Nuke Thread

>>34656192
Nukes r banned mkay

>>34656192
I live near the largest stockpile of US nukes. Its actually right near an airport lol

It will be interesting to see how many go off and under what circumstances when we waste N. Korea.

Have no issue and fully support with the owning and use of them when the time comes
I just dont like em

>>34656192
AKA, hey Oppenheimer! Come answer my asinine questions!

>>34658822
Shut the fuck up or the mods will pull another "BUT ANY DISCUSSION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS PAST THEIR MECHANICAL WORKINGS IS POLITICAL DISCUSSION" on us.

File: UGM-133 Trident.jpg (47KB, 550x502px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 550x502px

Best SLBM coming through

Lets hypothesize that a Potsdam-esque Declaration is made to North Korea; how do they realistically respond to a demand for nuclear disarmament that carries the implicit threat of being nuked?

>>34656192
Let's have an OP is a ? discussion

Subsurface bursts to wipe out hypothetical turbo-VC tunnel systems?
Feasible? Effective?
Let's say in space where there's no political angle because bug ayys

>>34660765
>Subsurface bursts to wipe out hypothetical turbo-VC tunnel systems?

I don't see why not.

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

>>34660938
love nukes as a concept but hate them in practice
so fucking expensive
45.8 billion dollars a year is ridiculous

>>34660765
Sure. The overpressure would produce 200% absolute destruction if actually detonated in the tunnels, not to mention the collapse effects

>>34660122

Either they comply and hand over the nukes or they immediately start a conventional war. The thing is that most of the command staff knows that they will lose and will be tried and hung as war criminals. What that means is that most of the command staff will balk at orders to engage and would rather defect and get "Papercripped" than hung. The most likely possibility is the Norks detonating a nuke on their own soil or the delivery system (realistically a bomber or a Scud) being shot down.

>>34661251
i think it can be cut if you import some cheap labour to care for your nukes because i believe it's mostly personnel salaries

>>34658857
That actually happened? Why? I've not been in one of these since Oppenheimer quit. He came back though, right? The draw of an intelligent and open-minded debate was simply too much for him.

>>34661325

He posts as anon. The issue he had was that as soon as he showed up in a thread you had people that would take his word as gospel and whiteknight for him and then people who would argue with him just because they believed themselves to be better Wikipedia warriors than him to be educated.

Believe it or not Oppenheimer has been wrong.

File: Threads.jpg (376KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1280x720px

>>34656192
Man, I miss the time when I didn't know anything and Threads looked so scary and realistic.

>>34661304
>cheap labour for nukes
sounds like a national security crisis waiting to happen
might as well start a superweapon design thread, maybe dod will notice us

>>34661333
He admitted his mistakes, and he was well-informed and never wrong in painting the big picture, which is more than can be said for the overwhelming majority of internet debaters.

>>34656192

What would you like to discuss?

File: 1474062566741.jpg (367KB, 929x929px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 929x929px

>>34661339

its still one of my favorite films of that genre, even if the nuclear winter stuff was debunked.

>>34661362
A lot more than the nuclear stuff is wrong in there. The exchange scenario is built upon Operation Squareleg, which is a war "plan" cooked up by some halfwit civil protection planner, who among other things decided that Brighton is a valuable enough asset to sacrifice weapons on.

>>34661378
Wouldn't Brighton be within range of soviet tatical munitions from eastern europe? Its a waste for a strategic, but for an IRBM or a road mobile, that's a score!

>>34661343
The way Japan would hire cheap Korean workers to use up like rad-sponges?

>>34661325
>That actually happened? Why?
I don't recall exactly why, but I think it was either because some mod got ticked that Oppenheimer was being idolized (which is a problem), or because some 50 cent mod got pissed off that the strategic decisions of GLORIOUS CHINA/RUSSIA/NORTH KOREAN MOTHERLAND THAT CAN DO NO WRONG PRAISE BE were being discussed on an open board without a political officer present.

