• Pakistan has developed smartest nuclear tactical devices
    95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;33534613]You would think that, but no. The quake that hit Japan earlier? That put out force equivalent to 9320 gigatons of TNT. That is literally 600 MILLION times stronger than the bomb that hit Hiroshima. Is everyone in the world dead? Is everyone in Japan dead? Is a significant portion of Japan dead? Now surely you hit the surface with a bunch of nukes and you are indeed going to throw up more dust, buuuut the planet still laughs at your pathetic attempts at force. We are still just tiny specks on a giant rock.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about splitting the earth in two or anything like that. You also have to consider that the Japan quake was underwater (resulting in no dust, thus no large scale atmospheric pollution) and underground (reducing the effective energy of the event). A nuclear blast throws up dust. Radioactive dust as well. If we had the entire world's stock used at once we would have massive amounts of fallout hitting every living thing on the planet as well as an effective nuclear winter, which means very little sunlight and heat. We might not lose the planet itself but we lose the majority of life on the planet
[QUOTE=Maloof?;33534659]I'm not talking about splitting the earth in two or anything like that. You also have to consider that the Japan quake was underwater (resulting in no dust, thus no large scale atmospheric pollution) and underground (reducing the effective energy of the event). A nuclear blast throws up dust. Radioactive dust as well. If we had the entire world's stock used at once we would have massive amounts of fallout hitting every living thing on the planet as well as an effective nuclear winter, which means very little sunlight and heat. We might not lose the planet itself but we lose the majority of life on the planet[/QUOTE] Much as I hate the idea of a full nuclear strike on anything, they don't actually give that much fallout out these days. We've got "clean" nuclear devices now, where the aim is to blast the living fuck out of everyone, as opposed to chucking out radioactive particles. Also, radiation is overrated as a threat to humans. You can quite literally block alpha with a sheet of paper over your face, beta can be solved by going inside, possibly in a conventional bomb shelter, and fallout shelters cover from gamma. Even then, that'd be over in a few years, even with a massive scale strike.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33533679]Uhh, congrats? The rest of the world has recognized that tactical nuclear weapons are useless. The yield doesn't matter. The instant you use a nuke, you are getting hit by a barrage of nukes. STRATEGIC nuclear weapons. The United States spent billions researching various uses during the cold war. Everything from suitcase nukes, to a nuclear mortar, to (my favorite) a nuclear air to air rocket. They are all gone now. (Bombers were still the primary method of delivering nukes. Air to air missiles hadn't really been perfected, and cannons were still the preferred method of taking out aircraft. On a large scale however, this would be nearly impossible. Sooooo the logical conclusion was to focus on making the world's biggest flak shell and then mounting it on a rocket. Bear bombers coming across the pacific? launch a barrage of nuclear rockets with timed detonation and wipe them out completely. Accuracy not necessary. Brilliant with a side of utter insanity.) Strategic nuclear weapons, or nothing.[/QUOTE] What would an atomic AA rocket be used for, anti-nuke or just blowing up an entire airforce in one go?
[QUOTE=the_headcrab;33534218]Life goes on. Give the planet a few thousand or hundred thousand years, it will regrow.[/QUOTE] It took 4 billions years for us to grow so let's not waste it on nuking the shit out of our home planet? Hell, point the nukes up in the sky if you'd ask me.
The article doesn't seem to go into any detail whatsoever about what makes these particular tactical nukes so smart
[QUOTE=Devodiere;33534247]Land surface area of planet: 148,940,000 km2. Area of Sheffield: 367.94 km2 Less than .0003% of the planet. You would need 400,000 nukes. I mean just look at Hiroshima, it's still a city, there are actual survivors from it, the radiation caused plenty of deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer but it's not a wasteland.[/QUOTE] Nukes have developed a fuckton since. Think about tsar bomba, it was devastating and it was just the sixties when it was dropped. [IMG]http://www.1337upload.net/files/tsar_bomba.jpg[/IMG]
Earth won't give much of a damn whether we damage it as we kill ourselves or not. :3 "The plane isn't going anywhere...WE are!" -George Carlin
Writing half an article based on what you read on Wikipedia poor form [url]http://www.geo.tv/teamgeo/[/url] Childern's division, heh
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;33533841]Aren't all nukes strategic[/QUOTE] Nah, various bunker busters and low yield nuclear devices are tactical.
[QUOTE=Oxu365;33535101]Nukes have developed a fuckton since. Think about tsar bomba, it was devastating and it was just the sixties when it was dropped. [IMG]http://www.1337upload.net/files/tsar_bomba.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Actually, those are only like 1% efficient.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;33534247] I mean just look at Hiroshima, it's still a city, there are actual survivors from it, the radiation caused plenty of deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer but it's not a wasteland.[/QUOTE] No. You cannot compare Little Boy and Fat Man to modern-day ICBMs, Especially considering that LB and FM Were NOT airburst. Modern ICBMs have a much wider fallout radius and much more destructive capability, therefore your point is moot. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Terminutter;33534700]Much as I hate the idea of a full nuclear strike on anything, they don't actually give that much fallout out these days. We've got "clean" nuclear devices now, where the aim is to blast the living fuck out of everyone, as opposed to chucking out radioactive particles. Also, radiation is overrated as a threat to humans. You can quite literally block alpha with a sheet of paper over your face, beta can be solved by going inside, possibly in a conventional bomb shelter, and fallout shelters cover from gamma. Even then, that'd be over in a few years, even with a massive scale strike.[/QUOTE] That's not true, At all, All nuclear devices are completely designed with covering the area with a wide fallout coverage "blanket.", Why do you think nukes are airburst instead of detonated on-ground?
So basically the article (Which appears to be from the point of view of Pakistan's government) claims that they have the most advanced tactical nuclear devices in the world but doesn't state WHY they're the most advanced tactical nuclear devices? I mean I understand security is paramount when it comes to these kinds of things but it just seems kind of odd and it's difficult to even verify the claim, especially without even knowing exactly what the claim [i]is[/i].
[QUOTE=froztshock;33536445]So basically the article (Which appears to be from the point of view of Pakistan's government) claims that they have the most advanced tactical nuclear devices in the world but doesn't state WHY they're the most advanced tactical nuclear devices? I mean I understand security is paramount when it comes to these kinds of things but it just seems kind of odd and it's difficult to even verify the claim, especially without even knowing exactly what the claim [i]is[/i].[/QUOTE] It's propaganda, It's bullshit.
Hey Pakistan, we're cool right?
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33536345]No. You cannot compare Little Boy and Fat Man to modern-day ICBMs, Especially considering that LB and FM Were NOT airburst. Modern ICBMs have a much wider fallout radius and much more destructive capability, therefore your point is moot. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] That's not true, At all, All nuclear devices are completely designed with covering the area with a wide fallout coverage "blanket.", Why do you think nukes are airburst instead of detonated on-ground?[/QUOTE] To be honest if you read soviet MAD scenarios and their plans, you actually get the impression that the soviets believed they could survive and weather a MAD scenario with at least some semblence of government intact. Not to mention all their secondary targets were their potential future post war competitors which would have been largely unaffected by the war. In a way to ensure that they still have a level playing field after everything is done. There's also soviet submarine based ICBMs which were meant to loiter around for something like a year after the initial strike and mop up any surviving enemy military infrastructure. A mad scenario during the cold would have been terrible. There's no doubt about that. I'd say something like two, three billion might die off it and central europe, the UK would have been devastated by tactical strikes. Moscow most likely leveled with strategic. In the US the worst one would be Texas, due to the large silo presence there and probably the majority of the west coast. As to airburst - it gives you the biggest explosion spread. As radiation goes nukes are fairly clean actually. Obviously it's nothing amazing but if you compare it to something like the Chernobyl accident the fallout is miniscule. Ground burst and Underground burst weapons are also employed but those are usually tactical as opposed strategic as they are amazing against hardened targets. Where airburst nukes suffer. [quote] So basically the article (Which appears to be from the point of view of Pakistan's government) claims that they have the most advanced tactical nuclear devices in the world but doesn't state WHY they're the most advanced tactical nuclear devices? I mean I understand security is paramount when it comes to these kinds of things but it just seems kind of odd and it's difficult to even verify the claim, especially without even knowing exactly what the claim is. [/quote] I get the impression they don't state the devices themselves are something super techy, but the launch protection is incredibly high tech.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;33537466]To be honest if you read soviet MAD scenarios and their plans, you actually get the impression that the soviets believed they could survive and weather a MAD scenario with at least some semblence of government intact. Not to mention all their secondary targets were their potential future post war competitors which would have been largely unaffected by the war. In a way to ensure that they still have a level playing field after everything is done. There's also soviet submarine based ICBMs which were meant to loiter around for something like a year after the initial strike and mop up any surviving enemy military infrastructure. A mad scenario during the cold would have been terrible. There's no doubt about that. I'd say something like two, three billion might die off it and central europe, the UK would have been devastated by tactical strikes. Moscow most likely leveled with strategic. In the US the worst one would be Texas, due to the large silo presence there and probably the majority of the west coast. As to airburst - it gives you the biggest explosion spread. As radiation goes nukes are fairly clean actually. Obviously it's nothing amazing but if you compare it to something like the Chernobyl accident the fallout is miniscule. Ground burst and Underground burst weapons are also employed but those are usually tactical as opposed strategic as they are amazing against hardened targets. Where airburst nukes suffer. I get the impression they don't state the devices themselves are something super techy, but the launch protection is incredibly high tech.[/QUOTE] US nuclear war survival planning was pretty terrible, they had educational films like duck & cover and everyone wanted to picture themselves as the badass postapocalyptic survivor alpha male
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33536345] That's not true, At all, All nuclear devices are completely designed with covering the area with a wide fallout coverage "blanket.", Why do you think nukes are airburst instead of detonated on-ground?[/QUOTE] Airbursting is to do with the propagation of the shockwave from the explosion, rather than trying to cover everything with radioactive materials.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33536345] That's not true, At all, All nuclear devices are completely designed with covering the area with a wide fallout coverage "blanket.", Why do you think nukes are airburst instead of detonated on-ground?[/QUOTE] Better spreads a shockwave. If you detonate it right inbetween some large towers, they'll shield a lot of the blast, sure most gets through, but you're expending a lot of energy in a poor way. Airburst is good for getting a large area of coverage, as you're less likely to have a sheltered target area. Also, even if they were for sheer coverage of particles, why not just take a metric fuckload of beta and gamma emitters, then chuck 'em in a conventional bomb? That would spread it better than a nuke, which is the whole reason that "dirty bombs" are different to nukes.
oh really well what's 2+2?
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;33537628]Airbursting is to do with the propagation of the shockwave from the explosion, rather than trying to cover everything with radioactive materials.[/QUOTE] Ah. I must have misread the information i used. My mistake. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Terminutter;33537897]Better spreads a shockwave. If you detonate it right inbetween some large towers, they'll shield a lot of the blast, sure most gets through, but you're expending a lot of energy in a poor way. Airburst is good for getting a large area of coverage, as you're less likely to have a sheltered target area. Also, even if they were for sheer coverage of particles, why not just take a metric fuckload of beta and gamma emitters, then chuck 'em in a conventional bomb? That would spread it better than a nuke, which is the whole reason that "dirty bombs" are different to nukes.[/QUOTE] Again, I misread some mistaken info. Although nukes in general are retarded in a modern situation IMO, If you really want to kill that many people/destroy that much property you're much better off carpetbombing an area to shreds or launching conventional Surface-To-Surface missiles. At least politically, that is.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33534613]You would think that, but no. The quake that hit Japan earlier? That put out force equivalent to 9320 gigatons of TNT. That is literally 600 MILLION times stronger than the bomb that hit Hiroshima. Is everyone in the world dead? Is everyone in Japan dead? Is a significant portion of Japan dead? Now surely you hit the surface with a bunch of nukes and you are indeed going to throw up more dust, buuuut the planet still laughs at your pathetic attempts at force. We are still just tiny specks on a giant rock.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between the ground moving and an atomic explosion destroying the fucking atmosphere, which would happen if the nuke was 9320 gigatons
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33536240]Actually, those are only like 1% efficient.[/QUOTE] 100% efficient in killing.
[QUOTE=Oxu365;33535101]Nukes have developed a fuckton since. Think about tsar bomba, it was devastating and it was just the sixties when it was dropped. [IMG]http://www.1337upload.net/files/tsar_bomba.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Holy crap. If the bomb at Hiroshima made people blind by looking at the flash, what would the Tsar Bomba do to people?
[QUOTE=GunFox;33533738]Nukes are very dangerous to PEOPLE. The world? It doesn't give a fuck. We could detonate every nuke humanity has ever produced in China and folks in Canada likely wouldn't even notice. Hell, Japan might not see anything other than a smoke plume.[/QUOTE] Are you shitting me. I knew you could be stupid but not THIS stupid.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33536240]Actually, those are only like 1% efficient.[/QUOTE] A 100% efficient nuke could literally destroy the world if large enough.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;33541491]A 100% efficient nuke could literally destroy the world if large enough.[/QUOTE] And a fart could collapse the universe into a singularity if large enough, what's your point?
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33536345]No. You cannot compare Little Boy and Fat Man to modern-day ICBMs, Especially considering that LB and FM Were NOT airburst. Modern ICBMs have a much wider fallout radius and much more destructive capability, therefore your point is moot.[/quote] Alright then, the Tsar Bomba that everyone think will blow a hole in the Earths crust, has a total destruction radius of 35km for the initial blast. Good size, you could wipe out a city, but not every nuke is that size and people are far more spread out than that. Radioactive fallout isn't some mystical means to kill everything else you missed, we know exactly the problems and even fucking Chernobyl which put a lot more radiation into the air than any bomb didn't kill everything off. There were a few deaths, but after a nuke who cares about them. [quote]That's not true, At all, All nuclear devices are completely designed with covering the area with a wide fallout coverage "blanket.", Why do you think nukes are airburst instead of detonated on-ground?[/QUOTE] Physics. It gives a better practical yield if half the explosion isn't being absorbed by the ground. It has absolutely nothing to do with making it any dirtier.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;33541650]Alright then, the Tsar Bomba that everyone think will blow a hole in the Earths crust, has a total destruction radius of 35km for the initial blast. Good size, you could wipe out a city, but not every nuke is that size and people are far more spread out than that. Radioactive fallout isn't some mystical means to kill everything else you missed, we know exactly the problems and even fucking Chernobyl which put a lot more radiation into the air than any bomb didn't kill everything off. [b]There were a few deaths[/b], but after a nuke who cares about them. Physics. It gives a better practical yield if half the explosion isn't being absorbed by the ground. It has absolutely nothing to do with making it any dirtier.[/QUOTE] Eh what?
Nukes are scary as shit, especially the mushroom clouds, it's the epitome of doom.
[QUOTE=Oxu365;33535101]Nukes have developed a fuckton since. Think about tsar bomba, it was devastating and it was just the sixties when it was dropped. [IMG]http://www.1337upload.net/files/tsar_bomba.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] That picture is from 2002. Provided that people are still researching nukes, it's probably much worse now. Honestly, using a nuke on any country is a lose-lose situation because you'll end up with enough nukes up your ass to destroy the moon.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.