Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you want to cause tons of damage, wouldn't a moab do mostly the same thing without the baggage of fallout?

 Crazyterran wrote:
If you want to cause tons of damage, wouldn't a moab do mostly the same thing without the baggage of fallout?

The Davy Crocket, one of the smallest nuclear device ever developed, had a yield of 10-20 tons of TNT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device). Close as you could get to a Fallout Mini-nuke.

MOABs have a yield of 11 tons of TNT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_MOAB

You'd need the Davy Crocket to be on the lower end of possible yields for the MOAB to even equal it. And I don't think anybody makes nuclear devices that small anymore.

MOABs would definitely get used in the event of the Korean war going hot again. They are perfect bunker busters, but they don't really hold a candle to nukes.

Is the person who decides on the legality of the launch order appointed by the president or one of his appointees?

Would N. Korea even have enough viable and dangerous bunkers that would require a nuclear attack to break them open? I would think that much of their military and infrastructure wouldn't require ordinance of a nuclear weapon magnitude to break.

Ergo that you don't need to use a nuclear weapon to win a war in the first place.

 Overread wrote:
Would N. Korea even have enough viable and dangerous bunkers that would require a nuclear attack to break them open? I would think that much of their military and infrastructure wouldn't require ordinance of a nuclear weapon magnitude to break.

Ergo that you don't need to use a nuclear weapon to win a war in the first place.

I dont think you would want to bunker bust with nukes anyway considering the aftermath means you couldnt push up on the ground.

Id assume thermobaric weapons are in order for that sort of thing.

Aye, any use of nuclear weapons basically hinders any ability to rebuild after and is a serious risk during the war if you're going to have people on the ground fighting. Also this isn't like WWII were the aftermath effects were not fully appreciated.

I really just can't see the gain for the US to actually use a nuclear weapon in todays world; especially against an opponent like N. Korea.

 Overread wrote:
Would N. Korea even have enough viable and dangerous bunkers that would require a nuclear attack to break them open? I would think that much of their military and infrastructure wouldn't require ordinance of a nuclear weapon magnitude to break.

Ergo that you don't need to use a nuclear weapon to win a war in the first place.

You're mixing needs and wants. Nelson said it best. "Gotta nuke something."





<--- Kronk is not advocating nuking. I'd rather just keep ignoring the fether.

 Crazyterran wrote:
If you want to cause tons of damage, wouldn't a moab do mostly the same thing without the baggage of fallout?

Big as MOABs are, you can't erase a city with one.

 Overread wrote:
Aye, any use of nuclear weapons basically hinders any ability to rebuild after and is a serious risk during the war if you're going to have people on the ground fighting. Also this isn't like WWII were the aftermath effects were not fully appreciated.

I really just can't see the gain for the US to actually use a nuclear weapon in todays world; especially against an opponent like N. Korea.

Use air bursts. Good for depopulating the area without contaminating everything for hundreds of miles, as the majority of fissile material is destroyed in the fireball.

There were enough studies on how long troops could survive in areas effected by Nuclear Fallout to make it a consideration. Safe periods, and the upper limits of course.

Though the issue today's potentially that our modern kit isn't built to deal with that sort of warfare like it was in the Cold War, despite leaps in technology. I'd imagine it fell off the budget.

I do remember reading a rather good sci-fi series set in a world where Nuclear weapons were normalised. They were used to a limited surgical capacity before dropping off after people started playing silly buggers with dirty bombs. Not to say that's the way to go, but using a comparatively "clean" nuke as a one off in a conflict without escalating things may be the ...well politest way to go without escalating things. ...Though as in that series once one person starts doing it, even to a limited extent, that gives the green light for anyone to do it (presumably first the major powers, whilst being frowned upon, then anyone who happened to find one fallen off the back of a truck). China does wind up a glassed hellhole, along with the US dealing with the fallout (though the actual conflict's more traditional ...in as much as fighting over precious metals in Kazakhstan is conventional).

Tangent.

Yea it's all blah

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Yea it's all blah

Yup, Total Fake News. Not a bit of reason to be concerned here,

There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.

 Elbows wrote:
There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.

John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.

Yea still a non problem, I'm with ya Elbow's, though it is fun to watch others reactions.

Only naives and silly thinks there's not >0% chance of Trump going nuts.

Hint: Only thing that's 100% inevitable is change. For rest you can never say 100% and 0%.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Yea still a non problem, I'm with ya Elbow's, though it is fun to watch others reactions.

I'm not sure if trolling or just that naive.

Niether, just don't see it as something that will happen, just idiots finding another excuse.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Yea still a non problem, I'm with ya Elbow's, though it is fun to watch others reactions.

I'm not sure if trolling or just that naive.

Looking at other posts by him the answer is pretty clear.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.

John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.

Just out of curiosity, what use is there for forms if all the people are dead? Shouldn't the government be more worried about its people than its forms?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.

John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.

Just out of curiosity, what use is there for forms if all the people are dead? Shouldn't the government be more worried about its people than its forms?

Well, not everyone is guarenteed to die, those living isolated/far enough away from areas that would be hit might survive. Plus everyone in government bunkers.

Realistically no government can protect all its people from something on that scale. Which is why setting up a mechanism to quickly have the ability to set back up and rebuild to help those people that survive it can be of importance. Without the government there is no guarantee the country would survive as an entity seperate from the people. So to preserve the country, making sure the government survives is very important.

Of course you could say something about the bureaucracy, but there is something to say for the fact that the country would survive because the entity that would hold it together does. Its a fascinating part of Cold War history and a debate on what role a government plays in making a country.

Also relatively speaking you can repopulate with very few people, with enough genetic diversity in the low hundreds. So in a sense its easier to have a government survive and then repopulate than have the survivors trying to set up the same government after its been destroyed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.

John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.

Yeah, because it's not like the mighty US government ever wastes money on stuff

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.

John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.

Yeah, because it's not like the mighty US government ever wastes money on stuff

Speaking of, I just saw an article pointing out the release of files from thee Pentagon that had spent 20 mil on UFO research between 2007-2012

I get the underlying purpose, but still.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, because it's not like the mighty US government ever wastes money on stuff

This is fair and I'm totally on board with preserving vital records for future generations especially if no one survives. There should be more than ruins left behind to say we were here. But yes. The US government wastes a lot of money on pointless crap. Like that Loony Tunes scheme to tie bombs to bats and drop bat-bombs over Tokyo, or that time we wasted hundreds of millions in a pointless drug ban (aka Prohibition).

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Yea still a non problem, I'm with ya Elbow's, though it is fun to watch others reactions.

I'm not sure if trolling or just that naive.

Looking at other posts by him the answer is pretty clear.

O yes,just ask the Y2K people about me, they'll tell ya all about me.

 LordofHats wrote:
or that time we wasted hundreds of millions in a pointless drug ban (aka Prohibition).

We're still doing that. Thing is, the money's got to go somewhere. Once you find out where it does go it answers a lot of questions.

Hey, if we didn't have prohibition, cool stuff wouldn't have happened like NASCAR and gangsters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum

While Prohibition did lead to crime, it was rather successful, leading to about a 70% alcohol consumption decrease, something that even continued after it had been stomped by the 21st Amendment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It was also lead by Progressives and many Women's Suffragettes.

 LordofHats wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, because it's not like the mighty US government ever wastes money on stuff

This is fair and I'm totally on board with preserving vital records for future generations especially if no one survives. There should be more than ruins left behind to say we were here. But yes. The US government wastes a lot of money on pointless crap. Like that Loony Tunes scheme to tie bombs to bats and drop bat-bombs over Tokyo, or that time we wasted hundreds of millions in a pointless drug ban (aka Prohibition).

To be honest I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, I just found it hilarious that "someone (in the US government) thinks we should spend money on it so it must be a good idea" was actually used as an argument.

I certainly see the value in repositories of knowledge. Though a million bucks a day seems a bit excessive, that's equivalent to approximately 6000 wages for people earning a median wage.

The US Gov't thinks we should spend money on Welfare programs too, I think they are stupid, they still do it.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
The US Gov't thinks we should spend money on Welfare programs too, I think they are stupid, they still do it.

You know, sometimes it is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
The US Gov't thinks we should spend money on Welfare programs too, I think they are stupid, they still do it.

You know, sometimes it is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]