• Pakistan has developed smartest nuclear tactical devices
    95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JustGman;33541859]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.[/QUOTE] Tsar Bomba was a nuke built only once and tested only once in 1961. Everyone has since given up making bigger nukes because it's not the point. No-one wants bigger nukes because they're pointless.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33534174]When you have nuclear weapons, you usually have entire agencies watching after and taking care of them, which generally means that they are very, very hard to steal. Or get near. Or see.[/QUOTE] So was hijacking 4 aircraft simultaneously and crashing them into buildings on the east coast Doesn't mean it can't or won't happen
[QUOTE=JustGman;33541859]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.[/QUOTE] it's better to have multiple lower yield nukes as opposed to one big one. Keep in mind that not every nuke you fire will hit. [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] Didn't an ocean earthquake from a few years back actually have similar energy? Also I believe gigaton explosions are currently completely unfeasible. Matter annihilation would only lead a yield a a number of megatons per kilo
[QUOTE=Cone;33534230]Not to mention EVERYONE WOULD DIE HORRIBLY. Fuck, just one could kill everyone in Sheffield, let alone the fallout and radiation poisoning. And even if someone survived, they'd most probably have cancer and be blinded from the flash. Nukes aren't fun, kids.[/QUOTE] Sheffield hit - 2.2 Million Dead [defcon quotes]
[QUOTE=Clementine;33533702]I disagree with you on one thing, being that if a country nukes someone else, they will get attacked with nukes, that is simply untrue. If a country nuked someone else, they would be retaliated against very harshly, but more likely with gigantic bombs instead of nukes, because nukes are extremely dangerous to global health and everyone knows that.[/QUOTE] I would have to disagree with you here. If country A used nukes on another, they would be forfeiting international protection. No one is going to step up and defend the first one to nuke another country in this day and age. It will be open season on such a country. Then, the citizens of the world will be alarmed that someone has proven they can't be trusted to restrain themselves. The people will DEMAND this rogue country be prevented from ever doing this again. The only way to do that is to destoy those weapons. And in order to do that quickly enough to make sure none of them escape is...you guessed it, nuke it.
Speaking of nukes, it's quite exciting to think that we currently have only one way to fuse hydrogen and that's with a nuclear explosion. Oh, if we just could do it in a more controlled way and without all that radiation, it would give us unlimited clean energy and helium as a by-product. :eng101:
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;33542998]I would have to disagree with you here. If country A used nukes on another, they would be forfeiting international protection. No one is going to step up and defend the first one to nuke another country in this day and age. It will be open season on such a country. Then, the citizens of the world will be alarmed that someone has proven they can't be trusted to restrain themselves. The people will DEMAND this rogue country be prevented from ever doing this again. The only way to do that is to destoy those weapons. And in order to do that quickly enough to make sure none of them escape is...you guessed it, nuke it.[/QUOTE] Well no, because any country that slightly opposes your county will state in no uncertain terms that the use of nuclear weapons is completely unacceptable. China and Russia springs to mind.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33534154] I was referring to the planet itself. I was separating people from the term "global health." It is a common myth that nukes can somehow damage the planet itself. [/QUOTE] youre a fucking retard if you think the planet won't suffer if we detonated all the nukes. yeah the rocks don't give a fuck but ever other thing ever will when it drops dead
[QUOTE=Clementine;33540671]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] What.. The Fuck... NUKES DO NOT DESTROY THE ATMOSPHERE YOU FU- Oh my god.. What are they teaching in sch-oH MY GOD... [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SCopE5000;33542541]Sheffield hit - 2.2 Million Dead [defcon quotes][/QUOTE] Nobody notices the Threads references from the whole Sheffield thing? [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=McGee;33544898]youre a fucking retard if you think the planet won't suffer if we detonated all the nukes. yeah the rocks don't give a fuck but ever other thing ever will when it drops dead[/QUOTE] Uh. The Earth itself would be fucking fine. It's just a big rock, It wouldn't just go URK and stick its tongue out of the corner of its mouth before dying.
[QUOTE=nVidia;33543554]Speaking of nukes, it's quite exciting to think that we currently have only one way to fuse hydrogen and that's with a nuclear explosion. Oh, if we just could do it in a more controlled way and without all that radiation, it would give us unlimited clean energy and helium as a by-product. :eng101:[/QUOTE] Well, we are using lazers to do that now. Speaking of which, a Hydrogen based atomic explosion is much more clean and powerful than convectional fission using uranium or plutonium, US should be using THOSE suckers on the ICBMs. (Although they require a really small atomic bomb to kickstart the reaction, its negligible)
[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] Uhm, that actually isn't for radiation reasons at all... It's for explosive ones. the shockwave is larger, and more powerful from that area, rather than from the ground, that's why they airburst. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=McGee;33544898]youre a fucking retard if you think the planet won't suffer if we detonated all the nukes. yeah the rocks don't give a fuck but ever other thing ever will when it drops dead[/QUOTE] Considering life on earth has adapted to conditions far worse than nuclear winter, the life on earth? It'll pull through, we don't matter, but the life on earth? It will. As for the earth? It won't matter.
[QUOTE=Cone;33534230]Not to mention EVERYONE WOULD DIE HORRIBLY. Fuck, just one could kill everyone in Sheffield, let alone the fallout and radiation poisoning. And even if someone survived, they'd most probably have cancer and be blinded from the flash. Nukes aren't fun, kids.[/QUOTE] What? People in Nagasaki survived by being in large open air raid shelters as close as 300 meters from ground zero. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;33547313] Considering life on earth has adapted to conditions far worse than nuclear winter, the life on earth? It'll pull through, we don't matter, but the life on earth? It will. As for the earth? It won't matter.[/QUOTE] It's also a good thing that nuclear winter is more likely to be a nuclear autumn, and that our cities aren't not primarily built of our flammable materials but concrete and brick. [quote]No other nuclear explosion ever created a firestorm, including detonations of up to 15 megatons beside naturally forested islands-Bikini and Eniwetok Atoll, which failed to ignite the trees due to the high (80%) air humidity and its effects both on ignition and thermal pulse transmission.[/quote]
[QUOTE=McGee;33544898]youre a fucking retard if you think the planet won't suffer if we detonated all the nukes. yeah the rocks don't give a fuck but ever other thing ever will when it drops dead[/QUOTE] Humanity as a species would survive fairly well. Most of Africa would be fairly untouched and the short term cooling (about a decade or so) would have little effect on them. On top of that, even if we detonated everything at one moment, there would probably not be enough dust and smoke thrown into the air to cause a nuclear winter. An autumn certainly, but not a winter. Eitherway, your post war situation would look most likely something like Going by the respective plans of both superpowers that are roughly known Warsaw pact- large strike at multiple targets, primary being nuclear potentially and other military infra, secondary being large habitation centers and tertiary being potential future superpowers Nato - primary target large habitation centers and mil infrastructure, overall fired over a course of time a) Texas completely devastated, a large number of irradiated dieing people in the area b) US coastal areas devastated but there probably wasn't enough fission material used to cause longterm irradiation of the people. The folks there will suffer from cancer and similar things and most deaths would be caused by collapsing buildings and similar c) american rural areas more or less fine d) Central Europe devastated by both powers using tactical strikes. But bunkers were relatively common so at least some of the population would survive in decent order. Elements of the government would certainly live on. On top of that the radiation won't be anything too severe e) UK probably bombed back to mediaval ages f) Soviet major cities bombed, but extensive bunker systems and large number of countermeasures around the cities would have allowed some cohesive government to remain after the end. Rural areas once more not terribly effected. g) Taiwan, Beijing, Hongkong, Delhi, Calcutta, Mumbai and other major Chinese and Indian cities bombed by the soviets, DPRK in turn bombed by US. h) I'd say there's a fairly large chance that whatever remains of European militaries and civilian forces would then attempt to try and take over parts of Africa to avoid the larger repercussions of Nuclear autumn. The soviets would then most likely attempt to consolidate and move into chinese territories. Of course that was more or less the situation in the eighties. The reality today, is..somewhat different and overall targeting priorities have most likely shifted. The majority of the old Euro bunkers systems have also ceased to be maintained with the exception of metros which are still built to act as a secondary shelter. Of course the main mitagating factor in Europe still remains. CEuropean cities tend to be geographically varied terrain and in a lot of cases the city itself has very varied heigh levels. This allows for some shielding
[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] Except using something like the Tzar is all sorts of fucking stupid. It's just too big and inefficient, the only reason the Russians made it was to make a nuke that you don't have to aim as a last resort. Dropping it means suicide if you don't have a head start, even then, your plane would still get hit by a shockwave. By the way, I know this isn't much to brag about but I am Pakistani. I am not sure if this is propaganda or not but Geo is very anti-american and it may as well be. Long story short, do not trust any pakistan-related news from Geo, most of it isn't even News they just report shit that no one is heard of and act like it's news because most of the local population is ignorant and unaware of current events.
Nukes are pointless because of precision guided weapons like JDAM and cruise missiles. There's no point using such a big weapon to hit a strong hard target when a small bomb is enough to destroy it.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;33542018]Tsar Bomba was a nuke built only once and tested only once in 1961. Everyone has since given up making bigger nukes because it's not the point. No-one wants bigger nukes because they're pointless.[/QUOTE] Or because they're so dangerous, you know, there's that.
[QUOTE=Clementine;33551252]Or because they're so dangerous, you know, there's that.[/QUOTE] What? How is one 50 megaton bomb more dangerous than five 10 megaton bombs?
[QUOTE=Contag;33551648]What? How is one 50 megaton bomb more dangerous than five 10 megaton bombs?[/QUOTE] Any bigger than 50 megatons and the fallout would have been catastrophic, which is why they lowered Tsar's yield from its maximum 100 megaton, to 50, so it wouldn't go fucking crazy. They stopped increasing because of the damage to the environment such a gigantic one would have, and they realized that.
[QUOTE=Clementine;33553415]Any bigger than 50 megatons and the fallout would have been catastrophic, which is why they lowered Tsar's yield from its maximum 100 megaton, to 50, so it wouldn't go fucking crazy. They stopped increasing because of the damage to the environment such a gigantic one would have, and they realized that.[/QUOTE] It had a lot more to do with the fact that the production of the Tsar bomba was rushed. 16 weeks from the idea to the product. All sorts of tests were skipped so they feared what might happen. Namely they were worried that the radioactive fallout might be worse than anticipated and blow into populated areas. So they dialed it back to 50 MT both to reduce the fallout, and to test to see how clean they could make the bomb. In the end it was 97% fusion and was one of the cleanest detonating nuclear weapons in history. The site it was dropped at, Semipalantisk test site, was home to a huge number of Soviety nuclear weapon tests. 200,000 people live nearby and, in spite of the Soviets not only ignoring the health of the people living nearby, but actively covering it up, the worst problems have been an increase in cancer rate and thyroid problems. The 450 nuclear weapons tested nearby through the entirety of the cold war haven't caused them to be baked in their homes or keel over due to radiation poisoning. It didn't even stop them from building towers at the site to test more bombs. Fat man and Little boy were about as nasty as you can get. Ridiculously low levels of efficiency and massive amounts of nuclear material spread. Radiation is the result of an inefficient warhead. Modern nuclear weapons are "boosted" by injecting tritium/deuterium into the core prior to launch. This increases the efficiency of detonation and reduces the residual radiation (albeit at the cost of also increasing the power of the detonation). "Boosting" is how you have variable yield warheads. The amount of booster you inject will vary the yield. Humans aren't anywhere near as powerful as you think we are. We are really arrogant, but our ability to enact any sort of immediate massive damage to the environment isn't nearly as potent as media has led up to believe.
Not to mention that the environment is much more resistant to ionizing radiation than we are. Go to the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, and it's actually really biologically diverse, despite the heavily irradiated soil. Animals are flourishing there, as is the plantlife. It's just humans who have health issues if they stay there for too long. I'm almost wondering if it's because our DNA is more complex, thus easier to break, but I don't think that it is, so I'll leave the wondering why to scientists.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;33554867]Not to mention that the environment is much more resistant to ionizing radiation than we are. Go to the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, and it's actually really biologically diverse, despite the heavily irradiated soil. Animals are flourishing there, as is the plantlife. It's just humans who have health issues if they stay there for too long. I'm almost wondering if it's because our DNA is more complex, thus easier to break, but I don't think that it is, so I'll leave the wondering why to scientists.[/QUOTE] Wolves are actually cruising around the exclusion zone with few problems. Wolves have way more chromosomes (less base pairs per chromosome, but still overall way more genetic code) at 78 compared to our 46 chromosomes per cell. Much of the animal kingdom sports more genetic code than humans. Which makes sense. For all our size variations, you just don't see the kind of variation in humans that you commonly see with dogs or even horses. We just aren't very good at dealing with radiation. No idea why.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33555192]Wolves are actually cruising around the exclusion zone with few problems. Wolves have way more chromosomes (less base pairs per chromosome, but still overall way more genetic code) at 78 compared to our 46 chromosomes per cell. Much of the animal kingdom sports more genetic code than humans. Which makes sense. For all our size variations, you just don't see the kind of variation in humans that you commonly see with dogs or even horses. We just aren't very good at dealing with radiation. No idea why.[/QUOTE] Maybe the lack of fur/exoskeleton? Not much to stop alpha/beta rays hitting the skin.
[QUOTE=fskman;33559113]Maybe the lack of fur/exoskeleton? Not much to stop alpha/beta rays hitting the skin.[/QUOTE] I think it's more our fairly long life thanks to which we manifest radition diseases which do not effect creatures that have a far lower life expectancy. There's also a chance that our immune system stockpiles radioactive ions better than that of other animals in the thyroid gland, which leads to long term exposure.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;33544815]Well no, because any country that slightly opposes your county will state in no uncertain terms that the use of nuclear weapons is completely unacceptable. China and Russia springs to mind.[/QUOTE] The US would counter with pointing out that the rogue country has already used one nuke and the US, along with its allies, will NOT allow that country to do it again. Then the US will point out the worldwide outrage that will be engulfing the civilized world, and ask China and Russia do they really want to be the ones responsible if hesitation allows a SECOND rogue nuke to be detonated somewhere? My guess is they'll say "Um, no." Remember, this will all happen in hours, not days. There will be no back and forth arguing, there won't be time.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;33561166]The US would counter with pointing out that the rogue country has already used one nuke and the US, along with its allies, will NOT allow that country to do it again. Then the US will point out the worldwide outrage that will be engulfing the civilized world, and ask China and Russia do they really want to be the ones responsible if hesitation allows a SECOND rogue nuke to be detonated somewhere? My guess is they'll say "Um, no." Remember, this will all happen in hours, not days. There will be no back and forth arguing, there won't be time.[/QUOTE] To be honest, not counting the major nuclear powers as well as Pakistan and India, the US would have no need to use a nuke in retaliation. Even with merely using non-nuclear weaponry they can groundpound most states in the world in a matter of days to weeks.
You are assuming the US would happen to have sufficient conventional bombs and bombers ready to fly at that time in that place. Whereas with a nuclear missile the US can hit anywhere probably within the hour, such as from an offshore sub.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;33560741]I think it's more our fairly long life thanks to which we manifest radition diseases which do not effect creatures that have a far lower life expectancy. There's also a chance that our immune system stockpiles radioactive ions better than that of other animals in the thyroid gland, which leads to long term exposure.[/QUOTE] Another interesting thing: being more susceptible to radiation is not necessarily a bad thing, since it allows a species to evolve faster than one that is resistant to it.
war is not the solution of matter....its increas the problams... [url=http://www.vidjin.com/geonews/]Geo TV[/url] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Spammer" - Starpluck))[/highlight]
Doesn't most missiles have MIRV's?
What the fuck is everyone trying to achieve in this bickering? It makes no sense. Pakistan has nukes, they are not going to launch them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.