Unusual activity at North Korean nuclear test site. - Polidicks

Unusual activity at North Korean nuclear test site.

65 replies, posted
In This Thread

Id rather NK actually do fucking something than pretend at this point. Let them send a nuke to the USA so it can be disabled 1000+ miles and just be a dead drop in the ocean lol.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49249723][I]Except I've done academic research on this very subject, looked through thousands of different sources to state that as a claim.[/I] If anyone needs to be educated in this subject, it should be you, not me. When your main argument is pretty much a personal attack, then you need to rethink your debate strategies.[/QUOTE] Sure you have. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=download;49249845]Sure you have. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] You're not even making an argument anymore, you're just kind of being a condescending prick

[QUOTE=NikoChekhov;49249882]You're not even making an argument anymore, you're just kind of being a condescending prick[/QUOTE] If you can't get even basic facts right it sets off my bullshit alarm. I'm not interested in seriously debating someone who talks shit.

Download, if you're disputing his claim of a 100 megaton Soviet nuclear bomb, it's true. Look up the Tsar Bomba weapons test. True, the actual detonation was 50mt or so, but they could have cranked it all the way up to 100mt.

[QUOTE=download;49249930]If you can't get even basic facts right it sets off my bullshit alarm. I'm not interested in seriously debating someone who talks shit.[/QUOTE] What exactly is bullshit when these cases are [B][I]WELL DOCUMENTED EVEN IN ACADEMIA[/I][/B]? I mean just look at this [quote=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Mar2015, Vol. 71 Issue 2, p75-87. 13p.] Thus, the likelihood of an unauthorized agent secretly planning a theft, without being discovered, and getting access to weapons with the intent and physical ability to carry them off in the face of such layers of protection is extremely low but it isn't impossible, especially in the case where the thief is an insider. The insider threat helped give credibility to the stories, circulating about 20 years ago, that there were "loose nukes" in the USSR, based on some statements by a Soviet general who claimed the regime could not account for more than 40 "suitcase nukes" that had been built.[/quote] Not to mention CFR has an entire page dedicated to explaining these "Loose Nukes" [quote=CFR] Mainly in Russia. Before its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to triple that number. Since, severe economic distress, rampant crime, and widespread corruption in Russia and other former Soviet countries have fed concerns in the West about loose nukes, underpaid nuclear scientists, and the smuggling of nuclear materials. Security at Russia’s nuclear storage sites remains worrisome[/quote] [url]http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/loose-nukes/p9549[/url] [QUOTE= Maclean's. 4/22/96, Vol. 109 Issue 17, p24. 3p. 3 ] Although such concerns have been expressed ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, intelligence experts now view the problem as urgent. Maclean's has learned that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency discovered last September that enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon had been stolen from a military base near Moscow. With limited co-operation from the Russians, an intense investigation was launched. In the process, the CIA found that a number of gyroscopes were also missing from a ballistic missile that had just been dismantled. Military gyroscopes are at the core of a missile's guidance system and their sale is severely restricted. Large sums of money were paid to informants throughout the former Soviet Union, Europe and the Middle East. By late October, the CIA learned that the missing gyroscopes were being stored in a shed at Amman airport in Jordan, waiting for transshipment to Iraq.[/quote] It's not hard to see that nuclear material, including warheads [I]could[/I] in fact end up in the hands of people through the black market. I don't have access to my other sources that have academic backgrounds, but you get the point.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;49250192]Download, if you're disputing his claim of a 100 megaton Soviet nuclear bomb, it's true. Look up the Tsar Bomba weapons test. True, the actual detonation was 50mt or so, but they could have cranked it all the way up to 100mt.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, lets cherry pick a single thing he said and claim most of the things he said was wrong. Lets see: [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49249421]... but look at the other side, we don't [I]know[/I] of the location of hundreds of warheads, nor the location of thousands of tons of weapons grade uranium.[/QUOTE] Completely and utterly false. The very article TheDestroyerOfall cites later on explicitly states no weapon has ever been known to have gone missing. The claim that thousands of tonnes of weapons grade materials has gone missing (a number, at a guess that's larger than all of the weapons grade material manufactured by every country combined give a weapon only weeds ~10kg or so) is also moronic. If that much had gone missing we'd be seeing every two-bit nation building their own bomb and there would be an uncontrollable flood of terrorist-built nuclear weapons. [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49249590]NK's bomb's are also 50-60% stronger, judging by the latest detonation in 2013. Besides that, they have 20 or so nukes of likely varying size.[/quote] None of North Korea's yields have been "50-60% stronger" than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea]Their first test was 1kt, their second was 4kt and their last was 7kt[/url]. Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the other hand were [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy]15kt[/url] and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man]21kt[/url] respectively. [quote]After the fall of the Soviet union there was a lot of confusion, and hundreds of warheads were lost.[/quote] Already explained and still complete and utter shite. [quote]the point i was trying to make is the fact it's possible to get nuclear detonators relatively easy on the black market.[/quote] Given a "nuclear detonator" is just a slapper or explosive bridgewire detonator - something that has uses [url=http://neyersoftware.com/Papers/AIAA99/BlueChipDetonator.htm]outside of nuclear weapons[/url] and not a technically challenging thing to construct - that's not very relevant. [quote]Beyond this, the largest [U][I][B]known[/B][/I][/U] nuclear warhead was 100MT, and that was in 1961, we don't know if they worked on warheads bigger in size.[/QUOTE] Given there's practically no target that needs a 50Mt or 100 Mt warhead and both the US and Russia would prefer to dedicate that throw weight to far more versatile MIRVs it probably never happened. People aren't in the habit of building very expensive weapons for non-existent targets. [quote]as well as a video detailing how easy it is to go and buy one of these missing warheads on the black market[/quote] Except they never found a warhead despite all of the stupid hype. Vice can claim all they want, all it does is show how much of an idiot you are if you took them at their word instead of seeing the evidence; none. [quote]Let us not also forget that when the soviet union fell, hundreds of thousands of documents and thousands of military papers were destroyed. We, as civilians of the "First world' have no clue on if they have bigger weapons or not. I mistook your first post as saying the USSR, but i looked back now and see that you said the US. [/quote] Oh yeah, because the Soviets totally would only have one copy of important documents, the scientists who built the weapons would disappear, the officers who manned the system would also vanish, the generals who ordered the weapons to be built who have sudden onset amnesia, the American scientists and engineers who helped the Russians dismantle their arsenal would have forgotten to ask the Russians why the missiles they can see from their spy satellites aren't being dismantled and why they haven't declared them are per the various strategic arms limitation treaties... Or maybe you're talking out of your ass and have no clue what you're talking about? [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49249723]Except I've done academic research on this very subject, looked through thousands of different sources to state that as a claim. If anyone needs to be educated in this subject, it should be you, not me. When your main argument is pretty much a personal attack, then you need to rethink your debate strategies.[/QUOTE] And here is the crux of the matter; someone who claims they are an expert when really they're just an idiot. To make matters worse: [quote]I mean just look at this Not to mention CFR has an entire page dedicated to explaining these "Loose Nukes" [url]http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/loose-nukes/p9549[/url][/quote] Which explicitly state no weapons have gone missing. [quote]It's not hard to see that nuclear material, including warheads could in fact end up in the hands of people through the black market. I don't have access to my other sources that have academic backgrounds, but you get the point.[/quote] You're moving the goalposts.

[QUOTE=download;49250596]Completely and utterly false. The very article TheDestroyerOfall cites later on explicitly states no weapon has ever been known to have gone missing. The claim that thousands of tonnes of weapons grade materials has gone missing (a number, at a guess that's larger than all of the weapons grade material manufactured by every country combined give a weapon only weeds ~10kg or so) is also moronic. If that much had gone missing we'd be seeing every two-bit nation building their own bomb and there would be an uncontrollable flood of terrorist-built nuclear weapons. [/quote] Which is totally why we don't see countries like iran and north korea- wait. [quote] None of North Korea's yields have been "50-60% stronger" than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea]Their first test was 1kt, their second was 4kt and their last was 7kt[/url]. Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the other hand were [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy]15kt[/url] and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man]21kt[/url] respectively.[/quote] I didn't imply that the bombs were stronger than hiroshima or nagasaki- I implied that they were stronger than earlier tests by the NK government, which you cite as 1kt, 4kt and 7kt, however, there's evidence that state that those are the lowest of estimates, with the possiblity of 3kt, 7kt, and 16kt, which would put them at the range of Little-boy. as put by 51jiwo.com, and cited by wikipedia "China University of Science and Technology of the earthquake and the Earth's interior Physics Laboratory (USTC Seismological Laboratory) Prof. Wen Lian Xing, combined analysis of seismograph records and observation satellite data research shows that Korea 2013 nuclear explosion center located at latitude 41 degrees 17 minutes 26.88 seconds, longitude 129 degrees 4 minutes 34.68 seconds, the positioning error of 94 meters; the nuclear equivalent of about 12.2 thousand tons, error 3.8 tonnes, its power is close to the United States in 1945, Japan's first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima "Little Boy" (16 kilotons)" Sorry for the off-base source, but the original article has been taken down. [url]http://archive.is/ze6Kg[/url] Other estimates are 7-16 KT, which are not too far off of these estimates, but are still in range of north korea reaching at least 16kt by their next test, especially considering their growth since their first test, which even by your account has them doubling in size every test. [quote] Given a "nuclear detonator" is just a slapper or explosive bridgewire detonator - something that has uses [url=http://neyersoftware.com/Papers/AIAA99/BlueChipDetonator.htm]outside of nuclear weapons[/url] and not a technically challenging thing to construct - that's not very relevant. [/quote] "There have been no confirmed reports of missing or stolen former-Soviet nuclear weapons, but there is ample evidence of a significant black market in nuclear materials. " Which almost completely discredits everything you said- Nuclear materials, detonators and otherwise, for instance, can and ARE sold on the black market. It's almost like you're cherry-picking information to discredit me. I never said nuclear weapons as a whole, but nuclear warheads, like those used in MIRV's, which are completely different. The other source even states that some of those suitcase nukes could not be accounted for. What do those suitcase nukes contain, you might ask? NUCLEAR WARHEADS. Besides this, there's very clear evidence stating that ICBM gyroscopes are for sale from dismantled nukes. "With limited co-operation from the Russians, an intense investigation was launched. In the process, the CIA found that a number of gyroscopes were also missing from a ballistic missile that had just been dismantled. Military gyroscopes are at the core of a missile's guidance system and their sale is severely restricted. Large sums of money were paid to informants throughout the former Soviet Union, Europe and the Middle East. By late October, the CIA learned that the missing gyroscopes were being stored in a shed at Amman airport in Jordan, waiting for transshipment to Iraq." Which clearly shows some parts have already been traded. [quote]Oh yeah, because the Soviets totally would only have one copy of important documents, the scientists who built the weapons would disappear, the officers who manned the system would also vanish, the generals who ordered the weapons to be built who have sudden onset amnesia, the American scientists and engineers who helped the Russians dismantle their arsenal would have forgotten to ask the Russians why the missiles they can see from their spy satellites aren't being dismantled and why they haven't declared them are per the various strategic arms limitation treaties... Or maybe you're talking out of your ass and have no clue what you're talking about?[/quote] Except we've lost a lot of those documents? Do you not have a clue about what happens when totalitarian countries fail? Look at berlin in 1945, the Nazis destroyed literally any information they could get their hands on, especially the higher up generals and scientists, because they were afraid it could be used against them. The people, scientists, and otherwise in the soviet union would not incriminate themselves by releasing or even letting documents get out, especially for some of the experiments they worked on that we hardly know anything about. There's not evidence of this, because get this- IT WAS DESTROYED. Why do you think after the fall of the USSR there was a lot of lost information? Besides all these points- you're completely neglecting to talk about the other two sources which very obviously state that there has been trade in nuclear materials, and that the CIA is knowledgeable about it. [quote]And here is the crux of the matter; someone who claims they are an expert when really they're just an idiot.[/QUOTE] "There have been no confirmed reports of missing or stolen former-Soviet nuclear weapons, but there is ample evidence of a significant black market in nuclear materials. " Which almost completely discredits everything you said- Nuclear materials, detonators and otherwise, for instance, can and ARE sold on the black market. Not only that- you don't need to steal an entire nuke to make a profit, which is why they're selling the materials to make them.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49249421]but they have the [I]weapons[/I] to do so. [/QUOTE] But they don't have a delivery system good enough to surpass any modern anti-air defence. Actually, as far as i know, they don't have any delivery system at all aside from their horribly outdated strategic bombers that would be shot down in minutes after the take off. The very point of MAD is that you should have enough nukes to overwhelm an enemy's AA so some of them could actually reach their target. It's not like getting a couple of shitty small-range rockets and a couple of atomic bombs that are not even miniature enough to be carried by said rockets instantly grants you an ability to hit anyone.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49250810]Which is totally why we don't see countries like iran and north korea- wait. [/quote] Are you being asinine or stupid? North Korea made their own nuclear material. They certainly did not get it from the Russians. And Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. [quote]I didn't imply that the bombs were stronger than hiroshima or nagasaki- I implied that they were stronger than earlier tests by the NK government, which you cite as 1kt, 4kt and 7kt, however, there's evidence that state that those are the lowest of estimates, with the possiblity of 3kt, 7kt, and 16kt, which would put them at the range of Little-boy. [/quote] Sure you were implying that. :rolleyes: [quote]as put by 51jiwo.com, and cited by wikipedia "China University of Science and Technology of the earthquake and the Earth's interior Physics Laboratory (USTC Seismological Laboratory) Prof. Wen Lian Xing, combined analysis of seismograph records and observation satellite data research shows that Korea 2013 nuclear explosion center located at latitude 41 degrees 17 minutes 26.88 seconds, longitude 129 degrees 4 minutes 34.68 seconds, the positioning error of 94 meters; the nuclear equivalent of about 12.2 thousand tons, error 3.8 tonnes, its power is close to the United States in 1945, Japan's first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima "Little Boy" (16 kilotons)" Sorry for the off-base source, but the original article has been taken down. [url]http://archive.is/ze6Kg[/url] Other estimates are 7-16 KT, which are not too far off of these estimates, but are still in range of north korea reaching at least 16kt by their next test, especially considering their growth since their first test, which even by your account has them doubling in size every test. [/quote] A mystery Chinese website is not evidence. It's semantics anyway. [quote]"There have been no confirmed reports of missing or stolen former-Soviet nuclear weapons, but there is ample evidence of a significant black market in nuclear materials. " Which almost completely discredits everything you said- Nuclear materials, detonators and otherwise, for instance, can and ARE sold on the black market. It's almost like you're cherry-picking information to discredit me. I never said nuclear weapons as a whole, but nuclear warheads, like those used in MIRV's, which are completely different. The other source even states that some of those suitcase nukes could not be accounted for. What do those suitcase nukes contain, you might ask? NUCLEAR WARHEADS. Besides this, there's very clear evidence stating that ICBM gyroscopes are for sale from dismantled nukes. "With limited co-operation from the Russians, an intense investigation was launched. In the process, the CIA found that a number of gyroscopes were also missing from a ballistic missile that had just been dismantled. Military gyroscopes are at the core of a missile's guidance system and their sale is severely restricted. Large sums of money were paid to informants throughout the former Soviet Union, Europe and the Middle East. By late October, the CIA learned that the missing gyroscopes were being stored in a shed at Amman airport in Jordan, waiting for transshipment to Iraq." Which clearly shows some parts have already been traded. [/quote] I like how your original claim of "hundreds of missing weapons" and "thousands of tonnes of uranium" is now "a small quantity of material is missing and some irrelevant parts are missing". Going to admit you were wrong? Detonators aren't nuclear weapons nor exclusive nuclear components. And what the hell are you saying a warhead that goes on the top of a missile isn't a weapon? There is functionally no difference between a warhead on an ICBM and any other nuclear weapons. Further credence to you not knowing a damn thing you're talking about. You're completely and utterly nuts if you don't think the thing that goes in an MIRV isn't a weapon. Gyroscopes don't make nuclear weapons, they are a part of an ICBM and other types of missiles. They're not exclusive to nuclear weapons systems. [quote] Except we've lost a lot of those documents? Do you not have a clue about what happens when totalitarian countries fail? Look at berlin in 1945, the Nazis destroyed literally any information they could get their hands on, especially the higher up generals and scientists, because they were afraid it could be used against them. The people, scientists, and otherwise in the soviet union would not incriminate themselves by releasing or even letting documents get out, especially for some of the experiments they worked on that we hardly know anything about. There's not evidence of this, because get this- IT WAS DESTROYED. Why do you think after the fall of the USSR there was a lot of lost information? Besides all these points- you're completely neglecting to talk about the other two sources which very obviously state that there has been trade in nuclear materials, and that the CIA is knowledgeable about it. [/quote] The Soviet Union wasn't a violent collapse. Few documents went missing. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask you to prove it. Of the nuclear shipments that have been interdicted, most were very small quantities of nuclear materials (generally less than 100g - I'll dig up the source if you really want). None of them have been quantities large enough to make a weapon. The Russian missile forces are literally the only thing in the Russian army that never saw cutbacks after the Cold War. [quote] "There have been no confirmed reports of missing or stolen former-Soviet nuclear weapons, but there is ample evidence of a significant black market in nuclear materials. " Which almost completely discredits everything you said- Nuclear materials, detonators and otherwise, for instance, can and ARE sold on the black market. Not only that- you don't need to steal an entire nuke to make a profit, which is why they're selling the materials to make them.[/QUOTE] I never said materials hadn't gone missing. I said this stupid shit spouted by yourself: [quote]but they have the weapons to do so. a single nuke the size of little boy detonated at just the right part of tokyo, for instance, would lead to deaths in the 100,000's, not to mention the radiation that would come off of it. Besides that, we don't know of any weapons that the CCCP developed that would take out New Jersey, but look at the other side, we don't know of the location of hundreds of warheads, nor the location of thousands of tons of weapons grade uranium. [/quote] Was exactly that; stupid shit. [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] So, the stuff you didn't address, you're conceding your were wrong and an idiot about, right?

I'm not too worried about NK using nukes against us. But the country just isn't stable enough to have them, what if their was a coup (which has been attempted before in its history) and the entire military was thrown into chaos or civil war, what would happen to a future arsenal then?

[QUOTE=download;49249502]You're exaggerating a little bit. Modern-day Tokyo is of completely different construction to 1930s paper-constructed Hiroshima. The radiation from an airburst would also be quite minimal. That's not to say it would be non-existent but most of Hiroshima's casualties were blast, over pressure and thermal radiation casualties.[/quote] Nuclear bombs are much more powerful these days, not to mention that a city hit by a nuke is something that takes a lot to recover from. The damage to electrical and telecommunications infrastructure, the outbreak of fires, the inability of local firefighting services to operate, not to mention that there is still a lot of radioactive fallout due to the fact that while housing is more substantial, the contents of these houses are still highly flammable. It would be certainly enough that the impact of a single nuclear device on a major city on Tokyo would be just within the capability of the country to deal with it (I'm pretty sure that there aren't enough stockpiled medical supplies for this sort of thing that could be mobilized and brought to the area quickly).

Not to be THAT guy, but [B]download[/B] each one of your posts, you make varying degrees of sense, but with each post you just come off as condescending and a bit of a self righteous ass. You know you CAN have a debate without resorting to sarcasm, witty retorts and generally being an ass right?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49251130]Nuclear bombs are much more powerful these days, not to mention that a city hit by a nuke is something that takes a lot to recover from. The damage to electrical and telecommunications infrastructure, the outbreak of fires, the inability of local firefighting services to operate, not to mention that there is still a lot of radioactive fallout due to the fact that while housing is more substantial, the contents of these houses are still highly flammable. It would be certainly enough that the impact of a single nuclear device on a major city on Tokyo would be just within the capability of the country to deal with it (I'm pretty sure that there aren't enough stockpiled medical supplies for this sort of thing that could be mobilized and brought to the area quickly).[/QUOTE] Why would there be fallout from a nuclear attack on a city?

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49252064]Why would there be fallout from a nuclear attack on a city?[/QUOTE] radioactive dust gets sucked up from the ground and is then spread about by wind and water

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49252120]radioactive dust gets sucked up from the ground and is then spread about by wind and water[/QUOTE] Radioactive dust wouldn't be sucked up because a ground burst wouldn't be used to attack a city.

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49253447]Radioactive dust wouldn't be sucked up because a ground burst wouldn't be used to attack a city.[/QUOTE] Airbursts still produce fallout though. The Hiroshima bomb was an airburst bomb, yet still produced a fallout. Bombs with bigger yields will produce considerably more, and modern bombs are much bigger than the first ones.

[QUOTE=download;49250873]Are you being asinine or stupid? North Korea made their own nuclear material. They certainly did not get it from the Russians. And Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. [/quote] They do however have a nuclear program, only in check by the west. With evidence of missing gyroscopes in jordan, it's not unlikely Iran has their hands on at least some soviet nuke making technology. Besides that, why the hell would every two bit country make a nuke, especially considering that nukes make them a huge target? It's usually military dictatorships or military juntas that develop nukes without approval. [QUOTE=download;49250873]Sure you were implying that. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] What else would i be implying? You must be awfully stupid yourself to make that connection, especially considering you, yourself quoted the sizes of different nukes detonated, without reading the wikipedia article you quoted. It's a joke to see you cite them, and further, refute the same source you cited. [QUOTE=download;49250873]A mystery Chinese website is not evidence. It's semantics anyway.[/QUOTE] [I]Yeah except it's cited on the wikipedia article which you cited yourself![/I] Dismiss it as semantics because you supported it with your sourcing. [QUOTE=download;49250873]I like how your original claim of "hundreds of missing weapons" and "thousands of tonnes of uranium" is now "a small quantity of material is missing and some irrelevant parts are missing". Going to admit you were wrong? Detonators aren't nuclear weapons nor exclusive nuclear components. And what the hell are you saying a warhead that goes on the top of a missile isn't a weapon? There is functionally no difference between a warhead on an ICBM and any other nuclear weapons. Further credence to you not knowing a damn thing you're talking about. You're completely and utterly nuts if you don't think the thing that goes in an MIRV isn't a weapon. Gyroscopes don't make nuclear weapons, they are a part of an ICBM and other types of missiles. They're not exclusive to nuclear weapons systems.[/QUOTE] I made a mistake in saying that it was hundreds of missing weapons- But if you look here:"the stories, circulating about 20 years ago, that there were "loose nukes" in the USSR, based on some statements by a Soviet general who claimed the regime could not account for more than 40 "suitcase nukes" that had been built." There are stories of missing nuclear weapons. For all intents and purposes the warhead itself is useless without launch codes, and would at most be used to make a dirty bomb- but they can't be used without the launch codes, essentially. ICBMs are used to what- Shoot nuclear weapons into orbit, meaning that if those gyroscopes were being sold, it could be considered nuclear materials. And let me be frank, I don't mean nuclear materials as in radioactive isotopes, rather, i mean nuclear materials that could reasonably be used to develop a functional nuclear weapon or delivery system. There is very little radioactive isotopes running around in the black market, but why do you need those when you can have the knowledge on how to refine them? [QUOTE=download;49250873]The Soviet Union wasn't a violent collapse. Few documents went missing. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask you to prove it. Of the nuclear shipments that have been interdicted, most were very small quantities of nuclear materials (generally less than 100g - I'll dig up the source if you really want). None of them have been quantities large enough to make a weapon.[/QUOTE] Here: [url]https://books.google.com/books?id=xAqUAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=destruction+of+documents+fall+of+soviet&source=bl&ots=5GmpFEDcU7&sig=SKqbe61it3IKzKGGonVNFgkTxMI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu3Kzg6MXJAhVBlIMKHXdvBDsQ6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&q=destruction%20of%20documents%20fall%20of%20soviet&f=false[/url] "Almost immediately after the fall of the wall, Statsi workers began a systematic destruction of documents - a terrible historical lost that is often overlooked considering the mammoth collection that remained." Page 17 of that document. The destruction of documents is evident even here, at the fall of the Berlin wall, so it's not ridiculous to assume that they would destroy other documents after the fall of the USSR. Use logic. Interdict? do you mean intercepted? Even then, the low amounts, 100g or less, are still important. there could be a much more prolific trade of radioactive isotopes that haven't been intercepted. [QUOTE=download;49250873]The Russian missile forces are literally the only thing in the Russian army that never saw cutbacks after the Cold War. I never said materials hadn't gone missing. I said this stupid shit spouted by yourself: Was exactly that; stupid shit.[/QUOTE] Except, exactly three posts above that, and i quote again: "the stories, circulating about 20 years ago, that there were "loose nukes" in the USSR, based on some statements by a Soviet general who claimed the regime could not account for more than 40 "suitcase nukes" that had been built." which are stories, but nonetheless could be considered as true, given the evidence of the sale of gyroscopes and the sale of other nuclear materials. Even besides that, modern russia would be under no obligation to disclose a bigger and more destructive nuke, just like how they were under no obligation to point out their drone sub, which was nuclear capable, on air, three weeks ago. [QUOTE=download;49250873] [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] So, the stuff you didn't address, you're conceding your were wrong and an idiot about, right?[/QUOTE] So, the stuff you didn't address, you're conceding that i'm correct, and you're an idiot about, right?

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49254552]"Almost immediately after the fall of the wall, Statsi workers began a systematic destruction of documents - a terrible historical lost that is often overlooked considering the mammoth collection that remained." Page 17 of that document. The destruction of documents is evident even here, at the fall of the Berlin wall, so it's not ridiculous to assume that they would destroy other documents after the fall of the USSR. Use logic.[/QUOTE] stasi was east germany. they destroyed the documents because they didn't want to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and other shit after the reunification.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;49254731]stasi was east germany. they destroyed the documents because they didn't want to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and other shit after the reunification.[/QUOTE] How is that any different from the destruction of KGB or military secrets? wouldn't the people who held power in those positions want those documents to be destroyed as well?

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49254780]How is that any different from the destruction of KGB or military secrets? wouldn't the people who held power in those positions want those documents to be destroyed as well?[/QUOTE] those military secrets were transferred directly to the new Russian state which didn't give a fuck

Do they even have missiles? I thought they could only drop nukes by a bomber?

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;49254793]those military secrets were transferred directly to the new Russian state which didn't give a fuck[/QUOTE] it looks like not all of these were destroyed [url]https://socialhistory.org/sites/default/files/docs/seven1.pdf[/url] Pg66-67 say that CPSU destroyed up to 2 million documents before the complete collapse of the union.

[QUOTE=Jamie1992GSC;49251950]Not to be THAT guy, but [B]download[/B] each one of your posts, you make varying degrees of sense, but with each post you just come off as condescending and a bit of a self righteous ass. You know you CAN have a debate without resorting to sarcasm, witty retorts and generally being an ass right?[/QUOTE] I stop being polite when he outright lied and claimed to be an expert despite his mindboggling stupidity and misinformation. [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49254552]They do however have a nuclear program, only in check by the west. With evidence of missing gyroscopes in jordan, it's not unlikely Iran has their hands on at least some soviet nuke making technology. [/quote] A gyroscope has absolutely nothing to do with making a nuclear weapon. [quote]Besides that, why the hell would every two bit country make a nuke, especially considering that nukes make them a huge target? It's usually military dictatorships or military juntas that develop nukes without approval. [/quote] An exaggeration on my part but it does come back to your ludicrous claim of "hundreds of missing weapons" and "thousands of tonnes of missing uranium". If this stuff existed on the market then pretty much every nation that hates the West would now have nuclear weapons. They don't. [quote]What else would i be implying? You must be awfully stupid yourself to make that connection, especially considering you, yourself quoted the sizes of different nukes detonated, without reading the wikipedia article you quoted. It's a joke to see you cite them, and further, refute the same source you cited. [/quote] That you meant that North Korea's nuclear test was larger than Trinity, Little Boy and Fat man and you're now backpedaling. [quote][I]Yeah except it's cited on the wikipedia article which you cited yourself![/I] Dismiss it as semantics because you supported it with your sourcing.[/quote] A link to be tacked to the bottom of a Wikipedia page all you want but that doesn't make it reliable. [quote]I made a mistake in saying that it was hundreds of missing weapons- But if you look here:"the stories, circulating about 20 years ago, that there were "loose nukes" in the USSR, based on some statements by a Soviet general who claimed the regime could not account for more than 40 "suitcase nukes" that had been built." There are stories of missing nuclear weapons. [/quote] I don't care about stories coming from Soviet generals who want to get paid in US Dollars for an interview on CNN. You're a fool for believing them. [quote]For all intents and purposes the warhead itself is useless without launch codes, and would at most be used to make a dirty bomb- but they can't be used without the launch codes, essentially. [/quote] You're making several mistake; first you're assuming the Russians even have a launch code system like the US has. The UK for example does not, the US didn't install such a system on its SLBM force until after the Cold War, and many Cold War era US weapons only had a simple mechanical lock on them that could be cut-off with boltcutters. Next, you clearly have no understanding that the US PAL system is an electro-mechanical device. It is simply a fancy electric circuit breaker between the firing circuit, the detonators and the tritium injection system in the weapon. Anyone, given a few days work, with the most rudimentary electrical engineering degree could bypass it. It is a system designed to slow and hinder someone trying to attempt an unauthorized launch long enough for other people to notice. [quote]ICBMs are used to what- Shoot nuclear weapons into orbit, meaning that if those gyroscopes were being sold, it could be considered nuclear materials. And let me be frank, I don't mean nuclear materials as in radioactive isotopes, rather, i mean nuclear materials that could reasonably be used to develop a functional nuclear weapon or delivery system. There is very little radioactive isotopes running around in the black market, but why do you need those when you can have the knowledge on how to refine them? [/quote] Moving the goalposts. And the manufacture of nuclear materials is well documented in literature. You can buy engineering textbooks on the topic on Amazon. [quote]Here: [url]https://books.google.com/books?id=xAqUAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=destruction+of+documents+fall+of+soviet&source=bl&ots=5GmpFEDcU7&sig=SKqbe61it3IKzKGGonVNFgkTxMI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu3Kzg6MXJAhVBlIMKHXdvBDsQ6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&q=destruction%20of%20documents%20fall%20of%20soviet&f=false[/url] "Almost immediately after the fall of the wall, Statsi workers began a systematic destruction of documents - a terrible historical lost that is often overlooked considering the mammoth collection that remained." Page 17 of that document. The destruction of documents is evident even here, at the fall of the Berlin wall, so it's not ridiculous to assume that they would destroy other documents after the fall of the USSR. Use logic.[/quote] The Statsi did, who knew full well they would soon have to operate under West German law and would quite often be facing prison time for their actions. The Statsi aren't the KGB who knew they would be immune in the new Russian regime. [quote]Interdict? do you mean intercepted? Even then, the low amounts, 100g or less, are still important. there could be a much more prolific trade of radioactive isotopes that haven't been intercepted. [/quote] I meant [url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/interdiction]Interdiction[/url]. My spellcheck doesn't like the word. Again, prove it? What makes larger quantities easier to smuggle? [quote]Except, exactly three posts above that, and i quote again: "the stories, circulating about 20 years ago, that there were "loose nukes" in the USSR, based on some statements by a Soviet general who claimed the regime could not account for more than 40 "suitcase nukes" that had been built." which are stories, but nonetheless could be considered as true, given the evidence of the sale of gyroscopes and the sale of other nuclear materials. [/quote] The US went over Soviet nuclear records line by line. You'd think they have caught on to something like that, don't you? Any anyway, it's in Russia's best interest to stop nuclear terrorism given they have several small minorities who are known to use violence to get their way. [quote]Even besides that, modern russia would be under no obligation to disclose a bigger and more destructive nuke, just like how they were under no obligation to point out their drone sub, which was nuclear capable, on air, three weeks ago.[/quote] Why would they need a bigger nuclear weapon? What target requires hundreds of megatonnes? What weapon system is going to carry this gargantuan bomb? [quote]So, the stuff you didn't address, you're conceding that i'm correct, and you're an idiot about, right?[/QUOTE] Wow, you've elevated yourself to the intelligence of a parrot. Congratulations! [QUOTE=markedOne;49254835]Do they even have missiles? I thought they could only drop nukes by a bomber?[/QUOTE] North Korea has reliable intermediate range ballistic missiles and are working on ICBMs.

[QUOTE=download;49255019]I stop being polite when he outright lied and claimed to be an expert despite his mindboggling stupidity and misinformation.[/QUOTE] Except you've done nothing but show me you're the one whose primarily misinformed. [QUOTE=download;49255019]A gyroscope has absolutely nothing to do with making a nuclear weapon. [/QUOTE] A gyroscope has a lot to do with making a nuclear weapon delivery system, though. [QUOTE=download;49255019]An exaggeration on my part but it does come back to your ludicrous claim of "hundreds of missing weapons" and "thousands of tonnes of missing uranium". If this stuff existed on the market then pretty much every nation that hates the West would now have nuclear weapons. They don't.[/QUOTE] Except now after the fall of the soviet union, there are countries that hate the west, with nuclear programs. Even then, other countries that hate the west would have no way of attacking the west with nuclear materials beyond a dirty bomb. it would just paint a huge target on their backs. [QUOTE=download;49255019]That you meant that North Korea's nuclear test was larger than Trinity, Little Boy and Fat man and you're now backpedaling.[/QUOTE] Completely false, and misconstruing my comment that Nk's bombs have gotten stronger over time- 50-60% from 2006 to 2013, which by now have gone from a low-ball estimate of 7kt to a high ball estimate of 16kt, to possibly 30kt nukes by now in 2015, if the trend is still followed. [QUOTE=download;49255019]A link to be tacked to the bottom of a Wikipedia page all you want but that doesn't make it reliable.[/QUOTE] Then why the hell did you use it as a citation if you don't believe wikipedia's credible? Besides that, on the same page, it says that 7.8kt is the lowest estimate by south korea, while other estimates can range from 7.8kt to 16kt, cited by the article taken down last page. [QUOTE=download;49255019]I don't care about stories coming from Soviet generals who want to get paid in US Dollars for an interview on CNN. You're a fool for believing them.[/QUOTE] Except i don't see you posting any sources that say otherwise. It's well documented that soviet nuclear materials and possibly suitcase nukes, have gone missing, through both stories and research. Like your own sources told you- they've stopped small quantities of nuclear material before. The citation itself is from a periodical for Atomic Scientists in 2015. [QUOTE=download;49255019]You're making several mistake; first you're assuming the Russians even have a launch code system like the US has. The UK for example does not, the US didn't install such a system on its SLBM force until after the Cold War, and many Cold War era US weapons only had a simple mechanical lock on them that could be cut-off with boltcutters. Next, you clearly have no understanding that the US PAL system is an electro-mechanical device. It is simply a fancy electric circuit breaker between the firing circuit, the detonators and the tritium injection system in the weapon. Anyone, given a few days work, with the most rudimentary electrical engineering degree could bypass it. It is a system designed to slow and hinder someone trying to attempt an unauthorized launch long enough for other people to notice.[/QUOTE] So you're going to tell me that literally anyone can re purpose a nuke to their own endeavors just with a electrical engineering degree? You do realize the US had thousands of scientists working on systems like these that couldn't be cracked, or would destroy the trigger permanently. an exaggeration at best, delusion at worst. The USSR's detonation and trigger systems although less advanced, have some of the same safeguards. [QUOTE=download;49255019]Moving the goalposts. And the manufacture of nuclear materials is well documented in literature. You can buy engineering textbooks on the topic on Amazon.[/QUOTE] Moving the goalpost? ICBMs are used to launch nukes into orbit- their gyroscopes are completely vital to that endeavor. They're nuclear materials, because they're parts for a Nuclear delivery system. I again use the definition posted before to show this. [QUOTE=download;49255019]The Statsi did, who knew full well they would soon have to operate under West German law and would quite often be facing prison time for their actions. The Statsi aren't the KGB who knew they would be immune in the new Russian regime.[/QUOTE] Except there's tons of evidence of KGB and CPSU destroying evidence in 1991 before and after the collapse? The paper posted before details the CPSU destruction of documents. i again don't have the sources for the KGB on hand- but they did it too. If it didn't happen- prove that it's lies. [QUOTE=download;49255019]Again, prove it? What makes larger quantities easier to smuggle?[/QUOTE] The same thing that makes smaller quantities of nuclear material easier to find. You keep saying "prove it" but how can you prove something like that, when it's through the shadows of the black market? [QUOTE=download;49255019]The US went over Soviet nuclear records line by line. You'd think they have caught on to something like that, don't you? Any anyway, it's in Russia's best interest to stop nuclear terrorism given they have several small minorities who are known to use violence to get their way.[/QUOTE] It is vital for the Russians to stop it- But that still doesn't mean that the Russians have to tell the US if they have bigger nukes now, especially when they're so secretive with their nuclear-equipped drone sub. [QUOTE=download;49255019]Why would they need a bigger nuclear weapon? What target requires hundreds of megatonnes? What weapon system is going to carry this gargantuan bomb? [/QUOTE] Any rocket that's not an MIRV could hold a bomb twice the size of the tsar bomba, at the very least. [QUOTE=download;49255019]Wow, you've elevated yourself to the intelligence of a parrot. Congratulations![/QUOTE] Wow, you've not stopped with the Ad-homenems yet! You're [I]so[/I] smart. [QUOTE=download;49255019]North Korea has reliable intermediate range ballistic missiles and are working on ICBMs.[/QUOTE] Which last page you said that they would have to smuggle in nukes into Japan for them to be effective. Which is it? I'm starting to think that no matter what evidence i give you, you'll remain in your smug sense of altruism about nuclear weapons, just like you know everything about the gun laws in California, and any evidence to the contrary is completely false, because literally "i said so". This will be my last reply because it's obvious that no matter what i say you're going to stick to your own beliefs no use trying to hammer in a nail sideways.

I think I should point out that the refinement of nuclear materials is a non-trivial task.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49255211]Except you've done nothing but show me you're the one whose primarily misinformed.[/quote] I could say the same for you. [quote]A gyroscope has a lot to do with making a nuclear weapon delivery system, though. [/quote] Moving the goalposts. [quote]Except now after the fall of the soviet union, there are countries that hate the west, with nuclear programs. Even then, other countries that hate the west would have no way of attacking the west with nuclear materials beyond a dirty bomb. it would just paint a huge target on their backs. [/quote] And they haven't made the bomb? Not sure how it's even relevant. Clearly they haven't gotten aloh of your magical bombs and uranium. [quote]Completely false, and misconstruing my comment that Nk's bombs have gotten stronger over time- 50-60% from 2006 to 2013, which by now have gone from a low-ball estimate of 7kt to a high ball estimate of 16kt, to possibly 30kt nukes by now in 2015, if the trend is still followed.[/quote] Suit yourself, but I'm pretty sure most people looking at that sees an idiot who's backpedaling. [quote]Then why the hell did you use it as a citation if you don't believe wikipedia's credible? Besides that, on the same page, it says that 7.8kt is the lowest estimate by south korea, while other estimates can range from 7.8kt to 16kt, cited by the article taken down last page. [/quote] Nice job misrepresenting what I said. I just the source based on who says that not who managed to get tacked onto a Wikipedia article. [quote]Except i don't see you posting any sources that say otherwise. It's well documented that soviet nuclear materials and possibly suitcase nukes, have gone missing, through both stories and research. Like your own sources told you- they've stopped small quantities of nuclear material before. The citation itself is from a periodical for Atomic Scientists in 2015. [/quote] Do you know how evidence works? You make a claim without evidence, and I can dismiss the claim without evidence. If "suitcase" nukes are missing, prove it with reputable source and not stories from aging Soviet generals. [quote]So you're going to tell me that literally anyone can re purpose a nuke to their own endeavors just with a electrical engineering degree? You do realize the US had thousands of scientists working on systems like these that couldn't be cracked, or would destroy the trigger permanently. an exaggeration at best, delusion at worst. The USSR's detonation and trigger systems although less advanced, have some of the same safeguards. [/quote] The only requirements for an implosion assembly on a nuclear weapon to detonate is that each of the dozens of detonate at once. It is not a technically challenge task. So yeah, nearly anyone who knows something about electronics could do it. This is something you should know if you really were an expert. It does not matter how complicated the scientist and engineers make such a system because all that means is you just have to pull it out and replace it with your own. [quote]Moving the goalpost? ICBMs are used to launch nukes into orbit- their gyroscopes are completely vital to that endeavor. They're nuclear materials, because they're parts for a Nuclear delivery system. I again use the definition posted before to show this. [/quote] There are other ways to deliver a nuclear weapon and North Korea has other missile systems in their possession. As for moving the goalposts, you claimed that gyroscopes are a nuclear weapon, and are now claiming they part of the delivery system. [quote]Except there's tons of evidence of KGB and CPSU destroying evidence in 1991 before and after the collapse? The paper posted before details the CPSU destruction of documents. i again don't have the sources for the KGB on hand- but they did it too. If it didn't happen- prove that it's lies. [/quote] Prove it you moron. Prove it that weapons went missing instead of hearsay and shitty Vice articles. Prove it that all of the different people throughout the chain of supply and the chain of command lost their own copies of the documents. [quote]The same thing that makes smaller quantities of nuclear material easier to find. You keep saying "prove it" but how can you prove something like that, when it's through the shadows of the black market?[/quote] Hurr, well I'm going to claim that the French are supplying magical pixie dust to Osama in heaven. Prove it not the case. [quote]It is vital for the Russians to stop it- But that still doesn't mean that the Russians have to tell the US if they have bigger nukes now, especially when they're so secretive with their nuclear-equipped drone sub. [/quote] Oh for fuck sake you moron. Do you know nothing? The Russians literally asked the US to provide monetary and personnel support to help them secure their nuclear arsenal after the Cold War ended. The literally had US citizens trawling through their documents looking for inconsistencies like this. And yes it does mean the Russians have to tell them and that the US would know if they lied because they have satellites. They'd go "Hey Dimitri, why have you not declared these silos on the treaty? When can we inspect these weapons installations per our treaty?" And this is again ignore why the fuck would they need a weapon like this! What target on the face of the planet is hardened enough to survive a 50Mt or more strike? [quote]Any rocket that's not an MIRV could hold a bomb twice the size of the tsar bomba, at the very least. [/quote] Again, what target is this for? [quote]Wow, you've not stopped with the Ad-homenems yet! You're [I]so[/I] smart. [/quote] You're the one who won't respond or admit he's wrong. What other recourse do I have but to call you out for being a liar? [quote]Which last page you said that they would have to smuggle in nukes into Japan for them to be effective. Which is it?[/quote] Mind providing quote to that effect? [quote]I'm starting to think that no matter what evidence i give you, you'll remain in your smug sense of altruism about nuclear weapons, just like you know everything about the gun laws in California, and any evidence to the contrary is completely false, because literally "i said so". This will be my last reply because it's obvious that no matter what i say you're going to stick to your own beliefs no use trying to hammer in a nail sideways.[/QUOTE] Same back to you buddy. Only I actually provided evidence (or asked for it) and you did not. You've spouted shit under the guise of "they could have therefore they must have!" without a drop of evidence. [b]Edit:[/b] You also got beaten down in that California discussion by others. I hardly contributed to it.

[QUOTE=download;49249454]Able Archer, again, no side would suddenly push the "strategic" button and go all out. If anything it would have been a tit-for-tat exchange of chemical and then tactical nuclear weapons backing a very nasty conventional war.[/QUOTE]Actually that was concluded because the USSR was absolutely readying itself to launch a first strike, they were totally going to go balls to the wall against us because the men in charge were crippled with fear that we were going to launch first. Afterward even fucking Reagan was like, "well holy shit maybe we took it too far this time, we almost all died," so that indicates how severe it was. I mean you're not wrong in general but this point in specific was a very, very big fucking deal in terms of how close we came to a nuclear war. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49254009]Airbursts still produce fallout though. The Hiroshima bomb was an airburst bomb, yet still produced a fallout. Bombs with bigger yields will produce considerably more, and modern bombs are much bigger than the first ones.[/QUOTE]They're also far, far, [U]far[/U] more efficient. There would be fallout, yes, but much less than what common perception and Hollywood would have you believe. [QUOTE=markedOne;49254835]Do they even have missiles? I thought they could only drop nukes by a bomber?[/QUOTE]They do, but they're small just like their bombers. Either way they don't have any delivery vehicle capable of putting the nukes they have (and this is said with almost complete certainty because it's an estimation) on target, and given the rate they're progressing at I think you'd have a hard time finding a serious analyst who would estimate that capability any time soon.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49257726]They're also far, far, [U]far[/U] more efficient. There would be fallout, yes, but much less than what common perception and Hollywood would have you believe.[/QUOTE] They still produce enough that a significant proportion of the population in the city will either die from it, or suffer a range of longterm health problems. In the case of a larger-scale nuclear war that as the one that threatened to annihilate civilization during the cold war, there would be much, much more fallout.

TheDestroyerOfall, you're talking gibberish. Stop it.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.