|
Micr0chiP posted:
"It also would leave a stream of nuclear fallout from its reactor in its wake."
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:"It also would leave a stream of nuclear fallout from its reactor in its wake." The devil is in the details 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Micr0chiP posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_SCuPId8KA Project Pluto is almost comically evil. Let's build a nuclear drone that will drop nuclear bombs on our enemy, and then have it do laps over enemy airspace irradiating everything nearby just to be sure we got the job done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Groda posted:I'm going to be super vague now: I vaguely remember reading something like this as a scanned article in a massive thread about wars in Africa on militaryphotos.net. I'll see if I can dig it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:"It also would leave a stream of nuclear fallout from its reactor in its wake." Yeah but only over the Bad Guys so it's good!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:"It also would leave a stream of nuclear fallout from its reactor in its wake." For some reason I feel for such a sales line they really needed to get Reagan to narrate the video. "And, y'know, the 'Big Stick' has the added benefit of leaving behind deadly radioactive fallout to salt the earth beneath it as it flies at treetop level, just to give the Red Menace another good ol' fashioned kick in the teeth." The big selling point in that video is their cursory explaining that the reactor activation sequence *minimizes* the exposure the launch crew will be exposed to. Lets you know that the only people who were ever *meant* to see this video when it was made were Generals, Cabinet Secretaries, and Congress. Shooting Blanks posted:Let's build a nuclear drone that will drop nuclear bombs on our enemy, and then have it do laps over enemy airspace irradiating everything nearby just to be sure we got the job done. Only way it would've been more evil is to ID the camps the Soviets would likely evac children to and make the missiles terminate their flights there. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:The last surviving member of the US air crew that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima has died in Georgia aged 93. RIP to the last man that could challenge my BF1942 K/D ratio.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Taken today: I wasn't planning to go down to the lake to see the Seafair show until tomorrow and don't live too close to Lake Washington, but these guys made a few passes over my home in Seattle. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:Not true I am afraid. He said they declined direct involvement. While there's not any question that ZIPRA and ZANLA were getting help from Communist countries, there's a difference between that and, for instance, Cuba flying MiG-23s against the South African Air Force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
The thread's unoffical blog has a post on using nukes in Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 14:26
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:Not true I am afraid. They received material support and training but there wasn't, to my knowledge, any direct(as in pointing a rifle and pulling a trigger) on the part of the USSR/China/et al
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The thread's unoffical blog has a post on using nukes in Vietnam. from the report cited: quote:“the average number of enemy casualties per strike was about 100.” it is pretty revealing of the thought process in the upper leadership in the military at the time, in the "if things truly go to poo poo we'll just nuke because they're an insta-win" mentality. that's some cold war arrogance at its finest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
brains posted:from the report cited: No bases in reality but how lovely would a chain of tactical nuke strikes north of the border be to basically create a nuclear waste barrier to prevent soldiers from infiltrating south without getting an unhealthy dose of radiation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:No bases in reality but how lovely would a chain of tactical nuke strikes north of the border be to basically create a nuclear waste barrier to prevent soldiers from infiltrating south without getting an unhealthy dose of radiation. The DMZ was not really a primary infiltration route. The narrowness made it fairly easy to cover. Weighed against the problems of the Russians introducing tactical nukes of their own in there, it's not much of a reward. One of the problems with using tactical nukes in Europe is that the Red Army was adapting to fighting in a nuclear-fallout wasteland, so the protective barrier of fallout would not be so useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Yeah bombing Laos is one thing but nuking it? Someone has got to notice THAT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
It also doesn't help that unless you're going to go complete full retard with nuking your barrier zone until it glows in the dark (at which point you're running into all sorts of crazy problems) most radiation harmful enough to keep your average military from just quick-marching a division through an area is going to dissipate relatively quickly. We're not talking hours and days here, but inside a couple of years? Yeah, maybe you don't want to drink the water or raise a family in the barrier zone, but it won't be enough to reliably sicken past combat effectiveness through short term exposure. edit: channeling my own inner LeMay, though, I have to wonder how effective a low-kT nuke would be as a defoliant, basically just through the physical blast and heat wave. Probably beats herbicides. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
I'd bet a combo of fuel air explosives and sprayed herbicide would be at least almost as effective for a fraction of the cost and political fallout, no pun intended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
brains posted:from the report cited: The Fall of Lima Site 85 Let's just stick a TACAN and radar with all the personnel and equipment needed to support it on a tall mountain in Laos somewhere and hope the enemy won't be able to scale the sheer cliffs to take it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
It fought in Korea, so I guess it could go here... What are the inlet/vent things for in the Corsair's wings?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
simplefish posted:It fought in Korea, so I guess it could go here... e: which radials don't need jesus I am dumb
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:
Actually they are, they're oil coolers. Also supercharger air intakes. Closeup: 
Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Actually they are, they're oil coolers. Also supercharger air intakes. Nice one! Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:edit: channeling my own inner LeMay, though, I have to wonder how effective a low-kT nuke would be as a defoliant, basically just through the physical blast and heat wave. Probably beats herbicides. Radiation stimulates plant growth so not very. Hiroshima was supposed to be eerily green within a couple weeks of the bomb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Radiation stimulates plant growth so not very. Hiroshima was supposed to be eerily green within a couple weeks of the bomb. No poo poo? Learn something new every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
This isn't some sort of third-handed retelling of all those plant seeds people irradiated to produce a variety of random-rear end mutations, one of which was improved growth etc.? The amount of radiation at Hiroshima is consistently overestimated in the public mind. The physics package was quite small (64 kg) compared to utility contexts, and the burn-up was something like 1/4 of what fuel in a nuke plant achieves (despite containing a ~100x high concentration of 235U). EDIT: Checked over my figures, and Little Man looked to have reached ~12 MWd/kg U. By comparison, fuel that leaves our reactors is in the 40-60 MWd/kg U range. The point I forgot to make was, the fallout is two things: The fission products (MUST come from a split nucleus) or activation products (nuclei which captured a neutron during the blast). The efficiency was quite low (~15% if you assume 100% 235U in the physics package), and the initial mass was quite small. Additionally, being an airburst, I wouldn't expect extreme levels of activation products in the surroundings, either. Groda fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Groda posted:This isn't some sort of third-handed retelling of all those plant seeds people irradiated to produce a variety of random-rear end mutations, one of which was improved growth etc.? Is that not normal? A power plant has both opportunity and motivation to be as extremely efficient as possible with its fuel usage that a weapon design largely doesn't. Also we're making the mistake of confusing radiation and contamination again; if you wanted to make Ho Chi Minh trail into a no-man's land you'd want to spray contamination everywhere, a completely different effort than directly killing people with small-yield radiative blasts. And plants are rather effective natural contamination filters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Is that not normal? A power plant has both opportunity and motivation to be as extremely efficient as possible with its fuel usage that a weapon design largely doesn't. Made an edit--basically saying there wasn't that much contamination to go around. However, the city was burned to gently caress, and, having been to Yellowstone a couple of years after the 1988 fire season, I can tell you that might have something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Groda posted:This isn't some sort of third-handed retelling of all those plant seeds people irradiated to produce a variety of random-rear end mutations, one of which was improved growth etc.? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:No bases in reality but how lovely would a chain of tactical nuke strikes north of the border be to basically create a nuclear waste barrier to prevent soldiers from infiltrating south without getting an unhealthy dose of radiation. An "unhealthy dose of radiation" is usually something that kills you in ten to twenty years, which is usually beyond the scope of whatever the current military conflict is. A rapidly incapacitating dose that puts someone down in hours or days either requires exposure to the nuclear blast itself, in which case other kill mechanisms are going to be more effective, or exposure to a high amount of fallout, which is unreliable. Even at ground zero of a surface burst, fallout decays rapidly, and the radioactive particles are subject to being washed away by rain. You'd have to re-nuke the border every few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Maybe we should nuke Groda's house and find out!
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You'd have to re-nuke the border every few weeks. Yes, but I'm sure there are downsides as well It's worth pointing out that the study on Nuclearsecrecy was written in 66-67, and that 'nuclear use in Vietnam' would have had very different methods and objectives in the later war, once the Viet Cong were wiped out, and when the NVA was also using tank-heavy forces and massed bases. E: Which puts into perspective Nixon's crazyman routine about being willing to go nuclear; he wasn't talking shelling HMT, he was talking about adding spice to Linebacker II, or worse
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Maybe we should nuke Groda's house and find out! Only if you try pop rocks and soda first
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:No bases in reality but how lovely would a chain of tactical nuke strikes north of the border be to basically create a nuclear waste barrier to prevent soldiers from infiltrating south without getting an unhealthy dose of radiation. they covered this too! radiological contamination is heavily dependent on the weather, terrain, and vegetation and even in best-case scenarios the lethal effects would be localized to ground zero for only a couple weeks. a military unit could still move through the target area with a non-significant exposure, whereas any actual population within 200 miles would really suffer the worst of the dosage. they would also have to keep nuking the borders to keep rad levels high enough to prevent troop movement. basically it would take an unsustainable number of nukes, something like 1000 a year! in order to get the rem levels necessary, you'd have to groundburst much larger weapons than sub-10KT, and obviously that puts us outside tac nuke considerations anyways. there is another neat section in that paper about penetrating ground bursts, designed to destroy tunnel systems. would work pretty well in theory, but again, just like tac nukes the hardest part is locating the targets in the first place and we all know how that story went for the air force throughout vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:E: Which puts into perspective Nixon's crazyman routine about being willing to go nuclear; he wasn't talking shelling HMT, he was talking about adding spice to Linebacker II, or worse Speaking of crazy Nixon  quote:Nixon: Well, things better start to happen or—you know, I’m—you probably don’t believe me, but I can perfectly turn, I’m capable, that is—even my own, even Haldeman wouldn’t know—I’m perfectly capable of turning right awful hard. I never have in my life. But if I found that there’s no other way—in other words, hell, if you think Cambodia had flower children fighting, we’ll bomb the goddamn North like it’s never been bombed. . . . From a Vanity Fair article on a fourthcoming book on some newly restored Nixon tapes. This month 40 years ago Nixon resigned. FOUR MORE YEARS FOUR MORE YEARS GARBAGE MEN DEMAND EQUAL TIME
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
I can't not hear anything by Nixon in the Billy West Futurama Nixon voice now.. It's just too good. Fry: "Please, Mr. Nixon. We're appealing to your sense of decency." Everybody: "Hahahahahaha" Nixon: "Seriously though. I'm never giving back this body. Now beat it, before I get Cambodian on your asses." Nixon: "Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973 but your average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever. The only one who's changed is me. I've become bitter, and let's face it, crazy over the years. And once I'm swept into office, I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat. And I'll go into people's houses at night and wreck up the place! Muhuhahahaha!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
priznat posted:I can't not hear anything by Nixon in the Billy West Futurama Nixon voice now.. It's just too good. I do love that Billy West's Nixon is heavily informed by Anthony Hopkins as Nixon, and the weird vowel sounds he'd add into sentences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:35
|
|
posted:
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Awfully prescient points, there
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
The Atlantic has a 41-photo gallery of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/08/the-soviet-war-in-afghanistan-1979-1989/100786/ Afghanistan is the best counter-argument against anyone who advocates arming the Syrian rebels. For bonus fun, try and identify all the small arms you see the Mujahideen using.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
I think one of them was holding a smoothbore musket.  Maybe a shotgun. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
I think it was a Vice doc were they went weapon shopping in Afghanistan and found a British musket from the first British-Afghan war in 18xx-something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:36
|
|
