|
a 400lb concrete block :osha:
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
A PAL that bricks a nuke that gets tampered with is all well and good until you have 50 of them you can dissect and experiment with until you get it right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
From what I’ve seen there are several thousand USAF and assorted NATO staff at Incirlik and it is barely off the coast of the Med, well within range of a whole bunch of Naval and CENTCOM support. I don’t really see how they “capture” active nukes without dealing with very serious US response (and basically declaring open war against like a 1/3 of the world). The risk seems to be much greater if we try to move them out to be honest, since they’ll be a lot more exposed till they’re on like the other side of Italy. Mazz fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Oct 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Asking for a Chinese friend I owe a lot of money to and who has some compromising photos of me, but what's the process of bricking B-61s? Mash the big yellow button? Or is it a more lengthy process involving a phillips and a key/code? Could three guys guarding them do it in the 4 minutes it would take to force down the door, or would they only be able to do 2 apiece in that time? Feel free to disregard if I'm conjuring the OPSEC wizard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
What's the point of nuclear sharing after the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:What's the point of nuclear sharing after the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Institutional inertia seems like the best explanation. But seriously I cannot understand why we would still have nukes at Incirlik, I mean, they should be gone yesterday, the air force should have a plane in the air right now to go load them all up and get them out of there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Use 1 nuke, no need to worry about 49 others.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Institutional inertia seems like the best explanation. Whose call is it to terminate the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program? Defense? State? Energy? Would it require the president to approve and issue the appropriate orders to all of those agencies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Asking for a Chinese friend I owe a lot of money to and who has some compromising photos of me, but what's the process of bricking B-61s? Mash the big yellow button? Or is it a more lengthy process involving a phillips and a key/code? Could three guys guarding them do it in the 4 minutes it would take to force down the door, or would they only be able to do 2 apiece in that time? I just looked it up so I wasn't talking bullshit, the W47 had something I remember reading about ages ago, a bunch of neutron absorbing metal wire in the middle of the pit that had to be pulled out before it was capable of detonating correctly - I imagine it's still a similar process, if the safety systems think there's anything wrong at all, you chop the cable and leave that in there. You'd have to dismantle and rebuild the entire thing to make it go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
Wikipedia actually had a section on it.Wikipedia posted:The B61 also features a "command disable" mechanism, which functions as follows: after entering the correct 3-digit numeric code it is then possible to turn a dial to "DI" and pull back a T-shaped handle which comes away in the user's hand. This action releases a spring-loaded firing pin which fires the percussion cap on an MC4246A thermal battery, powering it up. Electrical power from the thermal battery is sufficient to "fry" the internal circuitry of the bomb, destroying critical mechanisms without causing detonation. This makes the bomb incapable of being used. Any B61 which has had the command disable facility used must be returned to Pantex for repair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
Wouldn't Turkey, if they got their hands on said US Nukes, just hand them off/exchange them with Russia for other nukes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Asking for a Chinese friend I owe a lot of money to and who has some compromising photos of me, but what's the process of bricking B-61s? Mash the big yellow button? Or is it a more lengthy process involving a phillips and a key/code? Could three guys guarding them do it in the 4 minutes it would take to force down the door, or would they only be able to do 2 apiece in that time? Based off the documentary broken arrow you can just type a code in 3 times snd then it bricks itself
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
The discussion is academic. Turkey is not going to steal nukes. That's how you get wrecked and regime changed. Instead, note that nukes are not that hard to make (cf. North Korea), and history shows it's unlikely anyone will stop you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
The last Arms Control Wonk podcast talked about this, along with some funny stories about how lax security was for the weapons stored in Greece and Belgium. In any case, there’s no good reason for the weapons to be there. The Turks cared so little about the nuclear sharing that they no longer have any aircraft certified to carry the B61. The US doesn’t base any aircraft capable of fielding them at Incirlik either! So storing them there is functionally pointless, even if you did think the Russians might attack at any moment. As Jeffrey Lewis pointed out, you would look like an insane person if you suggested today that we start storing nuclear weapons in Turkey, but suggest that maybe we should pull them out and you get a lot of hemming and hawing about how the Turks will feel about it. I think the relationship between the US and Turkey is not going to get better anytime soon, and nukes have nothing to do with it. Get them out yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:I just looked it up so I wasn't talking bullshit, the W47 had something I remember reading about ages ago, a bunch of neutron absorbing metal wire in the middle of the pit that had to be pulled out before it was capable of detonating correctly - I imagine it's still a similar process, if the safety systems think there's anything wrong at all, you chop the cable and leave that in there. You'd have to dismantle and rebuild the entire thing to make it go. The W47 only had that because a one-point safety test on the warhead design failed, and then a moratorium on testing came down that prohibited additional testing. So the boron wire was a kludge to make them one-point safe, and it was a very fragile mechanism that was expected to lead to an unacceptably high dud rate. So subsequently the W47s were remanufactured to remove it. I don't imagine the B61 has a similar process. Blistex posted:Wikipedia actually had a section on it. Note that that requires a friendly to intervene, so he has to be in place, with the correct code, and capable of receiving an order to brick the thing. Even then I don't see what stops you from just opening the thing up, connecting your own firing system to the detonators, and making them blow up. You wouldn't get the fusion stage to go but setting off the fission stage is bad enough. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Oct 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Note that that requires a friendly to intervene, so he has to be in place, with the correct code, and capable of receiving an order to brick the thing. And as mentioned unless the disarm also poisons the fission material somehow it gives whichever country grabs a nuke a big leg up anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Note that that requires a friendly to intervene, so he has to be in place, with the correct code, and capable of receiving an order to brick the thing. Yeah, it's very 1950s "physically set a switch with a code then press a button", which hopefully means you're not pressed for time when deactivating like 50 of them Honestly tho, if the goal of Russia is to spread chaos, why not just violate the NPT and give Turkey some nukes (or some duds filled with radioactive slag)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Probably uncharted territory (at least I hope it is) but what would the US's possible/probable response or actions be should they decide they are actually going to keep the B-61 inventory? Once you have them in your possession, and you manage to evade US efforts to recover them (watch this space if you want a demonstration how much you can understate "vigorous"), even the 90's vintage PALs are likely to give you enough trouble as to make the whole enterprise foolish at best. All of this assumes you can get your grubby mitts on the loving things before a custodian gets a minute alone with them and disables them permanently. Phanatic posted:Even then I don't see what stops you from just opening the thing up, connecting your own firing system to the detonators, and making them blow up. You wouldn't get the fusion stage to go but setting off the fission stage is bad enough. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Oct 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 10:28
|
|
|
That post about nuke safety etc above is awesome and details exactly how hard it is to hotwire a B61. Turkey "stealing" nukes is basically suicide by cop in nation-state form.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
I'm not entirely convinced that Erdogan couldn't talk certain people into a 'deal' where he takes over guarding these bombs; "they're in Turkey after all and it's silly and expensive to have Americans doing it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
This is one of those situations where actually shooting folks and taking the nukes is extremely unlikely, but there's a lot of room for leverage and pressure. Think of those Chinese anti ship missiles and bases. They throw around a lot of leverage against their neighbors - and without getting into shooting fights with them. This is much more of a soft leverage situation, where the symbolism of having the nukes there is important as a sign of NATO unity, and the symbolism of pulling them out is also a sign of retreat and dissolution of the alliance. They serve no useful military purpose at this point (and haven't for 25 years) but it's not about actual use. So we could have a shakedown situation, we could have a situation where we lose a lot of expensive hardware to a hasty destruction in retreat, and we could have a massive black eye to American power projection because we're seen to run off and retreat from the world. I'd say they've all already happened in the Syria retreat, but now nukes are involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
set the nuke to go off if someone tampers with it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:I'm not entirely convinced that Erdogan couldn't talk certain people into a 'deal' where he takes over guarding these bombs; "they're in Turkey after all and it's silly and expensive to have Americans doing it." This is how it'd go down and should be everyone's fear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:set the nuke to go off if someone tampers with it Reading about PALs, there is something called the "anti-tampering charge". I wouldn't want to find out if it exists by trying it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This is how it'd go down and should be everyone's fear. And I'm sure everyone in the Middle East would be delighted to have on their plate another nuclear power that isn't officially a nuclear power and loves authoritarianism and ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
KSA would 100% exercise their supposed "options" for nukes from Pakistan if that happened. No proliferation? No, proliferation!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Was thinking of those big ww2 bombing raids with hundreds of bombers and how the first planes up had to orbit until the later planes were taking off and had a question. If a big bomber like a b29 or b52 puts themselves into like a 15 degree banking turn to make a full circle how much territory does that cover? Tight enough to circle the airfield or more like you have planes circling the county? Answer in terms of b29s if that is too revealing for b52 procedures or anything. Or in terms like 707s so theres no problem with opsec or anything
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Stravag posted:Was thinking of those big ww2 bombing raids with hundreds of bombers and how the first planes up had to orbit until the later planes were taking off and had a question. If a big bomber like a b29 or b52 puts themselves into like a 15 degree banking turn to make a full circle how much territory does that cover? Tight enough to circle the airfield or more like you have planes circling the county? Answer in terms of b29s if that is too revealing for b52 procedures or anything. Or in terms like 707s so theres no problem with opsec or anything Turn radius is more tied to cruising speed than the size of the aircraft. A 15 degree bank is roughly what you fly for a half standard rate turn or 1.5 degrees per second (which is a full 360 in four minutes). B-17's weren't super fast, especially if they were loitering overhead flying a max endurance profile. At a cruising speed of 150 knots you get a circle about 3 miles wide. In actual practice they probably spread that out for the hundred bomber raids and whatnot, but definitely more in the realm of airfield sized rather than country sized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Ah sweet thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Have a look at Flight Radar or something, plenty of heavy orbits there you can use for data too
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Or instead of just guessing, you can use a proper calculator for this! http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Oh thats really cool but it assumes you know the rated stall speed. If you dont does it make any difference to the turn characteristics? Or just to the stall info?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
Stravag posted:Oh thats really cool but it assumes you know the rated stall speed. If you dont does it make any difference to the turn characteristics? Or just to the stall info? video_of_that_one_b52_that_banked_low_and_under_the_stall_speed_and_crashed.mp4
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
I meant in the table i know it matters to a real aircraft
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
A typical AWACS orbit has lobes of 10-15nm diameter, 13 is super common. Depends on the airspace restrictions, as does leg length. It's a gentle enough turn that you usually don't notice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
For what it's worth, one of the wonks on the most recent Arms Control podcast talking about the Turkish Nukes issue was pretty explicit that he thought the protections would not stand up to the resources a large nation state could throw at cracking them if they did sieze the weapons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:video_of_that_one_b52_that_banked_low_and_under_the_stall_speed_and_crashed.mp4 Well to be honest the guy flying the B-52 at the time was a moron whom was warned before about doing stupid poo poo like that in a B-52.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:For what it's worth, one of the wonks on the most recent Arms Control podcast talking about the Turkish Nukes issue was pretty explicit that he thought the protections would not stand up to the resources a large nation state could throw at cracking them if they did sieze the weapons. PALs are much more about resisting a rogue officer or denying an enemy immediate use - I don't think you can build a PAL strong enough to resist days or months of access attempts with nation-state resources.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
Well this is very Cold War: ‘Doomsday Plane’ designed to survive nuclear war downed by one bird E-6B Mercury clipped a bird and lost an engine. I assume in an actual war situation, they'd just keep going on 3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
NightGyr posted:Well this is very Cold War: There is more than one doomsday plane. In an actual war the one airborne would stay airborne and the one on the ground would be at ground zero of multiple warheads from an SS-18.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 16:33
|
|