Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorgodeus View Post
    If doing so allows the US to eliminate the cost of maintaining 500-600 warheads and their launch vehicles, the cost is well worth it.
    I sort of doubt the military has ever done a single thing that resulted in less spending. I will grant you that it may have been their plan. But, no doubt, somewhere along the way, someone wanted to add a bullet proof cup holder or something, that costs a fortune.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    I sort of doubt the military has ever done a single thing that resulted in less spending. I will grant you that it may have been their plan. But, no doubt, somewhere along the way, someone wanted to add a bullet proof cup holder or something, that costs a fortune.
    The US military is always looking for ways to save money in order to spend that money elsewhere, and it is a wise thing to do.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorgodeus View Post
    The US military is always looking for ways to save money in order to spend that money elsewhere, and it is a wise thing to do.
    No they don't. They are looking for ways to be more effective, not ways to be cheaper. They have asked for more money in their budget every single year we have existed as a nation. Your notion is completely ridiculous, sorry.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by OneWay View Post
    Not sure since when weapons, especially nuclear, were exciting.
    If it's not exciting, you're too far away from the blast.

  5. #125
    Legendary! Pony Soldier's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In my safe space
    Posts
    6,930
    Isn't there something hypocritical about this? Here we are telling people to throw away their nuclear bombs, sanctioning countries for testing nuclear bombs (in no fucking way trying to defend North Korea) and then here we are testing our own nuclear bombs. I mean, am I wrong thinking like this?

  6. #126
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by TJrogue View Post
    Ignorance? You talking about Ignorance? Skroe, you might fool the random costinr from romania, but do you seriously think that anyone able to actually read something, and not only look at the pretty words isn't going to be shocked by the generic amount of blandness coming out of your mouth?
    I guess you do know about big big rockets though. I'll give you that.
    Technical facts tend to be bland. They are also of little use to people like you that have no clue about what they mean in the "big picture".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triforcewolf View Post
    Isn't there something hypocritical about this? Here we are telling people to throw away their nuclear bombs, sanctioning countries for testing nuclear bombs (in no fucking way trying to defend North Korea) and then here we are testing our own nuclear bombs. I mean, am I wrong thinking like this?
    The US is legally allowed to have nuclear weapons. Its really that simple.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Immortan Rich View Post
    The people of North Korea have been brainwashed since birth to hate the west and think it is evil, you can defeat them with kindness when they realise they have been lied to.
    I think people are overstating the brainwashing part and minimizing the whole you know population starving to death. There are reports of cannibalism in NK, I don't know how effective brainwashing is when you are starving to death every single day.

  8. #128
    I am Murloc!
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Baden-Wuerttemberg
    Posts
    5,367
    Well, technically every country with nuclear power plants and patience can build nukes too. it is a reason why Iran is so difficult, uran is a natural ressource there.

  9. #129
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by OneWay View Post
    Since when weapon(s) had any other purpose than to "defeat the enemy" and we know quite surely that it kills innocent people along the way as well? One thing is technological advance and another thing is weapon and being excited about it. Being excited about weapons is pretty much equal to be excited for killing people.
    A weapon's primary purpose usually is to defeat the enemy's will to fight against the wielder, only if this fails is it used.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    Up next: gravity plane.
    Anti-gravity plane!
    http://thingsihaveneverdone.wordpress.com
    Just started my 24/7 LoFi stream. Come listen!
    https://youtu.be/3uv1pLbpQM8


  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    In other words, we have spent billions to make nukes smaller, and less destructive? Gee, no waste of money there, right? Who is the genius that figured that one out? Jocelyn Elders?
    I don't think you understand the implications of it and you're being bizarrely and entirely inapporporiately political about something that is national security related.

    (1) A more accurate bomb is more destructive than a larger, less accurate bomb. One of the reasons the US is able to retire the unguided B83 1.2Mt City Buster is because a guided B61-Mod 12 at 50kt has broadly superior destructive power. As the paper I quoted said, doubling a bomb's accuracy increases it's destructive power eight fold. The B61's accuracy is increasing much more than that due to the tail fin integration, which allows it to be smaller.


    (2) Every single weapon in existence has an expiration dates, and it's been decades since the US produced some of these weapons. In coming decades some nuclear weapons will have to be replaced regardless, because the conventional explosives which start the reaction will be unsafe for use. And beyond that by 2091, most of the nuclear cores themselves will have decayed.

    This means the US will need to remanufacture weapons. In given the choice between building more B83s in a seperate multi-billion dollar program, or consolidating five types of bombs into two types and enjoying the cost savings, the answer seems obvious.



    (3) A smaller nuclear weapon makes it more "usable". This has been one reason anti-nuclear campaigners have been against the B61 and other low-yield nuclear weapons. They are deeply concerned - with good reason - that the smaller a nuclear weapon gets, the more likely the US or someone will feel comfortable using it. This is particularly true of the B61 Mod 12, whose lowest yield setting, 0.3 kilotons, or 300 tons, would be "just" 27 times as powerful as MOAB (11 tons of TNT)

    As you can see a 0.3kt explosion is small
    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?...hob_ft=0&zm=16

    But this was entirely the point. To destroy air bases outside of cities, but not cities. To destroy hardened sites, but limit radiation fallout.

    The only reason nuclear warheads were historically enormous was because the technolgy for accuracy didn't exist. When a warhead could miss by a kilometer and a half, it needed to be enormous so that even a "miss" still destroyed or seriously damaged its target.

    Further if you read the article I linked, you'll see the rationale behind "superfuses" and it applies to B61-12. The most destructive area of a nuclear explosion (or any explosion really) that is an air-blast is directly below it. A small bomb that detonates directly above its target is much more destructive than a large bomb that detonates tens or hundreds of meters away.


    (4) The US nuclear arsenal has been consolidating for 20 years for good reason - the Cold War era arsenal was aging, and too complex to sustain indefinetly, especially when aimed at fewer Russian targets than ever. Let me explain what I mean.

    30 years ago, the US had the following weapons in it's nuclear arsenal
    4 different types of ICBM (Titan II, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, Peacekeeper)
    4 types of bombs with many sub-families (B43, B54, B61, B83)
    many, many types of Warheads (W88, W87, W76, W78, W84, W85, W80, W68, W69, W79, and more)
    3 types of SLBM (Poseidon, Trident I, Trident II)
    3 types of Nuclear Cruise Missile (AGM-86 ALCM, AGM-129 ACM, BGM-109G)
    A huge number of tactical nuclear weapons (such as nuclear land mines and depth charges).

    Some of these had some commonality. Many did not, even if they had similar names (Trident I and Trident II were hugely different for example). But every single one required an independent standing industrial base to support them. And that's tremendously expensive. Not even to BUILD new weapons, but just to keep existing ones working.

    Currently the US nuclear arsenal consists of:
    1 type of ICBM (the Minuteman III)
    2 Types of bombs (B61 with 5 subvariants, B83)
    1 type of SLBM (Trident II)
    5 types of warheads (W88 , W87, W76, W78)
    1 type of Nuclear Cruise Missile (AGM-86)
    No more nuclear landmines, depth charges or shells. B61s in lower yields fill the tactical role.


    Cost savings and strategy drove all of this.

    For example, a decade and a half ago the US had the Older Minuteman III and the much newer and more advanced Peackeeper MX. It decided to retire the Peacekeeper MX and put it's warheads on the Minuteman III. Why? Because under the SORT treaty, the US had to retire warheads and missiles to hit the cap. Peacekeeper could carry 8-12 warheads. Minuteman III could carry 3. The US decided to keep the larger share of it's deterrent on the (more useful) submarine launched ballistic missiles, which necessitated having fewer warheads on land based ICBMs. To do this, the US decided to put one warhead on each of it's ICBMs (a larger number of ICBMs being a bigger target for Russia), which made the huge size (and expensive) of the peacekeeper uncessary.

    Another example is with the Nuclear Cruise Missile. The stealthy AGM-129 ACM was far more advanced than it's direct predecessor, the AGM-86 ALCM. But it was also significantly more expensive to own.

    The best example though is with the Trident II though. The Trident II (1985->) was a quantum leap ahead of the Trident I (1979->2005)and the Poesidon (1971->1992), and for decades the US operated an enormous ballistic missile submarine fleet (41 for Freedom). This was tremendously expensive because it caused a huge diversity of weapon systems (and thus costs). Starting in 1980, the Ohio-class submarine began to be introduced and it was Armed with the Trident I. The Navy rapidly moved to shif tot an all-Ohio class fleet, and rapidly retired its direct predecessor, the Benjamin Franklin class (and the rest of 41 for Freedom classes) which were armed with the Polaris missile or the Poseidon. Some Benjamin Franklin classes were armed with the Trident I, but never were modified to carry the larger Trident II. As soon as the navy could shift to an all Ohio + All Trident II fleet, it did, even though it was replacing 41 nuclear submarines with 14.

    In fact the Navy is doing that again: it plans to replace all 14 Ohio-class SSBNs with 12 Columbia-class SSBNs over the next few decades. However the Columbia-class has a life-of-the-ship nuclear core and will never need to be refueled, which means they'll get more-deployments per ship. As a result they don't need to buy the two extra because unlike the Ohio class, two ships won't be out of service for 4 years being refueled. This makes the cost of sustaining the fleet cheaper.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I don't think you understand the implications of it and you're being bizarrely and entirely inapporporiately political about something that is national security related.

    (1) A more accurate bomb is more destructive than a larger, less accurate bomb. One of the reasons the US is able to retire the unguided B83 1.2Mt City Buster is because a guided B61-Mod 12 at 50kt has broadly superior destructive power. As the paper I quoted said, doubling a bomb's accuracy increases it's destructive power eight fold. The B61's accuracy is increasing much more than that due to the tail fin integration, which allows it to be smaller.


    (2) Every single weapon in existence has an expiration dates, and it's been decades since the US produced some of these weapons. In coming decades some nuclear weapons will have to be replaced regardless, because the conventional explosives which start the reaction will be unsafe for use. And beyond that by 2091, most of the nuclear cores themselves will have decayed.

    This means the US will need to remanufacture weapons. In given the choice between building more B83s in a seperate multi-billion dollar program, or consolidating five types of bombs into two types and enjoying the cost savings, the answer seems obvious.



    (3) A smaller nuclear weapon makes it more "usable". This has been one reason anti-nuclear campaigners have been against the B61 and other low-yield nuclear weapons. They are deeply concerned - with good reason - that the smaller a nuclear weapon gets, the more likely the US or someone will feel comfortable using it. This is particularly true of the B61 Mod 12, whose lowest yield setting, 0.3 kilotons, or 300 tons, would be "just" 27 times as powerful as MOAB (11 tons of TNT)

    As you can see a 0.3kt explosion is small
    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?...hob_ft=0&zm=16

    But this was entirely the point. To destroy air bases outside of cities, but not cities. To destroy hardened sites, but limit radiation fallout.

    The only reason nuclear warheads were historically enormous was because the technolgy for accuracy didn't exist. When a warhead could miss by a kilometer and a half, it needed to be enormous so that even a "miss" still destroyed or seriously damaged its target.

    Further if you read the article I linked, you'll see the rationale behind "superfuses" and it applies to B61-12. The most destructive area of a nuclear explosion (or any explosion really) that is an air-blast is directly below it. A small bomb that detonates directly above its target is much more destructive than a large bomb that detonates tens or hundreds of meters away.


    (4) The US nuclear arsenal has been consolidating for 20 years for good reason - the Cold War era arsenal was aging, and too complex to sustain indefinetly, especially when aimed at fewer Russian targets than ever. Let me explain what I mean.

    30 years ago, the US had the following weapons in it's nuclear arsenal
    4 different types of ICBM (Titan II, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, Peacekeeper)
    4 types of bombs with many sub-families (B43, B54, B61, B83)
    many, many types of Warheads (W88, W87, W76, W78, W84, W85, W80, W68, W69, W79, and more)
    3 types of SLBM (Poseidon, Trident I, Trident II)
    3 types of Nuclear Cruise Missile (AGM-86 ALCM, AGM-129 ACM, BGM-109G)
    A huge number of tactical nuclear weapons (such as nuclear land mines and depth charges).

    Some of these had some commonality. Many did not, even if they had similar names (Trident I and Trident II were hugely different for example). But every single one required an independent standing industrial base to support them. And that's tremendously expensive. Not even to BUILD new weapons, but just to keep existing ones working.

    Currently the US nuclear arsenal consists of:
    1 type of ICBM (the Minuteman III)
    2 Types of bombs (B61 with 5 subvariants, B83)
    1 type of SLBM (Trident II)
    5 types of warheads (W88 , W87, W76, W78)
    1 type of Nuclear Cruise Missile (AGM-86)
    No more nuclear landmines, depth charges or shells. B61s in lower yields fill the tactical role.


    Cost savings and strategy drove all of this.

    For example, a decade and a half ago the US had the Older Minuteman III and the much newer and more advanced Peackeeper MX. It decided to retire the Peacekeeper MX and put it's warheads on the Minuteman III. Why? Because under the SORT treaty, the US had to retire warheads and missiles to hit the cap. Peacekeeper could carry 8-12 warheads. Minuteman III could carry 3. The US decided to keep the larger share of it's deterrent on the (more useful) submarine launched ballistic missiles, which necessitated having fewer warheads on land based ICBMs. To do this, the US decided to put one warhead on each of it's ICBMs (a larger number of ICBMs being a bigger target for Russia), which made the huge size (and expensive) of the peacekeeper uncessary.

    Another example is with the Nuclear Cruise Missile. The stealthy AGM-129 ACM was far more advanced than it's direct predecessor, the AGM-86 ALCM. But it was also significantly more expensive to own.

