Nuclear Weapons and the Doomsday Clock

[Tanis]

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I study Nuclear weapons and Radiation as a hobby (Twisted as it is.) Yes, I became interested in this after I played the first Fallout when I was ten. No, I am not an expert in Nuclear physics.

According to the Doomsday Clock, the world is the closest to Nuclear War (Five minutes to Midnight (Doomsday)) since the fifties when the USA and the Soviet Union tested Thermonuclear (Fusion) bombs within a few months of each other (That was Two Minutes to Midnight). A lot of people chalk this up to Iran. However, they are simply part of a bigger issue. Let's look at why the world is so close to apocalypse.

India and Pakistan are a problem. Both have what are called SRAMs, or Short Range Attack Missiles, loaded with kiloton-class Nuclear Warheads. And guess what? They've got them pretty much pointed at each other. Since it split into the Hindu India and the Muslim Pakistan, there has been much debate over who owns the territory between the nations called Kashmir. Estimate say that each nation probably has around sixty to eighty warheads each. God only knows how long before they start nuking each other over Kashmir. And yes, I think it may eventually come to that. No, I don't have any hard evidence to back it up other than my intuition.

Israel and Iran are a problem. Iran's (Now well-known) Uranium-enrichment program has prompted the Israelis into actions of their own. I have read articles that Israel has threatened Iran with the use of so-called 'Tactical' Nuclear weapons if Iran does not stop it's own Nuclear program. Is it going to happen? Could be. Is it going to be pretty? Hell no.

France and China are both producing Nuclear weapons at an unknown rate. At this point in time we should be disarming all Nuclear weapons, not making more of them. The START treaties signed in the past seem to hold little meaning for any of the powers armed with Nuclear weapons.

The differentiation between so-called 'Tactical' and 'Strategic' Nuclear weapons is a problem. Strategic Nuclear Weapons are typically made to produce as big an explosion as possible, with as much Nuclear fallout and radiation as possible. This is your 'typical' Nuclear weapon. Now, 'Tactical' Nuclear weapons are 'clean' nukes. They are designed to eliminate as much radiation and fallout as possible, while making a big boom. Is there really a difference? No. A Nuclear weapon is a Nuclear weapon, no matter how you try and slap a different label on it, but most people don't realize this. So the government can be producing 'clean' Nuclear weapons and people don't realize that clean is a relative term.

The Soviet Union is a problem. Yes, the Soviet Union. No, not Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it had approximately two hundred and fifty SADM weapons. During it's collapse, it 'lost' at least one hundred of them. That's right, there are at least a hundred Nuclear weapons floating around the world. On the black market, in some third-world nations, sitting in someone's closet for all we know. A SADM is a Special Atomic Demolition Munition. Layman's terms, it's a nuke that fits in a suitcase. I'll let that sink in for a few moments.

...
...
...
Sinking in yet?

Let's not forget the Russians. The USA had plans a year or two ago to build a missile defense system in southern and eastern Europe to protect it from projected ICBMs fired out of Iran, should they ever have that capability. Russia's response was something like "If you do that, we will respond with any and all means necessary to protect the Russian Federation." They think it could be a Nuclear weapons delivery system, not a defense system. Which means, ladies and gents, if they think we are getting ready to use Nuclear weapons, they will do it first, and they have a lot more than we do.

There are 20,000 active Nuclear weapons in the world today (Estimate). That means 20,000 on planes, in missiles, or in subs. Ready to go at any moment, ready to destroy a city or a nation. A lot of people know that. What they don't know is that there are over 15,000 DEACTIVATED Nuclear weapons in the world. Those are just warheads sitting in some bunker a mile underground. It only takes a few hours to get one, load it onto an ICBM, and launch. So really, there is no ACTIVE or DEACTIVE Nuclear weapons. They are all perfectly capable of destroying the world, be they on a missile or not. That makes for a grand total of...about 39,000 Nuclear weapons of varying yields around the world.

Did I mention there are a hundred on the black market?

If you want to know more about Nuclear weapons, how they work, who has how many, their affects, or anything else, post here. Want to rant against Nuclear weapons? Post here, too. Want to argue for nations having them? You can do that, as well.

[Prozerran]

As serious a topic as this is, I suggest that you come up with a discussion question, and quick. I like the topic, but if it has no direction it will quickly meet a bitter end in the lockdown hall of fame. So, pick something and run with it.

Personally, nuclear weapons have been a concern for well over half this century. The atomic age is indeed a scary thought to consider, which is why we must be careful when we go to the polls and elect the right people into office. I swear, I nearly shit myself while watching the Daily Show when Bush and Putin went to blows over the missile defense system. Then Putin comes to the U.S. to meet with Bush and in the press conference, Bush says, "Vladimir and I, I call him Vladimir, we're friends..."

It just makes me want to hide my face in my shirt, cover my ears, and wait for someone to tap me on the shoulder and let me know when it's all over. I think the threat of nuclear warfare is very real, which is why I'm so adamant that people keep a keen eye on the political situation developing in America. It may happen tomorrow, or it may happen in 100 years, but unless Nuclear Weapons are completely removed and destroyed, we will destroy the planet and everything on it (except for the Beetles, because beetles can survive just about anything, and well, the Beetles were just fucking awesome, so they'll never die, either way you look at it).

[Tanis]

For the sake of keeping everything cool and collected, this thread is hereby no longer a debate on who should have them or why. This thread shall be one of information and facts. Is that somewhat along what you are thinking, Prozzeran? I think the issue is too broad to be narrowed down to a single question, personally. That is over-simplifying the topic. Let's keep this free of passionate yelling about why the US should have them or shouldn't.

Questions? Ask them. Information? Post it. Discuss the threat? Of course.

I am fairly knowledgeable in things Nuclear, I'll answer any questions as best as I can.