Let's be honest: Oppenheimer probably is one of the most educated people on this subject present on this board. There are undoubtedly others that post here, but he's the one that posts the most, and he has a fairly obvious posting style. It does make sense that a nuke thread would become an arena for him to answer questions, but if we say that (or worse, advocate for it) we risk both alienating him with high school drama bullshit and attracting the attention of the mods again.

TL;DR Just shut the fuck up. We can have nuke threads without bending over and begging for the BIG OPP.

>>34662114
Brighton is worthless target for any weapon period. It's a seaside resort. Why in the world would you spend a nuclear weapon on a civilian target - any target - when there are too many enemy military targets unaccounted for? Square Leg is full of shit, and so is Threads.

>>34658305
Had a dream about this. US false-flag nukes some shithole town in Alaska and Kim gets the blame. NATO starts bombing the norks and russia joins in for some landgrabs while China sits there like a bitch. I don't remember what happened next because I went to play table hockey with Dave Chappelle

>>34662200
What's the big deal with this Oppenheimer fag anyway. It's not like he's the end-all be-all authority on everything nuclear. He is nothing more than a tripfag and needs to get the fuck out. Gun Jesus himself could come posting here with a tripcode and I'd tell him to fuck off, and if you don't like that you can suck my shriveled bent dick

>>34658305
None? Kim may be power-hungry, but fear of death is a lot stronger than hunger. He knows that once that missile is loose, he'll be crucified no matter what.
>>34662510
That's what I told your mom last night.

>>34660765
>For Bueno Aires!

>>34662200
I can't image that a person on this board could be particularly "well-educated" on the matter. You're either part of the The Business and are committing espionage by talking to us about it, or you're just some faggot on the internet who's smart enough to make logical conclusions.

>>34661251

For their destructive and peacekeeping potential, they're actually a bargain.

The UK did lots of research in the 1950s as to whether they should develop an independent nuclear deterrent, with the conclusion being that it was the most cost-effective route to take in order to deter threats. Far better value than a conventional force that can provide a similar level of deterrence.

File: 1498773709586.jpg (23KB, 894x786px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 894x786px

>>34662545
>The Business and are committing espionage
>Committing espionage

Ah yes I see your the logical conclusion type.... Er yes well done...

>>34661378

Threads is absolute worse case scenario but the idea of non essential targets being hit was pretty realistic. After the initial strike that would massively disrupt command and control on both sides, lots of flexibility would be afforded to those lower down the chain of command in where and when to use their own weapons. Also many weapons wouldn't necessarily be precision accurate, so the idea of essentially blanket bombing an area like the South East of England which has lots of critical military and civilian infrastructure wouldn't be a bad idea.

Also are you sure you mean Brighton? The film is set in Sheffield, which is targeted in after the first wave of attacks because it has critical infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities.

There were so many nukes in both sides arsenals in the 1980s that military planners would look for virtually any excuse to chuck a bomb at them.

>>34662661
I'd bet that any real SIOPs or OPLANs are classified as fuck
Title 18 Chapter 37 US Code, if you want the legal stuff

>>34662711

Yeah but the word you used in the sentence...

But your right, no one working on the inside is going to breech national security for the sake of bragging on /k/.

Oppenheimer stopped tripping because his credentials were getting leaked and it was going to threaten his employment. He is legit.

>>34662684
Read the post. Sheffeild was the town in the film, but Brighton was the one in operation Square Leg, which is the only thing the film is based on. As for "worst case" or whatever, I guarantee you that no matter what, towns like Sheffield or Brighton would literally never get hit. London - maybe. Manchester might be, probably not. Sheffield, or Austin, Texas, or Nizhniy Novgorod - never, counterforce or countervalue. There are only so many weapons, and when you have to hit every enemy silo and military base at least twice, that number drops dramatically. Every town you nuked would raise the possibility of a missile striking your assets in half an hour, or another enemy combat brigade landing on your shores two weeks from now. The war's outcome would be decided within months, the economic potential of the cities would not come into play.

