|
url posted:The Chinese are desperately trying to PR that a nuclear powered subs is a nuclear armed sub. It's not though.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
I'm sure this is very naive but the way I see it is - when everyone has enough nukes to scour the planet of civilisation, does it really matter on a practical level where exactly they are deployed or whether these missiles are higher yield or more accurate than those? Always felt it was more about how the powers signal their dispositions and level of commitment - which is of course very important. But terms of the moral aspect - well it is total nuclear holocaust however they arrange the deckchairs, so who cares?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
If you're looking at nuclear war as an actual thing to do (which you shouldn't, but that's obviously how the people in charge of nuclear weapons behave) then it does matter a lot. For a thread-relevant example, China's building a whole bunch of new missile silos. Most likely, the majority of them will be empty and the actual missiles will be moved around between them so the US doesn't know where they are. In a scenario where there is a nuclear exchange, the US will have to take out every silo on the assumption there's a missile in it. That requires at least two warheads per silo, and the number China is building is exactly enough that the US would have to fire its entire land-based ICBM arsenal to take them out. So they've effectively neutralized US land missile forces, and even that exchange would only take out most of the missiles--at least a few would survive on average, so that's a deterrent that is valid. Again, we should not do this but it's not like there is no strategy. And a pure counterforce exchange like that would not end civilization or anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
ending-civilization levels were only until the big russia and usa treaties, nowadays its ending-two--to-five-countries level in any situation uruguay and new zealand will continue existing. not beijing moscow or dc tho ofc
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:in any situation uruguay and new zealand will continue existing. Not if I'm elected president
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:ending-civilization levels were only until the big russia and usa treaties, nowadays its ending-two--to-five-countries level Once there was a guy named William Curtis who became absolutely obsessed with the idea of MAD and ran the odds to figure out what the safest place on earth was, determined it was the falklands, and moved there with his family a year before Argentina invaded. By saying this you have guaranteed Uruguay and New Zealand are the only nations destroyed
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:I'm sure this is very naive but the way I see it is - when everyone has enough nukes to scour the planet of civilisation, does it really matter on a practical level where exactly they are deployed or whether these missiles are higher yield or more accurate than those? There is also the concern that the more weapons you have around, the greater the chance of an accident or a mistake. I'm pretty sure there are numerous examples of things going awry in most nuclear states arsenals, and no doubt more that have never come to light. The fewer opportunities for a mega gently caress up in China, the better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Once there was a guy named William Curtis who became absolutely obsessed with the idea of MAD and ran the odds to figure out what the safest place on earth was, determined it was the falklands, and moved there with his family a year before Argentina invaded. future civilizations will be extremely confused by archaeological evidence of the uruguay-new zealand hyperwar
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Once there was a guy named William Curtis who became absolutely obsessed with the idea of MAD and ran the odds to figure out what the safest place on earth was, determined it was the falklands, and moved there with his family a year before Argentina invaded. If I were the (terrible) kind of person to be involved with nuclear holocaust planning, I would definitely find a pretext to assign a nuke to the Falklands after reading that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
New Zealand knows what it did. Both sides will agree to only nuke New Zealand and the one who blows up the most of New Zealand wins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:not beijing moscow or dc tho ofc Right. The threat isn't ending the world, it's that you are absolutely going to lose a bunch of big cities, and that's an unthinkable risk. Everyone hopes. Ending the world was still probably not possible even with the peak arsenals, but it's easy to forget how much smaller the world's nuclear arsenal is now. The US and Russia both have far fewer warheads, and those warheads are a lot lower yield since targeting is better. Firm numbers about secret things aren't possible but the yield of the nuclear arsenals now is probably like... a fifth the peak? Maybe? That might even be high.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:It's not though. I know!!! And, it's that's what makes it doubly funny and the best part. They are totally not scheduled to be and It's publically declared, and it's on paper, and there are international treaties to abide etc. It's almost like the aircraft carrier was gonna be an offshore casino, and the islands weren't gonna be militarised, or the rule of law and autonomy would-be respected for 50 years and our publicly traded companies won't be subsidized, and the accounts will be genuine. It's hilarious. They're bleating against what is very likely an obvious lie. Edit: I'm being glib I realize. But, to used the "Geogie-Porgie" analogy seems most fitting. The US, AU, JP, IN, DE, currently all have significant deployment in the region because they are concerned about the viable attack (on Taiwan) windows being in March And October (it's weather dependent). If kiddywinks keeps making noisy threats to the whole of global stability by threatening TSMC, then I would think it's logically reasonable to hand a locally responsible partner 8 nuclear capable stealth launch platforms and all the training they need. I would think that is far more sensible than having 5 nations constantly on a hair trigger. Chinese retired ex-diplomats have already suggested China Abandon its no first strike policy in the past few days, as well as the usual egregious and appalling threats to target Australia. The main foreign PR guy Zhao has echoed a good portion of that craziness too. I am thinking this has actually caused some heavy recalculating,and that 'is' a good thing. url fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Sep 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
Atopian posted:If I were the (terrible) kind of person to be involved with nuclear holocaust planning, I would definitely find a pretext to assign a nuke to the Falklands after reading that. They likely supported Brexit, that's reason enough. Assign a spare to ensure to result!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
url posted:...hand a locally responsible partner 8 nuclear capable stealth launch platforms and all the training they need... AllMyNope.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
They're not missile subs though. China can bitch about it all they want but it doesn't change that you can't fire an SLBM from a submarine unless it has tubes for it. Plus Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons or the right missiles, though they could build them if they wanted to. Attack subs can fire cruise missiles, but the Australian navy already has plenty of things that can do that. Anyway whatever. Turns out when you get belligerent and threaten all your neighbors for years they get nervous and look for more weapons. Maybe shouldn't have done that!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Anyway whatever. Turns out when you get belligerent and threaten all your neighbors for years they get nervous and look for more weapons. Maybe shouldn't have done that! Now you're suggesting that actions have consequences, and that's just ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
Atopian posted:Now you're suggesting that actions have consequences, and that's just ridiculous. More absurdly, I'm suggesting there are things in the world that aren't the CIA's fault. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:More absurdly, I'm suggesting there are things in the world that aren't the CIA's fault. Presumably the CIA manipulated the CCCP into their aggressive stance in order to sell more american weapons abroad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:More absurdly, I'm suggesting there are things in the world that aren't the CIA's fault. Just the sort of lies a CIA agent would say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
CIA CHINA Koinkidink?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 03:13
|
|
|
url posted:The Chinese are desperately trying to PR that a nuclear powered subs is a nuclear armed sub. Austen Tassletine posted:There is also the concern that the more weapons you have around, the greater the chance of an accident or a mistake. I'm pretty sure there are numerous examples of things going awry in most nuclear states arsenals, and no doubt more that have never come to light. The fewer opportunities for a mega gently caress up in China, the better. Shumagorath fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Sep 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 03:39
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:New Zealand knows what it did. Both sides will agree to only nuke New Zealand and the one who blows up the most of New Zealand wins. Sounds good, can we do west texas next
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 03:54
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:More absurdly, I'm suggesting there are things in the world that aren't the CIA's fault. The CCP is a front for the CIA 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:The CCP is a front for the CIA This is actually a belief commonly expressed on InfoWars. Unhealthy amounts of Knowledge Fight have taught me how similar InfoWars thinking is to the unnamed forum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:This is actually a belief commonly expressed on InfoWars. Unhealthy amounts of Knowledge Fight have taught me how similar InfoWars thinking is to the unnamed forum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
Shumagorath posted:Is this an endorsement of Knowledge Fight? QAA has been sounding increasingly broke-brained and I might need a new podcast. I enjoy it. And if you just want pure comedy check out all the Wacky Wednesday episodes, particularly the Project Camelot ones. Best listened to in order, and don't look up anything about the people involved first. https://www.podchaser.com/lists/project-camelot-saga-knowledge-fight-107a4XhxIo Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Sep 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Right. The threat isn't ending the world, it's that you are absolutely going to lose a bunch of big cities, and that's an unthinkable risk. Everyone hopes. Yeah peak arsenal nuclear war planning was absolutely bonkers. poo poo like, individual train stations getting hit by multiple nukes just to be sure and all of Albania getting plastered because there's a Soviet air radar somewhere. I think the overall peak was in the 70s where both the US and USSR had around 25,000 warheads apiece. Now it's supposedly somewhere just under 5000 each for the US and Russia. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Sep 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:They're not missile subs though. China can bitch about it all they want but it doesn't change that you can't fire an SLBM from a submarine unless it has tubes for it. Plus Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons or the right missiles, though they could build them if they wanted to. Attack subs can fire cruise missiles, but the Australian navy already has plenty of things that can do that. Getting nuclear powered subs was a shock to the whole nation and just came of nowhere. But nuclear weapons? There's just no way we're going down that path. The current federal government is pretty roundly despised by everyone right now, which is probably why they did the big surprise on their sub deal - we even had ministers meeting with the French government and the company who were supposed to be building our subs the same day the announcement was made that we were scrapping their contract. So, it's fair to say, they were playing it very close to their chest to prevent any leaks. Also, goddamn, what a dick move. But, yeah, if they tried for actual nuclear weapons to be held by our military, there would be blood in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
Certainly under current circumstances, they aren't going to build them. They're just one of the countries that has the materials and technical knowledge to do it whenever they wanted, like Japan or Germany. China's certainly aware of that and probably has special plans for the nearby countries that could rapidly build nukes (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia at least). E: 
Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Sep 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:Getting nuclear powered subs was a shock to the whole nation and just came of nowhere. But nuclear weapons? There's just no way we're going down that path. Naval group was loving pissed about that. They were negotiating in the best faith a French company could and the Aussies were stringing them along Heck I'm pretty sure some of the Aussies doing the negotiating thought they were going ahead with the french
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
It's hilarious. Anything that damages French pride is a plus in my book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:the best faith a French company could 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
The French-Australia sub deal was stalled out over price and AUS was very vocal about where concerns about cost over-runs, delays, and suitability when the subs were finally done in 2030. They also warned them they were heading to negotiations in Washington. The French government are being their usual whiny selves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 05:37
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:They're not missile subs though. China can bitch about it all they want but it doesn't change that you can't fire an SLBM from a submarine unless it has tubes for it. Plus Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons or the right missiles, though they could build them if they wanted to. Attack subs can fire cruise missiles, but the Australian navy already has plenty of things that can do that. This is the weirdest part to me. They are on paper as not being launch platforms, but the PR is absolutely behaving as though they are. Maybe the fear is that will change as the project goes forward. And while I dislike the idea of anybody having more nuclear weapons.... Grand Fromage posted:Turns out when you get belligerent and threaten all your neighbors for years they get nervous and look for more weapons. Maybe shouldn't have done that! It does seem just deserts. Also, yeah: armchairgeneral.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
url posted:This is the weirdest part to me. They are on paper as not being launch platforms, but the PR is absolutely behaving as though they are. If they've thought about it at all, they're probably banking on most people just hearing nuclear submarine and assuming missiles. Which they're probably right that a lot of people will think that and investigate no further.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
Nuclear subs require the same enriched nuclear material that bombs use. That's probably what people are wringing their hands over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 06:48
|
|
|
Doubtful. When people hear nuclear sub they think a sub capable of launching nukes. Not a sub with a nuclear reactor
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
ninjoatse.cx posted:Nuclear subs require the same enriched nuclear material that bombs use. That's probably what people are wringing their hands over. No, nuclear weapons use much higher enrichment than reactors, plus I think all nuclear weapon designs use plutonium triggers. You can't make a bomb out of a reactor. Also nuclear sub reactors are built into the thing, it's not even possible to access the fuel without cutting the submarine in half. And since Australia is one of the world's largest uranium sources it's not like they don't already have as much as they'd ever need. I agree most people don't know this, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 07:00
|
|
|
wow a whole bunch of white nerds are talking about china and the military? *puts on my D&D fedora, starts masturbating furiously to big anime tittes*
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:If they've thought about it at all, they're probably banking on most people just hearing nuclear submarine and assuming missiles. Which they're probably right that a lot of people will think that and investigate no further. It's cheap, but yeah, entirely effective The Great Autismo! posted:wow a whole bunch of white nerds are talking about china and the military? *puts on my D&D fedora, starts masturbating furiously to big anime tittes* To quite from "The Long Kiss Goodnight" "...everyone knows, when you make an assumption, you make an rear end out of "u" and "umption". "
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 07:21
|
|