The nuclear bomb was made almost 100 years ago, what crazy shit do we have now? Is the threat of nuclear war enough to scare people into not going to war?
1) No it wasn't. It was a little over 69 years ago
2) Various forms of nuclear bombs, ICBMs, anti ABM countermeasures, SLBMs, etc
3) Neutron bombs (i.e. tank killers)
4) Clean nukes that aren't dirty like Fat Man and Little Boy
Much of the stuff we have isn't very advanced since the technology has matured. There's not much more you can do to an ICBM except give it countermesures to defeat ABMs. Manuverable warheads are the main new thing.
If we didn't have fags running the world, we could have far more ICBMs with better tech. Hell, we need to bring back the Peacekeeper with its 10-warhead MIRV design (no, the 14-warhead Trident 2 isn't enough since we need something better than the 2-warhead Minuteman 3 for silo launches).
Dumbest thing we did was Start-2 but at least Russia pulled out so the extra warheads went back into our Minuteman-3s
Trident 2: High accuracy, meant for counterforce strikes (i.e. against hardened military shit and silos). Uses stars for guidance
Minuteman 3: Low Accuracy, meant for killing "civilians" (Russia doesn't have civilians though) and taking out cities. Uses gimbals for guidance.
Also, PGS is our modern thing since we can use it against anyone and its not nuclear (pic related).
What more power could you possibly need from a weapon that can remove an entire city off the face of the map with no threat to your own forces?
(The cynic in me wonders if the Asteroid Redirect Mission currently proposed for NASA is merely a pilot program for orbital bombardment without bringing weapons into space.)
Fission-fusion-fission designs and similar ones as opposed to pure fission designs like the original ones.
Far higher efficiency and thus doesn't leave as much radioactive material around. It may also be cleaner in the sense that it doesn't leave as much short-lived highly radioactive particles around (not sure on that though).
Pretty much all nukes since maybe the 1960s have been "clean". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon#Foam_plasma_pressure
Its a design difference. Some bombs can be both "clean" and "dirty" with the dirty mode being more powerful for some reason. Don't remember which warhead that was but I think it was an early british design.
Low radiation, not no radiation. There's still some but its greatly reduced.
>How? What's the point of a nuclear weapon if it doesn't have fallout?
You want it to be clean so you can take over the shit you blow up. Neutron bombs are relativly clean since you can take the shit later but they were designed mainly to release massive amounts of neutrons at the price of explosive yeild. This allowed you to kill people in tanks and keep the tanks too radioactive to be used for a few days or weeks (essential for fighting the tank-loving Russians).
H-bombs are clean.
Nukes aren't supposed to be area denial weapons.
Fallout is a bad thing, no one wins with fallout.
Fallout only happens when the nuclear explosion hits the ground and kicks up a lot of soil to irradiate, most nukes are designed to blow up in the air and not on the ground so that the fallout is minimal.
Even the bombs dropped on Japan were Air explosions, that's why there was no giant radioactive crater in hiroshima.
Hey fukuyama, huntington called - he wants his theory back.
You know this is fucking bullshit and we've seen plenty of situatons that prove it.
Vietnam and china are threatening each other over some oil right now.
Also, air-blast can reduce fallout substantially.
The funny thing is that a nuclear war, if it happened, would suprise the shit out of survivors when they realize that it's nowhere near as bad as they believed. That's what scares the shit out of everyone since they know that future nuclear warfare would be inevitable once society has adapted to the style (i.e. building low-density cities which are essentially massive suburbs)
>Nuclear winter was made up by the Russians
>Fallout isn't as bad as people believe. With cloud-seeding being common, you can clear out a fuckload of that quickly
>Weapons are cleaner
>There aren't that many active nukes meaning that a nuclear war would only kill off people living in the cores of big cities rather than the whole planet.
Nuclear weapons are dangerous for the same reason that conventional bombers are dangerous: if you live in a big city and they attack you, you'll probably die but the world won't end and it won't be the last time such weapons are used.
