|
oliveoil posted:Still sounds like the path to eating one's neighbors. Well, yes?
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:In a end-of-days scenario, if you’re going to launch thousands of weapons, then it’s probably not much of a distinction. Only USA and Russia have this capability, the other declared nuclear states don’t have arsenals beyond several hundred and have mostly committed to using them as a retaliatory strike on a nuclear armed state. The Samson Option has entered the chat  
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
I think it's in Command and Control where a Cold War SAC leader looked at the SIOP and calculated, that without a single bomb falling inside Moscow city limits. There were so many targets around the city, that the fallout would be lethal to everyone in Moscow not deep in a milspec hardened fallout bunker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
TipTow posted:Yes, they explicitly reserve the right of first use. No first use is the unusual position since it's trading away conventional security. Only India and China have that, every other nuclear armed nation explicitly reserves it (except for Israel who makes a shifty face)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
It's an interesting distinction I think between "no first aggressive use" and "no use against conventional states/forces". China's position is that it wouldn't use nukes against non-nuclear states but I'm sure if their home territory was under significant threat of invasion then that position would change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:It's an interesting distinction I think between "no first aggressive use" and "no use against conventional states/forces". If poo poo China makes a play for Better China and gets repelled the CCP'll make up some paper thin excuse and blamo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 05:22
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:It's an interesting distinction I think between "no first aggressive use" and "no use against conventional states/forces". I thought China's position was that they wouldn't let nukes fly first, no matter what? And that they not only reiterated that multiple times over the years, but have allowed inspections that confirm that they don't even maintain their arsenal in a way that would make them easy to arm and launch?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
Nominally, yes. Whether they would actually stick to that policy if there were, let's say, a battalion of Finnish Moose Cavalry cutting a swath of terror through the heart of China and threatening to capture Beijing is an open question. In practice, it's moot because anyone with a conventional military that could plausibly threaten China's is also a nuclear weapons state directly or in NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
All right, who had 'Trimp selling nuclear secrets to the Saudis?' on their escalation Clancy card?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
Absolutely not me, this is just the wildest timeline Especially since we already sold the Saudis nuclear secrets in 2018, he even declared a national emergency to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
German speaking goons, what's the word for the concept of "I did not think of this, but of course it's absolutely this"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:It's an interesting distinction I think between "no first aggressive use" and "no use against conventional states/forces". What non nuclear state is capable of invading China?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:What non nuclear state is capable of invading China? Mongolia, edit: poo poo wrong century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
What the actual gently caress, reality? What did we do to you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:What the actual gently caress, reality? What did we do to you? we turned the LHC back on and flipped back into the world of consequence and the Bernstein bears.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:What the actual gently caress, reality? What did we do to you? If I remember right, we charged her with violating the Espionage Act of 1917.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Outrail posted:If poo poo China makes a play for Better China and gets repelled the CCP'll make up some paper thin excuse and blamo. They claim to be the same country and we have nukes thus they also claim to have nukes. Otherwise they don't count as a different country so it's a domestic use not of interest in international affairs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:What non nuclear state is capable of invading China? New Zealand. It's the quiet ones you have to watch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:They claim to be the same country and we have nukes thus they also claim to have nukes. For real though, I made an effort post about the scrapping of the Taiwanese nuclear weapons program about a year ago in the China thread, it was a pretty interesting story. The current DPP government in charge is about as anti-nuclear as you could be while still having some reactors up (with some plans to shut down the two remaining.) GoutPatrol fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Aug 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
In case people are still interested in the mid-long-term effects of a global nuclear exchange, there's a new paper in Nature Food that looks at food output as a function of dust spewed into the atmosphere in various hypothetical scenarios. I haven't had time to look at their methods thoroughly, but they've sure managed to make some  graphics. The article is open access, so have fun! Discussion posted:In conclusion, the reduced light, global cooling and likely trade restrictions after nuclear wars would be a global catastrophe for food security. The negative impact of climate perturbations on the total crop production can generally not be offset by livestock and aquatic food (Fig. 5a). More than 2 billion people could die from a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and more than 5 billion could die from a war between the United States and Russia (Table 1).
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Looks like I need to get to Straya or... *squinting* Argentina?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Looks like I need to get to Straya or... *squinting* Argentina?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2022 05:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The 16-27Tg scenario is a win for the United States. Lol at Canada getting turbo hosed after being such a quiet decent neighbor for so long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2022 06:09
|
|
|
Even after a nuclear holocaust Australia still has an obesity problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2022 09:37
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:In case people are still interested in the mid-long-term effects of a global nuclear exchange, there's a new paper in Nature Food that looks at food output as a function of dust spewed into the atmosphere in various hypothetical scenarios. I haven't had time to look at their methods thoroughly, but they've sure managed to make some The outlook for an India-Pakistan conflict is significantly worse than I had expected, but the US-Russia conflict is significantly better than I had expected (which to be fair, is down to my assumption previous of full Donner party nutrition for five to eight years). I had previously estimated a few hundred million survivors, compared to 3 billion here. That's good news right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Lol at Canada getting turbo hosed after being such a quiet decent neighbor for so long. They know what they did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
Nuclear proliferation between South Africa and Israel came up in another thread, so I'm curious about something and this is as good a place as any to ask: With the implication of Trump's theft of nuclear secrets, what is the possibility that we're going to see a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia soon? What would that look like? Would it be an open secret like Israel, or would they announce it to the world? How would they test? What would the geopolitical response be to their new found toys; how would it change relationships between state actors? I realize that's asking a mouthful but it's a region I don't know much about and nuclear stuff always has me curious. In the past, when countries have joined the Nuclear Club, what was the reaction?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Nuclear proliferation between South Africa and Israel came up in another thread, so I'm curious about something and this is as good a place as any to ask: It’s not as if there’s a sheet of paper that says how to make a nuclear bomb that Trump can hand to KSM to get them set up. Look at the history of Iran or North Korea trying to build a bomb, it requires a nuclear plant and a lot of centrifuges to refine the fuel and a delivery system that can carry one and a lot of expertise. Plus a lot of money and concentration. The Saudi regime is completely lacking on all of those fronts but, perhaps money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah, nuclear proliferation is mainly kept in check by the fact that the fissile materials are a pain in the rear end to obtain and refine, even if you have nuclear power generation. It's also worth keeping in mind that fission weapons were designed with slide rules. The theoretical side of things is one heck of a lot easier to deal with these days, you can do a lot with simulations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
Ah right, I actually knew about the difficulty in producing nukes but it totally slipped my mind. I guess it would be immediately very obvious to outside observers then, if KSA started making steps towards a weapons program. Still the question stands, what if they did? Apart from sanctions is there anything the rest of the world could or would do to stop or punish them? Who will be the next nuclear power? It'd be really funny if it were someone real obscure, like Burkina Faso.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Yeah, nuclear proliferation is mainly kept in check by the fact that the fissile materials are a pain in the rear end to obtain and refine, even if you have nuclear power generation. It's also worth keeping in mind that fission weapons were designed with slide rules. The theoretical side of things is one heck of a lot easier to deal with these days, you can do a lot with simulations. Well yes and the murders too
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Well yes and the murders too And people say there's no value in humanities degrees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
piL posted:And people say there's no value in humanities degrees. Nah you need the crimes against humanity degrees for this stuff really
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Ah right, I actually knew about the difficulty in producing nukes but it totally slipped my mind. I guess it would be immediately very obvious to outside observers then, if KSA started making steps towards a weapons program. Well, the Stuxnet Worm slowed down the Iranians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet. Sanctions are a big one. The expense is high and there are plenty of other costs, so not a lot of nations have a strong means and motive to do so. The Saudis would like one if the Iranians had one, but that possibility seems to be distant at the moment. Wheeljack fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
I think 60% of why America sells KSA so much stuff is because of the money. The money is good--though that's probably more about the money not going elsewhere. 10% is probably being able to safely base and stage things in a tumultuous part of the world. Another 10% is invading people the US doesnt like. But I think that last 20% is so they can shut the tap if KSA invades a friend or refines uranium. KSA has between the time they get caught and until they have enough to actually threaten the area around them to build a stockpile sufficient to overcome threats that don't generally congregate in ways susceptible to large strikes. An isolated KSA might benefit from nukes but given their particular situation, but US arms support is far more valuable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 05:21
|
|
|
Wouldn't the implications of a state going nuclear depend a lot on the delivery systems they could field as well? Warheads aren't really that scary if they can't reach their targets. A state that could also create a stealth submarine? Now that's an issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 05:49
|
|
|
I remember some claims about the Saudis supporting Pakistan's nuclear program, and possibly having an arrangement about getting some nukes in return if they should ask for them. That would certainly help them get past the perilous phase where you're trying to develop nuclear weapons, but don't have them yet, and direct support from a country with an existing nuclear program would make the whole transition to self-sufficiency much easier too. Of course even if that was the agreement then, Pakistan probably wouldn't have a real interest in honoring it now - and if they were in such dire financial straits that it would be, I imagine the Chinese would prefer to prop them up over nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 06:53
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Ah right, I actually knew about the difficulty in producing nukes but it totally slipped my mind. I guess it would be immediately very obvious to outside observers then, if KSA started making steps towards a weapons program. Unfortunately, all of the "axis of evil" rhetoric made for a really good point why small states like North Korea would want a nuclear weapon. It doesn't really make them more scarier than they already were, since you can just bomb Seoul down to rubble with conventional bombs too. But, once you start throwing the word nuclear around, it's a lot more menacing. Practically speaking, there isn't a lot the international community can do against nations who are really keen on making a nuclear weapon. Back during the Cold War the CIA had a list of nations who could "in general terms" manufacture a nuclear bomb out of scratch within a three-month timetable, and this included pretty much everyone in the industrialized world. No one really wants to be a nuclear power though, since it generally speaking just makes you look like a huge rear end in a top hat. I guess the French are an exception to this, since they enjoy being assholes. But all the same, it doesn't really make sense for Switzerland to manufacture a nuclear weapon or three just for the sake of having it, since it only brings in negative things to their already stable foreign policy calculus. What might surprise you to know is that the obscure and small nation of Sweden was well on their way to having nuclear bomb capabilities, you know, in case they ran out of Finns to keep the Soviets at bay 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
TheFluff posted:Yeah, nuclear proliferation is mainly kept in check by the fact that the fissile materials are a pain in the rear end to obtain and refine, even if you have nuclear power generation. It's also worth keeping in mind that fission weapons were designed with slide rules. The theoretical side of things is one heck of a lot easier to deal with these days, you can do a lot with simulations. There’s also a rather large difference between the technical ability to produce a functional nuclear explosive device and the ability to produce a lightweight, resilient, maintainable, deployable nuclear weapon. A crude 10,000lb fission bomb was (just barely) useable in 1945, but good luck using something like that today as anything other than a truck bomb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 16:03
|
|