|
one country will come out of this conflict completely balkanized and its not who you think. in fact its not a country involved in the conflict in anyway. But the dissolution of peru will make an excellent longform video essay.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:One thing's for sure, there's going to be Famine this summer. If we last that long. The world is not going to end. It's scary, but we need to try and keep calm about this
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 04:45
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:The world is not going to end. It's scary, but we need to try and keep calm about this Excuse me sir, this is the nuclear war thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
Plot twist: Nuclear war is triggered by a worldwide famine that causes Pakistan and India to go to war.Hannibal Rex posted:Africa. Or world, I'm no expert. But look up where Egypt is getting its grain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 07:27
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Plot twist: Nuclear war is triggered by a worldwide famine that causes Pakistan and India to go to war. Yeah I guess I thought I had more time. Now Russia is going to threaten to nuke the west and try to destroy NATO and I'll be living in a Canadian refugee camp
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 07:30
|
|
|
Despera posted:Oh no free healthcare at gunpoint! Enjoy your new death panels
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 09:00
|
|
|
From the translation from the leaked FSB low level analyst who caused this whole thing: https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1500301348780199937?s=20&t=T0nwWhvy8DdUBfbpkGHwJQ quote:We are plowing to create a scenario to blame everything on Ukraine. Naryshkin (Director of Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia) and his SVR is digging the ground to prove that Ukraine was secretly building nuclear weapons. F*&K. They are hammering at what we’ve already analyzed and closed the book on: We can’t just make up any evidence or proof and existence of specialists and Uranium. Ukraine has a ton of depleted isotope 238 – this is nothing. The production cycle is such that you can’t do it in secret. So I suspect the Russians are going to manufacturer a small "dirty nuke" explosion (probably using material from Chernobyl) and then blame Ukraine for it. The good news(?) is that the analyst doesn't think the Russian Nuclear Weapon system will actually work and someone would step in and stop Putin doing it anyway, and Putin's too much of a coward too. Though seeing it's the same FSB analyst who helped cause all this mess, I'm not sure he's any more accurate than anyone else. And those of you have read Red Storm Rising will be aware this is how the plot worked out in the novel. What we all have to hope is, he doesn't decide to follow the plot to 1985: The Third World War which is the one used in Team Yankee. Comstar fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Mar 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 10:14
|
|
|
What are the chances Scholz swoops in for Poland once they move all their troops east? Never trust the Hun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Comstar posted:So I suspect the Russians are going to manufacturer a small "dirty nuke" explosion (probably using material from Chernobyl) and then blame Ukraine for it. Good news, everyone! They switched the plot from a secret nuclear lab to a secret bioweapons lab.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
Who do you think gave covid to the queen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
That FSB thing reads like some goon wrote it, don't believe in it being authentic at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:That FSB thing reads like some goon wrote it, don't believe in it being authentic at all. Are you ruling out goons working for FSB tho?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
I'm the leaker. Don't worry, I made sure to grab a geiger counter and it's only slightly elevated so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:Good news, everyone! Which Tom Clancy or Tech Thriller book are we in now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
Team Yankee is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
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. So what's the, uh, detection threshold for these systems? How big does a rocket launch have to be to raise the alarm? This is about where my knowledge of the players' nuclear arsenals ends, but as the term 'tactical nukes' gets thrown around a lot and I know there are much smaller, non-intercontinental missiles in existence. Are any of these tactical nukes small and short-range enough not to set off early-detection systems?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
I find it hard to believe that this will even possibly result in nuclear war. I do find it curious though, at what type of even would you all say that nuclear war would be a very realistic reality? Like if Russia invaded a NATO state? Maybe even Germany?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 05:55
|
|
|
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 existence of these early-warning systems has been a powerful incentive to make sure that things that aren't ICBMs are easy to tell apart from ICBMs. No one wants to go out of their way to avoid strategic nukes, only to accidentally trigger nuclear war anyway because the stuff they used instead was still mistaken for ICBMs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 05:58