Christ. I thought this whole time that MAD was not just about the initial flattening of everything but also about the proliferation of fallout over the whole planet.
I guess I'm not stockpiling as much as I thought I was going to.
> Fallout isn't as bad as people believe.
It's quite bad, actually.
Most who had to clean up "fallout" -be it a bomber crash site near Thule AFB or Chernobyl or anything- suffered for it.
Obviously the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also suffered a lot, especially those that weren't immediately killed.
Even the civil nuclear reprocessing sites seem to cause very much increased leukemia and cancer rates, and those illnesses are not fun at all.
>Wouldn't a massive conventional bomb just be easier?
No. A Davey Crockett bomb (i.e. smallest nuke), for instance, is the equivalent of 100 tons of TNT making it many times more powerful than a MOAB which is only about 1/10th as powerful. A tactical nuke like it can be carried by a soldier while a MOAB needs a massive bomber just to drop it.
Nuclear bombs can be better at bunker-busting than conventional bunker-busters; they can do greater damage to ground units and planes; and they can destroy critical infrastructure and civilian areas far better than regular bombs. They're better in virtually every way and that's why they scare the shit out of everyone.
Tsar bomb is a nuclear bomb. Its also a massive waste for 3 reasons:
1) Annoying shit like the square-cube law means that you don't get to destroy as much stuff with the same amount of power being split up into multiple weapons. It can devistate a single area really well but just can't do as much over-all damage as a bunch of smaller weapons instead.
2) It needs to be dropped from a bomber and that's a very crappy way of delivering nukes
3) You have to factor in the probability of it not exploding. Its better to have multiple weapons so you can loose some and still get the job done than put all your eggs in one basket.
If it's a GPS guided missile then you fuck around with the satellites.
If it's inertial guidance system? I'm not sure.
Perhaps some sort of high powered beam to scramble the on board electronics on the missile?
It would have to be something quite high tech, nukes travel quite fast.
You mean like PATRIOT and all that crap?
That intercepted like 2% of all SCUD by Saddam during the Iraq war.
I don't think it's better against US, Russian or Chinese or UK/French or whatever MIRV. AKA it probably won't work most of the time. Most nukes will explode on their targets.
I tell you what we do.
We get a plane and fill it with a team of scientists, send them to the missile, have them land and plant explosives at key fault lines, and then blow it the fuck up before it hits a target.
lasers. big ass lasers.
My grandfather used to tell me stories about when he witnessed the Operation Crossroads test at Bikini Atoll from the deck of his destroyer. This was the second ever atomic test immediately following the end of the war. Two atom bombs aimed at a fleet of captured and decommissioned ships. Test ABEL was dropped from a bomber and airburst over the target fleet without doing significant damage. BAKER was suspended underneath a landing barge and when it exploded my grandfather said that he saw the Battleship Arkansas stand up straight in the water (pic related) as the column of water hit it before sinking straight to the bottom.
Tank crew - dead unless it was shielded with heavy materials that are not so useful against anything else but neutron bombs.
Tank electronics - probably equally dead.
... also actually incapable of intercepting most SCUDs and the variants thereof that get fired at Israel.
I don't think for a second it'd catch the majority of a modern MIRV or anything like that.
That can't take out hardened targets, tanks, or all the civilians. You need to kill russian civilians if you want to destroy their war-making capability and economy. Dead people can't rebuild.
>You forgot MIRV ICBM
Didn't use the acronym MIRV but I mentioned it. Minuteman 3 and Trident 2 are both MIRV designs (3 warheads and 14 respectively).
Even though Start-2 tried to get rid of MIRVs (hence the common references to Minuteman 3s only having 1 warhead), Russia backed out and they're back on the table. MIRVs have been essential for the longest time and we don't use massive weapons like the Titan 2 that had a single 9MT bomb when we can get better performance out of 3X475KT warheads.
So yes, we use MIRVs since only idiots don't.
I think you need those for the short-lived isotopes common with particle radiation. While the cleaner nukes use the fissile material more efficiently, they still produce the evil radioactive dust that emits alpha and beta particles. This can easily be mitigated with gas maskes and Iodine tablets. Any mask (or piece of cloth) that stops dust will work. Also, cloud seeding will stop a bunch of that. Iodine is probably in massive supply with FEMA.
You don't need a radiation suit since the stuff that can kill you is particle radiation that is only deadly if you breath it in or expose yourself to tons of it (i.e. like swimming in the Mississippi delta in the days after). That shit is gone within weeks.
The flash causes severe sun burn (often 3rd degree) so its best not to be in a large city.
The thing that's most dangerous is the blastwave. Ducking and covering won't save you from a fireball if you're in the near vicinity but it will stop you from looking at the mushroom cloud behind a glass window/door which will shatter from the eventual blast wave and send glass in your face.
Just to be sure, the initial flash WILL blind you if you're looking in its general direction, right? If somebody had some general provisions ready, how bad, realistically, do you think it would be to get out of a city? Do you think people actually WOULD leave their homes and clog the roads, or do you think people would probably be in shock who aren't ready, etc?
Also Hiroshima was devistated mainly because the mountains surrounding the city caused the blast wave to reverberate back and cause more damage. A larger bomb would have caused less damage ironically. Nagasaki, despite being bombed with a bigger bomb is less often cited since the blast did very little damage in comparison and isn't as horrific.
Because killing enemy civilians is the best solution for political problems since it makes ultra-complex political problems much easier to deal with. Its better that millions die in a day so a better system can be created than work with those people instead and have billions suffer in the future from corruption and systems that need reform but can't justify the price.
If most of Mexico's cities were nuked today, Mexico would be much better off in 100 years than it would be otherwise. Cleaning the slate is better than working around problems.
This is why America is so powerful: we had a clean slate to build off of while the rest of the world is just amending what they already have.
That wouldn't work. There's no charges to cause the implosion and the steel would get in the way.
Any idiot could build a gun-style nuke since all you need is slightly enriched uranium (plutonium doesn't work), an artillery barrel, explosives, and Tungston-carbide rings to fire the Uranium slug through causing a criticality event. Highly innefficient but a regular person could build it whereas an implosion design requires tons of extra math, knowledge of controlled demolition, and the purest of the pure explosives in order to cause the correct blast-wave.
Because we want to see it used again.
What brings the rest of the world terror brings /pol/ hope.
>Meanwhile, in June of 1914
>"Global Financial Markets are too intertwined for military action between large countries."
Markets can adapt. They may be complex but they are complex entities that can react to situations. Everyone made the same argument against WW1 and used that as justification for believing that either the war wouldn't happen or it would last only a few months. Just because you can't see how the markets will adapt doesn't mean they won't. The markets will, in fact, not only adapt but also support the conflict.
Seriously, people were saying the exact same thing in 1913 and 1914. Its not a new argument.
>Why the hell did we even invent these monstrosities.
Because they are powerful and everyone seeks power. You don't want you enemies to have power while you don't.
Also, they have the positive effect of allowing you to wipe away systems and rebuild them from the ground and make them better. They kill indiscriminatly taking out corrupt politicians, criminals, businesses, and people. Such a weapon, thus, allows reform to go unimpeded. Their the ideal device for the modern world where corruption, waste, and inefficiency are dragging society down.
When politicians say that we need to do stupid shit like spend more money because cutting government would cause too many people to be without jobs, then it becomes obvious that systems can't fix themselves. When politics becomes all about finding quick fixes, then you know the duct-taped style of governance is a terrible thing but it can't be reformed without drastic actions. Nuclear wars allow inefficiency - which often fuels the crisis - to result in the reform.
>I think you need those for the short-lived isotopes common with particle radiation.
I think the only real use is to protect against thyroid cancer, and it's largely ineffective from like 20-40 onwards.
The bulk of radiation (and possibly chemical) poisoning requires different protective measures.
I do NOT think getting out of the city will be easy, many will have that idea, and infrastructure will be destroyed so you might not be able to simply drive out. Yea, I will think people will clog the roads, too, even if not all has been destroyed.
It's not like everyone will think to drive safely or refuel their car or all the other things that can cause accidents...
Strikes may also still happen when the enemy has readied the remaining nukes (not all are ready in minutes) and determines some cities haven't been wrecked enough yet.
Besides, radiation in the area can certainly be quite bad for a while if the ground has been hit.
Maybe not bad enough to prevent you from fleeing, but bad enough that you'll suffer and maybe die in the next months - years.
Basically, having a bunker and methodically cleaning up from the city itself is a better method, even though that also sucks.
For most tanks -even modern MBT-, I think it has slightly bigger "probably lethal" range than a blast on equal yield would have. But it's not really a huge range.
I think they prefer the more versatile, more militarily cool explosions.
Explosions probably also make it much easier to tell which tanks are in fact out of commission and which are just waiting for you...
>Christ. I thought this whole time that MAD was not just about the initial flattening of everything but also about the proliferation of fallout over the whole planet.
That was always a myth people believed. Its just not possible to kill everyone. Yeah, people have claimed that Cobalt bombs could but that was more just propaganda and paranoia rather than actual strategy. Cobalt bombs just couldn't be made big enough and would suffer from rain water washing away the material.
Think about it this way: there is enough dissolved uranium 235 in the oceans to provide enough nuclear power for over 4 billion years. If there's that much uranium dissolved in the oceans naturally, then we haven't scratched the surface when it comes to stockpiling radioactive material.
Before interstate highways and suburbs, the fear of nuclear annihilation was more real since all the major centers of power could be destroyed and, without interstates bypassing cities, all internal trade could be cut off thus rendering society fucked for a long time. Now that we have interstates and modern energy sources and transportation have proven that less dense population centers can exist (i.e. suburban areas) and are even superior for manufacturing, the damage a nuclear war would cause would be relatively little except in the loss of life.
Also, a nuclear war would let the cat out of the bag which would mean that cities wouldn't be rebuilt. We'd essentially have a massive suburban area around our interstates instead since urban centers would be too vulnerable. Interstate highways would be expanded and America would look like a massive grid with a low population density. We can't do that until after the war since it would wreck our financial system which is dependent on the scarcity of land driving up land values and making mortgages more profitable (hence why we have public land/state and federal parks).
Nuclear war WILL happen at some time. Its just a matter of when.
My grandfather would say that there were actually life term convicts who volunteered as humans nuclear test subjects but were turned down by the Government who used animals instead.
They look up at the stars for targeting, calling celestial guidance.
What you need to do is to hook up the nations power grid to imitate the stars on the ground, so it flies back up into space and doesn't have enough power to turn back again.
>Much bigger nukes.
Nope. Nukes are much smaller but the delivery vehicals are improved.
The Titan 2 ICBM from the 1960s had a 9 Megaton warhead. The modern Minuteman 3 uses 3 300-475KT warheads. Our Trident 2 uses 14 W88 warheads that are 475KT each.
The big bombs went away when the bombers became obsolete and MIRVs became essential.
There's a limit to how small you can make a nuke and the 475KT ones are pretty small.
Warheads are inaccurate.
>Minuteman 3's W87s are often upgraded to 475KT
>Trident 2's W88s are 475KT, not 433 or whatever they say.
>Russians use mainly ~550KT warheads with the 20MT ones only for EMPs
>Russia's SLBM are, I think, around 300KT per warhead.
>Russian warheads are mainly either ~500KT or 800KT and many are old and inaccurate.
They need to modernize their numbers because they leave our Russia's weaker warheads and they under-rate the American warheads.
He ment we have multiple warheads on each ICBM which means they can cover much larger areas. Also if we really need to blast the fuck out of a single target then we could make 100 MT+ nukes or higher if we really wanted to. We have the power to erase mountains from existence in an instance.
>yfw Lockheed marketing lazers burn ICBMs out of the sky
>It's quite bad, actually.
>Most who had to clean up "fallout" -be it a bomber crash site near Thule AFB or Chernobyl or anything- suffered for it.
That's because the bomb didn't explode but instead fell apart. The fallout was bad there because all the radioactive material was in a small area.
>Obviously the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also suffered a lot, especially those that weren't immediately killed.
Most of the suffering was from:
A) Burns caused by the intense flash. They can be bad and even deadly but lots of people survive due to that harming skin only.
B) Glass and debris. If they all remembered to duck and cover (advice that survivors told people in other cities), many wouldn't have been as badly harmed.
C) Fire, drowning, and other unrelated stuff.
They died mainly from indirect stuff and not the fireball or radiation itself.
>Even the civil nuclear reprocessing sites seem to cause very much increased leukemia and cancer rates, and those illnesses are not fun at all.
That's because you're dealing with large amounts of material in a small area. Also much of that material is gamma radiation which isn't as easy to avoid. In a nuclear war, the gamma radiation is going to be mitigated and its the particle radiation that's the problem. Rocky Flats had tons of cancer deaths but it often took decades for illnesses to show up.
When nuclear bombs go off, you're not going to be exposed to plutonium and uranium much. Its going to be the short-lived isotopes of shit like Strontium, Iodine, and Cesium among others and that radiation is going to mainly be particle radiation which is deadlier if you don't wear a mask or stay indoors. Its not massive amounts of gamma radiation that's going to be present.
Is it too much to ask for a Fallout-ish universe?
Stalker is too advanced for me IRL but I think I could survive decently in fallout
>Nope. Nukes are much smaller but the delivery vehicals are improved.
Well, you're comparing with the biggest ones from the cold war, not to "100 years" ago.
The ones we still have ready (multiple in each delivery vehicle for most nations) still individually are much bigger than the bombs from Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Never mind modern MIRV are at least as destructive in practice when used as WMD as individual big ones were...
>We do, but tell me what you think we need to "counter act" nuclear missiles.
Interstate highways, guns, and rural/suburban people.
Its too expensive to shoot down the nukes but making their use pointless is far better than trying to save shitty cities. No one wants to nuke a country like America since, even if they took out our cities, they'd have to face a large population that's too spread out to kill off and has tons of guns. Nuclear weapons only defeat countries where at least 90+% of their people live in urban cores (eg Russia) and all of their arms are either vested in the military or in those cities. An armed suburban/rural population is too much of a threat to nuclear adversaries.
Also, interstate highways that bypass large cities instead of only going through them (i.e. beltways) are able to prevent the loss of a city from stopping internal transportation and logistics.
Look at Moscow on Google Earth: if you nuked the shit out of it, Russians would be fucked when it comes to getting around within their own country since many of their roads go through that city. That design, while popular in the urban-centric european cities that used to have authoritative power over everything else, is a vulnerability when cities can be destroyed.
A spread out and armed population with a road network that can bypass large cities is invulnerable to nuclear attack, especially when it can nuke the attacker and let its civilians take our the rest of the enemy's resistance.
Well STALKER only has a very small area which is actually part of the Zone. External to this area, the world is otherwise more or less the same, except with the research and black market for zone artifacts/weapons.
>If it's a GPS guided missile then you fuck around with the satellites.
ICBMs use inertial guidance while SLBMs use astronavigation. Only a burst of neutrons can take them out since that can't be shielded against.
Lasers can't beat a heat shield or mirrors and kinetic weapons still need a missile to propell them and are thuse more expensive than the price of the enemy building more warheads/missiles.
Face it: you can't stop a nuclear strike. ABM systems can only buy time as they stop the first bunch but, like the game Missile Command, eventually they run out of ABMs and the cities blow up. Moscow uses ABMs so that the people can have more time to get into the subway system which is also a bomb shelter.
>That intercepted like 2% of all SCUD by Saddam during the Iraq war.
Software error due to it not using big enough floating point data types.
Also, Patriot missiles can't deal with the high speed of ICBMs. Balistic missiles fly fast when they re-enter.
But what about nuclear power stations?
Surely they would be priority targets. And if Chernobyl is anything to go by, there would be enough fallout from these to kill most, if not everyone on Earth, if a subsantial amount of them were hit, right?
>Is the threat of nuclear war enough to scare people into not going to war?
Since it hasn't, the answer is a bit obvious. People kill as they always have, as they always will we are inherently a flawed species.
>Bay of Pigs
>Iraq 2: Electric Bugaloo
>Intervention in Iran
Its pretty cool but, when you consider the amount of energy in earthquakes and volcanoes, nukes seem weak in comparison. Its just that we, as humans, see how powerful one of our creations is against another and it makes it seem extremely powerful.
Someone in my family told me my grandfather was saved from being involved in Operation Downfall thanks to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It might have been him that mentioned it but I can't remember.
>They died mainly from indirect stuff and not the fireball or radiation itself.
Yup. That doesn't mean they didn't suffer a lot... and the next generation, too.
If you don't get killed in the bombing and you were young, the chances that you'll have a bad ailment in some way or another are really quite high. Yea, it's 10% chance for this problem, 5% for that problem, 2% for this... but it sums up. And most of these conditions suck, massively so.
>Just to be sure, the initial flash WILL blind you if you're looking in its general direction, right?
Probably not unless you're close. Its probably like a welding arc; too bright to look at unless you're far away. If you're within maybe a mile you might go blind but that's from the same radiation that will burn your skin. You'd more likely loose your eyesight from glass shattering than anything.
If you're 10 miles away, you could probably look at it without a problem.
Depends on the weapon and distance.
That's because we're using a different type of nuke. Those early pure-fission nukes were short lived and quickly replaced by hydrogen bombs.
Nuclear bombs don't get more powerful every year. Once a better design is created, they get a lot more powerful quickly but then the limit is reached for that style.
>as they always will we are inherently a flawed species.
No we're not. Warfare is a side effect of our ability to control resources and think at a higher level than a mere dog or cat.
Warfare helps get rid of inefficient systems, corruption, and waste. It also helps to improve learning and make society better. Dictators who treat their people like shit are vulnerable to being outsmarted and taken out quickly. That's why the number of despotic regimes on earth has greatly dropped over the centuries.
Without warfare, we'd all be suffering under the first dynasty that's able to reproduce successfully. We'd be miserable peasants still living in Iraq or north Africa getting treated like shit.
Warfare stress-tests societies. Its ensures that only those that are led well, can coordinate resources well, and are able to be tolerated can survive. Societies that can't either get taken out or get marginalized and turned into puppets where they decay until they can reform.
Our war with Russia (and China's eventual war with itself) is the result of Russia being a failed society. Its better that it gets destroyed now instead of shitting up the future and ruining the lives of countless billions in the next centuries.
>Yup. That doesn't mean they didn't suffer a lot... and the next generation, too.
And we've learned how to deal with that stuff.
Besides, its a good thing that civilians suffer in a nuclear war since, if they didn't and instead all survived, attacking cities wouldn't work. We need Russians to die when Moscow gets nuked and we need the survivors to suffer and use up resources so their military can't be rebuilt.
I don't think you understand what nukes are for: they're for destroying civilian populations and military hardware. That's what we want nukes to do and that's what our enemies want them to do.
The idea that nukes fuck up the entire world or are un-survivable is false; people back then suffered from other things too.