[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Discord


 No.476326[View All]

The nuclear threat is back. But we don't see any nuclear panic like in the 1980s. Why is that? Why does nobody care?

I am not some prepper retard but even I am getting nervous.

Just look at this shit
A time of unprecedented danger: It is 90 seconds to midnight
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
>This year, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward, largely (though not exclusively) because of the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine. The Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight—the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.
>As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned in August, the world has entered “a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War.”

and also this
US Nuclear Test Raises Concerns of New Arms Race With Russia
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-19/us-nuclear-test-on-day-of-kremlin-s-treaty-abdication-fuels-doubt

https://archive.ph/EoqWY

>The US conducted a high-explosive experiment at a nuclear test site in Nevada just hours after Russia revoked a ban on atomic-weapons testing, prompting concerns of a new arms race between the world’s top nuclear powers.


So, are you going to PROTECT AND SURVIVE, anon? Or are you just going to give up everything and die?
173 posts and 30 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.484827

>>484689
I think "overpopulation" is made up.
but you make an astute observation:
>vaporize a million or a billion people, all so convenient and automatic. Do you get how absurd that is as an engineering problem if you think for five minutes
Yeah imagine talking to an alien anthropologist, and they ask
why did you build a machine to irradiate your planet ?
>>

 No.484847

>>484827
Of course it is made up - overpopulation was posed as part of this narrative that the managers would have the "vaporize useless eaters" button offered, and associated with rewards of abundance.

I doubt an alien would see humanity as anything other than an abomination worthy of extermination, and seeing humanity in its present state, the aliens would summarily exterminate such a monstrous race. I would feel great if that happened.
>>

 No.484848

>>484821
Russians still have the older ICBM's but I hope for their sake that MAD still applies and holds. The only rational thing to do is full nuclear war if Russia cant retaliate back.
>>

 No.484853

>>484848
Their Sarmat program appears to be borked, they probably can unbork it, rockets exploding on the launchpad during development is not unusual, but even if they don't, Russia still has more advanced missile systems than anybody and at least a 15 year lead over the US's missile systems. So MAD is not being endangered here.

I think MAD will hold until we can make really powerful directed energy weapons. At that point the concept of a missile as a delivery system for some kind of war-head that explodes at the destination, will go obsolete.

Missiles will morph into the acceleration mechanism for purely kinetic impact weapons, which i assume are less vulnerable to directed energy weapons. I mean vaporizing a large chunk of metal in a short time at a distance probably isn't going to be feasible for a very long time.
>>

 No.485582

lmao
Liz Truss spent final days in office ‘preparing for Putin to fire nuclear weapons’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-putin-ukraine-russia-nuclear-b2645407.html

>Ms Truss had been told the Russian president was just hours from deploying a nuke, which Whitehall officials feared would hurl radioactive material into the atmosphere which could spread 1,700 miles from the blast, according to Out of the Blue, an unauthorised biography of the short-serving former PM.

>An updated edition of the book, by journalists Harry Cole and James Heale, said Ms Truss spent “numerous hours studying satellite weather data and wind directions” over fears the “wrong weather patterns” could have a “direct fallout effect on Britain”.
>>

 No.485585

File: 1731434015819.png ( 46.16 KB , 620x450 , putin smirk.png )

>>485582
What an unfathomably stupid thing to do. If you're a head of state and genuinely convinced that nuclear war is imminent, why wouldn't you be trying to avert it. It's not like you can dodge the effects of a nuclear war.

Also Putin living in her head rent free.
>>

 No.485674

File: 1731685077768.gif ( 269.91 KB , 500x344 , 5e692f3f73bd4411e5076d0817….gif )

UN to conduct new study of the broad impacts of nuclear war. Not all countries want to know
https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/un-to-conduct-new-study-of-the-broad-impacts-of-nuclear-war-not-all-countries-want-to-know/
>The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly last week in favor of launching a two-year study on the effects of nuclear war—the first such expert study the UN has pursued since the 1980s. A total of 144 UN member states, including only one nuclear power, China, voted in favor. Some important NATO members also voted in favor of the resolution, including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Greece. Russia, France, and the United Kingdom voted against the resolution, while other nuclear states, including the United States, abstained.