>>34664891
Additionally, if you think you can drop a standard 100kt warhead on a town like Sheffield and it will go away, you are incorrect. Modern cities are not Hiroshima. From 100kt, there would be no firestorms, and blast damage would be localized; there would be big casualties, but every civil service would continue to operate: hospitals, police, firefighters, etc. To actually destroy a mid-sized city you would need several warheads, which is something not every military target is allocated. So no, Threads is nothing but scaremongering, it has very little to do with reality.

>>34662725
Fuck Op.
I reported that faggot so many times for shitting up threads with his garbage opinions.

Luckily I also screencapped a bunch of his shit to and am sending it into a few agencies that might be interested in the fact that he is on 4chan

Get fucked attention whore

>>34664976
Kek, never change. "I sent it to a bunch pf agencies, mom!". Never change.

>>34664976
>garbage opinions

As opposed to your enlightened basement-dwelling, community-college dropping diabetes-battling NEET insights, you little bitch?

>>34664891
>>34664931


Where have you got your information from? A single thermonuclear weapon detonated in London today would easily overwhelm the government and emergency services, casualties would be in the millions. There are not now and were not then the resources to just carry on as normal after a nuclear attack.

Regarding Square Leg specifically: yes, the plan was criticised for seemingly random allocation of some targets and weapons being used, but nuclear war is inherently unpredictable as it hasn't ever become a reality. The many thousands of weapons, many of which being inaccurate, could well have been utilised as command and control became significantly degraded on both sides. Most planned targeting by both sides facilitated multiple warheads launched at each target to ensure at least one of them made contact.

A really good book on this subject is "The Secret State" which outlines some of the UKs plans for nuclear war. In one memorable section the author expresses surprise at how relaxed war planners were when selecting targets. Even the UK seemingly had enough warheads spare that when attacking the largest state in the world, they were able to put multiple warheads just on Moscow, in any area with a tentative link to military/government infrastructure.

Make no mistake, at the height of the Cold War, despite all the talk about counter force/counter value and the apparent mathematical approach of nuclear war planners, the arsenals each side had access to combined with the panic of a full blown nuclear war would likely have led to multiple civilian sites being targeted. Hell, a good example of what happens when you run out of targets is the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the 1991 Gulf War. In both these instances, once Government and military targets were exhausted, the list of viable targets widened significantly. Imagine the destruction nuclear weapons can bring in much shorter timescales and it's not difficult to imagine a rapid escalation.

Oppenheimer was awesome, he actually got some geologists to consider if my theory about using a bunker buster nuke of pretty low megatonage to trigger Yellowstone via launching it into one of the volcanic mudpools dotting the hidden caldera was viable (as would it be for any live volcano with accesible mudpools of sufficient depth)

It was (in theory) and Opphenheimer gave the poor geologist a nightmare due to it, which was worth the price itself

I miss his threads.

File: 1492969119044.jpg (113KB, 998x752px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 998x752px

>>34656192
I wonder how many xenos races we could whipe out with nuclear bombs only....

>>34667017
Who's opphenheimer? A tripfag?
And that idea really Isn't new. I'm sure it's been researched before by the military in the past.

>>34667113
Get me a scan of any megavolcanoes on the planet, a bushel of orbit dropped bunker busters (nuke) with enough target accuracy to hit a deep enough mudpool and we could easily wipe out a few planets or at the least turn them into hellish realms of boiling lava and ice (from a volcanoes nuclear winter esque effect causing planetary cooldown)

If only such innovation wouldn't be considered heracy pumishable by death...

>>34666787
>a good example of what happens when you run out of targets is the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the 1991 Gulf War.
A better example is Korea.