[BlackDefiler]

The threat is very real indeed. And if it starts we can only hope that the outcome won't be a lot worse than in Fallout. (F*ckin awesome game btw)
The nukes will stay though, since for them to be removed someone would have to "go first" and I don't think any of the nuclear powers would want to be the first to dismantle it weaponry while the others still have it.

[WhatIsStarcraft]

I don't know how many people will start their post with 'The threat is very real indeed' so im going to begin with that I don't think the nuclear missiles is ever going to be dismantled, maybe in 500 years or so. but for me one of the most scary part is that there are about 100 nuclear SADM in the BLACK MARKET! I knew that before, but it still scares the shit out of me.

And I think that the US has more ICBM's than Russia.

[singo]

Russia has more ICBM's purely numbers wise, but the US ICBM's have always been better (ie, more accurate, more warheads).


Personally the only nuclear weapons I am worried about are those black market ones. Why? Simply because they are scary things, so scary that NO-ONE wants to push that button and launch them. World leaders have far too much to lose to risk it all on a nuclear strike.

Oh, one point, becuase it has not been mentioned yet (I am sure everyone in the IR knows this already but its best to be sure) the power of Nuclear weapons is often (indeed, by most people) OVERestimated, One can take out a fairly significant chunk of a major city, not blow up the country. Okay there is no theoretical limit on the size of a thermonuclear weapon, but no-one builds the big ones any more. Its not efficient.

Deterrence has worked for sixty years now, and it worked through the korean war, the cuban missile crisis and the collapse of the Soviet Union. I doubt anything that Iran or any other slightly mad government hellbent on going nuclear can do will match the danger of apocalypse that those times held.

And yes I take satisfaction from the fact that if I am wrong no-one will be around to say "I told you so"

[Darmago]

Russia has more ICBM's purely numbers wise, but the US ICBM's have always been better (ie, more accurate, more warheads).


Personally the only nuclear weapons I am worried about are those black market ones. Why? Simply because they are scary things, so scary that NO-ONE wants to push that button and launch them. World leaders have far too much to lose to risk it all on a nuclear strike.

Oh, one point, becuase it has not been mentioned yet (I am sure everyone in the IR knows this already but its best to be sure) the power of Nuclear weapons is often (indeed, by most people) OVERestimated, One can take out a fairly significant chunk of a major city, not blow up the country. Okay there is no theoretical limit on the size of a thermonuclear weapon, but no-one builds the big ones any more. Its not efficient.

Deterrence has worked for sixty years now, and it worked through the korean war, the cuban missile crisis and the collapse of the Soviet Union. I doubt anything that Iran or any other slightly mad government hellbent on going nuclear can do will match the danger of apocalypse that those times held.

And yes I take satisfaction from the fact that if I am wrong no-one will be around to say "I told you so"
Its unfortunate that deterrence does not quite effect the shapeless worldwide oranizations that would be most likely to use the black market SADMs... assuming that they are on the black market, and not sitting peacefully in some deserted bunker in Kazakhstan

[singo]

Indeed, but even 100 kiloton-yield nukes are not going to cause the extinction of humanity.

[Tanis]

Let me lay out some information I worked out earlier today with some free time. I took the damage reports from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as other Nuclear test detonations and radiation reports, and came up with the following information.

Five megaton Nuclear warheads are sort of the global standard in terms of the Megaton-class. The USA and the Russian Federation both use bombs from one megaton to ten megatons in yield, as well as the smaller kiloton-yield weapons, but five is a good average. I also have numbers for one and three megaton weapons, which are still fairly common.

From Ground Zero of a five megaton warhead detonation, the blast, Thermal and Gamma Radiation, and shock wave destroys every building and kills every living thing within three hundred and thirty miles. No one walks out alive.

Anything left standing or living within four hundred and twelve miles has a 85-95% fatality rate from the shock wave, Thermal, and Gamma Radiation.

Buildings will still be falling down and people dying left and right out to six hundred and sixty miles from Ground Zero, and the shock wave will be felt over a thousand miles away.

Then the fallout and Radiation Sickness sets in. I won't go into there unless I have to.

Columbus, the city I live in, is two hundred and twenty square miles.

I rest my case.

[singo]

From Ground Zero of a five megaton warhead detonation, the blast, Thermal and Gamma Radiation, and shock wave destroys every building and kills every living thing within three hundred and thirty miles. No one walks out alive.

Thats, well, wrong. for a 25Mt airburst (as in, something detonated at the optimum height to flatten stuff) you get only 50% casualties from shockwave and suchlike at 10 miles


The majority of warheads are situated on land based ICBM's (going on US and Russia here, other nuclear forces have nowhere near the numbers)

US ICBM's consist of the minuteman series. The most advanced of these, the Minuteman III, carries 3 340kt warheads. Most of the 5+ megatonne warheads are in storage. And dont have a delivery system in operation.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/the-robust-nuclear-earth-penetrator-rnep.html

From the second main (non-italics) paragraph

the 1.2-megaton B83 nuclear bomb... The B83 is the largest nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal

Okay, that website does not look completely impartial, but if anything its likely to overstate the case.

[Gunmonk]

I'd say you're worse off with minutemen those bastards are designed to strike acurately and quickly.... now after speaking with an undisclosed person that would know this... it says that it is highly unlikely for a five megaton to do that. at worst with the degrading of the nuclear material over time in the past eighteen years it would not be anywhere as effective as mentioned

[Tanis]

**Post made before Gunmonk. No alterations made.**

Not accordingly to calculations I did. Airburst isn't as destructive as a laydown detonation or impact because when it is on the ground when it detonates, the force which would normally is forced down (As in Airburst) is funneled at least partially in the lateral directions. I'll explain how I worked it out.

The Hiroshima Bomb was approximately fifteen kilotons in yield. Very small by today's standards. One thousand kilotons is needed to equate to one megaton. Fifteen goes into one thousand approximately sixty six point seven times. So, take the Hypocenter of a fifteen kiloton bomb and multiply it by sixty six point seven. You have a one megaton Hypocenter. Multiply that by five, and boom, you have a good estimate of a five megaton Nuclear warhead.

As for the Minuteman, three three hundred and fifty kiloton warheads in different locations on a city is more dangerous than a single megaton yield weapon. Three different shock waves, three sources of fallout, and three different Hypocenters.

As for the B83, that is incorrect. That is the highest yield ACTIVE weapon. The highest yield US Nuclear weapon is the B53, of a variable yield between one and nine point eight megatons, is in the USA stockpile. But like I said, there is no real differentiation between an active weapon and a deactive weapon. All they do is take out the fuse, and call it disarmed. Doesn't take more than an hour or two to make that bomb ready for war.

[uberfoop]

The hell Tanis? Don't you understand the idea of effect dissapation? Doubling the yield doesn't double the blast radius. When you double the yield, so much more of that energy is blasted into the air uselessly. If you're estimates on blast radius were correct, the archipellago of Novaya Zemyla would have been completely obliterated on October 30, 1961, due to the 50 megaton Tsar Bomba test (the Tsar was capable of 100Mt, but they changed the U238 of the final fission stage to lead to almost completely eliminate the fallout effects (yes, it was an extremely clean 50 megaton kaboom). Nonetheless, the area of uberdestruction from the blast was only like 20-30 miles radius.
It's just like if you were to take a dropper full of water and drip single drops of water down onto something; when a second drop falls and the 2 drops combine into 1 bubble, the radius of the bubble isn't doubled, it's only increased a bit. Add that to a shape which has an even more dispersing shape (an explosion), and suddenly an increase in radius takes a LOT of energy. Even increasing the total blast area means you're fighting one (verticle) exponential effect from that.



Anyhow, about high yield nukes: They're useless. Even the american B41, which had 25Mt yield, and a higher efficiency and power than any other american bomb ever (It still holds the yield:weight ratio record), was just too big. It has to be delivered by bomber ffs. But the most powerful device in history was the aformentioned Tsar Bomba of the Soviet Union; it was kind of a sloppy job where R&D&testing were all concluded within 4 months, but that doesn't change the fact that the 27-ton beast was capable of a super-dirty 100 megaton blast if a U238 tamper were used (we're talking about fallout levels capable of completely exterminating the British Isles with a single bomb). However, delivering the bomb meant using a tu-95 that was specially modified with the bomb bay doors cut away just to fit the damn thing on. Not to mention, the aformentioned reduction of effect increase as you increase yield means it's m,uch more efficienct to just use smaller bombs (thus Tsar was only ever used as a bit of political poking).

As delivery via bomber is generally stupid and difficult, ICBM's of course became the norm for nuke delivery, and this meant smaller (usually sub-megaton-yield) bombs. During the Cold War just about nobody ever came up with even a half-arsed system for shooting down the things, thus MAD aka Mutual Assured Destruction.
For anyone wondering, MAD is definently still in effect. Russia may not have many modern ICBM's, but their missile technology is currently vastly superior to ours and Patriots can't hit jack (not to mention that modern Russian Topol-M's can dodge incoming projectiles, suck up laser fire, suck up EMP, suck up nuclear radiation effects, and even suck up some reasonably strong shockwaves). On the other side, Russian S-400's are capable of hitting just about whatever they darn well want to, but Russia has crap for numbers of those and thus they really couldn't do anything about it if we launched our ICBM's.
The first thing that may be a significant impediment to incoming ICBM's are the new particle beam weapons soon to be tested. Unlike lasers, you can't just shield against them, because their effects aren't limited to what you can do with light and a generator. On the other hand, Russia is probably secretely developing the exact same thing under their nice little cover of pretending to be completely broke (Which, looking at their developments, they are most definently not. Especially if their claims about the FOAB turn up true; that would mean that they are vastly ahead of the US in nanomaterial usage in bombs).




Aye...

[WhatIsStarcraft]

I don't know how you guys find out stuff like that, but what I do know is that Atom bombs aren't cery good, and particularly if you are a president of some country, and someone throws a nuclear bomb at you, maybe just to see how the bomb does it in the real world, although I doubt anyone would ever do something like that.

[Tanis]

DISCLAIMER: No, I am not an expert in Nuclear physics.


You could've just said I am a moron and achieved the same affect. So I was wrong. Very, very wrong.

Particle Beam Weapons? Links, please. Never heard of such things outside of Science Fiction books or games.

Delivery by bomber is still a mainstay with the United States nuclear stockpile. We only have approximately a thousand Minuteman III missile tubes in various location. The rest are in Nuclear Missile Submarines, such as the Ohio-Class, or bomb/air-launched cruise missiles. With around ten thousand weapons in active service or stockpiled, I'd disagree with the statement that it is stupid. If it were, free-fall bombs would have been completely replaced long before today.

While an air-launched cruise missile is not really a bomb, it is not really an ICBM either. A B-52H Stratofortress can carry...I think it is twelve AGM-129 ACM weapons, which carry a variable-yield warhead. Each has a range of almost two thousand miles. Combine that with the B-52H's range of over four thousand with a full load...I'd say it wouldn't be too difficult to get the hurt on someone.

[uberfoop]

Particle Beam Weapons? Links, please. Never heard of such things outside of Science Fiction books or games.

I'll admit that I'm not totally sure about how practical they are, and I guess their penetration capacity is most likely a bit exaggerated, especially seeing as how they were more or less abandoned in the 80's until MEDUSA, but theoretically they are quite possible. Wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_beam_weapon)


Delivery by bomber is still a mainstay with the United States nuclear stockpile. We only have approximately a thousand Minuteman III missile tubes in various location. The rest are in Nuclear Missile Submarines, such as the Ohio-Class, or bomb/air-launched cruise missiles. With around ten thousand weapons in active service or stockpiled, I'd disagree with the statement that it is stupid. If it were, free-fall bombs would have been completely replaced long before today.