>The United Kingdom, France, and Russia did not provide official statements explaining their votes against the resolution at the United Nations. “Nuclear war would have devastating consequences for humanity. We don’t need an independent scientific panel to tell us that,” a UK Foreign Office spokesperson told The Guardian


Don't you love to live in 1980s 2.0 ? We will have bunch of smart asses (like Sagan back in the day) telling us that nukes are le bad (like we don't know) and state officials saying that the nukes maybe bad and dangerous but we need them to scare off the evil guys from the east (like it's worth destroying whole planet)
>>

 No.485680

>>485674
>We will have bunch of smart asses (like Sagan back in the day) telling us that nukes are le bad (like we don't know)
Sure, but Carl Sagan was awesome.

<The earth is a very small stage

< in a vast cosmic arena
<Think of the rivers of blood
< spilled by all those generals and emperors
<So that in glory and triumph
< they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

We need people like that to deflate the egos of all those cold-warriors with rhetorical eloquence.

I know it's political circus, but I want detente politics and i want the arms-control treaties back, so I'm going to cheer for this.

It's not particularly difficult to calculate the matter to energy conversions in fission and fusion reactions, nor is it particularly difficult to find out how it couples to the environment. We're not going to learn much we didn't already know, we'll get more detailed simulations, with nicer graphics and more granular projections of consequences, because computers have faster processors and more memory.

I'd rather have a do-over of the 80s science project with the simulations than somebody trying it out for real. I know it feels a little performative, because we've seen this play before. But I can't listen to those war-hawks anymore, they make me feel the urge to beat them to a pulp, it's unpleasant, i'd rather listen to le science communicator guy.
>>

 No.485681

>>485674
we never left the 1980s
>>

 No.485685

>>485680
>We need people like that to deflate the egos of all those cold-warriors with rhetorical eloquence.
Except that pompous hosreshit poem you posted doesn't do that.
<why do people fight over earth when the universe is so big lolol
If looking through a telescope and seeing a tiny smudge of light for 1 million light years away changes your perspective on geopolitics you are a fucking retard. We can't interact with a galaxy 1 million light years away. We can't even meaningfully interact with anything outside earth's immediate orbit. As far as humans are concerned earth is the universe.

Also lol at you "cold-warriors" smear. They are not your enemy my dude. Without the cold war none of your deficit tripling socialist space agencies would exist in the first place. You should be thanking those cold warriors for funding your naval gazing space masturbation "research" all these decades.
>>

 No.485692

>>485685
>As far as humans are concerned earth is the universe.
That's provincial cope, being ruler of the world will at some point be seen as being the village champion at flopping tractor tires sideways across a field, where 150 people were really impressed for a weekend.

>You should be thanking those cold warriors for funding

Yeah in the 50s, 60s and maybe the 70s. After that it tapered off. And it was never a charitable contribution. They got the missile tech for nuke-deliveries and all the tech for com-sats and spy-sats out of it. You don't get the top-people interested into solving your next-level technical challenges unless there's a higher purpose like exploration.

Today space exploration is the step-child.
<Got anything we can use for doomsday devices ?
<No ?
<Here have some crumbs to stick around just in case we need space stuff.

The hole reason humanity can't even meaningfully interact with anything outside earth's immediate orbit, is because we didn't complete the ladder into space, we put like 3 rungs into it, then we stopped adding more rungs.

The next rung is putting up a basic space-ring, it's a type of large structure that is held up not by material properties alone but also by using some energy. It performs the same duty as a space-elevator except that you don't need special super-strong materials, or any other types of unobtanium.

It's the next step beyond rockets, it's like infrastructure, it costs a lot to build, has lots of complicated political and bureaucratic hurdles but once set up it improves efficiency by orders of magnitudes and operating costs plummet. We had the technology and the industrial power to do this for several decades. Just as an example of opportunity costs, that 20 year war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria,… that would've funded half a dozen space-rings, and I'm talking premium model with the option for space apartments.

Consider that the biggest space project that has been completed til now was the ISS and that wasn't build with the spirit of cold-war competition. International cooperation made that happen.

I don't see the cold-warriors as likely candidates for a political marriage with the space-explorers anymore. If the ladder into space gets completed it will set off the industrialization of space, the available resources and energy dwarfs anything on earth, by an incomprehensible amount, It'll be 3-4 hundred years of expansion. All the conflicts the cold-warriors care about will fade into obscurity, like all the other historic turf-wars that never got settled and just became irrelevant with civilizational leaps. It's like the cold-warriors really care about winning this level instead of leveling-up to the next one.
>>

 No.485712

>>485685
cope, humoid. the dustbin of history is waitin
>>

 No.485727

File: 1731918442382.mp4 ( 56.83 MB , 1920x1080 , what posadists actually be….mp4 )

ITS HAPENINGG1!!!
>>

 No.485729

File: 1731926767534.jpg ( 29.71 KB , 375x342 , nukefinger.jpg )

Well lads, looks like this is it. The petty demented old man in the white house has decided to cross a massive Russian red line and potentially initiate World War 3 all just to spite his incoming rival in the next administration.

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/11/17/on-way-out-reckless-biden-allows-deep-russia-strikes/
>>

 No.485730

>>485727
>>485729
am i gonna die?
>>

 No.485731

>>485729
>After one-term president George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in the 1992 election, Bush used those 11 weeks to invade Somalia, saddling Clinton with a foreign policy crisis that would bog him down and distract him from his agenda.
Does this disprove the accusations of the US government being a one-party system?
>>

 No.485732

>>485729
The Russians could still wait with a retaliation until after Trump takes office. If Trump is as transactional as he claims, maybe there's a mutually acceptable deal to be had. He gets to play the star negotiator that "talked down the Russians". And the Russians get lots of security concessions.

The Russians do have a lot of leverage in this negotiation, because they do have the ability to level up the military capabilities of all those Factions in west-Asia/middle-east, until they can make Israel go away.
That means a trade: Ukraine for Israel.

Those Attackums are not the newest sword in the rack, it's somewhat likely that Russian air-defences can counter, at least enough to minimize the damage.

So we're at the edge of the abyss.
>>

 No.485733

>>485730
>am i gonna die?
You're a mortal being, so definitely yes.
Whether you'll die in a nuclear war in a few weeks that remains to be seen.
>>

 No.485734

>>485731
<After one-term president George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in the 1992 election, Bush used those 11 weeks to invade Somalia, saddling Clinton with a foreign policy crisis that would bog him down and distract him from his agenda.
>Does this disprove the accusations of the US government being a one-party system?
It sounds more like a argument for the US being a one-party system. Because that sounds like a mechanism to prevent political change.
>>

 No.485735

>>485729
When I created this thread a year ago, everyone here was like " nah not gonna happen" and here we are
>>

 No.485736

>>485735
I know this feels like some kind of threshold. But if the Russians knock down a Missile factory in the US, UK or where ever those are made.

What are they gonna do ? Send NATO troops to Ukraine, western populations don't give a damn and will not fight for this. Not that it matters because they don't even have the weapons to arm the Ukrainians.

They could pull forces from other places to focus on the Russians, but then the Chinese take Taiwan, bully Japan and Australia to close down US military bases, while Iranians close down the straight of Hormuz, smash up Issreal and wipe out all the US military bases within their reach.

Think they'd flush what's left of the empire down the drain, all in one go, to avenge a missile factory ?

There's always a chance that the Russians interdict the missiles and it does nothing, and all of this just fizzles out. So don't loose your head.
>>

 No.485745

File: 1732022334209.png ( 53.11 KB , 736x658 , clownish.png )

>>485729
>>485730
>>485731
>>485732
>>485733
>>485734
>>485735
>>485736
The entire thing is probably a nothing burger.

Apparently the ATACMS missiles won't be delivered until after Trump gets into office. So if he's honest about wanting to exit the Ukraine war, he can just cancel the missile deliveries and that'll be the end of it.

Just a political stunt.
>>

 No.485749

>>485745
>The entire thing is probably a nothing burger.
>So if he's honest about wanting to exit the Ukraine war
LOL
>>

 No.485750

>>485736
>I know this feels like some kind of threshold. But if the Russians knock down a Missile factory in the US, UK or where ever those are made.
>What are they gonna do ? Send NATO troops to Ukraine, western populations don't give a damn and will not fight for this.

