So then now you have to send another missile with another bus. Problem is now the new missiles warheads are confined to the same footprint as the first.
Lets hope you have 20 (or 80) targets in that area.

>, but one active sub is enough in my book.

Deterrence is a moving target. What deters in one scenario, may not deter in another.
In a situation where the US is about to toss nuclear weapons around, if you told them that the Russians would only be able to respond with 750 warheads inside between 50-75 target areas, I think they would take that.
Thats in the context of the US attack being 1500 warheads and 120 target areas.

> 3x 150kt is enough to fully wipe out any west coast metropolitan area
Pic related. 3 150 kt airbursts.

>>34516008
What's your opinion on Australia buying a missile defence system?

For reference: www.news.com.au/national/turnbull-australia-working-on-missile-defence/news-story/6cd6d059addf316b417696621bbb0219

>>34516008
>"No. "

lmao hold my hand:
3 active Borei, and we'll say 9 others to fill in gaps. The non-Borei's more likely needing maintenance than the Borei's, bc they're new.

3x16 Bulava's each = 48 Bulava's with three Borei's alone. Each Bulava equipped with 6-10 warheads on average, allegedly up to 40.
6 warheads each = 288
10 warheads each = 480
40 warheads each = 1920

So assume a 'regular' number of 10 warheads per Bulava, that's 480, from three Borei's and not including the other 9. Now, take 2 or 3 from rotation, that 480 is not even half the number. They can easily float all 750, assuming that is the cap, of warheads.

>Lying about how many nuclear weapons you have is not a good idea. Last time that happened, we got the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Fudging numbers and planting nukes in the enemies backyard are two very different things. Did you miss the part where Russia drives an Akula sub up the west coast every few years, and brags about it? What happened then? Considering the Russians count us as already having broken the treaty by building long range test missiles, why would they still respect it? The test missiles being the Hera. Not a serious weapon, but nonetheless breaking the parameters of non-proliferation arbitration. The answer is:Nothing would happen. On the flip side, having more nukes as a precaution is fundamentally improving security, or at least reciprocal action.

>They would have to sortie every SSBN they have. Thats a big red flag.

You couldn't be bothered with a calculator, but that's anywhere from 3-5 submarines. They routinely operate a sub off our coast every few years. No red flags here.

>Its called fratricide.

This entire section was wrong, and here's why: The 150 kt load isn't that powerful. For one, the spread would mean they don't affect one another. For two, 150 kt isn't enough to wipe out an entire metro area, only a large downtown and it's periphery for instance. Pull up nukemap, type in 150 kt, and take a look there

File: samefag not.png (5KB, 470x127px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 470x127px

>>34512011
You're pretty autistic, aren't you?

>>34516008
Ran out of space.

As far as wiping the other warheads, it wouldn't happen. The example you used in nukemap should have demonstrated that to you, if you put stock in it, which it seems you do.

Sure, scenarios dictate circumstances. If the US knew the subs were coming, the US has a definitively superior Navy. So, if all the fleet were pulled back and prowling for Russian subs on their routes, then no the subs would not be effective, naturally.

>including LA with Anaheim

Why? I get Long Beach, but why down that far? Notice that the map does NOT include radiation or 2nd / 3rd degree burns. The areas you've highlighted ONLY include 3rd degree burns, so that's your first mistake. You're obviously new, so maybe learn the tools first.

File: Russian subs.png (14KB, 560x196px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 560x196px

>>34516176
>So assume a 'regular' number of 10 warheads per Bulava, that's 480, from three Borei's and not including the other 9. Now, take 2 or 3 from rotation, that 480 is not even half the number. They can easily float all 750, assuming that is the cap, of warheads.

Your numbers are off. Pic related.

>Fudging numbers and planting nukes in the enemies backyard are two very different things.
Breaching a bilateral treaty designed to stabilize the strategic situation is stupid. If you think it's not, well I can't help you.


>Did you miss the part where Russia drives an Akula sub up the west coast every few years, and brags about it?
What does that have to do with anything?


>What happened then?
Nothing. What should have happened?

>Considering the Russians count us as already having broken the treaty by building long range test missiles, why would they still respect it?
That has nothing to do with NewStart.

>The test missiles being the Hera. Not a serious weapon, but nonetheless breaking the parameters of non-proliferation arbitration.
Thats not the NewStart.

>The answer is:Nothing would happen.
Because thats not NewStart.

>On the flip side, having more nukes as a precaution is fundamentally improving security, or at least reciprocal action.
You are very confused.


>You couldn't be bothered with a calculator, but that's anywhere from 3-5 submarines.
Pic related. you are wrong.

>They routinely operate a sub off our coast every few years.
Every few years!!!!! Wow! Thats an amazing deterrent. I can't believe they haven't scrapped everything else except for that one sub every few years.

>No red flags here.
Because thats not every sub they have.


CONT CONT CONT

>inb4 yes I meant 1st or 2nd degree burns not being turned on in the tools section

So no fratricide, the 3-5 subs are easy to slip through, and that's all it would take. A single sub, with 40 warheads mounted to each bulava, and 16 bulavas ready to rock = west coast is gone

>>34512465
Gun type weapons were common on early nuclear artillery shells like the W33 and early nuclear depth charges like the Mk8. The image looks like a W48 nuclear artillery shell which appears to be a gun/implosion hybrid, something like using two gun devices to provide compression along one axis and using a cylinder of HE to provide compression on the remaining two axis.

