Trump can't do shit with his nukes lol, not only does the rest of the government need to approve, which they wont, there are also human beings that have to carry out the launches in the silos, subs and bombers, which have entirely their own autonomy and might not even launch the weapon if they know it is not a test.
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;51697864]Trump can't do shit with his nukes lol, not only does the rest of the government need to approve, which they wont, there are also human beings that have to carry out the launches in the silos, subs and bombers, which have entirely their own autonomy and might not even launch the weapon if they know it is not a test.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather if it didn't even have to go that far where we'll be praying for others to stop Trump from launching nukes.
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;51697864]Trump can't do shit with his nukes lol, not only does the rest of the government need to approve, which they wont, there are also human beings that have to carry out the launches in the silos, subs and bombers, which have entirely their own autonomy and might not even launch the weapon if they know it is not a test.[/QUOTE]
I might be wrong but I think the president has the sole authority to wage nuclear war. So even if Trump decides to be a massive troll and launch nukes withoud reason, his operatives technically have to carry on and do this.
[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;51697690]I'd bet the following:
A radiation hardened old-style processor, thing INTEL 8080 or the like. Something that is well understood, tried and tested over decades and decades and very reliable.
at least 3 of the control computer, acting as backups for each-other for redundancy, likely only linked at the transmitter end and at the (probibly) up/down rotary HEX / DEC input.
The transmitter is probibly a pulse transmitter... say a good megawatt or the like, it's likely designed to transmit world wide. (Don't forget the football has to work from another country & the airforce 1)
I'd bet the signal is literally a series of pulses that are very short, but need to be with a very specific time delay between them (in the micro / nanosecond accuracy). It only needs to transmit once, power source is likely Lithium or lead acid batteries with pulse capacitors as the low impedance power source for the transmitter's pulses.
A megawatt transmitter is pretty feasible if designed to output say.... 100 nanosecond pulses over a few seconds.
You could have say, 50 high voltage high density pulse capacitors with a spark gap trigger on each of them + a tuned aerial, inductor & capacitor. The control circuit only needs to operate each of them in a well timed sequence to be picked up.
You could probibly do it all with ceramic / customised vacuum tubes. No digital circuity. (just like the missile control tech itself)
The idea of needing all this fancy encryption and all is overrated, this is a one time code. All you have to do is select a very specific frequency and pulse delay and you'd have something that is nigh incrackable.
I'd dare say it's impossible to hit the exact frequency and pulse duration without knowing it.
That's how I'd do it and it makes good sense.
Let's see how close I am to the truth, if anyone comes knocking at my door and I'm not online again.... you know what happened.[/QUOTE]
If it needs to be accurate down to ms/nanoseconds, can't atmospherics interfere, especially from halfway around the world?
[QUOTE=cheezey;51697956]I might be wrong but I think the president has the sole authority to wage nuclear war. So even if Trump decides to be a massive troll and launch nukes withoud reason, his operatives technically have to carry on and do this.[/QUOTE]
Trump needs his SecDef (Mattis) to approve a launch order. SAC then needs to comply with the order. While they can't legally refuse they are the military organisation with the most firepower on the planet and could easily tell him to fuck off.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51697997]If it needs to be accurate down to ms/nanoseconds, can't atmospherics interfere, especially from halfway around the world?[/QUOTE]
I could be wrong but short pulses would propagate through the atmosphere at the same rate and arrive at the same delta T
Between pulses the time would be short enough to mitigate issues I think.
Not too sure. Far from an rf expert..
[QUOTE=download;51697998]Trump needs his DecDef (Mattis) to approve a launch order. SAC then needs to comply with the order. While they can't legally refuse they are the military organisation with the most firepower on the planet and could easily tell him to fuck off.[/QUOTE]
Which may well result in a military coup... if it comes to Trump launching nukes, and Mattis refusing, I'm conflicted on arguing against that.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51696718][t]http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/54db863c6da811d613326d75-1200-800/football%20with%20antenna.png[/t]
For those curious, I assume it's a heavy-duty laptop with lots of concussive/blast protection.[/QUOTE]
its more than that actually its a sophisticated set of communications equipment, all the codebooks needed to communicate, locations for borth weapons and shelters, and basically anything a president needs to wage war on the go
[QUOTE=cheezey;51697956]I might be wrong but I think the president has the sole authority to wage nuclear war. So even if Trump decides to be a massive troll and launch nukes withoud reason, his operatives technically have to carry on and do this.[/QUOTE]
He doesn't. The rest of his staff, even the GOP crazies, would basically cannibalize him in his chair if he tried to launch a nuke. They're fucking crazy, but they like remaining in power.
[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51698349]He doesn't. The rest of his staff, even the GOP crazies, would basically cannibalize him in his chair if he tried to launch a nuke. They're fucking crazy, but they like remaining in power.[/QUOTE]
That's assuming they have a backbone...
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj9M34DzAKo[/media]
[editline]20th January 2017[/editline]
Although luckily in that case I could see Mattis beating him up (a nice visual).
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51696735]As much as I dislike Trump I seriously doubt nuclear warfare will happen during his administration. Global Warming is a more immediate problem.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, a salvo of nukes will warm the globe pretty fuckin' immediately
[QUOTE=TheTalon;51698478]I dunno, a salvo of nukes will warm the globe pretty fuckin' immediately[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but then we'd have a nuclear winter.
[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;51697690]I'd bet the following:
A radiation hardened old-style processor, thing INTEL 8080 or the like. Something that is well understood, tried and tested over decades and decades and very reliable.
at least 3 of the control computer, acting as backups for each-other for redundancy, likely only linked at the transmitter end and at the (probibly) up/down rotary HEX / DEC input.
The transmitter is probibly a pulse transmitter... say a good megawatt or the like, it's likely designed to transmit world wide. (Don't forget the football has to work from another country & the airforce 1)
I'd bet the signal is literally a series of pulses that are very short, but need to be with a very specific time delay between them (in the micro / nanosecond accuracy). It only needs to transmit once, power source is likely Lithium or lead acid batteries with pulse capacitors as the low impedance power source for the transmitter's pulses.
A megawatt transmitter is pretty feasible if designed to output say.... 100 nanosecond pulses over a few seconds.
You could have say, 50 high voltage high density pulse capacitors with a spark gap trigger on each of them + a tuned aerial, inductor & capacitor. The control circuit only needs to operate each of them in a well timed sequence to be picked up.
You could probibly do it all with ceramic / customised vacuum tubes. No digital circuity. (just like the missile control tech itself)
The idea of needing all this fancy encryption and all is overrated, this is a one time code. All you have to do is select a very specific frequency and pulse delay and you'd have something that is nigh incrackable.
I'd dare say it's impossible to hit the exact frequency and pulse duration without knowing it.
That's how I'd do it and it makes good sense.
Let's see how close I am to the truth, if anyone comes knocking at my door and I'm not online again.... you know what happened.[/QUOTE]
Guys like this get jobs at the NSA or FSB without even trying
FFS
[QUOTE=download;51697998]Trump needs his SecDef (Mattis) to approve a launch order. SAC then needs to comply with the order. While they can't legally refuse they are the military organisation with the most firepower on the planet and could easily tell him to fuck off.[/QUOTE]
Thankfully Mattis and most of the military brass are sane people.
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;51697864]Trump can't do shit with his nukes lol, not only does the rest of the government need to approve, which they wont, there are also human beings that have to carry out the launches in the silos, subs and bombers, which have entirely their own autonomy and might not even launch the weapon if they know it is not a test.[/QUOTE]
TURN YOUR KEY SIR.
[video=youtube;ReJ3RltihME]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReJ3RltihME[/video]
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51696718][t]http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/54db863c6da811d613326d75-1200-800/football%20with%20antenna.png[/t]
For those curious, I assume it's a heavy-duty laptop with lots of concussive/blast protection.[/QUOTE]
please tell me it's not running Windows
[QUOTE=matt000024;51698480]Yeah, but then we'd have a nuclear winter.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear winter is very unlikely, however something like a nuclear fall would be very possible. If anything nukes would result in global cooling and with global economy and industry pretty much wiped out, things would look very different climate wise. Looking at chernobyl and most wildlife is pretty unharmed and actually benefits from the lack of human activity. The european bison for example is no longer endangered pretty much because of the exclusion zone.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;51698478]I dunno, a salvo of nukes will warm the globe pretty fuckin' immediately[/QUOTE]
What is a "salvo" of nukes though?
Over 2000 nukes have been set off since 1945, and I'm pretty sure they've had no noticeable effect on global temperature.
[QUOTE=paul simon;51703460]What is a "salvo" of nukes though?
Over 2000 nukes have been set off since 1945, and I'm pretty sure they've had no noticeable effect on global temperature.[/QUOTE]
Over the course of over fifty years. I think 6,000 nukes (less than half of US and Russia's arsenals combined) within a few hours would have a drastically different impact.
[editline]21st January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;51700000]Nuclear winter is very unlikely, however something like a nuclear fall would be very possible. If anything nukes would result in global cooling and with global economy and industry pretty much wiped out, things would look very different climate wise. Looking at chernobyl and most wildlife is pretty unharmed and actually benefits from the lack of human activity. The european bison for example is no longer endangered pretty much because of the exclusion zone.[/QUOTE]
Meltdown is different from nuclear detonation though.
The combined energy content of the world's nuclear weapons is equivalent to only a fraction of the energy that the earth receives from the sun each day.
[QUOTE=matt000024;51703474]
Meltdown is different from nuclear detonation though.[/QUOTE]
In terms of radioactive material released, Chernobyl was orders of magnitude worse than a modern sized nuclear detonation.
[b]Edit:[/b]
Page 13 - [url]http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1054_web.pdf[/url]
Here they have the estimated radiation released from all above-ground nuclear testing (something like 500 to 600 tests) in history at 2516 EBq (that's 10^18).
Page 35 - [url]https://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/reports/2003/nea3508-chernobyl.pdf[/url]
Here they estimate the release from Chernobyl at 10.93 EBq.
Modern weapons are significantly smaller than the weapons they were so fond of testing in the 50s and 60s.
I guess the only effect on global temperature would be long-term results of destroying lots of CO2-emitting infrastructure.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;51698491]Guys like this get jobs at the NSA or FSB without even trying
FFS[/QUOTE]
Oh?
Well if they are willing to take someone with practical understanding but no formal qualifications....
[QUOTE=download;51703479]The combined energy content of the world's nuclear weapons is equivalent to only a fraction of the energy that the earth receives from the sun each day.
In terms of radioactive material released, Chernobyl was orders of magnitude worse than a modern sized nuclear detonation.
[b]Edit:[/b]
Page 13 - [url]http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1054_web.pdf[/url]
Here they have the estimated radiation released from all above-ground nuclear testing (something like 500 to 600 tests) in history at 2516 EBq (that's 10^18).
Page 35 - [url]https://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/reports/2003/nea3508-chernobyl.pdf[/url]
Here they estimate the release from Chernobyl at 10.93 EBq.
Modern weapons are significantly smaller than the weapons they were so fond of testing in the 50s and 60s.[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is that from a meltdown no material was actually blasted up into the atmosphere. That's where the nuclear winter theory comes from. Enough material blasted up into an atmosphere at once may act similarly to a volcanic eruption's effect on the climate. And when the material is radioactive and being controlled by unknown winds, it can spread radiation to zones not affected by the initial blast. Chernobyl was bad, but it was also mostly contained to a small area.
[QUOTE=matt000024;51703585]What I'm saying is that from a meltdown no material was actually blasted up into the atmosphere. That's where the nuclear winter theory comes from. Enough material blasted up into an atmosphere at once may act similarly to a volcanic eruption's effect on the climate. And when the material is radioactive and being controlled by unknown winds, it can spread radiation to zones not affected by the initial blast. Chernobyl was bad, but it was also mostly contained to a small area.[/QUOTE]
Except that in a meltdown you do spread material into the atmosphere. Chernobyl suffered a steam explosive that blasted the reactor to bits and spread highly mobile fission products into the atmosphere.
Nuclear explosions spread materials more easily but by spreading them out over larger areas the radiation emitted at any one location from the fission products is significantly less.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;51699808]please tell me it's not running Windows[/QUOTE]
I bet it's Vista
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGylKM-Mkws[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.