>bombard the place until there are no fully intact standing structures of any military or civilian interest
>start dropping bomb loads on foot bridges

>>34667131
Oppenheimer was, and it probably was researched but naturally we would not be privvy to such information (heck, for all I know ol' Oppy might have decided to research its true viability if he was a proper nuclear researcher) so for all intents and purposes, it was my theory (not that I'll claim it if I ever hear of a nuke setting off a volcano)

Anyway, giving a geologist nightmares was worth it

>>34667170
Heresy
>ftfy

>>34667283
No idea how it became heracy..bloody tablet spellchecker.

Pumishable was a typo though.

File: 1501076544076.jpg (179KB, 507x500px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 507x500px

>>34667225
Its not that hard to give them those, pic somewhat related.

>>34667225

I personally miss his wargaming threads. RIP Oppen.

>>34667495
he had his trip on a couple weeks back. he lurks and occasionally shows up

>>34662200
Well in the respect of the subject yes. OP is quite well read and does seem to have an understanding of physics. I am close to adopting a trip as I have questions about neutron activation of X-ray machines and the desperation of atomic material related to contamination that he seems to avoid. I am unwilling to investigate these things as my engineering background would make me flagged. But I would like to know if these things have been looked at.

>>34662510
No but he is an educated adult with some versing in the matter. Go to /pol/ if you want stupid reasons.

File: figure 5 thermonuclear warhead components (supposedly W80 warhead).gif (260KB, 549x720px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 549x720px

Does anyone know what document this image is from? I asked about it a while back and the guy who posted it said it was from Greenpeace's old website but I couldn't find it.

>>34661333
>The issue he had was that as soon as he showed up in a thread you had people that would take his word as gospel

This was not the issue.

>>34661333
>Believe it or not Oppenheimer has been wrong.
Everyone has.

File: nuclear test.jpg (505KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1500x1000px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkAp5gAYDUQ

>>34669151
Sorry about how this turned from a "let's discuss nukes" to a "let's discuss Oppenheimer" thread.
Anywhere somebody could point me to that contains the Teller-Ulam equations?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (147KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x720px

does anybody have any screenshots of oppenheimer threads

>>34656192
http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation

This is worth mentioning. Currently important problem when thinking of war in central-eastern Europe.

>>34669151
Well sir quit evading the question of fallout from X-RAYS and research reactors. Never mind what would happen when Oak Ridge and atom city get hit. I understand that you are correct about fallout from primary blasts but what happens with the rest?

>>34669151
Did any of the NATO nations besides the UK, France and the US or WarPac countries aside from the USSR ever have their own weapons programs?

>that one time a plane crashed on the east coast and a 2 MT nuke had the arm switch on and was 3/4th of the way to detonation

>that time that one single Russian decided not to respond to a false alert and not cause the death of billions

whoopsie daisy haha

File: chevaline deployment sequence mod.gif (275KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1920x1200px

What am I looking at here? This is the filename it had when I saved it.

>>34669867
What the fuck are you on about? Nuking a reactor doesnt make the explosion bigger you fucking idiot.

>>34661251
That $45b a year provides far more of a deterrent than the $550b a year spent on conventional forces.

>>34668935
As I explained in the other thread, Greenpeace did not provide the full document on their old website. All they had were five images including that one.

speaking of sampson option, why do we even alloq israel to exist when they openly said that they will target even europe if some muslims kick their ass?

File: IMG_0094.gif (1MB, 500x197px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x197px

Theyre more propaganda than useful weapon on the battlefield

Nukes a psyop yo

>>34669203
Nuclear archive has some rough equations. No idea how accurate they are though.

>>34670331
>Being this retarded.

Might i suggest you don't get nuclear warfare information from Stormfront?

>>34670302
Sucks. Wish I at least knew what document it was so I could look for it further.

>>34656232
SHALL NOT

>>34669958
The Chevaline system. With the improvement of Soviet ABM defenses around Moscow, the Bongs realised that their nukes wouldn't be hitting anything, so they spent a billion Pounds Sterling on the development of a penetration aids package for their Polaris missiles. In the end it caused a scandal and the Bongs bought Tridents.

