|
Big K of Justice posted:
Coastal subs wouldn’t necessarily have to launch outside of the water though. One system the Russians at least claim to have would be to fire the nuke and blow it up under water, creating a massive radioactive tidal wave.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Everything I've read about nuclear doctrine assumes everyone will get nuked, just to ensure the survivors of the states firing off nukes have less of a handicap when trying to rebuild. Like, not America nuking its allies just to makes sure, but just Russia and the US nuking everyone not allied with them. I feel like people just say that because it sounds cooler and then pretending it's true has the net good of being a deterrent to even talking about using them at all. It's never really clear anyone really has the big dramatic plans and how much everyone wants to say they do because there is no benefit to ever saying anything else but the most dramatic thing. Like if someone says they will nuke you and you say "yeah that sounds okay, I'd probably put in a UN resolution complaining about it maybe" even if that is the honest truth it's basically all downside to say that vs saying "I will nuke you, and nuke myself and nuke every country on earth if you even start to nuke me!" no one's doctrine would ever publicly say anything but the biggest most maximalist thing possible. Why ever publish the plan for how much nuked you could get and not be too upset?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I feel like people just say that because it sounds cooler and then pretending it's true has the net good of being a deterrent to even talking about using them at all. It's never really clear anyone really has the big dramatic plans and how much everyone wants to say they do because there is no benefit to ever saying anything else but the most dramatic thing. That said, it's obviously not the only way to set the goal for your nuclear forces. If you're just focused on reducing the damage done to yourself, then a counterforce attack that leaves most of the world unscathed makes a lot more sense. That option is apparently also more deadly to the target anyway (or at least the US, with how its military installations are placed, but I assume it holds for other nuclear powers too), since the sheer amount of fallout ends up killing more people than nuking cities directly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Let's talk about detection systems. I thought I read somewhere that there are satellites that can detect and verify whether something like an ICBM is launched. Is this correct? I know there are seismic and radiological detection systems that would tell the world if a large explosion was nuclear, but I was under the impression big fuckoff missiles could be spotted taking off. The problem, of course, is that you can't tell where one is going. The Defense Support Program could detect Scud missiles launches during the first Gulf War. Technology has only improved since then. As far as what form Russia's tactical nuclear weapons have, I have no idea. They could be plane-delivered gravity bombs, they could be warheads for cruise missiles or tactical ballistic missiles. Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Coastal subs wouldn’t necessarily have to launch outside of the water though. One system the Russians at least claim to have would be to fire the nuke and blow it up under water, creating a massive radioactive tidal wave. Most ballistic missile submarines have more than one missile. Even if you didn't care about the submarine surviving, blowing up the submarine with the first launch wastes a bunch of good missiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:The Defense Support Program could detect Scud missiles launches during the first Gulf War. Technology has only improved since then. You could either fire the nuclear torpedo far enough away (through the water) that the sub survives, or fire the coastal killer last. You could even fire/drop them off with timed detonators and then get as far away as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 06:25
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It also depends heavily on the amount of fallout even generated. An air burst basically doesn't create any, and is what's gonna be used against countervalue targets like cities, leaving only hardened targets like military bases and silos as a real source of fallout. Given that the southern hemisphere has far less counterforce targets, and prevailing winds are more likely to spread pollutants along an east-west axis rather than north-south, it should remain relatively unscathed. (Though by the same token, the northern hemisphere would be hit harder.) Fallout would largely be contained to the northern hemisphere because of the jet stream. It's unlikely that it would cross-over the tropical regions. I think even some "nuclear winter" modeling said there would be a 5 Centigrade drop in temperatures in the South, but the Northern Hemisphere would be a drop of 20 Centigrade. There's a believe that a lot of Operation Condor wasn't just keeping Communism out of the Americas, but also a location that the American government and armed forces could relocate and manage the rebuilding of the U.S. from exile in the aftermath of a nuclear war. Owlofcreamcheese posted:I feel like people just say that because it sounds cooler and then pretending it's true has the net good of being a deterrent to even talking about using them at all. It's never really clear anyone really has the big dramatic plans and how much everyone wants to say they do because there is no benefit to ever saying anything else but the most dramatic thing. The other thing is that part of that first strike is hitting the other sides nukes as to weaken their retaliatory counterstrike. The whole reason the arms race even happened and we had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads was, according to MAD doctrine, the side who was victim to the first strike would lose 75% of their arsenal. That's why you see target maps with "2000 warhead strikes" and "500 warhead strikes" with different targets: it's because the other side is expected to lose a shitload of nukes with that first blow. With the expectation of only having a quarter of your arsenal, you need to make sure choose your targets carefully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 07:06
|
|
|
Has there ever been a Clancy novel about a country secretly assembling a nuke in an embassy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
Okay I gotta admit I would laugh pretty hard if we nuke ourselves out of the climate crisis
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
Play posted:Okay I gotta admit I would laugh pretty hard if we nuke ourselves out of the climate crisis
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Nuking ourselves would exacerbate it, at least in the short term, except for the immediate aftermath. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VuovcM0Z20 We knew how this would go in the 90s, bet we still do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Several friends in the last 24 hrs told me about their fear of a nuclear war. I went to China Daily and read a run of the mill editorial how USA is bad and peace is good. I expect that if the threat was real and war getting closer, the Chinese would be more active and determined. They are doing just fine and don't want the civilization to end. The US won't start the nuclear war, only Russia might so I guess I'll start worrying if I see Xi Jinping flying to Moscow for an emergency meeting...
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 14:12
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Several friends in the last 24 hrs told me about their fear of a nuclear war. I went to China Daily and read a run of the mill editorial how USA is bad and peace is good. I expect that if the threat was real and war getting closer, the Chinese would be more active and determined. They are doing just fine and don't want the civilization to end. The US won't start the nuclear war, only Russia might so I guess I'll start worrying if I see Xi Jinping flying to Moscow for an emergency meeting... Russia doesn't either. Putin isn't crazy; he's a cynical, amoral piece of garbage, and he's badly miscalculated with this war, but I don't see any reason to believe he has a death wish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Several friends in the last 24 hrs told me about their fear of a nuclear war. I went to China Daily and read a run of the mill editorial how USA is bad and peace is good. I expect that if the threat was real and war getting closer, the Chinese would be more active and determined. They are doing just fine and don't want the civilization to end. The US won't start the nuclear war, only Russia might so I guess I'll start worrying if I see Xi Jinping flying to Moscow for an emergency meeting... It’s pretty inconceivable that Russia would start a nuclear war without any existential risk to itself, which there isn’t.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
I'm glad to see optimism in this thread. To hear to other side too, this analysis does worry me a bit. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/russia-ukraine-war-possible-trajectories
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I'm glad to see optimism in this thread. To hear to other side too, this analysis does worry me a bit. The media always goes full doomer anytime something like this happens, people who are easily agitated are their bread-and-butter, so I wouldn't read too much into these hysterical op-eds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
The talk and claims I’ve seen about biolabs in Ukraine made me wonder what’s going on with the smallpox samples in Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:The talk and claims I’ve seen about biolabs in Ukraine made me wonder what’s going on with the smallpox samples in Russia. Bad news, they were taken out of storage Good news, it's because the cold storage they were in lost power due to budget cuts, and the sample was effectively destroyed by accident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/1502001022301970432?t=yWnWeDvbuskQ-3HzBG47WA&s=19 The Indian military read my post and decided to prepare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Bad news, they were taken out of storage Where did you hear this? There was a fire at Vector a few years ago, but I can’t find any reference to samples being destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I'm glad to see optimism in this thread. To hear to other side too, this analysis does worry me a bit. I'm a little baffled, in that the whole analysis is essentially based on American war games he participated in eight years ago. quote:Scores of war games carried out by the United States and its allies in the wake of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine make it clear that Putin would probably use a nuclear weapon if he concludes that his regime is threatened. It is hard to know exactly what turn of events would scare him enough to cross the nuclear threshold. Certainly a large Nato army entering Russian territory would be enough. But what if events in Ukraine loosened his grip on power at home? To me, it seems like war games would be a solid window into what American military planners might do in response to various Russian actions, and perhaps a decent educated guess of what Russian generals might do given a set of parameters and goals and conditions, but I don't see much reason to think they'd be any use in determining what Russian politicians might do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:Where did you hear this? There was a fire at Vector a few years ago, but I can’t find any reference to samples being destroyed.  We also sold the freezer because, well, it's not being used anymore so
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DI_Ukraine/status/1502249873248243716 I swear to god that has to be a plot point in a Clancy novel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Russia doesn't either. Putin isn't crazy; he's a cynical, amoral piece of garbage, and he's badly miscalculated with this war, but I don't see any reason to believe he has a death wish. The problem isn't really whether Putin or Xi want the world to end or not - the problem is whether Putin decides to test out his pet theory that tactical nukes will not bring about a spiral of escalation. Because either A) he's wrong and the world ends, B) he's right and gets to lord it over Europe, C) he's right but tactical nukes are now just an accepted part of war. All of these are very bad. China probably care less about B and C than we do, because China doesn't intend to engage in a war where tactical nukes are relevant. I hope that western diplomats let Beijing know that tactical nukes *will* cause escalation, and that the US will not allow Putin to 'escalate to de-escalate'. During the cold war it was implicit that such tactics would not work - but that understanding hasn't been reestablished yet. My personal pet theory is that NATO and Beijing have an accord that NATO will stay out of Ukraine unless attacked directly - but in return Beijing puts pressure on Moscow to not use tactical nukes. If NATO breaks that agreement, they're opening pandora's box.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
I'm very stupid. What does China have to gain from NATO staying out of direct intervention in Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I'm very stupid. What does China have to gain from NATO staying out of direct intervention in Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
But if NATO is going to not use tactical nukes, even as escalation short of strategic weapon use, what is China getting out of pressuring Russia to not be dumb about this that wouldn't be happening already? This sounds like "uh, look, maybe he'll listen to you and put down that lighter and dynamite because I'm not sure he's listening to me right now"
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
Dropping by this thread to say thanks for organising a Clancychat shelter. I don’t plan to post here or follow the thread, but I’d like to drop a fresh article from a military historian I follow, about nuclear deterrence. Warning, it’s a sizeable read. https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101/
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
As good a thread as any to ask; does anyone have any recommendations for documentaries about the cold war, specifically the nuclear aspect of things, specifically how countries other than America developed the bomb? I know there was a lot of espionage involved in Soviet nuclear development and I'd like to learn more about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:As good a thread as any to ask; does anyone have any recommendations for documentaries about the cold war, specifically the nuclear aspect of things, specifically how countries other than America developed the bomb? I know there was a lot of espionage involved in Soviet nuclear development and I'd like to learn more about that. Watched this recently, it's semi-related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRXm1evB2Rg More the human effects of the soviet nuclear program than the technical side. And filmed in Kazakhstan, which I figure folks might find interesting because "the Stans" are like a black hole to lots of westerners. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Mar 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 07:27
|
|
|
Looks like I might be wrong. Instead of using a Nuclear weapon, Putin's going to use a Chemical Warfare attack on civilians in a Ukrainian city. My guess is Lviv, as it's in the west and he probably knows he can't get it anymore. Maybe Kiev for the same reason. I'm wondering if we'll see a CNN host live on air get hit by it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 09:11
|
|
|
fnox posted:https://twitter.com/DI_Ukraine/status/1502249873248243716 I hate when these nostalgia projects just rehash old events
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 11:29
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:As good a thread as any to ask; does anyone have any recommendations for documentaries about the cold war, specifically the nuclear aspect of things, specifically how countries other than America developed the bomb? I know there was a lot of espionage involved in Soviet nuclear development and I'd like to learn more about that. I don't have a documentary to recommend, but an excellent book on the subject is The Nuclear Express. Maybe you can look up if the writers were also involved in any documentaries. https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Express-Political-History-Proliferation/dp/076033904X
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 11:37
|
|
|
^^^ that seems like it’d be more current and wider reaching, but I read Dark Sun when I was younger (20 years ago) and was fascinated. The science, politics, and espionage involved in building the H Bomb and how the Soviet program started. https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sun-Making-Hydrogen-Bomb/dp/0684824140
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Looks like I might be wrong. Instead of using a Nuclear weapon, Putin's going to use a Chemical Warfare attack on civilians in a Ukrainian city. Maybe those smallpox samples that Russia has been setting on get wheeled out and they blame it on one of those Ukrainian-American “bio weapons labs” or whatever. Wouldn’t work as a tactical weapon like chemicals, but just give it a week or two and it’ll work it’s magic with the 30% case fatality rate. Nobody alive has ever seen what an infection looks like so it could be a while before the pieces get put together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
What makes me most nervous is the growing consensus that Putin miscalculated with the invasion in Ukraine. That Ukraine resisted harder, the sanctions were tougher, and the west more united than he expected. So if he miscalculated there... why be certain that he won't miscalculate with respect to WMDs? Putin clearly believe Russia is strong and should have more of its way in the world order. As his conventional military suffers setbacks, why wouldn't he look to his nuclear arsenal, and a relative willingness to actually use it, as the last way to impose his idea of Russian greatness on the rest of the world?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:Maybe those smallpox samples that Russia has been setting on get wheeled out and they blame it on one of those Ukrainian-American “bio weapons labs” or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
coelomate posted:What makes me most nervous is the growing consensus that Putin miscalculated with the invasion in Ukraine. That Ukraine resisted harder, the sanctions were tougher, and the west more united than he expected. That said, yeah, I dunno. Escalting to get their way has cearly been their MO, counting on the other party chickening out. So maybe maybe he'll nuke Kyiv to try to force a surrender and assume that everyone else would be pragmatic and let it be rather than nuke Moscow in return.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Well hopefully the tough response to the first miscalculation would make it clearer that he has to be more carful. I cannot imagine that would happen, it would potentially force an escalation that may well be the use of force on their known strategic sites, since Putin has apparently thrown away the brakes on his roller coaster. If the thinking is that as a drowning madman he has nothing to lose, then better to lose a few cities than everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Well hopefully the tough response to the first miscalculation would make it clearer that he has to be more carful. putin has sufficient conventional weaponry to turn kyiv into rubble, if he chose to do so. it just doesn't service his political goals to do so, it wouldn't accomplish what he sets out to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:So maybe maybe he'll nuke Kyiv to try to force a surrender and assume that everyone else would be pragmatic and let it be rather than nuke Moscow in return. It wouldn't be Kyiv. Based on the other ways Russia is half mocking earlier U.S. conduct (like parodying the WMD concerns leading to the Iraq invasion), I'd expect it to be modeled after Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Not the capital, not a major city. Something debatably relevant to military and industrial capacity, but still full of civilians. The problem I have is I legitimately don't know what NATO does if that happens. But I'm 99% sure NATO wouldn't conduct nuclear retaliation against Russia in such a scenario, even though it would be totally shocked and immediately ramp up every other punitive sanction it could muster. If I'm right about that, and if Putin feels like he has little left to lose, it seems tragically plausible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 17:36
|
|