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I find it hard to believe that this will even possibly result in nuclear war. I think if Putin was still in charge of Russia, and Russia was under imminent existential threat (IE NATO/someone else is invading Russia and the forces are approaching Moscow) he'd quite possibly order ICBM launches on major cities of his opponents. At that point he'd almost certainly be tried for war crimes even if he surrendered and wouldn't have much left to lose. And even if he orders it I give decent odds the orders wouldn't be followed. However I also think those circumstances will never happen - even if NATO somehow ends up intervening in Ukraine, I think they'd stop at the Russian border so it's never actually an existential threat, because NATO strategists probably have a similar opinion on what might happen. Other nuclear powers doing it in similar circumstances (they're about to be conquered) are possible but less likely - it probably both requires the country to be about to lose and the leadership to believe they'll be killed if they lose. If Russia invaded a NATO state I think NATO would retaliate with conventional forces and, as above, stop at Russia's border and try to negotiate a peace settlement. Bremen fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Mar 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 06:02
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I find it hard to believe that this will even possibly result in nuclear war. there are two possible (and, to be clear, very unlikely) scenarios i see where a nuclear war happens. both would involve nato getting into a shooting war with russia. the first would be an accidental war - the russian leadership has frighteningly little time to respond to a detected nuclear launch, and perhaps they misinterpret or miscalculate due to the, uh, missiles flying everywhere. the second would be russia facing conventional defeat in ukraine decides to use tactical nuclear weapons. this is not as unlikely as it sounds - russia has thousands of tactical nukes and they have been fairly open about the fact that these are there because their conventional forces are no longer as great as they were during the soviet period. the scenario would be a miscalculation by both russia and nato - they are facing most of their professional soldiers being wiped out by nato attacks, they blow up some nato bases and say "alright, we used these in battle but we aren't nuking anything more. if you nuke us back though, we'll fire." that would put the west in a tight spot on how to respond, and potentially a retaliatory strike might end up triggering an all-out conflagration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 06:17
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the second would be russia facing conventional defeat in ukraine decides to use tactical nuclear weapons. this is not as unlikely as it sounds - russia has thousands of tactical nukes and they have been fairly open about the fact that these are there because their conventional forces are no longer as great as they were during the soviet period. the scenario would be a miscalculation by both russia and nato - they are facing most of their professional soldiers being wiped out by nato attacks, they blow up some nato bases and say "alright, we used these in battle but we aren't nuking anything more. if you nuke us back though, we'll fire." that would put the west in a tight spot on how to respond, and potentially a retaliatory strike might end up triggering an all-out conflagration. At this point, assassination (or at least, an attempt) seems like the least bad option. It's far more targeted than retaliation with tactical nukes (or any high-yield explosives inside Russia's borders). Hopefully Putin's successors would be more willing to cut a deal, especially if they were induced to look the other way with promises of financial support/amnesty for whatever support they'd previously given the regime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
The disfunction, lack of maintenance, and corruption leading to scrapping for parts that we have observed in the conventional forces side of Russia's invasion has me seriously questioning what state their nuclear armaments might be in. At least there is plausible utility in conventional weapons even if you think it is unlikely they are to be used against a force that can fight back during anytime during your career... how have the same incompetent military and logistics command handled the servicing of the nuclear forces, which they could easily expect to never actually need to deploy? At this point it seems like "nuclear accident" from poorly maintained nuclear arms is still more likely than Russia intentionally nuking someone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 07:48
|
|
|
People overstate the effects of a full blown nuclear war. We do not have the power to end life, even human life, on earth. Nuclear winter is a hypothetical that there are good reasons to believe would not occur or at least wouldn’t be long lasting. We don’t have enough bombs to kill everybody. Don’t get me wrong. High hundreds of millions to billions would die. Governments would probably collapse. It would be horrible. But it wouldn’t be world ending, and the people with the keys know that, and that makes it more likely than if it would be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 08:23
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I think if Putin was still in charge of Russia, and Russia was under imminent existential threat (IE NATO/someone else is invading Russia and the forces are approaching Moscow) he'd quite possibly order ICBM launches on major cities of his opponents. At that point he'd almost certainly be tried for war crimes even if he surrendered and wouldn't have much left to lose. And even if he orders it I give decent odds the orders wouldn't be followed. The play for Putin in that scenario would be to hit a handful of targets with a dead man switch setup to hit all they can if troops aren’t withdrawn/he’s killed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 08:26
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:People overstate the effects of a full blown nuclear war. We do not have the power to end life, even human life, on earth. Nuclear winter is a hypothetical that there are good reasons to believe would not occur or at least wouldn’t be long lasting. We don’t have enough bombs to kill everybody. I do agree that posters saying that the result of nuclear war would be like "Threads" is an exaggeration. The world wouldn't be brought back to the stone age. However, the entire world as we know it would end with all of the Great Powers becoming third world countries. It would be interesting if there was another full scale World War with nukes to wonder if neutral third world countries would gain any footing by having an advantage of non-destroyed infrastructure and no radioactive areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 08:38
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I do agree that posters saying that the result of nuclear war would be like "Threads" is an exaggeration. The world wouldn't be brought back to the stone age. However, the entire world as we know it would end with all of the Great Powers becoming third world countries. Have you ever read any MAD analysis or doctrinal theory? Why would you expect there to be a limited nuclear exchange?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 08:57
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Have you ever read any MAD analysis or doctrinal theory? Why would you expect there to be a limited nuclear exchange? I wouldn’t expect there to be a limited nuclear exchange.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 09:04
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:People overstate the effects of a full blown nuclear war. We do not have the power to end life, even human life, on earth. Nuclear winter is a hypothetical that there are good reasons to believe would not occur or at least wouldn’t be long lasting. We don’t have enough bombs to kill everybody. That doesn't seem all that relevant an observation to me, the effect would be catastrophic either way. And I think people are pretty invested in preserving our way of life, some people in a remote village potentially surviving isn't much comfort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 09:04
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I wouldn’t expect there to be a limited nuclear exchange. I think the consensus is that in the aftermath of full nuclear war the fallout would be significant enough that any nations that may have avoided having their infrastructure destroyed would be facing a radiological disaster of such scale that their citizens would likely expire within the decade. There would not be any kind of advantage derived from that course of events.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 09:11
|
|
|
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. Once a missile has gone ballistic you can actually predict it’s trajectory quite well. And rocket motors are gigantic, we’ve been able to detect them from space from like the 70s and technology has undoubtedly gotten better since then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 10:07
|
|
|
Since they're testing air raid signals over here today, it made me wonder how many civil defense organizations worldwide are actually equipped to deal with a nuclear war. Even Sweden, which has a really good coverage of bomb shelters, has most of that infrastructure built in the 70s and then subsequently abandoned. A fair chunk of bomb shelters are actually used as indoors bike storage, parking lots or hobby rooms. Even if they weren't, certainly no new ones have been built, meaning they could not plausibly house the entire population. How many people even know where to go and what to do in case of a major crisis, let alone a nuclear war?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 11:44
|
|
|
fnox posted:Since they're testing air raid signals over here today, it made me wonder how many civil defense organizations worldwide are actually equipped to deal with a nuclear war. Even Sweden, which has a really good coverage of bomb shelters, has most of that infrastructure built in the 70s and then subsequently abandoned. A fair chunk of bomb shelters are actually used as indoors bike storage, parking lots or hobby rooms. Even if they weren't, certainly no new ones have been built, meaning they could not plausibly house the entire population. They don't. The fake Hawaii ballistic missile warning a couple years ago was a huge debacle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
fnox posted:Since they're testing air raid signals over here today, it made me wonder how many civil defense organizations worldwide are actually equipped to deal with a nuclear war. Even Sweden, which has a really good coverage of bomb shelters, has most of that infrastructure built in the 70s and then subsequently abandoned. A fair chunk of bomb shelters are actually used as indoors bike storage, parking lots or hobby rooms. Even if they weren't, certainly no new ones have been built, meaning they could not plausibly house the entire population. Not that the symbolism of living in a lovely basement is hard to figure out without context but a big cultural thing in the movie "parasite" is the idea that every building in seoul is required to have a bomb shelter, and so living in an illegal sublet in a basement level bomb shelter is like the absolute cultural image of where super poor people live (complete with the weird bathroom where the shelter is below the level of the pipes) Like again, the symbolism of "richer people live physically above poor people" isn't exactly rocket surgery level symbolism that needs outside elaboration to get, but rented out or loaned out bomb shelters is why specifically a korean movie has so much living in basements based symbolism. People aren't supposed to, but it's the "renting a closet as a room in manhattan" of korea. (I feel like you could 1000% make an americanized version of parasite where a girl starts her career in new york in a rented out closet, then gets a job with a rich person and ends up living in their giant labyrinthine closet)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 14:30
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:I think the consensus is that in the aftermath of full nuclear war the fallout would be significant enough that any nations that may have avoided having their infrastructure destroyed would be facing a radiological disaster of such scale that their citizens would likely expire within the decade. There would not be any kind of advantage derived from that course of events. Depends on where heavy fallout lands - a country with prevailing winds coming from a place that doesn't generate fallout is going to be better off. The coasts of Oregon and Washington, Ireland, and southern Chile come to mind. The amount of dust generated would compare to a large volcano eruption - Tambora in 1815? - and any nuclear winter would be a single, nasty, hungry winter. After that, the real worldwide radiological disaster would be the erasing of ozone from the atmosphere - which would recover in 25 years or so - and the massive increase in UV radiation that makes it to the ground. Cancer among survivors (particularly skin and lung) is going to be common and even more so when many are going to have to work outside in agriculture. That doesn't consider the effect of UV on crop yields. Survival rates 5+ years out would be horrific.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
dirty shrimp money posted:Depends on where heavy fallout lands - a country with prevailing winds coming from a place that doesn't generate fallout is going to be better off. The coasts of Oregon and Washington, Ireland, and southern Chile come to mind. The amount of dust generated would compare to a large volcano eruption - Tambora in 1815? - and any nuclear winter would be a single, nasty, hungry winter. After that, the real worldwide radiological disaster would be the erasing of ozone from the atmosphere - which would recover in 25 years or so - and the massive increase in UV radiation that makes it to the ground. Cancer among survivors (particularly skin and lung) is going to be common and even more so when many are going to have to work outside in agriculture. That doesn't consider the effect of UV on crop yields. Of course you also have to take into account the fact that post-war, the skies would become clearer than they have been in a long time, which would probably further increase UV radiation. On top of the climatological effects of course, which could push the world decades ahead in the climate projections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
What's the chances Aus/NZ get some "gently caress you yankee dogs" love when the poo poo goes down?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Have you ever read any MAD analysis or doctrinal theory? Why would you expect there to be a limited nuclear exchange? There are, at most, 20% of the active nukes there were in the 80s. Nuclear stockpiles have been drawn down, and it’s questionable if there even are as many nukes as countries say they have. I’m talking about a full exchange. It wouldn’t end life on earth, or human life. It would be really really bad. But it’s closer to what a desperate mad man would consider acceptable than “extinction level event” would be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:What's the chances Aus/NZ get some "gently caress you yankee dogs" love when the poo poo goes down? e: Pretty embarrassing if you do that and it turns out your opponent's nuclear arsenal didn't work and you nuked the entire world for no reason. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Mar 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Let's talk about detection systems.  A while ago there was a goon in IVFW who did that stuff, broke his security clearance so he could post here about it and wound up getting court marshalled over it. Not sure what military career implosion was worse, that or the guy who broke clearance to argue with developers of a online tank battle game. I'm guessing the big unknown with detection is how fast you can track coastal submarine launches, since bombers you can generally see coming from a mile away and ICBM/silo locations are pretty well known. Big K of Justice fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Mar 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Not that the symbolism of living in a lovely basement is hard to figure out without context but a big cultural thing in the movie "parasite" is the idea that every building in seoul is required to have a bomb shelter, and so living in an illegal sublet in a basement level bomb shelter is like the absolute cultural image of where super poor people live (complete with the weird bathroom where the shelter is below the level of the pipes) Landlords are gonna raise the rent on basement sublets soon, for having the perk of being nuke resistant*. *resistance not guaranteed
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 19:46
|
|