Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby Strummer » Wed 29 Oct 2014, 13:41:04

Sixstrings wrote:(Russia really has budgeted $700 billion for new nukes though basil, that's not fanatasy or delusion, those missiles actually have targets you know. Just sayin. But I'll shut up. And try to worry about ebola, which is more fashionable around here, ok.)


OMG! What is the poor US going to do, with its poor poor military budget, it has no chance to withstand the mighty mother Russia... oh, wait:

Image

:cry:
Strummer
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 04:42:14

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby vox_mundi » Wed 29 Oct 2014, 15:18:20

Let’s put this in context ..

From: http://rt.com/news/193604-russia-nuclea ... ity-start/
Russia recently announced a planned overhaul of its entire nuclear arsenal by 2020, as part of a wider rearmament program that has been budgeted at $700 billion.

Translated, this means that the Russians will spend $700 billion on their entire defense budget over the next 6 years – which equals about $116 billion a year. The nuclear weapons overhaul portion represents about 5-7 % of that budget or $6-8 billion.

In comparison …

Last year the US spent $75 billion on nuclear weapons maintenance alone,of an approximately $1,300 billion annual defense budget.

The bigger problem is that since 2009, Putin has abandoned the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy for one of tactical use of nuclear weapons. The question would be –“ Are we willing to start WWIII and a global nuclear conflagration with casualties in the billions if he fires a tactical 1 kiloton nuclear shell at some Chechen or Ukrainian separatist?”

If you really want to have troubles getting to sleep tonight try reading this report from Chatham House
Too Close for Comfort Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy

also covered here …

Risk of nuclear accidents is rising, says report on near-misses
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... ses-report
Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy, published by Chatham House, says that "individual decision-making, often in disobedience of protocol and political guidance, has on several occasions saved the day", preventing the launch of nuclear warheads.

The report lists 13 instances since 1962 when nuclear weapons were nearly used. In several cases the large-scale launch of nuclear weapons was nearly triggered by technical malfunctions or breakdowns in communication causing false alarms, in both the US and Russia. Disaster was averted only by cool-headed individuals gambling that the alert was caused by a glitch and not an actual attack.

And to answer your question ...
6 - Is this sh*t even SAFE? For crying out loud look at that ICBM they have on a truck. It's sitting, out in the weather, in the damn woods.

They're gonna have nukes on TRAINS too.

They're flying around our borders with nuclear cruise missiles, too.

Nuclear Weapons on a Highway Near You
At a cost of $250 million a year, 350 couriers employed by this secretive agency within the US Department of Energy use some of the nation's busiest roads to move America's radioactive material wherever it needs to go—from a variety of labs, reactors and military bases, to the nation's Pantex bomb-assembly plant in Amarillo, Texas, to the Savannah River facility.* Most of the shipments are bombs or weapon components; some are radioactive metals for research or fuel for Navy ships and submarines.
Image

In 2010, DOE inspectors were tipped off to alcohol abuse among the truckers. They identified 16 alcohol-related incidents between 2007 and 2009, including one in which agents were detained by local police at a bar after they'd stopped for the night with their atomic payload.

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_ ... n_Big_Star
and

Also apparently 'Doctor Strangelove' was real http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby AgentR11 » Wed 29 Oct 2014, 15:50:27

You know what bothers me right now about the nuclear question, is that most of Russia's deterrent towards us, depends on the principle of using nuclear weapons to halt a NATO invasion of Russia. But at the same time, folks in NATO and the generalized West seem to make it a point of trying to convince themselves or someone that the Russian nukes won't work, or won't reach their targets, whether shot down or launch failure.

The problem with that, is that in the end, the only way to restore the deterrent that Russia depends on, is to actually launch and detonate a nuke. The more strident the dismissal of Russian capabilities seems, the more desperate Russia will get with its need for a live fire demo. We're backing them into a corner where they will believe they need to nuke something in order for NATO to believe they are willing and able to use their nuclear deterrent. If so... maybe we'll get lucky and they'll nuke some above ground wasteland in Siberia or something that's been a nuclear test site before; or they could put us in an equally tough spot by doing something outrageous like nuking Kiev. How would we even respond to something like that? its an impossible situation.

Course.. I'm a paranoid, pessimistic doomer; so perhaps I'm going off the deep end because people are playing with world burning fire like its a recreational ego-trip.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6357
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby vox_mundi » Wed 29 Oct 2014, 17:18:11

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/2010 ... ctrine.pdf
http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls ... escalation
http://www.ifri.org/files/Securite_defe ... Trenin.pdf
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... UB1087.pdf

Common sense might suggest that any limited use of nuclear weapons for de-escalation purposes would involve non-strategic (shorter-range) weapons. But this does not appear to be the thinking. In 2003, the Ministry of Defense issued a white paper that dotted the new doctrine’s i’s and crossed its t’s. The white paper emphasized, among other things, that because the United States could use its precision-guided conventional assets over significant distances, Russia needed the ability to deter the use of those assets with its own long-range capabilities.

Accordingly, simulations of the limited use of nuclear weapons have featured long-range nuclear-capable systems (long-range air-launched cruise missiles above all, but medium-range bombers as well).

To the extent that one can determine the targets that have featured in these exercises, they seem to be located over much of the world—Europe, the Pacific, Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, and even the continental United States. Targets appear to include command and control centers as well as airbases and aircraft carriers from which US aircraft could fly missions against Russia.

In other words, for limited-use options, Russia appears to target military assets rather than the population or economic centers that were typical targets under Cold War strategies.

It is important to note amid all this that Russia’s nuclear weapons are assigned only to conflicts in which Russia is opposed by another nuclear weapon state. When Russia was preparing the 2010 edition of its military doctrine, some proposed that the possibility of using nuclear weapons be expanded to more limited conflicts, such as the 2008 war with Georgia—but this proposal was rejected. Ultimately the 2010 doctrine tightened conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used. Whereas the 2000 document allowed for their use “in situations critical to the national security” of Russia, the 2010 edition limited them to situations in which “the very existence of the state is under threat.” (Otherwise, the nuclear component of military doctrine remained fundamentally unchanged from 2000.)


Personally, I think an accident or the Chinese* will get us first.

*The head of their Rocket Forces mentioned, one time, that a loss of 600 million Chinese was acceptable in a nuclear exchange if it could be guaranteed that the US ceased to exist. I think he didn't bother to ask those 600 million.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... rhead-gap/
China has nearly 750 theater and tactical nuclear warheads in addition to more than 200 strategic missile warheads, a stockpile far larger than U.S. estimates, according to a retired Russian general who once led Moscow’s strategic forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Artillery_Corps
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/china ... FFczfldVyI
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_10/ ... r_Dialogue
Language in the 2002 U.S. “Nuclear Posture Review Report” suggesting possible U.S. first use of nuclear weapons against China in a military conflict over Taiwan aggravated the Second Artillery’s anxieties about its ability to manage such a conflict successfully.

China’s Nuclear Forces: Operations, Training, Doctrine, Command, Control, and Campaign Planning
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... ortzel.pdf
http://sinodefence.com/2010/12/07/pla-s ... ery-corps/

There is evidence that the Sino-U.S. relationship will be predominantly adversarial. Henry Kissinger recently noted, “Enough material exists in China’s quasi-official press and research institutes to lend some support to the theory that relations are heading for confrontation rather than cooperation.

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News ... ation.aspx
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby Sixstrings » Thu 30 Oct 2014, 04:31:07

vox_mundi wrote:Translated, this means that the Russians will spend $700 billion on their entire defense budget over the next 6 years – which equals about $116 billion a year. The nuclear weapons overhaul portion represents about 5-7 % of that budget or $6-8 billion.


Oh, okay. Well thanks for that correction. I thought that sounded off, for starters Russia doesn't even have $700 billion to spend on anything. That's what I get for reading RT, they make Russia sound scarier than it is.

Russia did just hack the white house computers, though. So what about that. We gotta do something about that, no?

And Russia just had a bomber flotilla flying around Europe past two days freaking everyone out.

Europe is concerned because these planes do not report to air traffic control, for one thing. And they're flying so many of them.

Very interesting and informative post by the way, I won't respond to all of it, I'll just read it.

And yeah I know how many close calls there have been. Most people don't realize that.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby AgentR11 » Thu 30 Oct 2014, 08:12:11

6, Russia has nearly that amount in flat out hard reserves SAVED in dollars. Secondly, the expense would be almost or entirely paid in ruble to domestic industry with no real impact on dollar reserves. We do the conversion in media so we can comprehend the scale of the expenses when discussing foreign currency. I promise you, Russia does in fact have everything it needs domestically to build, maintain, and launch nuclear weapons without any assistance from any Western technology what so ever.

You really need to get off this stupidity of thinking Russia is like North Korea or Iran. Its nothing of the sort. Our economy is bigger of course. However, Russia's industrial economy, and military capacity is completely sufficient to end the friggin world for everyone. Full stop. No magical missile defense will stop thousands of nuclear warheads from detonating, should the Russian state be placed in a position it can't survive.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6357
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby fjciv » Thu 30 Oct 2014, 15:54:49

We are not good at nuclear war when the last one was held. Wait who cares .
If and when it happens everyone left standing will think they are next and fire all the missles. and so it goes
lets not worry.
fjciv
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu 30 Oct 2014, 14:51:16

Russian Nuclear Bombers Buzz Guam

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 21 Dec 2014, 04:21:19

Russian Nuclear Bombers Again Buzz Guam

Russian strategic bombers conducted a third circumnavigation of the U.S. Pacific island of Guam last week as other bombers flew close to Alaska and Europe, defense officials said.

Two Tu-95 Bear H bombers made the flight around Guam, a key U.S. military hub in the western Pacific, on Dec. 13. No U.S. interceptor jets were dispatched to shadow the bombers.

Separately, two Canadian F-18s intercepted two Bear bombers that intruded into the Alaska air defense identification zone on Dec. 8 that a military spokesman called “unwanted, provocative, and potentially destabilizing.”

Around the same time in Europe, NATO jets intercepted Russian Tu-95 and Tu-22 Backfire bombers also conducting provocative flights.

Russian warplanes, including four Bear Hs and two Tu-22M Backfire bombers were shadowed as they flew simulated bombing runs from bases in Russia to the Baltic Sea enclave of Kaliningrad for four days beginning on Dec. 7.

Regarding the Guam air defense zone incursions, “U.S. Pacific Command can confirm that two aircraft entered Guam’s outer air defense identification zone on Dec. 13,” said Maj. Dave Washburn, a command spokesman.

“The aircraft were flying safely in international airspace and in accordance with international norms; as such, the decision was made to not intercept them.”

It was the second time in a month that nuclear-capable Russian bombers buzzed the island in what U.S. officials have said is nuclear saber-rattling by Russia under its strongman Vladimir Putin.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-nuclear-bombers-again-buzz-guam/
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby JuanP » Thu 22 Apr 2021, 01:38:14

"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.
"Human stupidity has no limits" JuanP
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 22 Apr 2021, 09:18:19

JuanP wrote:"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.


The number of weapons deployable today compared to say 1981 is a small fraction. No doubt any country could be completely devastated, but the level of damage today vs then means recovery a decade after is a real probability where before it was unlikely a nation completely taken apart with all its major population centers smashed would ever recover. Instead in those circumstance you were looking at a migrant replacement population moving in and replacing the erstwhile now dead civilization from before the war.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby JuanP » Thu 22 Apr 2021, 13:00:34

Tanada wrote:
JuanP wrote:"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.


The number of weapons deployable today compared to say 1981 is a small fraction. No doubt any country could be completely devastated, but the level of damage today vs then means recovery a decade after is a real probability where before it was unlikely a nation completely taken apart with all its major population centers smashed would ever recover. Instead in those circumstance you were looking at a migrant replacement population moving in and replacing the erstwhile now dead civilization from before the war.


You are mostly correct, but there are still enough nuclear bombs to end human civilization in most, if not all, of the planet and kill most of humanity. I think many nations, particularly the USA, would most likely never recover, definitely not in 10 years. I think you are underestimating the seriousness of the problem. The global population is significantly more concentrated in urban areas now. in the 80s the vast majority of humanity lived in rural areas, but now the majority live in urban areas making them easier to kill. What you said about the number of bombs is true, though, and is very clearly pointed out in the article I provided a link to:

"If you look at the data that’s collected by the Federation of American Scientists, for example, you see that – since the 1980s at the height of the Cold War – we have slashed the global nuclear arsenals. We went from a world in 1986 where there were almost 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world down to where we are now where there’s just about 13,500 nuclear weapons. Tremendous progress. 85% reduction in the stockpile…"
"Human stupidity has no limits" JuanP
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 23 Apr 2021, 09:36:29

JuanP wrote:
Tanada wrote:
JuanP wrote:"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.


The number of weapons deployable today compared to say 1981 is a small fraction. No doubt any country could be completely devastated, but the level of damage today vs then means recovery a decade after is a real probability where before it was unlikely a nation completely taken apart with all its major population centers smashed would ever recover. Instead in those circumstance you were looking at a migrant replacement population moving in and replacing the erstwhile now dead civilization from before the war.


You are mostly correct, but there are still enough nuclear bombs to end human civilization in most, if not all, of the planet and kill most of humanity. I think many nations, particularly the USA, would most likely never recover, definitely not in 10 years. I think you are underestimating the seriousness of the problem. The global population is significantly more concentrated in urban areas now. in the 80s the vast majority of humanity lived in rural areas, but now the majority live in urban areas making them easier to kill. What you said about the number of bombs is true, though, and is very clearly pointed out in the article I provided a link to:

"If you look at the data that’s collected by the Federation of American Scientists, for example, you see that – since the 1980s at the height of the Cold War – we have slashed the global nuclear arsenals. We went from a world in 1986 where there were almost 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world down to where we are now where there’s just about 13,500 nuclear weapons. Tremendous progress. 85% reduction in the stockpile…"


Those "kill the world" estimates are based on silly assumptions that every weapon would be deployed to do the maximum population reduction. That is not how things work here in the real world. In the real world high value targets get hit multiple times and other places like most of Africa, South America, Asia and Australia/New Zealand are pretty much ignored completely. Sure North America, Europe and east Asia probably get plastered pretty good and you might if you are really going for it kill half the worlds population. Do you really think Argentina and South Africa are going to implode if they can't get cheap junk from China and bad advice from the USA? Again, that isn't how it works in the real world.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 30 Oct 2022, 15:18:21

Completely ignoring that France and the UK have their own nuclear arsenals and that hundreds of US nuclear warheads are already stored in depots around NATO countries the Biden Administration is saber rattling amid growing nuclear tensions with Russia. I see this as an increase in probability of someone accidentally starting the war we are all better off avoiding.

S to send hi-tech nuclear weapons to Nato bases amid rising tensions with Russia



America is to bring forward the delivery of dozens of highly accurate guided tactical nuclear weapons to Europe amid escalating tensions with Moscow.

The new B61-12 thermonuclear bombs are "dial-a-yield" devices, meaning their payload can be changed. They are expected to be sent to Nato bases within weeks.

B61-12s have four yields that can be selected - 0.3, 1.5, 10 or 50 kilotons. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 had a yield of about 15 kilotons.

The 12ft-long weapons feature new tailkits that allow them to be dropped from planes as a "dumb" gravity bomb, or in "guided drop" mode, with an accuracy of within 30 metres.

The move is part of a decade-long $10 billion upgrade programme for several variants of B61-class unguided nuclear bombs, which first became part of the US arsenal in 1968.

Currently, the US has 100 older B61s stored at bases in European countries including Germany and Italy.

In what was seen as a move to reassure Nato allies amid Russian nuclear-sabre-rattling, the replacement process will begin in December, having previously been expected next spring.

Allies were told about the move last month, Politico reported.

The new weapons have had "all of the bomb’s nuclear and non-nuclear components" replaced or refurbished, according to the US energy department.

In addition to making them more accurate, the modifications have reduced the yield from the bombs they are replacing.

The US bombs being delivered to Europe can be dropped by a variety of aircraft including B-2 stealth bombers, and smaller warplanes like the F-15, F-35 and Tornado.

The Pentagon denied that the process of upgrading them had been affected by Kremlin posturing, or fears Russia could deploy a "dirty bomb" in Ukraine.

A Pentagon spokesman said it was "in no way linked to current events in Ukraine and was not sped up in any way”.

They added that the modernisation of B61 nuclear weapons had been "under way for years".

The development came as Vladimir Putin dismissed accusations that Russia could use a tactical nuclear weapon as a "fuss," and blamed the UK for initiating provocations.

He accused Liz Truss of having publicly threatened Russia with a nuclear attack when she was prime minister.

Mr Putin claimed the former prime minister had made a "folly" and was a "bit out of it," adding: "Someone should have corrected her. Washington could have said they have nothing to do with that."

In a long speech, Mr Putin described the Ukrainian crisis as part of "tectonic changes in the world order that have been going on for several years now".

He added: "We are facing a historic milestone. Ahead of us is possibly the most dangerous, unpredictable and at the same time crucial decade since the end of the Second World War."
First defence review in four years

As Mr Putin spoke, the US released its long awaited National Defence Strategy, the first in four years, and its Nuclear Posture Review.

The 80-page defence strategy said China was "the most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades," and that would determine how the US military is equipped and developed in the future.

There was also a strong warning for Kim Jong-un that his regime would "end" if he used a nuclear weapon.

It said: "There is no scenario in which the Kim regime could employ nuclear weapons and survive."

The review said US nuclear weapons were a deterrence not just against nuclear, but also conventional, attack.

"This includes nuclear employment of any scale, and it includes high-consequence attacks of a strategic nature that use non-nuclear means," the document said.

It also confirmed the cancellation of a new submarine-launched cruise missile announced when Donald Trump was president.

Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, said the US already had enough nuclear capability.

He added: "I don't think this [the cancellation] sends any message to Putin. He understands what our capability is."

Mr Austin added: "We are certainly concerned about escalation, we have been so from the very beginning of this conflict. It would be the first time that a nuclear weapon has been used in over 70 years."

On Wednesday, Mr Putin watched the so-called "Grom" exercises by Russia's strategic nuclear forces, involving intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and long-range bombers.

Mr Austin said: "We haven't seen anything to cause us to believe, at this point, that [the exercise] is some kind of cover activity."

Telegraph
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby evilgenius » Sat 05 Nov 2022, 10:07:46

JuanP wrote:
Tanada wrote:
JuanP wrote:"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.


The number of weapons deployable today compared to say 1981 is a small fraction. No doubt any country could be completely devastated, but the level of damage today vs then means recovery a decade after is a real probability where before it was unlikely a nation completely taken apart with all its major population centers smashed would ever recover. Instead in those circumstance you were looking at a migrant replacement population moving in and replacing the erstwhile now dead civilization from before the war.


You are mostly correct, but there are still enough nuclear bombs to end human civilization in most, if not all, of the planet and kill most of humanity. I think many nations, particularly the USA, would most likely never recover, definitely not in 10 years. I think you are underestimating the seriousness of the problem. The global population is significantly more concentrated in urban areas now. in the 80s the vast majority of humanity lived in rural areas, but now the majority live in urban areas making them easier to kill. What you said about the number of bombs is true, though, and is very clearly pointed out in the article I provided a link to:

"If you look at the data that’s collected by the Federation of American Scientists, for example, you see that – since the 1980s at the height of the Cold War – we have slashed the global nuclear arsenals. We went from a world in 1986 where there were almost 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world down to where we are now where there’s just about 13,500 nuclear weapons. Tremendous progress. 85% reduction in the stockpile…"

That depends upon what you mean by recovery, doesn't it? Because nuclear weapons aren't going to destroy a place like Vernal, Utah, for instance. Vernal is big enough to contain, all by itself, enough resources to recover. There are thousands of Vernals all over the United States. And you don't travel very far, in most places, between them.

The United States is huge. It may become the fastest country to get to a billion in population, one day. Much faster than China or India, which have had centuries to do so. Yes, it is another model, one that isn't based upon first world largess disrupting how people make decisions about how they will have children, and thus leading to higher populations. The US doesn't need the thousand or so years of run up.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3729
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Stopped at the Border.

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 15 Sep 2023, 07:47:24

Tanada,

Ziehan's most current post postulates the possibility of Russia giving North Korea either a ballistic missle(s) or a technology transfer.

I was wondering about your thoughts on that topic?

5 minute video.

https://youtu.be/nRfpkCDzBSQ?si=zT9SdrxWwEFxQOkE
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 15 Sep 2023, 23:00:10

Newfie wrote:Tanada,

Ziehan's most current post postulates the possibility of Russia giving North Korea either a ballistic missle(s) or a technology transfer.

I was wondering about your thoughts on that topic?

5 minute video.

https://youtu.be/nRfpkCDzBSQ?si=zT9SdrxWwEFxQOkE


Well I watched it but I have a hard time believing much of his opinions as they are almost exactly in line with propaganda about Russia being industrially crippled.

It is true that some types of artillery fillers are subject to not aging well and become more shock sensitive as they age. It is also true that Russia has had a deep draw down of their stockpile during the war and there have been a number of pieces destroyed by in chamber detonation.

However, when you fire off 20 million rounds of artillery there are two factors he is rather blatantly ignoring. Even with 99.9 percent ideal manufacturing perfection of the artillery shells in quest 0.1 percent of 20 million is is 20,000 defective artillery shells. Most of those will be dud's that either do not explode at the desired altitude to cause idealized shrapnel damage or do not explode at all even after impact. A certain number however will be the fail deadly kind that detonate in breech from acceleration forces when fired.

See here is the thing about aging artillery filler crystalizing. This problem was recognized all the way back in 1914 when WW I led to the first huge scale artillery barrages using relatively modern explosives. In the 109 years since then explosives went from a new science to a very mature science and all the explosives workers in every modern country know just which types of shells become unsafe as they age past say 20 years as that was the figure he used. This being the case and the fact is every military with artillery knows it, they make a concerted effort to use their oldest part of the stockpile during their training cycles. You don't grab a conscript, tell him he is an artillery man and then send him to the barracks. Nope you and every other military takes that recruit and sends him to the gun range where they practice loading, firing and hitting targets. While they are doing this they use up a statistically significant number of shells and yup, they try and use up the oldest ones first every time for any number of very sound reasons including it keeps the stockpile fresh because the replacement shells manufactured every year go into the stockpile as replacements for the old stuff they use up.

The next issue with this topic is speed of manufacture. The number of new shells you make each year is a matter of military budgeting and the goal is to match as nearly as possible the number of old shells used up in training, with is a lot closer to 100,000 than it is to 20,000,000. That means even if you ramp up your manufacturing immediately to 10 times your prior quantity you only manufactured 1,000,000 shells and used up 19,000,000 from the stockpile you did not replace.

So Russia wants to buy artillery shells that will fit seamlessly into their supply chain and fire them off at Ukraine until their "native manufacturing" can replace their expended stockpile. The natural people to buy these shells from are people who use Russian/Soviet designed and often manufactured equipment that already use identical ammunition. Over the decades the USSR/Russia has sold a lot of artillery pieces to a lot of countries especially in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. At various times Iran, Iraq and Syria have all been major purchasers as has North Korea. Some of these countries buy their ammunition while others, particularly North Korea, manufacture their own. In fact North Korea has a substantial industrial capacity, something many in the west seem unaware of. They build their own copies of a number of USSR/Russian equipment designs including APC's, Tanks, Jets and Artillery along with all the ammunition, and equipment to make those devices fully functional.

Given those realities North Korea has both a substantial ammunition stockpile of their own and manufacturing capacity to produce more. They probably can't replace the whole 20 million expended shells but then again they wouldn't eliminate their own stockpile even if that was possible. They can however doubtlessly manufacture at least 100,000 and quite possibly as many as 5,000,000 new shells a year if they go all out a the task which would let them ship a lot of their stockpile to Russia at very low risk of running their stockpile dangerously low.

Second issue. Artillery tubes or gun barrels if you prefer wear a little bit with every shell they fire. Most American heavy artillery since before WW I is designed with a solid outer barrel and an inner rifled barrel liner. I presume this is pretty common with Russian designs as well. What you do is you count how many rounds of ammunition are fired by your artillery piece and when it hits a predetermined number you send that gun back to the factory where they extract the liner and replace it with a new one returning the wear count to zero. Sometimes you can not manage this due to the exigencies of war and the piece stays in action growing increasingly worn and inaccurate until it is no longer combat effective. In some battles in WW I the French had left 75mm pieces in action so long that they no longer had enough range to reach no-mans-land and the shells started falling into their own troops positions before they pulled those pieces out of action. Next time you see an artillery piece in a VFW park or the Canadian equivalent go look at the end of the gun tube. I would be very surprised if you can not see the physical ring where the outer barrel and liner are pressed together in two distinct layers.

The upshot of this is just like ammunition barrel liners have to be carefully manufactured and machined to to installed on new or refurbished artillery tubes and this careful manufacturing takes time and skilled workers. North Korea has a lot of artillery pieces and the skilled workers to manufacture and refurbish gun barrels by installing new or replacement liners. This gives the second purchase option, Russia might ship say 1,000 worn artillery pieces to North Korea and load up 1,000 refurbished functionally identical North Korean manufactured pieces to take back to Ukraine for combat use. North Korea is not currently at war and only uses their training capacity level of capability so trading in worn pieces for functional pieces would be no strain on their refurbishing capacity and would not harm their readiness to repel an invasion by South Korea which we all know is a very low probability.

Third factor. Russia is today selling petroleum coal and natural gas on the world market outside the EU and North America. The so called western sanctions are completely ineffective and have not slowed down their ability to sell mineral resources even a tiny bit. The idea Russia needs to not ship oil to North Korea because they are desperate for western currency is unrealistic to put it politely. For crying out loud they just held the second BRICS conference where their de-dollarized joint trade agreement added Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Ethiopia, Egypt and Argentina. That means four Petroleum exporters are now aligned with India, China and Brazil who are major importers as well as Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt as significant oil importers. All outside the American Dollar "world currency" and World Bank control system.

This means North Korea has supplies of ammunition and artillery pieces that it would be convenient for Russia to buy or borrow and Russia can pay for this exchange in energy supplies or BRICS style trade agreements without fear of repercussions from the increasingly laughable "power" of sanctions and threats by the World Bank.

IMO the west has significantly overplayed its hand bluffing and threatening to the point that the non-aligned nations who feel very coerced by past actions of the USA/EU and the World Bank they have total control over are now able to look to the BRICS countries for financial and military support. The recent revolutions in Africa have been fully successful in part because China and the BRICS nations as a group have kept the World Bank from successfully enacting international embargoes and financial restrictions against the revolutionary governments who have come to power. Two of the three most power South American nations have now merged into the BRICS system, Brazil as a founding member and Argentina in the last few weeks. In Africa South Africa was a founding member and now Ethiopia and Egypt have joined the BRICS system. In part this is an outgrowth of how the EU/USA fomented the revolution in Libya and downfall of Quadaffy which caused a lot of African residents to see the EU/USA as strictly interested in exploiting them for their purposes and to heck with the African residents wants or needs. In point of fact (8) EIGHT!!! nations in Africa have had revolutionary overturning of their existing governments in the last three years and the EU/USA attempts to reverse or stop this has had zero impact on the state of reality.

With every successful revolt against EU/USA influence aided and abetted by the BRICS union the USA/EU looks increasingly ineffective and irrelevant.

Three minute video, our closest non European allies are now openly mocking us.
3:23 of mockery
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 19 Sep 2023, 18:32:55

Tanada,

Thanks for your comments, 3nlightning as usual.

I am less sure about the BRICS effect but time will tell.

All I can say about Joe is....he has been a gaffer for decades. I used to joke I wanted him for President because sooner or latter he would open his mouth and thr truth would fall out.

I find the last couple of decades of Presidential politics distressing. This can not go on forever, something has got to break. Perhaps President Harris will be the inflection point?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby AgentR11 » Sat 21 Oct 2023, 18:22:20

Just a note into the appropriate thread here..

The Test Ban Treaty is dead.

Russia withdrew on the 19th; US conducted a test it called a "Chemical Explosion" (with features) in Nevada within a day. This probably helps China's nuclear weapons tech more than anyone as they have the means to make a bunch, and a lack of real test results to go by. Will also be interesting to see how India and Pakistan react, once the big players test something significant.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6357
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 23 Oct 2023, 03:52:39

AgentR11 wrote:Just a note into the appropriate thread here..

The Test Ban Treaty is dead.

Russia withdrew on the 19th; US conducted a test it called a "Chemical Explosion" (with features) in Nevada within a day. This probably helps China's nuclear weapons tech more than anyone as they have the means to make a bunch, and a lack of real test results to go by. Will also be interesting to see how India and Pakistan react, once the big players test something significant.


I believe the features mentioned are they use a depleted uranium substitute core that will deform exactly like a highly enriched core but which has no chance at all of a fission chain reaction. This lets them prove the core chemical explosives will crush a physically identical dummy core in a way that would lead to a highly efficient chain reaction if a real highly enriched core had been used.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby theluckycountry » Tue 24 Oct 2023, 07:35:34

Israel A 'Nuclear Wildcard' On 'Dangerous Road To Armageddon': Macgregor

Tucker Carlson sat down with Col. Douglas Macgregor (ret.), who laid out a disturbing scenario in which the United States could quickly be pulled into a direct conflict with Iran, Russia and China over Israel's anticipated response to the October 7 Hamas attack.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... -macgregor

Yawn! Literally, it's late here :) But I'm not buying into any of this crap. This is just the next level of "War Porn" like we see "Weather Porn" Up the stakes, fear wise, give all the palestinian crackpots airtime, drag out all the old military stuffed shirts and play on their worst case scenarios.

What's happened? A major terrorist attack occurred, as Israel is kicking some ass, as always. In six or 12 months this go down the memory hole just has the war in...? Where was that last war...
après moi le déluge
theluckycountry
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests