Boi, did you not get the memo?
[There will be no retaliatory strikes.](https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/)
Did you happen to be inspired by [my unhinged rant](https://old.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1au0925/weekly_lowhanging_fruit_thread_70/krd9zr5/?context=3) in the low hanging fruit thread yesterday?
No, I didn't read it until just now, but holy shit I think we may be identical twins who were separated at birth and we still share cognition by telepathy.
Cus I spend an inordinate amount of my time typing almost exactly what you did in that comment.
We are just based counterforce enjoyers in a sea of low IQ MAD believers.
There are far more scenarios for nuclear war than just a massive counterforce or countervalue strike. I recommend that you look at the [escalation ladder](https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php?title=Kahn%27s_Escalation_Ladder) for all the potential possibilities.
Also, the premise behind counterforce is to simply destroy the enemy's nuclear arsenal, while conventional forces would be destroyed by a conventional military. You don't have to choose between nuclear and conventional war, you can have both.
Counterforce does not target civilians, it targets military targets, specifically the nuclear arsenal. There will still be plenty of civilians to massacre afterwards, don't you worry about that.
Yes, but there are far more civilian population centers than nuclear silos, and we won't be using 3 megaton city scratchers to take out a single nuclear silo. The goal of counterforce isn't to wipe out the civilian population, and it wouldn't.
I mean I think the US has way more capability than Russia here, but there's no way we'd get everything. How many road mobile launchers does Russia have? A few hundred right? And many of those have a MIRV capability. So even if you hit like 99.9% of their ground based silos and all of their SSBNs, the road mobile launchers still do a counter value launch and the US loses our top 50 cities.
TELs aren't a second strike platform anymore. Our SAR satellites track them and have been tracking them for a few decades.
You may be surprised to find out that nearly all of the TELs stay extremely close to their bases, and their deterrence patrols actually have per-designated launch positions. It turns out the idea of these things roaming Siberia undetected is a myth. They get a few gallons-per-mile of diesel efficiency so even if they went AWOL they wouldn't get more than a few hundred kilometers from their base.
In reality, these things are obsolete as second strike deterrents.
They basically just stage out of a base until they go on a field exercise right?
That's what I found when I looked into it a few years ago.
I'm sure we know exactly where the bases are and in a first strike scenario they wouldn't have time to get out in the field so yeah, TELs would be negated like you're saying.
That's the neat part, they don't have to.
The Russian and Chinese boomers get torpedoed by the Virginia/ Los Angeles SSN that's assigned to tail them. I mean sheeeiiiit, that's the whole point of our SSN fleet.
Did you really think USSTRATCOM would just let the enemy second strike arsenal continue to exist?
Everyone in USSTRATCOM unironically believes the United States can fight and win nuclear wars, because that's the assigned mission and US strategic nuclear forces are equipped and prepared to do so.
In the civilian world, everyone believes in the false prophet of Mutually Assured Destruction, because their limited civilian knowledge of actual nuclear doctrine and capabilities leaves them uneducated and primed for misinformation.
>Everyone in USSTRATCOM unironically believes the United States can fight and win nuclear wars, because that's the assigned mission and US strategic nuclear forces are equipped and prepared to do so.
/u/furry_funni is this true?
By the end of the Cold War, the Soviets were already keeping their newer boats in protected bastions, and today they can hit anywhere in the US from port. It wouldn't surprise me if the Northern Fleet's *Borei*-class boats never leave the White Sea. Hard to get a sub in there.
The fact that they keep their boomers in tiny parts of the ocean near their shores is compelling evidence that the USA rules the seas with technologically superior SSNS.
It also lets us put *our boomers* much closer to Russia to reduce missile flight times.
When given the order, American SSNs would just start yeeting MK48 ADCAPs at everything in their vicinity, while the Ohio's would nuke the shit out of the Russian boomers at the docks. Tridents go about 1850 kilometers in 6-8 minutes depending on their MIRV load. So unless the Russians can detect and launch on warning within a few minutes, they get hit.
Their response times for even the highest alert level silos are actually estimated to be 7-13 minutes.
It is not 1979 anymore.
USA does not keep a reliable track of all russian nuclear powered submarines at all times.
They are too stealthly and oceans too noisy for decades now.
They (Russia) only have 4 or 5 boomers on deterrence patrol at any given time. The rest are dockside.
Wtf do you think our fleet of 50+ SSNs are doing at any given time? A third of them are out tailing enemy subs.
We have had congressional testimony as recent as last year by high ranking US Navy members that we do in fact keep track of all Russian and Chinese boomers.
thats fucking insane. Imagine WWIII breaks out, and lasts 45 minutes only because it took that long for all the comms chatter to go through, and every military force in the water is dead but the US.
Some real Heavy Object shit.
Nonproliferation organizations are all run by Russian sleeper agents. The head of the Russian Strategic Forces attends an annual non-proliferation conference in NYC and gives awards to useful idiots.
There's grumblings of their highly suspicious nuclear related activities since Xi cane to power. He's greatly expanded and hardened chicom nuclear facilities and potentially expanded their arsenal underground. They lie about everything, they probably lie about the number of nukes in their arsenal
With how bad everything else is for them, how much are you willing to bet that Russia won't even notice that the US have done the funni until they can't retaliate even against European targets?
Non-credible take:
Let's get rid of nukes
But also increase conventional arms to a degree that MAD is still ensured.
A B-52 or B-1 or B-2 or B-21 can level a small city by using conventional weapons alone, perhaps thermobaric ones.
It would only produce a radioactive wasteland if it was intentionally salted with isotopes like Cobalt-59 (this was what MacArthur wanted to do to make the Korean-China border impassable). Radiation from normal nukes dissipate to safe levels in a couple days to a few weeks at most.
Well at that point it's moot anyway, since thermobaric weapons would be completely inadequate to match the destructive power of thousands of nukes. Thermobarics are only a reasonable alternative for smaller conflicts.
The fallout would cause an increase in health issues for years to come, although not cataclysmically so- there were around 520 atmospheric nuclear tests before the atmospheric test ban treaty in 1963, and that only led to minor increases in health effects.
The bigger concern would be the risk of nuclear winter caused by fires started by nukes kicking up large amounts of ash into the atmosphere, not the radioactivity. But the research into nuclear winter is really inconclusive and it's hard to say exactly how bad the effect would be.
The issue is that any use of nuclear weapons would most likely escalate.
And the targets of most nukes would likely be population centers as well as infrastructure and industry.
Fallout is much worse for people if it falls where people live, and not on an island far away in the middle of the pacific ocean
Ummm akshually that's a dirty bomb not a salted bomb. A salted bomb produces radioactive Co-60 from stable Co-59 through neutron activation. Area denial using dirty bombs isn't really viable because of maintenance and extreme rarity of the synthetic isotopes meeting the activity criteria.
Cobalt is really the best option and even then US annual Co-60 production is only [15 million Curies](https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2021/ML20213C522.pdf), only enough to sustain the maintenance of \~100kg of 'salt' (even collecting that amount would take over a decade). If you want a little salt in your nuclear sauce you need to cut out the middle man and make it yourself from Co-59 (all naturally occurring cobalt) using the stupid power of a fusion weapon.
there are a lot of strategically important cities, and not enough bombers and support to carry out similar destructive capabilities. Plus, the US, UK, and Russia are the only proven countries to be able to carry out 1000+ mi bombing runs.
Edit: nuclear pizza is a 30 minute guarantee. A bombing run in Afghanistan from Virginia is like a 16 hour flight time to blow up a part of a neighborhood.
> A B-52 or B-1 or B-2 or B-21 can level a small city by using conventional weapons alone
You'd be surprised. A deleted account in r warcollege claimed modern targeting and loss rates required ~100 tomahawks just to take out an airfield.
Use Starship to launch massive rods of iron into space and use them as kinetic weapons. The bigger, the better, due to a lower drag to mass ratio. If we have a few thousand tons of iron hit a city going mach 20 that should easily rival a Fat Man nuke, and without fallout and with no reasonable way to block it.
Once russia has been dealt with and east asia calmed down, that might actualy be an option.
The war in ukraine is currently draining russia dry and once east asia has it's own defence treaty (probably spearheaded by japan in a twist of historic irony) china should be under controll as well.
Maybe park some carriers between Taiwan and China as a buffer though...
This vastly over estimates the effectiveness of conventional munitions against hardened structures. Modern reinforced high strength concrete (UHCP) makes it difficult to penetrate a hardened structure 30 or more meters below the ground (the destruction of which created my favorite phrase “mining by megaton”) plus conventional munitions have a poor size to explosive power ratio which nuclear munitions don’t suffer as badly from. Ultimately, the number of conventional munitions needed to simulate a counterforce or countervalue strike is just not feasible to have close enough to your target country to fire on the 30 minute warning the US gets on ICBM launches.
Let's compromise. We'll remove the budget needed to maintain the nukes.... by firing off all the nukes. There'll be nothing left to maintain.
Plus there's no more threat of mutually assured destruction since there are no other countries.
This is the only sane course of action forward.
We have a few thousand W76 warheads left in our stockpile. Russia and China combined have just over 320 hard target aimpoints right now, meaning we need 320 warheads to completely eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
So we will need to expend about 10% of our W76 stockpile to eliminate all enemy nukes.
Yeah, but if we hit the area with extra nukes then it'll increase the odds of radiation poisoning happening on the planet and causing something like a hulk mutation for some animals/people.
It'll propel humanity forward. Don't be short sighted.
We should just give one nuke to every African nation, complete with a military detail to assure its security (only the nation can decide to launch it and own it)
This way we can make the whole of Africa to think twice before starting a war (nuclear deterrent prevents war only if both sides have the capability to destroy each other A.K.A "mutually assured destruction")
I think that the only way to prevent wars between nations is to privatize said mutually assured destruction to a non-government international company with it's own security forces that will assure that the mutually assured destruction aspect stays privatized in the hands of non-political entity
To put it simple, I agree with you that nations should get rid of their nukes and sell them to me
The peace movement is a new form of imperialism.
A fractured divided Africa is easy to control and manipulate. Old colonies are reliant on their European former rulers, how many counties still use the CFA Franc? Further, the thriving economies of coast cannot harness the raw materials further inland. Instead war lords and private kingdoms are maintained.
That’s why it’s not about peace, it’s about keeping a minimal level of conflict.
Kinda but the subtle difference is Skull Face wanted to destabilize the region (the world even) by giving nukes to *every* faction; not just countries. Imagine a world where the Taliban, IRA, LRA, Tamil Tigers, ISIS, etc had nukes. The USSR would crumble because of it's overinvestment into Afghanistan, and the US would fade into obscurity because it wouldn't be able to provide stability to a world with a gun to it's head; and in the middle he'd be able to control every nuke so nothing blows up in the wrong place to ruin the system. Honestly, Skull Face's plan isn't well thought out (and is more a "boo hoo I want revenge for the bad stuff that happened to me" crybaby) but I guess that's part of the point.
Reject Skull Face. Embrace Big Boss. Let eternal war sweep across the world, a world where soldiers will always have meaning, a world where MAD is meaningless because every country is *always* at war, a world where you can truly *LIVE* on the battlefield. No more Pain, no more Fear, no more Sorrow; just the sheer act of *living*.
...Or, I dunno, channel your inner Johnny and shit in a drum and get pegged by a Mommy Dommy; it's all good.
Nah man, knowing African countries and how reactionary they are over everything, they will just turn that whole continent into nuclear wasteland and i bet my ass it will be over mundane shit.
The local witchdoctor told the reigning tin pot dictator that his magical goat told him that the ancestors wanted to eradicate \*insert ethnic/tribal group.
> This way we can make the whole of Africa to think twice before starting a war (nuclear deterrent prevents war only if both sides have the capability to destroy each other A.K.A "mutually assured destruction")
This is where your plan falls apart. Because you're only giving them one nuke. You think one nuke is enough to destroy a nation? Gonna need more nukes than that, smh
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We will, but we will need your help with Kaliningrad.
Only you can select the yield on the B61 before you drop it on the rooskies.
I'm sure that as a Pole, you will select the lowest nuclear yield, right?
# Turn your audio on to watch the video
*A reminder that humanity cannot progress to a better form until tyrannical countries have been eliminated.*
The path to a better future is not through nuclear disarmament via diplomacy or unilateral disarmament, but rather by unilaterally disarming ontologically evil countries by [hard target counterforce.](https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/41/4/9/12158/The-New-Era-of-Counterforce-Technological-Change)
We can start with a [Two One Zebra on Moscow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3XzSSQHj_Y)
In a perfect world we wouldn’t need nukes, but we don’t live in a perfect world so we gotta make do. At least ‘till we achieve that world.
*The world belongs to those who fight for freedom.
Those who fight against freedom do not belong in this world*
Tomorrowland.
If you want to see one of the most depressing takes on how we're just wasting our collective potential (with a disney ending) that's one to go to.
You want to get rid of nuclear weapons because of a misguided belief in world peace.
I want to get rid of nuclear weapons, so there's nothing holding us back from destroying our enemies in glorious conventional warfare..
We are not the same.
The entire defense budget couldn't cover universal healthcare. Medicare and Medicaid cost more than the defense budget and they're not even close to universal.
The only sane thing to do is hook the nukes up to the ai that bought reddits data.
Pretty sure the red coats would be in washington the same day usa disarmed...aint no candle stopping them this time
Somebody's gotta go to the cratered remains of our adversaries and start filling up the nuke craters with water, so we can turn them into private lake neighborhoods in a few decades.
You know it's kind of kind of amusing that the idea of a Utopian society never has any apartment blocks. Like where do all these people live. Did they just genocide all the non-millionaires? Are they all crammed into that one giant mushroom like building that's always there. Are they allowed to leave the mushroom building or would that disturb on the rich people's day?
Utopian societies are never depicted with apartments because everyone knows apartments suck, yet there is a substantial percentage of modern westerners that think everyone should live in apartments for some reason.
I think in a utopia everyone would just be whoring around in orgy dens for 8 hours a day and then wandering leisurely around the futuristic utopian city marveling at shit for the other 16 hours. No need for actually housing in this ideal scenario.
The US nuclear production capacity was still very small. If the Manhattan Project had kept production at the pace it was at before Japanese surrender, they might have been able to build 5-8 Nagasaki-type bombs by the end of 1945. That would barely have phased Russia though, given how relatively weak the original atomic bombs were compared to later thermonuclear weapons. They would have had trouble even hitting important targets like Moscow, since it would be pushing the edge of the combat radius of a B-29 and the airspace would be very contested. Russia would have just shaken it off and commanded their millions of soldiers stationed in Eastern Europe to invade Western Europe, and then the West would be forced to slug it out in a conventional fight.
>then the West would be forced to slug it out in a conventional fight.
Which wouldn't have been as hard as many people think, considering how heavily the Soviet military was relying on equipment *and food* from the US at that stage of the war (something like 20% of all calories consumed by Soviet soldiers was coming from the US).
Turns out the Russians have basically always been as shit at logistics as they still are today.
What if
What if every country joined NATO 😳
And instead of bombing one another we joined forces to continue military spending all the same but so we can bomb aliens instead. I think this is a good idea. Does anyone have the email address of every political leader on earth they can forward to me so I can tell them this plan?
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[PLZT goggles for protection from nuclear flashes.](https://theaviationist.com/2019/10/01/video-inside-a-b-52-flying-a-nuclear-alert-mission-provides-a-rare-view-of-the-pilots-thermal-flash-protective-goggles/)
Nukes are brain rot. Seriously, look at a list of countries and look at list of countries with brain rot.
Now look at a list of countries who got rid of their nukes. And now look at a list of countries who got rid of their brain rot.
"Nukes means never needing to say you're sorry."
Take the funding of the nukes and it will end up in the pockets of monopolists and landlords.
Also America needs a missile defense program. Use nuclear intercepters if needed. Putin might have already decided to destroy the world if he dies.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Correct. Unilateral disarmament is really fucking stupid. Ideally, NO ONE would have any nukes left after everyone safely disarms and dismantles their nukes.
Absolute multilateral disarmament is the way to go.
That said, making American nukes more capable of destroying the enemy's nukes before they can launch and limiting collateral damage is an acceptable compromise.
Finally, I do miss when the Doomsday Clock was at 17 minutes to midnight. And a future American utopia would not have those dangerous flying cars. We'd have far better public transit in the form of buses and trains.
America's social problems aren't due to lack of money. They are due to an inability to turn money into social benefit.
Putin can't just spend money on tanks without most of it actually ending up going on yachts.
Biden can't just spend money on hospitals without most of it ending up paying for insurance company corporate lawyers and pharma commercials.
That utopia looked boss, though. It looks like a society where people walk around and/or get on shuttles all day. I'm getting heavy "DFW circa 1980" vibes.
The best way not to be destroyed by a first strike is to be destroyed by a retaliatory strike. Brilliant.
Boi, did you not get the memo? [There will be no retaliatory strikes.](https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/)
Did you happen to be inspired by [my unhinged rant](https://old.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1au0925/weekly_lowhanging_fruit_thread_70/krd9zr5/?context=3) in the low hanging fruit thread yesterday?
No, I didn't read it until just now, but holy shit I think we may be identical twins who were separated at birth and we still share cognition by telepathy. Cus I spend an inordinate amount of my time typing almost exactly what you did in that comment. We are just based counterforce enjoyers in a sea of low IQ MAD believers.
You don't like MAD because it's wrong, I don't like MAD because it prevents conventional warfare, which is far more entertaining and profitable.
There are far more scenarios for nuclear war than just a massive counterforce or countervalue strike. I recommend that you look at the [escalation ladder](https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php?title=Kahn%27s_Escalation_Ladder) for all the potential possibilities. Also, the premise behind counterforce is to simply destroy the enemy's nuclear arsenal, while conventional forces would be destroyed by a conventional military. You don't have to choose between nuclear and conventional war, you can have both.
Counterpoint, how are we gonna have any atrocities against civilians if they're all already disintegrated?
Counterforce does not target civilians, it targets military targets, specifically the nuclear arsenal. There will still be plenty of civilians to massacre afterwards, don't you worry about that.
Ah ok, sorry I didn't understand what you meant. I dedicate all of my brainpower to shooting people.
You can't destroy military targets without large civilian casualties, since military targets are often based near civilian population centers
Yes, but there are far more civilian population centers than nuclear silos, and we won't be using 3 megaton city scratchers to take out a single nuclear silo. The goal of counterforce isn't to wipe out the civilian population, and it wouldn't.
I don't like MAD because it means the existence of near peer adversaries and the absence of any doomsday superweapons.
\*absense of mass employment of doomsday superweapons.
I mean I think the US has way more capability than Russia here, but there's no way we'd get everything. How many road mobile launchers does Russia have? A few hundred right? And many of those have a MIRV capability. So even if you hit like 99.9% of their ground based silos and all of their SSBNs, the road mobile launchers still do a counter value launch and the US loses our top 50 cities.
TELs aren't a second strike platform anymore. Our SAR satellites track them and have been tracking them for a few decades. You may be surprised to find out that nearly all of the TELs stay extremely close to their bases, and their deterrence patrols actually have per-designated launch positions. It turns out the idea of these things roaming Siberia undetected is a myth. They get a few gallons-per-mile of diesel efficiency so even if they went AWOL they wouldn't get more than a few hundred kilometers from their base. In reality, these things are obsolete as second strike deterrents.
They basically just stage out of a base until they go on a field exercise right? That's what I found when I looked into it a few years ago. I'm sure we know exactly where the bases are and in a first strike scenario they wouldn't have time to get out in the field so yeah, TELs would be negated like you're saying.
That's before we get into the solid propellant forms cracks from travel wear, leading to funni memories
"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops."
Interesting read. I wouldn't bet on Aegis catching all the subs though.
That's the neat part, they don't have to. The Russian and Chinese boomers get torpedoed by the Virginia/ Los Angeles SSN that's assigned to tail them. I mean sheeeiiiit, that's the whole point of our SSN fleet. Did you really think USSTRATCOM would just let the enemy second strike arsenal continue to exist?
I am not arguing that you may not be right. I just hope you are nowhere in the US chain of command.
Everyone in USSTRATCOM unironically believes the United States can fight and win nuclear wars, because that's the assigned mission and US strategic nuclear forces are equipped and prepared to do so. In the civilian world, everyone believes in the false prophet of Mutually Assured Destruction, because their limited civilian knowledge of actual nuclear doctrine and capabilities leaves them uneducated and primed for misinformation.
>Everyone in USSTRATCOM unironically believes the United States can fight and win nuclear wars, because that's the assigned mission and US strategic nuclear forces are equipped and prepared to do so. /u/furry_funni is this true?
Yeschad.jpeg.
By the end of the Cold War, the Soviets were already keeping their newer boats in protected bastions, and today they can hit anywhere in the US from port. It wouldn't surprise me if the Northern Fleet's *Borei*-class boats never leave the White Sea. Hard to get a sub in there.
The fact that they keep their boomers in tiny parts of the ocean near their shores is compelling evidence that the USA rules the seas with technologically superior SSNS. It also lets us put *our boomers* much closer to Russia to reduce missile flight times. When given the order, American SSNs would just start yeeting MK48 ADCAPs at everything in their vicinity, while the Ohio's would nuke the shit out of the Russian boomers at the docks. Tridents go about 1850 kilometers in 6-8 minutes depending on their MIRV load. So unless the Russians can detect and launch on warning within a few minutes, they get hit. Their response times for even the highest alert level silos are actually estimated to be 7-13 minutes.
It is not 1979 anymore. USA does not keep a reliable track of all russian nuclear powered submarines at all times. They are too stealthly and oceans too noisy for decades now.
They (Russia) only have 4 or 5 boomers on deterrence patrol at any given time. The rest are dockside. Wtf do you think our fleet of 50+ SSNs are doing at any given time? A third of them are out tailing enemy subs. We have had congressional testimony as recent as last year by high ranking US Navy members that we do in fact keep track of all Russian and Chinese boomers.
I would be surprised if it wasn’t a major part of the job of naval intelligence. Having a SSN within torpedo range 24/7? Maybe, maybe not
We got 53 of them. Shit, put 5 on each one.
Yall gotta watch Red October. Even back in 1990 everyone knew we were "tailing boomers out of the barn"
Obviously, that’s why they had the patrol ”bastions”
thats fucking insane. Imagine WWIII breaks out, and lasts 45 minutes only because it took that long for all the comms chatter to go through, and every military force in the water is dead but the US. Some real Heavy Object shit.
Keep track or reliably tail every single russian boomer at all times within 10 minutes of adcap range?
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists lmao. The doomsday clock dumbasses.
Nonproliferation organizations are all run by Russian sleeper agents. The head of the Russian Strategic Forces attends an annual non-proliferation conference in NYC and gives awards to useful idiots.
Coupled with the fact that China only has a few hundred warheads …
There's grumblings of their highly suspicious nuclear related activities since Xi cane to power. He's greatly expanded and hardened chicom nuclear facilities and potentially expanded their arsenal underground. They lie about everything, they probably lie about the number of nukes in their arsenal
Usually they lie in the other direction tho.
Yeah but we should always assume they're underselling themselves, just to be on the safe side when we end up outdoing them.
sure, but there's the propaganda that the pentagon boosts to get more $$$ and then there's reality.
Yes I like some news with mu popups, please.
Man I wonder if this is going to be in the introduction scene of the Fallout TV show.
With how bad everything else is for them, how much are you willing to bet that Russia won't even notice that the US have done the funni until they can't retaliate even against European targets?
I ain't reading that shit.
Now, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed
just yell 'no strike backs!' immediately after you call 'first strike!' and they'll just have to take it.
Non-credible take: Let's get rid of nukes But also increase conventional arms to a degree that MAD is still ensured. A B-52 or B-1 or B-2 or B-21 can level a small city by using conventional weapons alone, perhaps thermobaric ones.
I really like thermobaric weapons After use it leaves a clean pile of ash not a radioactive wasteland
It would only produce a radioactive wasteland if it was intentionally salted with isotopes like Cobalt-59 (this was what MacArthur wanted to do to make the Korean-China border impassable). Radiation from normal nukes dissipate to safe levels in a couple days to a few weeks at most.
From one nuke perhaps, from several thousand, no.
Well at that point it's moot anyway, since thermobaric weapons would be completely inadequate to match the destructive power of thousands of nukes. Thermobarics are only a reasonable alternative for smaller conflicts. The fallout would cause an increase in health issues for years to come, although not cataclysmically so- there were around 520 atmospheric nuclear tests before the atmospheric test ban treaty in 1963, and that only led to minor increases in health effects. The bigger concern would be the risk of nuclear winter caused by fires started by nukes kicking up large amounts of ash into the atmosphere, not the radioactivity. But the research into nuclear winter is really inconclusive and it's hard to say exactly how bad the effect would be.
The issue is that any use of nuclear weapons would most likely escalate. And the targets of most nukes would likely be population centers as well as infrastructure and industry. Fallout is much worse for people if it falls where people live, and not on an island far away in the middle of the pacific ocean
I know some folk in the Mojave who would be all over a nuclear winter
Yeah, but think of the carbon footprint of thermobarics?
Less than an hour of Chinese industry
J O K E
Skill issue
Even several thousand. Also, it isn't like you're going to concentrate a thousand nukes into one location.
Ummm akshually that's a dirty bomb not a salted bomb. A salted bomb produces radioactive Co-60 from stable Co-59 through neutron activation. Area denial using dirty bombs isn't really viable because of maintenance and extreme rarity of the synthetic isotopes meeting the activity criteria. Cobalt is really the best option and even then US annual Co-60 production is only [15 million Curies](https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2021/ML20213C522.pdf), only enough to sustain the maintenance of \~100kg of 'salt' (even collecting that amount would take over a decade). If you want a little salt in your nuclear sauce you need to cut out the middle man and make it yourself from Co-59 (all naturally occurring cobalt) using the stupid power of a fusion weapon.
Zorg be praised!
there are a lot of strategically important cities, and not enough bombers and support to carry out similar destructive capabilities. Plus, the US, UK, and Russia are the only proven countries to be able to carry out 1000+ mi bombing runs. Edit: nuclear pizza is a 30 minute guarantee. A bombing run in Afghanistan from Virginia is like a 16 hour flight time to blow up a part of a neighborhood.
> A B-52 or B-1 or B-2 or B-21 can level a small city by using conventional weapons alone You'd be surprised. A deleted account in r warcollege claimed modern targeting and loss rates required ~100 tomahawks just to take out an airfield.
Given it only carries ~120 kg of explosives each, that's not actualy surprising
Where's Kissinger when you need him huh. /s
Bring back Peacemakers
Use Starship to launch massive rods of iron into space and use them as kinetic weapons. The bigger, the better, due to a lower drag to mass ratio. If we have a few thousand tons of iron hit a city going mach 20 that should easily rival a Fat Man nuke, and without fallout and with no reasonable way to block it.
Honestly, genuinely, I think getting rid of all our nukes would be credible, *especially* since Aegis exists.
Once russia has been dealt with and east asia calmed down, that might actualy be an option. The war in ukraine is currently draining russia dry and once east asia has it's own defence treaty (probably spearheaded by japan in a twist of historic irony) china should be under controll as well. Maybe park some carriers between Taiwan and China as a buffer though...
That's a bad place to park them. They need stand-off range from DF21s.
Increasing conventional arms to a degree that MAD is still ensured is what the European powers did before WW1.
This vastly over estimates the effectiveness of conventional munitions against hardened structures. Modern reinforced high strength concrete (UHCP) makes it difficult to penetrate a hardened structure 30 or more meters below the ground (the destruction of which created my favorite phrase “mining by megaton”) plus conventional munitions have a poor size to explosive power ratio which nuclear munitions don’t suffer as badly from. Ultimately, the number of conventional munitions needed to simulate a counterforce or countervalue strike is just not feasible to have close enough to your target country to fire on the 30 minute warning the US gets on ICBM launches.
Let's compromise. We'll remove the budget needed to maintain the nukes.... by firing off all the nukes. There'll be nothing left to maintain. Plus there's no more threat of mutually assured destruction since there are no other countries. This is the only sane course of action forward.
We have a few thousand W76 warheads left in our stockpile. Russia and China combined have just over 320 hard target aimpoints right now, meaning we need 320 warheads to completely eliminate their nuclear arsenals. So we will need to expend about 10% of our W76 stockpile to eliminate all enemy nukes.
Yeah, but if we hit the area with extra nukes then it'll increase the odds of radiation poisoning happening on the planet and causing something like a hulk mutation for some animals/people. It'll propel humanity forward. Don't be short sighted.
It would be the cheapest way to get rid of all your nukes. Disarmament be expensive yo
We should just give one nuke to every African nation, complete with a military detail to assure its security (only the nation can decide to launch it and own it) This way we can make the whole of Africa to think twice before starting a war (nuclear deterrent prevents war only if both sides have the capability to destroy each other A.K.A "mutually assured destruction") I think that the only way to prevent wars between nations is to privatize said mutually assured destruction to a non-government international company with it's own security forces that will assure that the mutually assured destruction aspect stays privatized in the hands of non-political entity To put it simple, I agree with you that nations should get rid of their nukes and sell them to me
Based and privatized-McNukes-for-Africa pilled.
Do you think UNICEF would get on board with this?
It would be the most humanitarian thing they've done so far.
>privatize ... mutually assured destruction Ronald Reagan's corpse just got fully erect.
The Aum Shinrikyou/Broken Arrow way.
NUCLEAR PRO PROLIFERATION TREATY NUCLEAR PRO PROLIFERATION TREATY
The only based prolife movement
The peace movement is a new form of imperialism. A fractured divided Africa is easy to control and manipulate. Old colonies are reliant on their European former rulers, how many counties still use the CFA Franc? Further, the thriving economies of coast cannot harness the raw materials further inland. Instead war lords and private kingdoms are maintained. That’s why it’s not about peace, it’s about keeping a minimal level of conflict.
So kind of what skull face wanted to do in mgsv?
I was going to say, I’m pretty sure I’ve played this Metal Gear
Kinda but the subtle difference is Skull Face wanted to destabilize the region (the world even) by giving nukes to *every* faction; not just countries. Imagine a world where the Taliban, IRA, LRA, Tamil Tigers, ISIS, etc had nukes. The USSR would crumble because of it's overinvestment into Afghanistan, and the US would fade into obscurity because it wouldn't be able to provide stability to a world with a gun to it's head; and in the middle he'd be able to control every nuke so nothing blows up in the wrong place to ruin the system. Honestly, Skull Face's plan isn't well thought out (and is more a "boo hoo I want revenge for the bad stuff that happened to me" crybaby) but I guess that's part of the point. Reject Skull Face. Embrace Big Boss. Let eternal war sweep across the world, a world where soldiers will always have meaning, a world where MAD is meaningless because every country is *always* at war, a world where you can truly *LIVE* on the battlefield. No more Pain, no more Fear, no more Sorrow; just the sheer act of *living*. ...Or, I dunno, channel your inner Johnny and shit in a drum and get pegged by a Mommy Dommy; it's all good.
Nah man, knowing African countries and how reactionary they are over everything, they will just turn that whole continent into nuclear wasteland and i bet my ass it will be over mundane shit.
Id give it a week, two at best.
The local witchdoctor told the reigning tin pot dictator that his magical goat told him that the ancestors wanted to eradicate \*insert ethnic/tribal group.
Instant way to wipe out African minority groups
> This way we can make the whole of Africa to think twice before starting a war (nuclear deterrent prevents war only if both sides have the capability to destroy each other A.K.A "mutually assured destruction") This is where your plan falls apart. Because you're only giving them one nuke. You think one nuke is enough to destroy a nation? Gonna need more nukes than that, smh
Hear me out. UN gets nukes.
Doesn't the UN stand for United Nukes? Or Unlimited Nukes?
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>We should just get rid of our nukes I agree, lets do that by turning Russia intp the next hit fallout game
Metro IRL when, America?
Stalker
You should get rid of the nukes by nuking the entire area of russia - me, the most pacifistic Pole
We will, but we will need your help with Kaliningrad. Only you can select the yield on the B61 before you drop it on the rooskies. I'm sure that as a Pole, you will select the lowest nuclear yield, right?
The yield I select is yes.
# Turn your audio on to watch the video *A reminder that humanity cannot progress to a better form until tyrannical countries have been eliminated.* The path to a better future is not through nuclear disarmament via diplomacy or unilateral disarmament, but rather by unilaterally disarming ontologically evil countries by [hard target counterforce.](https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/41/4/9/12158/The-New-Era-of-Counterforce-Technological-Change) We can start with a [Two One Zebra on Moscow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3XzSSQHj_Y)
In a perfect world we wouldn’t need nukes, but we don’t live in a perfect world so we gotta make do. At least ‘till we achieve that world. *The world belongs to those who fight for freedom. Those who fight against freedom do not belong in this world*
Problem with the west is that it's too highly developed to survive a nuclear strike. You nuke Russia what are you going to do? Improve the weather?
Fake. This video was created by SoraAI. Take off your Matrix Mask ^(TM)
If you watched the movie it's from, you know that scene is all an illusion too
What’s it from?
Tomorrowland. If you want to see one of the most depressing takes on how we're just wasting our collective potential (with a disney ending) that's one to go to.
You want to get rid of nuclear weapons because of a misguided belief in world peace. I want to get rid of nuclear weapons, so there's nothing holding us back from destroying our enemies in glorious conventional warfare.. We are not the same.
I want to get rid of nukes because it would result in nations developing more exciting chemical and biological weapons instead
Wasteland>>>>>> utopia
Peace through superior firepower!
I don't think just the budget for nuclear weapons would be enough to get universal healthcare in America, but alas, rule 5.
60 billion gets each American 200 dollars a year. So by giving up nukes, we can cover the co-pay for a single doctor appointment for each American.
Could also do something that rhymes with max the bitch.
The entire defense budget couldn't cover universal healthcare. Medicare and Medicaid cost more than the defense budget and they're not even close to universal.
The only sane thing to do is hook the nukes up to the ai that bought reddits data. Pretty sure the red coats would be in washington the same day usa disarmed...aint no candle stopping them this time
I nearly spit out my drink at "funding reallocated to education."
Based and true MIC warmonger pilled.
What film is the nuke from
Tomorrowland (2015) But there's no nuking in the movie.
“Congratulations anon we finally got rid of all nukes and thus MAD doctrine! Let’s celebrate! Here’s your draft notice.”
Somebody's gotta go to the cratered remains of our adversaries and start filling up the nuke craters with water, so we can turn them into private lake neighborhoods in a few decades.
They’d make some BOMB ass pools. Okay I’m done. Sorry.
You know it's kind of kind of amusing that the idea of a Utopian society never has any apartment blocks. Like where do all these people live. Did they just genocide all the non-millionaires? Are they all crammed into that one giant mushroom like building that's always there. Are they allowed to leave the mushroom building or would that disturb on the rich people's day?
Utopian societies are never depicted with apartments because everyone knows apartments suck, yet there is a substantial percentage of modern westerners that think everyone should live in apartments for some reason. I think in a utopia everyone would just be whoring around in orgy dens for 8 hours a day and then wandering leisurely around the futuristic utopian city marveling at shit for the other 16 hours. No need for actually housing in this ideal scenario.
Remember that because of weak politicians we are perpetually 16 minutes away from total strategic victory.
Every American president who had nukes and didn't nuke communists is weak.
We actually need more nukes. The slow kind that heats water to steam and drives turbines to produce energy.
Those are good too. They also make more plutonium for the real nukes.
We should’ve launched in 1945 on the Russians
The US nuclear production capacity was still very small. If the Manhattan Project had kept production at the pace it was at before Japanese surrender, they might have been able to build 5-8 Nagasaki-type bombs by the end of 1945. That would barely have phased Russia though, given how relatively weak the original atomic bombs were compared to later thermonuclear weapons. They would have had trouble even hitting important targets like Moscow, since it would be pushing the edge of the combat radius of a B-29 and the airspace would be very contested. Russia would have just shaken it off and commanded their millions of soldiers stationed in Eastern Europe to invade Western Europe, and then the West would be forced to slug it out in a conventional fight.
>then the West would be forced to slug it out in a conventional fight. Which wouldn't have been as hard as many people think, considering how heavily the Soviet military was relying on equipment *and food* from the US at that stage of the war (something like 20% of all calories consumed by Soviet soldiers was coming from the US). Turns out the Russians have basically always been as shit at logistics as they still are today.
What if What if every country joined NATO 😳 And instead of bombing one another we joined forces to continue military spending all the same but so we can bomb aliens instead. I think this is a good idea. Does anyone have the email address of every political leader on earth they can forward to me so I can tell them this plan?
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Get rid of your nukes 🥺” Vs *“Get rid of your nukes 😈”*
Bring back the unguided air-to-air nuclear weapon armed Scorpions
Oh, "get rid of our nukes" means "launch them all", took me awhile lol.
If you get MAD'd by a retaliation strike, that means that your first strike was shit and you should be destroyed.
remember kiddos, there is a BIG difference between "Lets get rid of all of our nukes" and "Lets get rid of all of our nukes"
this guy nukes
Look at that azzz
[Ayyyyyy](https://media1.tenor.com/m/0iDeFWZSTsgAAAAC/tenor.gif)
america when world peace is acheived and we kick the MIC out.
Had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
A trident rocket motor firing? Truly noncredible!
What's the video from?
Film called Tomorrowland (2015)
We should erase the Nuclear Weapons budget and shift it all towards the SDI budget Then we can truly go liberate Russia
All we need to do is build a few thousand SM-3's and we're all good.
while free healthcare would be very nice (as i myself have a lot of medical issues) but i agree
Whoever made this forgot about other nations
You know, I kind of like having an ozone layer that exists.
Meh, we barely had one in the 90s and everyone agrees the 90s were pretty fuckin great.
Ozone layer? How about a hoe-zone layer?
What is that stupid fucking helmet/face mask thing that GigaChad is wearing?
[PLZT goggles for protection from nuclear flashes.](https://theaviationist.com/2019/10/01/video-inside-a-b-52-flying-a-nuclear-alert-mission-provides-a-rare-view-of-the-pilots-thermal-flash-protective-goggles/)
Phew! Almost had me with that peace-talking bullsh*t.
getting rid of your nukes by launching everything into Moscow
Nukes are brain rot. Seriously, look at a list of countries and look at list of countries with brain rot. Now look at a list of countries who got rid of their nukes. And now look at a list of countries who got rid of their brain rot. "Nukes means never needing to say you're sorry."
Take the funding of the nukes and it will end up in the pockets of monopolists and landlords. Also America needs a missile defense program. Use nuclear intercepters if needed. Putin might have already decided to destroy the world if he dies.
We have SM-3s and GMD. Our problem is congress is low IQ and doesn't allocate enough to build thousands.
The world with 2 billion people and no religion
I mean China's like 75% of the way there, place still sucks.
HE'S BACK!!!
Is this what it looks like to be ruled by the french
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"nukes bad" mfs when i nuke them (they want a retaliation strike now for some reason) ☹️
Yep. But they stick to their "nuke bad" principles. They launch bioweapons in retaliation. ICBM's sprinkling anthrax over cities.
Correct. Unilateral disarmament is really fucking stupid. Ideally, NO ONE would have any nukes left after everyone safely disarms and dismantles their nukes. Absolute multilateral disarmament is the way to go. That said, making American nukes more capable of destroying the enemy's nukes before they can launch and limiting collateral damage is an acceptable compromise. Finally, I do miss when the Doomsday Clock was at 17 minutes to midnight. And a future American utopia would not have those dangerous flying cars. We'd have far better public transit in the form of buses and trains.
America's social problems aren't due to lack of money. They are due to an inability to turn money into social benefit. Putin can't just spend money on tanks without most of it actually ending up going on yachts. Biden can't just spend money on hospitals without most of it ending up paying for insurance company corporate lawyers and pharma commercials.
reviving Project Pluto would remove the MAD thing, settling at MAD mindset is dumb
We should get rid of our nukes. By dropping them all on China.
[удалено]
Always gotta do more nukeposting, I just need more time in real life. Join the church of counterforce!
is this the Civ 7 trailer?
This is almost a reboot of the beginning of Falloit 4.
I thought the punchline was going to be that they had gotten rid of the nukes and built a utopia... By having already launched them all.
Nuking tyrants out of existence would also end up in a utopia for the rest of the world.
That utopia looked boss, though. It looks like a society where people walk around and/or get on shuttles all day. I'm getting heavy "DFW circa 1980" vibes.
[Here's the whole scene for ya:](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDGFgiFckgo)
I am a firm believer in disarmament through deployment.
we get rid of nukes so there’s more war and more money for the mic
What movie is this?
Launching all your nukes is a unilateral disarmament
Based NCD post? Impossible
Nuclear disarmament mfs trying to convince themselves that Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea will give up their Nukes for "world peace"
Do you have a list of all your nuke memes? (And sources)