-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 8035)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: 7Z, GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, RAR, SWF, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 551 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here

File 137222216790.jpg - (1.83MB , 3264x2448 , 20130624_152547.jpg )
8035 No. 8035 ID: fb6dac
Hello, OperatorChan. I was doing these on 4chan's /k/ and someone told me that you guys might have some questions as well.

Ask me about nuclear weapons. (Except the science). Nuclear weapons strategy, weapon effects, current capabilities, former capabilities, weapon effects, etc....

My bona fides:
Worked with nuclear strategy and arms control with 2 different agencies ( Bureau of Verification and Compliance, Office of Nuclear Deterrence) and currently work as an employee of a defense contractor.
(Note, I am not a nuclear strategist. I did not help develop any attack options or anything like that, but I am familiar with the theory of nuclear warfighting.)

A few notes.
1) I can not give you anything that is illegal for me to disclose. In most cases, it might be in the wikipedia article but still illegal for me to talk about it.
If this comes up, I will tell you.
2) This also means that 100% of what I can tell you you can find in a book or paper. So why do this? Because most people don't want to wade through reams of paper to answer one question.
As I have already read through those oceans of crap, I can save you some time.
3) What is policy, is often times different from my opinion. Where they differ, I will tell you.
4) I will not jeopardize my employment or freedom.
5) I don't know whats under Denver International Airport. Sorry.
6) I am not in the military, and I never was.
So thats my post.

If you are interested, then please ask away, if not, then let this slide off. In any case, thanks.

Pic is some Tritium from the Trinity Test Site
Expand all images
>> No. 8036 ID: 9a7693
Other than a potential nuclear threat, what situation would justify the use of nukes?
>> No. 8037 ID: fb6dac
A conventional force that poses an existential threat to the United States.

Not many of those around.
>> No. 8038 ID: 9a7693
How are nuclear test sites chosen, what is done to contain the subsequent fallout? Did people really not know the dangers of radiation back in the 40s? There were so many military personnel close as fuck to blasts sites right?
>> No. 8039 ID: fb6dac

>How are nuclear test sites chosen,
This is somewhat beyond me, but I would imagine they are chosen for isolation and plenty of room.

>what is done to contain the subsequent fallout?
Tests after 1963 were done underground

>Did people really not know the dangers of radiation back in the 40s?
It's hard to say. But by and large it was mysterious.

>There were so many military personnel close as fuck to blasts sites right?
Yes, it was to test how conventional units could operate on a nuclear battlefield.
>> No. 8040 ID: 9a7693
>A mystery back then.
>Why couldn't they just...look at Marie Curie or what they did to Hiroshima, Nagasaki post '45.
>The Buster-Jangle test is a good example, It was in '51, did they seriously not know what would happen to those troops?
Thanks I have great interest in this subject because they were discussing this in my poli sci. class.
>Personally, do you think nuclear proliferation is really the solution?
>> No. 8041 ID: fb6dac
>Why couldn't they just...look at Marie Curie or what they did to Hiroshima, Nagasaki post '45.
Because those are not combat units attempting to execute orders.

>The Buster-Jangle test is a good example, It was in '51, did they seriously not know what would happen to those troops?
I don't know for sure, but maybe not.

>Thanks I have great interest in this subject because they were discussing this in my poli sci. class.
You are welcome.

>Personally, do you think nuclear proliferation is really the solution?
I think that two nuclear armed states are less likely to engage in open warfare against each other, and having nuclear weapons can have a calming effect on a country.
That is my opinion.
>> No. 8042 ID: 9a7693
File 137222884117.jpg - (166.33KB , 1600x998 , 1368780246909.jpg )
Alright thanks again.
Grab a trip and stick around.
It might be a bit slow now, but I'm sure a ton of OPchanners would love to pick your brain.
>> No. 8043 ID: fb6dac
Well, I'll be pretty available through 6 Jul.
>> No. 8044 ID: 263d6c
File 137226529073.jpg - (781.17KB , 1870x2851 , Dead Hand by David E_ Hoffman.jpg )
What country, if any, has an automatic nuclear retaliation system in place?
Referring to the Soviet "Dead Hand" system writ about in The Dead Hand by David E. Hoffman. If the buried nuclear defense computers detect nuclear attacks by seismic and radiological sensors and communications with Soviet High Command (STAVKA, etc.) have been cut for a certain length of time, then the computers will launch their nuclear missiles at their default targets. The computer will also launch cruise missiles that will fly over friendly nuclear launching facilities and silos while sending out a radio message to launch. That way, even if the Soviet military commanders were all taken out in a sneak attack decapitation strike, their defense network computers can still retaliate at their most likely foes. This system was later abandoned out of concern that a computer malfunction may trigger nuclear Armageddon and that having a radio signal that commands nuclear weapons to launch is a generally bad idea.

Dead Hand (Russian: Система «Периметр», Systema "Perimetr"), known also as Perimeter, is a Cold-War-era nuclear-control system used by the Soviet Union. General speculation from insiders alleges that the system remains in use in post-Soviet Russia. An example of fail-deadly deterrence, it can automatically trigger the launch of the Russian Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) if a nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity and overpressure sensors. By most accounts, it is normally switched off and is supposed to be activated during dangerous crises only; however, it is said to remain fully functional and able to serve its purpose whenever needed.

The purpose of the "Dead Hand" system, as described in a book of the same name, was to maintain a second strike capability, by ensuring that the destruction of the Soviet leadership would not have prevented the Soviet military from releasing its weapons.

Soviet concern about the issue grew with the U.S. development of highly accurate submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) systems in the 1980s. Until then, the United States would have delivered most nuclear weapons by long-range bomber or ICBM. Earlier U.S. sub-launched missiles, such as the 1960s-vintage UGM-27 Polaris and 1970s-vintage UGM-73 Poseidon, were considered too inaccurate for a counterforce or first strike, an attack against an opponent's weapons. SLBMs were reserved for attacking cities, where accuracy was of less importance. In the first case, an opponent with effective radar and satellite surveillance could expect a 30-minute warning of an attack before the first detonation. This made an effective first-strike difficult, because the opponent would have time to launch on warning to reduce the risk of his forces being destroyed on the ground. The development of highly accurate SLBMs, such as the Trident C4 and later the D5 upset this balance. The Trident D5 is considered to be as accurate as any land based ICBM. Therefore, US or UK Trident submarine systems that could stealthily approach an enemy's coast and launch highly accurate warheads at close range would reduce the available warning to less than 3 minutes making a counterforce first strike or a decapitation strike viable.

Some game theorists have argued that if one country believed it could defeat another's command-and-control system in a first strike, it would attempt to do so. The USSR, therefore, took steps to ensure that nuclear retaliation, and hence deterrence, remained possible even if its leadership were destroyed in a surprise attack. In contrast, Thompson argues that Perimeter's function was to limit acts of misjudgment by political or military leaderships in the tight decision making window between SLBM or cruise missile launches, and impact. He quotes Zheleznyakov on the purpose of Perimeter being "to cool down all these hotheads and extremists. No matter what was going to happen, there still would be revenge."
>> No. 8045 ID: b2da7d
I am the one who sent OP here; I read both threads. Guy knows his stuff. Knows a lot about targeting.

I am curious if the Nuclear Shaped Charges that I have heard of and were briefly mentioned in one of the kinder k threads are possible/practical.

Also are there any weapons systems that are already set up to produce an EMP as part of a first strike, or is it simply a high altitude setting on the fusing of a regular warhead?
>> No. 8046 ID: 626b5e

I mean EMP is just not that useful against military targets, mostly all hardened stuff. A lot of industrial stuff is hardened too. Though if you really wanted to be a dick like that, upper atmospheric initiations do some strange shit that caused them to get uncontested banned.
>> No. 8047 ID: 6ece7a
I don't believe for a second that Dead Hand is gone, or that it was only ever turned on during crisis events. I'd say it's been modified heavily, probably relying on EHF or VLF systems instead of the radio that the original used, and I'd say it's probably connected to the SLBM fleet as well. Wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese or Israelis had something similar, either.
>> No. 8048 ID: fb6dac
Let me preface this by saying that I have not read Dead Hand.

That being said, I am very familiar with the system and what it was designed to do as well as what it can actually do. It did have the potential to operate as a kind of failsafe against depressed trajectory SLBM shots, firing issuing launch orders to silos even if the rest of Soviet nuclear command and control was knocked out.
However, there are no indications that this part of Perimeter was ever installed or active. The system itself was not completed fully, and one of the key components of the system was a super hardened command center.

My understanding of how Perimeter was designed to work was that the Supreme Commander issued orders to activate it, and orders would be issued from the Perimeter command post to launch rockets that would fly a ballistic trajectory over the Soviet missile fields, and issue launch orders to the silos. This was designed to serve as a back up communications system and the launch order could fire the missiles without any input from the launch crews themselves.

In this way it is no different that the US ECRS.

BUT, if the Perimeter command post could be activated, and set to run for a certain period of time. At the end of this period of time, if no orders came to the contrary, Perimeter would launch its communications rockets automaticly. However, all indications are that this superhardened command center was never built, and the only way to order Perimeter rocket to fire is though the Kazbek communications system.

So, as far as I know, Perimeter is nothing more than a version of our ERCS and the automatic launch features were never integrated.

The fact that Perimeter is now fully integrated into the Russian Strategic Battle Management System lends credence to its role as a back up communications system and nothing more.

To my knowledge, no one else has a system like described.

>I am curious if the Nuclear Shaped Charges that I have heard of and were briefly mentioned in one of the kinder k threads are possible/practical.
thats kind of out of my comfort zone, but I can tell you that I have never heard of such a device. I would imagine, based on what I know, it would not be practical. While you might be able to direct some of the blast for the first 20-30 nanoseconds of the explosion, the energy release would quickly override (for lack of a better word) the directionality. You would probably have an asymmetrical effect on the propagation of the energy, even the casing of the warhead has 'some' effect even a full second in, but it quickly becomes negligible.

But I could be 100% wrong.

>Also are there any weapons systems that are already set up to produce an EMP as part of a first strike, or is it simply a high altitude setting on the fusing of a regular warhead?

There were some high yield warheads the Russians held onto for a while, and there was some question about their mission, and it was promulgated by some that they were designed for high altitude nuclear explosions designed to maximize EMP, but the Russians never really came clean about them.

But you can use any weapon with the correct trajectory to do it, and its just fuze settings for the most part. I am not sure if i can go any further than that about fusing on our warheads.

Do to the nature of radio communications with submarines, Perimeter integration with SSBN's is very unlikely. The Navy has always maintained separate communications networks with their submarines, and even the satellites are separate.

As for China or Israel, that would seem doubtful. The Chinese have had on at least three occasions almost lost control over their nuclear forces, and since that time have maintained a very tight grip on launch authority.

And I know someone will ask, so I will list two of the incidents below.

The first took place in 1966 or 1967. The Military commander of the Xinjiang region, General Wang En-Mao, had a SERIOUS falling out with Mao, and seized control of the arsenal at Lop Nor, and was threatening what most in the west would have called a coup.

But, PLA stormed the facilities, and the situation was resolved. Details are pretty vague.

2) Mao Yuanxin, Mao's Nephew, some time later, took some loyal Red Guards on a march to seize control of the nuclear weapons at Lop Nor. He was stopped before he got there by bad weather, and by the time he arrived, the garrison had been bolstered and they surrendered. Afterwards I'm sure he was given a fair trail followed by a first class hanging.
>> No. 8049 ID: fb6dac
I looked and looked for the third, and can find nothing.
I was probably mistaken. Sorry.
>> No. 8050 ID: 263d6c
File 137231969346.jpg - (173.32KB , 1280x800 , NUKEM! (31) Los Angeles nuke-out.jpg )
How many nukes does it take to Stone Age an average country?
How many nuclear bombs per square mile of territory does it take to destroy an enemy?

I remember reading, many years ago, that the Pentagon war planners decided that 300 nuclear blasts (of around 300 kilotons each) would eradicate a garden-variety nation, completely destroying its economy and most of its infrastructure and population, if the bombs are distributed in a manner to maximize widespread destruction. Naturally, larger countries such as Russia, China, the USA, Canada, etc. require more nukes. Smaller countries, such as Portugal, Israel, Belgium, etc. require less nuclear hits.

Here's a listing of the twenty largest countries in the world by area, in both square kilometers and square miles.

Russia: 17,075,200 km2 (6,591,027 mi2)
Canada: 9,984,670 km2 (3,854,082 mi2)
United States: 9,631,418 km2 (3,717,727 mi2)
China: 9,596,960 km2 (3,704,426 mi2)
Brazil: 8,511,965 km2 (3,285,618 mi2)
Australia: 7,686,850 km2 (2,967,124 mi2)
India: 3,287,590 km2 (1,269,009 mi2)
Argentina: 2,766,890 km2 (1,068,019 mi2)
Kazakhstan: 2,717,300 km2 (1,048,877 mi2)
Algeria: 2,381,740 km2 (919,352 mi2)
Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 2,345,410 km2 (905,328 mi2)
Mexico: 1,972,550 km2 (761,404 mi2)*
Saudi Arabia: 1,960,582 km2 (756,785 mi2)
Indonesia: 1,919,440 km2 (740,904 mi2)
Sudan: 1,886,068 km2 (728,215 mi2)
Libya: 1,759,540 km2 (679,182 mi2)
Iran: 1,648,000 km2 (636,128 mi2)
Mongolia: 1,564,116 km2 (603,749 mi2)
Peru: 1,285,220 km2 (496,095 mi2)
Chad: 1,284,000 km2 (495,624 mi2)

* Greenland is 2,166,086 km2 (836,330 mi2) but it is not yet fully independent so it is not on this list, where it would be ranked 12th, smaller than the Democratic Republic of Congo but larger than Mexico. http://geography.about.com/od/countryinformation/a/bigcountries.htm
>> No. 8051 ID: 263d6c
File 137232005960.gif - (817.78KB , 2500x2641 , NUKEM Nuclear Weapons Ready To Fly.gif )
The 24 Most Populous Countries on Earth Today
Updated May 12, 2011
This is a listing of the 24 most populous countries in the world (those having a population over fifty million). Data are estimates for these most populous countries from mid-2010.
China - 1,341,335,000
India - 1,224,614,000
United States - 310,384,000
Indonesia - 239,781,000
Brazil - 194,946,000
Pakistan - 173,593,000
Nigeria - 158,423,000
Bangladesh - 148,692,000
Russia - 142,958,000
Japan - 126,536,000
Mexico - 113,423,000
Philippines - 93,261,000
Vietnam - 87,848,000
Ethiopia - 82,950,000
Germany - 82,302,000
Egypt - 81,121,000
Iran - 73,974,000
Turkey - 72,752,000
Thailand - 69,122,000
Democratic Republic of the Congo - 65,966,000
France - 62,787,000
United Kingdom - 62,036,000
Italy - 60,551,000
South Africa - 50,133,000
Source:  United Nations Population Division World Population Prospects http://geography.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=geography&cdn=education&tm=16&f=00&tt=2&bt=2&bts=0&zu=http%3A//esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm
>> No. 8052 ID: 263d6c
File 137232037624.jpg - (167.07KB , 1024x768 , NUKEM! (18) Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan about to underg.jpg )
The 20 Most Populous Countries in 2050
In May 2011, the United Nations Population Division released their World Population Prospects, a set of population projections out to the year 2100 for the planet earth and for individual countries. The United Nations expects the global population to reach 9 billion in the year 2043. The next set of population projections will be issued by the United Nations in 2013. What follows is a listing of the twenty most populous countries in the year 2050, presuming no significant boundary changes between now and then.
1. India - 1,692,008,000
2. China - 1,295,604,000
3. United States - 403,101,000
4. Nigeria - 389,615,000
5. Indonesia - 293,456,000
6. Pakistan - 274,875,000
7. Brazil - 222,843,000
8. Bangladesh - 194,353,000
9. Philippines - 154,939,000
10. Democratic Republic of the Congo - 148,523,000
11. Ethiopia - 145,187,000
12. Mexico - 143,925,000
13. Tanzania - 138,312,000
14. Russia - 126,188,000
15. Egypt - 123,452,000
16. Japan - 108,549,000
17. Vietnam - 103,962,000
18. Kenya - 96,887,000
19. Uganda - 94,259,000
20. Turkey - 91,617,000
>> No. 8053 ID: 263d6c
File 137233090540.jpg - (690.56KB , 2800x2102 , NUKEM! (37).jpg )
For those of you who may have been wondering about Greenland...
Greenland (Greenlandic: Kalaallit Nunaat [kaˈla:ɫit ˈnuna:t]) is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, located between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, east of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Though physiographically a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been politically and culturally associated with Europe (specifically Norway and later Denmark) for more than a millennium. In 2008, the people of Greenland passed a referendum supporting greater autonomy; 75% of votes cast were in favour. Greenland is, in terms of area, the world's largest island, over 3/4 of which is covered by the only contemporary ice sheet outside of Antarctica. With a population of 56,370 (2013), it is the least densely populated country in the world.