>>34670922
Why did it cause a scandal? Are you implying that their Tridents now have no decoys or other penetration aids?

>>34670421
well israel was on a verge to use nukes in the yum kuppur war w/e it's spelled when they thought they were about to lose

also consider stuff like that said by the jews themselves

>Iran can never be threatened in its very existence. Israel can. Indeed, such a threat could even grow out of the current intifada. That, at least, is the pessimistic opinion of Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 'If it went on much longer,' he said, 'the Israeli government [would] lose control of the people. In campaigns like this, the anti-terror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We'll destroy ourselves.'

>In this situation, he went on, more and more Israelis were coming to regard the 'transfer' of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing 'more probable' with each passing day. Sharon 'wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed'.

>But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing? 'That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts

>>34669900

Jesus fuck this is entry level shit, and a wiki search away, yet I'll point you in the right direction.

Yes. Countries like South Africa and Israel both have/had weapons programs.

Countries like Germany, Canada and Australia all have the capability but either voted or where vetoed from building them.

I belive in the ussr all countries contributed but you would have to define the word country, as they where all part of the ussr. For example Ukraine had a good amount of nukes in its boarders when the bloc fell.

Other than that, because I'm guessing you might find it interesting, China, and North Korea both have programs. India and Pakistan do, Iran and a couple others Like Egypt probably have some sort of "program"

But back to your original question most of the NATO countries either contributed resources or scientists from the beginning but had no need to actually build any of there own when the u.s would happily station them on their soil.

>>34656192
they make me hard

>>34666787
Serbia doesn't work as an example, and neither does North Korea.
1) Number of targets in Serbia/Korea/Gulf is by orders of magnitude smaller than number of potential targets in Russia during say 1980s.
2)None of those targets were protected nearly as well as Russian targets
3)Weapons used were conventional bombs and missiles, which can be produced and deployed gradually. On the contrary, nuclear weapons must be ready in their entirety and launched within minutes from the call, as otherwise you are very likely to lose them
4)Serbian/Korean targets can't do anything to your country in the short term or long term. Leaving out (or having a risk of leaving out) a military base here or there carries no risk except potentially prolonging ground peacekeeping operations, which will succeed no matter what due to overwhelming Western superiority. On the contrary, leaving the possibility of leaving a silo or a military base intact (by not striking it twice of thrice) in a global nuclear conflict means immediate risk to the West: it means either a risk of nuclear weapon striking your cities or bases, or a powerful enemy land force making it to the battlefield, tipping the odds in the enemy favor. There would be no "running out of targets" in the 1980s nuclear war; there are simply too many.

File: NorthKoreaHangar.jpg (25KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 460x259px

Their infrastructure for storing missiles and warheads is about what you'd expect if you wanted to make it difficult to destroy. Go figure.

>>34671398
The "North Korean tunnel complexes" are just Tora Bora 2.0

>>34671428
Bit of a non-sequitur there, Anon. This is an armored hangar that's probably next to an airbase.

>>34667113
>Shout through space elf head
>Hit fellow guardsmans dick

The best and brightest of humanity at work i see.

>>34671441
Of course there are hangars, and bunkers. There just isn't any super secret tunnel network from which the Norks can strike like the lightning.

>>34656192
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5-xnJCFgzY

>>34670081
No but it would wreck the facility and spread the already radiation materials from the inside to outside in semi-chernobyl like fashion.
Although instead of a internal explosion caused by mass evaporation of water, you have an external explosion.

>>34671477
>Already radiation
Meant to say already radiating materials.

>>34671461
Best korea has the best tunnels

File: press dprk to shootdodge.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>34671494

>>34671471
>Terminator 2 nuke scene
That unrealistic shit pisses me off so much

>>34661378
>>34662114
Oh no... Brighton got nuked... what a fucking pity.

>>34671528
That's not the point. If I was in charge of missile command, I would nuke Brighton first thing.

>>34671536
So, on what street corner were you raped there?

>>34671513
It's called being cinematic fag.

>>34662487
>China sits there like a bitch
0/10 not even realistic

>>34656192
I don't think they'll play a big role in future global conflicts directly. They'll make hybrid warfare essential and all real state activity buried deep. If they do get set off they'll be isolated incidents in extreme fuck ups. I don't think a cold war style MAD scenario will ever be realistic again.

>>34662487
>russia joins in for some landgrabs

fighting for land in 21st century... inb4 muh crimea stuff, it's a different matter when the piece of land was yours for several hundred years and is inhabited by your nationals

I've always loved nukes, ever since I was a kid. The pinnacle of human technological grandeur. Yet we never get to use them, it's a fucking insult to human ingenuity. My dream is that when Elon Musk goes to mars and brings on the space age, we can find a nice planet for recreational nuclear weaponry usage. A planet of anarchy where we blow each other up for no reason but to see the glory of the mushroom cloud.

>>34671590
burgers already used them against japs

So how about those super secret anti-nuke satellites?

>>34671171
I wonder if Russia would have invaded Crimea/Ukraine had kept the soviet nukes instead of surrendering them.

>>34671644
not like there were any battles or military confrontation during the crimean annexation

>>34671536
I'm well aware that's not the point. I'm not the guy you were chatting to. Though I agree that Brighton needs to be burnt down to ash and then have the ash burnt again.

>>34670973
Yes, they were on the verge of using nukes.. on arabs.

Notice the Middle East is not Europe.

I stand by what you said, you're a retard.

File: 201603191951131d4[1].jpg (168KB, 848x1200px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 848x1200px

>>34671667

firstly i am surprised that you think that a loss in a conventional war justifies using nukes

secondly, have you bothered to read the whole post? the greentext there it's some israelian military expert from the hebrew university, he casually publicly speaks about possibly nuking rome and nobody gives a shit

btw when a german noble prize winner in literature wrote a poem in 2012 about how he was afraid that jews could nuke iran and it would be a bad thing to nuke iran jews were mighty pissed, forbade him entrance to israel and some jew writer wrote this poem as an answer how the jews have the right to destroy humanity if they are threatened. i know that it sounds protocols of the elders of zion crap but it's true

>I want to be a danger,
>I want to be a danger to the world,
>so that after my destruction, not a single blade of grass will remain on the face of the Earth
....
>And yet, there is a right reserved only to us Jews (if indeed any human on Earth has this right): to be destroyed and to take the weary and sated world with us to the non-existence

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154608#.T4H4MtXAE14

it's not some stormfront shit, i literally quote jews themselves

>>34671731
Your sources so far have consisted of a journalist's unsourced ramblings about jews, and a poet.

Yes it is, it's retarded Stormfront tier garbage.

redirection time
since everybody knows the location of everybody's fixed launchers, how likely is it that a nation will use all of its fixed launchers in a first strike and save its mobile launchers for later

>>34671780
not a journalist a prof of the hebrew university

anyway there is a lot of data of their willingness to use nukes and even indiscriminately, google ariel sharon sampson option etc

>>34671799
Very likely - use them or lose them. The only thing those missiles will be hitting is other WMDs and C&C facilities, maybe some ports too. Mobile weapons are the only thing that has a chance of being used on other targets.

>>34671993
what about targeting industrial areas
with the US Minuteman III arsenal approaching 400 missiles, how likely is it that the US will be able to target and destroy a cost-effective number of enemy static launch sites?

>>34662510
Don't be a kike

>>34672006
Not enough weapons for industrial areas. Not enough weapons for minor air bases, in fact. Certainly not enough for some shitty factory making tractor engines.

>>34670081
What does that have to do with fallout? I never expressed any notion that the explosive force would be different just that you would get fallout from things other than the bomb. Well perhaps oak ridge might but other than saying that they have the storage capacity for over a gram of antimatter it's unlikely that enough has been produced and stored to amount to more than a duck farting into a storm. My question is has anyone calculated the effects on fallout from X-RAY machines and other such radiological sources in likely target areas.

>>34672682
Do you think that X-ray machines have radioactive material inside?

>>34671900
>The Samson Option is the name that some military analysts and authors have given to Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military has destroyed much of Israel.

Shock, it's about nuking Israel's enemies and not going full retard blowing up Europe.

>>34672695
Gamma ray imagers used to image things like cargo containers do.

>>34672774
to begin with there is some talk of using it indiscriminately, just read about it for a bit

anyway, the willingness to use nukes in a conventional war (and apparently against civilian targets too) is not something to take lightly even without those causal talks about nuking european cities

>>34672695
They utilize materials highly subject to neutron activation and they do produce decay particles. But then so do bananas. They are regulated as radiological substances and subject to disposal as radioactive waste under international treaties. But the reason I asked is because it's not my area of engineering and I would rather see if someone else has calculated the effects rather than do the math myself which would take time and probably put me on a watch list for investigating the designs of things that the FBI considers sources for a dirty bomb. Better to just ask someone with policy knowledge about the subject. If you want to know things about naval architecture you can ask me about that.

>>34672794
>back-pedalling

Fuck off. Most nuclear armed nations agree it's acceptable to use nuclear weapons to prevent a massive conventional attack.

>>34672803
well to the moment i provided you several sources why you only bleated something like "muh jews would never use nukes indiscriminately", i dunno why i waste time on you, originally you didn't even bother to read my first answer after all

>>34662114
If I remember correctly, Soviet nukes were aimed at enemy nuke launch sites and military bases. It was our nukes (U.S. at least) that were aimed at their civilian population. Each side thought they had the better deterrent.

>>34672813
You claimed Israel would go full retard and shoot nukes at Europe. You never proved that.

You can move the goalposts if you want, but it makes you look like a retard.

>>34672838
Both sides switched to counter-force targeting the moment their weapons systems were capable of it.

File: 56bc582e61d5da122b0e100641b8984b.png (338KB, 600x726px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 600x726px

>>34672871
originally i have said "even europe" because there was some their talk of them attacking even europe. personally i dunno why indiscriminately attacking muslim countries is much better but i try to avoid double standards after all

how can i prove their secret plans? but it's a common rhetorics from some of their public figures as well as some western israel sympathizers ("What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter..." - david perlmutter, an american of the jewish origin), including their gloating of their supposed ability to cause a serious damage to the whole world

>Alan Hart interviewed Golda Meir for the BBC's Panorama programme in April 1971 and asked her "Prime Minister ... You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?". Hart continues that, "without the shortest of pauses for reflection, and in the gravel voice that could charm or intimidate American Presidents according to need, Golda replied 'Yes, that's exactly what I am saying'".

ariel sharon wasn't much better than golda meier, he also threatened to attack iran preemptively with nukes, it's a different question though

w/e you want to believe though, as i have said it's a waste of time

>>34672794
US policy for a very long time was to use nuclear weapons to prevent conventional defeat.

File: smbc.jpg (97KB, 685x730px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 685x730px

Did you guys know we had drones already back in the 50s?
>watch nuke videos on jewtube
>video about effects on jets
>two drones escorted to the blast zone
>flew over as the nuke detonated
>plane wobbled and dropped tanks underneath but fine

>>34664976

I still want to see a picture of your 'USP' and AK you LARP'ing faggot

>>34673003
i have posted the link recently, burgers got mad iirc

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

>>34672871
For fucks sake I ask an apolitical nuke question and catch shit and you 2 go full on /pol/ and nobody calls your BS. Nukes are assigned by threats to respond to by rational actors. Full stop. Israel does not want to die. Full stop. They likely have targeting in Europe as it is a potential threat. France and the UK also likely have targeted Europe. France has said that they will nuke Germany if they are invaded. Think that over. The USA and Russia had targeted not only each other but their own cities when we both had 30,000 nukes pointed at each other. Of course Israel has Europe as a possible target. They are a credible threat. Just like the UK has Paris on their list and France has London on theirs. Israel has about as much probability to nuke London or Paris as the UK or France has. Hell about the same chance as the USA has nuking NYC or LA. In other words none.

