|
it is virtually impossible to destroy a modern city with HE. you'd be surprised how little damage actually HE actually does to steel/concrete buildings.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
Additionally, the gigantic saturation firebombing campaigns against Germany during WWII generally killed a single digit percentage of the population of the bombed cities. It's really hard to bomb a city to rubble. Cities are huge, and the destructive radius of a bomb is a microscopic pinprick on the map.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:The surest way is to quarantine the area and turn many thousands of your soldiers into war criminals, but if it absolutely has to be right loving now, and the consequences of not going nuclear are worse than the consequences of freaking out the other nuclear powers and irradiating your own countryside, then it's time to start dropping The Bomb. Man now I'm wondering what the immediate reaction of the other great powers would be to the United States nuking its own territory to kill some apocalyptic event. You probably can't alt-history that one past the immediate "wtf" stage though without more details on exactly what, why, and what's visible to everyone else. Probably wouldn't trigger MAD though!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:06
|
|
Cat Army 
|
MAD is not a thing that is triggered, Jesus loving Christ at least use the term right
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:MAD is not a thing that is triggered, Jesus loving Christ at least use the term right 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:You mad? Triggered much? drat, 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:MAD is not a thing that is triggered, Jesus loving Christ at least use the term right Oh for gently caress's sake, you know what I meant. In this hypothetical situation of an alien invasion or Gray goo sci fi horror that causes the USG to use nuclear weapons on its own cities, I would be surprised if the other nuclear powers were to immediately retaliate. Happy now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
A very good read from the AI thread. Humphreys posted:Confessions of an C2 pilot
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:drat,
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:drat,
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
As for the bombing question, zombies/rage virus zombies/black friday shoppers aren't really hiding and don't have AAA capability, so you can bomb them with impunity. The question here would be how fast can you get mudmovers armed and in the air? Also, who would direct the fire?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
JcDent posted:As for the bombing question, zombies/rage virus zombies/black friday shoppers aren't really hiding and don't have AAA capability, so you can bomb them with impunity. The question here would be how fast can you get mudmovers armed and in the air? Also, who would direct the fire? The question isn't how fast you can start pounding a defenseless target, fundamentally it's an issue of the lethality of the ordinance. You could have B52s flying wingtip to wingtip from one end of the city to another dropping sticks of 2000 pound bombs followed by another formation crop dusting with napalm and not get anywhere close to a 100% fatality rate. You could do a gently caress load of damage and kill a poo poo ton of people, but it's not going to be anything like sterilizing the area. Even chemical weapons aren't going to have that kind of body count. You'll get more with modern chemical weapons, but there are still going to be pockets of survivors. If you absolutely, positively, have to make sure that every living thing in an urban zone is dead you have to use nukes, and many of them dropped on the same target with overlapping blast radii.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
This is a zombie question, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Well, if you bomb it to a containable state, then you have options. Plus, anything that's spreading fast is probably taking to the streets. Though I doubt you can catch them in a cordoning ring of fire fast enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
I look forward to your 120 page book published on amazon about this zombie breakout conventional warfare scenario op.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Certain cities could conceivably have 155 rounds incoming in about a minute. Assuming there was a battery on the range when the call came in. If the city were Oceanside CA there would even be a smile on their faces as they service the target.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Let me restate what I said earlier, with numbers. The lethal radius of a Mk 82 bomb built for fragmentation is nominally about 19,200 square meters, for unprotected humans standing out in the open according to the internet. The land area of Los Angeles is about 1,214,030,000 square meters. You'd need about 63,000 bombs, best case, assuming everything is perfect. Since people will be in buildings, you'd probably need at least an order of magnitude more. A typical bomber can carry what, less than a hundred such bombs? Do we even have 63,000 bombs in the inventory? I would think so, but probably not all in a bunker by the runway and ready to go. As such it's unlikely that the US Air Force could accomplish the mission set out in the original post using conventional weapons on any level of forewarning shorter than the budget and procurement processes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:This is a zombie question, isn't it? They never are
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Wait, so if you’re in a wood hut or something 19,000 meters away from an mk82 going off you’re dead to rights? That seems really far away. Am I reading this completely wrong?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Wait, so if you’re in a wood hut or something 19,000 meters away from an mk82 going off you’re dead to rights? That seems really far away. Am I reading this completely wrong? Square meters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Square meters. Which makes it about a 155 meter diameter circle. Still pretty impressive. Note that's the lethal radius in a perfectly flat theoretical space without cover.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Something like a 80m radius.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:The lethal radius of a Mk 82 bomb built for fragmentation is nominally about 19,200 square meters
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
That's a good question, how do they define the 'Kill radius'. Percentage of targets hit within that radius? What would that figure be? Edit: Overpressure? Deptfordx fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
504 posted:The "rules" Can you give us more details about what we're trying to kill? Even a modest timeframe would be good too. Cause in the wildly improbable event of something happening that would need killing in an American city like that, even assuming you'd just nuke the place via missile, I'd say it'd take a few hours before they push the button.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:That's a good question, how do they define the 'Kill radius'. Percentage of targets hit within that radius? What would that figure be? It's probably some kind of LD50 type thing where outside the kill radius it's only going to stun infantry in fortifications and infantry in the open will not be killed outright. I did some searching and found this table in MCWP 3-23.1: Close Air Support. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcwp/3-23-1/appf.pdf Distances for a Mk 82 are 245 meters with a 10% probability of incapacitation, and 425 meters for a 0.1% probability of incapacitation. "Danger Close" fires are impacts within that 0.1% radius. (For tube artillery and mortars you can find a chart here)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Can you give us more details about what we're trying to kill? Even a modest timeframe would be good too. Cause in the wildly improbable event of something happening that would need killing in an American city like that, even assuming you'd just nuke the place via missile, I'd say it'd take a few hours before they push the button. At this point why not talk about dropping very large and heavy objects from space, same effect less radiation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:This is a zombie question, isn't it? Blind Rasputin posted:I look forward to your 120 page book published on amazon about this zombie breakout conventional warfare scenario op. Nebakenezzer posted:Can you give us more details about what we're trying to kill? Even a modest timeframe would be good too. Cause in the wildly improbable event of something happening that would need killing in an American city like that, even assuming you'd just nuke the place via missile, I'd say it'd take a few hours before they push the button. drat it, I was hoping to get away with admitting it's a zombie question.. Yes the scenario is an outbreak of the rage virus in a major city. His point of view: It would be easy to contain with a quick military response and chemical weapons My point of view: They couldn't even respond to Katrina quickly, how would they respond to a fast, aggressive expanding unpresidented infection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:19
|
|
504 posted:drat it, I was hoping to get away with admitting it's a zombie question.. Yes the scenario is an outbreak of the rage virus in a major city. Easier to quarantine, blockade, barricade, no fly zone.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Stuff like ragers are only as likely to stay in buildings as the people they're trying to kill, and, unlike zombies, they probably respond well to being shot. Probably not that hard to contain, but considering the reaction time involved - especially when we don't have a history of rage outbreaks which would tell us that SHTF, so nobody is rushing to bomb downtown LA - the whole city would likely be a writeoff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Question: why shouldn't Canada get an arleigh Burke? Aren't they going to be dicking around in the artic circle with Russia in a few years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
504 posted:His point of view: It would be easy to contain with a quick military response and chemical weapons Really there's no such thing as a quick military response because logistics are a lot of work. If you know in advance you're going to have to do something on short notice, you try your hardest to do all the logistics beforehand. Since this kind of scenario (the need for very large and very quick force in the US) is not part of the military's mission, they haven't done the logistics beforehand and they're going to suck at it. Cf. the air defense response to 9/11. Russia starts looking like a large aerospace threat is imminent? Sure, we've been thinking about that for a long time and would (hopefully) do a good job at it. Need to kill even one large and slow airliner on very short notice? Surprisingly hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Also a city like LA would be an absolute nightmare to contain. It’s a massive sprawl without easily definable boarders. How do you decide what’s safe? Also the highway system already boned you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Question: why shouldn't Canada get an arleigh Burke? Aren't they going to be dicking around in the artic circle with Russia in a few years? They’re awesome multi-purpose ships, but they ain’t cheap, either to operate and maintain, or to build in the first place. Of course, the budget number that a quick google shows me for the CSC program would let them buy DOUBLE the number of hulls that they’re planning on, if they went with DDG-51s instead of whatever frigate they’re planning on. Look into your heart and you’ll find the answer you seek. Its massive, hilarious graft and pork. It always is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Also a city like LA would be an absolute nightmare to contain. It’s a massive sprawl without easily definable boarders. How do you decide what’s safe? Also the highway system already boned you. There's a reason New York is a favorite for these kinds of scenarios. All the parts of the city anyone gives a drat about are in an easy-to-isolate target. I take it that National Guard bases are few and far inbetween and not exactly brimming with uniformed soldiers ready to rumble? Containment would then fall on cops, gun nuts and Californian forest fires.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
JcDent posted:There's a reason New York is a favorite for these kinds of scenarios. All the parts of the city anyone gives a drat about are in an easy-to-isolate target. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that NYDP maintains a couple of tubes of 105 with CS rounds, ‘just in case’.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Seems like the immediate problem here is a combination of containment as well as elimination - Fast Zombies / Rage virus is one of those "you are hosed" scenarios where if you can't do both immediately, comprehensively & completely... it spreads too fast to handle. Even if you had multiple combat engineer battalions with appropriate heavy lift vehicles deploying hescos, enough vehicles with crew-served able to deploy for interlocking fields of fire to prevent squirters until permanent barriers are set up, and arty to cover every loving approach with both FASCAM & conventional munitions , good luck. Army mothballed the Volcano systems back in the 90s but is putting them back into rotation, but even drawing ammo for all the various units is a huge issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Ok now bear with me here, I've got something for this exact scenario... *Reveals high-school science fair project entitled "Weaponized Cum"*
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Regulated by the  ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
If you wanted containment options OP, the government and the CDC would have studied/ made plans for nightmarish disease containment already. I'm not familiar with the "rage virus" trope, but if it's a virus it has to spread like one. Even if it is airborne, it's going to take awhile to spread, and it's gonna take awhile to manifest itself. If you're talking about a evil scientist setting poo poo off in downtown LA, likely the disease is more or less conventionally spreading for a time before everything goes nuts. Even then, the government would likely treat it like a conventional virus outbreak. IMO to get to the point where the government is preemptively attacking/nuking someplace to stop a virus outbreak would take far more than merely an very deadly infectious virus - a whole history is needed to justify that action. If you dig into this thread you can find a real life example of the Soviets dealing with exactly this situation - they accidentally exposed people to their weaponized smallpox virus. Fortunately for them (and the whole world) it was recognized quickly, and the head of the KGB was notified. He stopped the trains heading in and out of the city, and then the Soviets started a very through quarantine/ disinfection program.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 22:49
|
|