Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

[Dougie93]

Very plausible.  Most likely cause of a countervalue exchange is a launch on false warning, and not by nor under the control of America.

If that happens, the northern hemisphere will be devastated for decades to come.

Safest place on the earth in the event of by the prevailing winds, will be Cuidad del Este on the banks of the Paraná in Paraguay, which is likely where the banking sector will flee to.

This is because the H-bomb is way overkill, it just rains back down on you by prevailing winds.

Hence why N-Bomb. 

"Peace Through Strength" ~ Curtis LeMay

[Dougie93]

America is already moving towards this eventuality, all the high yield countervalue warheads are being removed from the arsenal, the bombs are getting smaller, more accurate.

The reason is that America is moving towards a total counterforce option, no countervalue with uranium casing because that will just rain back down on the CONUS.

N-bomb will be a logical step in this process.

America will cease to target industrial assets at all, targeting only the warfighting capability of the adversary regime, and workers who uphold it.

 

[JamesHackerMP]

Do you think that removing countervalue strategy (targeting cities, etc) and replacing it with counterforce is a good thing or no?

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Do you think that removing countervalue strategy (targeting cities, etc) and replacing it with counterforce is a good thing or no?

In the context of an America which will never by its nature accept mutual vulnerability, and which as a people have no desire to be the cause of Cormac McCarthy's The Road, it is essentially the only way, barring capitulation from the other nuclear powers in the face of it.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Bear in mind, America is winning, America is going to win it all, all the slaves everywhere will be freed, the world will be made into America.

Its just a question of getting through this transitional phase, blocked by launch of warning hair trigger alert.

If the breach of launch of warning can be averted, Peace Through Strength, then I would expect America to set off for the stars, eventually at relativistic velocity.

I mean, there really hasn't been any peace since the First World War, launch on warning is a frozen conflict, but it doesn't have to be, once liberty is secure, stand down.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Dougie93

[DogOnPorch]

Good vid of the mini-shot Buster-Jangle Sugar...

1.5 kilotons...more a test of the 60 point implosion method than any attempt to break yield records, I believe. The old way used 32 points. Later led to the Mk-VI bomb with variable pit sizes for variable yields...up to 160 kt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Buster–Jangle

[Dougie93]

Pop a neutron bomb at that yield above the target and you're back into 1950's style battlefield nuke options again, minus the fallout.

Fries the crews inside the tanks, a whole regiment at a time.

 

[DogOnPorch]

54 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Pop a neutron bomb at that yield above the target and you're back into 1950's style battlefield nuke options again, minus the fallout.

Fries the crews inside the tanks, a whole regiment at a time.

 

 

The big issue with N-Bombs is their inability to function properly in high humidity. The hydrogen in water captures/scatters neutrons. So if it's rainy, foggy, muggy, etc...the efficiency to irradiate drops-off considerably. So while under ideal conditions the N-bomb is all that you describe...different story under less-than-ideal conditions.

[Dougie93]

23 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The big issue with N-Bombs is their inability to function properly in high humidity. The hydrogen in water captures/scatters neutrons. So if it's rainy, foggy, muggy, etc...the efficiency to irradiate drops-off considerably. So while under ideal conditions the N-bomb is all that you describe...different story under less-than-ideal conditions.

Well, they've only ever built tactical N-bombs, according to Mordecai Vanunu the Israelis have a large stockpile, but he doesn't say what yield, so I'm guessing tank busters if it's Israel.

The N-bomb envisioned by Cohen was 100 kiloton yield, and Cohen asserts that the W70 and W66, while ERW's, are not the N-Bomb which he designed.

Moreover, it's not like an N-Bomb does no thermal/blast damage at all, it's still a nuke, it's just a clean one.

If you're standing in a city and an N-bomb goes off over the buildings above, you're dead, by more radiation than just neutrons.

Like being cooked in a microwave, gamma rays, x-rays, thermal, third degree burns every cell in the body.

The N-Bomb can also be brought closer to the surface while still generating massively less fallout than an uranium encased.

So the N-bomb more than fulfills the unacceptable causalities infliction function, while being a much more flexible response weapon at the operational level

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[DogOnPorch]

Can you imagine how much Plutonium/Tritium you'd need to get a 100 kt yield without a neutron reflector?

A lot, I'd suspect!

Cohen even agreed that the W70 warhead at 100 kt wouldn't be an enhanced radiation device as the blast would again be the primary vector of destruction.

Anyways...100 kt N-Bomb kinda defeats the idea of N-Bombs. The whole idea was this thing was exploding next to Frankfurt or raining down on Fulda without destroying most of the infrastructure. To boot, Russians started building all their domestic tanks with boronated polyethylene liners that pretty much defeats the whole concept of blunting armored thrusts with Neutron bombs. Ironically, tanks protected by depleted uranium might undergo fast fission when exposed to an N-Bomb's effects as the U-238 is fissionable when struck with high energy neutrons like those from tritium fusion.

Now, it's not like these things don't work at all...it's just they're not the super weapon envisioned at the time.

[Dougie93]

The N-bomb is still a nuke,  nobody ever said it wasn't going to do damage, the point is to do it with minimal fallout.

ERW is 10% yield of a bomb with reflecting tamper, so a 1 megaton yield worth of fissionable would produce equivalent  to 100 Kt, but ERW, with tritium boosting,  needs less plutonium.

ERW is 80% radiation by yield, which means the heat blast effect is only 20%, so equivalent to 20 kiloton blast/heat.

20Kt is not a big blast in a theater to strategic context, that's not going to generate a large plume of fallout, particularly when detonated from above, particularly with no U-238 casing

Bear in mind the tactical N-bomb was intended to spare civilians, but I'm not intending that, just tamping down all the radioactive plumes to manageable rather than end of civilization or at the very least end of it in the northern hemisphere.

Like, Redwing Navajo is 95% fusion, but at 5 megatons that's a big mushroom cloud for the remaining 5% fission.

High yield ERW would be like 80% fusion, but then only a 20 kiloton mushroom cloud, which is minimal plume for that fission,  in the grand scheme of things.

In essence, H-bomb casualties with A-bomb blast radius and as such containable fallout downrange, fallout like in Las Vegas rather than on Eniwetok.

In terms of tactical N-bombs, with the PGM capability now, you could actually take targets down with salvos of neutron bombs. 

The idea of popping hundreds of neutron bombs horrified the West Germans of course, but for civilization writ large, it's better than hundreds of hydrogen bombs.

The high yield ERW is the countervalue deterrent, the tactical ERW is for counterforce, but that could include a cluster of N-bombs on a regime target, decapitation.

In the end, barring exchange on the Subcontinent, only the Northern Hemisphere is really at civilizational level risk.

As I say, based on the prevailing winds, Ciudad del Este on the banks of the Paranha in Paraguay; is the safest place on earth, and the internet is nuke proof, by design, so things will carry on in the Southern Hemisphere, so long as the fallout is contained to Chernobyl levels rather than Comac McCarthy's The Road.

Cohen was right, he was just a little utopian about what could be saved, ERW is indeed the humane option, but for the purposes of preserving civilization, the hapless souls in the neutron flash will of course be cooked in their own juices to death.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Dougie93

[GostHacked]

So when are the bombs going to drop?

[Dougie93]

I would say the most likely vector is misapprehension, miscalculation and mistake, in the fog of war, one side or the other will launch on false warning.

Could happen tomorrow, could happen decades from now.

I believe the closest we've ever been was in 1979, when the Americans reportedly came 2 minutes 12 seconds away from a massive retaliation against the Soviets based  on a false alarm, which was due to a garbage in garbage out computer data entry human error.

[DogOnPorch]

Seems the US has decided to pull out of the INF Treaty due to Russian intransigence. Trump's critics blame him, of course. But the fact is that Russia hadn't been paying much if any attention as of late to this Reagan era treaty...which Reagan's critics on the left didn't like at the time, naturally.

But, fast forward to today...the left of modern times apparently love this treaty...they're not sure what it is...but if Trump 'tore it up', it has to be good...right?

Edited February 2, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Dougie93]

China is not signatory, so it kind of renders the INF treaty moot, since both the Americans and the Russians are China's adversaries, and so neither can allow China to have dominance of the INF spectrum. 

On the bright side, most of what China has is INF, which makes war more likely, but destruction of the CONUS therein far less likely.  China v USA is a RIMPAC war.

In terms of the Russians cruise missile, pretty obviously not a "480km" ranged weapon, since it is the size of a TLAM.

In terms of TLAMs, the Aegis Ashore BMD can also load TLAM's, so the Americans were breaking the treaty first when Obama switched from THAADS to RIM-161, the Russians simply responded in kind.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

In broad strokes, Cold War Two kicked off when the Bush Administration withdrew from the 1972 ABM treaty so America could pursue Ballistic Missile Defense.

BMD asserts that you are preparing to fight and win a theater thermonuclear war.   INF is for theater thermonuclear war, so ABM will incite INF.

Obama made it INF when he put the naval weapons which were exempt from INF unto the land, making them INF restricted.

Thus, Bush and Obama took the pillars down like one domino knocking down the next in sequence.

Trump has inherited all this. So far he hasn't done much.  Which is fine by me.  Don't poke it with a stick, unless you are prepared to go all the way.

[eyeball]

On 2/2/2019 at 10:50 AM, DogOnPorch said:

Seems the US has decided to pull out of the INF Treaty due to Russian intransigence. Trump's critics blame him, of course. But the fact is that Russia hadn't been paying much if any attention as of late to this Reagan era treaty...which Reagan's critics on the left didn't like at the time, naturally.

But, fast forward to today...the left of modern times apparently love this treaty...they're not sure what it is...but if Trump 'tore it up', it has to be good...right?

Okay, I'll bite, you're saying lefties were against reducing the numbers of nuclear arms in the world - up until now that is?  

I'm not surprised Oftenwrong agrees with this retarded notion but I wonder what other people think?

Edited February 4, 2019 by eyeball

[Dougie93]

The left is invoking "Russia! Russia!! Russia!!!" in a classic McCarthyist Red Scare paradigm. 

This will not reduce the number of nuclear arms in the world.

Quite the opposite is the case, as the Russians have not only breached INF in the face of a new Red Scare paradigm whipped up against them, they've also begun to breach START.

The Russians have exceeded 1550 strategic warheads on alert and are at well over 2000 already, more on the way.

Was the left who invoked it last time as well.  

Eisenhower said "MICC, calm down", to which Kennedy said "Soft on communism! Bomber Gap! Missile Gap! West Berlin! Indochina!"

In order to win a domestic election, the left whipped up an hysterical monster, which promptly spun out of their control.

Dwight Eisenhower tried to stop them.  Barry Goldwater tried to stop them.  In the end it was Richard Nixon who stopped them, upon the Great Wall of China.

Was Tricky Dick who won the Cold War, nary a shot fired, divide and conquer.  Ronald Reagan was simply the beneficiary.

Now the leftists are back, whipping up a Cold War Two on the Inner Ukrainian Border, which is of course folly, but entirely predictable; thanks Obama.

Same thing happened in Canada, Diefenbaker sided with Eisenhower, the Liberals went with Kennedy, just as they went with Obama.

Now you've got Canadian boots on the ground, in a thermonuclear no mans land, on both sides of the trace, thanks Chrystia Freeland.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Dougie93

[DogOnPorch]

One of the main critters in question re: the INF is this l'il devil...the SS-26 Stone (NATO)...aka the 9K720 Iskander M.

This weapon is somewhere between a cruise missile and a ballistic missile...fast...maneuvers while in flight...stays in the atmosphere...packs a huge wallop for the size. An (approx) 50 kt to 400 kt nuclear warhead...roughly 27 Hiroshimas on the high end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander

 

 

On 2/4/2019 at 10:51 AM, eyeball said:

Okay, I'll bite, you're saying lefties were against reducing the numbers of nuclear arms in the world - up until now that is?  

I'm not surprised Oftenwrong agrees with this retarded notion but I wonder what other people think?

 

You don't have a clue as to what it is...let alone what end of a rocket to light. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

You don't have a clue as to what it is... 

I know what the left is. You said we were opposed to the treaty Gorbachev and Reagan negotiated - a flat out retarded statement if there ever was one.

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I know what the left is. You said we were opposed to the treaty Gorbachev and Reagan negotiated - a flat out retarded statement if there ever was one.

 

I was unaware that you represented the left in its entirety. 

My point stands. 

Prog #1: What's an INF??

Prog #2: Dunno...Trump tore it up.

Prog #3: That bastard. He'll nuke us all!

Con Dumb #1: How does that fit with your collusion claims??

Prog #3: Shut up!!

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I was unaware that you represented the left in its entirety. 

I don't. I'm quite certain however your mis-characterization of the left is universal.

Quote

My point stands.

On its head as usual.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I don't. I'm quite certain however your mis-characterization of the left is universal.

On its head as usual.

 

Now you know what an Iskander M is...go tell your friends.

[Dougie93]

Indeed, the Iskander M is likely an INF, but the Russians simply publish its range at being sub 500km, so long as it is ostensibly short range, Intermediate is not invoked.

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Indeed, the Iskander M is likely an INF, but the Russians simply publish its range at being sub 500km, so long as it is ostensibly short range, Intermediate is not invoked.

 

 

 

The mobile erector for the Iskander M also fires the self contained RK-55 Screwdriver...interchangeable. Both are very easy to load/reload. The Screwdriver is a rather long range cruise missile (over 3,000 km) even if a bit on the slow side (under 800 kph). It was developed from the earlier Slingshot...and packs a 200 kt warhead. Pretty old design...but reliable. Russia's main nuclear weapon at sea other than the problem-child Bulava, I believe.

The actual Iskander missile can alter its trajectory, deploy decoys as well as be re-targeted mid-flight making it much like a hypersonic cruise missile. Not to mention it can fire without support, if needed...no satellites, etc. Future development would undoubtedly be in the increased range department providing the 500 km range isn't a bit of a fib already. It is already accurate (5m CEP).

Note, as well, that the INF does not seem to apply to sea launched versions of cruise missiles that would break the treaty if launched from the land...but in 1987, I doubt the US/USSR viewed the cruise missile in the same light that it is viewed today...they're much smarter today, of course.

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by DogOnPorch