>>34673074
>go full on /pol/ and nobody calls your BS

That would be because you went full /pol/, not me. Claiming "dem jews" would go full retard is /pol/ level retardation.

>>34673074
thats one salty response

you sure you got enough cock thismorning?

>>34656192
Nukes arent real. They were just large stockpiles of TNT n various weapons detonated. Used as a scare tactic to keep other nations in place. World powers thought each one had the tech so each bluffed that they had the weapons. Now they know the other guy doesn't have them and they use it as a scare tactic to control the populations and convince them to go to war with rogue nations.

>>34673112
So claiming that there is no scenario where Israel would actually nuke Europe is saying that they will go full retarded? Before you ask yes I am a member of the tribe. But what I said was that they are as likely to do that as France is to nuke London or hell Germany. Not going to happen. Yes they do target Europe just as the USA still has solutions to firing on NYC. Warplaners devise every scenario, even the unthinkable, it's their job.

>>34673176
I see you're still moving the goalposts.

>>34673381
I moved none. Of course Israel has plans for war with Europe just as the USA has plans for war with Mexico. Neither is going to happen. To claim that Israels plans are different than the rest of the world is stupid. Charles Degaul himself said that France would nuke Germany rather than being invaded again. Yes I am Jewish but I only give a crap about Israel if they are going to do something stupid to get me killed. Nuking Europe would not only ensure their death but mine as well. Not going to happen. They will act as rational actors just as every other nuclear power has. Yes they target everyone in their region just as everyone else does. This does not mean that they are making a sucide pact with the earth. In fact they have been less belligerent than France or the UK which have both expressed the will to nuke Germany. They don't even admit that they have nukes. Grow up.

>>34669151

Holy shit. Thought you were dead. When did you start tripping again? Last post of yours I saw was you talking about how you were going radio silent.

>>34673017

Why would anyone get mad?

File: Missile2.jpg (39KB, 500x369px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x369px

french warhead :)

File: Missile1.jpg (33KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x363px

>>34674569

>>34656192
they can't come soon enough.

>>34673602
Haters think burgers flip out over anything negative. Truth is, most don't care.

File: 1491512566229.jpg (23KB, 337x372px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 337x372px

>>34669911
i havent heard about these, just some nukes lost in a swamp

>>34675879
sank a few hundred meters down the swamp
impossible to find
shrek will find it tho

File: hold the fuck up.jpg (72KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 400x400px

>>34675879
The Russian one is bretty cool.

Guy was named Stanislav Petrov. His job was to launch nukes in retaliation if America struck first.
One day, alarms start going off. American missiles detected.
His whole job is to go AAHH MOTHERLAND and end the world.
But he looks closer at that radar blips.
It shows that America only launched a few missiles at Russia. Not enough to destroy the Soviet Union. Not by a long shot. Doctrine should have had America launch thousands, not only a few.
He also sees that no one else has launched retaliatory strikes.
So Petrov concludes that the radar hits of "American nuclear missiles" are a glitch.
Turns out they were. There was a false alarm for nuclear holocaust. And Stanislav Petrov thought it out and decided not to pull the trigger.
If he was slightly stupider and a little more loyal, he'd have launched his nukes and felt totally justified. But he didn't so we're alive to shitpost on 4chan about it

>oh look a nuke thread
>ctrl+f "oppen"
15 results. i see you're still a bunch of little faggy fanboys for some retard that regugitated 1960s speculative data about nuclear warfare as if it were true
/thread

>>34676748
contribute or fuck off

>>34673167
then explain hiroshima victims

>>34680197
I just give it time till there are Hiroshima deniers

>>34673013
Make me bitch

>>34680242
ree