Five minutes of hate news

[Typhonis]

Another factor in the shrinkage of warheads was accuracy. If you have a Probability of Hit measured in miles you will need a big bomb to ensure you hit the target. Especially if it is a hardened structure. However the higher your accuracy the smaller the warhead you need and the more the same delivery system can carry to an assigned target.

Thus what used to take a 5 MT warhead to mission kill. Now it only requires a 200KT warhead to do the same job and the bus can carry additional 200KT warheads to hit additional targets.

 

[Vyor]

1. buildings have windows through which the light passes and burns you.

Windows block IR. Not all of it, but more than enough to prevent burns. Combined with blinds, you don't get burned.

2. there are certainly distances at which this becomes on par with a lightning strike. Those distances are not even circled. For example, there is not even a circle for 2nd degree burns and 1st degree burns. there is only a circle for 3rd degree burns.

THE HEARING DAMAGE

Are you illiterate or something?

 

[mrttao]

They were specifically used on fake cities to, guess what, get a clue.

At this point it is clear you are arguing in bad faith.

a fake city is FAKE.
a fake city has NO PEOPLE.
a fake city does not get REBUILT
a fake city does not get REPOPULATED

You keep on trying to "catch" me on a "gotcha" of "hurr durr mrttao is ignorant about the exact effects an explosion has on the infrastructure" that is just you arguing in bad faith.

I was LITERALLY responding to

based on the rapid recovery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, compared to the lasting damage left behind by even defunct communist regimes, the damage that would be done by nuclear war is overblown

pointing out that hiroshima and nagasaki were hit with fission weapons not fusion weapons.

and we have no example of a REAL CITY WITH REAL PEOPLE getting rebuilt and repopulated after a fusion bomb wiped it out because no real city with real people was ever blown up with a fusion bomb.

Building a fake city to measure what kind of damage the bombs do is utterly irrelevant to this argument.

 

[mrttao]

If there's aliens observing us, they're going to think that the most powerful nation on the planet worships black people as deities...

And they would be correct in that assumption.

 

[King Arts]

Another factor in the shrinkage of warheads was accuracy. If you have a Probability of Hit measured in miles you will need a big bomb to ensure you hit the target. Especially if it is a hardened structure. However the higher your accuracy the smaller the warhead you need and the more the same delivery system can carry to an assigned target.

Thus what used to take a 5 MT warhead to mission kill. Now it only requires a 200KT warhead to do the same job and the bus can carry additional 200KT warheads to hit additional targets.

What if your goal is to wipe out all life? Then a smaller bomb would not be useful.

I honestly don’t understand the point of counterforce strategy. Counter value is what would actually break a nation permanently.

 

[Zachowon]

What if your goal is to wipe out all life? Then a smaller bomb would not be useful.

I honestly don’t understand the point of counterforce strategy. Counter value is what would actually break a nation permanently.

You don't need to wipe out all life to break a nation prevent supply lines from being fulfilled does the same exact thing

 

[Typhonis]

What if your goal is to wipe out all life? Then a smaller bomb would not be useful.

I honestly don’t understand the point of counterforce strategy. Counter value is what would actually break a nation permanently.

RAE Ever hear of EMP? Initiate the first wave of warheads at 30,000 ft for the EMP to fry all unshielded electronics. For further nastiness you can put a shell on the warheads of cobalt or strontium 90. Furthermore there are enhanced radiation weapons to consider that are designed to spew out the rads like a neutron bomb. By making them small you can spread them out further.

Lastly don't target the cities. Target the infrastructure. Oil fields, oil refineries, power plants, dams. Destroy the nations ability to produce electricity.

 

[Marduk]

At this point it is clear you are arguing in bad faith.

a fake city is FAKE.
a fake city has NO PEOPLE.
a fake city does not get REBUILT
a fake city does not get REPOPULATED

It is you who is arguing in bad faith.
A fake city was built specifically for a test to get a realistic idea for what are the answers to all these questions.
If you think those tests were badly designed and inaccurate, argue that or shut the fuck up
Which doesn't fit your pre-determined scaremongering narrative so you insist on ignoring them instead and keep claiming "we have no idea".
Stop projecting your personal ignorance on everyone else not interested in your ignorance based scaremongering.

You keep on trying to "catch" me on a "gotcha" of "hurr durr mrttao is ignorant about the exact effects an explosion has on the infrastructure" that is just you arguing in bad faith.

I was LITERALLY responding to
pointing out that hiroshima and nagasaki were hit with fission weapons not fusion weapons.
and we have no example of a REAL CITY WITH REAL PEOPLE getting rebuilt and repopulated after a fusion bomb wiped it out because no real city with real people was ever blown up with a fusion bomb.

Which in fact means less radioactive products relative to power, if anything, otherwise yield is yield, and we have extensive studies on what yield does what, technology doesn't change much of effect.
But we do have good estimates due to abovementioned tests and analysis. There's shitload of it on the internet, some of it allowing the kind of websites you linked to that calculate damage radius of nukes to exist, just because you didn't read it i feel no obligation to humor your ignorance based scaremongering goal.

Building a fake city to measure what kind of damage the bombs do is utterly irrelevant to this argument.

If you want to argue knowing the damage to be rebuilt is "utterly irrelevant" to this argument about how hard it would be to rebuilt cities, be my guest clown i guess, talk about the magic factors of how thermonuclear weapons make it so much harder to rebuild. There are no such magic unknown factors, if there were, all nuclear powers in history would be doing their best to find them and maximize their use in own weapons.

 

[Rorschach]

Bottom line is, nobody sane wants to see two groups of religious extremists start a nuclear war. It doesn't matter how bad you think it would be, it def wouldn't be a good thing.

Well, unless you're so psychotic that you just want to see chaos and death. But in that case you're crazy.

Well as far as I'm concerned we should team up with India, Russia and China and just remove Pakistan from the equation. Russia and China are our enemies but Pakistan is a fucking terrorist state run by a bunch of lunatics.

It's in all of our best interests to take them off the board.

 

[mrttao]

If you want to argue knowing the damage to be rebuilt is "utterly irrelevant" to this argument about how hard it would be to rebuilt cities, be my guest clown i guess, talk about the magic factors of how thermonuclear weapons make it so much harder to rebuild. There are no such magic unknown factors, if there were, all nuclear powers in history would be doing their best to find them and maximize their use in own weapons.

faccepalm. wow look at this clown.
you think a city getting wiped and recovering its former status is based on construction feasibility.

It isn't you dumdum, it is about people.

you need:
1. have enough survivors or replacement migrants to take their place.
2. have an economic model that brings people back.
3. have someone financing all that reconstruction.

compare a fission bomb (little boy) to a 25 MT fusion bomb hitting new york

New york's 8.26 m people ability to recover from 0.263 m dead and 0.512 m injured is significantly better than their ability to recover from 6.39897m dead and 4.0904 m injured.

little boy kills 3.18% of the pop and injures 6.2% of the pop.
that leaves over 90% of the pop undisturbed.
some will run away. most will stay put. realistically easily 6 million will remain.
New york pop is now 6 million people. they will slowly expand back into the "hole" left by the bomb.

meanwhile a 25MT fusion bomb hitting the same spot would kill 77.47% of the pop and injure an additional 48.54%. you might have noticed that is more 100%, that is because the explosion will exceed new yorks borders and expand into neighboring cities. the injured survivors are evacuated into hospitals all across the USA. most of them die to lack of medical care. the survivors are now in rehab all across america.
new york population is now exctly 0 people.

Rebuilding in the first scenario happens organically. people simply buy up the empty land.

In the second scenario you have litearlly 0 pop in place. you need to completely clear all the land, rebuild, and then entice migrants to come in to resettle.

who will pay for it all? new work is now 0 people. it has no funds at all.
is the federal govt bankrolling this?

who will want to come live there? there is a stigma! and the average person is deathly terrified of radiation (see all the people opposed to nuclear power plants)
how do you convince people it is safe to come over?

what jobs will those new migrants take? there is no city. there are no jobs there.
what about all the social services people expect? schools, healthcare, etc?

And hey look, there are all those small towns nearby you can go to instead and immediately have a full system in place already.

At this point you are creating a brand new city from scratch.

And that is not even getting into the fact that realistically in a nuclear war more than just 1 city will be bombed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were protected by the fact that only 2 bombs existed. it was not a full scale nuclear war. now there are STOCKPILES of nuclear bombs. we are talking about many cities all being wiped out at once. is the federal govt going to sink infinite funds into rebuilding all of them?

 

[Marduk]

faccepalm. wow look at this clown.
you think a city getting wiped and recovering its former status is based on construction feasibility.

It isn't you dumdum, it is about people.

you need:
1. have enough survivors or replacement migrants to take their place.
2. have an economic model that brings people back.
3. have someone financing all that reconstruction.

compare a fission bomb (little boy) to a 25 MT fusion bomb hitting new york

little boy kills 3.18% of the pop and injures 6.2% of the pop.
that leaves over 90% of the pop undisturbed.
some will run away. most will stay put. realistically easily 6 million will remain.
New york pop is now 6 million people. they will slowly expand back into the "hole" left by the bomb.

Except that in real nuclear targeting no one uses one bomb of any size on such a major city. It would not properly destroy some tougher infrastructure targets like certain factories, rail and road infrastructure. You may as well wreck a city harder with a few dozens of MIRV'd 100 an 200 kiloton devices, even non-fusion ones if need be.

meanwhile a 25MT fusion bomb hitting the same spot would kill 77.47% of the pop and injure an additional 48.54%.
you might have noticed that is more 100%, that is because the explosion will exceed new yorks borders and expand into neighboring cities. the injured survivors are evacuated into hospitals all across the USA. most of them die to lack of medical care. the survivors are now in rehab all across america.
new york population is now exctly 0 people.

Again, people already pointed out to you why not all people in a radius of burns or light blast pressure damage get injured, nevermind hard enough to need hospitalization.
Make a fucking argument or shut the fuck up with this retardation.
You lack basic fucking common sense apparently to understand how all people without a clear unobstructed view of the explosion at the given moment will not get 3rd degree burns, so if they are not within the actual building wrecking distance of the nuke they may well end up unhurt.

Rebuilding in the first scenario happens organically. people simply buy up the empty land.

In the second scenario you have litearlly 0 pop in place. you need to completely clear all the land, rebuild, and then entice migrants to come in to resettle.

Wrong on account above shitty assumption. Many people in the large outer radius of the detonation would stay.

who will pay for it all? new work is now 0 people. it has no funds at all.
is the federal govt bankrolling this?

No shit Sherlock, who else does disaster management after an act of nuclear terrorism or war?

who will want to come live there? there is a stigma! and the average person is deathly terrified of radiation (see all the people opposed to nuclear power plants)
how do you convince people it is safe to come over?

Japan did it, so, yeah... Geiger counters are better and cheaper now too.
If the average people won't take the cheap real estate, the less average ones will.

what jobs will those new migrants take? there is no city. there are no jobs there.
what about all the social services people expect? schools, healthcare, etc?

Read up about post WW2 reconstruction in the most destroyed cities, that's exactly the sort of shit that had to be done, with some firebombings being more destructive than Hiroshima even in terms of sheer amount of buildings destroyed.

And hey look, there are all those small towns nearby you can go to instead and immediately have a full system in place already.

If everyone thinks like this, the real estate costs in those towns will skyrocket, while the ruins are cheap...

At this point you are creating a brand new city from scratch.

Yet after WW2 it was done with many cities. Some shrank... Some eventually grew bigger. But generally cities are built in the places they are in for a reason, rather than because in the past someone randomly picked that spot - like, say, being on a good piece of the coast for a major port.

And that is not even getting into the fact that realistically in a nuclear war more than just 1 city will be bombed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were protected by the fact that only 2 bombs existed. it was not a full scale nuclear war. now there are STOCKPILES of nuclear bombs. we are talking about many cities all being wiped out at once. is the federal govt going to sink infinite funds into rebuilding all of them?

And that has little to do with yield differences of used devices, that's a general mass nuclear warfare problem, doesn't matters if thousands of 100 kt nuclear devices are used or hundreds of 10 megaton ones.
As i said, many cities in WW2 got damaged worse than Hiroshima with few kilotons worth of normal explosive and incendiary bombs being dropped in some largest individual raids, except due to individual bombs being small the destruction was spread much more than a nuke would, dumping at least half of energy up. Incendiaries are particularly deceptive, because even tiny bombs can start massive fires in which they use local material as additional fuel and in turn energy, in extreme cases creating the infamous firestorms.

Operation Gomorrah: Firestorm created 'Germany's Nagasaki'

The air raids on Hamburg saw a new level of destruction - and the start of a new phase of World War Two.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[King Arts]

You don't need to wipe out all life to break a nation prevent supply lines from being fulfilled does the same exact thing

RAE Ever hear of EMP? Initiate the first wave of warheads at 30,000 ft for the EMP to fry all unshielded electronics. For further nastiness you can put a shell on the warheads of cobalt or strontium 90. Furthermore there are enhanced radiation weapons to consider that are designed to spew out the rads like a neutron bomb. By making them small you can spread them out further.

Lastly don't target the cities. Target the infrastructure. Oil fields, oil refineries, power plants, dams. Destroy the nations ability to produce electricity.

But those can be rebuilt the nation will be poor for a while yes. But within 100 years they could bounce back. If you wipe out all the cities they won’t be a people anymore.

 

[Zachowon]

But those can be rebuilt the nation will be poor for a while yes. But within 100 years they could bounce back. If you wipe out all the cities they won’t be a people anymore.

Nukes were not created to make cities craters....

 

[King Arts]

Nukes were not created to make cities craters....

Umm I’m pretty sure that is why they were made actually lol. They were made to wipe out German and Japanese cities in ww2.

 

[mrttao]

> newark mayor led a mob to storm ICE jail to try and free the prisoners within.
> he got arrested by ICE who was guarding that facility.
> libtards like CBS are crying over this "political persecution" and "intimidation"

that mayor is a fucking retard.
also it is funny that even their own propaganda trying really hard can't make this look anything but ridiculous.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

We're not going to make it to Mars. Lmao.

 

[mrttao]

We're not going to make it to Mars. Lmao.

>> Muslim looking man
> 100 lbs korean visitor
>> what do you want?
> what?
>> *punch* You dirty whore! Get out of here!

she must have offended him by not wearing a burka in muslim territory.

 

[King Arts]

This is the mistake Europe made by tolerating savages. Again it's mostly European liberals fault, first for bringing in savages, second by having a government/society that is unable and unwilling to either control or civilize them.

 

[Marduk]

This is the mistake Europe made by tolerating savages. Again it's mostly European liberals fault, first for bringing in savages, second by having a government/society that is unable and unwilling to either control or civilize them.

Not even liberals are retarded enough to take so much shit from them. It's the feel good leftist twats who vote for this shit, and when they don't get enough votes as they often do, just stonewall any denial of stay to the savages in courts and other bureaucracies.

MSN

Get a tattoo, destroy your documents, tell a sad story, and they can't even deport you if you're from a shithole country, so of course people of the shithole countries notice and tell all their friends to come.
Note the "immigration tribunal". Those clowns aren't even elected.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

This is the mistake Europe made by tolerating savages. Again it's mostly European liberals fault, first for bringing in savages, second by having a government/society that is unable and unwilling to either control or civilize them.

There is no peaceful solution for this, Like at this point the only option is to forcefully expel the foreigners at gunpoint and anyone who whines about it can be lined up on a wall and shot. Otherwise cease to exist as a people culture and nation.