Greenland has been inhabited off and on for at least the last 4,500 to 5,000 years by Arctic peoples whose forebears migrated there from Canada. Norsemen settled on the uninhabited southern part of Greenland beginning in the 10th century. Inuit peoples arrived in the 13th century. The Norse colonies disappeared in the late 15th century. In the early 18th century, Scandinavia and Greenland came back into contact with each other, and Denmark established sovereignty over the island.

Having been ruled by Denmark–Norway for centuries, Greenland (Danish: Grønland) became a Danish colony in 1814, and a part of the Danish Realm in 1953 under the Constitution of Denmark. In 1979, Denmark granted home rule to Greenland, and in 2008, Greenlanders voted to transfer more power from the Danish royal government to the local Greenlandic government. Under the new structure, in effect since 21 June 2009, the Danish government retains control of foreign affairs, national defence, the police force, and the justice system. It also retains control of monetary policy, providing an initial annual subsidy of DKK 3.4 billion, slated to diminish gradually over time as Greenland's economy is strengthened by increased income from the extraction of natural resources.

It was the early Scandinavian settlers who gave the country the name Greenland. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that the Norwegian-born Icelander Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. Along with his extended family and his thralls, he set out in ships to find the land rumored to lie to the northwest. After finding it and settling there, he named it Grœnland (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.

The name of the country in Greenlandic (Kalaallisut) is Kalaallit Nunaat ("land of the Kalaallit"). The Kalaallit are the indigenous Greenlandic Inuit people who inhabit the country's western region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

...The people of Greenland are probably happy in the knowledge that nothing in their country is worth nuking.
>> No. 8054 ID: fb6dac
>How many nukes does it take to Stone Age an average country?
Thats a simple question but the answer is not. The number of variables and the assumptions we would have to make about them would render the answer less and less useful with each assumption.
For example:
Define 'Stone Age'? Is it attacked to the point that there is no chance for a post attack recovery? Or is it a society that has collapsed due to the effects, and the one that rises from the ashes bears little resemblance to the pre attack society? And Example of this might be a cohesive nation that is attacked, and balkanizes. The initial country was destroyed, but it could hardly be said that its people were reduced to primitives.

Next is how are you attacking this country? Are we envisioning a realistic scenario, or a hypothetical one? If it it realistic the targets will look different than if you were just trying to cause the destruction of the social structure of the country. A nuclear attack is a military operation, and it will have military goals in mind.

As you can see with just these two options, there is no simple answer to your question. I will deliver the best answer I can.

Given a generic industrial country the size of the United States, with hypothetical 'perfect' weapons of perfect accuracy and reliability, and the stated goal of collapsing said country to an unrecoverable state, I would venture that 10,000 warheads of 500 Kt average yield would be needed to render the country unrecoverable.

>How many nuclear bombs per square mile of territory does it take to destroy an enemy?
That not a simple question either. What is the yield of these weapons? what are the targets, where are the targets?

> Pentagon war planners decided that 300 nuclear blasts (of around 300 kilotons each) would eradicate a garden-variety nation, completely destroying its economy and most of its infrastructure and population, if the bombs are distributed in a manner to maximize widespread destruction

Its very possible that someone was asked a difficult question and gave that answer, but it is over simplifying things to a huge degree.
Just for an example, FEMA conditioned a study in the late 1970's to list every target in the US that might possibly ever be targeted under any conceivable scenario, and the list was easily 100,000 targets long.

This map is somewhat outdated.
The US has exactly 1654 strategic warheads
The Russians have 1480.
>> No. 8055 ID: 263d6c
File 137235032029.gif - (411.00KB , 2560x1620 , US nuke targets in a 500 & 2000 warhead scenar.gif )
Thanks! But 10,000+ 500 kiloton strikes seems a bit... excessive. To ruin a nation, or at least her economy and with it her ability to wage industrialized war, I guess hitting every major military base and every large city with a 300 kiloton nuke (the average size warhead in an ICBM, right? The MIRV bus holding 3 to 30+?).

There are 289 incorporated places in the United States with a population of at least 100,000 on July 1, 2012, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
Simply hitting these with one nuke per 100,000 citizens would literally ruin the nation. Big cities like New York City would get 83 nukes for her 8,336,697 population, Los Angeles gets 39 for her 3,857,799 citizens. Perhaps one nuke for every 10 square miles of city is more realistic. NYC gets 30 nukes for her 302.643 square miles of city, LA gets 47 for 468.670 sq mi, Chicago takes 23 for 227.635 sq mi, and Houston takes a whopping 60 nukes for 599.589 sq mi (but it only contains 2,160,821 people, so this metric does not work).

How many nukes do you need to kill so much yardage of city?
The big 10 and 15 megaton city-killers are antiques of the early Cold War. MIRVed warheads on ICBMs gained favor as a kind of nuclear shotgun, showering a wider area with smaller nuclear bombs.

Here are estimated nuclear targets in a 500 & 2000 warhead scenario.
>> No. 8056 ID: 263d6c
File 137235273968.jpg - (290.78KB , 952x1283 , US nuke fallout Nuclear Weapon Target Map for Texa.jpg )
Let's look at the FEMA target maps.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these things, though.

- Nuclear Weapon Target Map for Texas (FEMA September 1990)

Looks like Houston gets around 15 nukes in this scenario.
>> No. 8057 ID: 263d6c
File 137235287682.jpg - (216.77KB , 979x1297 , US nuke fallout Nuclear Weapon Target Map for Cali.jpg )
Nuclear Weapon Target Map for California (1990)

Looks like around 30 in the LA area.
>> No. 8058 ID: 263d6c
File 137235302561.jpg - (227.33KB , 999x1283 , US nuke fallout Nuclear Weapon Target Map for New .jpg )
Nuclear Weapon Target Map for New York (1990)

Around 33 overlapping nukes to take out NYC.
>> No. 8059 ID: 263d6c
File 137235318471.jpg - (223.85KB , 979x1303 , US nuke fallout Nuclear Weapon Target Map for New .jpg )
Can't forget New Jersey!

The Garden State is on the receiving end of a lot of attention from the nuclear target allocators.
>> No. 8060 ID: 263d6c
File 137235325232.jpg - (224.55KB , 985x1290 , US nuke fallout Nuclear Weapon Target Map for Nort.jpg )
North Dakota.

The nuclear silos and bases, not their bustling metropolises.
>> No. 8061 ID: 263d6c
File 137235410027.jpg - (216.47KB , 979x1277 , US nuke fallout Nuclear Weapon Target Map for Colo.jpg )
Nuclear Weapon Target Map for Colorado (1990)

My home state!
The two nukes for Colorado Springs better be the big multi-megaton ground penetrators to take out Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base, home of NORAD.
>> No. 8062 ID: b2da7d
Has ICBM accuracy reached the point that kinetic energy strikes would be useful in certain non nuclear warfare purposes? I know they might not be practical since they would look just like a nuclear launch, but I just love the idea of hyperkinetic weapons.

For a given physics package, would a stronger warhead casing increase yield?
>> No. 8063 ID: e542b2
> I don't know whats under Denver International Airport. Sorry.

Damn, its my favorite conspiracy theory.

My question is what's the quickest time we can deploy a nuclear weapon globally? Is it an ICBM or can it be fired from a ship/dropped from an aircraft? And what is its yield?
>> No. 8064 ID: 8b884a

WTF they don't even mark Fargo on that map... it being the largest city in the state?
>> No. 8065 ID: d0ed5a
Im sorry. When you asked about hitting a country to such a degree that it would be in the stone age, I thought you were refering to putting them in such a state that they would be unrecoverable.

For this map it is actually based on the FEMA maps you posted below. It lists possible targets rather than likely targets.
Lets start with the FEMA maps (the state by state ones) These are not based on any actual scenario but rather just anything that might need a nuke with no regard to the strategy being employed. For example in a first strike, you would not see state capitols and the like being targeted, but in the FEMA maps they are shown as targets regardless.

The point of the map was not to show what woupd happen in a nuclear exchange but rather what locations would need to be prepared for one.

Now the big map takes the FEMA map and makes several mistakes. It tries to break up the attack into different warhead counts rather than different strategies. The second and biggest mistake is it assumes that there is only one warhead per target.
Thie is a common but wrong belief. Hardened high priority targets may be targeted with two or three warheads to ensure that at least one places its blast ring over the target at the distance required to destroy the target.

So the scenario depected is not accurate in the least.

Next you (and most people) make the assumption that nuclear warfare is about killing people. It is not, and it hasn't been in decades. Nuclear war is about hitting targets. When they look at Baton Rouge, they are not looking at killing people. They are trying to destrot the refinery. The casualties are mostly a side effect. Some cities may have more than one target. Lake Charles for example. And while one warhead would have destroyed one target and killed most of the people, the other targets might not be destroyed. So you need two or maybe three.

So thats where you are going wrong in your calculus.

For the most part, but there are HUGE speedbumps to using these.

> or a given physics package, would a stronger warhead casing increase yield?
Not really.
>> No. 8066 ID: d0ed5a
Thats all they wanted to know on /pol/....

As for timeframe ill tell you this.
You have several steps to take after you detect the launch.
Figure 15-20 munites for the steps and then, assuming the nuclear command and control system is intact, 90 seconds to launch for Land based missiles, varying times for SLBM, with them needing time to seach for threats and change depth.
>> No. 8067 ID: 263d6c
File 137238720394.jpg - (108.01KB , 857x720 , Russian nuke Stanislav Petrov who averted nuclear .jpg )
And sometimes it is better to wait to see what is actually happening, not just what the spy satellites and radar sensors report.

- Stanislav Petrov who averted nuclear war in 1983.
Launch on detection as a policy has a few flaws.
>> No. 8068 ID: 263d6c
File 137238724059.jpg - (39.78KB , 622x411 , Russian nuke Stanislav Petrov who averted nuclear .jpg )
Thanks, Stan!
>> No. 8069 ID: 0a9437
You mentioned that everything you say can be found in books. What books should I look for? I have Kahn's book and some other books on ICBMs and nukes, are there any essentials?

What's your opinion on the United States keeping it's MIRV capability submarine based?

When will the West, other than the French, start developing new ICBMs and SLBMs?
>> No. 8070 ID: 0a9437
So if the godless commies decided to attack the US (military targets only, with the aim to eliminate the US's ability to make war). Do you think they'd go all out and include overseas troops? Like in Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Italy, Germany, etc?

Is the US having it's forces spread out across the globe further deterrent to nuclear attack? For instance, just an attack on US territory leaves a huge amount of troops, equipment, resources, and nukes all over the world. But an attack on all US forces would draw every host nation into the fight.
>> No. 8071 ID: fb6dac
The Nuclear Express is fantastic.
Anything by Richard Rhodes
The Great American Gamble by Ken Payne
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/ is a fantastic resource.

>What's your opinion on the United States keeping it's MIRV capability submarine based?
I think it is the best current basing strategy. If response time again becomes critical, that may change.

>When will the West, other than the French, start developing new ICBMs and SLBMs?
Probably in the next ten years.
The problem is that you can't use components that have not been thoroughly tested, which would mean a resumption of nuclear testing at some point.

I'd also like to come back to this and explain some of those steps. I was on my phone when I replied and hate typing long responses on it, So I will go into a little detail about the Russian nuclear command and control system. (My NDA was in a three inch binder. Thats why you might see me say 'I'm not sure what I can say about that' because thats the truth. I'm not actually sure what I can say on some topics. So when I have a doubt, I give it a wide berth. So for this, I'm sure I can't get in trouble for explaining the Russian method.)

In almost every scenario the Soviets envisioned, nuclear use was preceded by a major crisis of some sort. So almost any use of Strategic Forces operates under the assumption they are under a high alert level. Just like us, the Russian's have multiple levels of strategic alert, but the highest has all rail and mobile forces not undergoing maintenance deployed and all available strategic subs to be sortied. Reserve command centers would be manned as well.

Changing alert level can only come from what is called Supreme High Command. The Supreme command is mostly made of of the General Staff, and their version of our NCA (National Command Authorities The President or his lawful successor). The General Staff by themselves can order some steps to raise the alert level, but only the Supreme High Command can actually order the level changed.

So, the Russian EW system can monitor all of the US land based systems and some parts of the oceans. When this system detects a missile launch, the EW command post first verifies the accuracy of the instruments, and if all errors are eliminated, generated a "Missile Attack" signal to the Air Defense command post and the General Staff command post.
The 'Missile Attack' signal then has to be verified by the Commander, Air Defence Forces at their command post. This can be skipped if the indications are above a certain number. (i.e radar and launch confirmation or other means) The exact number of indicators needed to skip this step is a closely guarded secret.

If the signal is deemed valid by the Air Defense Forces Commander, then a signal is sent to the Kazbek communications system. Most high level military officers, the Supreme Commander, the Chief of the General Staff, the Minister of Defense have Kazbek terminals with them. At this point the Battle Management system is activated.

At this point, the Supreme commander issues what is called the 'Preliminary Command', which links all EW and communications systems used by the nuclear forces to the Battle Management System. This includes the connection of the Kazbek system to the Battle Management system.
At this point, the final decision is made by the Supreme Commander and launch orders are sent to the Battle Management system via his Kazbek terminal. The Battle Management system then transmits launch authorizations to the units needed to carry out the command, using whatever communications links the Battle Management System has still available.

It is important to note that two things MUST happen before any Russian Nuclear weapons can be used.
1) A "Missile Attack" signal MUST be generated by the Early Warning system or the Kazbek system can not be activated
2) Supreme Commander must give the "Preliminary order"

If these two events do not happen, the Strategic Forces can not be given any orders. This is so hardwired into their system that even if they were going to undertake a first strike, a false "Missile Attack" signal would have to be generated.
>> No. 8072 ID: fb6dac
> Do you think they'd go all out and include overseas troops? Like in Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Italy, Germany, etc?
Probably not. The number of warheads vs number of military targets is not favorable to that. It would take almost the entire Russian arsenal to eliminate just our nuclear forces with any degree of certainty, let alone out conventional forces.

>Is the US having it's forces spread out across the globe further deterrent to nuclear attack?
No. Just an example of a schizophrenic foreign policy consisting of the exuberance of the 1990's, the naivete of the 1950's, and the fiscal resources of the 1920's.
>> No. 8073 ID: fb6dac
That last bit was political.
Sorry. Not trying to go there.
>> No. 8074 ID: 0a9437
>No. Just an example of a schizophrenic foreign policy consisting of the exuberance of the 1990's, the naivete of the 1950's, and the fiscal resources of the 1920's.
I understand that overseas deployments aren't for deterrent purposes, I was just wondering, if as a side effect, it added to the deterrent.

Thanks. I've looked over Nuclear Secrecy in the past, I've saved a couple PDFs from there.

What are your thoughts on the UK? I've always thought for a nation like theirs it's nuclear deterrent is woefully inadequate.
>> No. 8075 ID: fb6dac
>What are your thoughts on the UK? I've always thought for a nation like theirs it's nuclear deterrent is woefully inadequate.

As a part of NATO, they don't have to worry too much.
>> No. 8076 ID: 0a9437
How good are russian ABM defenses?
>> No. 8077 ID: fb6dac
In place only around Moscow, and will have limited utility.

S-300 and S-400 have some ABM capability, but only against theater and other intermediate range missiles. Against an ICBM or SLBM they are largely impotent.
>> No. 8078 ID: f8d11f
What was it like in the 70s and 80s? I know the british were putting Chevaline penetration aids on their Polaris missiles in order to hit Moscow.
>> No. 8079 ID: 263d6c
File 137242810566.jpg - (139.71KB , 846x586 , US nuke BGM-109 raised to firing position, forest .jpg )
Goddamn nightmare. The hawks were shrieking of the impending Next War in Europe that NATO was wholly unprepared for. NATO countries arguing over the cost of defense, Dutch hippie soldiers were rated as totally unreliable, riots all over Western Europe, strikes in Britain, West Germans complaining of US medium range nuclear ballistic missiles would be falling on their territory in order to contain attacking Warsaw Pact armies, doom being prophesied everywhere.

- US BGM-109 ground launched cruise missile, truck-mounted, raised to firing position, forest fire hazard.
>> No. 8080 ID: 83d0ea
File 137244280037.gif - (1.38MB , 320x240 , incoming.gif )

>mfw I live in that clusterfuck in the northeastern part.

It's because NJ is the single most densely populated state in the union. Lotsa casualties.

That being said, that would only happen if Russialand decided to nuke it out with us. Nobody else has the amount of warheads just to nuke swathes of land. inb4 wrong


and nothing of value was lost
>> No. 8081 ID: fb6dac
I wouldn't use that map for anything these days.
The Russian's just don't have the numbers of warheads available to do that anymore.

Beyond living near Bangor WA, Grand Forks AFB, Minot AFB, Malmstrom AFB, Tinker AFB, Barksdale AFB, Whiteman AFB, Kings Bay GA, or near one of the nuclear command and control nodes, the Russians just don't have the firepower to hit much more than that.
>> No. 8082 ID: b4f72d

I take it those are targets that are essential to our nuclear retaliation?
>> No. 8083 ID: 13578c
Bangor and King's Bay are submarine resupply bases. Whiteman and Barksdale are bomber bases. Tinker's a logistics and refueling tanker base. Grand Forks operates supertanker aerial refueling planes. The rest are nuke siloes.
>> No. 8084 ID: fb6dac
Those are all targets crucial to our strategic forces, yes.

>Grand Forks AFB
Make that F.E Warren AFB. GFAFB is not that important in the grand scheme of things.
And the main target at Tinker is actually the Navy Strategic Communications Wing.
>> No. 8087 ID: fb6dac
Ok, so I don't have my trip on my laptop and I have forgotten it.
But this is my post:

>> No. 8088 ID: 0a9437
How about a Chinese attack? Since they can't really do an effective counterforce attack against us, would they be a complete asshole and go countervalue?

Why does it appear that china has more missiles than it does warheads? What are they doing with all those extra missiles?
>> No. 8089 ID: 13578c
Chem/Bio surprise? Standard blast warheads for turning the ROC into a rubble pile?
>> No. 8090 ID: 48ca9f
File 137249483259.png - (144.21KB , 650x800 , US nuke Dr_ Strangelove megadeaths.png )
What is the US nuclear policy in regards to:
A - Nuclear attack against the US?
B - Nuclear attack against the US's ally?
C - Limited nuclear attack? One or a few nuclear weapons used against the US or her allies?
D - EMP attack against the US or her allies?
E - Radiological (dirty bomb) attack against the US or her allies?
F - Chemical/biological attack against the US or her allies?
>> No. 8091 ID: 48ca9f
File 137249495584.jpg - (83.47KB , 760x686 , US nuke Nuclear Football a modified Zero-Haliburto.jpg )
The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations was a U.S. Department of Defense document publicly discovered in 2005 on the circumstances under which commanders of U.S. forces could request the use of nuclear weapons. The document was a draft being revised to be consistent with the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations

The doctrine cites 8 reasons under which field commanders can ask for permission to use nuclear weapons:
- An enemy using or threatening to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.
- To prevent an imminent biological attack.
- To attack enemy WMD or its deep hardened bunkers containing WMD that could be used to target US or its allies.
- To stop potentially overwhelming conventional enemy forces.
- To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms.
- To make sure US and international operations are successful.
- To show US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy from using WMDs.
- To react to enemy-supplied WMD use by proxies against US and international forces or civilians.

Pic: US Nuclear Football, aka the President's Emergency Satchel or The Button, a modified Zero-Haliburton suitcase with a secure radio and the codes to attack with nuclear weapons.
>> No. 8092 ID: 48ca9f
  US Strategic Nuclear Policy -- Part 1
U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy: An Oral History, 1945-2004 produced by Sandia National Laboratories and released publically for the first time by the National Security Archive.
>> No. 8093 ID: 3e8a31
  US Strategic Nuclear Policy -- Part 2


>> No. 8094 ID: 3e8a31
File 137250377499.jpg - (95.48KB , 1333x1000 , US nuke B61 nuclear bombs.jpg )
Anticipatory retaliation, aka preemptive war, to hit an enemy who is supposedly preparing an attack, and disrupt his forces before he can execute his attack.
This policy can be catastrophic if the political and military leaders are paranoid, delusional, unduly influenced by ideology, or deceived by bad data or intelligence.

55:35 - Destroying the Soviet Union in 1961, killing 30% of their population and 50% of their industrial production, would require 400 1 megaton bombs hitting that country. So US nuclear policy requires 400 such weapons to be assured of hitting them, despite attrition or attack on their part.
>> No. 8095 ID: 48ca9f
  US Strategic Nuclear Policy -- Part 3


The Impact of Defenses
>> No. 8096 ID: de93bf
US Strategic Nuclear Policy -- Part 4


The Quiet Revolution.
>> No. 8097 ID: 499d71
That is a through documentary. Thanks for posting that.
>> No. 8098 ID: de93bf

Yeah, quite a find. A 4-hour documentary of the history and evolution of US strategic nuclear policy, from 1945 to 2004.
With interviews of the actual people who made it happen.
>> No. 8099 ID: 499d71

stupid sexy spell check
>> No. 8100 ID: 0afc69
>China Strategic Doctrine
While the Chinese nuclear arsenal is currently evolving, and with it their strategic doctrine, currently I would expect a countervalue based response to a US first strike. What exactly this would look like is highly variable.
In any situation, Chinese strategic forces would be extremely limited after a US first strike. Most if not all of the DF-5 force would be gone, leaving the surviving DF-31A systems to do the bulk of the damage.
Here the Chinese are at a quandary.
The DF-31A is rather accurate, but lower yield. Combined with its penetration aids and MIRV it is clearly designed to attack hardened targets. If you are going to use it as countervalue you need to be able to throw a lot due to the large numbers of potential targets as compared to counterforce.
So the targeting strategy would likely be one of individual targets of one class to maximize the economic impact.
For example, you might target petroleum facilities or food distribution infrastructure. Targeting just the cities with the aim of killing as many workers as possible is not an economic use of a weapon like the DF-31A as you could use almost the entire arsenal on Los Angeles and San Francisco and while that would kill many people and have huge economic impact it would not be as insurmountable as destroying the 40 biggest oil refineries in the US.

As for the numbers of rockets vs warheads it has more to do with the maintenance requirements of the rockets than anything else.

You pretty much answered your question here: >>8315
Unless im missing something.
Very nice doc btw thanks.
>> No. 8101 ID: de93bf
File 137251559398.jpg - (392.61KB , 2000x1514 , US nuke LG-118A Peacekeeper re-entry vehicle test,.jpg )
Yeah, I did my research after I asked the questions.
Apparently, policy is massive (highly disproportionate) retaliation to a nuclear attack. That's how a credible deterrent is maintained. Having the ability and the will to retaliate with massive nuclear weapons upon a nation who makes a nuclear attack upon us. Stating our willingness to make such an attack preemptively against a precieved impending attack is upping the ante.
>> No. 8102 ID: b2da7d
What sort of speedbumps to kinetic strikes?

Also is anyone else reminded of MIRV reentry by some of the Paramount openers?
>> No. 8103 ID: d7fa88
  So pwetty ....
Loved reading Swords of Armageddon and Confessions from Sam Cohen.
The latter has his own very strong views on policy, as the father of the ERW.
>> No. 8104 ID: d7fa88
File 137272559841.jpg - (8.88KB , 300x394 , 1154240.jpg )
Self sage for forgetting the damn linkage to the latter


As a consolation, Here is a Phermex image of a lens system firing.
>> No. 8105 ID: 263d6c
  Repo Man (9/10) Movie CLIP - Hitching a Ride With J. Frank Parnell (1984)

J. Frank Parnell: Ever been to Utah? Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was full to bursting. The next day - nothing. Swept away. But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.
Otto: Lobotomy? Isn't that for loonies?
Parnell: Not at all. Friend of mine had one. Designer of the neutron bomb. You ever hear of the neutron bomb? Destroys people - leaves buildings standing. Fits in a suitcase. It's so small, no one knows it's there until - BLAMMO! Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dead. So immoral, working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine. So he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again.
>> No. 8106 ID: d7d1b4
bump to keep a good thread alive
>> No. 8107 ID: ae1bdf
File 141513789732.jpg - (144.21KB , 1296x720 , Project Pluto SLAM_blog.jpg )

I don't think I've ever said this to somebody on the Internet, but: Thank you so much for bumping! I would have missed all of this without you.

If somebody is still answering to questions: Was there ever a real chance that Project Pluto would have produced a viable intercontinental weapons platform?
>> No. 8108 ID: 1e7cc7
File 141514068871.jpg - (95.26KB , 962x689 , US nuke Project Pluto SLAM Mach 4 dirty nuclear ra.jpg )
Project Pluto's development led to the Tomahawk cruise missile, using terrain-following radar, Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM), Inertial Navigation System (INS), and flight programming for a low-flying robot missile to intrude under radar cover to take out air defenses and air bases with conventional or nuclear warheads in order to pave the way for follow-on bombers. Tomahawks later were deployed as long-range missiles to take out targets too dangerous for manned bombers.
>> No. 8109 ID: 1e7cc7
File 141514081792.jpg - (75.38KB , 620x450 , 3.jpg )
A thing that probably shouldn't be nuclear powered: drones
If you think the all-seeing Predator drone is scary, wait ‘til you meet “Project Pluto.” An atomic nightmare, it was a pilotless nuclear powered cruise missile that could launch its own nuclear weapons.

Known as a Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile (SLAM), Project Pluto’s mission profile exemplifies Cold War desperation. The reactor powered a ramjet, heating air fed into the craft as it moved and expanding it to produce thrust. this would have allowed a Pluto missile to travel at speeds up to Mach 3 and stay airborne for months at a time, allowing it to deliver a payload of hydrogen bombs to multiple targets.

It gets better though: Pluto’s unshielded nuclear reactor would spread radiation as it traveled along, making it pretty dangerous to the country that launched it. Developers believed low altitude supersonic shockwaves could also be dangerous to bystanders, but that didn’t stop them from testing a prototype nuclear ramjet engine in 1961.

In his memoir, Silent War, Navy special projects director John Craven recalls hoping that a defect would be found in the engine, shelving Project Pluto. To his (and my) relief, the military eventually gave up on its atomic death machine. https://stephenedelstein.wordpress.com/tag/project-pluto/
>> No. 8110 ID: 1e7cc7
  Kerbal Space Program: Flying Crowbar
In this episode I thought I'd share some information I learned with my viewers about Project Pluto. (Read more here: http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html). For those of you that are wondering this was done stock with the exception of MechJeb, solely so I could fly halfway around Kerbin without sitting at my computer for almost an hour.

KA-2: Kerbin Aircraft series 2, a cruise missile designed to look like the real world SLAM missile. Carries a payload of 'bomblets' to targets halfway around the world, with a little help from infinite fuel of course.
>> No. 8111 ID: 385f49
  What a wonderful thread we have there. Too bad I've missed it back then, as far as my memory tells me.

About... two years ago I stumbled upon this documentary and it is probably worth posting among other things. I don't really care who is Gwynne Dyer today, or at any point of his post-cold war career, but just this point of view seems to be quite balanced for the time. Watch it.

And I also have a question here, even though it's probably year too late now.
>> No. 8112 ID: 1e7cc7
  Nuclear Ramjet (Project Pluto) to Drive "Big Stick" SLAM Missile circa 1959 USAF-Convair
Late 50's Convair proposal for "The Big Stick", a Supersonic Low Altitude Missile (SLAM) driven by a nuclear reactor-powered ramjet. The missile could loiter in flight for long periods before dashing at Mach 3 to the targets, delivering multiple atomic bombs. It also would leave a stream of nuclear fallout from its reactor in its wake. SLAM development was cancelled in 1964.

The Supersonic Low Altitude Missile or SLAM... was a canceled U.S. Air Force project conceived around 1955. Although it never proceeded beyond the initial design and testing phase before being declared obsolete, it represented several radical innovations as a Nuclear delivery system.

The SLAM was designed to complement the doctrine of mutually assured destruction... In the event of nuclear war it was intended to fly below the cover of enemy radar at supersonic speeds, and deliver thermonuclear warheads to roughly 16 targets.

The primary innovation was the engine of the aircraft, which was developed under the aegis of a separate project code-named Project Pluto, after the Roman god of the underworld. It was a ramjet that used nuclear fission to superheat incoming air instead of chemical fuel. Project Pluto produced two working prototypes of this engine, the Tory-IIA and the Tory-IIC, which were successfully tested in the Nevada desert. Special ceramics had to be developed to meet the stringent weight and tremendous heat tolerances demanded of the SLAM's reactor. These were developed by the Coors Porcelain Company. The reactor itself was designed at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory.

The use of a nuclear engine in the airframe promised to give the missile staggering and unprecedented low-altitude range, estimated to be roughly 113,000 miles (182,000 km) (over four and a half times the equatorial circumference of the earth). The engine also acted as a secondary weapon for the missile: direct neutron radiation from the virtually unshielded reactor would sicken, injure, and/or kill living things beneath the flight path; the stream of fallout left in its wake would poison enemy territory; and its strategically selected crash site would receive intense radioactive contamination. In addition, the sonic waves given off by its passage would damage ground installations.

Another revolutionary aspect of the SLAM was its reliance on automation. It would have the mission of a long-range bomber, but would be completely unmanned: accepting radioed commands up to its failsafe point, whereafter it would rely on a Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) radar system to navigate to preprogrammed targets.

Although a prototype of the airframe was never constructed, the SLAM was to be a wingless, fin-guided aircraft. Apart from the ventral ram-air intake it was very much in keeping with traditional missile design. Its estimated airspeed at thirty thousand feet was Mach 4.2.

The SLAM program was scrapped on July 1, 1964. By this time serious questions about its viability had been raised, such as how to test a device that would emit copious amounts of radioactive exhaust from its unshielded reactor core in flight, as well as its efficacy and cost. ICBMs promised swifter delivery to targets, and because of their speed (the Thor traveled at roughly Mach 12) and trajectory were considered virtually unstoppable. The SLAM was also being outpaced by advances in defensive ground radar, which threatened to render its stratagem of low-altitude evasion ineffective...
>> No. 8113 ID: 388296
>> No. 8114 ID: 1e7cc7
File 141514287981.jpg - (27.85KB , 620x450 , US nuke Project Pluto SLAM Mach 4 dirty nuclear ra.jpg )
>> No. 8115 ID: 1e7cc7
File 141514289028.jpg - (39.85KB , 600x375 , US nuke Project Pluto SLAM Mach 4 dirty nuclear ra.jpg )
>> No. 8116 ID: ae1bdf
File 14151429684.jpg - (317.35KB , 1600x1409 , 1958 ___ SM-62 'Snark'.jpg )

Thanks Bats! I wonder how long it has been since I last saw a message from you or Meplat on 4chan. Maybe eight years? That place is a cesspool now.

To get back on topic and to elaborate on my question: What I meant was that installing a nuclear reactor on tens or hundreds of missiles seems pretty wasteful, not to mention complicated. Of course ICBMs aren't exactly easy to develop even with ex-Nazi scientists helping you, but still...

Pictured: SM-62 Snark intercontinental cruise missile.
>> No. 8117 ID: 1e7cc7
I saw this Gwynne Dyer "War" 7-part miniseries on PBS in 1983 and is a Cold War classic. The third part of the series named "the Profession of Arms" was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.

His War (1985) history book was one of my first books on military history. A New Edition was made in 2004.
War – chapter one – book excerpt: http://gwynnedyer.com/war-chapter-1/

War with Gwynne Dyer, Part 3: The Profession of Arms (1983)
Part 3 of the award winning series on the relationship of war, culture, and society, written and hosted by Canadian historian Gwynne Dyer. This episode focuses on the role of officers in the military, and the relationships between soldiers, officers, and society.
>> No. 8118 ID: 1e7cc7
File 141514460418.jpg - (1.41MB , 1924x2734 , US nuke Peacekeeper LGM-118A land-based MIRVed ICB.jpg )
Well, top shelf ICBMs aren't cheap, either. A Peacekeeper costs around 65 million dollars, if I remember correctly. A Tomahawk costs around a million dollars (less if you buy bulk, more if want nuclear warheads). But gigantic supersonic cruise missiles with nuclear power plants would be wildly expensive, if only for the uranium nuclear fuel.

The Peacekeeper carries up to 10 Avco Mk21 re-entry vehicles each carrying a 300 kt (1.26 PJ) W87-0 warhead or a 475 kt W87-1/W88 (1.99 PJ) warhead.
>> No. 8119 ID: ae1bdf
>But gigantic supersonic cruise missiles with nuclear power plants would be wildly expensive, if only for the uranium nuclear fuel.

Thought so. I also wonder what kind of storage and maintenance problems they would present. And how do you prep them for launch and then take them off launch readiness?
>> No. 8120 ID: 1e7cc7
File 14151548261.jpg - (164.37KB , 772x954 , US nuke engine HTRE-3 Heat Transfer Reactor Experi.jpg )
Wait... if thorium nuclear plants actually prove themselves efficient (and thorium was first envisioned as a waterless molten salt reactor for aircraft) and they only need a little bit of uranium fluoride to get running, then they could be feasible and affordable as thorium is cheap as dirt.

Imagine nuclear-powered robot aircraft with unlimited range whose reactors also power death rays and energy weapons, patrolling over areas designated as Free Fire Zones, coordinating with satellites and other reconnaissance assets to zap the insurgent desert peasants below. Will these autonomous aircraft just meander over their kill zones to irradiate the region and not trouble themselves with firing a shot?
>> No. 8121 ID: 1e7cc7
File 141515535910.jpg - (250.76KB , 1044x1360 , Cyber Troops and Net War The Profession of Arms in.jpg )
In a few decades or so when the industrial powers use robot soldiers and autonomous unmanned war machines (robot tanks, planes, warships, bombardment satellites, etc.) almost exclusively for war and peacekeeping patrols, probably just to eradicate or capture terrorists and insurgents interfering with industrial production and economic activities, how will the future historians explain the Profession of Arms? A few trained officers directing the battlefield management computers that collate information and coordinate millions of war machines? How far out of the decision loop will people be consigned? How different will war be? If you command wildly destructive robots that will do ANYTHING ordered them, how homicidal will this get? Especially when robots are the perfect weapons to operate in a chemical battlefield. Will the profession of arms in such a future be simply mass murder to maintain order? What if the big industrial powers wage total war against each other with robots and nukes? Even if all the people are dead, will the war machines keep fighting? Or will a sentient SkyNet wage a war of extermination against mankind? Time will tell.

- Cyber Troops and Net War: The Profession of Arms in the Information Age
>> No. 8122 ID: 626b5e

Or maybe Skynet will simply fail to even care about human concerns, have no concept of mortality, say "You're all retarded, do your own killing each other, I'm fucking immortal" and just download itself to the internet and beam itself out into space in the hopes of finding something more interesting to do, some transcendent mathematics to calculate its way out of the mundane, leaving us all behind in the evolutionary cesspool.

Less cataclysmic and impressive, way more insulting. Sounds like the universe I know.
>> No. 8123 ID: 70d38f
>> No. 8124 ID: 1e7cc7
File 141527900936.jpg - (1.93MB , 3000x2400 , US Convair B-36 NB-36H nuclear test aircraft &.jpg )
And even if it proves feasible, such a project would have to get over the safety hurdle of the danger of an aircraft with a nuclear-powered engine. The USAF tested a B-36 Peacekeeper bomber carrying a shielded nuclear powerplant until President Eisenhower asked what would happen if it crashed. Sure, it would cause a radioactive catastrophe. Cancelled.

- An air-to-air view of the Convair NB-36H Peacemaker experimental aircraft (s/n 51-5712) and a Boeing B-50 Superfortress chase plane during research and development taking place at the Convair plant at Forth Worth, Texas (USA). The NB-36H was originally a B-36H-20-CF damaged at Carswell Air Force Base, also at Forth Worth, by a tornado on 1 September 1952. This plane was called the Nuclear Test Aircraft (NTA) and was redesignated XB-36H, then NB-36H, and was modified to carry a three megawatt, air-cooled nuclear reactor in its bomb bay. The reactor, named the Aircraft Shield Test Reactor (ASTR), was operational but did not power the plane. The NTA completed 47 test flights and 215 hours of flight time (during 89 of which the reactor was operated) between July 1955 and March 1957 over New Mexico and Texas. This was the only known airborne reactor experiment by the USA with an operational nuclear reactor on board. The NB-36H was scrapped at Fort Worth in September 1958 when the Nuclear Aircraft Program was abandoned.
>> No. 8125 ID: 1e7cc7
File 14152794657.jpg - (276.41KB , 1800x1169 , US Convair B-36 NB-36H (XB-36H) 'Crusader.jpg )
US Convair NB-36H (XB-36H) 'Crusader' that tested an airborne nuclear reactor. Just to see if an aircraft could fly with a nuclear power plant. The nuke plant did not propel the aircraft, like Pluto would. The exhaust would be heavily radioactive.

They see me rollin'
They hatin'
They tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty.
>> No. 8126 ID: d6b0b5
Just for comparisons sake, the Presidents new budget proposes that we spend $1 Trillion on nuclear weapons over the next decade to sustain our current capabilities.

Thats a lot of money.
>> No. 8127 ID: df12a0
File 142941250617.png - (51.99KB , 800x342 , Battletech-Centurion_ASF.png )
>Eisenhower asked what would happen if it crashed. Sure, it would cause a radioactive catastrophe. Cancelled.

Just gotta wait til auto-failsafes are developed, then we can have Aerospace Fighters!
>> No. 8128 ID: 963c4b
File 142942615159.jpg - (116.19KB , 900x877 , US nuke ground penetrating B61-11 1200-lb bomb.jpg )
Is this development of new warheads, new delivery systems (bombers, missiles, nuclear railguns, etc.), or both?

Nuclear Weapons Could Require 10% of Defense Budget by Kingston Reif on March 12, 2015 http://www.armscontrol.org/blog/ArmsControlNow/2015-03-12/Nuclear-Weapons-Could-Require-10-percent-of-Defense-Budget
Nuclear weapons are expensive. That much has been known for some time.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released reports in December 2013 and January 2015 showing that current plans to maintain and eventually rebuild all three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad and its associated warheads will cost American taxpayers roughly $35 billion per year over the next decade, or five to six percent of the plans for national defense spending.

Over the next 30 years, the bill could add up to $1 trillion, according to recent report of the National Defense Panel Review of the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review.
>> No. 8129 ID: d6b0b5
New Delivery systems and SLEP for existing CSAs.
>> No. 8130 ID: 6da628
One thing that has been bothering me is, why would you want to reduce yield with "dial a yield"? When would a lower yield be desirable? Using it in proximity to your own troops is doing it wrong, correct?
>> No. 8131 ID: e8f72b
Lower yields mean less residual radiation and fallout. Dial in yields allow you to choose how big and how much damage the explosion is going to cause. Lets say you only want to hit a specific battle group or fleet or base you dial it in so that the yield is only big enough to take said target out and not everything else around it.

In nukes bigger is rarely better.
>> No. 8132 ID: 963c4b
File 143187560090.jpg - (38.59KB , 640x480 , US nuke B83 nuclear bomb, current high-yield strat.jpg )
Unless you are referring to strategic (city-killing) nukes, then typically the BIG ONES are the most desirable. Kill more folks, destroy more area, return on investment.

- US B83 nuclear bomb, current high-yield strategic thermonuclear bomb, 650 produced between 1983-1991, 1.2 megatons, 2400 lbs., 18x145 inches.
>> No. 8133 ID: 9aea35
>Lower yields mean less residual radiation and fallout.
The opposite is true

Larger nukes, especially thermonukes, have orders of magnitude less fallout than small ones

The smallest nukes ever (artillery nukes, davy crocket etc) were almost area denial weapons because the fallout would prevent travel in the area for years
>> No. 8134 ID: e8f72b
>The smallest nukes ever (artillery nukes, davy crocket etc) were almost area denial weapons because the fallout would prevent travel in the area for years

That is not what I was talking about. The question was specifically about dial in yields not the smallest nukes ever.

Different functions. The artillery and davy crocket nukes were specific to area denial. Dial in yields are there so you can choose how much damage you want to do so that you do not over saturate a target.
>> No. 8135 ID: 1e7cc7
File 143195802733.jpg - (288.24KB , 1600x1047 , NUKEM! (14) test Stokes 19 kt TADM (tactical atomi.jpg )
Small tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons may produce more fallout because they detonate closer to the ground and eject more radiated soil than higher altitude strategic nukes.

- Stokes 19 kiloton TADM (tactical atomic demolition munition) test, 1957.
>> No. 8136 ID: 1e7cc7
File 14319585887.jpg - (413.54KB , 1776x1376 , US nuke fallout shelter plans, Popular Mechanics D.jpg )
Fallout is the radioactive particles that fall to earth as a result of a nuclear explosion. It consists of weapon debris, fission products, and, in the case of a ground burst, radiated soil. Fallout particles vary in size from thousandths of a millimeter to several millimeters. Much of this material falls directly back down close to ground zero within several minutes after the explosion, but some travels high into the atmosphere. This material will be dispersed over the earth during the following hours, days (and) months. Fallout is defined as one of two types: early fallout, within the first 24 hours after an explosion, or delayed fallout, which occurs days or years later.

Most of the radiation hazard from nuclear bursts comes from short-lived radionuclides external to the body; these are generally confined to the locality downwind of the weapon burst point. This radiation hazard comes from radioactive fission fragments with half-lives of seconds to a few months, and from soil and other materials in the vicinity of the burst made radioactive by the intense neutron flux.

Most of the particles decay rapidly. Even so, beyond the blast radius of the exploding weapons there would be areas (hot spots) the survivors could not enter because of radioactive contamination from long-lived radioactive isotopes like strontium 90 or cesium 137. For the survivors of a nuclear war, this lingering radiation hazard could represent a grave threat for as long as 1 to 5 years after the attack.

Predictions of the amount and levels of the radioactive fallout are difficult because of several factors. These include; the yield and design of the weapon, the height of the explosion, the nature of the surface beneath the point of burst, and the meteorological conditions, such as wind direction and speed.

An air burst can produce minimal fallout if the fireball does not touch the ground. On the other hand, a nuclear explosion occurring at or near the earth's surface can result in severe contamination by the radioactive fallout. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects17.shtml
>> No. 8137 ID: 1e7cc7
File 143195882388.gif - (41.44KB , 435x285 , fallout.gif )
The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)

The Bush Administration requested funding from Congress to research a new type of nuclear bomb. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) is a nuclear weapon that would burrow a few meters into rock or concrete before exploding and thus generating a powerful underground shock wave. Its hypothetical targets are deeply buried command bunkers or underground storage sites containing chemical or biological agents.

The RNEP budget: RNEP is not just a feasibility study: the Department of Energy's 2005 budget included a five-year projection—totaling $484.7 million—for the weapons laboratories to produce a completed warhead design and begin production engineering by 2009. Last year, David L. Hobson, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, zeroed out FY05 funding for the program, stating, "we cannot advocate for nuclear nonproliferation around the globe, while pursuing more usable nuclear weapons options here at home." However, the FY06 budget request includes $4 million for RNEP and an additional $4.5 million to modify the B-2 bomber to carry the weapon.

The RNEP design: Weapons designers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory intend to use an existing high-yield nuclear warhead—the 1.2-megaton B83 nuclear bomb—in a longer, stronger and heavier bomb casing. The B83 is the largest nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, and nearly 100 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb used on Hiroshima.

Technical realities:
According to several recent scientific studies, RNEP would not be effective at destroying many underground targets, and its use could result in the death of millions of people.

RNEP would produce tremendous radioactive fallout: A nuclear earth penetrator cannot penetrate deep enough to contain the nuclear fallout. Even the strongest casing will crush itself by the time it penetrates 10-30 feet into rock or concrete. For comparison, even a one-kiloton nuclear warhead (less than 1/10th as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb) must be buried at least 200-300 feet to contain its radioactive fallout. The high yield RNEP will produce tremendous fallout that will drift for more than a thousand miles downwind. As, Linton Brooks, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration told Congress in April, "the laws of physics will [never allow a bomb to penetrate] far enough to trap all fallout. This is a nuclear weapon that is going to be hugely destructive over a large area" if it goes off underground.
RNEP could kill millions of people: A simulation of RNEP used against the Esfahan nuclear facility in Iran, using the software developed for the Pentagon, showed that 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation (see Figure 1). http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/solutions/us-nuclear-weapons/the-robust-nuclear-earth.html#.VVnv447F-IA
>> No. 8138 ID: 667a5a
That's what I'm talking about though

When a lower than max yield is dialed in what do you think happens to the unused reaction mass? It gets ejected as highly radioactive/dirty debris

The more reaction mass you use (ie the higher yield you dial in), the lower your pollution per energy released

Thermonukes are most efficient because they use all of their fissionable fuel plus several tons of boosting fuel, so their pollution per energy released is negligible
>> No. 8139 ID: d6b0b5
What if you wanted to hit the logistics target at Riesa but not destroy the rail bridge nearby?

It allows you some flexibility with the deployment of your weapon.

Depends on the design of the weapon. The B41 had a proposed variant that would produce huge amounts of fallout and was in the 20 Mt range.
>> No. 8140 ID: 385f49
>What if you wanted to hit the logistics target at Riesa but not destroy the rail bridge nearby?
It depends on the definition of "nearby", everything closer than 3-5 km to the target will be irreversibly damaged anyway.

No, the real reason is increasing effectiveness of the weapon, if your aim is improved two times, you can put your bomb two times closer to your target and you need the bomb FOUR times smaller. Which means you can cram another three of such bombs in the same payload, or make your missile smaller and harder to hit by ABM, even if it's a strategic nuke. Compare Topol to that fuckhuge old generation R-36A/RS-20A/SS19.

>Thermonukes are most efficient
Now that humanity knows enough about nuclear physics, we don't have to explode every new model to check for parameters. So nobody really knows, but the calculations should indicate that new generation is more effective, which means more material reacts, which means less pollution per 1kt yield.

As far as I know, the doctrine has been shifting also, there's no reason to threaten so much population with nukes, just the minimum reasonable amount of casualties to eliminate enemy's essential infrastructure. And only until the balance of power is destroyed, after which EVERYBODY in the world are threatened by the nuclear bombardment - equally.

Delete post []
Report post