Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
LastLast
  1. #61
    The Unstoppable Force Skroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,453
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    It's called "keeping you on your toes".

    Think of Trump as the first raid boss. China the second.
    You know, I'm really trying to think of what you mean other than "I support Trump because he's roughing us up out of our complacency as a preparation for the bigger threat after him", but for the life of me, I'm drawing a blank.

    Surely, that isn't what you are saying is it? Because that's so absolutely, out of this world self deluded, I just don't know what to say. It's also perhaps the worst Trumphadi excuse I've heard.

    Honestly, it won't kill you to say "I fucked up back in supporting Donald Trump and prioritizing near term greivences against my fellow Americans over our long term national interests and I'd take it back if I could". You might gain some respect.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    No one who understands nuclear weapons wants to use them. There is a reason Mutual Assured Destruction is named that, they are not viable to use against a target that can respond in kind! China has ~260 strategic warheads, which may or may not be enough to effectively destroy the US (depends on your definition).

    Current US ICBMs (about 500 are left) are armed with a single warhead of 300kt to perhaps 475kt.
    Current US SLBMs (288) are armed with up to 8 warheads of 90kt to 475kt (maximum of 1,152 warheads total, for an average of 4 warheads per missile).
    The B-52s can be armed with up to 528 ALCMs with a variable warhead yield of 5-150kt.
    The only weapons of greater than 1Mt are the B83 gravity bombs, only really deliverable by the B-2.
    The only other nuclear weapons in the US are the various strategic and tactical B61 gravity bombs, with various yields of 0.3kt to 400kt.

    So, the US has already moved away from large yield warheads. One of the main reasons is nuclear weapons do not scale as well as you would think, and modern missiles are far more accurate than older ones. A single 1Mt warhead has less about 1/3 the destructive potential of 10 100kt warheads, while a single 5Mt warhead is only 15% as destructive as 50 100kt warheads.

    Nuclear warheads will only become obsolete if we invent something even more destructive, which I hope we do not, or we figure out how to actually rid the world of all of them, which isnt going to happen.
    (I think you know all of this, but I'm directing it to you to educate others).

    I think an essential thing to add (for people less in the know) to this is that the destructive potential of the ever larger Cold War-era nuclear weapons were connected to their inaccuracy. When you're throwing a warhead halfway across the planet and it has (due to technological limitations), a circular error probable of 2 kilometers, you need to make your warhead really big in order to miss by up-to 2 meters and still destroy what you're meaning to destroy.

    Modern US weapons are very accurate against fixed targets - around 2-5 meters with the Trident II D5 LEP upgrades over the last decade. But they'd be used only against absolutely-can't-fail targets, like mobile launchers and hardened ICBM bunkers.

    Many of the tactical weapons of the Cold War, such as air launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads similarly existed because of accuracy failures. But modern conventional weapons with electro-optical guidance systems would be more effective at destroying their intended targets (usually air defenses).

    Modern multi-modal guidance on conventional weapons makes many types of Cold War era nuclear weapons functionally obsolete, leaving the purpose of a nuclear warhead limit to destroying large and hardened infrastructure. It would take a lot of bombs or cruise missiles to destroy a large air field... a nuclear weapon can do it in one. And as you said, a lot of small nuclear weapons (especially very accurate ones) are a hell of a lot more destructive than one big one.

    One reason Obama funded prompt global strike was to replace even nuclear weapons in this field too. Because a hypersonic cruise missile launched from the united states striking a target at 25 times the speed of sound may be powerful enough to destroy such a target in one shot too.

    So it's very possible that as destructive as nuclear weapons are, their functional utility beyond being end-of-the-world weapons existed in a historically narrow window of time, and they became obsolete due to superior technology for more than scorched earth warfare.
    We're Taking Your President Away From You. | Users with <20 posts and ignored posters are invisible. Find out how to do that here and clean up MMO-OT!

  2. #62
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    You know, I'm really trying to think of what you mean other than "I support Trump because he's roughing us up out of our complacency as a preparation for the bigger threat after him", but for the life of me, I'm drawing a blank.

    Surely, that isn't what you are saying is it? Because that's so absolutely, out of this world self deluded, I just don't know what to say. It's also perhaps the worst Trumphadi excuse I've heard.

    Honestly, it won't kill you to say "I fucked up back in supporting Donald Trump and prioritizing near term greivences against my fellow Americans over our long term national interests and I'd take it back if I could". You might gain some respect.

    - - - Updated - - -



    (I think you know all of this, but I'm directing it to you to educate others).

    I think an essential thing to add (for people less in the know) to this is that the destructive potential of the ever larger Cold War-era nuclear weapons were connected to their inaccuracy. When you're throwing a warhead halfway across the planet and it has (due to technological limitations), a circular error probable of 2 kilometers, you need to make your warhead really big in order to miss by up-to 2 meters and still destroy what you're meaning to destroy.

    Modern US weapons are very accurate against fixed targets - around 2-5 meters with the Trident II D5 LEP upgrades over the last decade. But they'd be used only against absolutely-can't-fail targets, like mobile launchers and hardened ICBM bunkers.

    Many of the tactical weapons of the Cold War, such as air launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads similarly existed because of accuracy failures. But modern conventional weapons with electro-optical guidance systems would be more effective at destroying their intended targets (usually air defenses).

    Modern multi-modal guidance on conventional weapons makes many types of Cold War era nuclear weapons functionally obsolete, leaving the purpose of a nuclear warhead limit to destroying large and hardened infrastructure. It would take a lot of bombs or cruise missiles to destroy a large air field... a nuclear weapon can do it in one. And as you said, a lot of small nuclear weapons (especially very accurate ones) are a hell of a lot more destructive than one big one.

    One reason Obama funded prompt global strike was to replace even nuclear weapons in this field too. Because a hypersonic cruise missile launched from the united states striking a target at 25 times the speed of sound may be powerful enough to destroy such a target in one shot too.

    So it's very possible that as destructive as nuclear weapons are, their functional utility beyond being end-of-the-world weapons existed in a historically narrow window of time, and they became obsolete due to superior technology for more than scorched earth warfare.
    Tactical nuclear weapons still have a few "practical" uses, such as the destruction of massed armored formations with limited numbers of delivery systems against a target that cannot respond in kind. They are also very effective anti-sub weapons, but the US no longer uses them for that. There is a school of thought that naval warfare is the only viable use of tactical nukes that doesn't lead to a strategic exchange between nuclear powers, but I disagree.

    As a viable offensive weapon, nukes become obsolete once MAD levels are reached between opposing sides or the political will to use them is removed. However, as a defensive weapon, they are still very effective, in a "we have nothing else to lose" sense.
    Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    “Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.”
    "His knowledge on that topic is only power point deep..." "Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
    "Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

  3. #63
    This pic seems apropos;

    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    No one who understands nuclear weapons wants to use them. There is a reason Mutual Assured Destruction is named that, they are not viable to use against a target that can respond in kind! China has ~260 strategic warheads, which may or may not be enough to effectively destroy the US (depends on your definition).

    Current US ICBMs (about 500 are left) are armed with a single warhead of 300kt to perhaps 475kt.
    Current US SLBMs (288) are armed with up to 8 warheads of 90kt to 475kt (maximum of 1,152 warheads total, for an average of 4 warheads per missile).
    The B-52s can be armed with up to 528 ALCMs with a variable warhead yield of 5-150kt.
    The only weapons of greater than 1Mt are the B83 gravity bombs, only really deliverable by the B-2.
    The only other nuclear weapons in the US are the various strategic and tactical B61 gravity bombs, with various yields of 0.3kt to 400kt.

    So, the US has already moved away from large yield warheads. One of the main reasons is nuclear weapons do not scale as well as you would think, and modern missiles are far more accurate than older ones. A single 1Mt warhead has less about 1/3 the destructive potential of 10 100kt warheads, while a single 5Mt warhead is only 15% as destructive as 50 100kt warheads.

    Nuclear warheads will only become obsolete if we invent something even more destructive, which I hope we do not, or we figure out how to actually rid the world of all of them, which isnt going to happen.

    Basically if we ever get orbital mining figured out nukes would get phased out as KEW would be cheaper/easier and cleaner to utilize.

  5. #65
    The Unstoppable Force breadisfunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    24,520
    looks like someone's feeling edgy today.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  6. #66
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    First of all ICBM are most likely reserved for Russia so any kind of nuclear bombing will be done from submarines positioned in South China Sea and any major nuclear power would be informed that the attack isn't targeted at them just to prevent a grave misunderstanding. However, I don't see a nuclear war as a possible scenario as long as both counties are governed by sane people. The worst that could happen is as tension rises and the war becomes imminent China seizes south Korea to prevent land invasion, which leads to naval blockade, by then China will have a coastal defense strong enough to prevent enemy landing, then the war ends with a stalemate.
    "Hey Russia, we are about to nuke China and kill about a billion people. Don't tell anybody, m'kay? It is supposed to be a surprise."

    … You really can't tell somebody in advance about something like that. Also, that would only work if we were doing a premeditated and unprovoked attack anyway, which we really shouldn't be, since that would be pretty horrific. There really is no way to pull it off without creating a "grave misunderstanding". Which is actually a good thing in a way. Nukes are so incredibly horrible, and they are so difficult to even conceptually use without killing yourself, that nobody has used them since the first two.
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    "Hey Russia, we are about to nuke China and kill about a billion people. Don't tell anybody, m'kay? It is supposed to be a surprise."

    … You really can't tell somebody in advance about something like that. Also, that would only work if we were doing a premeditated and unprovoked attack anyway, which we really shouldn't be, since that would be pretty horrific. There really is no way to pull it off without creating a "grave misunderstanding". Which is actually a good thing in a way. Nukes are so incredibly horrible, and they are so difficult to even conceptually use without killing yourself, that nobody has used them since the first two.
    Don't apply logic to war. War is often emotional.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    I want the ruins of K'aresh for 9.0 as I envision it as Netherstorm on steroids. A broken, shattered world. Eco-domes are stuck on various chunks to protect flora & fauna. I imagine a K'aresh ocean & maybe some islands contained in an eco dome or a snow-capped peak with some jungle valleys in another. Flesh version of Ethereals that never got altered. Space platforms as in Starcraft. Just a totally fantastic tileset & theme that I'd be very keen to explore. They could do some wild things.

  8. #68
    The Insane Aeula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Nearby, preventing you from fast traveling.
    Posts
    17,049
    Nukes are so 1940's. We need to lob Anthrax bombs at them.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythic-RaidLead View Post
    -snip-
    US propaganda is from uighurs extremists n islamists. Just like the scum white helmets in syria that move freely in al-nusra (al-qaida) territory n take part in warcrimes yet get western funding n even got an oscar for their propaganda movies...

    As long as US is hand in hand with extremists n peaceful headchoppers, i'll take their claims with a grain of salt...

    As for taiwan, it's not a country n legally part of China.

    Even if all your nonsense somehow was true, ur solution ww3 global nuclear holocaust is better?....


    Infracted.
    Last edited by Flarelaine; 2020-01-01 at 01:20 PM. Reason: Conspiracy theories are not allowed.

  10. #70
    I am Murloc! shadowmouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Dongbei, PRC ... for now
    Posts
    5,458
    @Ihavewaffles this is pretty much a rewind of OP's thread last month: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...3#post51915873
    "No one -- however smart, however well-educated, however experienced -- is the suppository of all wisdom"

    Sixty years. One sexagenary cycle complete, a new adventure awaits.
    shadowmouse, previously bungeebungee

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by bungeebungee View Post
    @Ihavewaffles this is pretty much a rewind of OP's thread last month: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...3#post51915873
    Oh.....that's so gross!...

    I just hope he didn't hurt any of his pets..

  12. #72
    Banned Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythic-RaidLead View Post
    Something needs to be done.
    Yes, something needs to be done. You need to stop fantasizing about nuking a country and killing 10's of millions of people.
    You need to leave China the fuck alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blur4stuff View Post
    We all have strong imaginations. Instead of spending your time fantasizing about billions of people dying, fantasize about finding peaceful solutions instead.
    The problem is that it doesn't work like that.
    They accuse China of something that China isn't doing.
    If they aren't doing it, they cannot stop doing it.

    It's like Iraq all over again.. Threatening with invasion if they didn't stop the WMD's.
    They didn't have them, so they could not stop. So they got invaded and then it turned out they weren't doing anything.

  13. #73
    Dreadlord Yadryonych's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Матушка Россия
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    "Hey Russia, we are about to nuke China and kill about a billion people. Don't tell anybody, m'kay? It is supposed to be a surprise."
    More like: "Hey Russia we've just sent few nukes to China, you can clearly see them on your RADARs but these are goin to chine so please don't worry and have a nice day"

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Yes, something needs to be done. You need to stop fantasizing about nuking a country and killing 10's of millions of people.
    You need to leave China the fuck alone.

    They accuse China of something that China isn't doing.
    One also could argue that China should leave others alone, like nations alongside South China Sea, instead of building artificial islands with military stationed there, on the basis of "thousand year old documents", totes legit!!11oneoneleven xD

    Ah, yes, same as Turkey who totally did not commit Armenian genocide because they said so, no matter what the whole world is thinking, or Russia, for whom someone else is always to be blamed for everything bad happening.

  15. #75
    Banned Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    One also could argue that China should leave others alone, like nations alongside South China Sea, instead of building artificial islands with military stationed there, on the basis of "thousand year old documents", totes legit!!11oneoneleven xD

    Ah, yes, same as Turkey who totally did not commit Armenian genocide because they said so, no matter what the whole world is thinking, or Russia, for whom someone else is always to be blamed for everything bad happening.
    I missed the part where the Chinese Sea is of any concern to an American?

    Go fix your own broken nation. Don't lash out to others because they ARE succeeding.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    I missed the part where the Chinese Sea is of any concern to an American?

    Go fix your own broken nation. Don't lash out to others because they ARE succeeding.
    america has our little friend japan who is very worried about that sea.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    I missed the part where the Chinese Sea is of any concern to an American?

    Go fix your own broken nation. Don't lash out to others because they ARE succeeding.
    It is, due to the trading (which is global, if you havent been keeping up with the world for the last... Dunno, a century at least?) and the fact that allies of USA, for example, Philippines and Taiwan are there, plus others are close, like Japan and SK. I would even say that relations between Vietnam and USA are better than those with China. Ironic, considering the past.

    Lastly, how many times do you have to be told that someone's avatar does not show where they live? Or should I assume that you are from Australia? xD

  18. #78
    Banned Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28,201
    The silly attempt at justifying your meddling with foreign affairs is hilarious.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    I missed the part where the Chinese Sea is of any concern to an American?

    Go fix your own broken nation. Don't lash out to others because they ARE succeeding.
    International waters are everyone's concern. Especially when China decided to manufacture islands and then claim that as their territory in international waters. You not being smart enough to see that and happily gobble up Chinese propaganda shouldn't be our concern but you constantly make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    The silly attempt at justifying your meddling with foreign affairs is hilarious.
    It's little different than your justification for anyone so long as it serve your Anti-america rage boner. Hypocrisy suits you.
    Last edited by shimerra; 2019-12-31 at 05:58 PM.
    “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
    "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
    Ambrose Bierce
    The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.

  20. #80
    Banned Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28,201
    Quote Originally Posted by shimerra View Post
    International waters are everyone's concern. Especially when China decided to manufacture islands and then claim that as their territory in international waters. You not being smart enough to see that and happily gobble up Chinese propaganda shouldn't be our concern but you constantly make it so.
    It's not international water, it are Chinese waters.

    It's little different than your justification for anyone so long as it serve your Anti-america rage boner. Hypocrisy suits you.
    I am not the one advocating for the nuclear destruction of another country.
    Hell, I even once got banned for calling the USA evil.
    So you tell me why this thread is allowed to continue.

Posting Permissions

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