If Russia actually struck US or UK soil, there would absolutely be an open direct "intervention" lol. The US wouldn't invade "just" for Ukraine, but would absolutely invade if they had a pretext like that, even if the American public thought it was stupid.

>>485732
I think this is probably what's actually going on - for the record, I don't buy the notion that Trump & Biden are at odds at all. Biden is basically handing Trump a domestic political victory, where Trump can get credit for "deescalating" the conflict in Ukraine without actually doing anything to effectively end the war. The American state will seek to minimize concessions made to Russia, probably try to keep the war going on in Ukraine (even if at a lower boil), and try to get Russia not to intervene against US attacks on Syria & Iran, and possibly to be neutral in future fuckery in China/the ROC.

There are a few problems with this, though. Firstly, the US has proven itself to be very dishonest in the past, and Russia is unlikely to abandon its current partners for the US, especially China, which the US sees as the biggest threat.
Secondly, if Russia does abandon Iran, that will still prove to be a bad deal economically for both Russia & China, because the ensuing war will interrupt oil & trade routes. This outcome, even if Russia was to agree to it, would be a disaster for the region & for the people of the US as well. It's unlikely that this would actually be contained, even to just that region.
Thirdly, even if it is "contained" (and Israel effectively expands further), that's obviously a complete disaster which is unlikely to remain contained for very long.

So it's likely a more 'nuanced' strategy than it seems on the surface, yes, but it is still incredibly dumb.
>>

 No.485754

>>485750
>If Russia actually struck US or UK soil, there would absolutely be an open direct "intervention" lol. The US wouldn't invade "just" for Ukraine, but would absolutely invade
The US doesn't have the ability to deploy 5% of the ground forces required for an invasion of Russia and Europe won't have the ability to field a military until it's got at least a decade of social democrats doing a re-industrialization. So don't be ridiculess.

The US currently does not have a counter for Russian anti-air and anti-ship weapons, so it likely would turn into a long distance missile slog fest.

Scott Ritter and Larry Wilkerson think Russia might decapitate the Zelensky regime as retaliation to the recent red-line crossing. The logic being that's the thread they can pull to unravel the neocon project in Ukraine.

Your premise that Russia is motivated to exercise restraint based on western military prowess likely isn't true. They just won a war of attrition against NATO. It's more likely the Russians would choose not to rock the boat too much because they promised China to not spoil their peaceful rise.

If you zoom out all the way, it appears almost as if all those countries are searching for the thing they can threaten in order to deter the neocons from the war-path.
>>

 No.485756

>>485754
>The US doesn't have the ability to deploy 5% of the ground forces required for an invasion of Russia and Europe won't have the ability to field a military until it's got at least a decade of social democrats doing a re-industrialization.
What's ridiculous is expecting the current US leadership to look at its limitations and make a rational decision based on those.

>Scott Ritter and Larry Wilkerson think Russia might decapitate the Zelensky regime as retaliation to the recent red-line crossing. The logic being that's the thread they can pull to unravel the neocon project in Ukraine.

Ritter's too optimistic sometimes tbh.
This would be more effective than striking the US directly ftr, though.

>Your premise that Russia is motivated to exercise restraint based on western military prowess likely isn't true. They just won a war of attrition against NATO. It's more likely the Russians would choose not to rock the boat too much because they promised China to not spoil their peaceful rise.

When was that ever my premise?
>>

 No.485757

>>485750
>I don't buy the notion that Trump & Biden are at odds at all. Biden is basically handing Trump a domestic political victory
Why ascribe to conspiracy when you can simply attribute this to a demented, spiteful old man who is no longer mentally competent enough to think ahead?
>>

 No.485758

>>485750
>I think this is probably what's actually going on - for the record, I don't buy the notion that Trump & Biden are at odds at all. Biden is basically handing Trump a domestic political victory, where Trump can get credit for "deescalating" the conflict in Ukraine without actually doing anything to effectively end the war. The American state will seek to minimize concessions made to Russia.
OK if they're doing a really clever good cop bad cop routine, why are they doing all the other really dumb shit ? They had some major self-owns lately, like helping to bootstrap BRICS, accelerating dedolarization, tanking western economies, provoking a war without having enough ammunition to fight it and on and on. I don't really see what they gain from duping the Russians into delaying a retaliation.

