If nukes brought relative world peace, wouldn't reliable

>>35079815
Yep.

>>35079815
I reckon that depends on which nations actually have a reliable defense against nukes.

>>35079815
This is why no nation wants to spark an anti nuke arms race.

>>35079815

Yes. That's why Russia and China are booty blasted about our ABM testing and deployment in the pacific. That, combined with the modernization of nukes (b61 dial-a-yield with precision guidance), winning a nuclear war without major internal risks may seem feasible.

All of a sudden using nukes sounds like an ok idea

>>35079815
Yes. This is basically conventional wisdom.

>>35079815
thats the dream

the time of conventional war is over

>>35079943
>That's why Russia and China are booty blasted about our ABM testing and deployment

They can fuck off because they do the same testing and deployment of their ABM systems. I'm of the opinion that they should both be nuked for being disingenuous little fucks and for no other reason

>>35079966
Nobody cares about your opinion, Timmy.

>>35079943
Lol
And nothing can stop an icbm.
Anti icbm missiles have been utter failures.

File: TwilightZone3.jpg (18KB, 400x367px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x367px

>>35079815

>>35080037
Only because Reagan got cock blocked by Gorbachev. Teller had a lot of very interesting ideas that couldn't be tested because the Soviets wouldn't agree to arms reductions if they did.

>>35080037

You haven't been keeping up with the news I see. The US have been holding successful ABM tests in the pacific as tit for tat reactions to NK. Norks only bargaining chip is *the threat* of being able to poke the lion as a show of disrespect right before being wiped off the map. There is no scenario where North Korea performs a nuke strike that does not involve removing NK from history.

if the US can demonstrate that even NK's suicide plan has real risk of failure, then NK loses any remaining strategic advantage in using the threat as deterrence. As long as the US perceives it has a winnable strategy, deterrence has zero effect.

>>35079815
Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare.

>>35079943
>put ABM all around Chinese and Russian borders
>it's only for stopping your offensive nukes not for any other uses we pinky promise :^)
>Pls don't get mad. If you do it's because you guys are butthurt that you won't get to use your nukes so easily.

This is how ameriboos actually think.

hypersonic nuke drones

If SDI had been funded throughout the 90s, we'd have mass deployed lasers and railguns by now. Fucking soviets gave up too soon.

>>35079815

Irrelevant, the nuke hasn't been defeated, just the delivery system. Turns out ICBMs move slow enough to shoot down with some pretty impressive tech. US has THAAD, China and Russia will follow suit.

All are also currently working on hypersonic glide vehicles, which wouldn't be vulnerable to any defences except maybe laser, which is in its infancy.

The time of the nuke will never be over because the effectiveness of the bomb itself cannot be reduced by any known means. All we can do is try to defeat it's delivery system, and equally strive for our own undefeatable delivery systems.

>>35082050
THAAD can't shoot down ICBMs, Anon.

>>35081786

And if you were American you'd be advocating the creation of an untouchable global American hegemony too.

But you live in some third rate cuck country so you'll be forever salty of the U.S.A. Chad.

>>35082060
But CHAAD can

>>35079815
yes, hence why they are a bad thing

>>35082371
>the virgin ICBM
>the chad CHAAD

Honestly, in a MAD-scenario against Russia, how will we fare? Would we be able to stop enough ICBMs to prevent utter collapse?

>>35082504
anti missile tech isnt advanced enough to completely negate MAD yet, its really only effective against a first strike. give it some time though and nukes anti ballistic missiles may as well render nukes useless

>>35082459
>bad
what are you? A pussy?

>>35079815
>again
We still can have those, the power is still relegated to 6ish nations. If we kill the norks, then we can keep it that way for a few dozen centuries more.

>>35079815
>wouldn't reliable anti nuke defences allow massive conventional wars again.
Probably not, because of globalisation. The relative world peace allowed economies to become highly dependent on each other.

Maybe if there was a sudden shortage of a key resource that led to the widespread disruption of the global markets, there might be then. But as things stand at the moment, I don't think there'd be anything more than small-scale border wars. The cost-benefit just doesn't make sense at the moment.

>>35081786
Just smite DC with ordinance and offer unconditional surrender. Do everyone a favor.

>>35082060
GMD

>>35082666
I worry that's pretty optimistic given how public domain the tech has become.

>>35083053
Because rocketry and nuclear physics are well known subjects 60 years after becoming competent.

>>35082939
Thats not THAAD.

>>35082091
I am American. To just come out and say
>an untouchable global American hegemony
is reasonable. To say or imply that our adversaries are mad because our defensive missile shield poses zero them except for their ICBM launches is a blatant lie.

>>35079815
Nukes didn't being world peace you idiot. Would you describe the cold war era as peaceful? The globally integrated economy brings world peace, and the overwhemling power imbalance between the US and its allies and everyone else brings world peace. Even then, there is plenty of conflict.

>>35084914
>Would you describe the cold war era as peaceful?
Yeah. Compared to the era's before it.

>>35079815
>tfw there's still a chance for me to get to fight in a real war between symmetric powers
Fuck yes

>>35084914
For fucks sake.
Watch this: http://www.fallen.io/ww2/#

>>35084958
>Compared to the eras before it
Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, Six Day War, the War in Bangladesh, the Indo-Pakistan War, the Indo-China war. I could go on....

>>35085129
More Americans died on Omaha Beach than in all of Afghanistan.

I recommend you educate yourself and shut the fuck up.

File: visual aid for a moron.png (1MB, 2321x1225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2321x1225px

>>35085129
Please, stop posting. You are ignorant.

>>35079815
There will never be, and can never be, lasting world peace because what we call war is really a macroscopic manifestation of unconscious phenomena of conflict within nearly every human mind.

>>35080037
Atmospheric heaters, (read HAARP and similar) are capable of causing the reentry vehicle to encounter heat much sooner than expected, causing it to burn up on reentry.

File: 1474085973812.jpg (35KB, 485x435px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 485x435px

Whats the current failure/success rate on intercept systems anyway? Never mind a nuke ICBM, just think smaller ship/sub/vehicle platform launched stuff

Anyone got numbers for THAAD, Iron Dome and other shit?

>>35083342
Yep. I don't really see any realistic way to contain nuclear proliferation. I image that the number of nuclear powers will probably continue to grow, and not only that, but the rate of growth might increase.

>>35079932
With what money? If Russia tried to pursue that race it would bankrupt itself for real. China could try, but it's not like the US and China will ever directly fight each other: their economies are too entertwined.

>>35085231
>I don't really see any realistic way to contain nuclear proliferation
Nuke anyone who tries to develop nukes.

>>35085294
>their economies are too entertwined.
... Wrong. Cheap manufacturing monkeys can be found anywhere. The chink economy in entwined with ours and their own state enforced absurdly unsustainable construction. The US economy is not dependent upon cheap manufacturing. Worst case scenario the average american's budget is temporarily minorly impacted until manufacturing shifts to india.

>>35079815
This is why there's a treaty regulating them

>>35079815
Just gotta make something that disables the atoms inside the bomb.

>>35084762
Pretty solid argument tbqh famm

>>35085348
I am now stupider from having read this

>>35081786
They could, ya know, always build their own.

>>35083771
Why would that matter?
The point of the argument is that the tools exist to counter ICBMs

File: 15037589994910.jpg (103KB, 775x719px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 775x719px

>>35079815
The first nation that gets to mass produce hypersonic interceptor missiles can annihilate the competition pretty easily without any significant blowback. Soon getting soon 100 rad in every American home.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24216/pentagon-confirm-russia-submarine-nuke/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5u7tECFhH0

>>35080037
I could have sworn we've seen you before.

Are you the retard who spent a few hundred posts denying every bit of evidence demonstrating ICBM-capable ABM systems exist?

>>35085330
Sure retard

>>35080037
>>35080360
>>35082050
>>35085724
THAAD and AEGIS are useless against ICBMs. GMD is essentially a coin flip with around 50% success rate in broad daylight vs easy to see targets that didn't deploy any countermeasures.

In a real-world scenario you're probably looking at stopping 25-35% of missiles with current ABM tech. That's why we need to sit down with the Nutty Norks and pretend to have a discussion with them for five or ten years while the brains in this country improve GMD or develop new ABM systems with much, much higher chances of success.

>>35085992
Thing is, that nullifies MAD, which is counterproductive.

>>35079815
>If nukes brought relative world peace, wouldn't reliable anti nuke defences allow massive conventional wars again.

no, you fucking simpleton, it will lead to another super-expesive country-bankrupting arms race.

shouldn't you be back at school by now?

>>35079815
>wouldn't reliable anti nuke defences allow massive conventional wars again.
yes

>>35085214
Hahaha wow
So you're Telling me heating up a small part of the atmosphere a couple hundred degrees, the ionosphere, with a warhead designed to go through re entry will make it burn up?

No.
Nothing can stop an icbm.
ABMs from all sides are failures.
Perhaps a missile with a small nuke could stop incoming warheads but I don't believe anyone has such missiles other than Russia and for some dumb fuck reason they abandoned them in favor of regular missiles.

>>35086268
Also how the fuck are you going to heat up the atmosphere overt every major strike location?

File: 1477851946131.jpg (45KB, 1024x676px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1024x676px

>>35086268
>Nothing can stop an icbm.
>ABMs from all sides are failures.

>>35085215
coin flip, or at least that is the meme being repeated here

>>35085992
the probability of failure is the fail-rate^n, where 'n' is in the number of missiles launch (GMDs), and success becomes 1-the fail-rate.
so as you can clearly see, 2-3 GMDs make the prabability of interception around about 0.75-0.875 or 75-88% or so.
That is darn good. The problem is the cost of defending a country with multiple GMDs given the program costs billions, and the number you have available at any given point in time when the enemy ICBMs are launched, but ultimately saving a city and its metro is priceless so i have no doubt the DoD would have no qualms using many missiles to stop nukes.

>>35086354
THAAD is allegedly designed or at least intended to have a probability of about 0.8-0.9
https://www.38north.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2016-03-10_THAAD-What-It-Can-and-Cant-Do.pdf
The above report assumes that there is also a layered defense, and it mostly looks at the South Korea - North Korea situation.
The caveat, as mentioned i this thread, is saturation attacks, where the probability lowers

>>35079815
There is no defence for nuclear winter. The enemy can nuke themselves and kill you.

>>35086530
>There is no defence for nuclear winter.

It's called physics.

>>35086537
Elaborate, brainlet

File: NukeLord.jpg (32KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1280x720px

SUMMONING OPPENHEIMER.

>>35085215
iron dome is a 90% from what I've read, but it's only small artillery.

>>35086530
>nuclear winter

An ancent propaganda meme. It was a cold war theory shorn of context and deliberately exaggerated for pacifist propaganda. The first Gulf War oil fires put the nail in the coffin of the model.

At that point, even the less scrupulous pop scientists like Sagan admitted it was wrong then.

>>35086540
How do you intend on producing the megatons of ash from firestorms required in an area with a high jet stream when even the most flammable of materials need to be well within the 10psi zone that instantly snuffs out flames? Nuclear detonations don't cause firestorms as the entire theory of nuclear winter hinges upon, so how do you intend on producing the kind of fine particulate ash necessary to create such long lasting effects?

>As a scientist I want to rip the theory of nuclear winter apart, but as a human being I want to believe it. This is one of the rare instances of a genuine conflict between the demands of science and the demands of humanity. As a scientist, I judge the nuclear winter theory to be a sloppy piece of work, full of gaps and unjustified assumptions. As a human being, I hope fervently that it is right. Here is a real and uncomfortable dilemma. What does a scientist do when science and humanity pull in opposite directions?

t. Freeman Dyson

>>35086550
nuclear winter is not a meme, but it's never going to happen. it requires nukes that reach above 70,000 feet (multi-megaton bombs). there aren't enough massive bombs left to cause a nuclear winter.

>>35086562
>Nuclear winter isn't a meme
>We've just never had the stockpiles of 0.1 gigaton bombs that could make it happen
So it's a meme?

>>35086605
what I meant is that it's plausible that it could happen under the right circumstances, but it's not likely to ever happen.

>>35086630
So, possible, just not in our timeline.

>>35082504
>>35082525
>MAD

Not a thing. NUTS.

Anyway, the purpose of a credible ABM system isn't to stop every warhead that might be thrown. ABMs have a disproportionate effect on nuclear balance than the idea of 'One ABM missile = 1 less warhead'. ABMs introduce uncertainty to the targeting and planning.

For an extremely simplified example, lets say that Country A has 100 potential high value targets in Country B that it wants to destroy in a first exchange with roughly half of those targets being on the MUST DESTROY list and they only have 100 warheads to do it with. Country B has a viable ABM system that may or may not be able to shoot down a single warhead, lets just say that it's above a 50% chance of successful intercept.

Before the introduction of this ABM system, the only real issues that Country A had to deal with that would affect the utility of their weapons were factors that were pretty much in their control (engineering and manufacture to prevent duds and navigational errors, warning time to get stuff off the ground, C3, etc, etc) which they obviously did their best to make sure it wasn't much of a concern. With a viable ABM system to contend with, with even just a single warhead having the chance to be intercepted, it now requires a complete change in targeting and warhead usage. Since Country A doesn't know which warhead might be intercepted, it must assume that any could be. This means that one of the 50 "must destroy" targets can now end up not being destroyed. To ensure that those targets ARE destroyed, they require a doubling of warheads to those targets. So where Country A first had 100 warheads to utilize with 50 'reserved' for priority targets, they now must expend 100 warheads for those targets to ensure that they are destroyed, thus sparing the other 50.

The obvious way to get around this is to simply build more warheads and methods of delivery, but with nuclear treaties as they are, that's not going to be possible without an arms race.

File: 15029962576680.jpg (96KB, 778x513px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 778x513px

>>35086443
THAAD is short range, expensive and can do nothing with e.g. false warheads. There is however a good strategy. You have to surround your adversary with some sort of AEGIS capable internetworked ships and launchers that can shoot down an ICBM on its most vulnerable accelerating trajectory where it haven't yet reached stratosphere with some good chances after all. The downside to this plan is that the adversary will for sure notice him being encircled and think of launching first while he still can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P969v7Ryjc

File: 1503780596001.png (89KB, 353x332px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 353x332px

>>35086562
What about Cobalt bomb aka "salted bombs"? It's not really better than ice winter in any way.

>>35086668
Not gonna happen. To have any notable effect you'd have to wrap the warhead in a metric fuckton of cobalt, and that shit is heavy. Anything you could actually launch would have so little effect you're better off just abandoning the salt and launching more regular nukes.

>>35080082
Do you have any more info on this? Searching didn't turn up anything interesting.

>>35086653
>you have to surround your adversary with some sort of AEGIS
The virgin Russia/China walk
The THAAD stride

>>35082091
I'm an American, and unlike you I understand the cost of being number one. It's something I'm not willing to pay for.

>>35086653
The U.S. MDA as you likely know has experimented with airborne lasers. i suppose naval drone with lasers that loiter for long periods can easily disable missiles in boost phase as you were alluding to.
However, as some other anon said, THAAD is really just designed for anything short of ICBM. Aegis is pretty much the same but it uses different missiles and has other capabilities.

>>35085330
There is dumb, and then there is you.

>>35086703
You mean GBI/SM-3 STRIDE

File: d6f.jpg (82KB, 680x583px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 680x583px

>>35086268

>>35086544
>tripfag
Yuck

>>35086788
Faggot

>>35086804
>sucking tripfag dick
Loving
Every
Laugh

>>35086929
>Not appreciating Oppen's community service educating autists on nuclear matters
Pathetic.

>>35086968
Ebin

>>35079815
To all the guys saying MAD and nuclear winter are just memes, what happens if China decides to trash their target list and send every solitary warhead to Yellowstone?
Checkmate.

File: download.jpg (10KB, 273x184px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 273x184px

>>35087009
Forgot image

>>35087013
>implying

>>35087053
>not proving me wrong

>>35085330
Wrong lol, Also ur a fag

>>35087013
This kills the thread.

>>35086423
The US has like 30 or 40 interceptor missiles, so that means we can stop around 10-13 nukes with 75-88% probability of success.

Estimates of NK nuke arsenal range from 2 to 100. I don't know how many Hwasong-14 ICBM's they have to deliver them with though.

>>35082670
Of a key resource

I WONDER WHICH RESOURCE

>>35085022
>>35085162
Your point being? You realize that WW2 casualty figures have nothing to do with whether or not nuclear weapons cause world peace right? You realize that casualties in modern war are lower because of improved technology and global economies disincentivizing total war?

>>35087106
>global economies disincentivizing total war
Because of nukes, yes.

>>35087106
The point is that post WWII, wars are both less frequent and less bloody.
The assertion that the post WWII era was violent can only be held if you are an idiot who knows nothing of history.

Are you an idiot who knows nothing of history?

>>35087009
>pretending that any amount of nukes would cause a volcanic eruption
are you retarded anon?

>>35086948
It's not his expertise I dislike, it's the distraction his trip creates. He himself realized this when he said he would stop using his trip. Which he promptly reneged on. His posts don't need a trip, the quality of his contributions sets them apart for those of us with basic reading comprehension. He obviously just likes the attention, just like all tripfags.

>>35087139
I don't know, am I?
You got any scientific sources confirming they can't?

>>35087173
>You got any scientific sources confirming they can't?
Thats not how stuff works. You have to make the claim and provide evidence.

>>35087173
The yellowstone magma chamber is 4-5 miles deep, how do you plan on getting there?

>>35087123
>strawman
>durr hurr, u r dumb
I never asserted the post WW2 era was as violent as WW2 and before, I said that I wouldn't call it world peace, and that nukes are not the primary factor preventing massive conventional war. Even without nuclear weapons it is more cost effective to buy other countries than to invade them.

>>35087194
Yellowstone is a real volcano field that is very verifiably active and verifiably the biggest on earth and verifiably due for another eruption any day. In fact, it's slightly overdue.
>>35087201
Why do you need to "get there" to trigger an eruption? Why can't seismic activity alone cause it?

>>35087232
>I said that I wouldn't call it world peace,
So you are additionally moronic because you think that 'World Peace" is the total absence of conflict?

>and that nukes are not the primary factor preventing massive conventional war.
Jesus.
You really are fucking stupid. I thought you were just trolling, but you are a total fucking moron, arent you?

>>35087234
>Yellowstone is a real volcano field that is very verifiably active and verifiably the biggest on earth and verifiably due for another eruption any day. In fact, it's slightly overdue.
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/yellowstone_sub_page_50.html
>Again, the last eruption was 0.64 million years ago, implying that we are still about 90,000 years away from the time when we might consider calling Yellowstone overdue for another caldera- forming eruption.


> Why can't seismic activity alone cause it?
1) Prove that
2) Prove that nuclear weapons can produce enough seismic activity to do what you want.


So far you have gotten at least one scientific fact wrong (Yellowstone is overdue) so lets see your work supporting your claim.

>>35087161
>Which he promptly reneged on.
He was gone for a few months and only returned after quite a fuss was raised and NK started chimping out.
>basic reading comprehension
Which most of the board lacks.
His trip is useful as it identifies quality posts and prevents retards arguing with him over "that's just your opinion man"

>>35087161
>He obviously just likes the attention, just like all tripfags.
Which is why he trips in non-nuke threads, amirite?

>>35087161
>He obviously just likes the attention, just like all tripfags.
Why do you care what he likes?

>>35086968
>not CHAAD missile

missed opportunity

>>35087284
What else BUT seismic activity triggers volcanoes? Don't say pressure because you can clearly see that pressure is simply mitigated by geysers and vents and the like.
>produce enough
There's no way of knowing what it would take to set of the caldera explosion but acting like it's not a huge hole in our defense is simply wishful thinking.

>>35087337
>launch a full scale nuclear war
>instead of launching at actual targets you launch all of your missiles at a volcano
>because you were retarded the volcano didn't erupt and your entire country got nuked in the process
sounds like a great plan my dude

>>35087161
>His posts don't need a trip, the quality of his contributions sets them apart for those of us with basic reading comprehension.


Wrong. I have seen several threads where anon was spouting off info that seemed to be very correct and accurate, even to the point of some people suspecting it was Oppen posting as anon, when he would show up and explain why the guy was wrong.
Beyond that, because he is who he says he is, his opinion is valuable because of his expertise in the area. Some rando tripfag's opinion is not valuable because he lacks any real expertise in the subject being discussed. If there was a physicist trip on /sci/ we would give his opinions more weight because of his expertise.
I think thats the folly here. all you fags who hate anyone who dares use a trip claim that its so that no one persons opinion is given greater weight than others simply because of his identity. This is stupid. The pilots opinion on flying should have more weight than the passengers. Your doctors opinion on your health should have greater weight than people on the internet. It doesnt mean they are always 100% correct, but that they will have a better rate of being right than people who don't know anything about a subject.

>>35079815
>If nukes brought relative world peace, wouldn't reliable anti nuke defences allow massive conventional wars again.
Missile defense would have to be so accurate and prolific that 100% hit rate would be possible for thousands of ICBMs.
That would lead to programs like nuclear artillery and possibly space programs like kinetic bombardment.
We will never go back in time.

>>35087337
>What else BUT seismic activity triggers volcanoes?
You tell me.
Show me that seismic activity triggers volcanoes, and what level of seismic activity would be needed.
Then show me that Chinese nuclear weapons can deliver that level of seismic activity.

>>35087345
And if the coin lands tails?
Like I said, acting like it's a non-factor is just wishful thinking. It's possibly nothing but also possibly an extinction level event.
When you make nuclear war sound like an easily modeled scenario, you sound like an absolute blood thirsty mad-man.
/k/ is about weapon appreciation, not death appreciation.

>>35087369
>not death appreciation
what? you're the one claiming that china is planning on nuking yellowstone.

i'm telling you that nothing would come out of it, and they would have wasted hundreds of nukes in the process.

>>35087360
>Show me that seismic activity triggers volcanoes
I mean, every single recorded volcano eruption since the invention of the seismograph has been immediately preceded by substantial seismic activity...... The relationship between tectonic movement and eruption is not really in dispute....
>Then show me that Chinese nuclear weapons can deliver that level of seismic activity.
We can't know what the levels needed are but you are aware that nukes create sizable seismic shock, right?
I shouldn't have said it was a done deal, that was too far, but acting like it's a non-factor is purely wishful-thinking. What is not in debate is weather or not a caldera explosion would be devastating to the macro-ecology of the planet.

>>35087383
>what? you're the one claiming that china is planning on nuking yellowstone.
As an argument against war, yes.

>>35087425
>I mean, every single recorded volcano eruption since the invention of the seismograph has been immediately preceded by substantial seismic activity
Correlation does not equal causation.

>We can't know what the levels needed are but you are aware that nukes create sizable seismic shock, right?
What is "sizeable"?

>I shouldn't have said it was a done deal, that was too far, but acting like it's a non-factor is purely wishful-thinking.
It is a non factor because there is zero evidence that what you claim is possible is actually possible. You think it sounds reasonable, but people thought it was reasonable for the Earth to be at the center of the solar system.


>What is not in debate is weather or not a caldera explosion would be devastating to the macro-ecology of the planet.
This is the only halfway accurate statement you have made yet.

Wasn't this part of Ghost in the Shell's plot? The nips developed some kind of scrubber nanites that could clean up fallout. They would drop a cloud of them on a potential target and then nuke away, with the nanites ensuring the fallout didn't fuck up everyone.

This guy >>35085330 is right to all you uneducated >>35085944
>>35086720, >>35085330. To say temporarily, so nonchalantly is foley, it would be a massive financial crisis and we're talking capital loss in the billions, with billions more in lost revenue as new factories, infrastructure and logistics get relocated. But the logic is correct and many manufacturers are choosing other countries already for various reasons.
Vietnam, sri Lanka, India are just a few examples. Many states saw the boom china got and are making favorable tax exemptions to foreign companies.

>>35087443
>Correlation does not equal causation.
Oh please. It does when the correlation is 1 to 1.
>What is "sizeable"?
Much less than an average earthquake but not nothing. And they can have multiple hits on any location they deem most effective, unlike an earthquake.
>zero evidence that what you claim is possible is actually possible
If you don't agree that seismic activity causes volcanoes to erupt and that nukes produce seismic activity, we have nothing further to discuss. Those 2 facts alone make it possible.

>>35087425
You are aware that the seismic shock preceding an eruption comes generally from a fault slipping, the shock is not the cause of the eruption but the moving of the plates allows for pressure under them to be vented to the surface... Right?

Ignoring the logistical issues of getting a warhead down the hundreds of meters of rock and soil to reach a faultline, the amount of energy required to simply move a plate is enormous beyond what a nuclear detonation brings to the table and requires direction, something nukes aren't exactly great at achieving.

>>35087369
>When you make nuclear war sound like an easily modeled scenario, you sound like an absolute blood thirsty mad-man.

It's actually quite simple to model out with game theory, being logical about something is not being 'blood thirsty', so keep your generic emotional appeals to yourself, you won't be winning any debates that way.

>>35087474
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-are-volcanoes-and-earthquakes-related

>Most earthquakes directly beneath a volcano are caused by the movement of magma.

It would seem that it is the volcano that causes earthquakes. Not the other way around.

>>35087483
>You are aware that the seismic shock preceding an eruption comes generally from a fault slipping
Could anthropogenic seismic activity not trigger a fault slip, which would cause greater seismic activity?
Again, not a done deal but ignoring it is silly IMO.

>>35087506
http://www.hawaii247.com/2011/09/08/volcano-watch-can-earthquakes-trigger-volcanic-eruptions/

> large earthquakes simply goose the magma plumbing system, producing earthquake swarms or changing the behavior of the magma plumbing system, but not triggering an eruption.
> but not triggering an eruption.

>>35086248
Super expensive *job creating arms race. Economy gits gud, better war tech, byproducts improve everyday life.

>>35087501
But what causes the volcano eruption?
Blue balls?

>>35079815
Won't they just paint the nukes with shiney paint instead?

What if ww3 is declared and everyone launch their nukes, but almost all of them are brought down by the anti missile systems, maybe 5 or 10 really get to their objectives but is not enough to Destroy the world
How could be a ww3 but without nukes

>>35087506

Both of these sources: >>35087501
>>35087515
Indicate that the volcano has to be ready to erupt. As Yellowstone is 90,000 years from being overdue and the magma under Yellowstone is still 8km down.

On the surface of the earth, a 5 Mt bomb would leave a crater 500 ft deep.

The Yellowstone magma chamber is a minimum 8 km deep.
In order to induce the explosion of Yellowstone, you would need to breach the Magma chamber.

That means that you would need 53, 5 Megaton bombs hitting the same spot sequentially.

The problem is that you would need to wait for several minutes after each explosion before the area clears enough for an ICBM RV to be able to survive the passage without being destroyed by debris in the air.

This means that it would take almost 2 hours to send all the nuclear weapons required. During this time the US would be attacking the Chinese weapons with their own weapons.

Your entire theory depends on the US doing nothing for two hours while under nuclear attack.

>>35087515
>http://www.hawaii247.com/2011/09/08/volcano-watch-can-earthquakes-trigger-volcanic-eruptions/
>Seismologists are often asked the question, “Can large earthquakes trigger volcanic eruptions?” The short answer is yes, earthquakes and volcanic processes are closely linked, as suggested by the existence of the “ring of fire” of active volcanoes and earthquakes circling the Pacific Ocean.
A volcanic eruption occurs when the force of the magma plumbing system exceeds the force holding the rock together between the magma chamber and the surface. For earthquakes that are relatively close to an active volcano, the displacement of the earthquake itself can change the stresses around the magma chamber, possibly bringing the volcano closer to an eruption.
Your quote was about Hawaiian volcanoes specifically.
Yellowstone is not even technically a volcano.
Its an active volcanic field.
Again, not a done deal but acting like this is precedented and simple is silly.

>>35087527
Magma rising from the mantle or a subduction zone.
Both of these can cause earthquakes.
But earthquakes do not cause them.

Did you not pay attention in 8th grade physical science?

>>35087565
shit.
the 2 lines after the greentext is also a quote.

>weapons board
>discussion starts out as politics
>becomes huge argument in seismology

A magical place

>>35087565
It says they can, and that they have to be ready to erupt.
This is the second easily verifiable thing you have gotten wrong.

>Yellowstone is not even technically a volcano.
This is number three.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/volcanoqa.htm
Is Yellowstone a volcano?
Yes. Within the past two million years, episodic volcanic eruptions have occurred in the Yellowstone area—three of them major.

>>35087161
Everyone who replied to you has a good point as to why OPpen is valuable and not a shitbag. There should always be doubt and criticism but I definitely want his input. If my shower drain starts vomiting up sewage I want to call a plumber. If I flip a light switch and all my breakers blow, I call an electrician. If I am building a suspension bridge a high flow of traffic across a 300ft span I will call an engineer. If I need to be pulled out of the wreckage of a hurricane or flood destroyed house I will call coast guard swift water rescue or national guardsmen to save me. If I need to know a realistic assessment of nuclear physics and game theory as it relates to the norks I will call down Oppenheimer.

>>35087506
>Could anthropogenic seismic activity not trigger a fault slip,

Absolutely it could!

>Again, not a done deal but ignoring it is silly IMO.

Again, how do you intend on getting your gigaton nuclear warheads 8km through the earth to reach that fault line? Until you answer that, it very much is a done deal.

>>35087592
>This is number three.
I meant to illustrate how you can't compare the physics of a classic cone-shaped 3rd grade science project-esque volcano, like the one from the article, to a caldera type like Yellowstone, you autistic nit picker.
>It says they can, and that they have to be ready to erupt.
>This is the second easily verifiable thing you have gotten wrong.
It says they can what? Why not try making sense before you throw around your made up little tallie marks.

>>35087637
You don't have to detonate AT the fault for a seismic wave to TRAVEL to the fault.

>>35087561
>In order to induce the explosion of Yellowstone, you would need to breach the Magma chamber.
Why is that true?
And before you belt out some article, remember, Yellowstone is unlike most volcanoes. It is a large caldera type.

Y'all are some stupid mother fuckers.
Yes, it is true that a perfect or near perfect ABM shield would change the game a lot, but what about other delivery systems?
Low flying stealthy cruise missiles, torpedoes, mines, tactical artillery systems, even man portable launchers have been done before and can be done again.
Also a perfect ABM system is impossible, and more importantly building an ABM system is very difficult. Building more nukes is really easy by comparison. Even with 100% intercept rates, the interceptor costs more than the target. By a huge margin. And this is exacerbated by the fact that the real hit rates are 50-60% in perfect conditions with the flight path of the target known and the missile in the best possible position and the time of the target launch known. CHAAD can't intercept at any point in the flight plan of the target, only near the launch site and in the terminal phase near the target. The USNs ABM system is much more significant, and has demonstrated the capability to intercept at any phase of target flight. Also, the fact that it's onnabote makes it easier to position.
But if you want to understand how pointless even these systems are just look at the situation now. The US can not afford a system that could neutralise the risk of retaliation from North Korea. The largest economy in the world couldn't stop a punchline country, that's how extremely the salvo-size-vs.interceptor equation favours the attacker.
ABM systems are only really useful for politicking, and protecting targets so valuable it justifies the expense. And even then these are often not good targets because they are things like C4/executive structures, who need to be kept alive so you have someone to negotiate with, or are useful "hostages" in post-exchange bargaining.

>>35087691
Because there are no faults to trigger. You fucking idiot. Yellowstone is caused by a Mantle Plume, not a subduction zone.
It is the rising of the plume that causes earthquakes not earthquakes that cause the rising of magma.

That magma is 8 fucking kilometers down. In order for the eruption to happen, the magma must rise due to pressue from the mantle plume, to where it reaches the surface and the pressue is released in an eruption.

Im your stupid scenario, you want to use nukes to cause the eruption.
The only way to do this is to release the pressure 8 fucking kilometers down.
That magma is under intense pressure. The entire North american plate and the heat of the core are presssing on this magma. With all that pressure, it will still take 90,000 years until an eruption is consedered overdue.

If you are going to claim that earthquakes at 0 depth caused by nuclear weapons can cause magma 8 fucking kilometers down to close those 8 fucking kilometers in seconds and breach the surface when the immense pressure it is already under is incapable of doing so in less than 90000 years.

Please. Stop posting. You are too stupid to continue this.

>>35079815
Y

If guns make swords and spears obsolete, wouldn't reliable body armor allow massive pike formations again.

>>35079865
I "reckon" you should take your hick babble back to arfcon

>>35087808
The same way that a small surface crack can't cause a full aquarium to burst?
Oh wait....

>>35087874
Aquariums are not planets. Cracks are not nuclear weapons.
Support your thesis. You have zero actual evidence. All you have is something that sounds reasonable to assume. People used to think it was reasonable to assume that the Earth was the center of the universe.
You are ignorant.

>>35087874
is anon implying that aquarium glass and Earth's crust have the same structure?

>>35079958
This. If we were to fight an actual modern country the war would be so fast and brutal that no one could justify it to their people.

>>35087909
Actually, an aquarium is a very apt analogy.
That "8 fucking kilometers" would be even thinner than the glass of an average aquarium if the water of the aquarium was analogous to the magma.
You got about 200 words of unsupported thesis up there, yourself, hermano.

>>35087914
No, by weight and density, the glass is much stronger.
If it were 8km of pure glass, we'd actually be much safer.

>>35087938
>You got about 200 words of unsupported thesis up there, yourself, hermano.
I can give you a link to every single fact.
I can show you the immense pressure the magma chamber is under.
I have already shown you that Yellowstone is about 90000 years from being overdue (in contrast to your stupid claim that it was overdue).
I can show you that the minimum depth of the Yellowstone magma chamber is 8 km.

Can you show me anything at all, a single thing, a reputible scientific paper that supports your thesis?


Also, you were wrong about Yellowstone being overdue.
Were you lying, or were you ignorant?

>>35087474
>Oh please. It does when the correlation is 1 to 1.
Absolute retard detected. Even when correlation is 1:1, the causation may exist, my be inverse, or they may both be byproducts of a single source.

>>35087958
Prove that glass stresses in the same way as the Earths mantle.
Prove that the pressures exerted on a flat plane of glass is the same as pressure exerted on the Earths crust.
Prove that the water behaves the same as magma in the mantle.


If you cant, your analogy is stupid as fuck. >>35087474
>Oh please. It does when the correlation is 1 to 1.
Jfc. How can anyone with even a slight education type this?

>>35087988
Additionally, there were many posts that showed that there was not a 1:1 correlation.

>>35087974
My 'thesis' is that Yellostone isn't some simple non-factor when considering nuclear war.
And if you want to get reeeeeeeally technical, it actually "erupts" daily.
I was wrong about the timeline for a full caldera eruption, you got me there.
You sound like you think you'd somehow be better off if the US deployed nukes lol.
The only "facts" that make is seem safe are just theoretical bullshit assumptions about missile interceptions.

>>35087635
This. His trip is basically the equivalent of a diploma hanging on a lawyer's wall- it's there to prove that the dude knows what he's on about.
If he'd use his trip where not relevant like a lawyer telling you how to clear your drains I'd get annoyed, but he confines his trip soley to nuke threads. Best trip on this board by a wide margin.

>>35088016
>My 'thesis' is that Yellostone isn't some simple non-factor when considering nuclear war.
And yet you can not offer a single verifiable fact to support that it should be considered.


>I was wrong about the timeline for a full caldera eruption,
Yes. Because you are ignorant about the basic facts of this issue.

Perhaps, but nothing can stop a massive ICBM attack.

>>35088036
>And yet you can not offer a single verifiable fact to support that it should be considered.
Russian strategists have openly highlighted it as a weakness.
You're ignorant about human nature if you think nukes should be a component of conventional war.

>>35088062
>Russian strategists have openly highlighted it as a weakness.
Thats not a scientific paper.
Try again.
Admit you are ignorant.

>>35088095
It's true lol.
I don't know what the fuck you want.
It was more of a news article than scientific paper.
I don't think they fund much scientific research into weather or not people who publicly say things actually publicly said things lol.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-analyst-says-to-nuke-yellowstone-2015-4

>>35087669
see
>>35087483

> the amount of energy required to simply move a plate is enormous beyond what a nuclear detonation brings to the table and requires direction, something nukes aren't exactly great at achieving.

How are we still going over the basics of plate movement?

>>35088095
>"I need America to feasibly be all powerful to cope with life"
awwwwwwww

>>35088127
who are you quoting?

you wouldnt be trying to strawman after being btfo the whole thread, would you?

>>35088126
Yellowstone isn't a fault-type volcano
see
>>35087808

>>35088142
>counting to 3 tallies where only 1 mattered and quoting articles about unrelated volcanoes
>"btfo"
sure thing, kek
I'm in devastation station over here.

>>35088159
then you should have no problems explaining how you intend on triggering said volcano, right? i mean, you wouldn't be dodging it throughout the entire thread with bullshit and ignorance, would you?

>>35088169
>explaining how you intend on triggering said volcano
Mostly with a bunch of hydrogen bombs hitting it over and over.
They've been known to break things.

>>35088115
>I don't know what the fuck you want.
Actual science.
Thats what I want.
Why dont you tell everyone how there is a 1:1 causation of earthquakes causing volcanoes.

Or how about that time you tried to claim that Yellowstone wasnt even a volcano.

That was good.

>>35088127
I dont care about that.

I am calling you out for making an oulandish claim, repeatedly spewing ignorance, and confusing political posturing with science.

>>35088185
>being this retarded despite the entire thread

Loving
Every
Laugh

>>35088115
The guy who wrote that paper is a doctor of military science.

Hes not even a greologist.


Also, I have an important question, and yes, its a trap, so be careful with your answer:
Did you actually *read* this paper?

>>35079815
Yes, things will get more entertaining the next years.

>>35088194
>Why dont you tell everyone
lol, LARPing like we're in some debate hall?
>Why dont you tell everyone how there is a 1:1 causation of earthquakes causing volcanoes.
Ok, consider it told. Go ahead and refute it.
>Or how about that time you tried to claim that Yellowstone wasnt even a volcano.
I said it wasn't the kind of volcano in the article you tried to use as a counter point, which it wasn't.
I hope I can leave the "btfo" corner now, teacher.

File: 1495816444425.png (154KB, 512x692px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 512x692px

>>35087872

>>35088210
Oh, do they not break things anymore?
inb4 "muh 8 meters"
Nobodies ever tested if these things can cause cracks on the thin crust above a pressurized magma pool so you have no fucking clue if they can or can't. Neither of us do.
>>35088220
yea, it's not very long.

>>35088235
>Go ahead and refute it.
Okay.
All I have to do is show volcanic eruptions that were not caused by earthquakes to prove you wrong, right?
I am asking because I want to make sure you understand what you are aski g for before I give it to you.


>I said it wasn't the kind of volcano
Nope.
You said
>>35087565
>Yellowstone is not even technically a volcano.
>Its an active volcanic field.
>>35088269
>yea, it's not very long.
So you read the scientific paper. Not the news article.
Okay.
What is significant about the peer review section of the paper?

File: yzvJce8.jpg (48KB, 741x645px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 741x645px

>>35080037

>>35086680
That assumes the intent is to deliver it. If all it has to do is sit in one spot with a deadman trigger it can be as big as it needs to be.

>>35086641
MAD is a thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Peace

>>35088296
"active volcanic field" = caldera volcano
>All I have to do is show volcanic eruptions that were not caused by earthquakes
Hit me.
>So you read the scientific paper. Not the news article.
That's not what you originally asked, faggot. I have no idea which paper you're referring to. How could I from that post?

>>35088327
Ok.
So did you read the scientific paper?

>>35088327
>active volcanic field
Thats not what you said. You said ot wasnt a volcano my dude.

>>35088334
>I have no idea which paper you're referring to
>So did you read the scientific paper?
IDK, maybe? There's several ITT.
Perhaps you could provide a link.....

>>35088338
>"context isn't important in a debate if I muster together enough autism"
kek, sure thing.
Should we pounce on typoes now, too?

>>35088341
You are an idiot. The one that you are claiming supports your stupidity that nukes can cause yellowstone to erupt.

>>35088327
>Hit me
Open wide.

http://www.earthobservatory.sg/faq-on-earth-sciences/are-earthquakes-and-volcanic-eruptions-related

>most of the volcanic and seismic activity on Earth is localised on the boundaries between tectonic plates. However, these two phenomena are not directly related
>not
>directly
>related

>Of course earthquakes happen in these subduction zones, but they do not really cause volcanic eruptions.

>>35088315
MAD != deterrence

File: sdi-image02.jpg (82KB, 800x562px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x562px

>>35080082
Search Reagan Star Wars
Or SDI

>>35088352
>"Did you actually *read* this paper?"
>"yea, it's not very long."
>"So you read the scientific paper. Not the news article."
>"That's not what you originally asked, faggot."
>"You are an idiot."
ok, breh, guess I'm an idiot kek

>>35085129
Proxy wars out in the far corners of the world are unbelievably peaceful compared to European wars.

>>35088420
>I guess Im an idiot
Very true.
Did you read the scientific paper?

>>35088373
Again, this pertains to fault volcanoes, not calderas.
I was wrong in asserting that all volcanoes are triggered by earthquakes, a phenomena that your own article concedes happens, though not 1 to 1.

>>35087013
>i dont know how volcanos work

>>35088434
The one nobody but you claims to exist and isn't ITT?
No I haven't, Ill try harder next time.

>>35088434
Not him, but what fucking paper?
You never made it clear.

>>35088419
Brilliant Pebbles best pebbles.

>>35086234
Not when your side has multiple times the military and economic power of the opposition.

>>35088398
Deterrence is caused by MAD.

>>35088978
No it isn't.

File: Country_Nuke_holding_stats.png (64KB, 944x411px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 944x411px

>>35088978
>>35088398
>>35088315
MAD isn't MAD.
Mutually
Assured
Destruction is what its named.
The reality is more in lines of Uncertainty
In
First
Strike
Advantage
And add some letters, and it could become a nice acronym.

So if USA and Russia wants to have a first strike, they need to destroy some core targets. Like facilities needed to field more nuclear missiles.
Now, because interception is a thing, freak accidents happen, and both nations have had ages to fortify and diverse their position, your "must hit list to have a reasonable post nuclear war" is suddenly really long.
And 1000 missiles might not be enough.
On top of that, ideally you would fire most of them, then fire some later as the intel picture changes, and then some last ones to increase your own armed forces performance(infrastructure, command, production, poor enemy army mobilization).
So if you have 200 "need to hit" targets, you suddenly need 200 + missile shield quantity + second strike missiles + some third strike nukes + and some leftovers in case enemy makes stuff you can nuke(army, facilities, etc)
So if you have 2000-3000 missiles, and 1000 targets, you don't have enough missiles to wage the entire war. You only have enough for the first strike, assuming no sabotage or shenanigans reducing your stockpile/capabilities.

And thats also before you get into the mess that is nuke size versus flight capability. Intercontinental mega missiles is simply not a thing, so your first strike capabilities do have limitations.
MAD isn't even about missiles, MAD is mostly about somebody being sore, and decide to attack all infrastructure for civilians, instead of attempting to win and conquest in a grand war.

File: atom.jpg (78KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x600px

>>35079815
Yes, and ignore all the autists sperging MAD every nuclear thread. Their history books lied to them.

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

The only reason we never designed these weapons is because we have no defense against them and did not want to encourage a rival nation to do so. They're nuclear powered(so essentially unlimited range, as long as the core components don't overheat), nuclear armed(a 1k lb warhead can now be equivalent to 3.3-5~ MT),and can move at about 4-4.5M.with a ramjet.

Usually, identifying a high alt target could take place hundreds of miles out. A low flowing target would be about 25-50NM, best case scenario, averaging around 30NM. Moving at M4.5, and especially if designed with enclosed plasma radomes for radio obfuscation, it'd be hard to detect in the cruise stage(basically luck, if it flies over an ship or jet), and nearly impossible to stop in the terminal stage if it hasn't been detected already.

>>35088450
>I was wrong
This is a pattern for you.

>>35088466
It is ITT. The moron claiming that nukes could activate Yellowstone posted an article that contains the source right here: >>35088115


>>35088521
If you learned how to follow the comment links, you could figure it out.

>>35088978
No. Deterrence is caused by the belief that no advantage can be gained through the use of nuclear weapons.
It is caused when someone looks at they think will happen if they use a nuclear weapon, compare the benefits to the potential costs, and decide the costs are too high.
What deters someone in one situation may not deter them in another.

>>35086968
>ouch!
kek

>>35084914
Ur asking if i'd I call a war described as cold, relatively peaceful?

>>35089050
>>35089109
>>35089246
You are all getting caught up in semantics, Mutually assured destruction just means that the forward appearance of a nation is that they will respond to nuclear attacks with total nuclear war. Whether that is the reality of their doctrine is irrelevant.

>>35087464
U dumb as fuck.

>>35089457
No. People are telling you that MAD is not deterrence.
It is not part or deterrence theory. People like you who are uneducated think that it is because one aspect of deterrence is 'Unacceptable Losses' which people turned into Mutually Assured Distruction for the ignorant masses such as yourself to grasp.

>>35087443
As a burger, I want to be close to Yellowstone when it goes.

>>35089546
Its just a. commonly recognized term my friend, I was not saying it was literal. It's effective for the non-autistic .

File: thumbnail_5800043540587334846.jpg (26KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x300px

>>35088220
>greologist

>>35089691
Like clip?

>>35089744
Very similar but less justified because while mag can easily be interchanged for clip, saying "unacceptable losses due to uncertainty in first strike efficacy" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "mutually assured destruction"

>>35085433
They have their own. That's not the point. The point is if you wanted to make an offensive action against a country what are the things you would prepare ahead of time during peacetime for a modern conflict? One of the items any competent person would say would be an ABM "shield" system being built around the country in question to allow for a a buffer zone of entry into the defending country's border.

An ABM shield system that has its operational zones within and slightly outside your own country borders is something you won't find anyone upset about. Placing it as close as possible and around distant adversaries can be construed as a defensive measure but it can also be used for offensive maneuvers as well whereas the prior case of putting it within your borders offers zero or much less of an offensive potential as well.

Basically, just imagine if Russia lined Canada, Mexico, and Cuba with S-400 and ABM systems so that they could have as much operational range into the US as possible (while simultaneously having air bases in those countries). Wouldn't you be disturbed by that compared to them just setting them up on the border with Ukraine, Caucasus, Arctic Sea, and Kamchatka areas? As laughable as it is since they couldn't afford to do that, it would be a huge threat to the defenses of our borders.

>>35087369
What, you think weapons fucking tickle?

>>35079815
Most anti-nuke defense is diplomatic or passive (dispersion and hardening). Those are far, far more effective then the limited active defenses available.

Between START and New START the State Department has gotten rid of 1,977 Russian missiles and 8,506 Russian warheads. For comparison if the GBI program manages a 100% success rate it will only account for 35 warheads, a rounding error compared to what State achieved.

Passive defenses are also very cost effective. Bury a ICBM with a single warhead in a hardened silo that takes more then one warhead to destroy and as long as you have a treaty limited warhead numbers you disincentive an attack. Other methods such as simply spreading out targets, ensuing second strike surviveability by use of either road mobile ICBMs (Russia) or SSBNs (USA, France, UK) are also all cost effective methods of protection from nuclear attack.

Active defenses kinda suck. They are expensive, limited in number and dependability, and are destabilizing as the favor striking first and then soaking any remaining counter strike with an ABM system. Furthermore they are inherently unreliable as potential opponents can simply build different systems to get around them, see the Russian underwater drone they leaked in response to US AMB systems.

>>35087091
True, but the Nork Missiles aren't in silos ready to launch at the drop of a command and the turn of a key. They have a limited number of "soft" launch sites, preparations fort a launch takes them a while and they can't easily launch more than one or two of their ICBMs at a time. Odds are, the first missiles they shoot get killed by ABMs. Then the launch sites are promptly destroyed and they can't shoot anymore.

>>35089226
This is getting long, silly, and wierd.
I asked Opp this very wuestion and he elegantly explained why it can never happen but fuck me if I remember exactly what it was.
I think it came down to needing 700-900 mT explosion at depth.

>>35079815
There are ways of launching nukes without ballistic missiles that can easily be intercepted. It is entirely possible (and has been done before) to launch nukes a conventional artillery gun. Just them on a sub and sail it to the coast and start shelling.
There is literally nothing you can do to stop it apart from sinking the subs first.

>>35089109
Israel doesn't have nukes, delete this anti-semite

>>35085183
how high are you right now

>>35087872
HA! gottem

>>35080037
Lmaoing at your life
>nothing will ever replace horses
>cars will never drive over 35 mph
>boats will never dive underwater
>man will never walk on the moon

>>35081111
checked

>>35086544
>no one other than my gay lover is allowed to have an opinion on nukes

>>35086557
i dont know what you guys are talking about but nukes fell like 70 years ago and there was no world destroying bullshit

>>35079815
Had thoughts about this. Some mad genius figures out a way to make a arbitrary self driven network lattice of laser satellites that shot down all missiles across the entire globe thinking he did Humanity the greatest service it could ever ask for.

Then a 20 year world war ensues with traditional massive land war infantry style conflicts.

File: 0323576345896.jpg (71KB, 800x625px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x625px

you have a beautiful mind anon

>>35087506
Are you retarded?

>>35087536
WW3 without nukes would be a lot more interesting than just
>i fir nook
>u r ded iy win

>>35090901
just send a giant iron robot to fly towards the nuke
[spoiler]make sure to put a giant S on him as well[/spoiler]

File: 1481893154842.jpg (233KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 720x720px

>>35093983

>>35079815

Not really. It would create a desire for "stealth nukes" or nukes that can be launched that can be launched that bypass the sensors of anti-nuke defences. That would effectively bring things back to the status quo pretty quickly.

fyi the x37b is being launched tomorrow morning. Wonder what sort of goodies they have onboard it

>>35088300
heh! That was a good episode.

>>35081828
http://www.vought.org/products/html/slam.html

>>35090355
Save that Russia's underwater drone is laughably unlikely to operate effectively and even if it did is inherently limited to the point that calling it an alternative to an ICBM is pretty disingenuous.

There is no good alternative to missile based delivery for atomic weapons if your opposing force has a highly effective ABM system. If one side develops a truly effective ABM system and deploys it they can force everyone else to disarm or get nuked. It's an effective end to war between nations with a clear winner.

>>35090371
> SBX-1 gets overrun with Nork frogmen brought in via diesel-electric submarine
> Burke crews busy jerking off, as per SOP
> a lone Hwasong-12 sails past the entire fleet and slams into Washington DC
> IRBMs begin raining on Japan

>>35086280
>looks at pile of nuclear weapons

hmmmmm. i dont know

File: 4450668043_53e887b36b_b[1].jpg (192KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1024x768px

>>35094259
waaaaaaaaaay too much effort. heres how its gonna play
>johnson, great work, your system can knock a nuclear device out of the sky with 100% accuracy within 100 miles of the station, america approves, your getting a raise
>ring ring ring
>hello?
>hello from russia. 100 of them are real, good luck
>?
>look at the radar of the surrounding 100 miles
>8000 blips
>e.t.a impact 90 seconds