Possible Second Coup in Turkey: More info to come.
97 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Shalaska;50803405]I know I made a joke about it last time around, but why do people keep calling Istanbul by a name it hasn't had in almost 600 years?
I think it's just the stickler in me, but it seems really strange.[/QUOTE]
It was called officially Constantiople until the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, so closer to 90 years than 600 years ago
[QUOTE=RB33;50803281]Go secularism! But it's probably nothing.[/QUOTE]My dream is for the entire world to become secular one day.
But I guess that's just a dream and I probably won't live long enough to see this happen. :(
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;50803519]Safety Inspection is the most sinister sounding shit.[/QUOTE]
"Reports of explosions & gunfire at Incirlik"
"Statement: It didn't pass our inspection and was immediately demolished. Please go home"
[QUOTE=Shalaska;50803405]I know I made a joke about it last time around, but why do people keep calling Istanbul by a name it hasn't had in almost 600 years?
I think it's just the stickler in me, but it seems really strange.[/QUOTE]
Because, deus vult.
Istanbul also doesn't have anywhere near as a catchy name as Constantinople.
I wonder if this has anything to do with how Erdogan reacted to the coup. Had he not been such a zealous turd about "cleaning up" the ones responsible would this be happening?
I'm guessing since they will be an American general inspecting there today, that it might only be safety measures for that. Although 7000 police officers sounds like overdoing it.
[QUOTE=download;50803538]While I think most people overestimate the security of PALS, it's not that simple. Nuclear weapons require microsecond timing in the primary, something that can't be achieved with ductape and detcord.[/QUOTE]
not to mention modern warheads probably have some sort of computer controlled firing sequence that would require a very large working knowledge of the weapons design to actually bypass
Yeah I don't believe it, RT is literally the only site mentioning anything happening.
[QUOTE=Shalaska;50803405]I know I made a joke about it last time around, but why do people keep calling Istanbul by a name it hasn't had in almost 600 years?
I think it's just the stickler in me, but it seems really strange.[/QUOTE]
Why do people call it Constantinople? Because people are morons who want to insult the Turks by calling a city by one of its older names, as if it actually meant something. It's like referring to New York as "New Amsterdam" or something equally ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Broguts;50803898]Why do people call it Constantinople? Because people are morons who want to insult the Turks by calling a city by one of its older names, as if it actually meant something. It's like referring to New York as "New Amsterdam" or something equally ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Well I wouldn't say it's just like calling New York New Amsterdam, afterall in the orthodox church the de jure leader is the Patriarch of Constantinople. As it also being of such close cultural ties with the Greeks and for Orthodox Christians in general. It's a city of important cultural, historical, and religious value. And Was called Constantinople for over 1000 years, unlike New Amsterdam which existed in that form for around 100
[QUOTE=TestECull;50803489]Actually all you need to do is bypass the built-in detonator circuitry with a little detcord and a nokia cell phone. As long as you can trigger the conventional stage you can detonate the entire warhead, and most of them use an explosive in that stage that detcord will trigger. If not detcord, raw electric shock itself.[/QUOTE]
False, for any current nuclear weapons.
You are correct for gun-type weapons. All you need to set them off is to trigger one, possibly two detonators, with millisecond-level timing. Not that hard. Unfortunately, they're also very inefficient, and to the best of my knowledge America hasn't produced any since the 1950s, and the stockpiles of them were phased out in the 1960s.
For an implosion-type fission warhead (the only type we've produced since the 1960s), the timing of the detonation must be extremely precise. A new design of detonator had to be created, with timing consistent to the [I]nanosecond[/I]. Even the length of the wires had to be carefully designed, because even with signals traveling at nearly the speed of light, skew from different-length cables would render the bomb nonfunctional.
Further, the bombs are designed to be tamper-resistant. There is at least one way to deliberately detonate the bomb [I]incorrectly[/I], in such a way as to avoid any fission reaction but destroy the warhead and any nearby personnel. This was supposedly done so that if a bomber on a patrol mission had to dump its payload in an emergency, it could avoid any chance of a nuclear event, but I would be very surprised if the anti-tamper systems could not do such a thing, either.
As for just taking the nuclear material, most of the warheads in current use are plutonium-based. Plutonium is effectively unusable in gun-type designs, as it fizzles before any real energy can be released. Producing an implosion-style weapon is a much more complicated affair, one that even a first-world nation would not be able to do quickly. Turkey does not have many experts in nuclear physics, which makes things even more difficult for them (having civilian nuclear engineers is enough of an advantage that Germany and Japan are considered "nuclear-capable states", able to achieve a nuclear weapon within six months, given a strong push by their government; as Turkey is only just now getting a nuclear reactor, and not one of their own design, I do not think they have enough nuclear engineers for such a rapid program).
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50804004]False, for any current nuclear weapons.
You are correct for gun-type weapons. All you need to set them off is to trigger one, possibly two detonators, with millisecond-level timing. Not that hard. Unfortunately, they're also very inefficient, and to the best of my knowledge America hasn't produced any since the 1950s, and the stockpiles of them were phased out in the 1960s.
For an implosion-type fission warhead (the only type we've produced since the 1960s), the timing of the detonation must be extremely precise. A new design of detonator had to be created, with timing consistent to the [I]nanosecond[/I]. Even the length of the wires had to be carefully designed, because even with signals traveling at nearly the speed of light, skew from different-length cables would render the bomb nonfunctional.
Further, the bombs are designed to be tamper-resistant. There is at least one way to deliberately detonate the bomb [I]incorrectly[/I], in such a way as to avoid any fission reaction but destroy the warhead and any nearby personnel. This was supposedly done so that if a bomber on a patrol mission had to dump its payload in an emergency, it could avoid any chance of a nuclear event, but I would be very surprised if the anti-tamper systems could not do such a thing, either.
As for just taking the nuclear material, most of the warheads in current use are plutonium-based. Plutonium is effectively unusable in gun-type designs, as it fizzles before any real energy can be released. Producing an implosion-style weapon is a much more complicated affair, one that even a first-world nation would not be able to do quickly. Turkey does not have many experts in nuclear physics, which makes things even more difficult for them (having civilian nuclear engineers is enough of an advantage that Germany and Japan are considered "nuclear-capable states", able to achieve a nuclear weapon within six months, given a strong push by their government; as Turkey is only just now getting a nuclear reactor, and not one of their own design, I do not think they have enough nuclear engineers for such a rapid program).[/QUOTE]
Trinity was an implosion type weapon. Gun type weapons were used in nuclear artillery shells up until the end of the Cold War.
[QUOTE=download;50804015]Trinity was an implosion type weapon. Gun type weapons were used in nuclear artillery shells up until the end of the Cold War.[/QUOTE]
Trinity was also the result of five years of the brightest minds on the planet working on it, and even then they needed to do a test to see if any new physics would appear.
Most nuclear artillery shells were actually implosion-type. The Davy Crockett used a W54, and the 155mm shells used a W48. The early 11" shells were gun-type, but they were retired in the 1960s.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50804004]False, for any current nuclear weapons.
You are correct for gun-type weapons. All you need to set them off is to trigger one, possibly two detonators, with millisecond-level timing. Not that hard. Unfortunately, they're also very inefficient, and to the best of my knowledge America hasn't produced any since the 1950s, and the stockpiles of them were phased out in the 1960s.
For an implosion-type fission warhead (the only type we've produced since the 1960s), the timing of the detonation must be extremely precise. A new design of detonator had to be created, with timing consistent to the [I]nanosecond[/I]. Even the length of the wires had to be carefully designed, because even with signals traveling at nearly the speed of light, skew from different-length cables would render the bomb nonfunctional.
Further, the bombs are designed to be tamper-resistant. There is at least one way to deliberately detonate the bomb [I]incorrectly[/I], in such a way as to avoid any fission reaction but destroy the warhead and any nearby personnel. This was supposedly done so that if a bomber on a patrol mission had to dump its payload in an emergency, it could avoid any chance of a nuclear event, but I would be very surprised if the anti-tamper systems could not do such a thing, either.
As for just taking the nuclear material, most of the warheads in current use are plutonium-based. Plutonium is effectively unusable in gun-type designs, as it fizzles before any real energy can be released. Producing an implosion-style weapon is a much more complicated affair, one that even a first-world nation would not be able to do quickly. Turkey does not have many experts in nuclear physics, which makes things even more difficult for them (having civilian nuclear engineers is enough of an advantage that Germany and Japan are considered "nuclear-capable states", able to achieve a nuclear weapon within six months, given a strong push by their government; as Turkey is only just now getting a nuclear reactor, and not one of their own design, I do not think they have enough nuclear engineers for such a rapid program).[/QUOTE]
[i]As long as you can trigger the conventional stage you can detonate the entire warhead.[/i]
You've not refuted the main point of my post. It's still possible to bypass the interlocks and rig your own detonator. IT isn't a matter of nuclear physics, just timing, and timing is a hell of a lot easier. Would it be easy for Turkey's government to re-rig the nukes in the country? No. But it's not impossible. They have the ability to build a detonator circuit with the necessary timings to trigger an implosion device.
[QUOTE=Broguts;50803898]Why do people call it Constantinople? Because people are morons who want to insult the Turks by calling a city by one of its older names, as if it actually meant something. It's like referring to New York as "New Amsterdam" or something equally ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Maybe we just like it better that way.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50804040][i]As long as you can trigger the conventional stage you can detonate the entire warhead.[/i]
You've not refuted the main point of my post. It's still possible to bypass the interlocks and rig your own detonator. IT isn't a matter of nuclear physics, just timing, and timing is a hell of a lot easier. Would it be easy for Turkey's government to re-rig the nukes in the country? No. But it's not impossible. They have the ability to build a detonator circuit with the necessary timings to trigger an implosion device.[/QUOTE]
I am given to understand that the timing is not simply "set of all the detonators at once". I know back with the early designs, there was a very precise sequence that needed to occur. I'm not sure if that's still the case with modern designs (I know they've done a lot to reduce the number of detonators used and generally simplify things), but I would assume so.
Further, you're ignoring the existence of anti-tampering systems, which almost assuredly* include a "blow it the fuck up" mode that effectively self-destructs it as a dirty bomb.
* I am as sure of it as I can be, given that it is not a disclosed feature and nuclear warhead design is classified so high that I'm not even cleared to know what clearance level I'd need to see it.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50804039]Trinity was also the result of five years of the brightest minds on the planet working on it, and even then they needed to do a test to see if any new physics would appear.
Most nuclear artillery shells were actually implosion-type. The Davy Crockett used a W54, and the 155mm shells used a W48. The early 11" shells were gun-type, but they were retired in the 1960s.[/QUOTE]
There's a single photo of the innards of a W48 and it doesn't look like an implosion device.
[editline]31st July 2016[/editline]
[url]http://fas.org/resource/08062004142243.pdf[/url]
Page C2 - Notes the W33 is a gun-type weapon.
[QUOTE=download;50804066]There's a single photo of the innards of a W48 and it doesn't look like an implosion device.
[editline]31st July 2016[/editline]
[url]http://fas.org/resource/08062004142243.pdf[/url]
Page C2 - Notes the W33 is a gun-type weapon.[/QUOTE]
The W48 is a weird type of implosion device, called by some sources a "linear implosion". It still has a single plutonium "pit" surrounded by shaped charges.
[QUOTE=Govna;50803325]Kill Erdogan. Don't fuck up this time.[/QUOTE]
What about every other elected representative in Turkey? The opposition didn't support the juntist coup the previous time either.
[QUOTE=RB33;50803281]Go secularism! [/QUOTE]
Yeah, so long as you don't have to stick around and deal with the consequences...
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Result[/url]
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;50803543]It was called officially Constantiople[/quote]
Konstantinoupoli(s) or bust, ye heathens!
Any updates?
[QUOTE=Megadave;50804052]Maybe we just like it better that way.[/QUOTE]
I would love it if Los Angeles was called Hispanic Hipster Haven but thats not its name. Grow up.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50804148]I would love it if Los Angeles was called Hispanic Hipster Haven but thats not its name. Grow up.[/QUOTE]
Personally I go with the old names of things. For example, 'Poland' is just a weird way to me of saying "western Russia" :v:
Hey so what's the news or is it just bs like the rest of turkey
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50804164]Personally I go with the old names of things. For example, 'Poland' is just a weird way to me of saying "western Russia" :v:[/QUOTE]
Im also fond of calling Finland "Wester. Rambunctious Russia"
It's not reported by the BBC or CNN so it's probably nothing.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Turkey&filter=news&suggid=[/url]
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/search/?text=Turkey[/url]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50804164]Personally I go with the old names of things. For example, 'Poland' is just a weird way to me of saying "western Russia" :v:[/QUOTE]
If you're gonna go with an old name why not Byzantium? That one's even older than Constantinople.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;50804262]If you're gonna go with an old name why not Byzantium? That one's even older than Constantinople.[/QUOTE]
Its been called Constantinople for 1600 years and is still referred to it as such depending on who you ask and go, like I said before Constantinople is a cultural and religious heritage place for Greeks and Orthodox Christians throughout the world.
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;50804275]Its been called Constantinople for 1600 years and is still referred to it as such depending on who you ask and go, like I said before Constantinople is a cultural and religious heritage place for Greeks and Orthodox Christians throughout the world.[/QUOTE]
And people who call it Constantinople are wrong. A place having its name changed doesnt nullify the history or heritage.
Or theyre just acting like petty children because they dont like a name change that happened long before they were born. You dont see people bitching about Persia being renamed to Iran. If you want to shit on the Turkish government, calling a city by the wrong name is not the way to do it
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50804294]And people who call it Constantinople are wrong. A place having its name changed doesnt nullify the history or heritage.
Or theyre just acting like petty children because they dont like a name change that happened long before they were born. You dont see people bitching about Persia being renamed to Iran. If you want to shit on the Turkish government, calling a city by the wrong name is not the way to do it[/QUOTE]
Greek here. There are absolutely no references to 'Istanbul' in any of our school material at any class, and everyone around here refers to it as Constantinople, including our media and politicians.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50804294]And people who call it Constantinople are wrong. A place having its name changed doesnt nullify the history or heritage.
Or theyre just acting like petty children because they dont like a name change that happened long before they were born. You dont see people bitching about Persia being renamed to Iran. If you want to shit on the Turkish government, calling a city by the wrong name is not the way to do it[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone does it to shit on the Turkish government lol, I think a lot of people do it to acknowledge the history and heritage it had being called Constantinople. I mean if you want to call people children for referring to something by its Historical name then that's your problem but in all honesty it's in recognition of the City during its time of being called Constantinople not to just bash at the Turkish Government; that's idiotic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.