>There are a few problems with this, though. Firstly, the US has proven itself to be very dishonest in the past, and Russia is unlikely to abandon its current partners for the US,

I don't think betrayal was ever on the table. I think the deal that can be had is that the Russians could be moved to convince the Iranians to not get nukes and not finish-off Israel, if they get in return a Ukraine arrangement that they like.

At the moment Israel is destroying it self chasing after gReaTer iSrael. Iran will soon become the dominant regional player as a result, and the Russians probably are the only ones that can convince Iranians to have mercy.

Keep in mind that the more force-projection the US has to expend to prop up Is-failed-state-rael the fewer resources there will be for messing with Russia. So for the Russians it probably doesn't matter that much which way this goes.

>So it's likely a more 'nuanced' strategy than it seems on the surface

It looks like unhinged emotional decisions without any strategy what so ever.
>>

 No.485759

>>485756
>What's ridiculous is expecting the current US leadership to look at its limitations and make a rational decision based on those.
Ok there's truth to that. But the Pentagon probably wouldn't go along with it, they've demonstrated self-preservation so far.

>Ritter's too optimistic sometimes tbh.

>This would be more effective than striking the US directly ftr, though.
So hypothetically if the Russian decapitate Ukraine, that'll be the result ?

>When was that ever my premise?

OK never mind then.
>>

 No.485760

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2312-1.html



Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping's reported order to the Chinese military to be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027 and China's ongoing nuclear buildup have raised U.S. concerns over the prospect of a U.S.-China conflict. A conflict with China would be distinct from the wars the United States has fought in the post–Cold War period against regional powers without nuclear weapons. This report summarizes a series of reports on how U.S. joint long-range strike, especially the U.S. Air Force's bomber force, could adapt to better balance military operational effectiveness, force survivability, and escalation management to achieve desired military and political objectives without triggering catastrophic escalation, specifically Chinese nuclear first use.

This report is the product of a mixed-methods research approach that combined regional studies, analytic strategic theory, and historical case studies, all informed by operational analysis. The authors (1) conducted original Chinese-language research leveraging open-source Chinese military writings; (2) supplemented the limited information available from open-source Chinese military writings with historical case studies and a broad review of analytic strategic theory dating back to early RAND work in the 1950s, along with a literature review of Western scholarship on China; (3) reviewed publicly available U.S. Department of Defense documents and recent non-U.S. government wargames; and (4) developed an analytic framework that linked China’s nuclear escalation with specific technical or employment characteristics of U.S. joint long-range strike.
Key Findings

If fully committed to fighting and winning a war with China, the United States must be prepared for nuclear escalation and place more emphasis on managing these risks.
China's nuclear threshold is unclear but also likely movable, meaning that the United States has an opportunity to make the threshold better (but also risks making it worse).
There will likely be trade-offs among military operational utility, force survivability, and escalation management.
The single most influential factor under U.S. military control for managing escalation is target selection.
Munitions can have a direct impact on the U.S. military's ability to manage escalation.

Recommendations

Prioritize development of a robust denial capability to minimize the need for kinetic strikes on mainland China and to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation.
Build a portfolio of U.S. joint long-range strike force structures, postures, and capabilities to execute war plans across various possible mainland strike authorizations.
Ensure the ability to prosecute a variety of targeting plans that can help balance operational effectiveness, force survivability, and escalation management.
Manage Chinese perceptions of long-range strike before and during a war.
Incorporate considerations of escalation risk into the acquisition process, especially for systems that are likely to appear highly escalatory to Chinese leadership.
Establish an Escalation Management Center of Excellence at the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command both to train senior and junior personnel and to have a dedicated organizational structure through which escalation risks can be weighed during peacetime force development.
Avoid making U.S. long-range strike capabilities an attractive target for a limited Chinese nuclear strike.
Avoid long-range strike missions that could accidentally or inadvertently engage a nuclear armed third-party, such as Russia or North Korea.
Avoid extemporaneous responses to dangerous moments by preparing communication strategies and responses to Chinese nuclear signaling or use ahead of time.
Avoid peacetime training of conventional missions that appear most likely to trigger Chinese nuclear use, such as large-scale cost-imposition, leadership decapitation, or counterforce.
>>

 No.485763

>>485760
The language in these is just amazing.
<Balancing the force survivability
<escalation management
<Build a portfolio of strike force structures

The ability to linguistically trivialize existentially threatening brinkmanship is unparalleled. I wish George Carlin was still alive.
>>

 No.485769

>>485760
>Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping's reported order to the Chinese military to be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027
I think this translates to the neocons planning to make Taiwan declare independence, to provoke the Chinese in 2027.
It's probably not going to work because the Taiwanese don't want to become the next sacrificial goat like Ukraine. Also the Chinese can make a naval blockade to force the Taiwanese compradore elite to remove US weapons systems from the Island. It will probably work because the Chinese will be able to guarantee the rest of Taiwan that it retains its current arrangement where it's got it's own political system and the ability to conduct trade as they see fit. Which means that they neither disturb Taiwanese citizens nor commerce.
>the U.S. Air Force's bomber force
That's referencing the stuff that's parked in Guam, right ? That likely won't come into play.
There might be some boat-colisions, you know "bumper-tubs".

Messing with Taiwan likely means the Chinese will focus intense diplomacy efforts with economic development deals on Latin America, and that'll likely retire the Monroe doctrine. The next unintended neocon policy consequence might be Brazil leveling up and becoming a big player.
>>

 No.485770

Oh là là
Ukraine says Russia launched an intercontinental missile in an attack for the first time in the war
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-icbm-attackddnipro-38b0faf6eed2cef98bdbc9be18f58244

>KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine claimed Thursday that Russia launched an intercontinental ballistic missile overnight at one of its cities. If confirmed, it would be the first time Moscow has used such a weapon in the war.


>Ukraine did not provide any evidence that an ICBM was used in the attack on the central city of Dnipro, apparently armed with conventional warheads.


>The range of an ICBM — which can exceed 5,500 kilometers (3,400 miles) — is beyond what is needed to attack Ukraine. But such missiles are designed to carry atomic warheads, and the use of one, even with a conventional payload, would serve as a chilling reminder of Russia’s nuclear capability. It also appears to send a message to Ukraine’s Western allies that Moscow has the ability to target them.
>>

 No.485772

File: 1732205872327.png ( 12.16 KB , 1300x864 , doubtx.png )

>>485770
>Ukraine claimed a big whoop occurred
evidence required
>>

 No.485781

Some people might be wondering what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is up to, now that the world is on the precipice of annihilation. Where's their big statement of concern, warning us of an imminent catastrophe if someone doesn't initiate diplomacy? Not to worry, they're busy publishing warmongering trash like this, cheerleading on the US and Ukraine crossing Russia's red line:

https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/biden-allowing-ukraine-to-strike-into-russia-is-much-ado-for-little-consequence/

This is how the world ends: with thunderous applause.
>>

 No.485782

Putin warns West as Russia hits Ukraine with 'new missile'
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4n9vgwnnyo
>Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that an attack by his forces on the eastern Ukrainian city of Dnipro on Thursday morning was carried out using "a new conventional intermediate-range missile".

>He said that the missile, codenamed Oreshnik, was a response to the use by Ukraine of US and UK long-range weaponry to hit targets inside Russia.


>Putin added that Russia could attack military facilities of those countries which allowed their weapons to be used for this purpose.
>>

 No.485784

>>485782
>intermediate-range missile
Ok now it makes sense, the other news said intercontinental.

>the missile, codenamed Oreshnik

speculated 2500km 1500miles range, one tonne payload, maneuverable and hypersonic.

that's a big stick.
>>

 No.485786

https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/defense/news/21217513/us-nuclear-weapons-are-aging-quickly-with-few-spare-parts-how-long-can-they-last

>MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. — When hundreds of land-based nuclear armed ballistic missiles were first lowered into underground cement silos spread across the vast cornfields here in 1970, the weapons were only intended to last a decade before a newer system came in.


>Fifty years later, these missiles — called the Minuteman III — are still on alert, manned by members of the U.S. Air Force in teams of two who spend 24 hours straight below ground in front of analog terminals from the 1980s, decoding messages and running tests on the missiles’ systems to check if they could still launch if needed.


>But it’s not the age of weapons or the decades-old technology that troubles their operators. It’s that the original manufacturers who supplied the gears, tubes and other materials to fix those systems are long gone.


>Several years ago, the motor on one of the industrial-sized caged elevators that slowly descends 100 feet below ground to the launch control center broke, an airman with the base’s 791st Maintenance Squadron told McClatchy. A fix was not available for months.


>Instead, maintainers resorted to rigging a pulley to lower supplies down for the crews, the airman said, who spoke on the condition they not be named.


>“We’re severely constrained with spares,” the airman said. “The technology does its job. The challenge is sustaining it.”


>To make repairs, airmen are often forced to take parts from another machine. Two of the airmen at Minot told McClatchy the facility’s missile guidance system often needs parts or attention because of constant wear and tear.


>“You can only do that so many times until the system fails,” said Lt. Col. Steve Bonin, commander of the 91st Operations Support Squadron at Minot.
>>

 No.485801

>>485781
>Some people might be wondering what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is up to
Huh ? that's still a thing ?
Do they still have the clock ?
how many minutes or seconds till nuclear doom ?

>Where's their big statement of concern, warning us of an imminent catastrophe if someone doesn't initiate diplomacy? Not to worry, they're busy publishing warmongering trash

Maybe their website got vandalized ?
Or they got taken over by shills and it's now defunct.

There's always VIPS
<Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
They tend to have decent takes on war and peace type of stuff.
>>

 No.485802

>>485801
>they got taken over by shills
That's been apparent to me since at least covid.
>>

 No.486152

There's a lot of other issues that one can easily predict how an oligarch will behave through simple class analysis. But I just find nuclear annihilation so perplexing. Do they really think this is all make believe? Do they really think they're gonna survive nuclear winter where "the living will envy the dead"?
>>

 No.486154

>>486152
>But I just find nuclear annihilation so perplexing. Do they really think this is all make believe? Do they really think they're gonna survive
During the cold war, on the extreme end of thinking, there were some rich people who thought that the solution to all this "nuclear trouble" was to build bunkers for them as well as their servants and then they would set off nuclear war on purpose. They and their descendants would remain in the bunkers for a few hundred years until the conditions on the surface had regenerated. After that they would come out and the earth would be theirs.

Even in that bonkers scenario where they mass-murder nearly all of humanity, in their minds this wasn't something they were doing, they were just regular people trying to deal with a situation that was imposed on them from the outside.

By the way the Soviets had build huge bunker complexes underneath factories, so the workers could survive a nuclear war and it would have ended in planet Soviet.
>>

 No.486155

>>486154
>By the way the Soviets had build huge bunker complexes underneath factories, so the workers could survive a nuclear war and it would have ended in planet Soviet.
It's difficult to imagine how. Nuclear winter does not discriminate. No crops and no ecology = no humans
>>

 No.486157

>>486155
That was meant tongue in cheek. Obviously extinction is the most likely outcome.

I did look into nuclear-survival strategies from the cold-war, while nobody actually had a viable plan, the Soviets definitely were somewhat more advanced in their attempts. They were looking into electro-chemical means for feeding micro organisms as the basis for a food chain. Eating nuclear generated electricity with extra steps.
>>

 No.486315

>>486157
>The Soviets were looking into electro-chemical means for feeding micro organisms as the basis for a food chain.
Never heard about this. Source?
>>

 No.486319

>>486315
It was long ago, if i remember i'll make a thread about it.
>>

 No.486780

Are you prepping, my fellow preppers?
Nuclear bunker sales increase, despite expert warnings they aren’t going to provide protection
https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-bunkers-war-atomic-bombs-0356fa5b34067c138c64b9143f73c308
>Global security leaders are warning nuclear threats are growing as weapons spending surged to $91.4 billion last year. At the same time, private bunker sales are on the rise globally, from small metal boxes to crawl inside of to extravagant underground mansions.

>Critics warn these bunkers create a false perception that a nuclear war is survivable. They argue that people planning to live through an atomic blast aren’t focusing on the real and current dangers posed by nuclear threats, and the critical need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.


>Meanwhile, government disaster experts say bunkers aren’t necessary. A Federal Emergency Management Agency 100-page guide on responding to a nuclear detonation focuses on having the public get inside and stay inside, ideally in a basement and away from outside walls for at least a day. Those existing spaces can provide protection from radioactive fallout, says FEMA.


It's the fucking Cold War shitshow all over again
>preppers start nuclear hysteria
>anti-nuke activists say that preparing for the war is le bad because it implies the nuclear war is survivable
>the government says that buying or building expensive bunkers is not necessary because you can survive the nuclear blast just hiding under the table
>>

 No.486782

File: 1736294523516.png ( 43.35 KB , 459x457 , miner-mole.png )

>>486780
Impending nuke warnings are down to 5 minutes or so. Rich people won't have time to get to their bunkers. If somebody survives in a luxury bunker it will be the maintenance and cleaning crew. Sweet irony.

>Critics warn these bunkers create a false perception that a nuclear war is survivable. They argue that people planning to live through an atomic blast aren’t focusing on the real and current dangers posed by nuclear threats, and the critical need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

That doesn't work, wrong psychology. They should sell bunker-sealing-kits with a bunker-map, instead. You know something to block-off bunker-doors and seal-up the air-exchange-vents from the outside. The left-behind F-U kit. Psychology wise that might be more convincing, than explaining the logistics errors of trying to treat nuclear war like a contingency problem. People didn't investigate and understand the material consequences of nuclear war and based on that attempted to create a nuke-proof habitat. I think people treat this like a game of musical chairs where they pay to reserve a chair.

>preppers start nuclear hysteria

>anti-nuke activists say that preparing for the war is le bad because it implies the nuclear war is survivable
>the government says that buying or building expensive bunkers is not necessary because you can survive the nuclear blast just hiding under the table
First as a tragedy then as a farce.

There is a case to build houses and buildings underground tho, because temperatures below ground are stable and energy use for heating or air-conditioning would go down to a small fraction. Most people probably would only run a water draining pump and ventilation . Since building-roofs would be at ground level they could be little parks or gardens. Windows could be simulated with stereo-cameras and 3d-effect screens. It would also somewhat harden civilization against war. If we hide industrial society a little the reactionary anti-prosperity strain that took over a lot of environmentalism would fade away too.
>>

 No.486925

>>486782
>That doesn't work, wrong psychology. They should sell bunker-sealing-kits with a bunker-map, instead. You know something to block-off bunker-doors and seal-up the air-exchange-vents from the outside.

But how will that help?
>>

 No.486933

>>486925
>But how will that help?
If a nuclear war breaks out, it does nothing, just like the bunkers.

The bunkers are imaginary protection from nuclear war.
The bunker-sealing-kits are imaginary bunker-spoilers.

If you wanted to weather a nuclear war for real you need a fully fledged underground habitat, one that is self sufficient in everything, a fully fledged biome that yields food, geothermal energy, resource gathering , artificial atmosphere generators, … It would need to support a population of about 100000 people. More like a giant space station. You have to plan for unforeseen complications. A nuclear war could ruin the surface in ways that we can't predict. That means you need to include the capacity to rebuild civilization underground. The means to expand the underground habitat until a level of economic power and technological sophistication is achieved that enables terra-forming the ruined surface so that it once again supports human live. It means committing to a scifi scenario where the next 10000 years, humanity might have to larp as mole-people. We could technically do this, but lets face it, we won't.

Most people think that a bunker only needs to be a underground hotel room that has enough provisions. Explaining why that's wrong is complicated. Some rich people might see a bunker as nothing more than the ability to live out the rest of their lives, once nuclear war has extinct humanity, so they get to have the last party.

So with all that in mind, it's easier to tell people that those left behind will ruin their bunker and therefor the only option to deal with a nuclear war, is not having the nuclear war in the first place and idk throwing the WW3 lobby into a vat of boiling acid or something.

Unique IPs: 27

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome