Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bralbaard]

Since we are on the topic of nukes, and creative use of them,  it might be relevant to note that Trump backed up by some NATO members is about to end the cold war nuclear treaty. This because the russians have seemingly already developed missiles that are in breach of the treaty. Russia denies this.

[Loud Whispers]

Since we are on the topic of nukes, and creative use of them,  it might be relevant to note that Trump backed up by some NATO members is about to end the cold war nuclear treaty. This because the russians have seemingly already developed missiles that are in breach of the treaty. Russia denies this.

wait what

This because the russians have seemingly already developed missiles that are in breach of the treaty. Russia denies this.

Putin says Russia is ready to deploy new hypersonic nuclear missile

How can their lie be so brazen?

[Madman198237]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
Lmao how did I only just find out the USA invented an air-to-air nuclear missile during the cold war

"Dogfight? ... No, no. We just turn a square kilometer or three into plasma. Much quicker."

Even better: It's an UNGUIDED nuclear rocket. So if you miss, um....please don't miss.

[Sergius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
Lmao how did I only just find out the USA invented an air-to-air nuclear missile during the cold war

"Dogfight? ... No, no. We just turn a square kilometer or three into plasma. Much quicker."

Even better: It's an UNGUIDED nuclear rocket. So if you miss, um....please don't miss.

If it's aimed at a squadron of bombers, my guess is that it's set to blow up in mid-air or something, not on impact...

[smjjames]

Since we are on the topic of nukes, and creative use of them,  it might be relevant to note that Trump backed up by some NATO members is about to end the cold war nuclear treaty. This because the russians have seemingly already developed missiles that are in breach of the treaty. Russia denies this.

wait what

This because the russians have seemingly already developed missiles that are in breach of the treaty. Russia denies this.

Putin says Russia is ready to deploy new hypersonic nuclear missile

How can their lie be so brazen?

They also claim the missile to be unstoppable/uninterceptable or something like that, which honestly, is the same kind of mentality that sunk the Titanic. It's always unsink/impreg/stopp/intercept/ and so on -able until it isn't.

While the Russians being constantly in breach of it is one reason, the other main reason is that the flexibility is needed in order to oppose China.

[Trekkin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
Lmao how did I only just find out the USA invented an air-to-air nuclear missile during the cold war

"Dogfight? ... No, no. We just turn a square kilometer or three into plasma. Much quicker."

Even better: It's an UNGUIDED nuclear rocket. So if you miss, um....please don't miss.

If it's aimed at a squadron of bombers, my guess is that it's set to blow up in mid-air or something, not on impact...

Yes. It's on a time delay fuse that starts running when the rocket motor shuts off.

I've seen similar criticisms of nuclear artillery and several kinds of nuclear torpedo, but unguided nuclear weapons have a major advantage consonant with nuclear doctrine: they can't go off in the wrong place because somebody fooled a guidance computer. That's no trivial thing for a weapon with a blast radius comparable to its range, and there are doctrinal benefits to having a human be ultimately responsible for the location of the detonation.

ICBMs are the major exception, but guidance is necessary at those ranges and nuclear Armageddon is a special case anyway.

[Il Palazzo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
Lmao how did I only just find out the USA invented an air-to-air nuclear missile during the cold war

"Dogfight? ... No, no. We just turn a square kilometer or three into plasma. Much quicker."

Even better: It's an UNGUIDED nuclear rocket. So if you miss, um....please don't miss.

If it's aimed at a squadron of bombers, my guess is that it's set to blow up in mid-air or something, not on impact...

Were the Soviet strategic bomber formations this tight, though? Because Wiki rather suggests these were developed in the absence of adequate missile guidance technology. More so that you can reliably hit anything, not to hit more than one target.

[Trekkin]

Were the Soviet strategic bomber formations this tight, though? Because Wiki rather suggests these were developed in the absence of adequate missile guidance technology. More so that you can reliably hit anything, not to hit more than one target.

Since they never arrived, we can't say with certainty, but given the nuclear-capable Tu-4A was derived from a copy of the B-29, we can assume they could have flown in similar formations. Judging from photos of those...maybe? Certainly multiple planes would be within 600m, but probably not the entire formation.

[Jopax]

Even if they aren't there's plenty of side effects of a nuke going off in your general vicinty that would probably cripple them, if not outright destroy them.

[Bralbaard]

They also claim the missile to be unstoppable/uninterceptable or something like that, which honestly, is the same kind of mentality that sunk the Titanic. It's always unsink/impreg/stopp/intercept/ and so on -able until it isn't.

While the Russians being constantly in breach of it is one reason, the other main reason is that the flexibility is needed in order to oppose China.

Well, with the Titanic the stakes weren't as high.

I don't care who broke the treaty first. I just think that we should't welcome a new nuclear arms race. One would hope those politicians did their actual jobs by negotiating a solution

[ChairmanPoo]

They also claim the missile to be unstoppable/uninterceptable or something like that, which honestly, is the same kind of mentality that sunk the Titanic. It's always unsink/impreg/stopp/intercept/ and so on -able until it isn't.

While the Russians being constantly in breach of it is one reason, the other main reason is that the flexibility is needed in order to oppose China.

Well, with the Titanic the stakes weren't as high.

I don't care who broke the treaty first.

It was the icebergs man

[Rolan7]

I think you mean the Hapsburgs

[MrRoboto75]

bombs?

[Frumple]

I don't care who broke the treaty first. I just think that we should't welcome a new nuclear arms race. One would hope those politicians did their actual jobs by negotiating a solution

I mean, one, lots of the ones capable of doing that job got kicked out. Two, russia was apparently doing it anyway, so negotiations came pre-fucked, even if the shitgibbon's lot was able and willing to attempt them. Unfortunately you can't really negotiate with an insistently bad faith actor. Double unfortunately, that describes both russia for a while now and much of the US's current upper administration.

So, like. Omnifucked, welcome to stupid cold war to go with your stupid watergate. Do whatever your equivalent to praying is for it to not go hot.

[wierd]

So it was the austrio-german monarchy that sunk the titanic?

Now I'm curious... what exactly was a hapsburg doing out in the atlantic on that cold, fated night--- and how did he shear though so many bulkheads on impact?  I mean, I've heard some rather tall tales about the Hapsburgs and their prowess, but still..