|
Everyone's elites travel by large yacht and private jet pretty much freely without customs or security screening and there will be at least one shot at weaponization before a crackdown.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
slurm posted:Everyone's elites travel by large yacht and private jet pretty much freely without customs or security screening and there will be at least one shot at weaponization before a crackdown. By who? The Saudis?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
Wheeljack posted:By who? The Saudis? At some point two extremist groups are going to try and sneak nukes in via mega-yacht and get into an altercation. One group will hoist up their nuke to threaten the other boat. The second boat will do the same. Neither group will be competent enough to actually detonate their payloads. Both boats will sunk by a nearby navy vessel. Seawater will make unfortunate circuits fire and the resulting seafloor explosion will wake Godzilla. Humanity perishes under lizard feet by 2056. Nothing of value is lost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
I think air delivery (bombers) are most forgiving on size and weight - ICBM and SLBM have throw weight limitations that would require advanced weapon designs to achieve the miniaturisation required. A boosted fission weapon of an aircraft loadable size would be quickest to develop for a clandestine program. I assume levitated pit with D-T boosting tech would be more accessible today than it was in the 40s and is a far more efficient use of fissile material than Fat Man was. Of course air delivery needs to be able to penetrate a defended airspace. Sneak it in on a false flag air freighter maybe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2022 11:07
|
|
|
A clandestine nuke is of little use as a military deterrent though, and that’s the primary reason to have one. North Korea and Iran want one to say “hands off our territorial integrity.” Developing a bomb in secret to deploy covertly in a terrorist-style first strike doesn’t serve any actual, existing nation’s interests. The first part is nigh-impossible to accomplish. Threatening the second part would result in the state becoming a pariah and actually doing it would result in overwhelming, possibly nuclear, retaliation. And if they we’re both possible, that’d be Clancychat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
But doctor, this IS ClancyChat
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
Wheeljack posted:A clandestine nuke is of little use as a military deterrent though, and that’s the primary reason to have one. North Korea and Iran want one to say “hands off our territorial integrity.”  What use is a weapon system if you tell no one about it?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
Wheeljack posted:A clandestine nuke is of little use as a military deterrent though, and that’s the primary reason to have one. North Korea and Iran want one to say “hands off our territorial integrity.” What your entire country just really hates Elon Musk?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
Outrail posted:What your entire country just really hates Elon Musk? Just troll him enough on Twitter and he'll make a horrifying explosion all on his own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
There's a really good lecture-style podcast about the history of nukes by Dan Carlin called The Destroyer of Worlds. It's almost 6 hours long, and very well done. It goes from the early development, through WW2, and up to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
I still think there’s a good chance Putin will nuke Kyiv. Not to win the war mind you (because it would not). Because when he loses the Crimea it’s the only thing he’ll be able to think of to keep show hin enemies in Russia to keep scared enough to not kill him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I still think there’s a good chance Putin will nuke Kyiv. Not to win the war mind you (because it would not). How would that help with anything? It would guarantee direct NATO involvement in the war and forever make Russia a pariah state Willo567 fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I still think there’s a good chance Putin will nuke Kyiv. Not to win the war mind you (because it would not). I think the US response would be extreme, so this option for Putin is squarely in the "I'm going to die and/or don't want to live anymore anyway, so gently caress it" category. So, I don't believe this is a realistic outcome at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I think the US response would be extreme, so this option for Putin is squarely in the "I'm going to die and/or don't want to live anymore anyway, so gently caress it" category. So, I don't believe this is a realistic outcome at all. I think you need to define extreme. I do not think the US/NATO would nuke back, or even start a conventional conflict. Hell if we go full ClancyChat the Russian plan would be to Nuke Belrus as a fake attack, blame NATO and THEN Nuke Kyiv and dare them to do anything about it. That was the plan in Red Storm Rising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I do not think the US/NATO would nuke back, or even start a conventional conflict. I believe they absolutely would, either immediately or very soon afterwards. It would completely change our assessment of Putin and Russia as a reliable, predictable nation wrt to their use of nuclear weapons and prove all of our prior assumptions to be just completely and wildly incorrect. I do not believe we currently have any expectations that Russia would nuke Kyiv for any reason under any circumstances that don't involve a massive invasion of Russia. A first-strike use of nuclear weapons by Russia for either military reasons or for pure spite would immediately lead us to think that it is absolutely plausible that they could nuke anything else up to and including the US just on a weird unpredictable whim, so at that point, the correct and rational decision could actually be to annihilate Russia's military and nuclear capabilities, while accepting retaliation and all the awful consequences. Rigel fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
There's literally 0% chance an attack on a non-NATO nation would result in a nuclear response. Look at the paper that was just linked. That's a 3 billion people dead scenario you're proposing. It's just an absurd idea that anyone involved would do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:There's literally 0% chance an attack on a non-NATO nation would result in a nuclear response. Look at the paper that was just linked. That's a 3 billion people dead scenario you're proposing. It's just an absurd idea that anyone involved would do that. I think you are massively underestimating the worldwide panic and terror that would result. This would not be a case of people sadly shaking their heads at the fate of Ukraine, and wondering what to do next, secure in the knowledge that they themselves are still safe. Russia inexplicably and bizarrely nuking Kyiv just out of the blue is not even remotely sane or rational, a hell of a lot of people including a large number of people in the US, would think they very well could be next. There's no point in wondering "well why would they ever do that" because nuking Kyiv was also just completely insane. It would kick off an inevitable and completely unstoppable acceleration towards total war against Russia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
Putin is not going to nuke Kyiv under any circumstances. I know this is the clancychat thread but come on
Judgy Fucker fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:There's literally 0% chance an attack on a non-NATO nation would result in a nuclear response. Look at the paper that was just linked. That's a 3 billion people dead scenario you're proposing. It's just an absurd idea that anyone involved would do that. Yeah, only 40% of the target objective is insane. We're need more nukes first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I still think there’s a good chance Putin will nuke Kyiv. Not to win the war mind you (because it would not). Putin already has a long history of killing and maiming a lot of his enemies, up to using radioactive poisons and nerve agents, both in and out of Russia. He has plenty of options to silence dissent that would not put his regime in existential danger. Radioactive fallout drifting into other European nations alone would cause a NATO intervention for a start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
How is starting a war that would kill most Americans in America's interest? Why do you think that Joe Biden would do that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:How is starting a war that would kill most Americans in America's interest? Why do you think that Joe Biden would do that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
You'd have fingers sweating over the button from Paris to Pyongyang wondering who is next on Putin's list, regardless of US response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
What about a demonstrative attack, either a tactical nuke over a lightly populated area, or a high altitude nuke designed to maximise EMP effects? Seems more plausible than going straight for population targets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If you convince the president that either he starts it, and only 90% die, or he doesn't, and 99% die, then it's pretty easy to see why they would. Joe Biden, a devout catholic, moderate, and consensus builder is not going to launch a nuclear first strike absent intelligence that Russia is going to launch on the US immanently. Not for Germany, not for Japan and certainly not for Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:What about a demonstrative attack, either a tactical nuke over a lightly populated area, or a high altitude nuke designed to maximise EMP effects? Seems more plausible than going straight for population targets. Any real use of a nuke crosses the line, every world leader knows this. Yield doesn't matter, everyone will know it was a nuke and if it was actually used in conflict then the line is crossed. For all the horrible things that have happened, and all the insane warmongering leaders that have been around since WW2, no one has felt they could cross that line. That could change, history follows no hard rules. But no leader is kidding themselves about the historic backlash and potential all-out war that will likely ensue from using a nuke in any capacity. Using one as an EMP would still create a historic humanitarian crisis. For all the leveling of towns and cities, power is still getting around in Ukraine. An EMP would delete the use of electricity for a large area. And it would take years to get it back because the entire grid, and EVERY machine not hardened that was connected to the grid would be destroyed. In some ways an EMP can be worse than destroying a city cause the effect can be over a much larger area and still create an effectively uninhabitable zone. And there's even a potential double nuclear disaster should the EMP damage a nuclear power station. Putin is not being completely rational, like any human he can fail to properly assess outcomes. This war did not go as he thought it would, even though he should have known about a lot of the failings of his army. But I'd say it's a safe assumption he knows using nukes in any way is not worth the risk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
This is why Putin should take the radical step of nuking himself.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:Joe Biden, a devout catholic, moderate, and consensus builder is not going to launch a nuclear first strike absent intelligence that Russia is going to launch on the US immanently. Not for Germany, not for Japan and certainly not for Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
Putin going crazy and ordering a nuclear attack on Kyiv would have a small, but not negligible chance of spiraling into "everyone, including Putin & his family die". Trying to order something would also have a much bigger chance of getting Putin either soft or hard coup'ed (not great for the legacy image he wants to cultivate). The generals he'd go through to implement that aren't idiots and would recognize that it'd have a decent chance of ending up with them and everyone they care about dead. And it's not like targeting Ukraine would be a plausible "launch now or not at all" MAD situation, there'd be time to stall and work something out with the rest of the military leadership
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
It is still Clancychat if the head of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is warning about the use of tactical nuclear weapons? My current thinking is what of two results- NATO does nothing or enforces a no fly zone over Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 07:35
|
|
|
They want to nuke their own country?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:They want to nuke their own country? What? No - he was warning that Russia would use Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine. Now if you're thinking any use would mean Russia would get irradiated, yes, that too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 08:07
|
|
|
He's referring to the fact that Russia considers Ukraine to be part of Russia and thus,
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
cool cool time to dust off this thread https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/21/russia-referendums-ukraine-occupied-nuclear/ quote:Russia pushes the panic button and raises risk of nuclear war https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1572548679445393409 coelomate fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Sep 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
Those articles are both pure conjecture, and pretty clickbaity about it. The idea that this annexation nonsense means nuclear war is just around the corner requires several fairly large logical leaps, and provocative headlines like "Russia pushes the panic button and raises the risk of nuclear war" are so out of proportion to the actual contents of the article that I can only conclude the editors see good numbers from nuclear clickbait.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
Aw jeeze I hope Pootie doesn't hit the button before I wrap this project up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
I still think he's going to Nuke Kyiv or else see the fate of other failed dictators. He still won't win the war and Ukraine will get everything back with the full lend lease. Just like Russia did in WW2. Guess he never studied history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
Which of Russia’s problems do you imagine get solved as a result of nuking Kiev?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
If Putin orders Kyiv to be nuked without the Russian army having gained any significant progress, I'm pretty sure someone would just cap Putin as he screams into the phone. There's a pretty low chance of any of that happening, but it does go up with every corner he backs himself into. Destroying Kyiv would kill much of Ukraine's leadership, both political and military, a lot of their logistical and economic capacity, and create an epic humanitarian disaster. Not to mention the massive morale hit of losing all those people, history, culture and very likely Zelenskyy. Even with all the help that would likely flow in, it would cripple the nation. Putin still wouldn't win. But if he's pushed to actually doing this he would not be thinking rationally anyways. And he has been irrational since February, but there's a lot of levels between his current idiocy and going full Führer bunker but with nukes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
qhat posted:Which of Russia’s problems do you imagine get solved as a result of nuking Kiev? Which of Russia's problems got solved by invading Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 04:52
|
|