I got the pictures from a backup of Greenpeace's old website and posted them here. Greenpeace claim the images come from a British nuclear weapons manual and that the thermonuclear diagram is of a British warhead but it actually depicts a US W80 cruise missile warhead. It may be the images come from a British manual though as in the late 80s the British were considering the use of nuclear cruise missiles to replace/supplement their We.177 freefall bombs. Directly copying the US warheads and missiles would be cost effective. The British had W48 nuclear shells as part of Nato weapons sharing.

>>34516229
>You're obviously new, so maybe learn the tools first.
Ayoo is this guy calling Oppenheimer "new"?

>>34516176
>>34516229


>Pull up nukemap, type in 150 kt, and take a look there
I did. That what that pic is.

>As far as wiping the other warheads, it wouldn't happen. The example you used in nukemap should have demonstrated that to you, if you put stock in it, which it seems you do.

Yes it would because the follow on warheads would be moving into the area of the cloud and its debris.
>Why? I get Long Beach, but why down that far?
Because LA is a big place and I was showing you that your claim that 3x 150kt RVs would "wipe out any west coast metro area" was wrong.

>Notice that the map does NOT include radiation or 2nd / 3rd degree burns. The areas you've highlighted ONLY include 3rd degree burns, so that's your first mistake.
Im only looking at areas of damage or high fatality rates.


>You're obviously new, so maybe learn the tools first.
Did you know that air bursts dont produce fallout?

Well now you do.

>>34516287
Hold my hand again
>The Borei capability is modular. The number you just posted fits neatly into the "6 per bulava" spread I showed you above. It's capable of mounting far more. That's what they limit them to in practice.

>If they can drive a sub without notice up the coast, they can do it with 3-5 without causing a cuban missile crisis

>You argued that a cuban missile crisis would've happened, and now you say nothing would happen. You tell me what you meant with that, because it sound like you're backing out of an ignorant statement.

>Again, you're pic only considered the lower end of the spread. I busted out a calculator, gave you a spread of how many warheads per missile could be fired from the Borei alone, and you still are confused. *The pic you posted only displays the lowest number thought to typically be housed within a Bulava, not the medium or highest spread*

Well, hopefully you read up and catch up. I literally can't give you more barney style than I just did

>>34516327
>anyone can post with any name

>>34516364
>>If they can drive a sub without notice up the coast, they can do it with 3-5 without causing a cuban missile crisis

The Cuban Missile crisis was referring to your idea that the US and Russians are lying about their NewSTART numbers.

>You argued that a cuban missile crisis would've happened, and now you say nothing would happen. You tell me what you meant with that, because it sound like you're backing out of an ignorant statement.

Not at all. You are conflating two different topics.
You said that you think that Russia and US are lying about NewSTART data. I told you that was a bad idea because of the CMC.

>>34516374
He's been around for a fair while, and he has a tripcode.

>>34516364
Do you know what the NewSTART warhead cap is, BTW? Meant to ask you this last time.

>>34516353
So on one hand you say:
>150kt is so small, three of them couldn't wipe out a metro area
and on the other
>150kt is so powerful, if you spread them over a metro area they will fratricide one another

Yes, this is inconsistent, given the radius you presupposed. Again, no explanation for why Anaheim is included in LA's metro area. The grouping should've been tighter.

>Did you know that air bursts dont produce fallout?

For all you knew, I meant laydown method. Why bother assuming what I meant without asking? And it depends on yield. An airburst from a 50mt a mile up, the fireball is so large that the airburst would create significant radiation, so your axiom-which you didn't even have to mention- is wrong.

>>34514071
>If you are in the camp that counterforce options existed that had good chances of success already, then not much has changed.

So is it your opinion that not much has changed?

>>34516391
>You are conflating two different topics

Pretty sure that was you, with the deception of figures and the cuban missile crisis being the conflation. The Cuban missile crisis had nothing to do with non-proliferation figures being fabricated. Why would you think they were related?

And then I explained that the Russians, from the Hera test missile, already considered the non-proliferation agreement broken by that.

>>34516402
Fair, I didn't even look. I think him and I actually met on pol before, discussing stealth technology.

>>34516407
>150kt is so small, three of them couldn't wipe out a metro area
>and on the other
>150kt is so powerful, if you spread them over a metro area they will fratricide one another
No I said if you are hitting the same target, they will.


> Again, no explanation for why Anaheim is included in LA's metro area.
Because LA is a big city.

>For all you knew, I meant laydown method.
Well then you are being a moron.
You don't laydown ballistic missile RVs. You also use airbursts for urban targets rather than surface bursts. (Laydown and surface bursts are not the same thing, BTW).

>Why bother assuming what I meant without asking?
Because I thought you knew what you were talking about and understood that soft urban targets are attacked using airbursts.

>And it depends on yield. An airburst from a 50mt a mile up, the fireball is so large that the airburst would create significant radiation, so your axiom-which you didn't even have to mention- is wrong.
That would be a surface burst.
The only defining characteristic of a surface burst is the fireball interacting with the ground. It has nothing to do with the yield.

>>34516437
>Pretty sure that was you, with the deception of figures and the cuban missile crisis being the conflation.
I was talking about deception involving the true nature of nuclear deployments.

>The Cuban missile crisis had nothing to do with non-proliferation figures being fabricated. Why would you think they were related?
Because I was explaining to you why its a bad thing that you would lie about how many nuclear weapons you would have in violation of a Treaty because people get upset when deception and nuclear weapons upset the strategic balance.

>And then I explained that the Russians, from the Hera test missile, already considered the non-proliferation agreement broken by that.
That has nothing to do with NewStart.

>I think him and I actually met on pol before, discussing stealth technology.
You are from /pol/? jfc no wonder.

>>34516437
I need to make sure you understand something before we go on.

You do know that NewStart has nothing to do with non-proliferation or missile ranges, right?

Well, in any case, ill catch up in the AM.

>>34516403
Not that person, but it's 1550 "warheads" using their funny "warheads are warheads except for bombers which are warheads" count.

Is our joint missile defense (SM-3/GMD/THAAD) enough to defend against a limited ICBM strike from north korea? Say, 3 ICBMs launched at the west coast?

>>34516306
Awesome, thanks so much for the info. I forgot all about nuclear artillery shells and depth charges, so I was surprised to see a gun-type design that wasn't Little boy.

Is this backup you speak of accessible? Where can I find more images like these on the Internet?

>>34516719
It'd have to be GMD. Aegis and THAAD aren't designed to intercept ICBMs.

3 ICBMs is within GMD's capability, but due to its success rate meaning multiple interceptors would be used per RV and the limited amount of interceptors (39~), we wouldn't have too many left, I daresay.

>>34497413

>wearing safety goggles

yeah thats gonna help...

>>34509933

I read a news article a while back about how Pakistan 'hides' its nukes by having them stored in vans that are constantly driven around without any security convoys or anything because that would draw attention. very frightening if true.

>>34516781
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/*

>>34516864
You're an idiot. Safety glasses will protect you from most injuries found in a workshop. Not wearing glasses because "hurr, nuclear accident" makes you a moron.

>>34517021
I don't even know what I'm supposed to be looking for in there. Is it just me or are half the links about Chernobyl or what?

Don't know what I expected from Greenpeace.

>>34517208
You shouldn't expect much from Greenpeace.

I tried sending them an email pretending to be writing an anti-nuclear book about a year back asking for the complete document the images came from but never got a response. I should try again I think under a different email.

>>34516489
There would be fallout as a result of the spread you showed. Both UCLA and CalTech have research reactors. You need to aim for Wilmington to wreck the port and Burbank to close the pass. Anyway having read your stuff for some time my only criticism is that you ignore fallout that is likely from sources in the targeted area. For instance Bremerton naval shipyard has many reactors in various stages of decommissioning that would fuck Seattle even if the nuke didn't. Also you are arguing with a guy who thinks that it's a reasonable engineering feat to have a SLBM with 40 warheads.

>>34517357
Not anyone involved in the conversation, but how the fuck does that even work? Is it real, or more Russian propaganda/"staged leaks" a la Status-6? The 40-warhead SLBM, I mean. I didn't want to believe Wikipedia when I read that for the first time.

God, Russian nuclear weapons are just a huge fucking meme. First we got the SATAN 2 (!!!) which can destroy France, then we got Status-6 that can fucking le TSAR BOMBA a tsunami into existence, and now we got 40 warhead SLBMs.

All coming from the nation with one of the stupidest fucking arsenals.

>>34516489
>No I said if you are hitting the same target, they will.

Who said they were hitting the exact same area? I specifically mentioned they would not, but being spaced for use in over an operational area that would devastate a large metropolitan area.

>Because LA is a big city.

LA should not encompass Anaheim. If you were intellectually honest about it, it would have covered out the Long Beach, but no further. That's pushing it even. A tighter circle could have been used, and there's no reason for you to conflate the two targets. You know good and well those are two different cities.

>Well then you are being a moron.

I also mentioned 50 MT warheads. There are no ballistic missile 50 MT warheads. The technology to create them isn't out of the question, and allowing a warhead to penetrate solid earth to destroy bunkers deployed from a ballistic missile isn't out of the question. Protip: anyone who knows what an airburst or laydown method is also knows what a surface burst is.

>Because I thought you knew what you were talking about and understood that soft urban targets are attacked using airbursts.

That's actually not true either. For instance, if attacking a metropolitan area using a surface detonation, that would create a radiation if trying to lengthen the recovery time for the enemy nation. Russia actually uses this design philosophy behind it's Cobalt series nuclear weapons.

>That would be a surface burst.

5mt should've been the example. Under a mile in diameter of the fireball-but still posing radiation hazards. Good catch here

>Because I was explaining to you why its a bad thing that you would lie about how many nuclear weapons you would have in violation of a Treaty because people get upset when deception and nuclear weapons upset the strategic balance.

and utterly failed because it's more advantageous to keep a "secret" stock than not. The two situations you compared were not similar. The cuban missile crisis was not linked.

>>34516514
Let me teach you: No where did I mention NewStart. You keep mentioning it-and no one else has talked about it.

This is the treaty Russians were concerned about, which DOES concern range:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

>>34517418
Well, the US W76 warhead only weighs ~100kg. A SLBM with a 4000kg throw weight is feasible but I can't see any use for it. It means dumping 40 warheads on 40 separate targets in a small footprint. It's not very versatile.

>>34517617
You're absolutely right about the footprint issue. I don't see it being very strategically advantageous.

But it's not the RV weight vs throw weight I'm consider about. It's the space. Are there multiple buses, stacked on top of each other, or what? How fucking small are the warheads? I just can't see 40 of them being packed so tightly.

>>34517565
And does not apply to ICBMs or SLBMs.

Oppen was clearly discussing strategic nuclear forces between the US and Russia, which IRBMs play no part.

