are nukes actually useful in great power conflicts?

are nukes actually useful in great power conflicts?
Or is it a signal that you are being buttfricked because of your inferior conventional military?

The recent event in Eastern Europe sure seems to prove that theory.

Are nukes useless? Please discuss seriously. No trolls allowed

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    >ukraine gives up its nukes
    >gets invaded
    I don't care if they couldn't operate or maintain them, I'm right anyway.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You are correct.

      Current Ukraine war is a perfect argument as to why no one should EVER give up nukes.
      In fact, every country that ever gave up nuclear weapons seems to have been destroyed considering South Africa too.

      In this regard, Israel can't ever be disarmed.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only one country has ever given up nuclear weapons. Curtailing a development program isn't the same thing at all

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this moronic point is parroted so much.

        Ukraine never had physical operational control of the nuclear weapons on their soil. Even if they didn't hand them over, they had no means to maintain the warheads. This, and the financial compensation they would receive as well as the security assurances, led them to sign various non-proliferation treaties and give up the weapons.

        Ukraine could never have done anything with them if they kept them, and likely would have never received any financial assistance and would probably have been sanctioned as well. This would have fricked their already fricked economy, and Russia would likely have invaded them anyway.

        A better example would be Libya, which dismantled their weapons program and later had their leadership overthrown during the civil war with the assistance of NATO. But South Africa is the only country to have given up operational nuclear weapons.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so Iran and NK keeping their nukes would actually be the smart thing to do...

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          For the next 10-15 years until the last of the neocons die off and then they would be unnecessary.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do you israelites have anything past your state to you?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's also misinformation that Ukraine couldn't have operated or maintained them; even if they had NO launch codes they had all of the infrastructure and know-how to produce their own trigger and guidance systems. The challenge would have been doing so covertly, or withstanding a NATO-backed special military operation from Russia while they do this.

      In hindsight they should have agreed to sell 90% of warheads to NATO, whilst retaining 10% as a strategic deterrent - returning none to Russia.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Launch codes aren't the problem. Plutonium cores decay over time and have to be recycled every few years to remove the decay products, otherwise they stop working. That's not something you can do on a shoestring budget.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm pretty sure PAL prevents you from dismantling the weapon to recycle the core. The antitamper system will misdetonate it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't care if they couldn't operate or maintain them
      Wouldn't it just be a matter of taking the warheads and putting them on homemade rockets?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, it's the opposite. The rockets were domestically made already, the problem is being able to arm and detonate the warheads. A nuclear warhead is a precision instrument, you can't just set it off with detcord.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      in summary this. MAD mutual assured destruction is a powerful deterrent to even super powers getting uppity and steping out of line.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        does not stop ziggers from attempting to unleash a huge regional war in east euro or invading ukraine for imperial conquest in the first place

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no, you're wrong; having nukes just ensures you're not going to get nuked, it doesn't guarantee you're not going to be fricked with conventionally at all.
      only things that would have stopped putin invading ukraine would have either a massive ukranian millitary, nukes optional, or membership in NATO.

      Is there any downsides to every countries to develop their own nukes? Beside increasing the odds of a third world war of course.

      sure; conventional geopolitical wisdom, the doctrine of deterrence that ensures nukes won't be used that's ensured relative security since 1945, could possibly go out the window if you're dealing with a state run by psychopaths, religious zealots, or politcal extremists that just dgaf. An unstable state that loses control of it's nuke arsenal to terrorists is a danger, as is the possibility that achieving nuke capability allows an agressive state, somewhere like iran perhaps, to flex it's muscles conventionally against a neighbour.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >having nukes just ensures you're not going to get nuked, it doesn't guarantee you're not going to be fricked with conventionally at all.
        It does actually, considering that the only physical altercation between two nuclear powers was the Chinese and Indians beating each other with blunt objects at the border because they were scared of escalating things enough to use nukes.
        Consider the following:
        >get invaded
        >nuke the invader
        Woooooow so hard.
        Even in the worst case of Ukraine being unable to launch them, they could have pulled a Belka and nuked their own border regions to deter a Russian advance for the next century.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You don’t gain anything but nuking a nuclear-armed opponent. MAD completely neutralizes the nuclear threat: the strategic calculus involving two nuclear powers is exactly the same as for two non-nuclear powers, and completely different from the asymmetric case in which one party has nukes and the other does not. A rational actor (i.e. someone who wants to win) will simply never deploy nuclear weapons against someone who can retaliate in kind, because it gains exactly zero advantage.
          >the only physical altercation between two nuclear powers
          Nuclear powers aren’t randomly distributed. If aliens gifted a bunch of nukes to mudslimes or African Black folk, they would still be at each other’s throats all the time.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but nuking
            *by

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >nuclear weapons cancels each other out
            but not conventional weapons

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the strategic calculus involving two nuclear powers is exactly the same as for two non-nuclear powers
            No it isn't. You can't force a nuclear-armed enemy into a total loss, because then he'll have no incentive NOT to use nukes. England invading France would be fundamentally different from Germany invading Poland, because Poland doesn't have a fleet of nuclear missile carrying submarines with standing orders to frick up anyone who captures Warsaw.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The point of an invasion is, in most cases, to take control of the country and dissolve it. The aftermath of this is normally trials an summary executions of the former heads of state.
            So let's look at it from the president's POV here anon. You see OpFor tanks rolling into the capital and gunning down anyone that resists, and you know exactly what awaits you and your family once they reach the presidential palace. You can sit there and wait to watch a swarm of subhumans violate your children and then torture you all to death, or you can slam your fist on that big red button on your desk and herd your family into the bunker in the basement.
            The issue with a conventional war between two nuclear powers isn't "ahaha I will NOOOOOK to win right now I so smart", it's "how do I do anything because if the situation is clearly not in the favor of the other guy and he knows it, he has zero fricking reason not to nuke me as the last big 'frick you' in my face"
            >Nuclear powers aren’t randomly distributed.
            Tell that to France. In any case it really doesn't matter, we're discussing how a mind capable of contemplating how it would feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning would approach these things. If the Middle East and Africa gained access to nukes then we'd simply have a nuclear war over Ngumbe feeling angry at Ahmed that day with zero buildup whatsoever, since neither one can plan further than "press the big red button"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            MAD doesn't invalidate the use of nukes because the aggressor would be an idiot to invoke his own complete destruction over his inability to aggress further, thus MAD is not in play with a defensive usage.

            If China kept denying that China was rightful American clay, so we built up an invasion fleet to teach them that they were in fact our 51st state, and China nuked Okinawa to frick up our plans, would we instantly launch every single one of our nukes at China? I mean, China nuking Okinawa didn't actually do anything to us. The birds are still chirping outside. I still have my BMWs. I can still get a 6oz Flo's Filet with a loaded baked potato, caesar salad, and Texas Tonion at Longhorn Steakhouse for under $50. What reason do I have to die simply because they stopped us from invading? We haven't needed China's clay in order to exist for the last 200 years, so I'm pretty sure we can do without it for the next 2000 years.
            The nuclear defender has the option to threaten a ladder of escalation.

            "Hey Europe, if you don't apply all the political and economic pressure you have to tell the Americans to cut this shit out, we're going to EMP you. Enjoy a few hundred billion dollars in damage. If this threat tempts you climb aboard the hate train with the US, know that the next thing we'll do is nuke your capital cities and manufacturing hubs. Is America's invasion of us worth your destruction, or do you have it within yourselves to tell them if they keep this up that you'll never trade with them again?
            Hey America. We're going to start by nuking Okinawa.
            Then EMPing Hawaii. Then EMPing the East Coast. Then EMPing the West coast. Then nuking Guam. Then nuking Hawaii. Then nuking Commiefornia. How about you move back to *your* side of the Pacific and frick off out of ours? You're not Chinese. China isn't yours. So get the frick out of our faces and let us be."
            Do you think we're going to destroy ourselves over the insistence that we continue?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You don’t gain anything but nuking a nuclear-armed opponent. MAD completely neutralizes the nuclear threat: the strategic calculus involving two nuclear powers is exactly the same as for two non-nuclear powers, and completely different from the asymmetric case in which one party has nukes and the other does not. A rational actor (i.e. someone who wants to win) will simply never deploy nuclear weapons against someone who can retaliate in kind, because it gains exactly zero advantage.
              >the only physical altercation between two nuclear powers
              Nuclear powers aren’t randomly distributed. If aliens gifted a bunch of nukes to mudslimes or African Black folk, they would still be at each other’s throats all the time.

              MAD does not exist because MAD assumes two irrational actors. MAD is dumb from the outset. In the case of a situation where a nuclear exchange starts both sides are clearly trying to win. They are not trying to 'kill everybody' on the side they're fighting. Therefore they are trying to win. To win, you remove your opponents ability to launch nukes at you. Because if your opponent cannot launch nukes at you and you can launch nukes back you can NOW start to threaten civilian populations which is what will make the state give into your demands, because being a nation of rubble is pointless. Therefore the goal in any nuclear exchange is to remove your opponents ability to launch nukes at you. So one side at least is going to try and remove your ability to use nukes. Therefore the side on the receiving end might use their nukes to hit population centres as a 'frick you' but that does not mean that the initiator (who targeted nuclear launch sites) will suddenly switch to nuking cities.

              China's entire nuclear defence strategy is built around retaliation, not first strike. Because it knows if it gets to the stage where it is being nuked, the majority of them are fricked, therefore it is about stabbing the other guy as much as possible as he is shooting you multiple times.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >To win, you remove your opponents ability to launch nukes at you.
                No, to win a defensive war you just need your enemy to stop attacking.
                Afghanistan didn't need to destroy our nukes in order to win back control of their country. They just needed to inflict a cost we weren't willing to bear.
                Same with Vietnam.
                Same with the North Koreans.

                Having nukes gives you the option to inflict a great cost.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean we could irradiate ships with nukes but ships are nowhere near that easy to actually destroy with a nuke, and carriers have systems built in to them to help get rid of the radiation anyway

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >General Douglas MacArthur, the US commander during the Korean War, once called it the “unsinkable aircraft carrier”.
    Man had a way with words

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Samegayging here but generally curious as a non burger- is MacArthur more famous for being commander during Korea? Just thought it was weird to not mention his involvement with WW2

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most Americans don't even know what the Korean war is the war effectively lasted from September 1950 to early summer 1951 as far as the US is concerned with the rest of the war being a stalemate. A war that lasted barely a year smashed between WW2 and the Vietnam war is pretty forgetable.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Isn't it still one of the last major peer2peer conflicts since WW2 other than Iran-Iraq and Ukraine? Ive been reading memoirs about it and honestly it's a lot more interesting than jungle asiatic warfare or durka IEDs

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It was an enormous frick up that caused the government to completely change it's war doctrine, ultimately creating all the rules of engagement, terms of war, and combat profiles for the indochina conflict that would become the vietnam war. It is widely studied in American war colleges and is required for American officer training, if only because it is required to understand why the military didn't win in vietnam and why the war effort there failed.

            Many books have been written on this. Most of them aren't online. The best places to get them are liberal independent book stores in Berkeley, Oakland, Menlo Park and Palo Alto where the Peace Movement began and where there are a LOT of GIs/veterans/widows dumping all their dad's war books for $50. This is where I got all of my books including several binders detailing American troop movements (like really detailed, including casualty lists and notes from field commanders) because people just dump it off when they sell the house.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >This is where I got all of my books including several binders detailing American troop movements (like really detailed, including casualty lists and notes from field commanders)
              Post some pls

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >peer wars

            There's been some major ones in Africa like the First and Second Congo wars and Nigeria - Biafra.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know if I would go that far, but in the Pacific campaign MacArthur was one big name among many big names. In the Korean War, he was a big fish in a small pond. His involvement there is more memorable because of that.

          The Korean War is the forgetting war that nobody remembers due to the conflicts before and after it. Patriots support him because of WW2 while communists, liberals and GIs hate him because of what his replacements did in Vietnam .. based on decisions he had made in Korea. Korean GIs sit in a middle ground where they trained all the Vietnam GIs and took jobs in South Vietnam that was erased in 1975.

          The amount of people who give a shit about the Korean War is equal to the amount of people who know *and* care about the types of railroad locomotives the US was exporting to Korea and Vietnam in the 50s and 60s. That is, liberally, about 50 people half of whom post on 1chan and the other half are barfcom moderators 49 of which live in California.

          It was an enormous frick up that caused the government to completely change it's war doctrine, ultimately creating all the rules of engagement, terms of war, and combat profiles for the indochina conflict that would become the vietnam war. It is widely studied in American war colleges and is required for American officer training, if only because it is required to understand why the military didn't win in vietnam and why the war effort there failed.

          Many books have been written on this. Most of them aren't online. The best places to get them are liberal independent book stores in Berkeley, Oakland, Menlo Park and Palo Alto where the Peace Movement began and where there are a LOT of GIs/veterans/widows dumping all their dad's war books for $50. This is where I got all of my books including several binders detailing American troop movements (like really detailed, including casualty lists and notes from field commanders) because people just dump it off when they sell the house.

          Thank you for the detailed replies anons. Do you have any good book recs regarding the US military in Korea and the leadup years to Vietnam? That's kind of my blank spot in burger military history. Have a picture of my kitty as payment.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Max Hastings 'The Korean War' is an absolutely excellent book talking about Korea. It was written in the 80s with the hindsight of Vietnam fresh in mind discussing the myriad ways the conflict was an absolute shitshow and a huge geopolitical nightmare.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't know if I would go that far, but in the Pacific campaign MacArthur was one big name among many big names. In the Korean War, he was a big fish in a small pond. His involvement there is more memorable because of that.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Korean War is the forgetting war that nobody remembers due to the conflicts before and after it. Patriots support him because of WW2 while communists, liberals and GIs hate him because of what his replacements did in Vietnam .. based on decisions he had made in Korea. Korean GIs sit in a middle ground where they trained all the Vietnam GIs and took jobs in South Vietnam that was erased in 1975.

        The amount of people who give a shit about the Korean War is equal to the amount of people who know *and* care about the types of railroad locomotives the US was exporting to Korea and Vietnam in the 50s and 60s. That is, liberally, about 50 people half of whom post on 1chan and the other half are barfcom moderators 49 of which live in California.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most Americans don't even know what the Korean war is the war effectively lasted from September 1950 to early summer 1951 as far as the US is concerned with the rest of the war being a stalemate. A war that lasted barely a year smashed between WW2 and the Vietnam war is pretty forgetable.

        Yeah, most Americans have almost no clue what happened or who were involved in the Korean War. The most popular show/movie about the war (MASH) had more to do with Vietnam than Korea. MacArthur is better known for all the hype he got in the Pacific during WWII.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        While its true that the average person doesn't know a thing about the Korean war, MacArthur is famous for two things: saying "I shall return" when he had to leave the Philippines, and getting called back to the States because he wanted to turn China into a radioactive parking lot.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's funny to me that the 2 most recognizable US generals of WW2 basically went "oh frick oh frick oh frick we fought the wrong side" from 1946 until their deaths.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They yearned for the blood of commies

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >he wanted to turn China into a radioactive parking lot
          You say that like it's a bad thing.
          Old Mac had it right in the end, just like Patton did with the Soviet.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Doug Mac is most well known in the US for his WW2 island hopping shenanigans

        in Korea however they know him as "that chad American general who saved us from the Busan Pocket"
        for perspective, imagine that all of the United States has been invaded and the only holdouts are the fragment of remaining army in Florida, and you're about to die. suddenly one of your Allied generals - let's say, Montgomery - lands in New York and drives the enemy entirely away
        regardless of what else the man did in his career elsewhere, he'd be a national hero and thousands would be lining up to suck his dick, nicht wahr?
        deserved or not, that is Doug's reputation in Korea

        >t. met some Korean boomers

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        MacArthur is better known for his exploits during WW II, and his involvement in the reconstruction of Japan after the War.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I always thought hirohito looked fly as frick in this photo despite the "lol manlet" stuff. When did nips get into wearing suits and ties anyways?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think it was during the Meiji Restoration after they decided westernizing was the way to go after the encounter with Commodore Perry (アメリカ初のバックブレーキング)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Bongs developed an unsinkable aircraft carrier in WW2. It was a huge chunk of glacier ice mixed with straw and other shit so it didn't melt. It had engines attached. The idea was to use it to defend the Atlantic Convoys because air cover (at the time) was the best defence versus U-Boats, but by the time the system was ready to go, the Bongs had developed better counters anyway.

      >nukes used then are hilariously puny compared to modern nukes

      Crossroads yield: 22-23 kt
      B61 Mod12 Yield: 0.3 up to 50 kt (Variable)

      Tactical nuclear weapons are going to be less than 100 kt, most will be in the 5 kt to 30 kt range. The trend in nuclear weapons since the 1960s has been towards smaller, more precise weapons. Big yields simply aren't needed anymore when you can pick which parking space at the Kremlin you want your warhead to detonate above.

      Warships are not the best target for nuclear weapons as they are fairly robust and able to withstand weapon effects better than ground forces. On the open ocean they can operate in a dispersed manner that prevents a nuke from destroying more than a single ship. However amphibious operations require a fleet in close proximity and landing craft are far more susceptible to blast/overpressure. Its the best time to use tactical nuclear weapons on an enemy naval force (other than being at anchor)

      There is no such thing as 'tactical nuclear weapons' moron. Even the US has said this. There are low yield nuclear weapons. How you use them defines if they're tactical or not. If I drop a 0.5mt nuke on a capital city (I bet you spell capital city 'capitol' like the moron you are) then I have not used a tactical nuke just because it is small. Conversely, if I drop a 50mt nuke on an aircraft carrier, I have used it tactically, regardless of the size. Do you understand now? There is no such thing as tactical nukes. There are low yield nukes which may be more suited for tactical use, but that does not make them 'tactical nukes' until they are used to affect a tactical situation.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The Bongs developed an unsinkable aircraft carrier in WW2
        Project Habakkuk was never more than a thought experiment. Not only was it unnecessary and hideously expensive, it was impossible to repair so actually quite sinkable.
        The interesting conclusion it came to however was that there is no effective size limit to carriers as far as air ops is concerned; the bigger the better.

        >How you use them defines if they're tactical or not
        It's understood that tactical doesn't mean low yield, isn't it?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's understood that tactical doesn't mean low yield, isn't it?
          Not by people on /k/. I've seen loads of people discuss 'dropping a tactical nuke on Kiev' or some other city. They think tactical nuke = low yield.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no such thing as 'tactical nuclear weapons' moron.

        You are wrong.

        >Even the US has said this. There are low yield nuclear weapons.

        Ok, Why don't you provide a source or citation or any proof at all that this is the prevailing view of US nuclear strategists or even an official policy of the US government.

        >How you use them defines if they're tactical or not.

        Incorrect. Capability should be taken into account. A 750kt MIRV delivered by an SS-18 and a 1.kt W79 Mod 0 delivered by an artillery have clear differentials in design and capabilities.

        >If I drop a 0.5mt nuke on a capital city (I bet you spell capital city 'capitol' like the moron you are) then I have not used a tactical nuke just because it is small.

        0.5Mt is 500kt, 500kt is most definitely not "small"

        I'm glad you understand spelling and grammar as it is evident that of your many, many failings, your ignorance of basic math has perhaps held you back the most.

        >Conversely, if I drop a 50mt nuke on an aircraft carrier, I have used it tactically, regardless of the size.

        A B-52 can be used to conduct CAS, that does not make it a tactical bomber. A bullet can be used in a strategic manner, that does not make a bullet a strategic weapon.

        >Do you understand now? There is no such thing as tactical nukes. There are low yield nukes which may be more suited for tactical use, but that does not make them 'tactical nukes' until they are used to affect a tactical situation.

        I understand why your biological father would be disappointed in you, had he raised you.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are nukes useless?
    no, they mean your opponent cannot use nukes either, even on a tactical level in a regional conflict

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      when you have conventional overmatch, you don't put nukes on the table.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ill draw your attention to Ukraine and await your response

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its just a taboo implemented by decades of fear mongering. All it takes to open the flood gates is one despot who really does not give a shit using it against some local opponent of his that does not have the big, scary bomb

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hmmm, a PLA expert said it huh? I'm begin to NOOOOTICE that you're a chink shill!!

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >year 2 of China Special Naval Operation
    >le epic naval engagements now consists of men in rowboats using slingshots to hurl angery crabs at each other

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear escalation will be the beginning of the end.
    Once the gloves are off, there's no putting them back on again. It will get worse before it gets worse.
    Thankfully the current world leaders still realize this. For now, at least

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If the Russian blitzkrieg had worked in Ukraine in 2022 there's a pretty good chance monke would be planning to invade the Baltics and we'd have nuclear escalation that'd make Tom Clancy proud

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you can sink 10 ships with one nuclear weapon
    That wasn't even possible under comically ideal conditions

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh crossroads
      nukes used then are hilariously puny compared to modern nukes

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >nukes used then are hilariously puny compared to modern nukes

        Crossroads yield: 22-23 kt
        B61 Mod12 Yield: 0.3 up to 50 kt (Variable)

        Tactical nuclear weapons are going to be less than 100 kt, most will be in the 5 kt to 30 kt range. The trend in nuclear weapons since the 1960s has been towards smaller, more precise weapons. Big yields simply aren't needed anymore when you can pick which parking space at the Kremlin you want your warhead to detonate above.

        Warships are not the best target for nuclear weapons as they are fairly robust and able to withstand weapon effects better than ground forces. On the open ocean they can operate in a dispersed manner that prevents a nuke from destroying more than a single ship. However amphibious operations require a fleet in close proximity and landing craft are far more susceptible to blast/overpressure. Its the best time to use tactical nuclear weapons on an enemy naval force (other than being at anchor)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >B61 Mod12 Yield: 0.3 up to 50 kt (Variable)
          50KT is still a lot
          Crossroads wiped out Arkansas, Saratoga and Nagato
          >Tactical nuclear weapons are going to be less than 100 kt
          in the sense that most tac nukes right now are going to be B61-M12s cores stuffed into any missile that can carry them, yes
          however, the French ASMP is much higher yield, and there is the possibility of high-yield "strategic" nukes being used on tactical targets instead

          >Warships are not the best target for nuclear weapons as they are fairly robust
          warships in the open ocean however offer an attractively collateral-free environment, and the ocean helps dilute radiation very very fast

          >amphibious operations require a fleet in close proximity and landing craft are far more susceptible to blast/overpressure. Its the best time to use tactical nuclear weapons on an enemy naval force
          possibly

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/FoaRJ7n.png

          >B61 Mod12 Yield: 0.3 up to 50 kt (Variable)
          50KT is still a lot
          Crossroads wiped out Arkansas, Saratoga and Nagato
          >Tactical nuclear weapons are going to be less than 100 kt
          in the sense that most tac nukes right now are going to be B61-M12s cores stuffed into any missile that can carry them, yes
          however, the French ASMP is much higher yield, and there is the possibility of high-yield "strategic" nukes being used on tactical targets instead

          >Warships are not the best target for nuclear weapons as they are fairly robust
          warships in the open ocean however offer an attractively collateral-free environment, and the ocean helps dilute radiation very very fast

          >amphibious operations require a fleet in close proximity and landing craft are far more susceptible to blast/overpressure. Its the best time to use tactical nuclear weapons on an enemy naval force
          possibly

          Most of the ships at Crossroads slowly sank over the course of hours because the hulls were too irradiated for anyone to perform damage control on them though. Considering that it could take days before radiation poisoning symptoms to appear, the crew could still shoot back for a bit as dead men walking and have nothing left to lose or sail back to port and get replaced by fresh crew after the hulls are thoroughly decontaminated

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes serve different purposes for different countries. For the U.S. it’s enforcing a concept of assured destruction against anyone else who wants to use nukes. When the USSR around the concept was MAD. Now though all countries outside of the U.S. want nukes to keep the U.S. from regime-changing them. Successive U.S. administrations have trained the world’s peasant fiefdoms / mineral oligarchies that nukes means the U.S. won’t attack you, so therefore nukes have become a top priority to acquire. For example, Iran and North Korea fully understands that they’ll never win in a nuclear war with the U.S. They obviously know that they stand no chance whatsoever and will just be destroyed, and they’ll never ever be any kind of peer in a nuclear sense. The point of acquiring nukes isn’t to get into a nuclear exchange with the U.S., the point is that they want to leverage the US’s strong fear of being harmed by nuclear weapons in order to deter the U.S. from beating them up.

    Think of it this way: you’re a skinny midget holding up a knife to a 6’6" heavyweight boxer. You know that you can’t win against the boxer, knife or no knife. You might be able to cut him, but you WILL die. Still, you threaten him with your knife and he backs off from you apparently really scared of being cut. The knife has given you some power in the confrontation — not because the knife has substantially equalized you two, not because of any intrinsic quality in the knife, but because of only one thing: the other guy has placed power into it. In other words the huge boxer is a coward. That’s literally the dynamic. Since the giant street boss has made his fear of knives well-known, all the scrawny punks make it a top priority to get one. That’s what’s going on.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is there any downsides to every countries to develop their own nukes? Beside increasing the odds of a third world war of course.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Very expensive to develop and maintain, very likely to get you economically sanctioned if you do it now and possibly liberated into the stone age, testing them would cause a whole diplomatic shitstorm of its own, and you can't ever actually use them without being wiped out in response. Only makes sense for isolated dictators, or European countries near Russia if the US decides to go isolationist again. Even countries genuinely threatened by invasion mostly won't want to because it takes a decade and becomes an excuse for the invasion.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Massively increased risk of one going missing and then nuclear terrorism. Part of the reason the US doesn't want to see Russia collapse into a bunch of Baltic warring states is because ensuring that Ivan the local base commander doesn't use a nuke against Boris to secure his rule and that he doesn't sell one to Achmed is a massive undertaking given the size of the Russian arsenal. Now imagine if every podunk country had nukes and the CIA had to keep an eye on every single one of them.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          for that you have a very simple program: financial aid (and backing) in exchange for nook ooks. Plenty of motivation for the new vatnik fiefdoms. As for nooks going astray so what. A handful of them went walking when the vatnik union imploded and turns out they dont last very long, need arming codes and US is actually hard to reach without huge ICBM missile carriers as the warheads smuggled in on containers via ship will be detected by ports radiation sensor networks. Which are at all major international cargo ports going in and out of the US

          burgers dont want vatniks to implode for the same reason bush senior appealed to the ukranian parliament in the 90s NOT to dissolve the vatnik union or why the interfered and saved the vantik asses from the germans in ww2 or bailed them out financially in the 90s. Fear of the uncertainty mixed with this very weird underlying simp complex they have for vatniks

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this very weird underlying simp complex they have for vatniks
            I think it's more of a "i can fix him" kind of mentality. We look at Russia and we see a lot of wasted potential. Lots of natural resources, large population (though that's dwindled considerably over the years), fairly important geopolitical position. We keep thinking "damn, if we managed to fix their shit, imagine what an amazing ally they would be." So when the time comes that they're in a tight-bind, even when it's completely deserved, we treat them with kid-gloves in the hopes that maybe this time they'll accept the help and stop acting like subhumans. Of course, this never helps, as the only way to get them stop is to completely defeat them, then radically restructure their entire political culture, an option which involves a lot of risk, costs, and uncertain rewards.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Our Greatest Ally Israel might have to behave civilized towards its neighbours and that would literally be another fricking shoah you stupid goy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Is there any downsides to every countries to develop their own nukes?
        Increased chance of someone somewhere actually using one, the most likely outcome of which would be a loosening of the nuclear taboo
        And, from the POV of the established nuclear powers, their reduced ability to basically bully non-nuclear powers

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You need really high IQ people to acquire one and the economy and national balls to withstand assassinations, sabotage and temporary pariah status. Expect to lose at least half of your scientists, engineers, politicians and even generals since these people will be bribed if not killed. This is what India, Pakistan, China, South Africa, Iran and North Korea have experienced. Israel stole nukes from America in the late 50s and reverse engineered them and were able to scare Nixon into pressuring him to give them arms while they were at war.

        If you've weathered all of that there's nothing the other nuclear powers can do but just come to the table and accept that you won't be pushed around. They'll still sanction your country but only for a time especially if you've built nukes for defensive posturing and don't go full monke threatening to nook your neighbors.

        Americans will try to infiltrate your technology with safety nuke tech but only insane countries or their allies will do this.

        Designing a nuclear weapon is something a bunch of university students and professors can do, it's been known for decades in its most primitive form. Good luck gathering material (most of them are in Africa, Central Asia, China and Russia) and the know how to deliver your nuke (rocket technology).

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't this the exact opposite argument that has been used for China against the US for YEARS?

    >China doesn't have ships but they could nuke our navy in one fell swoop

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >what worries me is we might not win

    lmao chinkoids mad they can't just zerg rush

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If you cannot match China ship for ship
    Are they still holding onto this cope as if half their fleet isn't sub-3000t patrol boats.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      nice creative accounting bro. Just like your GDP

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >1,000,000,000,000 yuan=1 USD
        >this means china's money is better somehow

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it's more like 10 tho at least pick a true meme currency like vietnamese dong or whatever

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yes. The overinflated fake chinese GDP

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone since 1945 has thought it wasn't worth breaking the nuclear taboo.

    Main reason is that a few tactical nukes aren't an easy 'I win the war' button in most circumstances. You need to be fighting an enemy that has some big, hard, targets that are too difficult to just bomb conventionally and aren't next to too many civilians. These targets need to be so critical that taking them out is decisive to the war and worth the international response.
    If there aren't such targets then the "I win" button has to be using shitload of nukes to nuke the enemy out of every trenchline. And then you're irradiating your own soldiers, ruining the country you're trying to take over, and attracting a bigger international response.

    A peer naval battle is a circumstance where a few nukes could be instantly decisive. But peers with nukes don't get into fights and launch nukes at each other because of MAD.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >nukes to defend a nation to govern itself
    its legit, USA would fricking nuke chinese attackers with no civvy casualties mid-ocean

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's adorable that the "PLA expert" thinks we have to match them ship for ship or use nukes, they've fought no one in their 75 year existence, they're still a green water navy, The second largest blue water navy in the world (after the USN) is Japan and they punch well above their weight. I don't think nukes will need to even be considered.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I think it's adorable that the "PLA expert" thinks we have to match them ship for ship
      that's what he's insinuating:
      >we can overpower the US with our conventional navy, prease berieve
      >therefore they can only use nukes against us
      >therefore we will have to use nukes against them
      >therefore we are using nukes only in self-defence
      learn to think like a vatnik; the chinks learned from them

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >learn to think like a vatnik; the chinks learned from them
        Hmmm, i didn't consider this
        >our sphere of influence is slipping away from us, therefore invading Ukraine is a defensive measure to protect us and what is ours
        >if we were Amelican pigdogs, we would use nukes, therefore us using nukes first is justified

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          by George she's got it!

          [...]
          Most of the ships at Crossroads slowly sank over the course of hours because the hulls were too irradiated for anyone to perform damage control on them though. Considering that it could take days before radiation poisoning symptoms to appear, the crew could still shoot back for a bit as dead men walking and have nothing left to lose or sail back to port and get replaced by fresh crew after the hulls are thoroughly decontaminated

          The ones in a roughly 500yd radius were slammed by the blast above, slammed by the blast of the wave, capsized, AND irradiated

          the success of Crossroads probably greenlighted the deployment of nuclear anti-ship ordnance.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the success of Crossroads probably greenlighted the deployment of nuclear anti-ship ordnance.
            But the tests also showed that nuclear weapons were not effective at destroying entire fleets, even one clustered in a shallow lagoon

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              *kT-yield atomic weapons
              Ships are not standing up to MT-yield thermonuclear weapons.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >the tests also showed that nuclear weapons were not effective at destroying entire fleets
              I didn't claim that though

              the test showed that nukes were effective at destroying large capital ships caught in a wide area of effect

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it cannot bring enough bullets to the fight
    Instead the Americans will just produce LRASMs to tear the china navy's butthole inside out.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Major powers use to go to war with each other all the time, since getting the bomb no major powers have been in direct war with each other.
    They are a deterrent that can never be used.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If Russia didn't have nukes, we'd already be sending ground forces to fight them in Ukraine, and if Ukraine did had nukes, Russia never would have invaded in the first place. Nukes are far from useless.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you can sink 10 ships with 1 nuke
    fricking how O_O

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fishing boats aren't radiation hardened

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The bigger question is why the frick do countries bother with the geopolitics of maintaining nuclear weapons for national security when heavy fortifications are arguably as effective for a fraction of the political fallout? Anyone who believes it's possible for aircraft carriers and their support craft to defend themselves from modern threats also should realize all the tech used to that end works even better in static fortifications because they have no weight and space limitations.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's impossible to dig far down enough, and pour enough concrete, to withstand a bunker buster nuke
      not even Cheyenne Mountain is expected to withstand multiple 500KT nukes

      in nuclear warfare as well as modern warfare, dispersion and concealment is the only way to survive

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So a modern heavy fortifications can only be defeated with nuclear bunker busters and somehow that's supposed to be a bad thing?
        Furthermore you're ignoring all the detail that actually goes into striking heavy fortifications that are more sophisticated than obscure holes in the ground.

        >heavy fortifications
        >effective
        We're reaching levels of moronation previously thought to be impossible.
        >hurr durr they'd just be better aircraft carriers
        What is power projection?

        How the frick is a landlocked country going to use aircraft carriers to project power?
        Why the frick can't a fortification be used to project power at a local level freeing up mobile systems to project power abroad?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you're ignoring all the detail that actually goes into striking heavy fortifications
          >t. ignoring all the detail that actually goes into striking a mobile carrier group sailing around the huge fricking ocean

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A carrier group's defenses DOES NOT hinge entirely on not being located, Furthermore it has to be located somewhere within a given area it intended to influence.

            >Why the frick can't a fortification be used to project power at a local level
            >fortification
            >project power
            9/10 if bait, otherwise I implore you to get a tard wrangler.

            The real bait is trying to argue that power projection isn't a multi-level thing.

            >dig deep hole
            >put a big oll slab or reinforced concrete over it
            >they can't get to us in here
            >they blow up the entrance
            >they blow up the power station feeding into your super duper fort
            >they hit the missile silo
            congrats you are now stuck in a bunker 30+ meters underground with no way to get out and running on emergency power (for how long it lasts)
            a fort is only as strong as it's weakest point and if you want to be able to do anything from under you pile of concrete you are going to need to have some weak points

            You call that a fricking "super duper fort"?
            >Where is the armament?
            >Where are the active defenses?
            >Where are the ECM systems?
            >Where is the nuclear powerplant?
            >Where is it geographically located?
            >Where are the decoys and camouflage?
            >Where is the rest of your mobile assets?
            >Where the frick is your imagination?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              is the armamens
              those are weak points that the enemy can exploit to destroy your bunker
              >Where are the active defenses?
              a good question, probably not directly around the big ol hole you build a "please bomb me" sign over
              >Where are the ECM systems?
              those don't work trough meters of concrete/soil/steel ect. Those would be the first hit and ECM won't do shit to a lot of the weapon systems used to get at your fort
              >Where is the nuclear powerplant?
              yes, build a nuclear power plant in a military target on your own soil. Those things also take a frick ton of cooling to operate if you don't want to just turn your fort in to a big ass easy bake. So that's one more weak point to strike, cut of the water flow and they have to power down/bake themselves
              >Where is it geographically located?
              under your parents bed, between me banging your mom and your dad just sitting there
              >Where are the decoys and camouflage?
              yes, the cheap and easy to make decoy 30 meter + deep pits you dug and filled with concrete then surrounded with all the AA and ECM you have to make it look real.
              The decoy they poke once to establish it's a decoy and since you can't really move once they've poked the others it's your turn.
              Also
              >digging and building a super duper fort
              >not being seen
              >in the age of social media everything and constant satellite surveillance.
              > Where is the rest of your mobile assets?
              no budget left after building your duper super forts, getting it all those now fixed in place defenses, the decoys, the nuclear powerplant, ect. ect.
              >Where the frick is your imagination?
              of course why didn't I think about it. We give the local wizard a free tower right above your super duper fort so he will magic away all the incoming bunker busters

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >those are weak points that the enemy can exploit to destroy your bunker
                How the frick is a remotely operated weapon system a weakpoint to a bunker system it's not even connected to?
                >a good question, probably not directly around the big ol hole you build a "please bomb me" sign over
                Why not? Why would the "hole" need to be big in the first place if it has no armament or active defenses of its own?
                >those don't work trough meters of concrete/soil/steel ect.
                Who the frick would think to put their ECM systems in inside a fortification if they didn't have a way to bring it to the surface?
                >Those would be the first hit and ECM won't do shit to a lot of the weapon systems used to get at your fort
                ECM isn't to be used in isolation and even if it didn't effect the weapons used on the fort that doesn't mean the weapons it does effect don't matter.
                >yes, build a nuclear power plant in a military target on your own soil. Those things also take a frick ton of cooling to operate if you don't want to just turn your fort in to a big ass easy bake. So that's one more weak point to strike, cut of the water flow and they have to power down/bake themselves
                First there are many types of nuclear reactors with different operating parameters and second really small reactors are actually what would be used.
                You have all the space/weight to protect the reactor and separate it from the rest of the fort so even if it could be exactly pinpointed you would still be better off attacking the rest of the fort.
                >under your parents bed, between me banging your mom and your dad just sitting there
                Oh now I get what your problem is, Your pillowfort failed to shield you from prostitute of a mother.
                >yes, the cheap and easy to make decoy 30 meter + deep pits you dug and filled with concrete then surrounded with all the AA and ECM you have to make it look real.
                Your mother might need a 30+ meter hole in the ground to be within regulatory limits for burying toxic waste but a fort doesn't need to be.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >A carrier group's defenses DOES NOT hinge entirely on not being located
              yep
              compared to Cheyenne Mountain, it gives up durability for mobility and concealment
              and it's the better tradeoff

              hence why also TACAMO

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think it's reasonable to think of Cheyenne Mountain as a fort when it's just a hardened command center deep in friendly territory.
                The Safeguard Complex would be a better point of reference for the capabilites of a fortification designed specifically for nuclear war.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Why the frick can't a fortification be used to project power at a local level
          >fortification
          >project power
          9/10 if bait, otherwise I implore you to get a tard wrangler.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >dig deep hole
          >put a big oll slab or reinforced concrete over it
          >they can't get to us in here
          >they blow up the entrance
          >they blow up the power station feeding into your super duper fort
          >they hit the missile silo
          congrats you are now stuck in a bunker 30+ meters underground with no way to get out and running on emergency power (for how long it lasts)
          a fort is only as strong as it's weakest point and if you want to be able to do anything from under you pile of concrete you are going to need to have some weak points

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >heavy fortifications
      >effective
      We're reaching levels of moronation previously thought to be impossible.
      >hurr durr they'd just be better aircraft carriers
      What is power projection?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The picture showing NYC getting nuked seems to answer your own question.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The existence of this building in NYC suggests flattening everything with nuclear weapons isn't a straight forward endeavor.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Paint it black and it'd look like something the Harkonnen would have made.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Using nukes on Chinese ships
    May be a bit excessive, given the quality of almost anything produced in China, you likely wouldn't need to match them ship for ship.
    It'd almost be a waste when there's actual land targets that would be commanding and coordinating those ships that could end up being far juicier targets, as China favors a very top-down approach to command.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the US isn’t commission a gorillion fishing vessels to use as naval warships, ergo they are gonna NOOK us
    Literal insects incapable of logical thinking or introspection

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this scares the mutts

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not really.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that's because you are not smart enough to understand what you are looking at. The Pentagon shat bricks

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Again, no, not really.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The Pentagon shat bricks
          May we see them?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      implessive

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      implessive

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Catch up insectoid.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Doris Miller
        Prickles me.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Doris Miller
          You should read up on him.
          He was a gigga homie I would've been proud to serve with.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But that's a woman's name

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      cool now make like 20 more

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bug race or not, it's because we're genuinely concerned for fellow aviators safety being launched off a cracked deck.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    #realtalk, I actually want a nuclear war to happen just so we can put these hypothetical fantasy threads finally to rest.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >cannot match china ship for ship
    >more carriers than the rest of the world combined
    What did he mean by this?

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    First, I need to know who this "PLA expert" is.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *