Everything nuclear war related goes here. Desired discussions include, but are not limited to:
1. How will nuclear war(s) be fought? Carpet bomb everything with nukes, or would the use of nuclear weapons be limited?
2. How can Strelok survive a nuclear war?
3. Where in the world would be the best place to be if the bomb(c) drop?
4. What happens after a nuclear war? Atomic winter/autumn or something else?
With current warheads being in the sub-10MT range it'd probably be most effective to detonate one in the lower mesosphere above the target country, have the rest of the ICBM droplets engage known positions of missile silos and/or EMP shielded bunkers and then see what happens to a CY+4 US of A with no facebook, twitter, running water and electricity but lots of funs.
I want Tsar Bomba-tier warheads to be a thing again.
Hasn't that been disproven? Supposedly the smoke&fumes from nuked areas would still incur less of an effect on the atmosphere than the average Californian forest fire.
St. Helena.
At the point where nuclear ICBMs are being traded, neither country is limiting themselves. Solely targeting military installations is still going to incur major civilian casualties. It more depends on how many nukes the country has, and whether it judges killing more civilians as more strategically valuable than whatever military alternative.
Live far away from cities or large towns, have a bunker with supplies.
In a bunker out innawoods.
Well assuming pretty much every notable government installation and major city is bombed, radiation or other salt-the-earth afteraffects are going to be negligible compared to the anarchy. After a bit, I'd assume some countries would step in to 'pacify', and/or some parts of the country would be mostly untouched yet consolidated enough that they can form their own nation, or at least some form of localized government.
There aren't enough nukes in the world to carpet bomb. Only important strategic targets and troops clusters get the X-ray.
Figure out when shit is going to go down by listening to radio for early warning. Live away from strategic targets and be prepared for fallout.
Greenland. Unironically. Nobody would nuke some fishing village an in the middle of nowhere, and fallout won't immediately kill the polar marine wildlife.
During all of human history there have been ~2500 atomic tests, including some barrage tests which contained multiple explosions in a short time span.
The US has a strategically available arsenal of ~1800 nuclear weapons. Assuming Russia and China have the same, and all of them launch their missiles at once, and all of them explode, that's 5400 nuclear detonations, or just over two times as many explosions as we have experienced so far.
Even the places that have been nuked over and over and over again are still not completely inhospitable. Nuclear war won't be the end of mankind, but it will make governments collapse like the house of cards they are.
1) If it gets to the point that ICBMs/Sub launched missiles are fired then best of luck to anyone who lives in, or downwind of, a city. You're more likely to see smaller warheads used against tactical targets, but even that risks whoever is on the receiving end firing off the big ones.
2) The only way anybody will survive a nuclear war. Don't live anywhere near a target.
3) see 2
4) A shitload of political squealing from whichever governments are left functioning, and anybody who got nuked needing a shitload of time and money to rebuild. Probably a major rebalancing of the global economy and political scene as well.
Oh, and a large pile of rubble and corpses of course.
Look at the bright side (literally), nukes might be the thing that will wipe out of most of the (((minorities))) staying in the city.
One nuke in London and Berlin and England & Germany can be 80-90% white again.
Nuclear is a joke. A lot of studies are increasingly finding that nuclear fallout has an adverse effect on bacteria, but macro-organisms would be fine, meaning the biggest fear would be a compromised immune system some ten generations down the line. Wolves and other critters live in Chernobyl just fine to this day and the birth defects are largely overstated to the point where most modern chemicals used by the military and shit like Agent Orange have more long-lasting effects on human lives than a little alpha radiation that can't even pass through the skin. This doesn't even begin to get into how engineers have basically developed a real-world equivalent of RadAway that actively removes radioactive sources from contaminated lake-sized water supplies. Not the one I was looking for, but here's a similar drug that the military has had since 2015: archive.fo
Really the biggest fears of nuclear fallout are that military bases will be targeted (E.G. government won't have a way of forcing you to surrender your funs) and there'll be dust clouds over most of the world for about 6 months to 10 years depending on geographical location and other factors. You'll get a few tens of thousands of mutated cancer babies that will die off, but without modern healthcare or government funding, the retards of the batch will either die before puberty or be used as child foot soldiers anyways. Nuclear fallout largely clears out of the air after 24 hours in most parts of the world (or at least settles on the ground) so simply laying flat on the ground in your basement to avoid as much of the impact as possible followed by not leaving your house for 24-48 hours will almost ensure your survival in a nuclear holocaust (at least for the immediate future).
As a side note, I wish a nigga would. Nukes would collapse the global economy and kill off most major cities which are the source of fun-hating freaks, and in the process it would deplete the world supply of nukes. MAD would actually bring back total war in that after the nukes drop and there's still a lot of people alive and a lot of military bunkers full of weapons left over, but the politicians, bankers, etc. are dead (or hiding in a bunker being useless), there'll be a lot of angry people with lots of weapons who will be able to retaliate, and countries will have very few ways to pacify them.
Most warheads will probably malfunction.
Most warheads are actually quite small.
Most impacts will be air bursts, so yes electronics will get raped and the damage radius will be a little bigger compared to ground detonated, but there will be no wasteland like in fiction.
Even when all of them are ground detonated, there won't be a wasteland like in fiction.
One can survive the nuclear war by simply living outside of important military/civilian facilities or larger cities.
People living in higly urbanized areas will firstly get nuked, afterwards the real fun begins, looting, rioting, breakdown.
People living in rural areas will live like before, just without driving into the city for work, getting their exotic foods from overseas and having electronic entertainment 24/7. They will adopt pretty quickly, forming militias by simply renaming their hobby clubs or cliques and cultivate lands already prepared.
The agricultural equipment that runs on gas may not be able to be used anymore, but every village/small city worth their salt has atleast one guy who raises working animals.
WTF is this thread?
Hedgehog's dilemma
There's not even ten posts, Germany, and I largely agree with anyways
In the event of a "nuclear holocaust" most everyone outside of a major economic center or military center would be largely unaffected other than reduced "luxuries" available.
As for gas, Texas operations and Canadian operations would kick back in, in relatively short order for the US of A so in those regards it would be a temporary problem at worst. At least for the Great Plains/West Coast anyways.
What's left of the government and military will still be in control of what's left of the country. They will also be more likely than ever to use force to make sure they keep their power. They won't politely disappear just because WWIII killed hundreds of millions or billions of people.
And one more thought: Who/what will be targeted in a nuclear war depends on the philosophy of the armies of the nuclear club. Broadly speaking I think that military bases, major cities, enemy capital cities, enemy parliaments/senates/palaces/whatevers, and strategic targets (electrical grids, dams, power plants, etc) would be higher priorities than purely civilian targets.
I doubt the gubbermint would remain in control of the country with basic amenities such as TV and Fortnite no longer available, let alone food&medical supplies to multiethnic population centres.
That makes no sense. A lack of TV or online games doesn't affect the governments ability to function or coordinate/cooperate with the armed forces. I will admit that organizing food supplies and getting medicine would be a major issue for them, but my original point still remains. The remnants of the former governments and prewar power structures won't politely disappear just because of WWIII. They will do all they can to hang onto power, even if it means forcing people to accept their authority at gun point.
I inherently disagree with this position. The only thing to keep governments solvent in this day and age are international trade and the enforcement of policy due to sheer numbers. In the event of Nuclear Holocaust, the governments of the world will lack both of these factors.
I agree with this statement, but they will be in such shambles that if a handful of farmers with bolt-action rifles can currently hold off the FBI/ATF, then post-collapse said handful of farmers will be more than capable of putting enough pressure on such government institutions that they will not be able to effectively enforce their control no matter how hard they might want to do so, doubly so when considering that without the institutions in place, these are effectively rag-tag military remnants that answer to a chain of command who is only able to enforce their opinion on their troops via food rations and gunpoint. Any sense of nationalism will largely be displaced when there is a lack of a nation to defend.
And one more thought: Who/what will be targeted in a nuclear war depends on the philosophy of the armies of the nuclear club. Broadly speaking I think that military bases, major cities, enemy capital cities, enemy parliaments/senates/palaces/whatevers, and strategic targets (electrical grids, dams, power plants, etc) would be higher priorities than purely civilian targets.
I also agree on this front. The only "major cities" that would be targeted are economic hubs, namely "tech giant" cities like Denver and Kansas City, or coastal cities that provide the international wealth necessary to invade a foreign land (at least in the case of the USA).
They will do all they can to hang onto power, but the only things that keep the current governing bodies in power in the first place are a perception that you will be caged for not listening to them, international trade which gives them the power to keep people complacent, and being forced at gunpoint to comply. Without the IRS, local police departments siding with the federal government, and ATF, would the United States be able to effectively keep its citizens in check? I'd largely say no and posture that the same is true of other countries and their equivalents. Government remnants will undoubtedly hold onto small sections of land, but they will not be able to project their power over entire nations like they currently do. A "best case" scenario for the current world governments would be balkanization.
Martial law and summery execution would be more than enough to make whats left of the masses comply.
I agree. But that can change over time. It would be more than possible for a nation-state to grow out of what was left of the old-world.
If we assume even half of US citizens who own guns don't live in areas that will be targeted by nukes, then the military will be pretty heavily outnumbered since military bases will be larger targets than rural areas and towns of 10,000 people. Seeing farmer Bob summarily executed for not handing his squash fields to the military would be reason enough to round up some 100 riflemen from around the city and kill off that 50-200ish active "army" personnel who are probably just as likely to flee or surrender when they realize their dad or sister is pointing a gun at them for killing their uncle.
I'll concede this point, though I'd hope when civilians get a taste of freedom they'd defend it bloodily from such transgressions or force major reparations/reconstructions of the "current remnants" that would exist post-nukes.
Are there any soldiers or ex-soldiers who can comment on this? Would a soldier bulk at seeing a countrymen or relative firing at them? Or would they simply see them as just another enemy 'soldier'?
To be fair, this is what drilled unto them via the sandbowl war where every children, women & men can be the enemy.
But then again US military men are massively retard and would foil as soon as they discover no air support is coming.
Why St. Helena?
Nuclear war wouldn't happen though at least not for another hundred years or more when Imperium finally rolls around, then the Soldier-Emperors and their armies may be mad enough to do it. It makes no sense to use nukes unless you're Israel.
2. Live in densely populated areas :^)
4. Zombies of course :^)
I'd like actually military men to comment on this, but at least from personal experience since about 58% of my city are military or military veterans (according to official statistics), it really depends on how much of a nigger they are. Training/Drilling teaches them that everyone is a potential enemy, but at the same time most of the military are less likely to shoot you than a police officer is since their training is very much "us or them" mentality and it would take a skilled commander to convince them that domestic civilians are the "them" portion instead of the "us" portion.
Read up on the Theory of Nuclear Deterrence
Anecdotally: Lower chances of civ decimation if huwite soldiers. Most non-whites, and bluepilled huwite burgers, would likely just mow anything down (just following orders).
Speaking of following orders, weren't there some thinly veiled anti-civvie shoot-em-up "zombie apocalypse" LE/mil training scenarios popping up around the country over the last few years?
In event of a nuclear war on a Minecraft server, it would be wise to consider all non-white Minecraft players hostile threats due to their filthy brown presence, and to proceed to shoot them with your Minecraft bow and TNT cannons, in Minecraft
should you use dust filters or gas filters against nuclear falout?
Fine particulate filters, the fallout is in the form of radioactive dust not a gas. Also remember to scrub down thoroughly and minimize uncovered skin.
The major damage from the radiation comes from when the alpha emitter is inside you, the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko is an example of the potency a tiny amount of an alpha emitter has when it makes its way into the body.
St. Helena is geographically difficult to reach despite having an airport which is scarcely used due to certain reasons and there's nothing on it besides some mountains and sheep.
jydjty
Very true.
Also, everyone should visit nuclearsecrecy.com
We've grown up with too much of this "THERE'S ENOUGH NUCLEAR BOMBS TO BLOW UP THE ENTIRE PLANET" myth that everyone thinks a nuclear war would turn us into Fallout LARPers overnight.
The sister city to where I live has a military base. I simulated an attack on it with the largest bomb Russia currently uses, the blast wouldn't affect my city. There's also a military missile testing facility on the other side of the mountain. I tried it there, no problem as well.
If nuke war broke out it's really just the big metropolitan cities and those that have military bases that would be affected.
Would a gas filter also block the dust though?
they'd probably just use davy crockett nuke's
nice dubs
Got two of these just in case, dunno how effective they are.
Get some prussian blue, activated charcoal, and vodka. Just to be sure.
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES
That's only used for power plant accidents. It won't help you with nuclear weapons.
It will help you in the years after, when ionized particles are all over the place.
Speaking as an AF member in Japan, every soldier stationed overseas hates America. In the event of a nuclear habbening, the enlisted force structure will dissolve and the rank and file will scatter. Some of the older fogies might LARP together for a couple years before the gas runs out of their tanks and helicopters, but in the long-term the military will cease existing. Even those old fogies are likely to frag most of the other service members around them before beginning their LARP - I mean, do you really want to live through the apocalypse with a bunch of trannies? The future military will be largely uncontrollable in the event of a conventional/nuclear war.
Either will work in a fallout scenario after the first week (as long as you have replacement filters). Just remember to shower, and limit exposure to the outside world to INCREDIBLY SMALL time frames for the first month or two. Like, only one hour. If you don't have a basement full of food/water, you will have a bad time.
Another thing to factor in is that while there are 2.2 million active duty and reserve personnel, the DOD also employs about 760,000 federal civilians and more than 560,000 contractors. So for every two grunts there's a civie as well. They would fuck off well before shit got dangerous. Problem is, the civilians do lots of support for the military, and without them many critical functions would fail. An installation could be rendered useless well before any bombs fell just because everyone keeping shit running would have ran for the hills.
yeah the base will fall because the commisary and id card office employees didnt show
That's true, and in some cases that's part of the plan. In others…yeah, if the contractors just fucked off, mission critical operations could cease.
Yes.
BRUH. The USAF would cease functioning within three days. I joke, but the DFAC has enough trouble supporting airmen, let alone NCOs and officers.
If the logistics supply chain of the commissary shut down on base, think of all the other things than food that military people need.
It would be a nightmare if the commissary shut down, especially in a true SHTF scenario. The military is not sheltered from these things just because they have guns. There are a LOT of people on military installations, and they NEED things.
Hell, not even that, according to On Thermonuclear War. The data could be a tad outdated by now, but IIRC he estimated less than 3 months in a war between the US ans USSR with 2000 20MT weapons detonated. I don't happen to have the book on me rn but I'll check what he estimated when I can.
I doubt it. Back in the 60s, if the 53 most industrialized cities were *entirely* eliminated, the US would only lose a little more than half of its wealth and a little less than half manufacturing capability.
With enough Rad-x you can do anything without PPE
Can aircraft-launching increase the effectiveness of ABM or is it retarded to not use SAMs as such?
Recalculate for the present day, after the bulk of the US population and industrial base has been atomised or irradiated.
Wouldn't you need to keep a large number of ABM carrying aircraft on station 24/7 to achieve that? Even if air launching them makes the defensive missile much cheaper and more effective still not sure it would, but IF you'd need to factor in the cost and hassle of that non-stop ABM-CAP in your decision (how many manhours of maintenance and repair does 1 hour of flight for a modern military jet incur?). For a smaller country, like Greece or the UK it might be viable; but for a place as large as the USA or Russia I don't think the numbers would break in favour of air-launched ABMs.
Silo launched ABMs would probably be a primary target for any nuclear strike as well though, you'd probably need to get them onto some kind of truck platform and have them moving to different physical locations at semi-random intervals while maintaining 100% coverage to keep your ABM force cost effective and worthwhile fuck me that would be fun to organise
An aircraft can reposition itself for a better insertion, but its less accurate and predictable, the missile itself has to be smart. A ground launched ABM can be dumb but you can have thousands of them for the effort it takes to set up one air launched type.
Maybe if it was air launched off a 747 it might make sense.
Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of the reposition and insertion of supersonic zoom-climbing fighter/interceptors?
Got this from /x/.
Shower how often.
1000 declared warheads.
No because a fighter can't really move supersonic for any length of time, especially not carrying a massive missile. Something like MiG31 might be an exception because it was built specifically for afterburning flight, but that's not the norm.
Most military fighters carrying missiles would move at the same speed and altitude as a 747, at which point it's better to bring a giant airplane which can carry 20x ABM and also carry a staff and a communications dish to control them.
There might be an issue here where you think the missile goes upwards? If you're planning to put something into orbit or near orbit to shoot down a satellite or a warhead, you're actually firing it horizontally!
If you fire it upwards it just yoyos down again, it doesn't have any ability to control or adjust its flight. The reason airplane spacelaunch is a thing is not because of the speed or angle of launch, but because the airplane literally hoists the missile out of 70% of the atmospheric mass at 10km. It's the same reason telescopes are built on mountains, to escape air mass.
Anyway at 10km a missile's fuel gets you 100x more mileage than if it was fired off the ground, it can also travel more quickly with shittier materials because there's less heating at high speed.
A lot of spacelaunch is just from balloons, if soyboys scared of an 80 year old huge manatee movie got executed we could build hydrogen airships and launch steel missiles into orbit loaded with hundreds of crew every day.
Bare minimum after every time you go outside, immediately before you do anything else, and it has to be at the entrance so you don't track anything in with you. Showering in your shelter should be minimized as much as possible (to save water). Cleanliness before eating should be maintained, however, so that you don't get diseased, so wash your hands and sanitize food surfaces. Other than that…yeah. If you don't go outside too often, then water shouldn't be too hard to maintain. Boil and re-use gray water if you have to.
Infantrynigger here, we used to talk about this shit during downtime in Afghanland. Once we went a whole discussion about if they ordered us to fire on civilians. If it was regular Americans and not rioting niggers or something like that, most of us said we would desert and go home/innawoods. Some of the married guys said they would stay in (because muh base housing) but refuse to fire on civilians. Lastly, there was one stupid 20-year-old boomer spic who unironically said "my country, right or wrong", and was all about shooting whoever ZOG told him to.
Yeah, but PSYOPS and other rumors would probably just say that everyone was rioting niggers, and a lot of people would have to die before anyone realized it actually was not. Rumors and bad information would kill a large number of people.
The general assumptions of combat are
After that all ROE breaks down:
Keywords being that the fighting force is competent and cohesive. As Strelok explained, people were split on what they would do, And beyond that, lack of communication would probably cause a lot of friendly fire, not to mention when you cannot tell the enemy from the civilian, you assume the worst and must either kill everything or be victims pf countless ambushes. The solution to the latter is to use non-lethal weapon systems, which probably only police have.
Is this target map accurate?
Current US strategy is to utilize precision nuclear strike with lower yields, on the basis that a doctrine of large scale attacks have a lessened strategic effect (it is assumed that nobody would be so foolish as to end the world, yet destroying one or a few cities is back in the realm of realism). Russia and China found loopholes in treaties, or disregarded them in order to outfit a more varied arsenal, Russias new Kanyon nuclear torpedo and china attempting to do the same are evidence that such projects have been ongoing, while US development stagnated and under Bush 1 and 2, followed by obama, there was a significant reduction in arms stockpiles from cold war numbers. I am too lazy to post the Nuclear posture review that came out last year.
India and Pakistan have come to the brink of nuking each other a few times, but in the end, nobody had the balls to go through with it because of massive international pressure.
2. How can Strelok survive a nuclear war?
CBRN fags, also dig a hole and go unnaground
3. Where in the world would be the best place to be if the bomb(c) drop?
Highly dependent on where the bombs drop, certain very specific scenarios would end everything, regardless of where you are. There are pros and cons to being further into the poles or the equator, all of which must be carefully weighed against your ability and assets, if you want to survive.
4. What happens after a nuclear war? Atomic winter/autumn or something else?
Nobody really knows. Assuming different weapons types are used, there can be an assumed level of fallout, but scientifically speaking, governments mostly shoot in the dark. The United States did a number of survivability assessments during the cold war, in order to determine optimal designs for everything from infrastructure to vehicles in order to see what would survive. If certain numbers of nukes fell on certain areas, there could be a global cooling affect assuming dust becomes sufficiently distributed into major wind systems (probably unlikely). There are also particular atmospheric effects depending on the height of detonation and the yield of the weapon.
The means by which targets are selected is also hard to determine, but the strategic, social, and economic value are taken into account.
The book Stockpile by Jerry Miller talks about the origins and the fate of the US nuclear stockpile up until Trump took office.
Why the hell would anyone target Las Vegas?
Truth is, the veggies were on the plate from the start
Nellis Air Force Base
Because the russians like the vidya memes :^)
They'll be useless. Nukes do most damage through airburst, meaning they are detonated above ground for maximum descruption. However, that also means that there is nothing but air around the nuke itself – there will be no particles for it to actually irradiate. There won't be any radioactive fallout and the nuke explosion won't carry a radiation hazard.
major cities, industrial centres, and military installations will be carpeted, and that will be all
Just go stay at your relatives' in the country. After its done, create or join some local militia and go from there; it'll be wild west time for the next decade or two
Seriously, anywhere other than a city, industrial centre, or a military installation. Nothing but those will be affected whatsoever (save for power outages etc. but that goes without saying)
There won't be any serious environmental consequences if that's what you're asking. Well, okay, there will be one – much cleaner air as China gets bombed back into stone age.
NO
HEMP is only useful for communication disruption or interfering with electronics. If weapons were to be used, it would be for actual kinetic effect or destroying cities.
Remember that time scientists said to just nuke everything, in order to make the earth survive?
>Govt Scientists Propose Nuclear War to Curb Global Warming thenewamerican.com
But I'm not talking about HEMP, I'm talking about the literal burst of air that physically destroys cities. The fireball itself is quite small – it won't touch more than a few blocks – it's the airburst that causes widespread destruction over a large area
how justified was Hitler?
consider that he was fighting the exact same Jews of the USSR that we were opposed to during the Cold War, and we were ready not to just kill millions, but kill billions, most like the entire Human Race and every mammal bigger than a rat, rather than submit to the same Jewish Communist regime Hitler was fighting.
OK, the Jews we were opposing weren't nearly as bad as the Jews Hitler faced. After WW2 the Soviets mostly stopped their most massive slaughters a few years after 1945 (when the Cold War ramped up) and they had even started a mostly legit World Wide "charm offensive" where they exported not just weapons, but lots and lots of legit civilian aid to poor people. It was at least semi-legit claimed that by many measurements the Jewish Communists were doing MORE to help needy people than the much richer USA.
Further, we were so against Jews that we'd created a hair-trigger situation where it was quite likely we'd suddenly murder billions of innocent people just by some dumb mistake.
Hitler only wanted the criminal Jews out of Germany, and had several non-criminal Jews in high offices throughout WW2.
Airburst will be the most common way to destroy cities, as the bombs will explode high enough for the pressure wave to create better ground effects, with no dampening effects from impacting the ground.
Hitler never killed people. Only communist bugmen.
The USSR was almost as anti-Jewish as Nazi Germany. Read up on the Doctors' Plot, a false flag that was designed to justify a second Holocaust in Soviet Russia in the 1950s.
The commies had planned to "deport" most or all Jews in the Soviet Union and satellite states to special camps within the Gulag system where they would be worked to death or murdered by camp guards.
en.wikipedia.org
America was not against Jews, we were opposed to communism and other forms of socialism. While some communists were Jewish the movement as a whole was not.
Except that's wrong. False. The opposite of true. The standard of living in Russia and Russian aligned countries was always worse than the standard of living in the United States and most countries aligned with the western powers. There were some exceptions of ant-communist dictatorships being propped up where the standards were pretty low, but socialist regimes were more easily adapted to concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a few than capitalist countries.
Just look at Cuba as an example. The average monthly income is somewhere around $25 but Castro died with about $900 million. Capitalist systems typically have a higher income level for those at the bottom because they depend more on the movement of goods and services (represented by money).
If you want to hate Jews for some legitimate reason, or for no reason at all, you can. America is a free country. But you shouldn't buy into or make up shit about nefarious Jews hiding under every rock and behind every bush, conspiring to take over the world through capitalism, socialism, science, faith, and every other two diametrically opposed things. There just aren't that many around to pull it off, and there's no way that it could be kept hidden long enough for any such plots to actually get anywhere.
THIS is what I call muttposting!
I'd rather be a mutt than an inbred retard like you.
LOL, anti-semitism and holocaust denial was illegal in the USSR.
Shut the fuck up boomer.
Well, you are. So wish granted, I guess.
You do realize that you're either the bastard child of a Russian who raped your grandma, a foreigner in a foreign land, or the descendant of a coward who gave up on his country, right?
What is this, opposite day?
Not true. Show me almost free housing USA ever provided, gov controlled prices so anyone could afford everything, free schools on every level, full employment policy so job security etc etc. You look at Trump level guys, you don't look at 50% of people barely paying for living expenses with almost no security whatsoever. Forgetting fiat petrodollar etc.
A flat costs 1mln in NY and you got one for equivalent of 15$ during "commie" era - its the same space with the same function for population.
The USA does provide those, but only for refugees.
Those kids were aborted and washed down the drain.
Unless it's intentionally salted. Did the US, Russians, or Chinese ever build salted bombs? If they did then I'm going to guess they never used cobalt because that just makes a mess for everyone to have to live with.
You say that, and yet here you are.
If women in the Rhine didn't abort their mutt rapebabies from the stationed Senegalese why would do so with Russians. Although leave it to bait unrelated to ruin a thread on modern Zig Forums.
Communists are not people, they're targets waiting to be shot. The Allies should never have allowed any cooperation with the Russians during the war, not after the invasion of Finland.
The thing that people forget is that the nuclear winter/volcanic winter/cosmic winter hypothesis is that it was formulated back at a time when it was thought that particulate matter would be the forcing mechanism for the short term climate change. What we've learned however is that particulate matter isn't nearly as important as aerosols or gases. Volcanoes or bolides only cause widespread cooling if they release a lot of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.
Nukes really don't release any gasses with the exception of nitrogen dioxide. There is some concern that many hundreds or thousands of atomic weapons being detonated over a short period of time could cause severe ozone depletion.
Though there's also still an unknown factor about the quality of particulates that a nuclear war would produce that might put nuclear winter back on the table. The "ash" produced by volcano or an impact is recondensed rock, thus it is heavy and falls out relatively quickly. Nukes on the other hand would tend to produce soot which could stay in the atmosphere for a much longer time.
What's with those 3 clusters in the northern midwest?
North Dakota has the largest oil field in the mainland, and Montana has something to do with the air force. I assume it and Wyoming are to kill off ripe rural land or making sure that part of the country gets nuked too because there's be no reason to bomb them. Have no people escape hellfire or traverse to the plains.
Montana and Wyoming have nuke silos iirc.
Adds up close enough.
What I meant was there are other elements that can be used for salting that have a shorter half life. Cobalt has such a long half life that you couldn't reasonably hope to claim any of the enemy's territory. Worse yet the fallout would swing around the hemisphere and rain down on your territory as well.
Other than the possibly unpredictable nature of climate modification, possibly a little acid rain. Also some ozone depletion if it was injected at the wrong level of the atmosphere.
China has been working on salted warheads, even though there is no sane reason unless you really want to kill everything living for the next gorillion years
china national defense = increased fallout and making areas uninhabitable lel
See that what I was talking about. Radioactive tantalum has a half life of 114 days as compared to cobalt's 5.27 years. Of course if you really wanted to be a bastard you would use something like iodine or calcium as your salting material.
I thought that was the reason cobalt was used for salting a warhead. With a guaranteed second strike SLBM you're not using the nukes as a way to clear land you intend to occupy, but as a way to prevent anyone from fucking with you out of fear that you'll turn their entire country into an irradiated wasteland (like Fallout but without the vaults and fewer supermutants / more corpses). As such a longer half life that will absolutely definitely fuck up not only the target nation but everyone downwind you give your opponents neighbours a reason to help keep them in line too.
So we just need to plan & execute properly and we've fixed any risk of global warming. Possibly unpredicatable reactions is a pussy reason not to fix a problem - if we want to start terraforming other planets out there we should get some experience with a planet we're pretty familiar with, any problems it causes can be fixed once they become apparent.
>there is no sane reason unless you really want to kill everything living for the next gorillion years
WHAT
THE FUCK
IS
MUTUALLY
ASSURED
DESTRUCTION?!?!?!?!?!
Would Tellurium 128 work as a salting agent? The half life of that isotope of Tellurium is 160 trillion times greater than the current age of the universe. If you're going to build a 'FUCK EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU SONS OF WHORES!' weapon then you should do it properly after all.
what did he mean by this Zig Forums?
Remember the longer the half life, the less radioactive something is.
bump
come on dude