Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

They were used in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

 

No...

[GostHacked]

6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No...

 

Which part is incorrect?

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, GostHacked said:

 

Which part is incorrect?

 

 

 

Your claim that nukes were used...anywhere outside Japan. List them for us, will you? No doubt there is also video of such a spectacular event. As well, the satellites would have spotted it...Russian ones as well as American...so provide a link to those reports.

Do that, I might believe your insane claim.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Your claim that nukes were used...anywhere outside Japan. List them for us, will you? No doubt there is also video of such a spectacular event. As well, the satellites would have spotted it...Russian ones as well as American...so provide a link to those reports.

Do that, I might believe your insane claim.

That was not the claim, because we know that many countries used nukes after Japan, for testing.

Also these tactical nukes don't behave like your city leveling nuke.

 

But at least you are not telling me DU was never used.

[DogOnPorch]

20 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

That was not the claim, because we know that many countries used nukes after Japan, for testing.

Also these tactical nukes don't behave like your city leveling nuke.

 

But at least you are not telling me DU was never used.

 

Your claim is 100% bullsh!t and you haven't a clue how nuclear weapons work.

Either provide proof of the use of nuclear weapons outside Japan (not tests) or own your silly lie.

[Dougie93]

Depleted uranium is an Radiological Weapon, nuclear weapons begin at the point of critical mass, single stage plutonium implosion, and/or two stage plutonium implosion to incite lithium deuteride fusion.

Single stage; nuclear  (Fat Man at Nagasaki)

Two stage; thermonuclear. (Castle Bravo at Eniwetok)

There is a third option, single stage uranium "shotgun" critical mass (Little Boy at Hiroshima), but it's so inefficient,  it is likely only non state actors would employ that method now.

Basically, the Manhattan Project went on two parallel tracks, Little Boy was one, Fat Man was the other, through trial and error they found out that uranium was expensive and difficult and inefficient, while plutonium was cheap and easy, so they ditched the Little Boy model and simply expended the prototype down range into Aioi Bridge hypercenter Hiroshima.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Dougie93

[DogOnPorch]

28 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Depleted uranium is an Radiological Weapon, nuclear weapons begin at the point of critical mass, single stage plutonium implosion, and/or two stage plutonium implosion to incite lithium deuteride fusion.

Single stage; nuclear  (Fat Man at Nagasaki)

Two stage; thermonuclear. (Castle Bravo at Eniwetok)

There is a third option, single stage uranium "shotgun" critical mass (Little Boy at Hiroshima), but it's so inefficient,  it is likely only non state actors would employ that method now.

Basically, the Manhattan Project went on two parallel tracks, Little Boy was one, Fat Man was the other, through trial and error they found out that uranium was expensive and difficult and inefficient, while plutonium was cheap and easy, so they ditched the Little Boy model and simply expended the prototype down range into Aioi Bridge hypercenter Hiroshima.

 

You get more radiation from your fillings than from U-238. There's a reason it's called depleted.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

You get more radiation from your fillings than from U-238. There's a reason it's called depleted.

The radiological effect is upon impact, as tungsten is not incendiary while uranium is, the radiologic is heat, not neutrons,

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

The radiological effect is upon impact, as tungsten is not incendiary while uranium is, the radiologic is heat, not neutrons,

 

Wiggle all you like: the claim is that 'tactical nukes' have been used since 1945. If you also believe this, you can go sit with GH in the kookoo box.

[Dougie93]

To wit, if you take a hit from a German DM63 APFSDS-T, that hits hard, but not that hot.  If you get hit by an M829, that hits hard, and hot, nuclear hot.

 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Wiggle all you like: the claim is that 'tactical nukes' have been used since 1945. If you also believe this, you can go sit with GH in the kookoo box.

Tactical nukes have been used as what is called an "enabler",  the presence of the weapons effecting the battle space nary a shot fired.

Example, the Russians have just used tactical nukes in Crimea, as per the aforementioned Deescalation method, as a shield rather than a sword.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

To wit, if you take a hit from a German DM63 APFSDS-T, that hits hard, but not that hot.  If you get hit by an M829, that hits hard, and hot, nuclear hot.

 

 

Nuke: 

 

Not a nuke:

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Tactical nukes have been used as what is called an "enabler",  the presence of the weapons effecting the battle space nary a shot fired.

Example, the Russians have just used tactical nukes in Crimea, as per the aforementioned Deescalation method, as a shield rather than a sword.

 

No they didn't.

[DogOnPorch]

Atom Bomb 101 for those in need.

For BC-2004...a good shot of the USS Mindoro CVE-120 at the 2:40 mark.

Edited January 21, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Dougie93]

The Russians also employ tactical nuclear weapons at Kaliningrad, again, as a shield.

Basically, anything of strategic interest, which you would none the less not wish to defend with your strategic deterrent, can be defended by tactical nuclear weapons in situ.

Defensive is employment, employment is usage, ergo, tac nukes are used all the time.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

The Russians also employ tactical nuclear weapons at Kaliningrad, again, as a shield.

Basically, anything of strategic interest, which you would none the less not wish to defend with your strategic deterrent, can be defended by tactical nuclear weapons in situ.

Defensive is employment, employment is usage, ergo, tac nukes are used all the time.

 

No worries. GH was pretty lonely in that box.

[Dougie93]

The Americans also employ tactical nuclear weapons, along with opacity, so for example when a US Navy Carrier Strike Group passes through the China Seas freedom of navigation, it is not at that distance under the strategic deterrent of the CONUS, the PLA however must assume tactical nuclear weapons to be in situ, and so the CSG is hauling its own tactical deterrent around with it as it goes.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

48 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No they didn't.

You just seem to have a very limited view of usage.   Weapons are employed exponentially beyond  mere expenditure downrange.

For example, a cavalry screen is weapons employment, but not simply limited to joint fires expended, the usage is to screen to allow maneuver, even if that is nary a shot fired, which is actually optimal, that is still employment and therefore usage of a cavalry weapon system.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No worries. GH was pretty lonely in that box.

There is only one box, and that is the Permanent War which the Americans articulate in light of government by war measure, Article II Executive Order.

Said thermonuclear war is always in progress, it is simply what is called a Frozen Conflict, while it currently remains at 15 minutes notice to launch on warning.

By any military measure, 15 minutes notice to move is not peacetime.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Dougie93

[DogOnPorch]

Test Shot Redwing Navajo (Bikini Atoll, June 1956: 4.5 megatons or 300 Hiroshimas)

One of the 'cleanest' detonations at 95% fusion...but also a good example of what was known as a 'dead-end design' in the H-Bomb building business. It couldn't be made smaller...and smaller was the objective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Redwing

 

[Iznogoud]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

Test Shot Redwing Navajo (Bikini Atoll, June 1956: 4.5 megatons or 300 Hiroshimas)

One of the 'cleanest' detonations at 95% fusion...but also a good example of what was known as a 'dead-end design' in the H-Bomb building business. It couldn't be made smaller...and smaller was the objective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Redwing

 

Ever Watch "Trinity and Beyond?" It is an illuminating documentary on the nuclear arms race up to the 1960s.  It is available on Youtube. 

[Dougie93]

The pink healthy glow of Redwing Navajo

Then ten days later,  the prince of darkness, Redwing Tewa, 87% fission.

The doomsday physics package, three stage boosted, fission-fusion-fusion-fission, mein Fuhrer.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Dougie93

[DogOnPorch]

Actually, Tewa led to another dead end design called the B41...the only three stage weapon deployed by the USA.

The success story of Redwing was the development of the B28 which was a multi-yield device...used by Canada even.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B28_nuclear_bomb

 

7 hours ago, Iznogoud said:

Ever Watch "Trinity and Beyond?" It is an illuminating documentary on the nuclear arms race up to the 1960s.  It is available on Youtube. 

 

Yes, indeed.

Trinity is a good introduction for anybody interested in nuclear weapons. But it doesn't cover a lot of details, unfortunately. Nor does it cover non-American designs.

Joe 4, for example...the Soviet's first boosted weapon...not quite an H-Bomb. Test 6 was Red China's... Grapple Y was Great Britain's...etc.

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Of course, though, Redwing Tewa was one Hell of an explosion.

[Dougie93]

I don't find the Tewa physics package to be a dead end per se, it was simply too horrific a weapon for the Americans to use.

I could see other nuclear powers aspiring to fission-fusion-fusion-fission, North Korea comes to mind