    The best example though is with the Trident II though. The Trident II (1985->) was a quantum leap ahead of the Trident I (1979->2005)and the Poesidon (1971->1992), and for decades the US operated an enormous ballistic missile submarine fleet (41 for Freedom). This was tremendously expensive because it caused a huge diversity of weapon systems (and thus costs). Starting in 1980, the Ohio-class submarine began to be introduced and it was Armed with the Trident I. The Navy rapidly moved to shif tot an all-Ohio class fleet, and rapidly retired its direct predecessor, the Benjamin Franklin class (and the rest of 41 for Freedom classes) which were armed with the Polaris missile or the Poseidon. Some Benjamin Franklin classes were armed with the Trident I, but never were modified to carry the larger Trident II. As soon as the navy could shift to an all Ohio + All Trident II fleet, it did, even though it was replacing 41 nuclear submarines with 14.

    In fact the Navy is doing that again: it plans to replace all 14 Ohio-class SSBNs with 12 Columbia-class SSBNs over the next few decades. However the Columbia-class has a life-of-the-ship nuclear core and will never need to be refueled, which means they'll get more-deployments per ship. As a result they don't need to buy the two extra because unlike the Ohio class, two ships won't be out of service for 4 years being refueled. This makes the cost of sustaining the fleet cheaper.
    Did you legit just call forum posting at MMO-C inappropriate? Are you for real? Do you think this forum has some sort of importance, outside friendly chatting?

    I didn't read the rest. TL;DR

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    Did you legit just call forum posting at MMO-C inappropriate? Are you for real? Do you think this forum has some sort of importance, outside friendly chatting?

    I didn't read the rest. TL;DR
    Of course you didn't. Because you made an uninformed comment on something rather technical in nature that has a significant policy implication (which is the point of topic being discussed in the thread). You are either incapable or unwilling a person to appreciate the "why" of the situation before commenting. Either way, profoundly ignorant, and it shows.

    How's that for friendly chatting? If that's too long i can make a tl;dr for you. I'm sure I can find some crayons.
    Last edited by Skroe; 2017-04-18 at 03:45 AM.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    No they don't. They are looking for ways to be more effective, not ways to be cheaper. They have asked for more money in their budget every single year we have existed as a nation. Your notion is completely ridiculous, sorry.
    You are very ignorant to the situation, sorry. Perhaps do some research so you do not look so unknowledgeable on the subject. There are numerous examples of the US military doing things to save money. And being more effective is sometimes a way to do that.

  15. #135
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    Did you legit just call forum posting at MMO-C inappropriate? Are you for real? Do you think this forum has some sort of importance, outside friendly chatting?

    I didn't read the rest. TL;DR
    Stop being inappropriate, it's perfectly normal for the US to test how nuclear bombs fall from a plane in 2017.
    It's all about saving money tijuana. It's all about saving your own tax money. That's what defence budget is renowned for. Be grateful at least to these guys will you?

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by TJrogue View Post
    Stop being inappropriate, it's perfectly normal for the US to test how nuclear bombs fall from a plane in 2017.
    It's all about saving money tijuana. It's all about saving your own tax money. That's what defence budget is renowned for. Be grateful at least to these guys will you?
    No, I will never trust the Military Industrial Complex. No matter what they sell us, it's only worth a quarter of that, at best. I have no doubt they just flat charge us more than others, etc. If fucking Trump can get Boeing to back up that Air Force One price by millions, with one tweet, that tells you how sick the mark ups are.

    Lol inappropriate....still laughing at Skroe for that one. It was a gem, to be sure.

  17. #137
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by OneWay View Post
    And you surely don't defeat that will by shooting dummy targets with those weapons.
    Actually, yes you do.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaqur View Post
    It might not be revolutionary, but it sure is showing Kim power of the US. NK cannot do this, US can, with ease.
    Russia Rivals U.S.

    U.S wouldnt win against Russia 1 on 1. U.S relies too heavily on digital, vulnerable to EMP strikes.

    Perhaps U.S is equal to Russia. But because on reliability on Digital, U.S would lose the fight. Remember how a single RUssian Jet with EMP rendered a U.S Ship to be complexly useless? And as a joke too. A single Russian Jet, literally took down a destroyer. 1. JUST ONE.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by stabetha View Post
    And if we show them he's not he has a million man army that feels betrayed by him.
    Howd that work for Sadam in '91?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Ohh for fuck's sake. Stop lapping up everything RT sprays your way.
    Probably doesnt trust CNN(for good reason), watches RT religiously..

  20. #140
    Scarab Lord Mister Cheese's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Calling for the death of everyone who disagrees with you is not acceptable.
    You mean like NK is doing?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •