|
Willie Tomg posted:More knowledgeable folk than me have pretty aptly demonstrated why first-striking the US mainland is a pretty bad idea for anyone, and how second-striking is not terribly credible from any forseeable party, but what if China uses some of their limited stock to erase two or three carrier battle groups throwing their heft around in waters they claim? That is a much more plausible and thornier deployment of those weapons than outclassed subs taking a shot at the west coast USA, IMO. Interestingly enough, China has explicitly described their DF-21d ASuW MRBM as a non nuclear weapon, with a conventional payload. They have done that for two distinct reasons. 1. Because they don't really need a nuclear warhead for it, especially since they have designed it for saturation attacks. The kinetic energy of its MaRVs is enough to - if not one-shot the Carrier - register a mission kill. 2. Because arming it with a nuclear warhead ties their hands diplomatically, since they cannot use it without major nuclear escalation. Thus, it cannot work as a viable deterrent for a conventional confrontation (like a USCG can). Sure, putting a nuclear warhead on it is trivial, but the Chinese are pretty adamant about using this as a conventional weapon. It both fits their policy/narrative and moves the escalation trigger over to the US (with all the consequences that this incurs diplomatically/ethically). The concept behind the weapon is pretty similar to what the Soviets were thinking when they designed and fielded the 65-76 650mm Carrier Killer torpedoes on their hunter subs..it was one of them exploding (they are pretty tricky to field due to the oxygen peroxide motor) that sank the Kursk btw. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jan 21, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Yeah if they kill a CVN with a kinetic impactor then that's just too bad, so sad in terms of nuke use for the U.S. I still wouldn't want to be anywhere near a Chinese military base or ship after that though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:44
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Well..of course. But we will all be hosed anyway if that happens, so... The whole idea of weapons like these is to field them so that you never have to really use them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Btw..for anyone interested, this is a pretty good starter article for one of the Cold Wars major Crises, the one in 1983. With Able Archer and RYAN. WarGames for real: How one 1983 exercise nearly triggered WWIII Pretty chilling stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:I feel kinda bad about the gutrumbly feel of that last post so while my knowledge of nuclear capability and game theory is spotty, here's an essay that mostly encapsulates what knowledge I do have on the subject. Get ready to limber up that scrolling finger, boyos This lecture argues that the United States will have a terrific advantage in a nuclear holocaust because of the Second Amendment, which will enable the civil authority to maintain power and rebuild the Federal Government in a mere two centuries. He is a moron.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
The real reason that the US would have an "advantage" in recovering after a nuclear holocaust is because civil society is already pretty decentralized in the US compared to any potential adversaries and also because the US has plans that are almost a century in the making for continuity of government in the event of a catastrophic attack on North America Everything is coming up Idaho Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
My personal opinion is that the risk of nuclear war during the Trump administration will more or less stay the same as it has been: we have a lot of nuclear weapons, on many platforms, ready to go at a moments notice, as do several other powerful nations. But I personally think it's a miracle that the nuclear era began in the middle of a massive conflict which resulted in multiple nuclear bombs being dropped but never since. Then we survived the worst of nuclear brinksmanship that followed. Now it's pretty much beyond doubt to most people that a nuclear strike would be the last of many resorts in some future nightmare conflict that will surely never reach such a point.. My worry is that this administration's surplus of finger pointing and alienation combined with loose tongued public conversations about nuclear weapons production will be the last straw to start a global proliferation cascade that might cause "mini" cold wars in the future involving nations that, at this point, don't have nuclear capability. Think Israel and any middle eastern nation in their vicinity. North and South Korea. Japan and China. Any of this future conflict might not be quite so "restrained" as the original East/West standoff and anything could happen. It's hard to know if that will happen right now, the point is that Trump doesn't need to start a nuclear exchange to turn the relatively peaceful nuclear era into a whole new monster. And that, I think, is the more likely than a resource war or a nuclear strike of some kind. Our military is powerful enough to deliver the type of destruction a nuclear strike can without the stigma a thermonuclear weapon would carry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
The risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia is real and cool and it's my friend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:This is why a tactical use on an invading force--almost certainly American unless designer drugs and too many Clancy novels have broken your brain--concerns me more than strategic use. We know what happens in strategic exchanges. It fuckin sucks I'm in the same boat; I am not that afraid of an insensate nuclear war (although just by his personality and erratic positions alone, Trump has probably increased the odds from "extremely unlikely" to "really unlikely"). I'm afraid of the nuclear taboo being broken and low-yield nukes becoming just another tool in the arsenal. Breaking the norms around nuclear devices can have really really bad consequences down the line. However, "some general will just shoot him in the face" is plain wishful thinking. The US system has been built from the ground up since the end of WW2 so that the US President has sole discretion over the decision (the SecDef merely confirms that the President gave the order), and is surrounded by an apparatus whose only job is to guarantee he can execute that decision once he's made it. Nuclear weapons were centralized and civilianized to the POTUS and the DOE for a good reason, because the US military was full of nuts who would've gladly used tactical nuclear weapons. Now it's backfiring though. I don't blame for the wishful thinking, though, because the US starting a nuclear war for the regular person is like worrying about dying in a car crash. The latter is way more likely to kill you but you still drive. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
In all likelihood, the reason there won't be a nuclear war is relatively simple, rich people have to live in the same world we do and they like the world they built for themselves and control. Nuclear war isn't in their interests, although nationalism and saber rattling might be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In all likelihood, the reason there won't be a nuclear war is relatively simple, rich people have to live in the same world we do and they like the world they built for themselves and control. Nuclear war isn't in their interests, although nationalism and saber rattling might be. But nationalism and saber rattling tends to create more opportunities for an absurd chain of events leading to a civilizational collapse scenario. It may still not be very likely, but the consequences are so dire we should be very concerned with anything that increases that likelyhood. I heartily recommend Command and Control by Eric Schlosser to anyone interested in the mechanisms we have around preventing the accidental detonation of nuclear weapons. It covers the basic history from the first nuclear weapons up to the systems we have today as well as describes the near misses along the way. If you do look at the historical record, its clear that the cause of a lot of those accidents (or why they might have resulted in triggering a nuclear war instead of just a messy accident) were directly or indirectly caused by the US being on a war footing with the USSR. Anything that puts us back closer to that situation is going to once again increase the chances of some stupid accident spinning things out of control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
mkultra419 posted:But nationalism and saber rattling tends to create more opportunities for an absurd chain of events leading to a civilizational collapse scenario. It may still not be very likely, but the consequences are so dire we should be very concerned with anything that increases that likelyhood. It may increase the likelihood but there is a reason the Soviets always held back, everyone actually controlling the warheads themselves knew the result was certain destruction. The likelihood is higher than it was but it is still very minimal. I think the thing to fear is broader economic warfare that can could be extremely destructive while not as apocalyptic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You know the band "megadeth"? that is named after the concept of "megadeath" which was a cold war idea about counting out how many millions of people would die that was talked about in the context that as there could be an acceptable amount of megadeath. How many million people could those submarines kill? Not 300 million, so we would win, hurray! General Ripper did nothing wrong. Ten or even twenty megadeaths is an acceptable price to immanentize the eschaton, to usher in a brave new world for the survivors once the final evil of
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Also, I wonder why nobody has brought up the risk of nuclear war between the US and Prussia?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:I feel kinda bad about the gutrumbly feel of that last post so while my knowledge of nuclear capability and game theory is spotty, here's an essay that mostly encapsulates what knowledge I do have on the subject. Get ready to limber up that scrolling finger, boyos this was a really good post. thanks for sharing all that. i live in the dc area and for a while i've been pretty sure that if a nuclear exchange happens i won't even know it because i'll already be dead. the things this article points out, namely that killing the political leadership is usually a bad idea, and that all things considered, a nuke isn't that destructive have made me reconsider that idea. Nude Bog Lurker posted:This lecture argues that the United States will have a terrific advantage in a nuclear holocaust because of the Second Amendment, which will enable the civil authority to maintain power and rebuild the Federal Government in a mere two centuries. He is a moron. is it that ridiculous? having lots of people with guns after society breaks down makes it a lot easier to rebuild society and enforce order. most people aren't monsters and won't form roving bands of gas thieves. i mean, we will still do monstrous things but they're more along the lines of "grandma doesn't get any food" than "mad max irl" Ardennes posted:It may increase the likelihood but there is a reason the Soviets always held back, everyone actually controlling the warheads themselves knew the result was certain destruction. which is an interesting point. if potus or the russian president or the chinese premier or whoever gave the order, would people actually launch the weapons? axeil fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
axeil posted:which is an interesting point. if potus or the russian president or the chinese premier or whoever gave the order, would people actually launch the weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
So the day after I read this thread I see this pop up on my phone. https://news.vice.com/story/uk-government-under-pressure-over-nuclear-missile-misfire Obviously the missile was unarmed but still. cr0y fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
I think it's unprecedented for a puppet state to wage war against its master
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Antti posted:However, "some general will just shoot him in the face" is plain wishful thinking. The US system has been built from the ground up since the end of WW2 so that the US President has sole discretion over the decision (the SecDef merely confirms that the President gave the order), and is surrounded by an apparatus whose only job is to guarantee he can execute that decision once he's made it. Nuclear weapons were centralized and civilianized to the POTUS and the DOE for a good reason, because the US military was full of nuts who would've gladly used tactical nuclear weapons. Now it's backfiring though. It also is wishful thinking that the military strips humans down to be automatons that take orders and aren't people. Like yeah, if there is an ongoing conflict with russia and trump orders a first strike then yeah, there might be nothing that stops that. If trump wakes up at 2am and reads a mean tweet from cher and declares that we are going to nuke her house then the guy he tells is going to say "go back to bed trump".
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia is real and cool and it's my friend. I think this post really sums up all that needs to be said on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
mkultra419 posted:But nationalism and saber rattling tends to create more opportunities for an absurd chain of events leading to a civilizational collapse scenario. It may still not be very likely, but the consequences are so dire we should be very concerned with anything that increases that likelyhood. This is really what I was getting at with this thread. The real danger is an accident happening by random chance in the midst of heightened tension, saber rattling, and a hot headed megalomaniac at the trigger. MAD only works when both sides have perfect information about what's happening. If one side truly believes an attack is happening that goes out the window. The Russians really believed there was an attack in the "Norwegian rocket" incident, but Yeltsin was cool headed enough to correctly guess it was an error. If, after some possible crisis with Russia, Trump feels betrayed by Putin and is informed of a possible attack, what does he do? Conversely, what does Putin do in that situation, having the perception of Trump as unstable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
axeil posted:is it that ridiculous? having lots of people with guns after society breaks down makes it a lot easier to rebuild society and enforce order. most people aren't monsters and won't form roving bands of gas thieves. i mean, we will still do monstrous things but they're more along the lines of "grandma doesn't get any food" than "mad max irl" It is absolutely ridiculous, regardless of the core notion's merit or lack thereof. The US has a lot of guns, yes. More than anywhere else. But the only thing truly unique about the US, the only tangible result of the 2nd as currently interpretated, is how it lets people casually buy handguns and silly military equipment without specific reasons or training. You'd have to have an unfathomably limited understanding of the world to think this means there aren't a poo poo ton of rifles literally everywhere. Off the top of my head Switzerland and Finland have almost 50 per 100 people, most of the rest of Western and Northern Europe ~30/100. And that's just civilian ownership! And we're not exactly talking city folk here, for the most part. And tons of these people, apart from being hunters, have gone through universal mandatory military service and so actually have some common training in how to organize and achieve an objective as a small group with firearms. So even if guns for everyone is the answer, as far as actual useful gun ownership goes for all we know the US isn't even in the lead, certainly not massively. The essay was sort of interesting for the most part, but my nagging suspicions that the author might be a massive tool were definitely confirmed by the rants towards the end. Bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
The Doomsday Clock has been set at two and a half minutes to midnight. The closest it's ever been since 1953.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:The Doomsday Clock has been set at two and a half minutes to midnight. The closest it's ever been since 1953. Actually nuclear weapons are safe and everything is under control because *furious hand waving*
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Actually nuclear weapons are safe and everything is under control because *furious hand waving* As we all know, if they announce it's at midnight then the world ends immediately
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
How is there any way we make it out of this century considering how close we've come to nuclear annihilation multiple times, and climate change? The odds don't seem stacked in humanity's favor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Man if they move that clock again we're done for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:The Doomsday Clock has been set at two and a half minutes to midnight. The closest it's ever been since 1953. It reminds me a lot of when Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize, and we all know how disappointing that ended up being, so I wouldn't necessarily attach too much weight to this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
axeil posted:is it that ridiculous? having lots of people with guns after society breaks down makes it a lot easier to rebuild society and enforce order. most people aren't monsters and won't form roving bands of gas thieves. i mean, we will still do monstrous things but they're more along the lines of "grandma doesn't get any food" than "mad max irl" It is ridiculous becuse the most likely scenario here isn't that society (somewhat) as we know it is rebuilt and the US reforms after some arbitrary period of time, it's that local people band together for mutual aid and protection out of necessity and that degenerates into warlordism. Cakebaker posted:The essay was sort of interesting for the most part, but my nagging suspicions that the author might be a massive tool were definitely confirmed by the rants towards the end. Bizarre. I think I know who the author is, and if it's the pperson I'm thinking about he is, in fact, a massive tool. Guy knows his stuff when it comes to the technical aspects of nuclear war, but anything else he says should be disregarded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
So, the likely consequence of a nuclear war with China are the utter destruction of China, in exchange for California and the rest of the West Coast. A lot of coastal liberals, illegals and other Democrat voters would die screaming. How confident can we be that the current Republican leadership would, if not perhaps counting it as an actively good thing, consider it insufficient reason to avoid choosing a path that relies on the Chinese leadership backing down?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
How far east would the west coast be destroyed? In this kind of scenario I'd probably want to be killed in the first exchange.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
radmonger posted:So, the likely consequence of a nuclear war with China are the utter destruction of China, in exchange for California and the rest of the West Coast. A lot of coastal liberals, illegals and other Democrat voters would die screaming. California is responsible for an outsized chunk of the US's GDP as well as almost its entire technology sector and a fair amount of agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
It doesn't matter what you stand to lose when you have a Fojar-ish mindset that the opposing side will always back down and thus you can escalate forever with no fear of consequences
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
call to action posted:How is there any way we make it out of this century considering how close we've come to nuclear annihilation multiple times, and climate change? The odds don't seem stacked in humanity's favor. Climate change is not by any reasonable projection an existential threat to humanity. It can if left unchecked potentially kill 10+% of the population and radically alter the ecosystem in numerous ways, but not literally destroy humanity. As for the nukes since we've got Trump and Putin currently slamming their dicks together and China being our major trading partner I think we're fine at least for now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Climate change is not by any reasonable projection an existential threat to humanity. It can if left unchecked potentially kill 10+% of the population and radically alter the ecosystem in numerous ways, but not literally destroy humanity. As for the nukes since we've got Trump and Putin currently slamming their dicks together and China being our major trading partner I think we're fine at least for now. This is pretty asinine because one of the biggest fears re: climate change is that a drought or flood will spark regional tensions, which will spark war, which will spark global nuclear war. You cannot separate the threat of climate change from the existential threat of nukes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:The Doomsday Clock has been set at two and a half minutes to midnight. The closest it's ever been since 1953. Trump is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Climate change is not by any reasonable projection an existential threat to humanity. It can if left unchecked potentially kill 10+% of the population and radically alter the ecosystem in numerous ways, but not literally destroy humanity. As for the nukes since we've got Trump and Putin currently slamming their dicks together and China being our major trading partner I think we're fine at least for now. It always amuses me that we have choked so thoroughly on our own hubris that we automatically default to the belief that our modern society construct is robust when it is, in fact, anything but. It also amuses me that we have choked so thoroughly on our own hubris that we believe we are fundamentally disconnected from the ecology. I don't even want to see that wake up call, but man would it be a rude..and spectacular..spectacle to behold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
The good news is that once society collapses it will greatly reduce our CO2 emissions
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Power_of_the_glory posted:Trump is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis? It was strangely never updated around that time. It was at 7 in 1960 and then 12 in 1963.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Dante80 posted:oxygen peroxide motor  It's possible my chemistry is a bit rusty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:53
|
|