File: 1441362_610321432357823_1442875119_n.jpg (28KB, 500x398px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x398px

So to sum up:
>Bulava missiles are modular
>Severe underestimation of the small sub force required to utilize as a deterrent
>Airbursts can cause significant ground level radiation
>Multiple nuclear detonations used in conjunction CAN be used to demolish a scaled size area based on yield and altitude
>LA is not Anaheim
>There are multiple nuclear treaties that have come and gone, covering a multitude of parameters.
>The wider area in nukemap, represented by 1st degree burn areas in it's tool kit, gives a better idea of the effective ranges than simply examining the 3rd degree 100% chance tool
>It's sensible for nations to use "secret" stockpiles, and given countries like Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc- it's actually the standard, despite what Oppenheimer has to say about the cuban missile crisis.

>>34517531
>Cobalt series nuclear weapons

Elaborate. Source?

>>34517418
You would have to have a huge rocket to do it. Just not something that would ever be built. Never mind the separation issues and the lack of places where you would have 40 targets in your spread area you would have to have large maneuvering thruster on your RV just to keep them from destroying each other on detonating. It's just not something that would be designed.

>>34517633
Volume is a good point.

If went back to the less accurate blunt reentry body design instead of fast and accurate cones you might by able to fit a lot.

>>34517658
>Oh no, I got sunburn from a bomb, I guess I'm going to die!

You're retarded even before we get into the other retarded shit you said.

>>34517658
The specific assertion was that a few 150 kiloton warheads could destroy an entire *metro area*, and Anaheim is most definitively part of the Los Angeles metro area.

Also, credentials/citations on everything else you said?

>>34517650
>On 10 February 2007, Russian president Vladimir Putin declared that the INF Treaty no longer served Russia's interests

It's not considered effectual anymore, and hasn't been for some time. The point I was making is that these declarations are like that. They are not set in stone, and it's better for countries to ignore them to stick to them as absolute law.

The entire point is that treaties like this can be and are often dismissed. Nuclear weapons are about survival. Treaties only insofar as they augment the balance of those arms. The second they cease being useless, they are dropped.

>>34517701
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area

Google "LA metropolitan area". You're provably wrong in 15 seconds flat.

Credentials:former cryptotech, TS/SCI. Citations?Ask for something specific. It's a little annoying how you take everything else at face value, but now you want me to go over each line item and tag a site for it. Just ask for something specific, and I'll try to find the best source for that. I'm not going line item by line item.

>>34517694
That's exactly my point. If you know where that 1st degree burn cutoff area is- then you know where you can place another warhead to detonate. His whole point is that he spaced them-and then claimed they would fratricide. There's an easy built in tool to figure out where those lines are. Thanks for proving my point, I guess?

>>34517770
>Just ask for something specific, and I'll try to find the best source for that.

Still interested in Russia's "Cobalt series nuclear weapons." You mean the doomsday bomb meme? I wanna see more about this.

>>34517770
>former cryptotech, TS/SCI.
What relevance does this have

>>34517787

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
>Los Angeles – 3,819,702
>Long Beach – 465,576
>Anaheim – 341,361
>Santa Ana – 329,427
>Irvine – 215,529
>Glendale – 196,021
>Huntington Beach – 192,888
>Santa Clarita – 177,601
>Garden Grove – 173,470
>Lancaster – 157,693
>Palmdale – 153,867
>Pomona – 150,119
>Torrance – 146,493
>Orange – 138,409
>Pasadena – 138,101
>Fullerton – 137,183
>El Monte – 114,296
>Downey – 112,584
>Costa Mesa – 111,600
>Inglewood – 110,464
>West Covina – 106,870
>Norwalk – 106,309
>Burbank – 104,092
>Compton – 97,156
>South Gate – 95,084
>Mission Viejo – 94,721
>Carson – 92,376
>Westminster – 91,064
>Santa Monica – 90,377
>Newport Beach – 86,484
>Whittier – 85,943
>Hawthorne – 84,905
>Alhambra – 83,693
>Buena Park – 81,747
>Lakewood – 80,634
>Lake Forest – 78,439
>Bellflower – 77,170
>Tustin – 76,689
Baldwin Park – 75,940
Lynwood – 70,257
Redondo Beach – 67,233
Yorba Linda – 65,215
San Clemente – 64,491
Laguna Niguel – 63,940
Pico Rivera – 63,400
Montebello – 62,954
La Habra – 61,164
Monterey Park – 60,707
Gardena – 59,253
Huntington Park – 58,536
Arcadia – 56,769
Fountain Valley – 56,153
Diamond Bar – 55,951
Paramount – 54,492
Rosemead – 54,154
Placentia – 51,302
Glendora – 50,435

File: nuke yourself.jpg (8KB, 261x179px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 261x179px

>>34517789
You said credentials.Those are credentials. It's background. You also asked for sources. Sources are different than credentials. Considering it was my job to know missiles and their radar characteristics- yes, I feel it's very relevant. Not trying to argue the person here, but you did ask that.

>>34517787
I was actually looking for a good civilian site. I could go through the trouble, keep explaining things, wait for you to get confused, then correct whenever you think you have me in fallacy trap, but I'm actually going to go dick around on vidya with family. That's a lot funner than explaining this shit to anon's who can't figure out range gates or how to use google

>>34517835
Sorry, meant >>34517770

>>34517840
>You said credentials.Those are credentials.
Yeah, and I have a certificate in Horticulture.

>>34517770
Except you wouldn't be able to destroy the metro area. You would have circles of high destruction with huge "sunburn" buffers. To destroy the city you would need overlapping explosions.

Top tip, thermal radiation isn't the fratricide method, dust kicked up by the explosion and stray neutrons are.

The image he posted was simply an example of how small the kill radius of a 100kt warhead is compared to the size of a large city. It's wasn't a targeting plan/map.

Please stop being so autistic.

>>34517835
I believe you replied to the wrong post.

>>34517840
What you MEANT to say is, like in several other posts, you just pulled some shit out of your ass and now have nothing when faced with coughing up a citation. Yeah, I Google "Russian Cobalt series nuclear weapons" and I get the Wikipedia article for cobalt bombs and not much else. Officially, cobalt bombs aren't used and were never used. Yet you apparently know something no one else does, but with nothing to prove it.

Sure, I'm just too stupid and you don't want to waste your precious time explaining anything to me, that's all :^)

>>34517840
>Credentials

>Cryptotech
>Considering it was my job to know missiles and their radar characteristics

These things are not the same.

File: temp1.gif (30KB, 250x185px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 250x185px

>>34517835
County =/ City

Yellow = city, Purple = County

At no time was there a clarification request,and when I pointed out I was referring to the LA greater area, extending around Long Beach, there was an insistence that I meant something different. That's the whole point. I said one thing, Oppenheimer and the circlejerk squad insist another, y'all have fun

>>34517870
credentials
>a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something.

weird, that google.

I'm outro

>>34517888
and never come back

>>34517888
I guess we can certify you as retarded if you think cryptotech makes you qualified to talk missiles and their radar characteristics.

>>34517876
>County =/ City
And what I linked is the Metropolitan Area. You are wrong about what cities constitute the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area.

>>34493650

>soviets

No, much worse: niggers.

Back from Overwatch. Crushed it as Zen. Thought about it, I'll dignify one more response while I got a minute:

>>34517890
heh

>>34517896
Cryptologists learn the radar parameters for the detection of missiles. Being a fundamental part of a CIC(that's combat information center for you kids out there) watch team, knowing the full range of parametric data on missiles is paramount-especially when giving advice and coordinating with the other watch stations. The Fire Controlmen would be in charge of hard killing ICBM's in that scenario, so it would mainly fall on that rate to target them and detect them on active radar.

>>34517915
I specified the city. There was no clarification request on anyone elses part- so when Oppenheimer drew up a map of the wrong area, I mentioned the correct parameters, and instead of a remedy- he instead went with "you're wrong". How can I be wrong if the area I mentioned, which does not include the county but the greater city limits is specified? How are you going to tell me what I meant to say?

>>34517864
Think this through for a moment-and believe me, I know this is hard for you, but if you believe what Oppenheimer is right about what he said about radiation coming from surface and lay down methods - and the squad didn't ask him for sources either - then that would mean Cobalt would HAVE to fit the parameters of what he said, if you believe him. He was wrong of course given certain yield and altitude limits, but since you didn't correct it that would mean Cobalt weapons would have to function in the manner he specified.

I'll give free info, and you can google it so I'm not going to wipe your buns with source links: the time of the nuclear process dictates radiation yield. By putting a Uranium tamper- medium explosion, medium radiation. Aluminum tamper- small explosion, high radiation.
Lead tamper- huge explosion, low radiation.

There are things like three-stage detonations to consider as well, and neutron bombs too.Back to Vidya! GG

>>34518088
The unsubstantiated assertion in your premise is that Russia has actually developed and deployed a cobalt salted nuclear warhead.

>>34517876
Uh that's a lot of Orange County in that purple. You never lived around there did you. Lots of fun. I miss it.

>>34518088
>but if you believe what Oppenheimer is right about what he said about radiation coming from surface and lay down methods - and the squad didn't ask him for sources either - then that would mean Cobalt would HAVE to fit the parameters of what he said

I'm not sure what you're saying. I haven't been following the argument between you and Oppenheimer, but what was wrong about what he said? If the fireball touches the ground, there's fallout. Yes, cobalt mixed with that isn't good. I know what a cobalt bomb is. But I'm wondering what your source is that Russia has them, because they've never been officially used. They're arguably counter-intuitive to the objectives you're trying to accomplish in a nuclear conflict most of the time.

Basically what >>34518138 said.

>Aluminum tamper- small explosion, high radiation.

I've never heard of aluminum being used in a thermonuclear weapon as a tamper. I doubt it would have this described effect - but I'm not outright dismissing you. I'm sure you have a source for this like you do with Russia's vast cobalt bomb arsenal.

>Uranium tamper- medium explosion, medium radiation.

Tell that to the 100 MT AN602 design. It would've DOUBLED it's explosive yield and dramatically increased fallout.

>Lead tamper- huge explosion, low radiation.

Don't know about "huge" explosion. Sure, it'll reflect neutrons and encourage more fusion (I think? or at least more fissioning of the sparkplug if used) and it won't add fallout since the tamper isn't being used a second fission stage. But despite what I described, a Uranium tamper would do more for the yield than a lead tamper would. I believe the question is whether or not you want the majority of your yield to come from fusion and thus limit fallout.

Continuing this.

File: dropped.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>34518088
>>34518185

>There are things like three-stage detonations to consider as well,

Pretty much no one uses tertiary fusion stages in thermonuclear weapons in favor of keeping them small and deliverable, and because yields are sufficient without it anyway, so what you're describing is the use of a fissionable tamper. Fission-fusion-fission. You already went over that with the Uranium tamper. I feel like you're just throwing in more terms to appear more knowledgeable or add more fluff to your post.

>and neutron bombs too.

