|
Rappaport posted:Oh, and on the topic of efficiency, a superior weapons technology, which mercifully the laws of physics seem to prevent, would be a thermonuclear device that instead of a spherical explosion "spread out" its pay-load like a sheet of stellar temperature tin foil, neatly destroying both human life and real estate from a huge area with just the required amount of death-spreading energy reserved for each man, woman, child and train car. Hypothetically. To me the real scary fact about nuclear weapon design (which unfortunately the laws of physics DO allow) is something I'd heard and asked for clarification about earlier: Thermonuclear weapons can be daisy-chained into multiple stages, and in this way there is no theoretical upper limit to their yield. We all know the Tsar Bomba was downtuned to 50MT, just think about what crazy single 500MT doomsday device the Russians (or your bad guy of choice) could have made if they were truly intent on the "gently caress with me and I'll crack the planet in half" angle.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:To me the real scary fact about nuclear weapon design (which unfortunately the laws of physics DO allow) is something I'd heard and asked for clarification about earlier: Thermonuclear weapons can be daisy-chained into multiple stages, and in this way there is no theoretical upper limit to their yield. We all know the Tsar Bomba was downtuned to 50MT, just think about what crazy single 500MT doomsday device the Russians (or your bad guy of choice) could have made if they were truly intent on the "gently caress with me and I'll crack the planet in half" angle. It's technically true, I don't think anyone's tried making one of those "planet-busters", and part of the reason why Tsar Bomba was scaled down was that they figured the pilots wouldn't survive the full 100 MT blast. Though knowing Soviet views, this also may be a myth. Be that as it may, it's still "wasteful" in the sense that the blast is more or less spherical, but if one is content to just cram enough fuel in there, well. But at that point you're, as you say, making a literal suicide bomb intended to at least disrupt the mantle, which would also have unfortunate effects on human and animal life, among other things. That's not really war in any meaningful sense of the term, but it does seem like a good deterrent, assuming you'd get your opponents to believe you'd either use it yourself, or couple it to a "dead man's hand" system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:To me the real scary fact about nuclear weapon design (which unfortunately the laws of physics DO allow) is something I'd heard and asked for clarification about earlier: Thermonuclear weapons can be daisy-chained into multiple stages, and in this way there is no theoretical upper limit to their yield. We all know the Tsar Bomba was downtuned to 50MT, just think about what crazy single 500MT doomsday device the Russians (or your bad guy of choice) could have made if they were truly intent on the "gently caress with me and I'll crack the planet in half" angle. The problem with that is that a 500MT bomb would be vastly less destructive than 10 50MT bombs or 1000 500kT bombs. Building the biggest bomb just means you waste a huge quantity of precious fissile material blowing up things that have already been blown up, and have a bulkier weapons that is harder to deliver. There is already a way to spread out nuclear payload over a wide area for maximum destruction, and that's the MIRV.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fair. I also know about the problem with the inverse-cube law, something about a device needs to actually be like eight times 'more powerful' to actually be twice as destructive. But one huge bomb is just cooler. Bonus points if it gets buried real deep and actually cracks the planet in half.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:To me the real scary fact about nuclear weapon design (which unfortunately the laws of physics DO allow) is something I'd heard and asked for clarification about earlier: Thermonuclear weapons can be daisy-chained into multiple stages, and in this way there is no theoretical upper limit to their yield. We all know the Tsar Bomba was downtuned to 50MT, just think about what crazy single 500MT doomsday device the Russians (or your bad guy of choice) could have made if they were truly intent on the "gently caress with me and I'll crack the planet in half" angle. Kurzgesagt made a video about using every nuke at once. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyECrGp-Sw8
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
I was pretty disturbed to hear about China shipping an anti air missile system to Serbia, feels like it could be a hint of things to come and things getting out of hand internationally...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
Tactical Grace posted:I was pretty disturbed to hear about China shipping an anti air missile system to Serbia, feels like it could be a hint of things to come and things getting out of hand internationally... Oh you mean like Serbia turning the guns on European air in a mass terror attack? They have a range of 170KM. boring
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
Surely no one would shoot down a civilian aircraft for no reason except being trigger happy except that time Iran did it to Ukraine or that time Russia did it to Malaysia or that time the US did it to Iran or that time the USSR did it to Korea wait gently caress this keeps happening and it's not even terrorism
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 02:51
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Surely no one would shoot down a civilian aircraft for no reason except being trigger happy I just feal like Serbia loses a lot of it does that. Notice all the countries you listed have populations over 100,000,000 and agency far beyond their borders?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
There are always unbreakable safeguards in place except when alarms and other warning signs are so much that we just come to ignore them https://abcnews.go.com/Health/hospital-alarms-create-noise-misery-patients/story?id=67439264
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 04:08
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Surely no one would shoot down a civilian aircraft for no reason except being trigger happy or that time that Bulgaria did it to the UK/Israel or the time Ukraine did it to Israel or the time France maybe did it to Italy but it was covered up or the times that we don't think about because they were african countries ranbo das fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Apr 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yes, but it's pretty shoddy science IIRC. It does not take into account that the fuel load in modern cities is far below that of the areas where firestorms happened during WW2 (by a factor of about 7), which would make any firestorm far less able to loft poo poo into the air, and it'd have much less soot to get up there too. And that's before you take into account that a firestorm needs a large scale fire in the first place, something a nuke is not likely to produce. During WW2, attacks were carried out specifically to cause huge fires, while a nuke largely just knocks poo poo down. Like, for sure it's gonna set poo poo on fire, but a collapsed brick building simply doesn't burn well, so you'll never get the large connected fire you need to create a firestorm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 05:40
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Is that true of cities in the Indian subcontinent? A war between Pakistan and India could have a 100 warheads detonate on cities. I don't imagine there are actually many urban areas that don't count as modern at this point - and any that do exist are probably more likely to be in countries that urbanized early, in areas where wooden buildings were in, which also didn't get them burned down during WW2. Which can't be many at this point, and any that do exist are likely to be rather small, possibly too small to really get going anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 08:38
|
|
|
We should deploy one of those planet busters against Mercury or Pluto or some other trash tier planetoid so the others know their place. And an extra massive one deep inside Uranus because watching a gas giant explode would be trippy as hell and also butts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Outrail posted:We should deploy one of those planet busters against Mercury or Pluto or some other trash tier planetoid so the others know their place. Good news, everybody!  quote:Project A119, also known as A Study of Lunar Research Flights, was a top-secret plan developed in 1958 by the United States Air Force. The aim of the project was to detonate a nuclear bomb on the Moon, which would help in answering some of the mysteries in planetary astronomy and astrogeology. If the explosive device detonated on the surface, and not in a lunar crater, the flash of explosive light would have been faintly visible to people on Earth with their naked eye. This was meant as a show of force resulting in a possible boosting of domestic morale in the capabilities of the United States, a boost that was needed after the Soviet Union took an early lead in the Space Race and was also working on a similar project. They chickened out, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Good news, everybody! quote:Russia Will Restart Moon Landings, Says Putin
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Seems like there's a good opportunity to restart that project! I honestly don't think Russia is actually capable of a moon landing at this point. We should still nuke the moon just to make sure it doesn't get cross. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Apr 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
Russian space bragging is extra lmfao because its only crewed launch site is stolen from Kazakhstan.A Buttery Pastry posted:To clarify, "modern" in this case means WW2 London compared to essentially medieval neighborhoods, though the average US urban area is not that much better. I think not building everything from wood probably gets you most of the way there, and I imagine the lower US average has more to do with sprawl than building techniques. In any case, Indian and Pakistani cities are definitely modern for this comparison, having largely been built of brick and concrete post-WW2. I don't get the deal with wood vs brick building bragging. I grew up in tornado land. American buildings made of wood will calmly collapse if hit. You will probably survive if you take basic precautions. Buildings made of brick will either send your entire family's brains sprawled across the city or just politely mulch you into a red paste. I've literally seen both. It's one of the dumbest USA-Europe rivalries. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Apr 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I don't get the deal with wood vs brick building bragging. I grew up in tornado land. American buildings made of wood will calmly collapse if hit. You will probably survive if you take basic precautions. Buildings made of brick will either send your entire family's brains sprawled across the city or just politely mulch you into a red paste. I've literally seen both. It's one of the dumbest USA-Europe rivalries. Sorry the evidence of brick supremacy is pretty clear. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I don't get the deal with wood vs brick building bragging. I grew up in tornado land. American buildings made of wood will calmly collapse if hit. You will probably survive if you take basic precautions. Buildings made of brick will either send your entire family's brains sprawled across the city or just politely mulch you into a red paste. I've literally seen both. It's one of the dumbest USA-Europe rivalries. Anyway, when I said American urban areas were only a little better I meant in comparison to WW2 London. Wood frame construction in the exurbs isn't really part of the topic at all, and in any case is a perfectly normal way to build in the most-likely-to-be-smug-Europeans-posting-about-America parts of Europe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I honestly don't think Russia is actually capable of a moon landing at this point. We should still nuke the moon just to make sure it doesn't get cross. Lol Russia is barely capable of a manned mission outside their own borders, much less the earth's gravity well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I honestly don't think Russia is actually capable of a moon landing at this point. We should still nuke the moon just to make sure it doesn't get cross. Russia could land on the moon but they wouldn't successfully take a single city there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
Some early probes pretty literally just crashed on the celestial body in question, that's sort of like bombing, maybe Russia could manage that
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Some early probes pretty literally just crashed on the celestial body in question, that's sort of like bombing, maybe Russia could manage that Not enough civilians there for them to bother.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Some early probes pretty literally just crashed on the celestial body in question, that's sort of like bombing, maybe Russia could manage that I'm sure they'd hit a planet but it's doubtful they'd hit the target planet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Oh you mean like Serbia turning the guns on European air in a mass terror attack? Not specifically that but more along the lines of why give Serbia a missile system at all - the obvious answer being to tacitly militarily support Russia, feels like battle lines being drawn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Current models say that Nuclear Winter is bullshit, so how would a massive catastrophic nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1983 effect, say, Argentina or New Zealand? Looking at how badly the global supply chain was affected by COVID makes me think there'd be a lot of unexpected shortages and other side-effects. They might take months or years to cause problems, but kill a ton of people once they do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Current models say that Nuclear Winter is bullshit, so how would a massive catastrophic nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1983 effect, say, Argentina or New Zealand? Wait wait wait - where was this stated? I thought there were recent studies done that said the opposite: that nuclear winter was possible from a smaller nuclear exchange than was originally imagined.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2022 14:13
|
|
|
Outrail posted:I'm sure they'd hit a planet but it's doubtful they'd hit the target planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnqpoPSUD5E
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
i was thinking Putin may truck a small nuke in somewhere and have it go off but it was a rogue unit that dunnit you see and look he court martialled them and executed them and all but then the point would be raised that Russia cant control its arsenal and inspection pressures and poo poo would be nigh intolerable, it wouldnt fly i cant think of a way he could whoopsie a nuclear incident that would work at all but clancy thread and all there may be one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 10:29
|
|
|
Sleekly posted:i was thinking Putin may truck a small nuke in somewhere and have it go off but it was a rogue unit that dunnit you see and look he court martialled them and executed them and all but then the point would be raised that Russia cant control its arsenal and inspection pressures and poo poo would be nigh intolerable, it wouldnt fly
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 13:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What do you mean work? Blowing up the Chornobyl power plant would work to permanently sever western Ukraine from eastern Ukraine, by (given current winds) dumping the entire Elephant's Foot on a north-south path from Kyiv to the Black Sea. Following the Ukrainian leadership accidentally blowing up their own secret nuclear facility, Russia would have no choice but to provide aid to their brothers in eastern Ukraine by inviting them to join Russia. well if i were super evil, that scenario works i meant tho a clear and present nuclear danger or incident where he can go 'oh poo poo so sorry, some of my guys are just super patriotic you know but i killed them all so you can chill now'
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Sleekly posted:well if i were super evil, that scenario works Picking the highest ranking general and have him go rogue would probably be acceptable if anyone believed it. Like if a five star general and his buddies commandeered a US sub and nuked Pitcairn Island Biden would look weak but also how do you stop someone with that much authority when they decide to ignore command structures?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Picking the highest ranking general and have him go rogue would probably be acceptable if anyone believed it. Steamed hams, but instead of lunch it's international believability that MAD remains in effect
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
yeah in the grey areas maaaybe that would work i feel, but it would he one hell of a hail mary rolling my dice thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Steamed hams, but instead of lunch it's international believability that MAD remains in effect Why is there smoke coming from that island Seymour?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
"Oh, that's just, uh, the northern lights!" "The northern lights, at this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of Europe, localized entirely within Chernobyl?!" "... Yes!" "May I send IAEA inspectors?" "... No." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:"Oh, that's just, uh, the northern lights!" lol but i mean were this to happen that exactly would be the dance drawn out over months and months tfw satire is everything even the most dire things
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
Sleekly posted:i was thinking Putin may truck a small nuke in somewhere and have it go off but it was a rogue unit that dunnit you see and look he court martialled them and executed them and all but then the point would be raised that Russia cant control its arsenal and inspection pressures and poo poo would be nigh intolerable, it wouldnt fly I don’t actually think the US would launch a full strategic nuclear counter strike if Russia nukes Ukraine with one or a small number of tactical nuclear weapons. I don’t think they would even fire a single nuclear missile about it and maybe not even conventionally respond. I think the response would be cyber warfare like we’ve never seen (like turning off all civilian telecommunications in Russia or all electricity in the Moscow metropolitan area, poo poo like that).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Yeah, that's fair. I also know about the problem with the inverse-cube law, something about a device needs to actually be like eight times 'more powerful' to actually be twice as destructive. Actually threatening the structure of the earth is ludicrously off the scale of nuclear weapon yields.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 03:52
|
|