Why are nuclear weapons becoming weaker at the same time arsenal sizes are decreasing?

Why are nuclear weapons becoming weaker at the same time arsenal sizes are decreasing? The most common US & UK weapon is only 100kt which would need multiple strikes to destroy one city

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

    Because IBCM payload is heavily limited by mass. And for the same mass of the payload 10 100kt warheads cover larger area than 1 Mt warhead also they are more difficult to intercept, can hit multiple targets.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Isn’t Russia ignoring and not renewing those treaties now? We used to have MIRVs in the megaton range

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'd be surprised if Russia has even 100 working missiles/bombs, given the absurd levels of corruption and gulaghomo.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's no treaty on deployed warhead yield. There was a treaty on testing yield (150kt) but that's been over taken by events due to the total test ban treaty.
        We could deploy warheads in the 10s of MT range and that would be fine. It's the total number of deployed (ready to use at near-immediate notice) warheads that's limited.
        And as

        Because IBCM payload is heavily limited by mass. And for the same mass of the payload 10 100kt warheads cover larger area than 1 Mt warhead also they are more difficult to intercept, can hit multiple targets.

        says, the modern limitation is on number of warheads in a single missile because more booms > 1 big boom

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Chinese have ICBMs with 12 x 1 MT MIRVS they have both more booms and each boom is bigger

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >more booms and each boom is bigger

            oh, i see, you're 12 years old.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The circles are bigger. Does that make it easier for you?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            1, I don't believe anything that comes out of the cccp (chyna edition) regrading their military capabilities. (See recent missiles fueled with water debacle).
            2, if they have 12x1mt mirv, then they are making up for the fact their CEP is humoungus and there's likely a number of unknown % of probable duds in the payload, so they're mitigating that
            3. They barely have functional ssbns (that are nowhere near-peer in terms of 21stCentury submarine capability) so they're not ssbns launched
            4. Their land force missiles are hugely corrupt and are highly unlikely to work (see point 1).
            5. They are unlikely to have the reliable capacity to independently target different RVs from a single bus, so no MIRVs. Just multiple (2 or 3) RVs per bus.
            So no, they don't have 12x1mt MIRVs. They likely have chevaline style 2x 1mt MRVs

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Accuracy has improved substantially from when much larger warheads were needed. Also, wiping out civillian population isn't really the name of the game and isn't good for PR.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why are nuclear weapons becoming weaker
      More accurate delivery means that warhead sizes can shrink to compensate, in fact they're now getting so good to yhe point that you don't even need nuclear warheads for a lot of their targets now
      >at the same time arsenal sizes are decreasing?
      As they should be.
      >The most common US & UK weapon is only 100kt
      Inverse square law says this really isn't that big of a deal unless your missiles are Russian and thus can't reliably hit their target.
      >which would need multiple strikes to destroy one city
      This was already the case even with megaton-scale warheads, Moscow alone was the target of ~100+ strikes.
      Cities are not the targets of nuclear weapons, strategic assets that often happen to be inside cities are: Communication relays, rail marshalling yards, strategic ports, nuclear silos, etc.

      Nuclear strategy is first and foremost about crippling the enemy's means to conduct nuclear war against you. THEN it's about crippling their means to fight a war period. If technological advances and the changing scale of war means that we now don't need as many or as big nuclear weapons to accomplish the same task, then shrinking the arsenal is well worthwhile.

      Where is the point of diminishing returns with improved CEP to warhead yield?
      At some point I imagine heavy fortifications making a sort of return as it might be the only way to reliably force your enemy to large and inefficient warheads.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Diminishing returns actually happen the other way around thanks to the inverse square law. Besides making fortifications impractically large no, nothing is going to tank the fireball from a direct hit with a nuclear weapon. The era of giant big booms (in atmosphere) are gone.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What would actually be impractically large for a fortification in this day and age?

          That kind of fortification will only force your opponent into building a handful of nuclear "bunker busters", at a miniscule fraction of the cost and effort it will take you to build them in the first place. Barring someone inventing some crazy defensive technology completely out of left field, that's a losing game.

          That sounds backwards, Wouldn't the situation be worse if they could get away with just using the regular delivery systems?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cheyenne mountain complex will need something in the megaton range

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The story of the Berlin flak towers always fascinates me because they just violated half a millennia of conventional wisdom about fortifications and nobody even paid attention

            They were actually unassailable fortresses, taking or destroying them was so totally impossible that the Americans and Soviets literally just drove around them and conquered the entire rest of Germany instead and let them just give up when they felt like it afterwards. Every state of the art, most powerful available artillery piece and airplane bomb of WW2 was launched against them and they just soaked them up.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They didn't do a very good job of protecting Berlin from air raids.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pretty sure that due to their presence Berlin was only bombed at night from high altitude, Which really limits the maximum potential of the bombardment especially on hardened targets.
                So while in one sense it could be argued that the flak towers failed to "protect" Berlin, If you consider that Fort Drum in the Philippines only needed a few .50 cal machine gun nests to adequately defend itself from air attacks it's clear the towers were capable of defending a large parameter from nearly any kind of aerial threat.

                Obviously at the strategic level fortifications can not make up for surrendering the air completely to the enemy but even then they still prevent air supremacy from coming into full effect, Which is pretty much an absolute necessity in this day and age to level a such a large fortification considering that nobody has any super heavy artillery in their inventory anymore.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Fort Drum in the Philippines

                >In 1945 following the offensive to recapture Manila, the heavily fortified island was the last position in Manila Bay held by the Japanese. On 13 April, after a heavy aerial and naval bombardment, a modified Landing Ship Medium (LSM) with a bridging arm came alongside the fort. U.S. troops used the extended arm to run directly from the ship onto the fort quickly gaining control of its top deck and confining the Japanese garrison below.
                >Rather than attempting to break into the battery, they pumped 2,500 gallons of two parts diesel fuel and one part gasoline mixed into the hatches, then ignited it with white phosphorus grenades. This method was repeated twice on subsequent days.

                Everyone always shitposts about doing this to bunkers but this is one of the only times I've heard of it actually happening

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                People didn't learn since fort Eben-Emael.
                Fort should be split into two parts and they should be able to cover each other parts with fire. To specifically prevent enemy running on top of the forts.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                By that point fort Drum was just a toothless rock so I honestly don't see why the Japanese even bothered to occupy it like they did. The frick were they gonna do?
                The Navy should have just left them to die of thirst and recaptured the fort intact, What a symbolic moment that would have been.
                The only reason the US garrison at Drum surrendered after sabotaging the guns was that they didn't have their own water supply.

                People didn't learn since fort Eben-Emael.
                Fort should be split into two parts and they should be able to cover each other parts with fire. To specifically prevent enemy running on top of the forts.

                That didn't save the petite maginot line ouvrage La Ferté, Granted many things failed at once in that tragedy but had that been redesigned as one monolithic fort like Drum certain things might have played out differently.

                Eben Emael was split into multiple parts which is how the fort could even be large enough to land gliders on in the first place, So really it's the Belgians that totally dropped the ball on that day not the fort's design.
                With virtually no air defenses, equipment failure due to lackluster maintained, and much of the garrison ordered outside to dismantling a fricking office the German troops on the roof were basically unopposed in their mission.

                To be fair though the plan of landing gliders on the fort was pretty audacious and the crude shaped charges used to take out the emplacements was a top secret development.
                Without the "hollow" charges it would have been way less likely that the German troops could have been able to take out the gun turrets in time or maybe even at all.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That kind of fortification will only force your opponent into building a handful of nuclear "bunker busters", at a miniscule fraction of the cost and effort it will take you to build them in the first place. Barring someone inventing some crazy defensive technology completely out of left field, that's a losing game.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The system previously carried the Mk-4 RV with a 100 kt W76-0 warhead, but beginning in September 2008 W76-0s were converted to W76-1s. This process was completed by December 2018.[42] Conversion from the W76-0 to W76-1 involved fitting the warheads with a new RV (the Mk-4A), replacing age limited components and fitting the warhead with a new MC4700 arming, fusing and firing (AF&F) system. The MC4700 AF&F system (dubbed the "super fuze") significantly improves warhead kill probabilities against hardened targets such as silos or bunkers. The W76-2 is also fitted with the Mk-4A RV and MC4700 fuze.[43][3][44]
        Already hammered down before it became a future problem.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >At some point I imagine heavy fortifications making a sort of return as it might be the only way to reliably force your enemy to large and inefficient warheads.
        Both the US and Soviet Union built bases under mountains. The US retained B53s (9 Mt) for destroying deep targets like this, until dismantling them in 2011. It still retains 1.2 Mt M83s if the need arises. Removing mountains by repeatedly cratering them until you reach the yummy, gooey centre is the only modern use for big devices.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >gravity bombs
          How plausible is it that such targets that require such large bombs and delivery systems won't be in airspace sufficiently guarded from such attacks?

          It's really sad that heavy fortifications have been reduced to just holes in the ground is most people's mind.
          Heavy fortifications which rely on underground depth and obscurity can't effectively utilize active systems and are more vulnerable to seismic attacks than monolithic structures.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How plausible is it that such targets that require such large bombs and delivery systems won't be in airspace sufficiently guarded from such attacks?
            Not very. To begin with, you could always preemptively nuke the surface to both destroy any kind of defenses and shake things up down there before you bring bunker busters in.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No fortification on earth can survive a nuclear explosion on a direct hit, and with weapons like the Tomahawk or Pershing 2 direct hits aren't just possible but are essentially the expected result.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes there is

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Also, wiping out civillian population isn't really the name of the game and isn't good for PR.
      its exactly the name of the game for asiatics who give jack shit about your optics in a all out carpet bombing. Killing as many burgers and euros is their wet dream and for that cities are best targets. Better downtown New York then some silo in the middle of kansas that may or may not be empty by the time their inaccurate soviet junk gets there

      its only childishly naive westerners that are absolutely obsessed with the cringe counter value/force game theories. Good for academics to overthink the subject yet woefully stupid for anybody who knows how these feral gangster apes think

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        too bad nuking a city has absolutely 0 effect on stopping your enemy from launching nukes

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the goal isnt to stop them from launching the goal is to kill as many of the enemies civilans as possible

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the goal is to kill as many of the enemies civilans as possible
            What does that achieve exactly? Strategically speaking.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Uhh, it kills your enemy. Dead. They don't come back.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >let's just copy the subhumans because why the frick not

        moron detected

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Exactly how many more times are you going to remake this thread?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Till everyone else understands they are wrong

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        OP has some kind of terminal autism

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Till his autism is cured. Meaning he will remake it endlessly until dead. It is like severely autistic kids spinning pointlesly, same here - mildly autistic kid is poitlessly repeating same thread

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >mildly
        I'm autistic, yet never in my years on /k/ have I felt the need to repeat a thread; nevermind one to which I've already received a stack of pretty informative answers. This guy is turbo.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Accuracy has improved dramatically, at least in the West.
    Where in the old situation you had spam targets with nukes to ensure their destruction, upgraded missiles are so precise they can travel around the world and still hit their target dead on, even if it's sitting inside a hardened silo.
    So huge payloads and huge numbers of missiles/bombs don't make sense anymore.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are nuclear weapons becoming weaker
    More accurate delivery means that warhead sizes can shrink to compensate, in fact they're now getting so good to yhe point that you don't even need nuclear warheads for a lot of their targets now
    >at the same time arsenal sizes are decreasing?
    As they should be.
    >The most common US & UK weapon is only 100kt
    Inverse square law says this really isn't that big of a deal unless your missiles are Russian and thus can't reliably hit their target.
    >which would need multiple strikes to destroy one city
    This was already the case even with megaton-scale warheads, Moscow alone was the target of ~100+ strikes.
    Cities are not the targets of nuclear weapons, strategic assets that often happen to be inside cities are: Communication relays, rail marshalling yards, strategic ports, nuclear silos, etc.

    Nuclear strategy is first and foremost about crippling the enemy's means to conduct nuclear war against you. THEN it's about crippling their means to fight a war period. If technological advances and the changing scale of war means that we now don't need as many or as big nuclear weapons to accomplish the same task, then shrinking the arsenal is well worthwhile.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now you’re going to need a quarter of your arsenal to wipe out Moscow which is 36km long and 27 wide and has many important things like airports farther outside the city

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No not really, again you're misunderstanding the goal of a nuclear attack. We're not trying to do area damage, we're not trying to kill all the people in Moscow, there is a list of certain targets and now because CEP tolerances have shrunk enough, not all of them require 4-5 nukes, or even nukes at all to reliably destroy. We actually need less than a quarter of what we would have needed in say, the 80s to do the same job.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So you’re keeping the people alive so they can rebuild and continue the war

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you want to kill people you use the Sarin/VX rockets.
            Same size, kill everything in Moscow even the wienerroaches taking refuge in the subways.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nukes kill in massively larger area than equivalent weight nerve agents warhead, especially if it's dirty nukes with massive fallout like W88.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No, nuke sized GA or VX package will in no way saturate the urban expanses the size of Moscow. And only VX will linger enough to bring life to a screeching halt. It will cause panic alright, especially if it was entirely unexpected and unprepared for.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Indiscriminately targeting civilians is what we in the west consider to be "not okay". People can recover from a war and rebuild a country but it's much harder to re-establish the means to fight a -nuclear- war, remember that the primary objective is to remove an enemy's nuclear arsenal or the means to deploy it.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Where do you think all the factories and shit are? They are in the middle of populated areas. Same thing for fuel storage and all other high value targets. Even military bases are in populated areas.

              Aiming for just the missile silos is fricking moronic. You have to assume that your launches were detected the second you set them off and the enemy counter launched their ICBMs and launched all their aircraft. You would be essentially hitting empty targets.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >factories
                No one is going to be building working nuclear weapons complete with the means to deliver them in the timeframe of an all-out nuclear war.
                >They are in the middle of populated areas. Same thing for fuel storage and all other high value targets. Even military bases are in populated areas.
                Yes they are. So?

                >Aiming for just the missile silos is fricking moronic.
                Effective first strikes actually are a thing and it is totally possible to hit at least a percentage of silos and airfields before they're ready to scramble. Furthermore, silos can be reloaded and nuclear-equipped airfields re-used, so it still makes sense to destory them. After all, in your scenario where civilians are crawling out of the metro and re-building ICBMs from scratch, what are they going to fire them out of?

                Ultimately the actual commanders and policymakers seem to disagree with your assumptions. You don't seem to understand how nuclear forces actually work, let alone get an idea of how we should be managing our arsenal. What is the ultimate suggestion that you're trying to make? That we should make a bunch of tsar bombs or we'll lose the war?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Everything needs to be destroyed the people the infrastructure and the soil. Cobalt bombs are the most effective

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Calm down LeMay

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You assume the point of nuclear war is to only take out nuclear capabilities. It's to take out their ability to make war completely. You aren't just aiming for nuclear targets, you're aiming at anything that can be used to make war. This includes infrastructure.

                [...]
                [...]
                I see it as a Prisoner's Dilemma thing. It's especially foolish and embarrassing to doctrinally align your nuclear arsenal to minimize civilian casualties when your adversary doesn't, because this means that WW3 would end with their country bereft of factories, ports, bases, etc. with a civilian populace starving and struggling to rebuild while your country would be left as a sheet of radioactive glass

                Technically I think that means they win

                Holy shit, this is all so moronic. The entire point of a counter-force strategy is to remove the opponents capability to retaliate in the first place. If you can remove the enemy's ability to shoot nukes at you, while retaining your ability to shoot nukes at him, you've got him over a barrel and can do whatever you want. He doesn't want to come to the negotiation table? Fine than, you can simply destroy his infrastructure and kill his civilians at will through nuclear or conventional means as the case may be, and since you've already neutered him, there's not much he can do about it. Counter-value on the other hand, is essentially shooting the hostages while you're out in the open and before you've even disarmed your opponent. It gives the enemy a very good reason to retaliate, and makes sure there is little to nothing to prevent him from doing so. The only use for it is as a means of negotiation before a nuclear exchange has even begun, i.e., "give me what i want, or i'll kill us all". All it does in the exchange itself is guarantee that you lose, with the chance that the enemy will simply die of it's wounds after you've already been turned into radioactive dust. All-in-all, counter-value is a very bad strategy to adopt.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                if you think russia would just bend over and surrender youve got another thing coming

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't expect them to roll over. I expect them to have their military and nuclear capabilities be completely gutted before they even have a chance.

                That’s a big IF you’re gambling on

                Big IF's are better than guaranteed NO's, which is essentially what a counter-value approach is. It's not a gamble you should make lightly, certainly, but it's the only one that would have any real chance of working in such a scenario, not to mention the fact that there's ways of improving the odds, such as obtaining and maintaining technological superiority against potential adversaries, and so-on.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Big IF's are better than guaranteed NO's
                An academically correct, and practically meaningless distinction in this specific case. You do not gamble with national existence. A 99.9% chance of your first strike to work agianst an opponent using a countervalue strategy is still 0.1% too low to make it an option worth thinking about.

                The purpose of a countervalue strategy is to enforce the simple fact that the only winning move is not to play, at a much lower cost and all-around higher certainty than the foolishness of trying to play to win.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That’s a big IF you’re gambling on

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Countervalue is the strategy you adopt when you realise that nuclear war is a stupid game to play and you simply want to ensure that whoever starts it will be winning a stupid prize.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If you can remove the enemy's ability to shoot nukes at you, while retaining your ability to shoot nukes at him,
                How are you going to do that when surprise attacks don't exist in nuclear war? They're not going to wait for your nukes to hit before firing their own nukes.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Good thing the US nuclear arsenal isn't solely ICBMs but instead mostly SLBMs which dramatically reduce warning time, with the added ability to put nukes into stealth bombers to really be sneaky.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Obviously, the discussion is mostly academic nowadays since Russia has no nukes and China has about a hundred. North Korea and Israel can't reach, and India will be aiming theirs at Pakistan and vice versa. These game theory discussions are of course talking about two evenly matched opponents and don't even make sense otherwise, so don't randomly butt in with your stupid titbit

                Let me tell you the real reason why counterforce was in vogue in thinktanks and papers. despite their very dubious reasoning. Russia apes the West in all things, knowing that the West is far more intelligent (see the change to 5.45 as soon as 5.56 was released). If America claims counterforce rocks, then the Soviet Union would also do counterforce, and that's far more preferable. It's just a big psy-op that the dumber members of /k/, wishing to look smart, have unashamedly and unthinkingly swallowed.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's just a big psy-op
                I have to admit it certainly just wasted a lot of my brain power. Nicely done, spooks.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >surprise attacks don't exist in nuclear war?
                Yes they do, it's called SLBMs and stealth bombers.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You assume the point of nuclear war is to only take out nuclear capabilities. It's to take out their ability to make war completely. You aren't just aiming for nuclear targets, you're aiming at anything that can be used to make war. This includes infrastructure.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and 100-500kt weapons can destroy infrastructure so what's your point?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Everything needs to be destroyed the people the infrastructure and the soil. Cobalt bombs are the most effective

                >factories
                No one is going to be building working nuclear weapons complete with the means to deliver them in the timeframe of an all-out nuclear war.
                >They are in the middle of populated areas. Same thing for fuel storage and all other high value targets. Even military bases are in populated areas.
                Yes they are. So?

                >Aiming for just the missile silos is fricking moronic.
                Effective first strikes actually are a thing and it is totally possible to hit at least a percentage of silos and airfields before they're ready to scramble. Furthermore, silos can be reloaded and nuclear-equipped airfields re-used, so it still makes sense to destory them. After all, in your scenario where civilians are crawling out of the metro and re-building ICBMs from scratch, what are they going to fire them out of?

                Ultimately the actual commanders and policymakers seem to disagree with your assumptions. You don't seem to understand how nuclear forces actually work, let alone get an idea of how we should be managing our arsenal. What is the ultimate suggestion that you're trying to make? That we should make a bunch of tsar bombs or we'll lose the war?

                I see it as a Prisoner's Dilemma thing. It's especially foolish and embarrassing to doctrinally align your nuclear arsenal to minimize civilian casualties when your adversary doesn't, because this means that WW3 would end with their country bereft of factories, ports, bases, etc. with a civilian populace starving and struggling to rebuild while your country would be left as a sheet of radioactive glass

                Technically I think that means they win

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Technically I think that means they win
                No. They lose. They cease to exist as a nationstate and msot of their remaining popualtion will be facing slow death by starvation and exposure within the year. The only winners are third parties that come out not getting nuked.

                Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians serves no worthwhile purpose.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The only winners are third parties that come out not getting nuked.
                Even among them the only winners are countries fully capable of sustaining themselves in the face of a collapse of global trade, such as Australia. Even the United States, despite suffering immensely in a nuclear war would be in a much better position to recover than Russia or even China would, on account of its many geographical and cultural advantages.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The only winners are third parties that come out not getting nuked.

                LatAm and Africa bros, our time has come.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That shouldn’t be the case. We should have enough warheads to wipe out everyone else so third worlders can’t come and claim washington

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your country shouldn't be a "sheet of radioactive glass" since your first strike in conjunction with your ABM defenses should have severely reduced the impact of his initial strikes and denied the possibility of follow-on strikes. Our policy is based on the fact that we have a very strong technological edge against Russia and we can exploit that to fight and win a war without inflicting unnecessary damage and suffering.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                uh huh, and if we have this supposed winning edge against russia then why havent we wiped them out yet?
                also your forgetting china and they have a tech edge against us

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You have clearly never bought anything made in China.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Once the enemy's nuclear forces are destroyed and yours are (presumably) intact the enemy is now essentially at your mercy. Their leaders, who you deliberately did not target, should already be at the negotiating table. When the enemy no longer has nuclear means to fight you, you are free to use your own in conjunction with conventional means to force them into a surrender.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ok but if a single nuke hits Moscow Russian subs are going to nuke every major target in the US. So the US is launching everything. No matter what it turns into nightmare resources wars and 95 of humans on earth dont survive the next year because of nuclear winter.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >russian subs being a threat in 2000 + 24
                So, MAD ensues regardless of how big our nukes are? Good to know.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So, MAD
                Russia can't do mad its RAD now
                Russia assured destruction

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russian subs are going to nuke every major target in the US.
                every single one has NATO hunter killers tailing them 24/7 and they would be sunk if they even looked like they were preparing to launch without a rest having been pre announced via warnings to civilian shipping and aircraft

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not true

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your either a moron or a liar if you believe deliberate mistruths from Russia/the soviet era ab out nuclear winter intended to bolster quisling shill operations like CND to disarm the west

              • 4 weeks ago
                John smith of idaho oblast

                Da cumrag soviet subs are quietest with quantum catipiller plasma drives as seen in documentary the red october hunt

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Not true
                what do you think NATO hunter killer subs do all day?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They aren’t in Russian territorial waters in the arctic

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                :^)

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They aren’t in Russian territorial waters in the arctic
                yeah?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Where are they then?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You sure about that?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and 95 of humans on earth dont survive the next year because of nuclear winter.
                there is no such thing as nuclear winter and less than 2% of the earths current population would die. 95% of Russias population might die (it's actually about 85% for Russia). The world will carry on with some famine in India and Africa because of disruption to the worlds two biggest food exporters, the EU and USA.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and less than 2% of the earths current population would die
                In the immediate exchange maybe. There would still be an extreme population collapse in the following years due to the worldwide collapse of trade, infrastructure, and power grids even without a 'winter'.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russian subs
                And of course you chose their worse nuclear asset

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >still believes in nuclear winter
                You should have led with that, moron. It's been debunked for years and is re-explained every single time we have this same thread.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's why counterforce strikes also target nuclear command and control; in order to slow down the enemy's response until your warheads arrive at the missile fields, or possibly even break the chain of command somewhere and prevent the launch commands from ever getting to the missiles in the first place. Even if the enemy has already launched, it's still a good idea to target their command and control, because memes aside, launching *everything* is stupid: you need to hold a reserve back for follow-up strikes against targets that you failed to destroy in the first strike, as well as to keep deterrence up against other powers that might take advantage of your sudden "disarmament". And, you need a reserve to convince the side you're trading nukes with to stop and negotiate a truce (preferably before your side takes massive countervalue damage). In short, you never want to run out of nukes; running out of nukes leaves you at the mercy of anyone who still has some.

                [...]
                [...]
                Holy shit, this is all so moronic. The entire point of a counter-force strategy is to remove the opponents capability to retaliate in the first place. If you can remove the enemy's ability to shoot nukes at you, while retaining your ability to shoot nukes at him, you've got him over a barrel and can do whatever you want. He doesn't want to come to the negotiation table? Fine than, you can simply destroy his infrastructure and kill his civilians at will through nuclear or conventional means as the case may be, and since you've already neutered him, there's not much he can do about it. Counter-value on the other hand, is essentially shooting the hostages while you're out in the open and before you've even disarmed your opponent. It gives the enemy a very good reason to retaliate, and makes sure there is little to nothing to prevent him from doing so. The only use for it is as a means of negotiation before a nuclear exchange has even begun, i.e., "give me what i want, or i'll kill us all". All it does in the exchange itself is guarantee that you lose, with the chance that the enemy will simply die of it's wounds after you've already been turned into radioactive dust. All-in-all, counter-value is a very bad strategy to adopt.

                This. The primary goal of each combatant should be to minimize the damage to their own nation, not to run up the "score". It's pretty much guaranteed to hurt, and hurt badly; from a planner's perspective, it's all about trying to save or protect as much as you can, and sometimes that means nuking enemy cities, and sometimes it doesn't.

                >what exactly is wrong with my theory?
                That EMP is not some hyper-effective superweapon that instnatly knocks out all power infrastructure ove rmillions of square miles forever outside of bad scifi novels.

                Novels--and Hollywood--portray EMP as something that knocks out your car, your toaster, and your watch, and makes airplanes and elevators drop like rocks. In reality, the effects of EMP are still hotly debated, but if EMP kills *anything*, it'll be the major transformers at electrical substations, because they're directly connected to hundreds of miles of power lines, and power lines act like antennas for EMP. So, many (most?) people will still be able to drive around, but feeding a city or keeping its sewage working may become a non-trivial challenge.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >minimize the damage to their own nation
                There's literally no such thing. You cannot defend cities against nukes on any real scale, all your people die regardless. There is no 'slow down the enemy's response', command got hit, comms are down, so all missiles launch automatically. Someone launches nukes, there won't be negotiations, there's no motivation, no time even to make a phone call. You can try to play some clever counter force game thinking you can win a nuclear war, but after one missile flight time, blam, all your cities are gone, all of theirs remain because you hesitated and wasted your birds on now-empty silos. They rebuild and win the long game.
                Counter force is like the 'cooperate' in the non-iterated prisoners dilemma, leaving you open to being taken advantage of for nothing in return.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You probably believe in nuclear winter, too.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                These arguments for counterforce don't really consider the veiwpoint of the enemy. Consider this: you have nukes approaching all your silos. They are dead and useless unless you launch them. You are not going to sit there and hope that a fraction of them survives, which will anyway destroyed by a theoretical followup strike that will somehow know which silos have been destroyed. They will be launched. But at what? Either counterforce or counetrvalue. If counterforce, then all you've done is trigger those targeted silos. In any case, it should be remembered it takes more than one nuke to destroy a silo. If the aim is to preserve your nuke force attacking nukes is a losing game. Assume a generous 2:1 ratio of nuke:silo. To destroy 50% of the enemies nuclear capability you have to use up 100% of your won. If you launch 50%, you only destroy 25% of theirs. And that 25% will in fact launch and hit the 50% of yours which remain. Leaving them with 75% and you with 37.5. And maybe they won't! Maybe they'll divert 1% of that 25% and hit a few cities, why not?

                >The primary goal of each combatant should be to minimize the damage to their own nation
                Yes, but if nuclear war has broken out it's already too late for that sort of thing. You can't rely on MAD to calm things down when the first salvo of nukes is already streaking across the skies. The only logical consequence of that sort of thinking is to immediately surrender to a nation if it launches nukes at you to avoid escalation, an idea so laughable nobody has dared test it in practice.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's a shockingly... simplistic... take on the situation, which completely ignores Pk, the inaccuracy and slight unreliability of the atomic kill chain (perhaps less so today, but there's an order of magnitude less of them), defensive and mitigation efforts, not to mention the entire existence of boomers and bombers. Not to play is *not* the only "winning" move; it's just the only one that guarantees that you don't risk horrific losses in the process. Reality is more nuanced, if no less terrifying.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Boomers and bombers just make launching all your nukes imperative. Either that or an immediate surrender. Also all that other shit is encapsulated in the claim that it takes more than one nuke to kill a nuke, and you know this already, and that it doesn't affect the analysis. All you're doing is trying to hint at some hidden depth that you can't elaborate. The whole countervalue system is built upon both sides trying to deescalate, but the entire scenario starts with nukes flying, a volatile scenario that is far more likely to lead to escalation. Not to mention deescalation relies on a whole series of prerequisites, of which if any prove to be wrong invalidate the whole thing, and the fact that nukes are flying has already invalidated half the list anyway.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >running out of nukes leaves you at the mercy of anyone who still has some.
                What the actual frick is he going to do to me at that point? Try and nuke some of my cities out of spite? No, the clear loser is him because now he has NOTHING, whereas I still have something. In 5, 10, 20 years I will be on my way to rebuilding, and he will have starved to death with no hope of anything ever living on the glowing sea that was his homeland in the first few months which he spent mumbling "*cough* s-s-surrender pls... pls I have nook... *cough*"

                Nuclear war is strictly an all or nothing game. There can be no half measures. No worries about ethics. It's literally kill or be killed. Or at least kill and die knowing that your enemy won't be dancing on your corpse in a few generations.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                O.K., so you blow all your nukes on Russian cities, in order to make sure they have nothing left... and then China comes along, and decides they want all of the Pacific, and maybe the Pacific Coast, too. What do you do, then? They have nukes, and you don't. What if, a generation later, they decide that the rest of North America is theirs, too?

                You seem to assume that tomorrow doesn't matter, as if it were a game where you total up points at the end and never have to deal with the aftermath.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You uhh, build enough nukes to wipe China out too. This isn't hard for frick's sake.
                >You seem to assume that tomorrow doesn't matter
                Nuclear war is literally the process of deleting tomorrow and every day after that. No shit it doesn't matter. What fricking aftermath is your muh PR pity party going to incur? Even assuming you somehow got out of that war without a scratch, you just eliminated the only guys who could actually do anything about your bad PR. Everyone else is your fricking b***h.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Some men just want to watch the world burn, I suppose. Personally, I prefer to try to find a way to survive and to protect those I care about to the extent that I can.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And in your attempt, you'll fail, ending up as nothing more than the loser in your enemy's history book, which would then be literally the only one in existence. I on the other hand choose not to surrender Earth to barbarians. Wipe the slate clean.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Rebuild what, moron, stack all the rubble back up in the shape of a powerplant? Bring 50 minerals to the town square and right click on it to build up a functional command and control network?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Build them the same way you built them in the first place?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Over the course of decades, with intricate planning, organization, and resources? With a supply chain that still exists, and workers that aren't starving, rioting, or running for the hills? They don't call it a military industrial complex for nothing, dipshit.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                military-industrial complex? I think it's quite simple, actually.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, but read up about counterforce and countervalue nuclear strategies. The idea of fighting countervalue nuclear war is a basis for MAD. There is a difference in deliberately targeting population centers and hitting strategically important targets with people being killed in collateral (at least in theory).

            Where do you think all the factories and shit are? They are in the middle of populated areas. Same thing for fuel storage and all other high value targets. Even military bases are in populated areas.

            Aiming for just the missile silos is fricking moronic. You have to assume that your launches were detected the second you set them off and the enemy counter launched their ICBMs and launched all their aircraft. You would be essentially hitting empty targets.

            Your enemy may detect a launch but who says all its assets are ready to be deployed within 25 minutes it takes the ICBM to hit it's target on the other side of the planet (even shorter for SLBMs). You may destroy at least some of them and that possibly "wasted" nuke is worth the potential damage it stopped. Nuclear weapons are costly to upkeep. US spends about the equivalent of a WHOLE pre-war russian military budget on maintenance of nuclear weapons a year. And at the same time russia claims it has more nuclear weapons than the US. I think it's safe to assume at least some of them are not ready to be imminently deployed.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        10mt+ were already shit at city busting

        you're a moron and every time you remake this thread you're going to be told you're a moron

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody mentioned 10mt+ but you
          Why are you making things up and then gettting mad at it?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you absolute mongoloid, the point is that bigger yield isn't always better.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You don't wipe out Moscow, that's a waste of warheads. You wipe out a select number of infrastructure and governmental targets and then watch Moscow die from starvation and exposure becuase you just killed their electricity, clean water and food supply.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why would the US waste strategic assets on blowing up gopnik playgrounds and horse meat factories? A handful of MIRVs could erase the Kremlin, the FSB building, multiple communications relays, several rail yards, and all the power plants. Moscow would not be able to contribute in any meaningful way to waging any type of serious war. That's the goal. Vaporizing babushkas isn't priority number 1.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lrn2geometry moron

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because nukes have been used twice, and have are fricking paper weights for the last 58 years. Nobody is stupid enough to initiate even a limited nuclear war. We may be in a quiet arms race now but dumping a ton of cash to build a nuclear arsenal still doesn't make sense.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >paper weights
      They did their job. They prevented any major conflict for the last 70 or so years and continue to prevent wars from escalating. Sure we use to have like 45,000 nukes in the cold war but 5,000 is still a pretty huge threat.
      >limited nuclear war.
      There's no such thing. It's all or nothing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There's no such thing. It's all or nothing.
        this

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > it's all or nothing.

        Anon, that's beautiful, let's go all in.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >nuke or nothing

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they don't need super huge tzar bombs anymore.
    Back in the days, they increased bomb yields, so they could drop a bomb outside the city while still being able to fry the whole place.
    Now that they no longer have to worry about anti-air, they can economize, and send a fun sized bomb instead of a family sized one.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>fun sized bomb vs family sized bomb
      I'm sure someone is drawing porn of it, right now.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Counter-force, which is more important if you can manage it, has 0 use for large nukes. Counter-value has almost no use for large nukes. The important targets of things like transportation infrastructure, factories, ports, fuel and food stockpiles are all destroyed by smaller more accurate weapons. Mass killing civilians in cities is not really important because in the end those surviving civilians, whether or not they could be a treat, are going to die in huge numbers from the ensuring chaos and be busy trying to survive with no way to fight back. It's not worth it to make a huge missile with huge nukes for the sake of 1 thing that isn't really that important. It would be expensive. Even if you wanted to destroy cities it's better to spread out a lot of small weapons but that doesn't seem to be considered important by anyone for the previously stated reason: to destroy a country as a threat you don't need to exterminate everyone in it, just destroy their ability to threaten you.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Counter-force, which is more important if you can manage it, has 0 use for large nukes.
      Actually counter-force is only real use for super nukes. Destroying deep command bunkers.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe if your tech is shit. But US bunker-busters can be, and are equipped with nuclear warheads.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Counter-force, which is more important if you can manage it, has 0 use for large nukes.
          Actually counter-force is only real use for super nukes. Destroying deep command bunkers.

          this is what the casaba howitzer is for

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Mass killing civilians in cities is not really important

      You're looking at this from a military perspective. From the perspective of genocidal lunatics (i.e. Putin), mass murder of civilians isn't just a plus, it's the intended goal.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And? Doesn't hange the logic for anyone else. As for Putin, he likes living and there's a few warheads with his name on them in case he goes full moron.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1. Increasing precision means less need for big booms.
    2. Man smaller booms is more efficient than one big boom if you want to saturate an area. Learn about the square cube law.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Man smaller bombs
      We don’t man the bombs anon, we aren’t Slim Pickens’ character in Strangelove

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    House are also getting stronger so a nuke is comparatively getting weaker. A house 5 km away from the blast that would be destroyed 50 years ago would today survive the blast.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah I’m sure the plywood houses built by illegal immigrants as quick as possible are way stronger

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >[new cheap] plywood houses
        >new houses
        >houses
        >built
        Don't gaslight me boomer, we all know constructing new houses will be illegal soon with the new ~~*zoning laws*~~. Everyone will rent, they will own nothing, but they will not be happy. Day of the Pillow.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jP6MbVuf4qM

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that's an interior door, moron
        if you don't want cardboard interior doors don't buy them. simple as.
        also don't post sharts links like a gay

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You've gotta be one of the dumbest motherfrickers on the internet.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are nuclear weapons becoming weaker
    Because the delivery systems got more accurate. You don't need a bomb in the megaton range if you can reliably hit your target. Plus smaller warheads means more targets can be struck by a single MIRV.
    I suppose you could make a humanitarian argument too, not everyone is keen on obliterating entire populations.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This doesn’t scream blast and heat resistant to me

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.

      European structures are so much stronger than American ones. Built so much more durably. Consequence of thousands of years of civilization, long term planning, and those Soviet apartment buildings being designed as blockhouses.

      War on American soil would be about maneuver. There’s few defensible position outside of historic districts.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        On East. Western USA is all mountains

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How many cities do you think our enemies have that would offer any meaningful military resistance, OP?

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic-31/nuclear-warfare-101-wall-of-text-alert-6857/

    This should answer your questions OP

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ...everything in that firmly agrees with the OP.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There's a few things that are important here. One is that big devices are a rarity. There are no 100 megaton devices, very few 25 and 10 megaton devices and not all that many 5 megaton weapons. The largest devices in widespread use are 1 megaton weapons and the majority of strategic weapons are in the 350 -150 kiloton bracket. 50 kiloton strategic weapons are quite common. The reason is quite simple. The destructive power of an explosion is distributed in three dimensions (actually four since the time component is very important) so the destructive power of a device is directly proportion to the cube root of its explosive power.
        >Put all this together and its much more productive to have a large number of small devices than a small number of large ones.

        Big devices waste their energy on 'destroying' huge volumes of empty air.
        It's simple. If you want to paint a wall, do you attach a whole can of paint to one spot, or spread the paint out over the whole wall?
        It's the same with cluster bombs. Spread the energy out to destroy a larger area.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tactical nukes are used to kill dedicated areas
    few areas are as dedicated as is required
    if so, use more nukes

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As delivery methods become more accurate, it becomes possible to achieve the same results with smaller warheads. The reason why tactical nukes were phased out was because guided missiles could achieve similar kill rates using conventional explosives.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    does 2km vs 10km really matter?
    the only justifiable purpose of a huge nuke is to destroy the fricking planet which no one wants to do
    nukes getting smaller is a result of people being less fricking insane than in the past

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. While American cities will be hit by multiple 100MT MIRVs enemy cities are just going to be partially crippled

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because why would you launch a traceable nuclear weapon, especially at america?
    >AEGIS can detect launches
    >SM-3 can intercept SRBM and IRBMs
    >if you listen to propaganda, we have midcourse and terminal phase intercept for ICBMs
    >launch a few, they get intercepted
    >launch all, you get giga-retaliation from land, sea, air US nuclear forces countervalue and counterforce strikes
    all of US' enemies have changed their strategy from conventional nuclear to network-centric and cyber and have been producing EMP-heavy gamma ray burst weapons for HEMP use
    >do a conventional into-orbit LEO launch to 300-400km and don't say what's in the payload, possibly just don't even notify the US
    >have a bunch of HEMPs loitering in orbit, detonate 2-3 above the US
    >pop the power grid
    >now 380 million people are without power, A/C, water, gas, and communications
    >even if the US could attribute the attack to someone, why would they bother retaliating when a timer has just been set for 80% of your population to die in about two months
    to get acceptable EMP from a high altitude detonation, you only really need 500kt-5mt, if you detonate at 400km above michigan, you cover like 75% of the US landmass and can blast all three power grids with enough power that even power stations outside the E1 will pop due to the way that failover works on the grid. Literally nothing has been done to harden the civilian grid. The military wouldn't be affected, but there's no point continuing the fight when your domestic power and communications grids are going to be crippled and out of commission for 6+ months

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why would they bother retaliating when a timer has just been set for 80% of your population to die in about two months
      Spite.

      Also, EMP does not work that way, moron.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Also, EMP does not work that way, moron.
        what exactly is wrong with my theory?
        EMP acts on length of conductors. it'd destroy the HV wires and high voltage transformer systems on the three US grids, which is enough to take it down for a significant amount of time.
        you'd basically just have zero mains power, which would leave most of the country unable to do anything but depend on whatever consumables (gas, food, etc) that they've stockpiled
        the great northeast blackout lasted four days and was caused by a surge and bad failover from the control system, none of the actual hardware other than lines was destroyed.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what exactly is wrong with my theory?
          That EMP is not some hyper-effective superweapon that instnatly knocks out all power infrastructure ove rmillions of square miles forever outside of bad scifi novels.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's over
            https://futurescience.com/emp/
            https://www.futurescience.com/emp/super-EMP.html
            http://web.archive.org/web/20181125224536/https://nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/EMP-Paper-Final-November07.pdf

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >some website of a failed corpo and shitty old alarmism form the 90's
              LMAO.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why would they bother retaliating when a timer has just been set for 80% of your population to die in about two months
      The classic mistake every enemy of America ever makes, completely failing to understand the American mentality.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes arent real so i dont really care

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >arsenal sizes are decreasing
    It costs money to upkeep it. Why have more meaningless shit pile up?

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >better delivery systems
    >MIRV's can cover a larger area and are harder to intercept
    >most use cases dont need megaton weapons
    >easier to clean up after smaller weapons

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >destroy one city
    why would we target cities? we aren't a depraved race of subjuman sociopathic godless homosexuals.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then your enemy wins the war because they will target your cities. They can then go on to rebuild and colonize your country

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not if their military and rocket forces have been turned to ash by superfuzed MIRVs.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They can always rebuild their military since not everyone died because you chose not to target “civilians”

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Play Civilization game. You would understand.
            If you kill your enemies you win.

            Just shut the frick up, moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Good luck rebuilding your military when you have approximately zero command and control capability, no flag staff above the rank of colonel, and are constantly at the mercy of conventional weapons

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Good luck trying to have a military when you’re entire civilian population is dead

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Every nuke wasted on a strategically unimportant civilian target is another asset your enemy has to work against you. Massacring civilians is not nor has it ever been the objective of using nuclear weapons. Too bad you morons chased Oppenheimer away. He had a lot of great insight into the tactics of nuclear warfare

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oppenheimer was a communist who worked to weaken the USA nuclear forces with your suggestions

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Play Civilization game. You would understand.
      If you kill your enemies you win.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >becoming weaker
    Have you considered that maybe they don't?

    If MeGaTON go biG BOOM was all you could why'd you think US kept doing tests for so long after they got ydrogen bomb and miniaturized it? You got the most intense energy source on earth. I bet the classified evolved types of bombs and their effects are beyond the wildest fantasies of public.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The most common US & UK weapon is only 100kt which would need multiple strikes to destroy one city

    Little Boy was barely 15 kilotons and was still powerful enough to effectively flatten 63% of the entire city, including completely destroying nearly all of the downtown buildings that were built from reinforced concrete due to earthquake regulations.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    100kt airburst is more than enough to destroy a city with pop of around 1 million.
    with 10s of thoursands dead and hundreds of thoursands wounded it would probably be more humane to use bigger bomb and kill them instantly
    for bigger cities you could use multiple warheads but why bother with residential areas? with industrial and logistics base gone city with hundreds of thousands wounded and millions displaced is a bigger drain on resources than smouldering crater...

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      On a long enough time scale the survivors will rebuild to fight again. You don’t want that to happen. The goal should be to wipe out all life and make it impossible for it to come back

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    xaxaxxa yes russian nooks are unstoppable and the glorious peoples can quickly re-establish complex strategic systems in a matter of days due to their hardy nature and loyalty to the motherland
    just give up american scum let us continue to genocide and rape ukrainian civilians or we swear we'll nook you this time we mean it

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >just give up american scum let us continue to genocide and rape ukrainian civilians or we swear we'll nook you this time we mean it
      No, no, you don't understand at ALL my lowercase friend, my endorsement of counter value strategy involves nuking zigtown repeatedly enough times to turn it into a mile deep crater that will glow for a million years, illuminating the moon a nice shade of blue green when it passes over former ziggerstan.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Based, but then again we all know that accusing someone of being a zigger is just a loser tactic used by losers in a losing argument already, and requires no reply.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, his comment was sarcastic and I'm mostly wasting my time here being silly but the Moscow Deletion Strat has been the probably war plan of the UK for a long time. (see 'Moscow Criterion')

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How effective would ground lasers be for a future defense scheme against an incoming nuclear attack? I can imagine having multiple batteries of lasers around cities and military target each in the hundreds of kw to even mw range that can be tied into existing power sources such as coal plants for power.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >cities
    Because those 100kt warheads have the CEP of 100 FEET. We don't need to nuke cities, all your base are belong to us and your silos are nothing more than easy targets. Your bunkers and hardened shelters are nothing more than tombs, accuracy trumps yield.

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