• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

BSM: “It’s ok folks, todays nukes are much safer!”

sirhrmechanic

sirhrmechanic

Command Sgt. Major
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 23, 2010
33,413
124,116
The Snobbiest Town in The Snobbiest State in the N
Nuke War In Ukraine? No Big Deal, Says Biden Ally
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/10/16/nukes-in-ukraine-no-probs-said-biden-ally/


3F6210F9-4C5C-41E7-81C6-EF8D42BD3EDB.jpeg


Wow, the left really does want a nuclear exchange!!! These little fruit bats have obviously never heard of Kahn… or escalation.

And the Biden admin is saying loud and clear, go ahead use nukes.

These are the same people who have whined about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bikini, nuclear waste, TMI, Chernobyl, The H Bomb. And every other radioactive thing since their feeling got all squeamish.

Now they can’t wait for nuclear war. Carl Sagan needs to come down from above and bitch slap BSM just on principle.

Wow… just wow.

On the other hand…. Tactical nukes will make TV worth watching. What does the US do when we learn there are hundreds of Americans who got fried… meh, who cares.

I remember Benghazi. The admin knows no one else does!

Sirhr
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Wow
Reactions: Emerson0311, XP1K, khel and 10 others
Nukes are inevitable they will be used someday.
People panicking here because some dictators are having a pissing match could cause more damage than the nuke itself.
But fuck these idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 232593
Tactical nukes = tactical or strategic targets. I wonder what targets in Uk would fit that bill…. They aren’t going to waste one on a wheat field. Whoever “they” end up being.
 
I kinda think NDT is blowing smoke to cover for his senile savior. I'm not a nuclear physicist... But I find nuclear weapons morbidly fascinating and do a fair bit of research.

You can't just build a weapon with an appleseed amount of fuel to smash a city block. You have to have enough material to start and maintain a reaction... Critical mass.

Typically, high yield devices (H-bombs in 100's of kilotons up into megatons) produce less fallout as more nuclear material is converted to energy.

Tactical nukes being low yield devices would likely produce more fallout... You want a smaller bang so you throttle it down. Well, all of that material that doesn't get converted to energy doesn't just magically disappear.

I'm sure they've improved the efficiency of designs to use more of the material to literally get more bang for the buck. After all enrichment isn't exactly cheap.

But the fact remains you still need a minimum amount of fuel to even get an explosion... If you were able to build one that used 100% of that minimum amount, you'd have no fallout... But the destructive yield would be off the charts... Or at least bigger than what you would want to smash a city block.

In the end, no one really knows because we haven't done much real world testing in a long time.

Putin isn't an idiot. He probably knows Brandon is on the ropes politically... So if he can maintain for a few more weeks until midterms, Joe might get hamstrung... I'm just worried that the morons in DC (knowing the clock is ticking) will do what they can to goad Putin into using crowd-pleasers before the election. Then all bets (and elections) are off.

This is akin to a chess game between Ralph Wiggum and... anyone else smarter than Ralph. But both sides are wired to kill everyone watching the game if either one thinks they're about to lose.

Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: long range sponge, XP1K and sirhrmechanic
And a tactical nuke is not a city block… it is kilotonnes (Hiroshima light) designed to stop a major armor assault or deny territory. A couple of tactical nukes could have blunted a Fulda Gap attack. The Fulda Gap is dozens of miles wide.

Similarly, sovs could have used
Tactical nukes to blow a 20-30 mile wide gap in NATO lines to punch through.

These are not nuclear grenades. They are large.

And crossing the threshold is the bad part. Because it forces NATO to respond or look weak.

Herman Kahn is still relevant today. “On Escalation”. Read it folks!

Sirhr
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HD1911, long range sponge, MediumSpeed and 2 others
sirhrmechanic said:
Nuke War In Ukraine? No Big Deal, Says Biden Ally
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/10/16/nukes-in-ukraine-no-probs-said-biden-ally/


View attachment 7978219

Wow, the left really does want a nuclear exchange!!! These little fruit bats have obviously never heard of Kahn… or escalation.

And the Biden admin is saying loud and clear, go ahead use nukes.

These are the same people who have whined about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bikini, nuclear waste, TMI, Chernobyl, The H Bomb. And every other radioactive thing since their feeling got all squeamish.

Now they can’t wait for nuclear war. Carl Sagan needs to come down from above and bitch slap BSM just on principle.

Wow… just wow.

On the other hand…. Tactical nukes will make TV worth watching. What does the US do when we learn there are hundreds of Americans who got fried… meh, who cares.

I remember Benghazi. The admin knows no one else does!

Sirhr
Click to expand...
Yikes, I just read De-Ass Tyson's comments in this article.

Yeah, idiot!!! First class idiot. Not sure what the lowest yield tactical weapon is, but I'd guess could be in the 1-5kt range (looking at Wikipedia table). Looks like Operation Julin was to test these low yield tactical weapons right before the ban started. Unless we've made some progress, as OkieMike says at achieving near 100% yield, it's going to be radioactive for a while.

Personally, I'd think they'd probably use a fuel-air explosive en-masse and be done with it...if they even have that capability. Or has Russia put a bunch of eggs in the Nuke basket only - after all they do have the largest inventory?
 
Last edited:
So, in part of what NdT says, he’s not wrong...

”What you really have to worry about is being vaporized and after that, if you’re not vaporized, blown to bits by the shock wave. That’s a way bigger problem that you’re going to have.”

Yes, primary concern is not being vaporized. Secondary concern is not being blown to bits. If either of those happen, you’re not concerned about radioactive fallout. From the perspective of someone a ground zero, the effects of living after the blast come after living through the blast.

This is either an astute use of ‘frame of reference,’ or hopelessly miopic.
 
BytorJr said:
Yikes, I just read De-Ass Tyson's comments in this article.

Yeah, idiot!!! First class idiot. Not sure what the lowest yield tactical weapon is, but I'd guess could be in the 1-5kt range (looking at Wikipedia table). Looks like Operation Julin was to test these low yield tactical weapons right before the ban started. Unless we've made some progress, as OkieMike says at achieving near 100% yield, it's going to be radioactive for a while.

Personally, I'd think they'd probably use a fuel-air explosive en-masse and be done with it...if they even have that capability. Or has Russia put a bunch of eggs in the Nuke basket only - after all they do have the largest inventory?
Click to expand...
FAE’s were my thinking exactly. No idea what FUSSR has for FAE’s

Sirhr
 
Modern nukes are indeed "cleaner" than older designs, but holy crap any amount of fallout is really something we should all strive to avoid.

Everyone is worried about communism, but neocons are every bit as dangerous to the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HD1911, UKDslayer, Steel+Killer and 7 others
jr81452 said:
Today on the No-Shit channel: An astrophysicist isn't an expert on nuclear weapons, and a celebrity that can't keep their mouth shut about shit they don't understand (same guy).
Click to expand...
His point was modern weapons have less fall out. Which is actually true.

Most of those who died in Japan were killed by the fall out not the Blast/Heat wave. They were extremely dirty bombs.
 
308pirate said:
How much less?

How many people will die over 20 years from the fallout generated by 30 kT warhead ground burst?
Click to expand...
How much less than what?

Depends. Way too many variables to answer accurately.

You are not a dumb one, you’re more than capable of going and finding answers you seek.
 
Nuclear WWIII, along with total, global, economic collapse are key to the global reset that the left desires. Humanity must be BROKEN and willing to accept the shit deal they will offer. Slavery will appear to be heaven, compared to the misery of the masses. It amazes me that they brazenly advertise their plans, without fear.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: HD1911, Emerson0311, XP1K and 5 others
E. Bryant said:
Modern nukes are indeed "cleaner" than older designs, but holy crap any amount of fallout is really something we should all strive to avoid.

Everyone is worried about communism, but neocons are every bit as dangerous to the world.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing… but where are the neocons in this??? I thought they were busy chanting orange man bad in their irrelevant hovels?

Sirhr
 
GreenGO Juan said:
How much less than what?

Depends. Way too many variables to answer accurately.

You are not a dumb one, you’re more than capable of going and finding answers you seek.
Click to expand...

The point wasn't to pin you down for an answer. The point was to highlight the stupidity of trying to rationalize the use of tactical nuclear weapons by saying they're less deadly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EddieNFL, E. Bryant, Jigstick and 2 others
OkieMike said:
I kinda think NDT is blowing smoke to cover for his senile savior. I'm not a nuclear physicist... But I find nuclear weapons morbidly fascinating and do a fair bit of research.

You can't just build a weapon with an appleseed amount of fuel to smash a city block. You have to have enough material to start and maintain a reaction... Critical mass.

Typically, high yield devices (H-bombs in 100's of kilotons up into megatons) produce less fallout as more nuclear material is converted to energy.

Tactical nukes being low yield devices would likely produce more fallout... You want a smaller bang so you throttle it down. Well, all of that material that doesn't get converted to energy doesn't just magically disappear.

I'm sure they've improved the efficiency of designs to use more of the material to literally get more bang for the buck. After all enrichment isn't exactly cheap.

But the fact remains you still need a minimum amount of fuel to even get an explosion... If you were able to build one that used 100% of that minimum amount, you'd have no fallout... But the destructive yield would be off the charts... Or at least bigger than what you would want to smash a city block.

In the end, no one really knows because we haven't done much real world testing in a long time.

Putin isn't an idiot. He probably knows Brandon is on the ropes politically... So if he can maintain for a few more weeks until midterms, Joe might get hamstrung... I'm just worried that the morons in DC (knowing the clock is ticking) will do what they can to goad Putin into using crowd-pleasers before the election. Then all bets (and elections) are off.

This is akin to a chess game between Ralph Wiggum and... anyone else smarter than Ralph. But both sides are wired to kill everyone watching the game if either one thinks they're about to lose.

Mike
Click to expand...

An important part of the subject is that small devices are usually fission (or these days pretty much all boosted fusion boosted fission) devices.
Current generation and prior generation huge output devices are always going to be fusion devices with a fission starter.

Fission fuel is very radioactive
Fusion fuel has very low radioactivity by comparison.

With Fusion weapons you can design them to have minimal (compared to blast effect) radiation if so desired, at the cost of less yield and larger size.
The dampening / containment material you choose has a direct effect on that.
Plus you can use more exotic reflectors in your fission plug to shrink that as well.

Now you can also go the other way, you can include stuff in your nuclear warheads that has a very long half life and will render a large area saturated by radiation for generations.

The next of course ultimate holy grail of future generation nukes is being able to kickstart the fusion reaction without needing a fission core.
That is the really crazy science stuff that is unlikely to happen for some time, but if it ever does, it will make folks a lot more ready to use such devices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rockn30809 and lash
BLEE said:
Nuclear WWIII, along with total, global, economic collapse are key to the global reset that the left desires. Humanity must be BROKEN and willing to accept the shit deal they will offer. Slavery will appear to be heaven, compared to the misery of the masses. It amazes me that they brazenly advertise their plans, without fear.
Click to expand...
That would have sounded Crazy a few years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emerson0311
sirhrmechanic said:
Not disagreeing… but where are the neocons in this??? I thought they were busy chanting orange man bad in their irrelevant hovels?

Sirhr
Click to expand...
The neocons are busy telling whoever is responsible for Blo Jiden that the corp boards they sit on demand more wealth transfer
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darayavaus
"Less Lethal Nukes" is like saying a "416 Barret is lethal than a 50BMG at 50 yards"

As pointed out "tactical nukes" are small and thus VERY fallout prone. Plus only an idiot slams a nuke into the ground--you airburst them for maximum effect (bunker busters aside).

Oh and by the way: you can "salt" a nuke on purpose to increase fallout for area denial--only a fool assumes we want that nuke to be clean. "Nyet comrade! We want to spare the environment and avoid fallout"

OTOH we'll solve that climate change argument REAL fast. Throwing tons of particulates into the atmospehere will stop that warming for a while. So we got that going for us.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: UKDslayer, XP1K, 10ring'r and 3 others
Are these "kinder, gentler" nukes?

I remember when going through Basic Training they showed us to lay on the ground on our stomachs, head towards the blast, and cup our nuts in our hands. Like that's gonna do anything.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HD1911, UKDslayer, 10ring'r and 2 others
the only safe nuke in the hand of terrorist is the one that detonates it's self while still on a launch platform which we can watch like the old Benny Hill show as Jihadist kill them self in mass .
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 10ring'r and Blue Sky Country
lariat said:
Its almost like someone is using the last book of the Bible as a guide. We got the earthquakes, drought, famines coming along nicely, wars, but no fire from heaven, poisoned water and a massive percentage of the world dead. Yet.
Click to expand...
And if you live near the Canadian border during leaf season I can tell you for sure we have plagues of frogs.
 
308pirate said:
View attachment 7978271
Click to expand...
Mom and dad took me to the arty museum out at Ft. Sill when I was 6 or 7. I don't remember much about it... But I distinctly remember seeing Atomic Annie. Seems like dad had to get on to me to keep me from trying to climb up on it...

"No, you can't climb on the atomic cannon!"

(But the Museum of the Great Plains was totally cool with letting you climb all over the steam locomotive they had outside)

Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and 308pirate
OkieMike said:
Mom and dad took me to the arty museum out at Ft. Sill when I was 6 or 7. I don't remember much about it... But I distinctly remember seeing Atomic Annie. Seems like dad had to get on to me to keep me from trying to climb up on it...

"No, you can't climb on the atomic cannon!"

(But the Museum of the Great Plains was totally cool with letting you climb all over the steam locomotive they had outside)

Mike
Click to expand...

Well the engine wasn't coated in radioactive contamination, so there's that.
 
sirhrmechanic said:
And a tactical nuke is not a city block… it is kilotonnes (Hiroshima light) designed to stop a major armor assault or deny territory. A couple of tactical nukes could have blunted a Fulfa Gap attack. The Fulda Gap is dozens of miles wide.

Similarly, sovs could have used
Tactical nukes to blow a 20-30 mile wide gap in NATO lines to punch through.

These are not nuclear grenades. They are large.

And crossing the threshold is the bad part. Because it forces NATO to respond or look weak.

Herman Kahn is still relevant today. “On Escalation”. Read it folks!

Sirhr
Click to expand...


This. There are no such things as "micronuclear warheads". Fissionables will only undergo their reaction when they are of a certain mass and yield. Something like "atomic hand grenades" cannot be built because the amount of fission material packed into the shell of a hand grenade is nowhere near the mass needed for fission to occur. The smallest ever nuclear warhead ever created was the Davy Crockett crew served recoilless rifle, and that thing will take out a couple of entire neighborhoods.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HD1911 and lash
Blue Sky Country said:
This. There are no such things as "micronuclear waeheads". Fissionables will only undergo their reaction when they are of a certain mass and yield. Something like "atomic hand grenades" cannot be built because the amount of fission material packed into the shell of a hand grenade is nowhere near the mass needed for fission to occur. The smallest ever nuclear warhead ever created was the Davy Crockett crew served recoilless rifle, and that thing will take out a couple of entire neighborhoods.
Click to expand...
sf nuke 2.jpg
sf nuke.jpg



The backpack was, technically, smaller. Only because it didn't take a Recoilless rifle to fire it! ;-)

Noone ever knew whether pushing the red button really did give you time to E&E. Or whether it went off immediately and they'd just send a medal back to your family. Well, somebody knows. Just not the guys who were trained to carry them.

Sirhr
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Emerson0311, Krawlven, XP1K and 8 others
Cardboard55 said:
What aboot the infamous suitcase snukes?
Click to expand...
Look up one post. That's what they were talking about. SADM's I think they were, IIRC named Small Atomic Demolition Munitions. Take out bridges, railyards, tunnels, funnel points. Man portable.

That is the so-called suitcase nuke.

Probably could have put it in a big Samsonite, too. But that would have been a bitch to hump into East Germany...

Sirhr
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 232593
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back