Why don't we develop countermeasures to nukes? Like how about we devote resources to making nuclear armaments obsolete and rid humanity of that threat?
All the infrastructure modern civilization relies upon is in those cities. If the cities die, they take all of civilization and 99%+ of the rural population with them.
Not really, 'civilization' as we know it will die. Food is localized enough so that millions may live. But it would be very feudal again as complex logistics systems no longer exist and those that do exist are busy with food, water and medicine. It would be the collective dumbing down of civilization. A new dark age.
The urbanites WILL come for your potatoes. Hope you know a local wannabe-warlord who can set up a feudal system for your protection, or else you're doomed.
Yes, I will come, trading my skills as a welder for a salary of potatoes. I'm no savage
1 month ago
Anonymous
>giving work to an outsider
You're getting enslaved at best.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>trading my skills as a welder
that shit is so far up the supply chain that you might as well be tuning data for the next big LLM. the days of cheap electricity and fuel would be long gone. and even if you had them, you'd have to somehow machine your own replacement parts after every single home depot and lowes gets immediately looted
>Hope you know a local wannabe-warlord
i am that wannabe-warlord. Don't worry though urban-bros, i'll share the potatoes with you so long as you behave.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>i'll share the potatoes with you so long as you behave
I'll happily exchange potatoes for building remote-control turrets and other (more useful) automation for the farm. Ideally it'll be like a commune where, instead of sharing the means of production, we share the means of distruction
The urbanites WILL come for your potatoes. Hope you know a local wannabe-warlord who can set up a feudal system for your protection, or else you're doomed.
what industrial operations do you believe operate in cities?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Do US zoning laws really not allow industry in cities?
1 month ago
Anonymous
they are *zones* of cities, so no your house isn't next to a factory generally. anything very hazardous is outside the city. are you chinese? but also the anon you replied to is a retard, as if nuclear bombing of industries wouldn't affect cities
>big cities
RETARD. IN A NUCLEAR EXCHANGE YOU DO NOT DROP BOMBS ON CITIES TO KILL THE POPULATION. YOU DROP NUKES ON YOUR OPPONENTS ABILITY TO DEPLOY NUKES OR TO RESPOND TO YOU DROPPING NUKES. THIS MEANS MISSILE SILOS, AIR BASES, MILITARY PORTS, COMMAND AND CONTROL CENTRES, RESPONSE FACILITIES. ANY CITY THAT GETS NUKED IN A NUCLEAR EXCHANGE GOT NUKED BECAUSE SOMETHING IMPORTANT WAS THERE LIKE FUCKING A GOVERNMENT FACILITY OR WHATEVER.
cities are government, infrastructure, and economical targets. I have Indy, Louisville, and Cincinnati near me and Indy is the only government target, Louisville and Cincy are economical targets.
You do nuke cities, as a policy deterrent against first strikes if you're unsure of your ability to decapitate the opposing force in one blow, to cripple the enemies industrial production capacities to make more nukes and delivery methods, if you're russian you'd do it because of a cultural preference for terror bombing over efficacy/ sadism, and if you're chinese because you simply have a disregard for life in general doubling up on the other, more valid reasons.
Why shouldn't you aim to kill people working in war industry?
All the infrastructure modern civilization relies upon is in those cities. If the cities die, they take all of civilization and 99%+ of the rural population with them.
Most of that infrastructure is for producing things you don't actually need like dildos and mouthwash. It will reduce the rural population to the middle ages but it won't kill them, in fact it will be a while before they run out of mouthwash due to the sudden drop in demand.
The same supply chain is used for making fertilizer and ammunition. You have to be delusional to believe that farms can sustain the same production efficiency without cities.
only in a first strike, in retaliation you're just trying to hurt your enemy as much as possible. no point in targeting silos etc as they're now empty.
>Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.
um, bros... was DeGaulle actually based this whole time???
>The air-sol moyenne portée (ASMP; "medium-range air to surface missile") is a French nuclear air-launched cruise missile manufactured by MBDA France. >In French nuclear doctrine, it is referred to as a "pre-strategic" weapon, the last-resort "warning shot" prior to a full-scale employment of strategic nuclear weapons launched from the Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines. >warning shot >motherfucking NUCLEAR warning shot
wtf i love frogs now
>not killing the enemy's entire source of value
there are no civilians in modern war, and for good reason. behind every soldier stands 10 workers. remove the workers and the enemy force quickly grinds to a halt
What about speculative targets? >we don't know if they have relevant facilities there but they might so we'll send one just in case
What's to stop us from hiding important things in, under, and around population centers?
Which is why all our silos are above ground. Got it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>in, under, and around population centers
Name one (1) silo that's "in, under or around" a major population centre, retard
1 month ago
Anonymous
That was an example of underground assets and not the point. What is preventing military targets from existing in and around population centers?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>What is preventing military targets from existing in and around population centers?
Other than security concerns, the Geneva Convention.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I havent found anything in the Geneva convention that has any relevance.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Civilians are protected by the Geneva Convention >If you hide military installations in population centres, they become legitimate targets >You don't want that to happen
/tl;dr
>he doesn't know about cobalt bombs >he doesn't know about GNOMON >he doesn't know about SUNDIAL >he doesn't know that it's trivial for a government to build a world-ending nuclear bomb that explodes with the force of an asteroid, ejecting radioactive debris into orbit and raining toxic ash for days that remains dangerous for decades, until all life on earth has perished
baaaka
Because defense plays catch up to weapons, you can't defend against an unknown threat, and you can always use a technique that counters the construction of a defense, as a weapon
>counter measures to nukes >rid humanity of that threat
My dude, that's the opposite of how it works. The ABM treaty is (was?) a thing because mutually assured destruction only works if it's mutually assured. If you can intercept all (or enough) ICBMs coming at you, nuclear war stops being a lose-lose and becomes a viable military strategy. It wouldn't "rid humanity of that threat", it would only make that threat inevitable.
>it would only make that threat inevitable.
to be fair, it's pretty inevitable regardless. the hydrogen bomb (or the icbm for that matter) is the only weapon proven effective that hasn't been used in anger. in the history of humanity. it's a miracle it hasn't happened yet.
>to be fair, it's pretty inevitable regardless
I highly doubt that. MAD means that there's no gain to using a nuclear weapon, it's an inevitable lose-lose scenario for all parties involved (and also those not involved). > the hydrogen bomb (or the icbm for that matter) is the only weapon proven effective that hasn't been used in anger. in the history of humanity.
True, but that's because the cost of using it is far greater than any gain it would have. It's a weapon designed to not be used, as it's most effective when threatened to be used and loses it's deterrent value when actually used. > it's a miracle it hasn't happened yet.
Nah, it hasn't happened yet by design, and never will, for the same reason.
>you have more faith in human nature than i do.
I really don't. I have faith in maths, namely game theory. Any rational actor will do what they think is best for themselves, which usually does not include suicide by nuclear exchange. >you're not accounting for irrationality.
Somewhat true, but whoever orders the launch is not the one who launches, nor the one who conveys the order to launch to those who actually do so. If you know you're going to die (and destroy the world as we know it) if you follow through with the given order, you have an incredible incentive to stop the relay of such order.
Imagine a scenario where Putin orders a nuclear strike and you're the guy supposed to put things in motion. You have two options: relay the order and die (along with all your loved ones) or unholster your pistol and have a chance of stopping the MADness. Any rational actor down the chain that has the ability to (completely) stop any launch will choose the second option, so unless all the people in the chain above the point where it branches out are irrational, the chain breaks.
Of course, the incentive to stop the order decreases when your death is not assured (just highly likely) as may be the case of a single "warning shot". And that's why there's a doctrine of "the response to any nuclear strike is massive retaliation".
1 month ago
Anonymous
That's why the guys in the launch control centers are isolated and do dummy drills turning the keys and entering codes at semi-random intervals, any one of those times it could be real and they'd never know until it was too late. In your hypothetical the individuals in question would weigh being vaporised, or being raped, beaten, their families killed, and then killed themselves, possibly slowly. If you think the eastern/ post communist bloc aren't irrational/ evil, I submit the entire RFAF's conduct in Ukraine as evidence.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>That's why the guys in the launch control centers are isolated and do dummy drills turning the keys and entering codes at semi-random intervals, any one of those times it could be real and they'd never know until it was too late. In your hypothetical the individuals in question would weigh being vaporised, or being raped, beaten, their families killed, and then killed themselves, possibly slowly.
That's why I was talking about people above the point where the chain branches out. If you're in a launch control centre and receive the order, not launching does not prevent you from getting vaporised, as others may launch even if you don't and a single launch is enough to make your vaporisation inevitable. >If you think the eastern/ post communist bloc aren't irrational/ evil, I submit the entire RFAF's conduct in Ukraine as evidence.
Evil? Sure. Irrational? Eh, not really. They may be incredibly retarded, but the atrocities they commit are, in their minds, the best way to get what they want. They think savage violence works, because it has always worked in their shithole and they can't fathom other places being different. Just think about their "Master/Puppet" duality, where they just do not understand that countries can be allied towards common goals without one being subjugated by the other.
1 month ago
Anonymous
right, the fact that the savage violence works for them is what would ensure political lackeys kowtow and relay direct orders to launch.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>To avoid dying, I will kill myself
I somehow doubt it would work in that case
1 month ago
Anonymous
>To avoid dying, I will kill myself
A succinct description of mobik mentality.
1 month ago
Anonymous
if putin decides to ragequit, there's nothing stopping him from removing all checks and balances over time, like he did politically. the man is the pharaoh of a nuclear triad state.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>if putin decides to ragequit, there's nothing stopping him from removing all checks and balances over time, like he did politically. the man is the pharaoh of a nuclear triad state.
Unless he calls up the launch control centres himself to give them the codes, there's always going to be middlemen. Those middlemen are weak links in the chain if he decides to sudoku via nuke. Unless they also want to embrace the cleansing properties of nuclear fire, they have a functionally infinite incentive to stop the nuclear exchange from ever happening. When Putin gets rid of his political opponents, you have an incentive to stay loyal for two reasons: the money you can grift while being in office (the carrot) and avoiding tragically falling out of a window (the stick). When he orders a nuclear strike, you don't have an incentive to stay loyal as the carrot won't be there and the stick is inevitable. Meanwhile, disobeying his orders has a non-zero chance of getting the carrot while a (perhaps just slightly) lower chance of getting the stick.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's weird how so many people have convinced themself that Putin is some diabolical madman that could launch nukes for [INSERT PRACTICALLY ANY REASON HERE] at any time and still find a lot of people that will go along with it. It's up there with Putin is about to die or Putin is about fall victim of a coup. Just wild, baseless speculation.
1 month ago
Anonymous
A whole country can descend into shared irrationality pretty quickly though - WWII era Japan for example. They basically became a death cult.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah, that's fair, but I just can't see that happening in the 21st century.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Not in most of the western world any time soon, but I think its something that could happen easier than you think. Granted, most susceptible countries/cultural regions don't have the industrial capacity at the moment to pose much of a cross-continental threat.
1 month ago
Anonymous
to be fair, it really started with the meiji overhauls of the education system and took generations and a specific kind of political dysfunction to manifest
You're assuming that those with access to nukes will always be rational actors. Lord knows there are and will be plenty of insane retards who would go for the ultimate murder-suicide if given the opportunity.
This once Muslims obtain a nuclear tirad it's over.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>muslims don’t have nuclear triad yet… >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Delivery_systems
Yes sorry to say but a Muslim nation indeed have a nuclear triad it’s joeover.
A nuclear war is going happen eventually. Modern humans have existed for 300000 yrs, nukes have existed for just over 80yrs. And you think because in that sliver of time a nuclear war hasn't happened one will never happen. Ridiculous. Nuclear bombs will outlive the all the countries that currently exist.
You don't start a war if you know you can't win it, and everybody knows that in a nuclear war you can only lose a bit less than the other side.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Oh you know, except all those wars throughout history that were started by nations with no chance of winning
1 month ago
Anonymous
There's a difference between starting a war you can't win but where you think you can (e.g. Russia in Ukraine) and starting a war that you know beforehand you can't win.
1 month ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/amDfD93.jpg
>That's why the guys in the launch control centers are isolated and do dummy drills turning the keys and entering codes at semi-random intervals, any one of those times it could be real and they'd never know until it was too late. In your hypothetical the individuals in question would weigh being vaporised, or being raped, beaten, their families killed, and then killed themselves, possibly slowly.
That's why I was talking about people above the point where the chain branches out. If you're in a launch control centre and receive the order, not launching does not prevent you from getting vaporised, as others may launch even if you don't and a single launch is enough to make your vaporisation inevitable. >If you think the eastern/ post communist bloc aren't irrational/ evil, I submit the entire RFAF's conduct in Ukraine as evidence.
Evil? Sure. Irrational? Eh, not really. They may be incredibly retarded, but the atrocities they commit are, in their minds, the best way to get what they want. They think savage violence works, because it has always worked in their shithole and they can't fathom other places being different. Just think about their "Master/Puppet" duality, where they just do not understand that countries can be allied towards common goals without one being subjugated by the other.
Please tell me that if someone nooks we will get more absolutely KINO footage like this to enjoy
>the cost of using it is far greater than any gain it would have.
True.
>It's a weapon designed to not be used,
True.
>and loses it's deterrent value when actually used.
The genie being out of the bottle just means that nuclear weapons trade some strategic value for tactical value; "surrender or we'll fucking do it again" is a pretty strong deterrent, as the Japanese will be happy to tell you.
>The genie being out of the bottle just means that nuclear weapons trade some strategic value for tactical value; "surrender or we'll fucking do it again" is a pretty strong deterrent, as the Japanese will be happy to tell you.
If both sides have nuclear weapons, "surrender of we'll fucking do it again" doesn't really work. Once the genie is out of the bottle, and you're up against a nuclear power, the only thing that happens is MAD. In that case, nuclear weapons lose their deterrent value because your best response is massive retaliation, and the same applies to the other side. Saying "we'll drop another one" doesn't really work when you've inflicted 80% casualties and suffered about the same on your side.
Holy fuck all these ignorant replies. The answer is yes we do, we have Satellite detection for ICBMs and interceptor missiles. Lockheed just won a new contract to update the Satellite system and build a better interceptor.
