Does China actually only have 260 nukes or are they lying and

>>34874761

No, those numbers are relatively close to accurate. There's little reason to build very expensive bombs if you don't have delivery systems for them.

Nah, I think that's probably accurate. I recall some guy saying FAS, RAND and others have made independent estimates which are all similar to each other, around that ~260 mark... so you can check yourself

At what point is a nuclear bomb a nuclear bomb? Like, are the individual pits nuclear bombs? Are the weapons assemblies (say, the entire structure of a gravity bomb short of the physics package) nuclear bombs? Do they only become nuclear bombs when you assemble them?

Does the US just have all of the equipment for another 1,000 nukes just laying around, ready to be assembled or something?

>>34874761
Sure but half of them don't work

>>34875087
>Does the US just have all of the equipment for another 1,000 nukes just laying around, ready to be assembled or something?
The US has several thousand (about 4000) warheads still intact in storage.

There are another 3000 in various stages of dismantlement.

>>34875246
What constitutes a warhead? And what does "Dismantlement" mean?

>>34874761
I dont see why they would lie about it, thier nukes are to maintain thier regional position, at worst on of thier african investments might start shit but thats not really nuke worthy.

>>34875331
Are...are you retarded?

>>34875331
A complete device with physics package. Some items with limited life may be removed for those in storage.

Dismantlement means that the weapons have their pits removed and taken to Oak Ridge. The rest of the weapon is broken down at Pantex where its individual components are stored. Some are destroyed. It would be theoretically possible to reassemble a weapon from these parts but it's reliability would be suspect.

>>34875378
No, I just don't want China or the US pulling another 20,000 nuclear bombs out of nowhere and justifying it with "The treaties never said we had to get rid of our warheads, they just said that we couldn't have them all assembled at any one time!" or something.

>>34875409
You don't have to worry about that.

>>34875414
can someone other than oppenheimer assure me on nuclear safety

>>34875402
>It would be theoretically possible to reassemble a weapon from these parts but it's reliability would be suspect.
Why is this? Are the bombs designed to only be assembled once?

>>34875414
That's reassuring.

What would happen if the US decided to just not obey any nuclear weapons treaties?

>>34875430
Probably not, because no one else would be in a position to know my dude.

>>34875409
Why the fuck are you worried about China, when the former USSR satellite counties have nukes that were stolen during the collapse? Why not India and Pakistan, two nuclear armed countries that hate each other? Do you know how much trade China and America do? There is no reason either would go to nuclear war over nk.

>>34875478
>Why is this? Are the bombs designed to only be assembled once?
No, but the people who originally built them are long retired, the components are basically sitting in boxes.

>What would happen if the US decided to just not obey any nuclear weapons treaties?
Arms race city.

>>34874839
>relatively close to accurate
ACCORDING TO WHOM? YOU? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?

>if you don't have delivery systems for them.
2ND ARTY DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH DELIVERY SYSTEMS? ARE YOU FUCKING OUT OF YOUR MIND?

>>34875523
>2ND ARTY
It's not called this anymore.

File: hmm.jpg (51KB, 938x477px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 938x477px

>>34875506
>No, but the people who originally built them are long retired, the components are basically sitting in boxes.
So are the weapons unique then?

>>34875578
In what way? They are older designs. Hands on knowledge of them has largely slipped from institutional memory.

>>34875087
>>34875246

To add to this, there are about 14,000 pits in storage from older weapons.

>>34875605
Right, so it's basically a case of the people reassembling the bombs knowing the designs, but not knowing about the intricacies of the particular designs? That makes sense. How old are these designs, anyway? For them to slip out of institutional memory they would have to be at least 15 years old.

>>34875619
>14,000
Why do we have that many?

>>34874761
I'm pretty sure they have more than 260, but they definitely have less than 1,000 unless they're hiding something fierce. They may have only 260 ICBM and SLBM based nukes, but I feel like they would have more warheads total.

They're supposedly planning 8 type 94 subs (Jins), which would take half their arsenal alone if it really was only 260 warheads. (8 sub *12 missiles = 96. And they can be MIRVs soo). perhaps they only have 260 warheads now, but if so, I would expect them to quickly raise it to 3-400 as their navy modernization finishes up (especially if the Type 96 sub starts serial production).

>>34875619
Geez. why did we build so many nuclear weapons in the first place? That's beyond overkill

>>34875478
Everyone else decides they don't need to obey any nuclear treaties either, and the same probably goes for biological and chemical weapons. If you're unlucky it might extend to the broader body of international law such as free navigation, treatment of POWs etc.
The US can attempt to enforce these treaties through pure intimidation and force of might but that's never going to be completely successful.

Meanwhile, international trade and business confidence plummets. Economic growth slows. Wages drop. Military spending and government debt go up.

>>34875402

Have you read the novel "Warday" by Striber and Kunetka? Thoughts?

>>34875634
>How old are these designs, anyway?
The oldest probably date to the late 60's.

>Why do we have that many?
Don't know what to do with them.

>>34875638
They haven't produced enough fissile material for that many.

>>34875414

Then why were we caught off guard with possible NK warhead numbers (up to 60)? Or was it just media sensationalism and nothing has really changed?

Also, I know Ashton Carter very involved in nuclear strategy and ABM in the 1980s; I was always curious if he made any special contributions while SECDEF. Any input?

>>34875714
>Or was it just media sensationalism and nothing has really changed?

Bingo

>>34875714
The issue wasnt fissile material production, but its processing. The DIA estimate (the one that made the news) was within the higher end estimates for their production, but most of the time the numbers reported were the most likely numbers. Its about 75% media sensationalism.

>>34875781
>Its about 75% media sensationalism.
Then what is actually happening?

>>34875781
Does NK even have nuclear weapons?

>>34875804
The media found a story that dovetailed neatly with the Administration's poor handling of the situation and ran with it.

Off to bed, /k/. Have a good evening.

>>34875870
OPP, you're so cool.

>>34875804
China has smaller amount of nukes but better since it is newly created or developed. A 100 of them is far better than a 1000 of America's. The Chinese nukes are both effective and efficient. That is why it is never good to get in the bad side of China.

>>34875870
Night Night papa opp. I hope you sleep well.

they don't need more than that, nobody's gonna fuck with them

I respect them for not being excessive either

>>34875920
>newly created or developed
Want to talk about the newly completed fuzing on the nuke on US SSBNs?

>>34875920
t. Chinaman and kung fu instructor.

>>34875619
old warhead fissile material needs to be processed to get the good isotopes separate from the fission products. then made into new bombs.

>>34875087
>At what point is a nuclear bomb a nuclear bomb?

When it's all glued together, just waiting for somebody to light the fuse and throw it. Before that point, it's just components waiting assembly.

File: China's Foremost Guy.jpg (99KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 800x600px

>>34875920
>A 100 of them is far better than a 1000 of America's.

50 cents has been deposited in your account, comrade ))))

>>34875430
Anon here. I've been studying this for decades and running the numbers since 1981. Currently, your chances of getting nuked are about the same as your chances of winning the lottery. You also should be aware that nuclear war is the safest kind, if that's what you were getting at with your question regarding nuclear safety. You see, the elevated temperatures insure a sterile battlefield. That's a huge lifesaver, because historically disease and poor hygiene have killed more people in war zones than bullets. By like 2 orders of magnitude. It's that safe. Hell, they wouldn't have a whole field of nuclear medicine if it wasn't safe.

the real question

is if they replaced their liquid fueled missiles with solid fuel missiles.

liquid fuel means 30-40 minutes of prep time needed to fire.

>>34874761
Why the fuck would you put white wall tires on those things

>>34875430
That's like asking if someone other than Hitler could answer your fucking question.
So retarded.

>>34876038
He means the uranium used in American nukes are old and has more than half of its half life gone due to rotational velocidensity. This lessens its atomic power significantly, whereas the Chinese uranium are recently harvested for nuclear consumption.

>>34876654

For parade purposes.

>>34875920

Isnt lockheed or someone modernizing the US ICBM stockpile? i heard they fired back up the plant in Tennessee that makes the explosives for them

>>34876447
so you're saying if I get nuked it might cure any cancer in me?

>>34876714
The US replaces pits with new ones all the time.

>>34875487
Tom Vlancy is ultimatly a fiction writer all nukes were accounted for after the collapse

>>34875672
>Don't know what to do with them.

Doorstops, paperweights, and bookends.

>>34876654
aesthetics desu

>>34876811
Yes, that's exactly what might happen. You may experience some other minor side effects until your body adjusts.

File: 1375744633621.gif (104KB, 320x471px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 320x471px

>>34876315
>environment protection demolitions expert
>demolitions expert

File: bbc-new-meme-hood-documentary-1024x614.jpg (28KB, 1024x614px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1024x614px

>>34877216
>you can't damage what's been blown up

File: article-2085636-0F4DB14E00000578-726_306x423.jpg (14KB, 306x423px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 306x423px

>>34875870
Nn

>>34875920
Wow really.

>>34875672

>They haven't produced enough fissile material for that many.

Yeah, since Americans surely know about how much China produces in their underground facilities of Sichuan and Tibet.

>Namefag

Fuck off

>>34875920
Indeed.

After all, China has the fastest supercomputer in the world by an order of magnitude.

>>34876850
Oh really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c4f4NJSB_4

>>34878650
>CIA VICE/VOX
>a source
lmao

>>34878603
>Yeah, since Americans surely know about how much China produces
Yeah because of science and stuff.

> in their underground facilities of Sichuan and Tibet.
lol.

>>34878603
>Namefag
>Not knowing about Oppenheimer

If there's any tripfags who have a good reputation and are listened to, it's this one anon. Hunter 3-1 and Callum and the rest are cancer but when it comes to nukes, when Oppenheimer talks, everybody listens.

>>34874761
why would you want to build a ton of expensive icbms that probably will be blown up mid flight.
The glider is were is at.

>>34879008
ReaperGuy was p.cool

>>34875087
>I now want to ask for precise rules regarding 80% nuclear lowers just to troll the ATF

>>34879256
Salesman2.0 was cool too. I like his Ppsh-41.

>>34875478
Half-life my dude.
Nuclear weapon yield degrades with age.

That 260 figure has remained unchanged for the past 30 decades on some stupid report.

>>34874761
>deterrent
>keeping it secret
Listen to yourself

>>34879488
Thats because they really havent been making more warheads.

>>34879702
So they made some missiles without warheads just for the parade?

>>34879783
Conventional non nuclear warheads are a thing.
Not sure if you understand that.

>>34879900
>Conventional warhead on a MRBM or ICBM
Yeah, totally cost effective.

>>34880003
Lets see your math.

>>34875378
What is retarded? How do you measure retardation?

>>34880003
>conventional warhead
Chem/bio loads? Fuel-air?

>>34875920
(You)
On a more serious note does anyone have some truth to the hearsay that China keeps its warheads and delivery systems seperate because they can't trust their military?

>>34880949
Fuel-air doesn't work well with hardened targe, and a 2 ton FAE warhead isn't really that destructive.

Nerv agents aren't something cheap, cost-effective wise, thermo-nuclear has always been the best choice in WMD is you want to wipe some manufacture hub or population center.

Can't see why would they bother with Chem/bio tipped ICBM.

>>34874761
If you think any number given by any military publicly is accurate you are delusional. I just don't understand.

You do not know payloads
You do not know quantity
You do not know intended delivery system
You do not know air force size
You do not know tank division size
You do not know navy size

All these things /k/ does NOT know and will NEVER know, it just isn't up for discussion.

I never knew why everyone thinks they are so entitled to this knowledge, they aren't going to tell you or anybody you know. You literally just aren't important enough.

>>34881317
a lot of that shit you listed is public info and easy to confirm from multiple sources.

>>34881307
>cost-effective wise,
You going to show your math? Or be a little bitch?

>>34881317
But the warhead numbers aren't reported by their respective militaries

>>34881153
They've got the great firewall of china and other media meddling stuff so it doesn't sound too far fetched that they'd do something like that.

>>34881153
>hearsay
Well, this is from their own government. I don't know why you call it hearsay...
https://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/2008DefenseWhitePaper_Jan2009.pdf

>>34881782
Warhead numbers are known either through arms control treaties, or intelligence analysis.

>>34874761
>Similarly, I would imagine the US has secret stockpiles as well.
Nuclear weapons are 1940's technology with better payloads.
I wouldn't be surprised if we have shit that's way better by now.
It's been suggested that we have non-nuclear space weaponry, but it's impossible to know.
I can't imagine the damage a depleted uranium shell being dropped from space could do, much less being propelled by a rail gun.

>>34878603
i'm kinda embarassed for you

>>34881759
If you were not completely retard, you should know that either waging a war, or assure MAD, across pacific oceans using conventional warhead tipped ICBM is impossilbe.

But if you are so retard that you fail to realize it, a little maths surely won't help.

Why would I bother do the calculation for you.

>>34875414
Secret nuclear armed skinwalker enclave when?

>>34876315
>China's foremost environmental preservation demolition expert

If you need a national park blown up, this is your guy.

>>34882291
In other words you pulled it out of your ass and have no math to show. Cool.

>>34882291
How about you show that there is some huge difference between the numbers of Chinese ICBMs and the number of deployed warheads.

Is that math simple enough for you?

File: Maths iz hard.png (185KB, 1196x855px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1196x855px

>>34882291

>>34875087
Japan is considered "A screw's turn" away from having a nuclear weapon, meaning they have the know-how, the technology, and the materials to build one, and just choose not to because nukes are an enormous headache.

I think the estimates say they could have a dozen or so ready in the space of a week.

>>34883965
>I think the estimates say they could have a dozen or so ready in the space of a week.

More like a year or so.

>>34884020
I think most estimates put it at around a few months.

>>34883965
They choose not to build them because Japan has a population that strongly disapproves of atomic weapons. It's been hard to even get them to support the idea of expeditionary forces in support of allies.

>>34883941
>was talking about cost-effectiveness
>posed an obviously BS paper with warhead figures pulled from someone's ass

Yep, retarded confirmed.

>>34883965
>"A screw's turn" away from
from atom bomb, may be yes
H-bomb, then weaponize, miniaturize it
definitly no.

>>34876811
Nothing 4chan related, though.

>>34879783
They're probably styrofoam anyways.

>>34885788
As if the US wouldn't just give her the tech to do so.

>>34875523
ARE YOU CAPLOCKING STRNG ENOUGH!!!!

>>34885474
At least a year.

>>34885772
What have you posted to the contrary? Nothing? Figures.

>>34886217
What do you think is going to happen with North Korea? Do you have a timeline for when war might break out?

>>34886111
Why would US want to create a regional nuclear power which would erode their political presence in the pacific rim?

File: Nukes.gif (865KB, 2500x2644px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 2500x2644px

>>34886217
What are the possibilities of human civilization bouncing back to an early industrial level of economics, medicine, culture, transportation and manufacturing after a nuclear exchange involving several hundred to thousand warhead detonations?

Do we still need land based ICBMs in silos, or warhead carrying long range strategic bombers? Can a nuclear triad be reduced to a nuclear bipod involving just SLBM and strategic bombers, or SLBM and silo based delivery?

Is there a career in nuclear technology/weaponry that is not math heavy? I love you Oppenheimer

>>34877240
>NK will nuke itself so that America can't nuke it
Truly genius.

>>34886456
>Harpoons can house nuke warheads
n-nani?

>>34887789
Nope, Tomahawks can though.

If you're wondering, that means an Ohio SSGN can fire 154 nuclear cruise missiles if America REALLY didn't like a country.

>>34886395
Because Japan is pretty much the US' only ally in the Pacific now, and one that won't immediately get their ass kicked if a war broke out there.

>>34886310
>What do you think is going to happen with North Korea?
Most likely nothing.
The administration says they have no military options.

>Do you have a timeline for when war might break out?
No. Too many variables right now.

>>34886456
>What are the possibilities of human civilization bouncing back to an early industrial level of economics, medicine, culture, transportation and manufacturing after a nuclear exchange involving several hundred to thousand warhead detonations?
100%

>Do we still need land based ICBMs in silos, or warhead carrying long range strategic bombers?
Yes.

>Can a nuclear triad be reduced to a nuclear bipod involving just SLBM and strategic bombers, or SLBM and silo based delivery?
Yes as long as you are willing to lose some escalation control. Some people are of the opinion that removing potential military targets reduces the probability of a nuclear exchange because people are less likely to resort to nukes if the only targets are each other's cities.

>Is there a career in nuclear technology/weaponry that is not math heavy? I love you Oppenheimer
Not really. People who design nuclear weapons didn't set out to do so. They were scientists attracted to Government physics labs because of the funding and resources. Their work has a dual role in understanding the fabric of our universe and in nuclear weapons development.

>>34881876
Geosync tungsten telephone poles come down at 3 kt equiv.

>>34879008
WHO MENTIONED MY NAME? I WILL FUCKING END YOU ASSHOLE

Nukes expire over time - radioactive decay of plutonium means they all have a "due date" after which they must be scrapped.

It's much better to have a quick, efficient manufacturing capacity for nukes on demand than to keep a huge stockpile at peace time.

As for delivery capacity, Shenzhou can enter the orbit, and then land with about a kilometer accuracy. If you can get this done, you do have the capacity to drop warheads wherever you wish.

>>34889233
Is Nuclear Winter real?

The Tambora Eruption in 1815 produced particulates astronomically higher then simulated Nuclear exchanges but we are still here.

>>34881876
Kinetic bombardment from space is quite pointless when you have nuclear weapons.

>>34889263
And you literally have to build and launch a massive rocket to get it up there. Probably just put a nuke with a significantly higher payload on the end of the massive rocket you just built

>>34889233
>>Is there a career in nuclear technology/weaponry that is not math heavy? I love you Oppenheimer

I believe lower/middle technical is still open. Once the bomb is designed, someone needs to manufacture it after all. Lots of very precise components that require skilled CNC operators and the likes; doesn't need to be a good scientist but needs to know machining, technical drawings, materials etc. Plus impeccable security record.

>>34889233
What's the point of the NPT if countries can simply not sign it and then develop their own weapons and receive nothing more than a stern letter or sanctions that disappear once the public looks away?

>>34889304
It's not so pointless if you're attacking a non-nuclear country in neighborhood of countries that have nukes and don't particularly love you. It still counts as conventional weaponry and you're not causing fallout which would blow wherever wind takes it.

>>34889326
I don't know if 'conventional' is the right word for tungsten rods dropped from space, but I see your point. I do however doubt that people would see this enormous energy release, akin to quite a shitty nuclear weapon, and simply go 'Huh, I guess it doesn't count'.
Fair enough on the fallout though. But aside from these points, I think kinetic space bombardment really is quite a shit idea. A nuke you can just launch. A satellite moves across the earth in a pattern that looks like a sine wave, so there's no guarantee it will be in the correct position when you need it. Unless you put sattelites in geostationary orbit above potential targets. But then you have to build loads of the fuckers

>>34889357
Geo sync and attitude adjustment, then you can easily arc as needed with far fewer stations

>>34889293
>Is Nuclear Winter real?
Probably not.
Urban firestorms would likely not be as prevalent as the studies suggest.

>>34889306
Agreed.

>>34889318
It allows nations to obtain help standing up a nuclear power industry, and therefore enjoying all the benefits without the risks of nuclear proliferation.

>>34889357

Doesn't count as ABC ("Atomic, Biological, Chemical") so no Geneva. Delivered as ballistic, not orbital, doesn't violate space treaties. Just a conventional charge delivered by long-range missile.

Yes, it's stretching the rules as heck, but not breaking any of them. Successor to Geneva Convention may outlaw them, but for now they are perfectly legal as long-range weapons.

BTW, ballistic launch will lose about 5% relative to satellite, but allows for ~30min delivery to any point on Earth. With satellite you need to wait for the right moment.

Also, placing the satellites in GEO won't help shit. That's not how orbital mechanics works.

>>34889398
But then you're losing energy aren't you? For maximum energy release you want your sattelite in retrograde LEO, and even then i think you only get something like 7x the energy release for the equivalent weight of TNT.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be cool, I just also think it would be silly. Especially if you can already wipe stuff off the map wherever and whenever you want with your existing nuclear arsenal.

>>34889421
How do people sitting at radar screens know that the ballistic weapon you are launching has a conventional warhead and not a nuclear one?

>>34889421
Hey man, I agree with you on the orbit stuff. But I don't get what you mean about conventional charge delivered by long range missile. Do you mean just a fuckhuge tungsten rod thrown using a ICBM, using only the kinetic energy of its re-entry for effect on target? Because that might be dumber than the original tungsten rod satellite stuff. Apologies if I have misunderstood you.

>>34889398
Geosync requires fuckton of delta-V to deorbit. Inclination adjustments are expensive as fuck in terms of delta-V too.

Your best approach is to launch into the correct attitude (towards the enemy) and never enter orbit. The 7.5km/s you'll achieve is still aplenty, you can launch steeper if you want more (but timing will suffer) and you don't need to deal with maintaining working deorbiting engines for years (rocket engines really like to fail after a time of not being used).

>>34889475
Yes, tungsten rod delivered by ICBM. It would have only slightly less energy than just dropped from a satellite (...or possibly more if you pick your trajectory right) and you skip all the headaches of managing satellites in orbit.

Seriously, maneuvering a satellite which is already in orbit, to reach a specific point on Earth in anything shorter than weeks is simply awful. Especially if its payload is a multi-ton tungsten rod.

>>34889534
>multiton
Understatement there

>>34889534
So, then the question becomes "How does your target know you are launching a conventional warhead at him and not a nuclear one?"

>>34889562
Talking about plain dead mass, not TNT equivalent.

For orbital maneuvers doesn't really matter what your payload is, just what's its mass.

>>34889534 I'm the guy that was arguing against the orbiting satellite with a load of heavy shit in it, you don;t need to tell me about how shit that is.

But I don't see why you would want to chuck tungsten rods about on ICBMs. Firstly, I imagine it would by design be an extremely heavy and dense cargo to be lobbing about on rockets, meaning you'd have to develop new, more powerful ballistic missiles to deliver it. Secondly, if the idea is to neatly sidestep the awkward factor of having just fucking nuked someone, i don't think its virtue of being purely kinetic is going to convince anyone. Noone gives a fuck if you didn't violate protocol 1 on a technicality. It's not the UN you need to worry about when you start flinging ICBMs about, its the other people that have ICBMs. And if they decide that they're gonna respond, you don't get to go 'no fair it was only a rod'. Also I refer you to this post. >>34889443

I just don't see what utility any of these kinetic tungsten rod ideas provide that is not already covered by something less expensive if you want to be conventional or more effective if you want to go all mass destruction like a nutter

>>34889570
If your target *doesn't have* nukes, it doesn't matter so much. The neighbors may get nervous, but should calm down once no radiation is detected.

If your target has nukes, I don't think dropping 3KT equivalent in anything on them is a smart move. Go with megatons or don't do it at all.

>>34889600
You need some behind-the-scenes politics to get this done. Say, you target NK. You just unofficially inform Russia and China that you intend to drop a tungsten rod on NK and politely ask them not to panic when the ICBMs start flying *roughly* in their direction. Offer them a good slice of the cake after the dust settles down, and just go with it.

Of course if you start flinging ICBMs with zero warning people may get a little trigger-happy. That's why you don't do this without warning.

>>34889611
>The neighbors may get nervous,
This is an understatement and a half.
In the time it takes other powers to verify the trajectory of the missile, they will be under tremendous pressure to initiate a response. In many cases, you have as little as 90 seconds to decide what to do.
Any longer, and if it is a real attack, you wont have enough time to respond before you are struck.
If it is a single weapon, that is even more concerning because it could be an attack designed to go off above the radar horizon in an attempt to blind your EW radars.

So you have a national leader, told that a ballistic missile has been fired by a possible adversary. He has 45 seconds to decide to start an irrevocable series of events that will result in the launch of his own nuclear weapons. He may have just been jarred from a sound sleep, he may be very confused. His decision making may be suspect.

Recipe for disaster.

Of course you could telephone them and let them know, but they are still likely to be worried and very angry that you chose to overfly their country with a ballistic missile. After all, today it was aimed at someone else, maybe tomorrow it wont be. Maybe this is all an attempt to normalize ballistic missiles that are headed for his country, hoping to lessen your haste for when the real attack comes.

Maybe when you announce this new weapon, the other guys say that they will not accept ballistic missile overflights of their nation.

So then your only possible targets are those that you don't need to overfly these nations. This limits your potential targets greatly.

Prompt Global Strike is a bad idea.

>>34889681
>You just unofficially inform Russia and China
You do this when the stakes are so high that you have no choice, because they will never allow this to happen again for the reasons I outlined above.

So you have what is effectively a single use weapon.

Not if you fly above their airspace, then you dont need permission.

>>34889722
Ballistic missile overflight is a serious issue. Why do you think the DPRK lofts all their tests?
The US doesn't even overfly Canada when it tests Minuteman missiles.

>>34889692
Agreed on most points - but I believe "gestures of good will" could go a long way towards placating them. You might even unofficially invite their observers for the launch.

And that's a single-use weapon. I don't believe it would remain off the banned weapons list longer than a month after the attack. UN will be really pissed and ban it pronto, but they won't be able to do much else. Afterwards, the world returns to status quo, except with one country less, and any next tungsten rod will be treated totally like a nuke.

>>34889681
Okay, assuming the Chinese are okay with receiving a email saying 'Hi guys we're gonna fire a big bit of metal at North Korea we know you guys are kind of bros even if they do embarrass you sometimes but just thought we'd let you that we're launching a unilateral attack in a bit k bye p.s you can have the shattered remains of Pyongyang xx ' and assuming we can ignore all of the very sensible points in this post >>34889692

Why are we using enormously dense tungsten rods propelled by ballistic missiles to achieve effects on a target? What utility does this method of destroying something offer over conventional bombs if you want to be limited or nuclear weapons if you want to cause mass destruction.

>>34889754
You could accomplish the same with conventional aircraft or SLBMs on a depressed trajectory.

>>34883965
One look at JASDA's curious little solid fueled orbital rocket program that just happens to be pushing towards launch vehicles that are exactly the size of an MX should be enough to tell you that there's no foreign policy notion that's more laughable than the idea that Japan DOESN'T have a stash of a dozen or so delivery vehicles tucked into a mountain somewhere with a bunch of nuclear 80% lowers tucked away in the next room, for the sake of plausible deniability, just waiting for a bunch of nips to feverishly screw them together if the order to defend the home islands with atomic fire was ever to be given.

>>34889782
Riiiight.

>>34889754
So the idea is to wipe North Korea off the map? Then why aren't you just using nukes? Somewhere up there you said 3kt per weapon right? How many of these fucking useless things are you going to have to launch?

If you are worried about the UN, you have still violated a number of international laws by wiping out a nation, however inefficiently you have done it. You have still violated protocol 1 with a massive indiscriminate strike. And wasn't not violating protocol 1 your whole argument for using rods instead of nukes?

>>34889761
I think I see only one sensible scenario: a deep underground command bunker that won't be penetrated by weaker conventional weaponry.

>>34889762
...armed with something to cause equivalent damage and not irradiate the neighbors?

Yes, the whole thing is a very marginal, unlikely scenario with a significant risk, with pretty huge costs, and no chance to be of any use ever again, making it impractical to near the point of pointlessness. I think it could be made to work like that - but personally, I think dropping 3 thousand tons of explosives from airplanes could be more practical...

>>34889791
Look at how they handled the construction of the Yamatos and tell me with a straight face that Japan building an Israel-scale nuclear deterrent system in absolute secrecy as a means of countering the nuclear superpower that they fairly recently raped, pillaged, and sent into concentration camps to test bioweapons on and who just happens live right next door is 100% beyond the realm of possibility.

>>34889782
Look up keyword: "Payload fraction". These rockets can put *cubesats* in orbit.

>>34889794
Wipe off the MAP. Not surface of Earth. A surgical strike obliterating their command, then partitioning the country between the involved parties, with little to no civilian victims.

>>34889840
If you want little to no civilian victims why are you using weapons with kiloton effects. Just use any one of the many many precision strike weapons that already exist and that don't involve developing and constructing a new ICBM with an unfeasibly massive throw weight for a weapon that is by your own admission a one off.

>>34889882
Probably. I'm saying it's an approach that could work. I'm absolutely not saying this is the best approach.

>>34889912
Eh, fair enough. Let's do it, massive rockets are cool.

>>34889821
When you put it this way it'd be more shocking if they somehow DIDN'T have secret nukes.

>>34889821
>100% beyond the realm of possibility.
Well, 99%.

1) They have no tested weapon design. Before you suggest that the US would have given them one, thats simply not a possibility. This would cause the US to be an international pariah and cause the collapse of all anti-proliferation efforts across the globe.

2) they have no tested reentry vehicle.

3) They have no missing fissile material. Before you suggest that they are hiding it somehow, we are talking about a scientific process that produces very fixed amounts. Missing material is noticeable. Fissile material stocks are tracked by multiple nations, international agencies and NGO's.

4) Japan is an NPT nation. I know the common thought around here is to dismiss all treaties as just paper that everyone ignores, the reality is that treaty violations are generally considered serious problems.

They could, if they wanted to, develop a nuclear capability somewhat quickly, but there would be no way for them to hide it.

>>34890023
How is accounting of fissile material for nuclear power plants is performed?

I wonder if it would be possible for them to defer some of nuclear fuel for enrichment and nuclear weapon production without anyone "outside" noticing.

Of course I don't believe they have nukes - for the simple reason that being a nation that was a victim of nuclear attack, the public opinion is so anti nuclear weaponry it would be simply impossible to get it through - *someone* in the know would leak it to the public and politicians in question would be eaten alive.

>>34890130
>How is accounting of fissile material for nuclear power plants is performed?
The IAEA monitors them and have been since 1977 under their NPT Safeguard Agreement framework, "Application of safeguards in implementation of Article III, 1 and 4 of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons"

>>34890130
For more info: https://ola.iaea.org/ola/FactSheets/CountryDetails.asp?country=JP

>>34890130
And if you really have some time, here are the various documents that describe in detail how the safeguards work.

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/12/legalframeworkforsafeguards.pdf

https://www.iaea.org/topics/safeguards-legal-framework/more-on-safeguards-agreements

>>34875638
WRT subs- generally, only 1/3-1/2 of a fleet is deployed at any time, with 1/3 in deep maintenance, ~1/3 working up, and the rest deployed. Ships in deep maintenance don't have missiles on board.

>>34878603
>>Namefag
Oppen is right up there with Boof and Meplat. When he talks about his field of expertise, shut up and listen.

>>34879256
>was
Is he not around anymore?

>>34887864
Plus torpedo-tube launched TLAMs.
Not as much weight of fire going downrange compared to the SSBN, and significantly longer flight time, but significantly shorter warning.

>>34887864
The US doesnt have nulcear TLAM any more.

>>34890023
What if they pulled an Israel and hired someone else to test their design?

France is the big one I can think of. They already sell a lot of reprocessed fuel to Japan, and have proven to be the least-scrupulous nation in the west when it comes to selling conventional military hardware (ask the crews of the USS Stark or the frigates that the Argies sank in the Falklands), and they've tested nukes in defiance of the test bans through the 90s.

If there was anyone that I, as a nation state, might consider purchasing RV and warhead designs from, it would be France, no doubt about it.

>>34890700
>pulled an Israel and hired someone else to test their design
To the best of my knowledge, Israel designed their own weapons, with French assistance (ie gifting) setting up the reactor.

>>34878603

>namefag
>fuck off

Want to know how I can tell you're new to /k/?

>>34875535
Awe, why though, it was a good name.

>>34890386
He might be, but I haven't seen him post in quite a while.

>>34881804
I say hearsay because I heard it from an outsourced thread here years ago. Also your paper makes no mention of the topic at hand besides some vague description of their being separate base and launch forces, and is from 2008 which is awfully old considering the pace of recent efforts at modernization.

>>34891341
So what have you got that counters the known information? Or are you just wanting something to be so despite having nothing to actually support it?

>>34890700
>What if they pulled an Israel and hired someone else to test their design?
There is no way at all this could ever happen.

>>34890814
To be fair, the majority of namefags and trips on this board are fucking garbage.

>>34890023
To play devilled avacado, the only big barrier is issue 3. Japan has enough supercomputers to put together a simple fission weapon without an all-up test and blunt body vehicles are mastered by anyone with a space program. It won't be a hyper modern, cutting edge program; but it wouldn't need physical tests.

>>34893536
>Japan has enough supercomputers to put together a simple fission weapon without an all-up test
You almost have to test it. Supercomputers can only take you so far.

>>34893620
That's interesting and contrary to some other stuff I've heard. I assume you can't discuss why.

>>34889287
Half-Life of Pu-239 is 2,410 years. What decays is the tritium used for fission boosting.

>>34893620

Why would NK want to target Guam? Is it just because of their missile range? Why not just go for broke and try Mainland or even Okinawa, where they can get both the US and Japan, if they ever do go crazy enough to launch?

>>34893664
If they can prove they have the ability to target Guam with a nuke, they've demonstrated that they can hit every US base that side of Pearl Harbor in the opening shots of a war. They wouldn't dare hit Guam unless they wanted to start the war.

>>34893646
Supercomputers are useful to verify changes to an existing design. They are not as useful at proofing a novel design.


>>34893664
Demonstration of resolve.

Why not buy one from Saudi Arabia

>>34893646
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila."

Adding another 300 million dollars of computing power to what is essentially educated guesswork doesn't sound like a very good idea in general.

>>34893620
If the US was forced to use Nukes would they be gravity bombs or Ballistic Missile?

>>34875414
Has Oppie been replaced by a skinwalker?

>>34893660
You're off by a factor of 10. Pu-239 half-life is 24,110 years.

>>34890759
Don't forget actually developing and testing the weapon with South Africa.

>>34892063
Why not. Purchasing a design from the French, or outright testing a Japanese design under the auspices of a French nuclear test could have happened in the 80s or 90s when the French were especially active with their tests. Remember that would have been right after the transition from the Showa era to the Heisei. Hirohito might have been vehemently against a nuclear program, but what's to say that his successor wasn't more pragmatic about it?

That timeframe also lines up perfectly with the Mu-series rocket development. It would be relatively simple to mate a derivative of a French SLBM upper stage/bus/MIRV arrangement and fair it onto an indigenous Japanese-built lower two stages to build a weapon system with ICBM range and SLBM accuracy, which would be more than enough for a second strike against the USSR if they ever went for the Kurils, speak nothing of hitting China.

I'm not saying that it actually happened, but that's an extremely plausible scenario if it in fact did.

>>34883965
Wrong.

>>34896026
>but that's an extremely plausible scenario
Not in the least.

> but what's to say that his successor wasn't more pragmatic about it?
History.

There were major political issues that would have made this unthinkable. Dismissing these significant roadblocks ignores the reality of this. The risks of being discovered were substantial.
Both of these countries were NPT signatories. Both were US allies, and you are suggesting that they would have done something that would have destroyed their global standing as well as broken their relationship with their major allies.
To say nothing of the fact that none of them actually gain anything.
Japan didn't need nuclear weapons because they had the US. France didn't need to test nuclear weapons for Japan in exchange for...?

You can not ignore the political reality of a situation, (which all of /k/ loves to do) because it is inconvenient to the scenario you would like to put forth.

>>34875087
Why do we need 4,000 nukes? In order to blow up everyone and make america the only country?

>>34875714
Many analysts were not caught off guard. Before the 1994 Framework it was clear the NK reactors were just breeders . Hell one wasnt even on the grid.

The physics if making and enriching are well known , and easy to estimate yields if you have an idea of the scale of the operation. Estimates in 1994-5 was that it would take NK 10 uears to build a test device.


Guess what. 2006 they had a test device. 11 years. Thats a damn good estimate.
Sure it was a fizzle. But the learned enough. 3 years latter a 2kt test. 4 years later a 14kt test.

The surprise was hiw fast they advance their rockets. They had never really tested a liquid fueld turbo pump rocket, then scalled it up. Then all of a sudden this year. Boom the great leap from solid to liquid.


The leap makea a lot more since now that it appears a mber of Ukrainian engines were stolen and smuggled to NK

>>34875848
Yes. The 2009 and 2013 test were clearly if a nuclear device.

>>34876654
Why wouldnt you?

>>34889287
1 km cep......
hahahahaha

Tridents 10m cep is disappointed

>>34889410
Oppe what is your opinion on the "New era of counterforce" paper by Lieber and Press?


http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/ISEC_a_00273

>>34896560
Decent analysis, scary implications.

>>34896470
Guess I should've been more clear, do they have nukes that are small enough to put in a missile, bomber, artillery, etc?

>>34896767
Missile and strike aircraft yes. Artillery no.

File: 1440364919079.jpg (849KB, 3443x4483px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 3443x4483px

>>34875619

>14,000 pits

It's to fight the aliens right? It's got to be to fight the aliens.

>pic related on standby in an underground hanger somewhere in Navada?

File: Lubing Gas Chambers.jpg (269KB, 1001x1098px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1001x1098px

>>34875430

>>34896694
It feels like it lowers the threshold of use, when you can say to a decision maker, " 200-500 dead in the attack 2000 from long tem effects and all fall out contained with in the targer nation, oh and 100% success with 35 weapons"

>>34897069
>It feels like it lowers the threshold of use
Not who you are replying to, but that's kinda the point of the paper, yeah? I thought the analysis as pertains to North Korea was pretty chilling; preemptive nuclear strikes suddenly seem like a pretty attractive option. I don't know how to feel about this. I guess it's cool that we've gotten so good at (potentially) nuking shit, but that makes the prospect of nuclear war in my lifetime that much more likely.

>>34897401
Dude just stack some doors up in your living room and get in a paper bag.

File: mprxT0y.jpg (655KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 2448x3264px

>>34897517
Way ahead of you. Pic related, it's my house.

>>34890759
It's more likely Israel stole the designs

>>34896560
>>34896694
I don't agree with their "Nuclear Survivability in Theory" section and the claims that the Cold War arms race didn't make sense when both sides had near invulnerable nuclear forces.

Hardened strategic nuclear forces only deterred against counter-value attacks so they only applied in the case of stupidity from once side or a final last gasp at the end of a protracted conflict. They did little to deter up to full-retard counter-value strikes so the arms build-up does make sense from the perspective of deterring a massive conventional, chemical or limited nuclear war.

If the Soviets managed to take all or a large chunk of mainland Europe it could very well have been a win for them that doesn't see the US mount a counter-value strike on them.

The issue with the paper is a large part of it relies on the assumptions in "Nuclear Survivability in Theory" to make its arguments.

It also seems to think doubling or tripling up on warheads for each target is infeasible for fratricide reasons. I'm not sure that's the case. It's just something that needs to be considered and accounted for when targeting, not an instant fail.

I don't agree with their discussions on dust either. Dust particles in the grams range won't stay suspended for 20 odd minutes; they're just too heavy. I don't doubt dust-derived fratricide is a thing but I have to doubt their conclusions if they're basing it off gram sized pieces of dust.

I'll add more when I finish reading.

>>34897778
Cont

They also talk about SLBMs as if they were pure counter-value weapons in the 80s. I'm doubtful as I expect they were quite capable of destroying road-mobile ICBMs, radars and airfields.

I'm sceptical of low-fallout hard target destruction as well. Though the scale only goes up to 3000psi the yield required without touching the ground rapidly approaches zero so is it feasible with a minor hardness upgrade to 6000 or 10kpsi? That's well within Russian capabilities. I also doubt the accuracy required to achieve that. Sure, against North Korea it would work, but it won't work against a full-fledged nuclear power that won't let a bomber fly into their airspace and drop guided B61 mod 12s on their silos.

The assumptions rely on a lot of high-tech communications between weapons and satellite imaging. I'm not sure those communication links could be maintained in a nuclear war.

I think most of the issues in this paper will be ended by the proliferation of ABM systems. ABMs will be able to discriminate between warheads and decoys heading towards silos because of the accuracy required, but won't be able to discriminate between warheads and decoys against cities because of lack of a heard aim point. It's much harder to defend cities from attack than silos.

I'm not sure the world has changed nearly as much as the paper believes.

>>34896694
Hello Opp, of your reading list which books should I read first?

>>34896527
That's with parachute descent at speeds that warrant safe landing of crew. Ballistic strike would be way more accurate. Plus what are you aiming your nuke at, so that you need 10m accuracy - thermal exhaust port of a death star?

>>34897778
>Hardened strategic nuclear forces only deterred against...
It was effective because any general exchange would involve counterforce as a key part of the first strike. If you couldn't be sure of eliminating the opponent's missiles, that raised the bar under which a nuclear attack might be seen as a preferable action.
A limited war is harder to deter because both sides are trying to control escalation, as well as being willing to accept retaliation.

>It also seems to think doubling or tripling up on warheads for each target is infeasible for fratricide reasons.
It complicates targeting immensely. While not infeasible, it requires simultaneous strikes on command and control systems to degrade response time and keep the weapons from launching and careful planning of strikes that use different weapons to deliver the follow on warheads.


>I don't agree with their discussions on dust either.
Nuclear testing results are in line with their discussions.

>>34897915
>They also talk about SLBMs as if they were pure counter-value weapons in the 80s.
They were. In the 1980's it would have been impossible to send subs updated targeting for mobile systems.
Their primary roles were SEAD for penetrating bombers, counterforce, and tactical battlefield use.


>That's well within Russian capabilities
I think you underestimate the difficulty in upgrading the hardness of a silo. The entire silo must be reconstructed, essentially.

>won't let a bomber fly into their airspace
It is likely they would not have much to say about it.


>ABMs will be able to discriminate between warheads and decoys heading towards silos because of the accuracy required,
By the time you can measure how accurate the weapon is, it has either gone off, or will in a few seconds.

>but won't be able to discriminate between warheads and decoys against cities because of lack of a heard aim point. It's much harder to defend cities from attack than silos.
Attacks on cities do have hard aim points. You target individual facilities in the area, not the area itself.

>>34898353
Evolution of Nuclear Strategy

>>34897069
>It feels like it lowers the threshold of use,
Yes.

>>34897401
>preemptive nuclear strikes suddenly seem like a pretty attractive option.
Especially if the person you are pitching the idea to is looking for an easy fix.
The easiest way to get a real 'Happening' would be to post that article in /pol/ over and over. Eventually someone would get it to the White House.

>>34897559
Nice. I've heard of another settlement that needs your help.

>>34899711
Didn't Russians depend on mobile ICBM launchers that would frequently relocate so their launch point would be unpredictable (and as result untargettable) instead of underground silos?

>>34899731
Not until the end of the Cold War. Even today about 2/3rds of their forces are mobile. It would be almost impossible to get all of these.
Dealing with them involves a combination of command and control degradation, areal attack of dispersal zones and using stealth aircraft to hit the survivors that are found.

Despite this it is a virtual certainty that some would survive and get their missiles off.

>>34899667
>Nuclear testing results are in line with their discussions.

I can't see gram sized particles being suspended for 20 minutes. It would take strong air currents for the whole time. Are they perhaps referring to some other warhead killing ability such as abrasion of the RV?

>Attacks on cities do have hard aim points. You target individual facilities in the area, not the area itself.
But I imagine decoy RVs would be scattered all over the place. In counter-force you wouldn't know the enemy's aimpoint so you can't know which is which from the trajectory.

>>34899775
If road-mobile TELs are so survivable then doesn't that defeat the claims made in the paper?

Also, should the US adopt a road-mobile ICBM to replace Minuteman?

>>34899856
Cont

In the context of increasing warhead accuracy making silos vulnerable.

>>34899775
Considering they are spread out over a huge area, and usually each camp is a single launcher with a single rocket (plus a couple cars/trucks of infrastructure), nuclear strike would be difficult to fight that off; after they manage to launch, all there's left is a handful of soldiers with a useless, empty launcher. And you'd be really lucky to take out more than one rocket with one nuke, usually aiming at an entirely uninhabited piece of taiga. Siberia is HUGE. If you were to depend on optical search by airplanes, it would take years.

I mean, it took Russians until last year or so to find a family that fled from Bolsheviks during the October Revolution and built a house in Siberia (and never learned about the end of communism).

>>34899907
TELs are far more noticeable and require far more infrastructure than a bunch of unwashed Bolsheviks in SIberia.

>>34899907
>Siberia is HUGE.
And has no roads. While the area is large, it still requires support infrastructure in reach, which makes it a lot smaller.

>>34899775
Oppen, I'm writing a story. Can you tell me the feasibility of it?

It's 2011, just before the Osama raid in Abbatobad, Pakistan suffers a coup from ISI and Islamist army elements. Osama is filmed meeting with the new Islamist military junta. The Osama raid goes up in smoke and everyone/Pakistani relations collapse.

Would the US use nuclear weapons to prevent the loss of Pakistani weapons? Either through loss via their military use or through them ending up in the hands of terrorists? Could the US get the Security Council agree as a whole to be involved in the attack? (sort of like a "we're in this together" and a show of international resolve) What is the chance of it succeeding without the Pakistanis getting a single nuclear shot off?

If it's plausible, how would the attack unfold? Would the US and co seek to capture the weapons or would they just aim to atomise them?

File: particle.png (193KB, 764x955px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 764x955px

>>34899846
>I can't see gram sized particles being suspended for 20 minutes.
The thermal effects and turbulent air in the area after a nuclear explosion result in lots of things you might not think about.

If you would like an in depth explanation, go read the article referenced. International Security, Vol1 Number 1. Pic related.

>But I imagine decoy RVs would be scattered all over the place.
They move with the RV itself and follow the same ballistic path, along with the debris from the warhead bus. This is called a Threat Cloud. All those items are in close proximity to each other.

>>34899856
>are so survivable
They aren't. Some will survive, but most probably would not.

>hould the US adopt a road-mobile ICBM to replace Minuteman?
No.

>>34899907
>Siberia is HUGE.
And has little transportation infrastructure. Most mobile launchers will be in close proximity to their garrisons, others will be in established dispersal areas.

>>34899931
>Would the US use nuclear weapons to prevent the loss of Pakistani weapons?
There exist plans for such an eventuality. For details I would suggest "On Limited Nuclear War" by Jeffery Larsen
So yes, they could do it, if they felt they had no other choice. (i.e. there is a time constraint that precludes the planning of a special operation or something that makes a conventional airstrike unattractive.) In general, it would have to be a situation where the location of the weapons is known, but within a short period of time (a few hours) they will be lost.

>Could the US get the Security Council agree as a whole to be involved in the attack? (sort of like a "we're in this together" and a show of international resolve)
Nope.
NATO might help.

>What is the chance of it succeeding without the Pakistanis getting a single nuclear shot off?
Depends on how ready they have their nuclear weapons, but probably 95%

>>34899846
I doubt the two facts in the article are correctly connected:

1. 5 to 10 particles in the range of 3 to 10 grams, within maybe a minute after the impact (debris get thrown up really high, so they take time to fall, but most of the larger ones would be gone within a minute or two).

2. Particles in the debris cloud take approximately 20 minutes to settle back to ground. There is a massive fire surrounding the crater; a strong updraft carries pieces of cinder even of a couple grams a way up. Until the fire dies down a little, to reduce power of the updraft and amount of cinders produced, this will keep happening - but the number of particles carried will be much smaller than what the first blast thrown up in the air.

Still, look at near vids of more massive explosions like strong IEDs etc. It takes a long time for the last pebbles to settle - good 30 seconds until all that's left is dust and smoke; I'm not sure how much longer it would take for a nuclear blast, but it would certainly go over a minute.

>>34900006
>Nope.
>NATO might help.

Both China and Russia have violent islamist terrorist groups inside their borders, I can't see them ignoring the incredible threat of nuclear terrorism.

>>34900006
>If you would like an in depth explanation, go read the article referenced. International Security, Vol1 Number 1. Pic related.

While it's very interesting stuff, the crux of the paper is the assumption about particle size. At no point do they cite where they got the several grams figure from.

They do talk about the dust being mostly topsoil, which to me would suggest sand grain and slightly larger particles for the most part with a few larger pieces mixed in. Few of which would reack 2.5g let alone 10g.

Can you recommend studies that discuss the dust picked up by the fireball?

>>34895939
True, but wasn't that mostly SA providing money and uranium, and the Israelis provided the know-how and engineering design?

>>34900177
>At no point do they cite where they got the several grams figure from.
International Security.
Volume 1
Number 1

I'm not sure where your issue is. The Strategic Vulnerability article explains the average particle mass and density calculations. The Counterforce Article uses the Strategic Vulnerability figures in their own article.

The authors of the Strategic Vulnerability article expressly state that their calculations understate these effects.

Again, I am not sure what you are asking as the information is in those two articles.

>>34900100
They would probably favor other methods, even if they are less likely to succeed.
It is your book, and they can take whatever tact you would like for them to. This is hardly objective.

>>34900278
I have the article in front of me right now.

They explain how they got the total mass of the dust figure, but they make the assumption that the dust particles are each the required mass to kill the RV (10g and low altitude and 2.6g at high altitude) from their RV momentum transfer kill method.

They fail to justify why the particles are that size and not smaller (or larger).

File: 1378760695899.jpg (145KB, 550x548px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 550x548px

>>34900278
So what policies can be accomplished given that the threshold for nuclear weapon use will likely lower in some point in the future?
In other words, what can be done with the new possible changes to counter-force? Does it get us what we want?

>>34900352
>Since the violent action of the afterwinds may act to break up dirt particles into dust, it seems reasonable to assume that only five percent of the mass is effectively in particles which are big enough to destroy RVs (this five percent adjustment is intended to include as well the fact that some particles will be substantially larger than necessary, thus reducing the number of effective particles).

Do you have anything that would show this to be inaccurate?
Even if the percentage of mass is much lower, the RV still would encounter particles with sufficient mass to destroy them as at 5% density, each RV is encountering multiple particles. At lower densities, the number of particles the RV encounters will drop, but as long as the probability of encountering at least one particle of sufficient size to destroy the RV is > 1, it doesn't matter what the exact density is.

Even if the probability of them striking a particle of sufficient mass is less than 1, the likelihood of an RV striking a single particle of sufficient mass to destroy it is high enough that it factors into your WLS.

>>34900458
It's still a very big assumption, one that I think could be very easily proven from data.

Basing your nuclear targeting on an easily proven or disproven assumption carries incredible risk.

>>34900371
>the threshold for nuclear weapon use will likely lower in some point in the future?
We do not know this for sure on the basis of one paper. Lets pump the brakes on throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

>>34900477
>It's still a very big assumption,
I do not consider it to be a big one. And you are the only person to suggest that the threat of fratricide is inflated.


>I think could be very easily proven from data.
It has been.

>>34900498
Not really fair. He is asking questions. Thats all.

>>34900491
>It has been.
Then they should easily have been able to cite it. This is after all a respected journal.

>>34900491
>>34900523
Cont

I don't doubt fratricide is an issue that need serious consideration, but i would like to see some hard numbers that explain why they made each decision the logical tree.

>>34900523
You are right.
Everyone else in the field of nuclear policy is incorrect, anon.
When do you publish?

File: 1502851696211.jpg (140KB, 1080x1287px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1080x1287px

>>34900478
Ok. That's just the impression i got reading that paper and this thread.

Other question: What is the mood around the US potentially leaving the INF Treaty unilaterally, even, even with all the accusations and counter-accusations being flung around.? It doesn't seem to me that they are a lot of political forces willing to use their power to defend it. Other than the Pentagon it seems. Any possible implications you can think of?

Why does America think they should be the only nuclear power

>>34900535
The condescending attitude is no particularly appreciated, particularly in response to what is a perfectly valid question.

I think we both know that in the journal world you cite your figures or explain the logical steps made in coming to whatever estimate you provide. You don't use the assumption as a cornerstone of your argument.

You are after all the one who regularly describes assumption filled papers on nuclear winter as "garbage in, garbage out".

File: 1502491230335.gif (2MB, 174x174px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 174x174px

>>34874761
They are lying
The probably have thousands waiting in underground bunkers under the cities

>>34900585
Either way, it's 1:30am here in Aussieland so I'll be going to bed.

>>34897571
From who?
It's more likely that they developed the capability themselves, considering how almost all the major scientists were Jews, and some (including Teller) even visited the place.

>>34900585
>I think we both know that in the journal world you cite your figures or explain the logical steps made in coming to whatever estimate you provide.
They did you just don't like it.

>You don't use the assumption as a cornerstone of your argument.
Its not.
The point of the article is that the threat from particles of sufficient mass is enough to complicate targeting. The exact percentage of particle density does not matter in the grand scheme of things because the % density you would have to get to in order for the RV to have a greater than even chance of making it through the debris is below any realistic level.


> particularly in response to what is a perfectly valid question.
The problem is that your question is not valid. It assumes that variations in density from the 5% assumption would have a major effect on the overall probability that the RV encounters a lethal particle. It is clear that it would not.

It is your opinion that this is a very big assumption. the reality is that it is a rather safe assumption as even large differences in densities have little impact on the probability of the RV encountering a particle. You have found a single assumption in the study and are granting it more weight to the outcome that it warrants.


>The condescending attitude
Sorry. I was attempting to impress upon you the sheer number of people and data that you are railing against.
Either they are wrong, or you are wrong.

>You are after all the one who regularly describes assumption filled papers on nuclear winter as "garbage in, garbage out".
Yes, because the assumptions they make have a huge influence on the data. Unlike in this situation when the difference between 1% density and 5% density does not appreciably change the probability of the RV hitting a lethal particle.
Put another way, from a targeting standpoint, there is little substantive difference between an RV having a 80% chance of hitting a lethal particle and a 100% chance.

>>34900546
>That's just the impression i got reading that paper and this thread.
The paper does have the potential to start a change in strategy, but that does not mean it will. The US and USSR have rejected strategies before. This could be another situation where people look at this and say "Yea, that looks right, but thats not a capability we would like to pursue."


>INF Treaty unilaterally
The US is doing a poor job at making its case that the Russians have violated the treaty. If they fail to make the case and leave the INF, it would be pretty bad.
Thats why you are starting to see articles about moving the NATO weapons in Turkey into Poland.

>>34900572
because for a brief time they were & cucked out of nuking the USSR. They want a do-over lmao

File: 1369200710178.jpg (126KB, 705x798px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 705x798px

>>34900770
>"Yea, that looks right, but thats not a capability we would like to pursue."
Ok. That makes sense.
>If they fail to make the case and leave the INF, it would be pretty bad.
I can imagine the Europeans being pissed about a treaty termination. France, Germany, and Italy are not going to be happy.
Can you give an example of a likely consequence of an American pullout?

>>34899728
>The easiest way to get a real 'Happening' would be to post that article in /pol/ over and over.
I have been posting figures from that article in /pol/ ever since I saw you (I think) post them here. I am attempting to meme nuclear war into existence.

>>34875430
Chill anon. Popular media would have you believe nukes are super dangerous, but remember these are the same people who cry when firing a mean gun. Nuclear weapons are highly regulated with many failsafes, and lack the power to end the world or cause a nuclear winter.

>>34875638
Looks like we have an expert on nuclear strategy right here.

>>34881876
This is stupid because getting something heavy into orbit is prohibitively expensive and easily observable from everywhere.