>pic related
Almost as much of a meme as cobalt bombs. Their usefulness died with the Soviet Union and its tank crews. Hyped beyond belief, and exactly the type of thing someone who doesn't actually know that much about nuclear weapons would cite.

>Back from Overwatch. Crushed it as Zen.

At least there's one thing that's good about you.

>>34493386
What about a fuck ton of VX which they have a fuck ton stockpiled? VX would be easier to strap on that piece of shit and hurl it into LA or Japan or SK

>>34518185
>I've never heard of aluminum being used in a thermonuclear weapon as a tamper.

Wasn't that used in The Sum of All Fears?

>>34518316
>he would be citing a fictional technothriller in nuclear weapons discussing

Wouldn't even be surprised, but I don't pretend to know everything. I'm interested if this is real. I swear to God I've never even heard of that being considered.

>>34518260
Because 500kg of VX, while deadly. won't kill anywhere near as many people as a 500kg nuclear weapon.

>>34518347
It would with a high altitude deployment, drop that over Tokyo or some shit and millions would be dead in minutes

>>34518338
It's probably where he got it from. He may also be confusing tamper with the tampers in early fission weapon designs.

The most efficient tampers are very high density materials because they need to absorb the x-rays coming off the primary stage and ablate, providing the reaction force to compress the secondary.

The primary tamper materials are tungsten (inert, low fallout, low fission, high fusion designs) and various enrichment levels of uranium (dirty, easy yield enhancement without additional weight). Funnily enough, lead isn't actually a very good tamper material being only 60% as dense as uranium or tungsten and aluminium would make a terrible tamper material.

The use of tungsten and uranium is likely the cause of the difference in yields between the tactical and strategic mods of the B61 (tactical with low fallout tungsten tamper and a max 170kt yield, strategic with a "we don't give a fuck about fallout in the Soviet Union" uranium tamper and a 340kt yield), as is known to be the difference between the 300kt W87 Mod 0 and 475kt W87 Mod 1 (the identical W88 and W87 yields in the HEU secondary design lead me to believe both weapons use identical secondary designs but I can't prove that).

>>34518235
Neutron bombs aren't a meme, they're just over hyped and are of very limited utility in designs with yields over a few kt in atmosphere. They work great in small warheads (primarily artillery shells) and in big warheads for exoatmospheric killing of enemy nuclear weapons.

Now, ignoring the ongoing civil war between two resident tripfags, I present a topic of discussion - what are your thoughts on the nuclear winter hypothesis?

>>34518429
No it wouldn't. Lethal doses for VX begin ~30mg/m^3 vapor in laboratory conditions. You finely disperse VX at high altitude you won't reach that lethal threshold.

>>34518185
>>34518235
pretty much this
the guy clearly doesn't understand basic warhead physics and also doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to what is deployed in reality.

>>34518451

>the entire first part of your post
Very interesting - thanks for that. I didn't even know tungsten was currently used. The more you know.

>Neutron bombs aren't a meme, they're just over hyped and are of very limited utility

So... a meme? Trust me, you should see some Youtube comments about it.

>and in big warheads for exoatmospheric killing of enemy nuclear weapons

Wouldn't work against the US's warheads today, I don't believe. They're specifically designed to prevent this. I'll find the exact explanation I found on it if you desire, but it had something to do with gas boosting in the primary.

>>34518455
Dumb.

The studies make a lot of very imaginative assumptions to produce their results. Things like every weapon being aimed at a city, every city firestorming despite massive advances in fire safety codes, every bit of ash produced ending up high in the atmosphere, no rain-out of ash, etc.

The only time I can see that happening is if India and Pakistan nuke each other's slums and that won't produce enough ash to cause a nuclear winter.

>>34518484
Gas boosting has been a feature in US nuclear weapons for a long time. Neutron weapons for killing enemy weapons en-route are designed to damage electrical systems

>>34518501
Just the answer I was looking for.

The prospect of nuclear winter in the public eye ruins any chance of worthwhile nuclear weapons discussion in places like Youtube comments or Quora (90% of the time). People need to stop citing that shit.

Part of the reason ash can't get as high as it needs to is because weapon yields aren't high enough anymore. I believe you need multi-megaton yields to achieve that, which just isn't there.

The firestorm argument is my biggest beef with it. Even Nagasaki didn't firestorm. Pic related didn't burst into flames after a US nuclear test. Even wooden structures, let alone modern concrete cities, don't always catch fire in the thermal pulse.

But remember guys... 100 Hiroshima-sized nukes are enough to end the world and the US's arsenal can destroy the world 5 times over!

>>34518531
Alright, now I need to find the online post that explained the relevance of gas boosting in relation to preventing neutron warheads being used as BMD. If me or the explanation is wrong, I'll concede defeat.

File: main-qimg-77feeb888e51031fb77d7c523699f5a7.png (265KB, 602x413px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 602x413px

>>34518569
Forgot the fucking picture I mentioned. Now I'm gonna end up triple posting but I don't want to be called out before I get back with my answer to >>34518531.

>>34518316
I don't think so
Just Tritium boosting for the second stage

>>34518531
Found the explanation I was thinking of. I was a little off.

Essentially, because of gas boosting, you can use a hollow pit of fissile material that would, on its own, not produce a sufficient explosion to drive compression of the secondary. This is because the introduction of D+T fusion by gas boosting allows the primary to achieve the required yield, through the small amount of fusion and neutron flux that allows more fissioning.

So, in theory, this means that accidental nuclear explosions can't take place - it made one-point safe designs possible. If it fizzles, the explosion of the hollow pit of fissile material itself would already explode at about 300 tons - assuming you even STARTED a reaction, considering with the small amount of fissile material requires the neutron generation from gas boosting to reach any noticeable yield / degree of super-criticality.

So what I was thinking of is that it meant it can't make nuclear warheads explode at their full yield. Even if they didn't fizzle, you have a point about the electronics being targeted inside. I hadn't considered that. Sorry about that.

>>34518773
No probs

Is the reason why no major power has attempted to station missiles in space because it would cause another Cuban missile crisis, because there is some type of diplomatic accord in place that all major nuclear powers see value in honoring, or because of other strategic/technical reasons?

>>34518974
Yep, there is the reason, and it's the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

Or just Outer Space Treaty for short. Can't put weapons of mass destruction in space.

File: shock absorbing tiles fall away as peacekeeper is launched.jpg (304KB, 1489x1800px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1489x1800px

before bed bump

>>34505351
Oppenheimer, what is your education? How do I become like you? Physics BA at mid-tier LAC here

>>34517531
>LA should not encompass Anaheim
Tell that to people from Los Angeles.

>anyone who knows what an airburst or laydown method is also knows what a surface burst is.
Seems strange that you would be confused about it.

>That's actually not true either.
Yes it is.
Radiation doesn't destroy industrial targets. You would be hard pressed to kill every worker in a city, but if you destroy the factory he works at, it doesn't matter how many survive. That why you use air bursts because you maximize the physical destruction.
Fallout is not a short term hazard for more than a few weeks.

>Under a mile in diameter of the fireball-but still posing radiation hazards. Good catch here
No, as long as it doesn't interact with the surface, its an air burst. the yield doesn't matter.

>and utterly failed because it's more advantageous to keep a "secret" stock than not.
Not if you want to avoid upsetting the strategic balance, which both sides want to do.


>>34517565
>You keep mentioning it-and no one else has talked about it.
Yes because I was talking about the number of deployed warheads, and the limits of them and why violating them is a bad idea.

INF has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

>>34510395
>implying I'm not the warlord
I pay in cocaine and have a free waifu for anyone who brings back a scalp

>>34517658
>Bulava missiles are modular
Doesn't matter.

>Severe underestimation of the small sub force required to utilize as a deterrent
What deters in one situation will not deter in another. Deterrence depends upon your opponent making the judgement that whatever is likely to be gained from starting a nuclear war will not outweigh the losses, or that the consequences of not going nuclear outweigh the consequences of going nuclear.
In some situations, a single sub is fine. In many, it is not. Thats the entire point.

>Airbursts can cause significant ground level radiation
This is false.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/08/02/what-the-nukemap-taught-me-about-fallout/
>The most important one is that fallout is primary a product of surface bursts. That is, the chief determinant as to whether there is local fallout or not is whether the nuclear fireball touches the ground. Airbursts where the fireball doesn't touch the ground don't really produce fallout worth talking about — even if they are very large.
>Multiple nuclear detonations used in conjunction CAN be used to demolish a scaled size area based on yield and altitude
Yes. But you need more than 3 for places like LA.

>LA is not Anaheim
I don't know, the Angels play there...

>There are multiple nuclear treaties that have come and gone, covering a multitude of parameters.
And NewSTART is still in force.

>The wider area in nukemap, represented by 1st degree burn areas in it's tool kit, gives a better idea of the effective ranges than simply examining the 3rd degree 100% chance tool
Depends on what you are looking at. 2nd degree burns do not produce lethal casualties generally.

>It's sensible for nations to use "secret" stockpiles, and given countries like Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc- it's actually the standard, despite what Oppenheimer has to say about the cuban missile crisis.
None of those countries have strategic arms control treaties with their adversaries.

>>34517770
>cryptotech, TS/SCI.
LOL. This was funny.
I'll ask you something specific.
What is 'Option Purity'?


>then you know where you can place another warhead to detonate.
No you don't.
Those ranges can fluctuate greatly depending on factors like weather, time of day, humidity. So when you are drawing up your DGZ you can't account for these things. So instead you look at blast effects, as thats much more predictable.

>>34518088
>I specified the city.
No. You said 'any west coast metropolitan area'

The rest of your post is nonsense.


See you at lunch, comrade.

>>34519930
If an industrialized country like Germany, Japan or Italy decided to disregard treaties and create a nuclear programme, how long would it take for them to be on rough parity with th UK/France?

>>34520639
Rather than time, it's probably better to say how many tests they need.

The UK only needed 40 or so because it had access to US design data. France needed 200. Both have warheads comparable to the US.

I think with modern computing power they could do it in 100 tests.

File: 1468662616723.jpg (78KB, 375x279px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 375x279px

How would the development of functional pure fusion weapon affect politics and nuclear strategy in general?

>>34520941
I feel like they'd be used more on the tactical scale, if you can have essentially fallout-free surface and subsurface bursts.

>>34516364
>A single sub in peacetime isn't sunk so driving five of them to california to launch nukes will work

>>34519910
I don't know why you guys are still on about LA/Anaheim, but I'll weigh in since I live in Anaheim.
While it's true Anaheim and the rest of Orange County are not classified as part of LA, the difference does not really matter. Orange County is part of the "Greater LA Area" since it was designed to be a suburb for employees in LA who are willing to do a commute. The distances are relatively minute for California (30 minutes drive from Anaheim) and if you want proof that the two share a massive population, look at I-5/I-405 traffic during peak hours.
You're both right; Anaheim isn't officially a part of Los Angeles but Oppenheimer is right in assuming it might as well be.

>>34520745
huh, I just realized I gave the main axis powers as examples, must've been a Freudian slip.

Would they really need that many tests, I mean they must have plenty of physicists, that would know how that stuff works, or have had access to US/UK/French/Soviet (for the Germans) literature. Also they all have civilian nuclear programmes, the Japanese are top-of-the-line, and the Germans have made pretty decent breakthroughs regarding nuclear fusion, it's not like they are reinventing the wheel. wouldn't like 10-20 tests for both warheads and missiles work out?

I got a question for Oppenheimer.

I talked it about it earlier in the thread, but what's the deal with the RSM-56 Bulava and its supposed 40 warhead capacity? Are those all strategic nuclear warheads? If it's true, how the hell are they even stored? Multiple buses stacked on top of each other/multiple stages with warheads or what?

>>34523991
>RSM-56 Bulava
I am not an expert but normally you want to carry a mix of warheads and decoys.

Wikipedia (open source uncitable and unreliable source) claims that "Bulava has a declared START throw weight of 1150 kg to 9,500 kilometers." Throw-weight equals the total weight of a missile's warheads, reentry vehicles, self-contained dispensing mechanisms, penetration aids, and missile guidance systems--generally all components except for the launch rocket booster and launch fuel. Default load is suppossed to be 6 warheads, 150kt each. So those warheads must be pretty lightweight, surprisingly lighweight to be honest (for something capable of safe re-entry, that has navigation, maneuvering and actual warhead within) to leave some space/weight for the bus and accessories. Sick.

Still I doubt you could fit 40 fully functional warheads (re-entry vehicles) into that physical package no matter what without tremendously increasing throw weight and thus limiting the distance - especially when all these missiles launch at depressed trajectory. Also, keep in mind that they were built for submarines so there may not be physical space to stack nose cone higher in order to create enough space for that many warheads. You definitelly can't make them wider.


I guess the rest could be just much smaller lightweight decoys with different aerodynamic profile and increased radar reflectivity to just oversaturate tracking radars and fool them, hiding real warheads until they enter lower atmosphere (where aerodynamic drag slows light decoys too much) when it is too late anyway. Maybe russians do it this way rather than using more sophisticated forms of chaff and other shit that delivery buses use these days (and computerized radars may be able to filter those out anyway). Maybe russians count decoys into total warhead capacity. Who knows.

>>34523991
also, dunno how credible this is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zHUPV17aoQ but it seems to be visually in line with other available schemes in terms of arrangement. Still, no guarantee that it is true.

>>34524478
That's an unusual arrangement. It doesn't seem like you gain much by getting rid of the launch shroud by hiding the reentry vehicles inside the interstate between S2 and S3 in exchange for complicating your load paths and increasing the amount of mass you need to heft to orbit - unless they're hiding an entire additional set of reentry vehicles on top of the deployment bus.

File: 2016-04-26_15-16-16.jpg (138KB, 1491x757px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1491x757px

>>34519930
How likely is pic related to return?

Also see >>34519826

File: YAL-1A_Airborne_Laser_unstowed_crop.jpg (168KB, 1920x1056px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1920x1056px

>>34524695
I think the only way to make Slow Low and Messy relevant with today's technology is to combine it with the airborne laser project.

>>34521803
my ex lives out there with her husband and their kids. she tells her brother its great and he should move out there. he doesnt want to, because he loves his guns and his no cats STI, and cuban girl pussy.

she also said Ralphs has really good deli stuff. is that true?

>>34524384
>>34524478
Thanks for the insight. Makes sense that the payload being 40 according to Wikipedia would most likely be accounting for decoys.

File: Chevaline_deployment_sequence-mod.gif (275KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1920x1200px

>>34526055

Open,
Tы pyccкий?

Oppen:

Was the Poseidon SLBM designed to kill Soviet road-mobile ICBMs? The large number of small warheads seem useful for killing a sort target over a large area to me.

>>34526241
What am I looking at here, exactly?

>>34526689
>large number of small warheads
Not Oppen, but that just so happens to be the setup you want for cities. Given the poor accuracy of the Poseidon and other early SLBMs, I suppose it could be used to "blanket" an area where road-mobile ICBMs are believed to be, but I'd wager that type of weapon system would be used for countervalue soft targets in a second strike.

File: JT5ALT.jpg (729KB, 2000x3008px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 2000x3008px

not today

>>34528881
What am I looking at? Drop test?

>>34529365
Yup, for the W88 ALT 370. It's a little old. 2014, I think.

File: y87xM6.gif (4MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 450x360px

i know it's only page 4 but i wanna bump again as i retire for the night

oppenheimer get back here tomorrow man wya

File: IMG_1597.png (782KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 750x1334px

>stop lurking on /k/ for a while
>come back out of desperate boredom
>miss an Oppenheimer thread
>mfw

File: MGM-134A-Midgetman.jpg (36KB, 302x256px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 302x256px

Is the USAF seriously considering a road mobile ICBM?

https://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2016_04/News/Air-Force-Seeks-Mobile-ICBM-Option

>>34525015
>slow and low

Try mach 4 and low

>>34493490
Not really, this is why many have pushed to ban nuclear cruise missiles completely.
One procedure to check literal say to inspect impact site after the attack to determine if it was nuclear armed.

A simaler problem was argud about for sub orbital drop ships as their path profile is the same as a ICBM.

There is no good way to tell how much boom is in a box till it goes boom.

>>34495704
The government outlaws a lot more than corporations however, and its normal mode of business is anticompetitive.