There's a rumor that there already has been weapons developed that basically make nuclear weapons inert. Based on that one Russian dude who was manning radar and detected a nuclear weapons launch and refused to counter-launch, but then the signal disappeared off-screen and it was jotted down as a "glitch".
I Was Listening To Alex Jones One Day™ and he was talking about antimatter bombs that they can't even test because they'd blow up the whole solar system.
>antimatter bombs that they can't even test because they'd blow up the whole solar system.
Aight, let us assume that they have enough to "blow up" Earth, which would require several orders of magnitude less energy than the whole solar system. That would require around 2.24 x 10^32 Joules so 5.35 x 10^16 Megatons of TNT. That's about 20,000,000,000 times the world's nuclear arsenal. 1kg of antimatter has a yield of about 43 Megatons upon annihilation. So, to get enough antimatter to be equivalent to 5.35 x 10^16 Megatons, you would need 4.07 x 10^16 kg of antimatter.
However, you said that it would "blow up" the whole solar system. The binding energy of the Sun is 2.3 x 10^41 Joules, thus requiring 1.28 x 10^24 kg of antimatter to do the deed. So you would need 21% of Earth's mass in antimatter, which can't come in contact with regular matter, to have enough to blow up the Sun. Assuming you could create that much antimatter, where would you store it, considering it's 32 times the mass of the Moon in antimatter and it can't come in contact with regular matter?
Also, as a sidenote, if you have Alex Jones' dealer's number, I'd like some of that shit.
it's called THAAD and they cost something absolutely insane like $100 mil an interceptor. MIRVs and their decoys are designed to defeat it. Would be good enough to stop a few nooks from the northern asiatics though
>Why don't we develop countermeasures to nukes?
Well, well, well, check out the big brain on Brad!
Why didn't anyone think of this sooner????
Holy fuck I bet you have to breathe manually
a nuke is just a type of explosive. the only way to make it obsolete is to make a more effective explosive.
that's like saying you want a countermeasure to gunpowder. it just doesn't make any sense.
this is a technology that can be employed in a variety of ways, it's not a singular device.
nukes will become obsolete when we start throwing black holes at each other.
What does that even mean? Is it a nuclear power gravity chamber from Dragon ball? The Demi Spell from Final Fantasy?
What the fuck is the gravity bomb and what is it supposed to do?
>literally just a B61 with new GPS/INS built in and lower maximum dial yield because of the accuracy >""""""""""""""""""""""""""""new""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
We have a larger 1.2MT gravity bomb in service that Biden wants to retire.
To do that he is going to make a new ~400kt nuke to replace it and augment the existing lower yield gravity bomb nukes (0.3-340kt)
So we'll be going from ~1000 small 0.3-340 kiloton nukes and ~650 large 1.2 megaton nukes to probably ~1000 small 0.3-80 kiloton + ~600-700 small ~400 kiloton nukes.
i've always viewed gravity bombs as an obsolete thing and honestly just a waste of money and not at all a contributor to the triad.
maybe it's a contributor insomuch as it's a simple weapon that can be relied upon to sneak through an enemy line or something or otherwise deliver a weapon when you can't rely upon ICBMs but if you've reached that point things are probably so apocalyptically awful why continue on with a conflict that grim anyway
but i'm not a washington thinktank fag so what do i know
It's the most simple and cost-effective way to increase the total number of available nuclear warheads without investing into the high-end high readiness weapons and infrastructure necessary for a fast-response peer to peer conflict. Besides serving as another armament for the B-2 to utilize the bombs are there so that russia and china don't get uppity when US expends most of the ICBM and SLBM warheads on their strategic targets, leaving the treat to their cities and military installations ever present.
Nuclear bunker busters are also more efficient at destroying deeply burrowed targets than ICBMs so there's likely several B61-11s reserved specifically for the Yamantau mountain complex, for example.
tl;dr: keeping nuclear bombs around is the most efficient way to ensure than you don't run out of nukes before the enemy runs out of targets without spending much on the high-end delivery platforms.
lets use a US vs China scenario >US launches ICBMs >easy to track with sattelites >china has plenty of time to counter attack with all its nukes which saturate american interceptors
vs >gravity bomb on a stealth bomber >US has somehow SEAD/DEAD successfuly >suddenly all your landbased nuclear assets simultaneously get nuked/bombed >your govt bunker gets nuked >intact chinese submarines retaliate nuclear but without saturation most if not all gets intercepted
There's actually a better, more likely 3rd option here. >US launches Tridents from subs at short range that leaves no time for warning or preparing a response. >almost 1000 nuclear warheads simultaneously descend on chink nuclear targets and military facilities
gg no re
Until we get B-21s this isn't really feasible because the 20 B-2s with some 60-70% availability can't carry a fraction of the SLBM warheads on them. Their real value lies in bringing JASSM strikes on targets, allowing a conventional response with an effect of a large-scale nuclear attack.
Reminder to ruralfriends that when the bombs fall you will not become the Lone Wanderer, you will become a short-lived side character from a Cormac Mccarthy novel. Crops and water supplies do not like radiation.
Oh. I thought gravity bombs were going to be something insane like making a black hole or something.
Nope, just turns out it's just bombs they let fall to the ground like in WWII
You gotta feel bad for the yellow slave race. Their tiny nuclear arsenal has stayed the same for half a century. They cannot comprehend how dangerous the white man is. They're too cowardly even for final warnings now. Every US move and every new package of sanctions is met by the dog eaters with verbal shoulds like they're NPCs. They'll go the way of the dodo as all subhumans ultimately must. I think china will likely suffer the fate of Carthage. They'll be destroyed once, forced into devastating terms like Germany and then after the 2nd time they'll be completely wiped out.
If you have enough nukes to hit a major population centre, that's enough of a deterrent (against a democratic-ish country). Having 10x or 100x of that amount would just inflate maintenance costs with no actual benefit. So the 100-ish nukes they have are more than enough.
>to hit a major population centre
Not even Russia can do that anymore even if they fired all of their ICBMs at the same time. The missile shield has rendered rogue states toothless. There is no country safer than USA.
>Not even Russia can do that anymore even if they fired all of their ICBMs at the same time. The missile shield has rendered rogue states toothless.
That's simply not true. However, if you can give me your estimate of how many interceptors the US has and their intercept probability, I'll happily calculate how many warheads you would need to have a 99.9% probability of hitting a major population centre. So then you can see for yourself how bullshit that claim is.
>nukes are more than just ICBMs, retard
Yeah, but if you consider SLBMs as ICBMs (which is not that bold of a statement), then the other non-ICBM nukes require aircraft to deliver them. If an enemy can intercept all your ICBMs (which they obviously can't, see
>Not even Russia can do that anymore even if they fired all of their ICBMs at the same time. The missile shield has rendered rogue states toothless.
That's simply not true. However, if you can give me your estimate of how many interceptors the US has and their intercept probability, I'll happily calculate how many warheads you would need to have a 99.9% probability of hitting a major population centre. So then you can see for yourself how bullshit that claim is.
) then intercepting aircraft-delivered nukes is piss in comparison. So, functionally, nukes are pretty much only ICBMs (or SLBMs).
>if you consider SLBMs as ICBMs (which is not that bold of a statement), then the other non-ICBM nukes require aircraft to deliver them
With INF dead we could bring nuclear tomahawks back like the russians did. >then intercepting aircraft-delivered nukes is piss in comparison
these two tasks are fundamentally different in comparison. ICBMs are visible long before arrival or even on launch if you use satelites but they are going so high and fast you can't effectively counter them without building ICBM-sized interceptors that have a significantly higher failure rate, meanwhile for nukes from stealth aircraft the main issue is detecting and tracking them long enough to intercept, which is highly dependent on your early warning network density and position so for a wide and empty country like russia this becomes a nightmare since they have too much space and not nearly enough money to plug the gaping holes networks designed against non-stealth aircraft leave for stealth aircraft. For a smaller but more densely populated and better funded nations like France or Britain this problem wouldn't be nearly as hard to tackle.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It is still an easier task than intercepting ICBMs. If you find a stealth aircraft with a low-frequency radar, where you know it's somewhere in a 1km radius (which obviously ain't good enough for conventional SAMs to intercept) you always have to option of saturating the area with nuclear-tipped SAMs and either hit the fucker or strip the RAM coating off of it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>It is still an easier task than intercepting ICBMs.
No, it's incomparable. >If you find a stealth aircraft with a low-frequency radar
That's not how it works, at all. Modern stealth aircraft can deflect low frequency radar waves nearly as well as the shorter ones. They wouldn't be nearly as troublesome if you could just guess their general vincinity and send a fighter there to catch them even without dumb ideas like blind-firing nuclear SAMs.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Modern stealth aircraft can deflect low frequency radar waves nearly as well as the shorter ones. >deflect radar waves
So you're saying they're visible by RADAR?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Do you know how stealth works at all, nagger? It deflects radar waves away from the source so it cannot receive them as well. Some are always returned which is why stealth is measured by area. It doesn't make aircraft invisible or undetectable but sharply cuts the detection and tracking range since the radar return is so small.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>It deflects radar waves away from the source so it cannot receive them as well.
Stealth is mainly achieved by attenuating the signal by absorbing (part of) the waves, you nagger. What do you think RAM stands for? Radar Deflecting Material? If you only deflect radar waves away from the source, you can use multiple radars to completely negate stealth, you absolute bufoon.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Stealth is mainly achieved by attenuating the signal by absorbing (part of) the waves
You're a fucking know nothing idiot. Why do you think stealth aircraft is shaped like that, why don't they just apply RAM coatings onto existing airframe? Because the shape is the most important factor for stealth. >If you only deflect radar waves away from the source, you can use multiple radars to completely negate stealth
That's not how radars work you worthless nagger. They can't just pick random radio waves and make out an aircraft from them.
Never post again you worthles illiterate piece of shit.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>dumb ideas like blind-firing nuclear SAMs.
Picrel would like a word
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Loaded
GEE I NEVER WOULD HAVE FUCKING GUESSED
1 month ago
Anonymous
Sprint actually was guided to the vincinity of the warhead, using a megawatt-power control station no less to get through the plasma layer that surrounded the missile going that fast. It also relied on early warning for launch and guidance timing from the whole larger system
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's still firing nukes over your own territory to stop enemy nukes from hitting you
1 month ago
Anonymous
yes, and it was guided to get close to the warhead and detonate in time.
1 month ago
Anonymous
a small yield explosion happening tens of miles above a metropolitan area will spare the infrastructure and most of the people's lives.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>It's still firing nukes over your own territory to stop enemy nukes from hitting you
You're comparing a 2kt ER detonation in the stratosphere to a 600kt airburst.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah, fair enough
1 month ago
Anonymous
>dumb ideas like blind-firing nuclear SAMs
Take that back, it's a brilliant idea.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>low-frequency radar >you know it's somewhere in a 1km radius
iirc its a 40 km radius for the longest bands
then higher frequency bands are directed to where the return is strongest
1 month ago
Anonymous
This image always makes me smile.
The early nuclear age was a wild ride.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Genie missile was designed on the idea that bombers would fly in huge, tightly-packed formations like they did in WWII. So one nuke that would get close would take out a whole formation of bombers. You could spread out your bombers, or change the formation, and the Genie became a lot less effective.
>rural areas will survive mfers when you radioactively salt farmland (a military target) to cripple their operational capability after nuclear war, forever destroying their nation
sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh no cap fr these bakas aint cracked!
You have enough for both, anon. That's the whole point. If you think the breadbaskets and the big trade canals (suez, panama, etc) aren't getting a few nukes to make them inhospital for hundreds of years, you don't understand MAD. The point of MAD isn't to protect yourself, it's to end all life on earth, hence, /mutually/ assured destruction
The countermeasure to stuff like THAAD, by the way, is just Teller's world-ending bomb he proposed to Livermore. That was specifically to counter defense shields. You don't need to worry about hitting or delivering the target when you can just end all life on earth from the comfort of your own backyard.
>You have enough for both, anon.
No you don't. You have never left your shithole city in your life so you cannot comprehend just how vast and endless the farmlands are. >make them inhospital for hundreds of years
You're a delusional turd. >you don't understand MAD >to end all life on earth
Holy shit you're a retarded alarmist homosexual.
All nukes in the world couldn't even wipe out US from the world map.
>the northern hemisphere decide to commit collective sudoku in nuclear war >southerners devolve into a medieval society with scraps of technology >that one Brazilian guy becomes "the oracle keeper" because his autistic grandfather bothered to download early LLAMA version. >entire human population depends on him as the acient knowledge source and spends weeks carefully crafting prompts to extract it from his 2012 Thinkpad at the speed of half a characters per second
If anyone tried using nuclear weapons, the first one(s) would explode high in the stratosphere, EMP'ing the entire North American continent. Chances are REALLY good we wouldn't get news about what happened to cities, our weapons, or the enemy for weeks.
>Nuclear bunker buster
nice
Oh no you didn’t
nice
It’s embarrassing how often I think of that game/song
Indeed
Worms did it first
So a new bomb-case for old W-nook warheads.
When new plutonium pits?
>When new plutonium pits?
probably never. nuclear weapon is a mature tech
next year
https://www.defensedaily.com/thirty-pits-a-year-by-2030-or-sooner-first-pit-in-2024-los-alamos-weapons-chief-says/nuclear-modernization/
Why don't we develop countermeasures to nukes? Like how about we devote resources to making nuclear armaments obsolete and rid humanity of that threat?
You can always build more advanced nukes to penetrate a country’s defenses.
Nuclear War is not a threat to humanity, only for people that live in big cities and close to important military instalations
All the infrastructure modern civilization relies upon is in those cities. If the cities die, they take all of civilization and 99%+ of the rural population with them.
Not really, 'civilization' as we know it will die. Food is localized enough so that millions may live. But it would be very feudal again as complex logistics systems no longer exist and those that do exist are busy with food, water and medicine. It would be the collective dumbing down of civilization. A new dark age.
Sounds like you are not growing enough corn and potatoes, anon.
The urbanites WILL come for your potatoes. Hope you know a local wannabe-warlord who can set up a feudal system for your protection, or else you're doomed.
Yes, I will come, trading my skills as a welder for a salary of potatoes. I'm no savage
>giving work to an outsider
You're getting enslaved at best.
>trading my skills as a welder
that shit is so far up the supply chain that you might as well be tuning data for the next big LLM. the days of cheap electricity and fuel would be long gone. and even if you had them, you'd have to somehow machine your own replacement parts after every single home depot and lowes gets immediately looted
the most understated response here.
>Hope you know a local wannabe-warlord
>Hope you know a local wannabe-warlord
i am that wannabe-warlord. Don't worry though urban-bros, i'll share the potatoes with you so long as you behave.
>i'll share the potatoes with you so long as you behave
I'll happily exchange potatoes for building remote-control turrets and other (more useful) automation for the farm. Ideally it'll be like a commune where, instead of sharing the means of production, we share the means of distruction
Lol. Lmao.
This:
Organization > Isolation. Always.
We don't need you urbanite naggers.
t. Rural Dollar tree employee
Self-sufficiency is hard and even if you achieve it, it sucks ass
We don't need you.
>Oh no, the cityfolk all died! who will develop dating apps and trade mortgage bonds now?? civilization is doomed!
>industrial goods and services are entirely limited to dating apps
yeah
what industrial operations do you believe operate in cities?
Do US zoning laws really not allow industry in cities?
they are *zones* of cities, so no your house isn't next to a factory generally. anything very hazardous is outside the city. are you chinese? but also the anon you replied to is a retard, as if nuclear bombing of industries wouldn't affect cities
Not really.
>big cities
RETARD. IN A NUCLEAR EXCHANGE YOU DO NOT DROP BOMBS ON CITIES TO KILL THE POPULATION. YOU DROP NUKES ON YOUR OPPONENTS ABILITY TO DEPLOY NUKES OR TO RESPOND TO YOU DROPPING NUKES. THIS MEANS MISSILE SILOS, AIR BASES, MILITARY PORTS, COMMAND AND CONTROL CENTRES, RESPONSE FACILITIES. ANY CITY THAT GETS NUKED IN A NUCLEAR EXCHANGE GOT NUKED BECAUSE SOMETHING IMPORTANT WAS THERE LIKE FUCKING A GOVERNMENT FACILITY OR WHATEVER.
Not true, about X percentage of the nukes are pointed at metropolian areas. No use nuking missle silos if you allow them to build more.
cities are government, infrastructure, and economical targets. I have Indy, Louisville, and Cincinnati near me and Indy is the only government target, Louisville and Cincy are economical targets.
Based fellow tri-state anon. When I'm vaporized by a nuke I have GE and P&G's headquarters to thank for it. Also the airport
You do nuke cities, as a policy deterrent against first strikes if you're unsure of your ability to decapitate the opposing force in one blow, to cripple the enemies industrial production capacities to make more nukes and delivery methods, if you're russian you'd do it because of a cultural preference for terror bombing over efficacy/ sadism, and if you're chinese because you simply have a disregard for life in general doubling up on the other, more valid reasons.
Why shouldn't you aim to kill people working in war industry?
Most of that infrastructure is for producing things you don't actually need like dildos and mouthwash. It will reduce the rural population to the middle ages but it won't kill them, in fact it will be a while before they run out of mouthwash due to the sudden drop in demand.
The same supply chain is used for making fertilizer and ammunition. You have to be delusional to believe that farms can sustain the same production efficiency without cities.
only in a first strike, in retaliation you're just trying to hurt your enemy as much as possible. no point in targeting silos etc as they're now empty.
>no countervalue targets for noooooks
Frogs disagree
Frogs have the most based nuclear doctrine, love their "fuck you we're not kidding" ASMP
It's honestly the way all nuclear doctrines should be. MAD is not mad. Fuck homosexuals believing they can fight a nuclear war to win.
>Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.
um, bros... was DeGaulle actually based this whole time???
>The air-sol moyenne portée (ASMP; "medium-range air to surface missile") is a French nuclear air-launched cruise missile manufactured by MBDA France.
>In French nuclear doctrine, it is referred to as a "pre-strategic" weapon, the last-resort "warning shot" prior to a full-scale employment of strategic nuclear weapons launched from the Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines.
>warning shot
>motherfucking NUCLEAR warning shot
wtf i love frogs now
If your goal is to get the enemy to the peace table, but you don't have significant counter force ability, counter value strikes are your next option.
>not killing the enemy's entire source of value
there are no civilians in modern war, and for good reason. behind every soldier stands 10 workers. remove the workers and the enemy force quickly grinds to a halt
What about speculative targets?
>we don't know if they have relevant facilities there but they might so we'll send one just in case
What's to stop us from hiding important things in, under, and around population centers?
>What's to stop us from hiding important things in, under, and around population centers?
We're not Hamas
Which is why all our silos are above ground. Got it.
>in, under, and around population centers
Name one (1) silo that's "in, under or around" a major population centre, retard
That was an example of underground assets and not the point. What is preventing military targets from existing in and around population centers?
>What is preventing military targets from existing in and around population centers?
Other than security concerns, the Geneva Convention.
I havent found anything in the Geneva convention that has any relevance.
>Civilians are protected by the Geneva Convention
>If you hide military installations in population centres, they become legitimate targets
>You don't want that to happen
/tl;dr
>Population center
you don't know shit about Nuclear doctrine. We have OVERKILL protocols.
Baka
>he doesn't know about cobalt bombs
>he doesn't know about GNOMON
>he doesn't know about SUNDIAL
>he doesn't know that it's trivial for a government to build a world-ending nuclear bomb that explodes with the force of an asteroid, ejecting radioactive debris into orbit and raining toxic ash for days that remains dangerous for decades, until all life on earth has perished
baaaka
>SUNDIAL
Absolutely based. Incredibly fucking based,
The only thing wrong with it is that it wasn't in the teratons. We can go so much higher, and we should.
Why so blasé on a topic you know nothing about?
>rid humanity of that threat
TZD?
TZD!
Because defense plays catch up to weapons, you can't defend against an unknown threat, and you can always use a technique that counters the construction of a defense, as a weapon
>counter measures to nukes
>rid humanity of that threat
My dude, that's the opposite of how it works. The ABM treaty is (was?) a thing because mutually assured destruction only works if it's mutually assured. If you can intercept all (or enough) ICBMs coming at you, nuclear war stops being a lose-lose and becomes a viable military strategy. It wouldn't "rid humanity of that threat", it would only make that threat inevitable.
>it would only make that threat inevitable.
to be fair, it's pretty inevitable regardless. the hydrogen bomb (or the icbm for that matter) is the only weapon proven effective that hasn't been used in anger. in the history of humanity. it's a miracle it hasn't happened yet.
>to be fair, it's pretty inevitable regardless
I highly doubt that. MAD means that there's no gain to using a nuclear weapon, it's an inevitable lose-lose scenario for all parties involved (and also those not involved).
> the hydrogen bomb (or the icbm for that matter) is the only weapon proven effective that hasn't been used in anger. in the history of humanity.
True, but that's because the cost of using it is far greater than any gain it would have. It's a weapon designed to not be used, as it's most effective when threatened to be used and loses it's deterrent value when actually used.
> it's a miracle it hasn't happened yet.
Nah, it hasn't happened yet by design, and never will, for the same reason.
you have more faith in human nature than i do. you're not accounting for irrationality.
>you have more faith in human nature than i do.
I really don't. I have faith in maths, namely game theory. Any rational actor will do what they think is best for themselves, which usually does not include suicide by nuclear exchange.
>you're not accounting for irrationality.
Somewhat true, but whoever orders the launch is not the one who launches, nor the one who conveys the order to launch to those who actually do so. If you know you're going to die (and destroy the world as we know it) if you follow through with the given order, you have an incredible incentive to stop the relay of such order.
Imagine a scenario where Putin orders a nuclear strike and you're the guy supposed to put things in motion. You have two options: relay the order and die (along with all your loved ones) or unholster your pistol and have a chance of stopping the MADness. Any rational actor down the chain that has the ability to (completely) stop any launch will choose the second option, so unless all the people in the chain above the point where it branches out are irrational, the chain breaks.
Of course, the incentive to stop the order decreases when your death is not assured (just highly likely) as may be the case of a single "warning shot". And that's why there's a doctrine of "the response to any nuclear strike is massive retaliation".
That's why the guys in the launch control centers are isolated and do dummy drills turning the keys and entering codes at semi-random intervals, any one of those times it could be real and they'd never know until it was too late. In your hypothetical the individuals in question would weigh being vaporised, or being raped, beaten, their families killed, and then killed themselves, possibly slowly. If you think the eastern/ post communist bloc aren't irrational/ evil, I submit the entire RFAF's conduct in Ukraine as evidence.
>That's why the guys in the launch control centers are isolated and do dummy drills turning the keys and entering codes at semi-random intervals, any one of those times it could be real and they'd never know until it was too late. In your hypothetical the individuals in question would weigh being vaporised, or being raped, beaten, their families killed, and then killed themselves, possibly slowly.
That's why I was talking about people above the point where the chain branches out. If you're in a launch control centre and receive the order, not launching does not prevent you from getting vaporised, as others may launch even if you don't and a single launch is enough to make your vaporisation inevitable.
>If you think the eastern/ post communist bloc aren't irrational/ evil, I submit the entire RFAF's conduct in Ukraine as evidence.
Evil? Sure. Irrational? Eh, not really. They may be incredibly retarded, but the atrocities they commit are, in their minds, the best way to get what they want. They think savage violence works, because it has always worked in their shithole and they can't fathom other places being different. Just think about their "Master/Puppet" duality, where they just do not understand that countries can be allied towards common goals without one being subjugated by the other.
right, the fact that the savage violence works for them is what would ensure political lackeys kowtow and relay direct orders to launch.
>To avoid dying, I will kill myself
I somehow doubt it would work in that case
>To avoid dying, I will kill myself
A succinct description of mobik mentality.
if putin decides to ragequit, there's nothing stopping him from removing all checks and balances over time, like he did politically. the man is the pharaoh of a nuclear triad state.
>if putin decides to ragequit, there's nothing stopping him from removing all checks and balances over time, like he did politically. the man is the pharaoh of a nuclear triad state.
Unless he calls up the launch control centres himself to give them the codes, there's always going to be middlemen. Those middlemen are weak links in the chain if he decides to sudoku via nuke. Unless they also want to embrace the cleansing properties of nuclear fire, they have a functionally infinite incentive to stop the nuclear exchange from ever happening. When Putin gets rid of his political opponents, you have an incentive to stay loyal for two reasons: the money you can grift while being in office (the carrot) and avoiding tragically falling out of a window (the stick). When he orders a nuclear strike, you don't have an incentive to stay loyal as the carrot won't be there and the stick is inevitable. Meanwhile, disobeying his orders has a non-zero chance of getting the carrot while a (perhaps just slightly) lower chance of getting the stick.
It's weird how so many people have convinced themself that Putin is some diabolical madman that could launch nukes for [INSERT PRACTICALLY ANY REASON HERE] at any time and still find a lot of people that will go along with it. It's up there with Putin is about to die or Putin is about fall victim of a coup. Just wild, baseless speculation.
A whole country can descend into shared irrationality pretty quickly though - WWII era Japan for example. They basically became a death cult.
Yeah, that's fair, but I just can't see that happening in the 21st century.
Not in most of the western world any time soon, but I think its something that could happen easier than you think. Granted, most susceptible countries/cultural regions don't have the industrial capacity at the moment to pose much of a cross-continental threat.
to be fair, it really started with the meiji overhauls of the education system and took generations and a specific kind of political dysfunction to manifest
You're assuming that those with access to nukes will always be rational actors. Lord knows there are and will be plenty of insane retards who would go for the ultimate murder-suicide if given the opportunity.
This once Muslims obtain a nuclear tirad it's over.
>muslims don’t have nuclear triad yet…
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Delivery_systems
Yes sorry to say but a Muslim nation indeed have a nuclear triad it’s joeover.
A nuclear war is going happen eventually. Modern humans have existed for 300000 yrs, nukes have existed for just over 80yrs. And you think because in that sliver of time a nuclear war hasn't happened one will never happen. Ridiculous. Nuclear bombs will outlive the all the countries that currently exist.
You don't start a war if you know you can't win it, and everybody knows that in a nuclear war you can only lose a bit less than the other side.
Oh you know, except all those wars throughout history that were started by nations with no chance of winning
There's a difference between starting a war you can't win but where you think you can (e.g. Russia in Ukraine) and starting a war that you know beforehand you can't win.
Please tell me that if someone nooks we will get more absolutely KINO footage like this to enjoy
>the cost of using it is far greater than any gain it would have.
True.
>It's a weapon designed to not be used,
True.
>and loses it's deterrent value when actually used.
The genie being out of the bottle just means that nuclear weapons trade some strategic value for tactical value; "surrender or we'll fucking do it again" is a pretty strong deterrent, as the Japanese will be happy to tell you.
>The genie being out of the bottle just means that nuclear weapons trade some strategic value for tactical value; "surrender or we'll fucking do it again" is a pretty strong deterrent, as the Japanese will be happy to tell you.
If both sides have nuclear weapons, "surrender of we'll fucking do it again" doesn't really work. Once the genie is out of the bottle, and you're up against a nuclear power, the only thing that happens is MAD. In that case, nuclear weapons lose their deterrent value because your best response is massive retaliation, and the same applies to the other side. Saying "we'll drop another one" doesn't really work when you've inflicted 80% casualties and suffered about the same on your side.
because US wants to have an enemy
It is probably worked on, but in secret, I mean as secret as they can get
1. It's not that simple
2. Nuclear weapons are the only thing keeping the peace
>the only thing keeping the peace
Not sure if you're aware of this pal, but war never stopped after 1945.
War between the great powers has been via proxies and espionage ever since. Which certainly beats the alternative. Nukes made wars too costly.
its called interceptors
thaad and all that
Honestly, without the threat of nuclear weapons I believe we would have had quite a lot more wars right now.
Holy fuck all these ignorant replies. The answer is yes we do, we have Satellite detection for ICBMs and interceptor missiles. Lockheed just won a new contract to update the Satellite system and build a better interceptor.
Those are just ICBM counters, they don't stop nukes, especially if you have a thousand decoy mirvs.
israelites have the neutron absorber technology
Why invest in defending against a an imaginary threat that doesn't exist?
Why don't we develop countermeasures to thieves? Like how about we devote resources to making impenetrable locks and rid humanity of that threat?
Because without the spectre of MAD conventional war will make a resurgence
There's a rumor that there already has been weapons developed that basically make nuclear weapons inert. Based on that one Russian dude who was manning radar and detected a nuclear weapons launch and refused to counter-launch, but then the signal disappeared off-screen and it was jotted down as a "glitch".
I Was Listening To Alex Jones One Day™ and he was talking about antimatter bombs that they can't even test because they'd blow up the whole solar system.
>antimatter bombs that they can't even test because they'd blow up the whole solar system.
Aight, let us assume that they have enough to "blow up" Earth, which would require several orders of magnitude less energy than the whole solar system. That would require around 2.24 x 10^32 Joules so 5.35 x 10^16 Megatons of TNT. That's about 20,000,000,000 times the world's nuclear arsenal. 1kg of antimatter has a yield of about 43 Megatons upon annihilation. So, to get enough antimatter to be equivalent to 5.35 x 10^16 Megatons, you would need 4.07 x 10^16 kg of antimatter.
However, you said that it would "blow up" the whole solar system. The binding energy of the Sun is 2.3 x 10^41 Joules, thus requiring 1.28 x 10^24 kg of antimatter to do the deed. So you would need 21% of Earth's mass in antimatter, which can't come in contact with regular matter, to have enough to blow up the Sun. Assuming you could create that much antimatter, where would you store it, considering it's 32 times the mass of the Moon in antimatter and it can't come in contact with regular matter?
Also, as a sidenote, if you have Alex Jones' dealer's number, I'd like some of that shit.
because the best counter to WMD is mutually assured destruction
You don't want to know what the other stuff is.
>nuclear armaments obsolete and rid humanity
rid obsolete humanity with nuclear armaments.
it's called THAAD and they cost something absolutely insane like $100 mil an interceptor. MIRVs and their decoys are designed to defeat it. Would be good enough to stop a few nooks from the northern asiatics though
>Why don't we develop countermeasures to nukes?
Well, well, well, check out the big brain on Brad!
Why didn't anyone think of this sooner????
Holy fuck I bet you have to breathe manually
satelite megaconstelations
nukes and ballistic missiles aren't real, they'd hit the firmament and then break or something
a nuke is just a type of explosive. the only way to make it obsolete is to make a more effective explosive.
that's like saying you want a countermeasure to gunpowder. it just doesn't make any sense.
this is a technology that can be employed in a variety of ways, it's not a singular device.
nukes will become obsolete when we start throwing black holes at each other.
Based
What does that even mean? Is it a nuclear power gravity chamber from Dragon ball? The Demi Spell from Final Fantasy?
What the fuck is the gravity bomb and what is it supposed to do?
It falls. Gravity makes things fall.
God, the ESLs aren't sending their best.
Oh so it's an overrated Cartoon Show? Got it.
>new
It's an upgraded warhead for the B61. THe newest thing on it will be the fuse or some shit.
I hate journalists so much it's unreal.
Can you JDAM the B61?
idk prolly
that's what B61-12 is.
>literally just a B61 with new GPS/INS built in and lower maximum dial yield because of the accuracy
>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""new""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
can someone answer me why we're building a gravity bomb in the year of our lord 2023? What is this the 1940's?
We have a larger 1.2MT gravity bomb in service that Biden wants to retire.
To do that he is going to make a new ~400kt nuke to replace it and augment the existing lower yield gravity bomb nukes (0.3-340kt)
So we'll be going from ~1000 small 0.3-340 kiloton nukes and ~650 large 1.2 megaton nukes to probably ~1000 small 0.3-80 kiloton + ~600-700 small ~400 kiloton nukes.
i've always viewed gravity bombs as an obsolete thing and honestly just a waste of money and not at all a contributor to the triad.
maybe it's a contributor insomuch as it's a simple weapon that can be relied upon to sneak through an enemy line or something or otherwise deliver a weapon when you can't rely upon ICBMs but if you've reached that point things are probably so apocalyptically awful why continue on with a conflict that grim anyway
but i'm not a washington thinktank fag so what do i know
It's the most simple and cost-effective way to increase the total number of available nuclear warheads without investing into the high-end high readiness weapons and infrastructure necessary for a fast-response peer to peer conflict. Besides serving as another armament for the B-2 to utilize the bombs are there so that russia and china don't get uppity when US expends most of the ICBM and SLBM warheads on their strategic targets, leaving the treat to their cities and military installations ever present.
Nuclear bunker busters are also more efficient at destroying deeply burrowed targets than ICBMs so there's likely several B61-11s reserved specifically for the Yamantau mountain complex, for example.
tl;dr: keeping nuclear bombs around is the most efficient way to ensure than you don't run out of nukes before the enemy runs out of targets without spending much on the high-end delivery platforms.
lets use a US vs China scenario
>US launches ICBMs
>easy to track with sattelites
>china has plenty of time to counter attack with all its nukes which saturate american interceptors
vs
>gravity bomb on a stealth bomber
>US has somehow SEAD/DEAD successfuly
>suddenly all your landbased nuclear assets simultaneously get nuked/bombed
>your govt bunker gets nuked
>intact chinese submarines retaliate nuclear but without saturation most if not all gets intercepted
There's actually a better, more likely 3rd option here.
>US launches Tridents from subs at short range that leaves no time for warning or preparing a response.
>almost 1000 nuclear warheads simultaneously descend on chink nuclear targets and military facilities
gg no re
true, but strategic flexibility doesnt hurt, not to mention that its cheaper
Until we get B-21s this isn't really feasible because the 20 B-2s with some 60-70% availability can't carry a fraction of the SLBM warheads on them. Their real value lies in bringing JASSM strikes on targets, allowing a conventional response with an effect of a large-scale nuclear attack.
>ctrl+f4
>0 results for “fallout”
Reminder to ruralfriends that when the bombs fall you will not become the Lone Wanderer, you will become a short-lived side character from a Cormac Mccarthy novel. Crops and water supplies do not like radiation.
Oh. I thought gravity bombs were going to be something insane like making a black hole or something.
Nope, just turns out it's just bombs they let fall to the ground like in WWII
Lurk more.
>i'm contributing!
good. nuclear technology is amazing and advancements in it should continue to be made.
yeah
>new nuclear gravity bomb
>it's just another mod for the B61
You gotta feel bad for the yellow slave race. Their tiny nuclear arsenal has stayed the same for half a century. They cannot comprehend how dangerous the white man is. They're too cowardly even for final warnings now. Every US move and every new package of sanctions is met by the dog eaters with verbal shoulds like they're NPCs. They'll go the way of the dodo as all subhumans ultimately must. I think china will likely suffer the fate of Carthage. They'll be destroyed once, forced into devastating terms like Germany and then after the 2nd time they'll be completely wiped out.
If you have enough nukes to hit a major population centre, that's enough of a deterrent (against a democratic-ish country). Having 10x or 100x of that amount would just inflate maintenance costs with no actual benefit. So the 100-ish nukes they have are more than enough.
>to hit a major population centre
Not even Russia can do that anymore even if they fired all of their ICBMs at the same time. The missile shield has rendered rogue states toothless. There is no country safer than USA.
>Not even Russia can do that anymore even if they fired all of their ICBMs at the same time. The missile shield has rendered rogue states toothless.
That's simply not true. However, if you can give me your estimate of how many interceptors the US has and their intercept probability, I'll happily calculate how many warheads you would need to have a 99.9% probability of hitting a major population centre. So then you can see for yourself how bullshit that claim is.
nukes are more than just ICBMs, retard
also every nuclear force has plenty of decoys to make the enemy waste interceptors
>nukes are more than just ICBMs, retard
Yeah, but if you consider SLBMs as ICBMs (which is not that bold of a statement), then the other non-ICBM nukes require aircraft to deliver them. If an enemy can intercept all your ICBMs (which they obviously can't, see
) then intercepting aircraft-delivered nukes is piss in comparison. So, functionally, nukes are pretty much only ICBMs (or SLBMs).
>if you consider SLBMs as ICBMs (which is not that bold of a statement), then the other non-ICBM nukes require aircraft to deliver them
With INF dead we could bring nuclear tomahawks back like the russians did.
>then intercepting aircraft-delivered nukes is piss in comparison
these two tasks are fundamentally different in comparison. ICBMs are visible long before arrival or even on launch if you use satelites but they are going so high and fast you can't effectively counter them without building ICBM-sized interceptors that have a significantly higher failure rate, meanwhile for nukes from stealth aircraft the main issue is detecting and tracking them long enough to intercept, which is highly dependent on your early warning network density and position so for a wide and empty country like russia this becomes a nightmare since they have too much space and not nearly enough money to plug the gaping holes networks designed against non-stealth aircraft leave for stealth aircraft. For a smaller but more densely populated and better funded nations like France or Britain this problem wouldn't be nearly as hard to tackle.
It is still an easier task than intercepting ICBMs. If you find a stealth aircraft with a low-frequency radar, where you know it's somewhere in a 1km radius (which obviously ain't good enough for conventional SAMs to intercept) you always have to option of saturating the area with nuclear-tipped SAMs and either hit the fucker or strip the RAM coating off of it.
>It is still an easier task than intercepting ICBMs.
No, it's incomparable.
>If you find a stealth aircraft with a low-frequency radar
That's not how it works, at all. Modern stealth aircraft can deflect low frequency radar waves nearly as well as the shorter ones. They wouldn't be nearly as troublesome if you could just guess their general vincinity and send a fighter there to catch them even without dumb ideas like blind-firing nuclear SAMs.
>Modern stealth aircraft can deflect low frequency radar waves nearly as well as the shorter ones.
>deflect radar waves
So you're saying they're visible by RADAR?
Do you know how stealth works at all, nagger? It deflects radar waves away from the source so it cannot receive them as well. Some are always returned which is why stealth is measured by area. It doesn't make aircraft invisible or undetectable but sharply cuts the detection and tracking range since the radar return is so small.
>It deflects radar waves away from the source so it cannot receive them as well.
Stealth is mainly achieved by attenuating the signal by absorbing (part of) the waves, you nagger. What do you think RAM stands for? Radar Deflecting Material? If you only deflect radar waves away from the source, you can use multiple radars to completely negate stealth, you absolute bufoon.
>Stealth is mainly achieved by attenuating the signal by absorbing (part of) the waves
You're a fucking know nothing idiot. Why do you think stealth aircraft is shaped like that, why don't they just apply RAM coatings onto existing airframe? Because the shape is the most important factor for stealth.
>If you only deflect radar waves away from the source, you can use multiple radars to completely negate stealth
That's not how radars work you worthless nagger. They can't just pick random radio waves and make out an aircraft from them.
Never post again you worthles illiterate piece of shit.
>dumb ideas like blind-firing nuclear SAMs.
Picrel would like a word
>Loaded
GEE I NEVER WOULD HAVE FUCKING GUESSED
Sprint actually was guided to the vincinity of the warhead, using a megawatt-power control station no less to get through the plasma layer that surrounded the missile going that fast. It also relied on early warning for launch and guidance timing from the whole larger system
It's still firing nukes over your own territory to stop enemy nukes from hitting you
yes, and it was guided to get close to the warhead and detonate in time.
a small yield explosion happening tens of miles above a metropolitan area will spare the infrastructure and most of the people's lives.
>It's still firing nukes over your own territory to stop enemy nukes from hitting you
You're comparing a 2kt ER detonation in the stratosphere to a 600kt airburst.
Yeah, fair enough
>dumb ideas like blind-firing nuclear SAMs
Take that back, it's a brilliant idea.
>low-frequency radar
>you know it's somewhere in a 1km radius
iirc its a 40 km radius for the longest bands
then higher frequency bands are directed to where the return is strongest
This image always makes me smile.
The early nuclear age was a wild ride.
The Genie missile was designed on the idea that bombers would fly in huge, tightly-packed formations like they did in WWII. So one nuke that would get close would take out a whole formation of bombers. You could spread out your bombers, or change the formation, and the Genie became a lot less effective.
...who said anything about China? asiaticshill is that you?
>rural areas will survive mfers when you radioactively salt farmland (a military target) to cripple their operational capability after nuclear war, forever destroying their nation
sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh no cap fr these bakas aint cracked!
>Wasting your first strike on open fields instead of your enemies silos
Actual fucking braindamaged retard we have here.
You have enough for both, anon. That's the whole point. If you think the breadbaskets and the big trade canals (suez, panama, etc) aren't getting a few nukes to make them inhospital for hundreds of years, you don't understand MAD. The point of MAD isn't to protect yourself, it's to end all life on earth, hence, /mutually/ assured destruction
The countermeasure to stuff like THAAD, by the way, is just Teller's world-ending bomb he proposed to Livermore. That was specifically to counter defense shields. You don't need to worry about hitting or delivering the target when you can just end all life on earth from the comfort of your own backyard.
Nukes are an undefeatable meta. They force peace.
>they force peace
Maybe if you have eyes like this -_-
Fuck those yella fellas all my homies hate chinks frfr no cap
>You have enough for both, anon.
No you don't. You have never left your shithole city in your life so you cannot comprehend just how vast and endless the farmlands are.
>make them inhospital for hundreds of years
You're a delusional turd.
>you don't understand MAD
>to end all life on earth
Holy shit you're a retarded alarmist homosexual.
All nukes in the world couldn't even wipe out US from the world map.
>The point of MAD isn't to protect yourself, it's to end all life on earth
No, it isn't, and never has been. Fuck off zoomer, you're missing nap time.
>farmland (a military target)
Most retarded post on /k/ rn.
holy shit...graviton weapons
ummm
why don't we just unveil the space armada
>the northern hemisphere decide to commit collective sudoku in nuclear war
>southerners devolve into a medieval society with scraps of technology
>that one Brazilian guy becomes "the oracle keeper" because his autistic grandfather bothered to download early LLAMA version.
>entire human population depends on him as the acient knowledge source and spends weeks carefully crafting prompts to extract it from his 2012 Thinkpad at the speed of half a characters per second
If anyone tried using nuclear weapons, the first one(s) would explode high in the stratosphere, EMP'ing the entire North American continent. Chances are REALLY good we wouldn't get news about what happened to cities, our weapons, or the enemy for weeks.
Nukes are fake and all bombs rely on gravity.
a gravity bomb has no propellant
Is it bad I read OP as "nuclear gravity bong"?