I was mainly speaking about gravity bombs and, anyway, air-launched cruise missiles are pretty crappy for MAD since the 3000km range you need to get within to the target means likely a good deal of flying time towards (Russia?).


While an air-launched cruise missile is not really a bomb, it is not really an ICBM either. A B-52H Stratofortress can carry...I think it is twelve AGM-129 ACM weapons, which carry a variable-yield warhead. Each has a range of almost two thousand miles. Combine that with the B-52H's range of over four thousand with a full load...I'd say it wouldn't be too difficult to get the hurt on someone.
Well, then they'd better do it before Russia builds any S-500's. They aim to be massive AA missiles for super-high-priority targets and have a potential range of 3500km (500 more than the Cruise Missiles) plus extremely high-quality detection systems. B-52H's take a long time to move 500km.

Not to mention, if Russia detected the B-52H's at long range, they could just have some fun and intercept them with Tu-95's if they wanted to. Why? Rear gun turrets :)

Air-launched cruise missiles just aren't where it's at. It takes B-52H's so long to get anywhere they would be easily intercepted by Eastern power. 3000km is a long way, but heck, the East could just launch some cruise missiles and intercept the bombers; Russian cruise missiles have more potential range anyway (They go the same range of 3000km with a heavier, 200kt warhead).




But does it even matter? It's already blatantly obvious that use of ANY of those weapons would result in wtfbbqhaq destruction.

[kongurous]

Patriots can't hit jack

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I feel it's necessary to point this fact out: Patriot missiles aren't supposed to hit anything. A Patriot missile is supposed to explode close enough to mess up the flight path of the target, or make the target explode before it can cause more severe damage.

And this might be my military experience talking (I don't know, living on the Azores messed this up pretty much), but I'm pretty sure American military technology is better than Russian military technology. If this is not the case, please enlighten me.

[Tanis]

Not to mention, if Russia detected the B-52H's at long range, they could just have some fun and intercept them with Tu-95's if they wanted to. Why? Rear gun turrets :)


What kind of moron uses bombers to intercept bombers?
Do you honestly think that's what the Russians would do?
They have MiG-29s and Su-27s for a reason.

[Darmago]

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I feel it's necessary to point this fact out: Patriot missiles aren't supposed to hit anything. A Patriot missile is supposed to explode close enough to mess up the flight path of the target, or make the target explode before it can cause more severe damage.

And this might be my military experience talking (I don't know, living on the Azores messed this up pretty much), but I'm pretty sure American military technology is better than Russian military technology. If this is not the case, please enlighten me.

However Pakistan claims to have a new "Stealth" ICBM... which would screw us up pretty nicely.

[uberfoop]

What kind of moron uses bombers to intercept bombers?
Do you honestly think that's what the Russians would do?
They have MiG-29s and Su-27s for a reason.
Of course it's not what they would do. I'm simply stating that they jolly well could if they wanted to, B-52H's being almost as slow as Tu-95's.

BTW mig-29's couldn't intercept the bombers at the 3000km range. Mig-31's and the Su-27's you mentioned could (barely), but even they would have to drop into the ocean like right after the strike.


I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I feel it's necessary to point this fact out: Patriot missiles aren't supposed to hit anything. A Patriot missile is supposed to explode close enough to mess up the flight path of the target, or make the target explode before it can cause more severe damage.

Aye, but it's not like a patriot is carrying a MOAB on board, and even THAT would probably have to hit within 130m or so to kill a Topol-M.
When you consider the Topol-M's evasive maneuvres and resilience (At the cost of some range and huge amouints of money ofc; even with it's huge size it only goes 11,000km, which is still better than the minuteman, and thus Russia only has like 40 of them, as compared with the 500 active minutemen of the USA), and the fact that patriots have somewhat embarrassing success rates anyway even when not firing at a level 25 Sven with butterfly, you can't really trust the things to do much.


And this might be my military experience talking (I don't know, living on the Azores messed this up pretty much), but I'm pretty sure American military technology is better than Russian military technology. If this is not the case, please enlighten me.

Russia has made huge advancements, and their cost-effectiveness still wtfbbqpwns the West. New Russian tanks weigh about 2/3rds as much as Western ones, have a lower profiler (admitedly, that really isn't a huge deal), sport heavier weaponry (including tandem-charge HEAT ATGM's and a slightly larger cannon), have higher armour capacity (~1,000mm RHA on the composite depending on location on tank and type of projectile), have ungodlyishly powerful ERA available for stopping shaped-charge HEAT projectiles, and have some of the best APS systems available for them (Shtora provides excellent protection against guided projectiles and can lay down an aerosol screen that lasts for 20 seconds). Admitedly, the West has tanks with slightly higher RHA capacity on their armour, but that hasn't been shown to effectively protected against a Russian RPG-29 ($500 for launcher, $300 per grenade).
Oh, forgot to mention, western tanks usually cost over $4,000,000 per. T-90's only cost $2,000,000 and their Svir missiles can puncture Western tanks from a distance of 5km.

The west is making greater KNOWN advancements in the field of directed energy weaponry, but Russia is currently king of the conventional weapons, especially when it comes to efficiency, and even more so especially when it comes to land weapons. Their air power is more or less just 'keeping up' atm.

[Tanis]

BTW mig-29's couldn't intercept the bombers at the 3000km range. Mig-31's and the Su-27's you mentioned could (barely), but even they would have to drop into the ocean like right after the strike.

My point being that Russia DOES have air-superiority fighters, and that intercepting a bomber with a bomber is possibly the most foolish waste of fuel, time, and money that I have ever heard of. Not even the Russians would do that. It's just...stupid. Also, The new Su-35 has a combat range longer than that of the B-52.

[uberfoop]

Also, The new Su-35 has a combat range longer than that of the B-52.
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Where did you hear that? Heavy strategic bombers can travel vastly greater distances than any fighter. With extra fuel tanks a new su-35 can make it 4,500km. This is admitedly quite impressive for a fighter, but B-52's have gone over 20,000km without being refueled before. The tu-95 has comparable long-range capacity to the b-52, as does the tu-160.



And no, bomber to bomber interception wouldn't be THAT stupid. If you used fighters, you would run out of fuel right after nailing the B-52H's and have to either put down in hostile territory (if over land) or lose the aircraft in the destruction sense (if over sea). If you had the time capacity a Tu-95 would be far more efficient, since you don't lose the aircraft due to fuel loss. However, as you put forth, it would be smarter to use a fast air-to-air combat plane for interception. I'm just saying, with enough warning, a Tu-95 interception would be waay more efficient and that the only reason you wouldn't do it is because you wouldn't be QUITE as sure of a successful hit.



But really, at that stage in a conflict, I wouldn't be suprised to see air-to-air cruise missile usage coming from Russia, just to make sure.

[Tanis]

A B-52H, with a full combat load of missiles, bombs, and ECM gear has a combat range of 4,400 miles, which is half of it's total possible range, approximately 8,800 miles. I present a source to prove this.

http://www.stratofortress.org/specifications-b52h.htm

With in-flight refueling, a wing of Su-35 fighters can do double this. Maybe even triple, but it'd be taxing on the engines.

[uberfoop]

A B-52H, yes, does have a practical combat radius of 4,400 miles, a loaded max range of 8,800 miles, and a ferry range of 15,000 Kilometers, and a record distance traveled of just over 20,000km withour being refueled (H variant, in 1962).

In other words, about 14,000 kilometers of maximum loaded distance for the b-52H as compared to the 4,500 that you can kinda/sorta squeeze out of an UNLOADED su-35BM with external fuel tanks.


I also don't know why you're bringing up in-flight refueling, since B-52's can fly nonstop for ages when using that technology.




I think you just got mixed up comparing the range types for the aircraft; 4,500 km is the su-35's maximum ferry range with the external tanks. And this is EXTREMELY impressive for a fighter btw. A B-52H, however, has a ferry range of 15,000 kilometers. Admitedly, ferry range means jack, But a B-52H's maximum loaded range is still WELL over double the UNLOADED RANGE of an Su-35.
I have no clue where the heck you got the idea that ANY fighter can even be comparable in range to a heavy strategic bomber...
I AM talking about the Su-35BM variant as well btw, which has greater range capacity than other variants.
This argument still stands with the Tu-95, since it has similar range capacity as compared with the B-52, what I was presenting as a sort of laughable-esque interceptor which could potentially work against b-52's.

[xodkrm]

Even if we get all the countries in the world to agree to disarm nuclear arms, the truth is, as sad it is, that the these countries will all secretly keep making them, in the name of national defense. We all know that WW3 is going to hapen. The thing is, theres nothing we can do to stop this from happening. WW3 cannot be stopped. We can only delay the time this would take place - but for what? For countries to keep inventing more and more deadly technology until WW3 hits us even harder?

Tomorrow's war is no longer little soldiers shooting bullets at each other at a designated spot. This war is where a single bomb can easily be fired from half way across the continent to wipe out a city. Everyone is involved, and the results are fatal.

I believe that the only way we can even ever have a chance of stopping this is by changing the government hierarchy, so that the population has direct affect to the president, in some way, so that if the head of the country decides to go to war, we have a chance of vetoing it. But of course, with freedom comes responsibility, and a chance at rigging the system. This means that the general public needs to its research and understand before it does anything. Simply put, we're fucked. There is no way any of this positive "people" shit will ever happen, and we are all doomed.
Peace out.

[Tanis]

... and a record distance traveled of just over 20,000km withour being refueled (H variant, in 1962).

Provide links to attest to this.

Back to the subject at hand. We are supposed to be talking about Nuclear weapons here, not aircraft.

I have to go to school now, but I have a post which will be made when I return.

[singo]

Indeed. And, call me an optimist (I am) but a nuclear war is not going to happen.

The absolute worst case scenario is Iran getting hold of a couple of warheads and bouncing a few kt of Tel Aviv, with an Israeli/US response killing about ten - fifteen million in and around Iranian major cities. At which point everyone stops and starts complaining about things.

No country that does not have a religious fundamentalist government seriously wants to cause armageddon. And even then its more likely to be posturing and threats than a serious attempt to cause it.

Apart from that, the only weapons likely to be used are the suitcase sized terrorists wet dream bombs. And given that terrorists only have a few percent of a success rate with conventional explody suitcases I think that ones sending every gieger-muller counter for miles insane would probably be detected.

[uberfoop]

Provide links to attest to this.

It's on this page (http://www.virginradio.co.uk/music/artists/b_52/biography/11.html)
And this one (http://books.google.com/books?id=PqGEXuzFS6QC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=%22b+52%22+record+unrefueled+distance+20177&source=web&ots=f615C9TC5N&sig=x06YyG6Kcp68oC_ZmwIKqMPQme4)
And a lot which you would find by doing a google search
And wikipedia.

[mranderson]

The U.S. is developing their interceptor system somewhere in Europe, and Russia already has an anti-ICBM system in Russia covering "only" Moscow, and they might have developed their s-500 Самодержецs. How close are we to doomsday? It seems that the cold war isn't over in the military set. Sorry I didn't put any quotes but I've got school still.

[Tanis]

Singo, I didn't say it was five minutes till the world ended. I said it was five minutes to nuclear war. To make a blanket statement saying that it isn't going to happen means that you are ignoring the possibility. I am not being pessimistic, I am being realistic. This threat is a real one.

http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/

The Russian President has, for example, started heavy bomber patrols over the pacific and other parts of the world. Fully loaded, ready for war patrols. That hasn't happened in fifteen years or so, not to mention the new Russian interest in MIRV weapons and SLBMs, both of which are methods for the delivery of Nuclear warheads.

Links to prove this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/world/europe/17cnd-russia.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.158/missile_detail.asp

As for maintaining Nuclear weapons for defense, it's a lie in and of itself. Nuclear weapons are OFFENSIVE by their very nature. Besides, it's not like a Nuclear Home Invasion, Nuclear Bank Robbery, or Nuclear Drive-by is going to occur at any moment, and even if it was, what is the point of retalitation? All we'd do is kill more people.

Say for instance, hypothetically, Russia drops some eggs in my city of Columbus and destroys most if it. Let's say 500,000 dead and times two wounded. So we've been nuked. Hey! Let's nuke Arkhangelsk in revenge! Let's kill another half million people!

See my point?

You can't win a Nuclear, plain and simple. Either you've got the bodies of millions piling up around you or you are wading in the blood of millions shed by your own hands. It's lose-lose to me.

[uberfoop]

The Russian President has, for example, started heavy bomber patrols over the pacific and other parts of the world. Fully loaded, ready for war patrols. That hasn't happened in fifteen years or so, not to mention the new Russian interest in MIRV weapons and SLBMs, both of which are methods for the delivery of Nuclear warheads.
Russia already has MIRV-capable missiles (I might add that the aforementioned Topol-M's are what I'm talking about. They can be fitted with several warheads if necesary). As for the bombers, that's just muscle flexing. People do it all the time. Just like how Israel flew planes over Syria to let Debkafile pretend like the Russian Pantsir-S1 AA systems suck and are easy to jam (which, even if they were delivered in august, probably wouldn't have been deployed by september 6, but whatever. Anyone who takes debkafile seriously should go kill themselves.)


Links to prove this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/world/europe/17cnd-russia.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.158/missile_detail.asp

As for maintaining Nuclear weapons for defense, it's a lie in and of itself. Nuclear weapons are OFFENSIVE by their very nature. Besides, it's not like a Nuclear Home Invasion, Nuclear Bank Robbery, or Nuclear Drive-by is going to occur at any moment, and even if it was, what is the point of retalitation? All we'd do is kill more people.

The answer: DETERRANT.
What don't you get about not attacking because if you do you'll be screwed too? Nukes are probably the most effective defensive weapons in history. Not all weapons are shot from barrels, thrown, or slid/chopped/thrown/archeried into someone. Some defend just by existing. Passive defense by Mutual Assured Destruction. It works so well that the idea of actually launching a nuke is considered the peak of madness by almost everyone.


Say for instance, hypothetically, Russia drops some eggs in my city of Columbus and destroys most if it. Let's say 500,000 dead and times two wounded. So we've been nuked. Hey! Let's nuke Arkhangelsk in revenge! Let's kill another half million people!

See my point?

You can't win a Nuclear, plain and simple. Either you've got the bodies of millions piling up around you or you are wading in the blood of millions shed by your own hands. It's lose-lose to me.
Duh that firing back would accomplish nothing for the world. But the idea is that you don't care because you're dead and you get your revenge. Nobody said it wasn't lose-lose; it's the very fact that everyone loses no matter what that makes a nuclear detterent so effective.

The threat of everyone dying is exactly what makes the ICBM such a great defensive weapon. Nobody will use ICBM's because that could cause the extinction of all human life, especially the users. Thus, if you don't want to die, you don't fire a nuke. If you do fire a nuke, you can expect someone to fire a revenge volley, because they'll be dead anyway so it doesn't affect them.
Not everyone gives a damn about human life, especially not the governments (if they did, we wouldn't have gone in and destabilized Iraq to the status of a quagmire of sectarian violence in which the only half-reasoned study (the Lancet study) suggests that 650,000 people have died of. Other studies use retarted methods like body count (Muslims bury bodies hella fast, and in general deaths are hardly media-reported anyway) and use of excessively old data for initial death rates).

[singo]

You can't win a Nuclear, plain and simple. Either you've got the bodies of millions piling up around you or you are wading in the blood of millions shed by your own hands. It's lose-lose to me.

This is the point I am going to address, since the rest of your post is pretty accurate.

Anyway, the fact you cant win IS EXACTLY THE POINT, you cant win a nuclear war, so why would anyone start one?

To make a blanket statement saying that it isn't going to happen means that you are ignoring the possibility.

Indeed I am, I dont see it as a possibility, as long as the various nuclear nations throughout the world continue to view it as a possibility then it isnt one.

Which is nice.

[Tanis]

Well, ignorance IS bliss, I suppose.

[singo]

What was ignorant about anything that was said? Paranoia is not knowledge and contentment is not ignorance.

Besides, I think it needs pointing out that in the 62 years since atomic weapons were first used, not only have they not been used since, but those years have passed without a war between two great powers. That is the longest gap since the Pax Romana, and possibly even longer (I think, cannot find a comprehensive list of all the wars that have ever happened).


Actions speak louder than words, even when those actions are acts of restraint.

[Tanis]

You're choosing to ignore the possibility of Nuclear war. If that let's you sleep at night, that's really fine with me. No, I'm not paranoid. If I was being paranoid, I'd be screaming RUSSIA IS GOING TO NUKE THE USA TOMORROW or PAKISTAN IS GOING NUKE INDIA LATER TODAY or IRAN HAS A SADM IN THE BASEMENT OF CONGRESS or something along those lines, I'd be building a fallout shelter out of my basement, stocking up on food supplies, or other such acts. I am simply accepting the possibility that it can happen, making myself aware of the effects and the aftermath, and watching the world to see where and when it would most likely happen. If you think that's paranoia, then I suppose yes. I am a paranoid, crazy mofo. I can live with that.

As for the longest period of peace between two major powers, I take that in exactly the opposite way that you do. It's been peaceful for sixty some years. That doesn't mean to me that it is going to remain that way, it means to me that it's closer.

[singo]

You really are convinced it is going to happen?

Okay, riddle me this. Who is going to be the one insane enough to push the button first?

[uberfoop]

As for the longest period of peace between two major powers, I take that in exactly the opposite way that you do. It's been peaceful for sixty some years. That doesn't mean to me that it is going to remain that way, it means to me that it's closer.
That's why superpowers wage proxy wars.

[singo]

Exactly, and, since they (proxy wars) dont work, even that has stopped now. At least partly because the word superpower has little or no meaning anymore.


Nuclear Weapons have made the world more peaceful.

Since a death toll of over 20 million did not prevent people waging war (first world war didnt scare people off the second), something even scarier than the thought of millions dying over a few years was needed. Billons dying in a few minuites, that did the trick. And now? No-one wants a war. Problem solved.

[Tanis]

You really are convinced it is going to happen?

Okay, riddle me this. Who is going to be the one insane enough to push the button first?

If you read my post, you'll see that I said "I am simply accepting the possibility that it will happen...". I didn't say that it was inevitable, I said I think it is a real possibility. I don't know who is crazy enough to start it, but I am open to the idea that SOMEONE will.

[singo]

Okay, fair enough, my argument was a lot more convincing until I realised I was basically accusing humanity of coherent sanity I will admit.

I suppose there is a small possibility it could happen, in all likelyhood not deliberately but by cock-up strangelove style.

Still, all in all I would rather a very small chance of armageddon than an almost certain chance of a conventional world war three (which would have casualties running into the hundreds of millions).

[Tanis]

I suppose there is a small possibility it could happen...

Thank you, that's all I wanted you to say.

[singo]

Though I stand by what I said about that being a good thing.

[mranderson]

ABM treaty
These above issues drove the U.S. and USSR to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Under the ABM treaty and a 1974 revision, each country was allowed to deploy a single ABM system with only 100 interceptors to protect a single target. The Soviets deployed a system named A-35 using a missile code-named Galosh, designed to protect Moscow. The U.S. deployed Safeguard to defend ballistic missile sites at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, in 1975. The U.S. Safeguard system was only briefly operational. The Russian system (now called A-135) has been improved and is still active around Moscow.

In December, 1999, the U.N. General Assembly endorsed a resolution aimed at pressing the United States to abandon plans to build an antimissile defense. Voting against the draft, together with the United States, were Albania, Israel and Micronesia. The members of the 15-nation European Union abstained, except for France and Ireland, which voted for the resolution. It called for continued efforts to strengthen and preserve the treaty.[2] On December 15, 2001, the U.S. withdrew from the ABM treaty.






Just wanted to say Nuclear weapons are used for defense. They are called nuclear interceptors. We're practically screwed if we use them though. :D

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2162.html

[uberfoop]

Idiots. Nuclear defense missiles would stop incoming warheads easily, but they wouldn't save us. Russia has more warheads and better missiles than we do.


Oh, and most feasible nuclear interceptor designs would have to detonate within like ~500m or so of a Topol-M to take it out, which might get dicey, unless we were to say 'aw, just **** it' and somehow use B41 (25Mt) nukes for taking out those missiles.

[mranderson]

Ya but then the problem is it degrades the radar capabilities to detect more incoming missiles. O.O Plus I think it degrades the o-zone or the earth's electro magnetic field or something.

[singo]

More to the point, how the hell is getting within half a km a problem with todays guidance systems? If you can hit a Tornado with one when you are not supposed to surely hitting something bigger, that cant take evasive maneuvers isnt too difficult.

And Russia may have better missiles, but only on their land based silos. Their subs are pretty out of date and Trident is getting upgraded soon anyway.

More to the point, Russia isnt the enemy anymore. Just because Putin is trying to get a bit of attention before he has to get another job does not mean a new cold war is starting. He isnt mad enough to push the button even if it did anyway.

[mranderson]

That's half a kilometer within an object going to an undetermined course at how fast again? Its not like the thing is standing still. Plus, if its the beginning of the end of the cold war there isn't going to be one. There'll be at least a couple hundred nukes in the air for the first strike, and they have to get an intercept on each one. Also, techonolgy is applied to the nukes themselves too. That's why they had a Multiple Re-entry Vehicle to counter the interceptor, than they countered that with a interceptor that hits while its in its boost phase or something. So wouldn't it stand to have a counter for that too though?

Anyone know if an interceptor system could be used to hit aircraft? Couldn't the aircraft just turn? Or would the interceptor turn with it? And what about jamming the interceptor system? Or a low flying nuke?

We won the cold war. U.S.S.R. dissolved. Russia's a country, and if they can take us out they will. Plus, Russia has a big stick, and we have a big stick. Someone's going to get hurt. They'll make the first move without nukes, and take out the interceptor system. What then? Would the U.S. launch its nukes if its interceptor system was gone as a first strike? Russia probably won't be the first one to launch. But sore losers are out there.

[singo]

Anyone know if an interceptor system could be used to hit aircraft? Couldn't the aircraft just turn? Or would the interceptor turn with it? And what about jamming the interceptor system? Or a low flying nuke?

Can and has, an interceptor missile was used to nail a British Tornado fighter somewhere over afghanistan. Thank you very much whoever was aiming THAT one.


We won the cold war. U.S.S.R. dissolved. Russia's a country, and if they can take us out they will. Plus, Russia has a big stick, and we have a big stick. Someone's going to get hurt. They'll make the first move without nukes, and take out the interceptor system. What then?

Wow, you really need to pay more attention to the world around you, Russia is not the enemy anymore. A bit of posturing does not signal the resurgence of the cold war.

Know thy enemy, better yet, know who thy enemy bloody well is first.

[Prozerran]

Wow, you really need to pay more attention to the world around you, Russia is not the enemy anymore. A bit of posturing does not signal the resurgence of the cold war.

Know thy enemy, better yet, know who thy enemy bloody well is first.

You're talking about Iran from what I gather, and I just have to chime in here on this, because after watching both Democrats and Republicans in the debates, I have to wonder why all of a sudden we're hearing about this "big threat" from Iran.

Certainly, this threat didn't just up and happen. It's a little too well-timed as well. We're going into the primaries where two candidates, one from each side, are going to be elected to then face off to win the Presidency. I find it quite interesting that it is coming to pass that Iran is just up and ready to start WW3.

Now, there are news reports, I've heard dozens of reports on how Iranian leaders, one in particular, has boasted his own nuclear capabilities while simultaneously sounding the "self-doom" alarm. You know the one I'm talking about... "What have I done?! God Help us ALL!!" Sorry, it's a little too contrived for my taste.

Let's make no mistake, the threat posed by nuclear war is serious, but let's not allow ourselves to be taken down that road of paranioa. It's fun to discuss, it's great to debate, but when we start getting all up in arms and fearful because X, Y, or Z country has nuclear capability, we let our guard down. We stop thinking in the moment and start looking over the horizon to the dread and doom to come. In the moment, you can analyze the situation, take it step by step, work to resolve it. When you look to the horizon, you look at inevitability, at some contrived "End-of-the-World" nonsense that just takes you away from the moment.

So, not to be a thread-killer, I'm all down for debating "What could happen if..." topics all day long. When it comes to talking world issues and trying to assess who are enemies are, it's all a matter of staying in the moment and not letting fear lead you down that road of paranioa so many seem to allow themselves to be led down.

[singo]

Wasn't specifically talking about Iran, but since its out there, no-one seriously thinks that Iran is going to sling fifty warheads at Europe and the US any day soon. At least I hope no-one is dopey enough to think that, even if they do get a facility up and running one bomb a year is about the limit of what they could do.

The worry with Iran is that they might "accidentally" lose one of them that, purely by coincidence, is found a week later in the process of going off in Tel Aviv or somewhere courtesy of those nice chaps in Hezbollah.

[NightElfking]

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I study Nuclear weapons and Radiation as a hobby (Twisted as it is.) Yes, I became interested in this after I played the first Fallout when I was ten. No, I am not an expert in Nuclear physics.

According to the Doomsday Clock, the world is the closest to Nuclear War (Five minutes to Midnight (Doomsday)) since the fifties when the USA and the Soviet Union tested Thermonuclear (Fusion) bombs within a few months of each other (That was Two Minutes to Midnight). A lot of people chalk this up to Iran. However, they are simply part of a bigger issue. Let's look at why the world is so close to apocalypse.

India and Pakistan are a problem. Both have what are called SRAMs, or Short Range Attack Missiles, loaded with kiloton-class Nuclear Warheads. And guess what? They've got them pretty much pointed at each other. Since it split into the Hindu India and the Muslim Pakistan, there has been much debate over who owns the territory between the nations called Kashmir. Estimate say that each nation probably has around sixty to eighty warheads each. God only knows how long before they start nuking each other over Kashmir. And yes, I think it may eventually come to that. No, I don't have any hard evidence to back it up other than my intuition.

Israel and Iran are a problem. Iran's (Now well-known) Uranium-enrichment program has prompted the Israelis into actions of their own. I have read articles that Israel has threatened Iran with the use of so-called 'Tactical' Nuclear weapons if Iran does not stop it's own Nuclear program. Is it going to happen? Could be. Is it going to be pretty? Hell no.

France and China are both producing Nuclear weapons at an unknown rate. At this point in time we should be disarming all Nuclear weapons, not making more of them. The START treaties signed in the past seem to hold little meaning for any of the powers armed with Nuclear weapons.

The differentiation between so-called 'Tactical' and 'Strategic' Nuclear weapons is a problem. Strategic Nuclear Weapons are typically made to produce as big an explosion as possible, with as much Nuclear fallout and radiation as possible. This is your 'typical' Nuclear weapon. Now, 'Tactical' Nuclear weapons are 'clean' nukes. They are designed to eliminate as much radiation and fallout as possible, while making a big boom. Is there really a difference? No. A Nuclear weapon is a Nuclear weapon, no matter how you try and slap a different label on it, but most people don't realize this. So the government can be producing 'clean' Nuclear weapons and people don't realize that clean is a relative term.

The Soviet Union is a problem. Yes, the Soviet Union. No, not Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it had approximately two hundred and fifty SADM weapons. During it's collapse, it 'lost' at least one hundred of them. That's right, there are at least a hundred Nuclear weapons floating around the world. On the black market, in some third-world nations, sitting in someone's closet for all we know. A SADM is a Special Atomic Demolition Munition. Layman's terms, it's a nuke that fits in a suitcase. I'll let that sink in for a few moments.

...
...
...
Sinking in yet?

Let's not forget the Russians. The USA had plans a year or two ago to build a missile defense system in southern and eastern Europe to protect it from projected ICBMs fired out of Iran, should they ever have that capability. Russia's response was something like "If you do that, we will respond with any and all means necessary to protect the Russian Federation." They think it could be a Nuclear weapons delivery system, not a defense system. Which means, ladies and gents, if they think we are getting ready to use Nuclear weapons, they will do it first, and they have a lot more than we do.

There are 20,000 active Nuclear weapons in the world today (Estimate). That means 20,000 on planes, in missiles, or in subs. Ready to go at any moment, ready to destroy a city or a nation. A lot of people know that. What they don't know is that there are over 15,000 DEACTIVATED Nuclear weapons in the world. Those are just warheads sitting in some bunker a mile underground. It only takes a few hours to get one, load it onto an ICBM, and launch. So really, there is no ACTIVE or DEACTIVE Nuclear weapons. They are all perfectly capable of destroying the world, be they on a missile or not. That makes for a grand total of...about 39,000 Nuclear weapons of varying yields around the world.

Did I mention there are a hundred on the black market?

If you want to know more about Nuclear weapons, how they work, who has how many, their affects, or anything else, post here. Want to rant against Nuclear weapons? Post here, too. Want to argue for nations having them? You can do that, as well.

Thank you for scaring the hell out of me ya cock!
NOW I HAVE A REASON TO BE AFRAID!