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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
With ot with out the help of the weiner legion?

Well a wiener dog can eat its weight in food every 27.3 minutes...

So you're saying that their hunger increases exponentially once they've started eating? Truly a terrible beast.

 Seaward wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
So these are people playing soldiers? Dressing up in cameo and running around the forest with automatic weapons. I'm guessing some of these people never made it into the real military.

If we're talking about the Oathkeepers, I think they are, by definition, either active or retired military.

Not them. I'm talking about some of the Indiana group, who are just embarrassing to watch.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
With ot with out the help of the weiner legion?

Well a wiener dog can eat its weight in food every 27.3 minutes...

So you're saying that their hunger increases exponentially once they've started eating? Truly a terrible beast.

They've been known to devour entire grocery stores in hours.

To the topic. This is humorous.
For now.

However this is building. Whenever economic downturns last for extended periods, people are not properly represented, and the wealth gap is intensive, you get revolt.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
This is off-topic, of course..

What would happen, theoretically, if you went out in town with a Plate Carrier on? What about a kevlar helmet, or other pieces of militaristic "swag"? Surely, you would be harassed, but there's nothing illegal about it, is there? What about full magazines of ammunition? I'm curious where the line of "causing trouble" is drawn.

I don't see this being too far off. Neighborhood watches will become armed foot patrols, and dutiful citizens will nominate themselves to stand post at important places. There's a lot of people in this country who are counting the days down on their fingers until they can carry all their toys around with them and intimidate others.

Actually in most places I am aware of in the US, although not all, so called "open carry" (i.e. carrying a weapon around in open view that you have a legal right to own) is perfectly fine. Not many people do it but it's a thing and I'd have no issue with it myself. It's "concealed carry" (carrying a weapon where other people can't tell you have it) that's more regulated.

Honestly if I saw someone walking around in full military gear with a rifle hung over their shoulder I'd probably just shrug and keep walking unless they looked completely messed up then I'd probably frown, shake my head, and keep walking. Then again I come from Idaho where all the crazy people live (we're 50% hippies/hipsters and 50% rednecks...I have no idea how the entire state hasn't imploded by now).

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
This is off-topic, of course..

What would happen, theoretically, if you went out in town with a Plate Carrier on? What about a kevlar helmet, or other pieces of militaristic "swag"? Surely, you would be harassed, but there's nothing illegal about it, is there? What about full magazines of ammunition? I'm curious where the line of "causing trouble" is drawn.

It depends on your locality. For example, a magazine in excesss of 10 rounds in DC is a felony regardless of if it's in a gun or not. Similarly some states (NY, I believe, though not 100% sure) restrict ownership of body armor to law enforcement. Otherwise, go to town.

 Ouze wrote:
It depends on your locality. For example, a magazine in excesss of 10 rounds in DC is a felony regardless of if it's in a gun or not. Similarly some states (NY, I believe, though not 100% sure) restrict ownership of body armor to law enforcement. Otherwise, go to town.

Unless you're on TV with it

Well, there's a news commentator exemption to that law, obviously

 Seaward wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
So these are people playing soldiers? Dressing up in cameo and running around the forest with automatic weapons. I'm guessing some of these people never made it into the real military.

If we're talking about the Oathkeepers, I think they are, by definition, either active or retired military.

Or law enforcement right?

Which anymore is para-military anyway...

 d-usa wrote:
Or law enforcement right?

Which anymore is para-military anyway...

Is it LEOs as well? I don't know a lot about it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yep, all part of the master plan to storm the U.N. and start lining blue bellies up against the wall if I'm reading this stuff right. Preemptive strike at their command and control doncha know?

I dunno. Doesn't wash to me. Isn't everyone pretty much aware that the UN without the US against the US is like a newborn fawn getting into the ring against Mike Tyson in his prime? And I mean all of 'em. All the United Nations.

Russia has how many nukes again?

Well considering that Russia doesn't have a first strike capability on us I'm not to worried about Russian nukes. Our Tridents could hit them while they are still fueling up.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yep, all part of the master plan to storm the U.N. and start lining blue bellies up against the wall if I'm reading this stuff right. Preemptive strike at their command and control doncha know?

I dunno. Doesn't wash to me. Isn't everyone pretty much aware that the UN without the US against the US is like a newborn fawn getting into the ring against Mike Tyson in his prime? And I mean all of 'em. All the United Nations.

Russia has how many nukes again?

Well considering that Russia doesn't have a first strike capability on us I'm not to worried about Russian nukes. Our Tridents could hit them while they are still fueling up.

If they don't blow up when being loaded or fired - there's a reason we Scots don't want the UK's Trident-armed subs sitting 40 miles from our most populous city. Well, actually there's several, but pretty high on the list is "they're a flawed design that could spread radioactive material over a large area if an accident were ever to set off the rocket-stage fuel".

Scots don't need nukes. They have haggis

Aren't the warheads and rockets stored separately? Only placed together before being loaded on to the subs?

So I take it the people in the article aren't like the guys from the video? (i.e. some military training?)

Also, as funny as it is to laugh at the fat ass and his posse of inepts, I'd find it worrying if I lived near these guys. Imagine if they mistake a drill, or over-react to a national emergency. I'm not saying they're a credible threat to any organised power, but they could hurt a lot of people through they're own idiocy.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Aren't the warheads and rockets stored separately? Only placed together before being loaded on to the subs?

They are, the issue is the design of the missile itself is flawed - the nuclear warhead in a Trident missile isn't placed at the tip, it sits inside the body of the rocket right next to the third-stage engine, the fuel for which is incredibly volatile and sensitive to impacts. Even a minor accident while loading or unloading the missiles at Faslane could result in radioactive particles being spread all over Glasgow city centre, potentially even all the way over to Edinburgh or down into the North of England depending on the weather conditions, and that is the best case scenario, because it assumes the fire doesn't set off the warhead itself by damaging the electronics. The Americans, and thus we must suppose the UK government, have known about this flaw for twenty years, which really tells you all you need to know about how much the UK government values Scotland and Scots when they base four submarines full of the things right outside our biggest city.

 Yodhrin wrote:
They are, the issue is the design of the missile itself is flawed - the nuclear warhead in a Trident missile isn't placed at the tip, it sits inside the body of the rocket right next to the third-stage engine, the fuel for which is incredibly volatile and sensitive to impacts. Even a minor accident while loading or unloading the missiles at Faslane could result in radioactive particles being spread all over Glasgow city centre, potentially even all the way over to Edinburgh or down into the North of England depending on the weather conditions, and that is the best case scenario, because it assumes the fire doesn't set off the warhead itself by damaging the electronics. The Americans, and thus we must suppose the UK government, have known about this flaw for twenty years, which really tells you all you need to know about how much the UK government values Scotland and Scots when they base four submarines full of the things right outside our biggest city.

All I can say is, "No."

 Seaward wrote:


All I can say is, "No."

I'm not doubting you, but for the sake of discussion, can I press for a more in-depth answer?

 Medium of Death wrote:
I'm not doubting you, but for the sake of discussion, can I press for a more in-depth answer?

Sure.

Fire won't set off the warheads in a Trident.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Aren't the warheads and rockets stored separately? Only placed together before being loaded on to the subs?

They are, the issue is the design of the missile itself is flawed - the nuclear warhead in a Trident missile isn't placed at the tip, it sits inside the body of the rocket right next to the third-stage engine, the fuel for which is incredibly volatile and sensitive to impacts. Even a minor accident while loading or unloading the missiles at Faslane could result in radioactive particles being spread all over Glasgow city centre, potentially even all the way over to Edinburgh or down into the North of England depending on the weather conditions, and that is the best case scenario, because it assumes the fire doesn't set off the warhead itself by damaging the electronics. The Americans, and thus we must suppose the UK government, have known about this flaw for twenty years, which really tells you all you need to know about how much the UK government values Scotland and Scots when they base four submarines full of the things right outside our biggest city.

At Misawa AFB, our munitions store carries enough conventional explosives to create a 10 mile crater. A single static discharge would be enough to kill more then 100,000 people in the blink of an eye.

Bombs are dangerous. Fact of life. Deal with it.

Plus I'm gonna go with your idea of a single bump being enough to set of a nuclear wasteland being a little overly dramatic. Besides, their Scots. They'd shrug it off and continue on with being awesome.

If I'm not mistaken, Medium isn't suggesting that it could. But instead, that an accident or incident could cause radioactive material to be blown into the air. Effectively a dirty bomb.

 djones520 wrote:
At Misawa AFB, our munitions store carries enough conventional explosives to create a 10 mile crater. A single static discharge would be enough to kill more then 100,000 people in the blink of an eye.

Bombs are dangerous. Fact of life. Deal with it.

Wow, isn't that reassuring. Man, I feel better. "We could wipe out life in a 10 mile radius if someone forgets their proper shoes, it's totes cool, man up."

 Forar wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Medium isn't suggesting that it could. But instead, that an accident or incident could cause radioactive material to be blown into the air. Effectively a dirty bomb.

 Yodhrin wrote:
and that is the best case scenario, because it assumes the fire doesn't set off the warhead itself by damaging the electronics.

I was replying to Yodhrin's point, which seems like the sort of stuff anti-nuclear groups cook up out of thin air and blast off in a press release.

And even the "dirty bomb" scenario is unlikely in regard to the weapons.

Worry about the reactors, not the warheads.

 Seaward wrote:
Worry about the reactors, not the warheads.

Old ones, certainly.

All the better reason for countries to complete necessary research on and construct some Gen IV thorium based facilities. Non-weapons grade, reduced waste, literally fail-safe, as in loss of control means the system naturally shuts down.

Everything I've heard makes it sound like some pretty badass tech.

Of course, now we're drifting off topic, doubly so since I imagine the Oathkeepers aren't a nuclear power.

Yes, I set that one up on a tee so someone can rush in and tell us about how the Oathkeepers have millions of members in the military and are just waiting to flip the switches...

 Seaward wrote:

 Forar wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Medium isn't suggesting that it could. But instead, that an accident or incident could cause radioactive material to be blown into the air. Effectively a dirty bomb.

 Yodhrin wrote:
and that is the best case scenario, because it assumes the fire doesn't set off the warhead itself by damaging the electronics.

I was replying to Yodhrin's point, which seems like the sort of stuff anti-nuclear groups cook up out of thin air and blast off in a press release.

And even the "dirty bomb" scenario is unlikely in regard to the weapons.

Worry about the reactors, not the warheads.

If by "anti nuclear groups" you mean "report to the US congress twenty years ago by top scientists", sure.

The safety of the Trident D5 missile has long been a source of concern. In December 1990, the Panel on Nuclear Weapons Safety, a group of eminent physicists appointed by the US Congress, warned that its unusual design posed significant risks. To save space, the multiple warheads weren't mounted on top of the missile; they surrounded its third-stage rocket engine. And the "high-energy" class 1.1 propellant used in that rocket engine was far more likely than other propellants to explode in an accident. "The safety issue of concern here," the panel found, "is whether an accident during handling of an operational missile – viz, transporting and loading – might detonate the propellant which in turn could cause the HE [high explosives] in the warhead to detonate, leading to dispersal of plutonium, or even the initiation of a nuclear yield."

The decision to use the more energetic rocket fuel and the more unstable high explosive was made during the early 1980s, to increase the range of the Trident D5 missile and decrease the weight of its warheads. The first British Trident submarine went on patrol four years after these safety risks were discovered, and the Trident D5 missile is supposed to remain in service until 2042. The risk of explosion and plutonium dispersal is greatest when the warheads are being loaded on to the sub, unloaded from the sub, or transported by road between Scotland and the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, Berkshire.

So in fact, I was correct, and it is possible for an accidental detonation of the missile's fuel to set off the main warhead, however as I stated it's more likely it would just disperse Plutonium over half of the Central Belt, resulting in mass deaths due to radiation poisoning and overwhelmed medical services, as well as long-term health implications like substantially raised levels of cancer and birth defects. But hey, if you need to think of anyone who doesn't want such obviously flawed WMDs sitting a few miles away from the homes of many members of their family as some rabidly anti-nuclear hippie, go right ahead.

 Yodhrin wrote:
So in fact, I was correct

There are a lot of highly-qualified individuals claiming to be "correct" on the F-35 today, when I know for a fact they're not. If you're not inside the program and reading only unclass info, you're not getting the whole story. Believe it or not, we generally don't tell the world everything about our nuclear arsenal. You were correct twenty years ago with the C3s - maybe.

Whether you're correct today with the D5s is another question entirely, and the answer's "No."

 Seaward wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So in fact, I was correct

There are a lot of highly-qualified individuals claiming to be "correct" on the F-35 today, when I know for a fact they're not. If you're not inside the program and reading only unclass info, you're not getting the whole story. Believe it or not, we generally don't tell the world everything about our nuclear arsenal. You were correct twenty years ago with the C3s - maybe.

Whether you're correct today with the D5s is another question entirely, and the answer's "No."

Yeah, I think I'm going to go with the report in a national newspaper citing a panel of respected physicists appointed by the US government over "guy on forum".

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yeah, I think I'm going to go with the report in a national newspaper citing a panel of respected physicists appointed by the US government over "guy on forum".

You're more than welcome to. I'm sure information never becomes outdated, after all, and a report from 20 years ago is just as valid today as it was then, despite new iterations of the weapon. You're also clearly much more experienced with military hardware in general and procurement in particular than my lowly decade-plus of the same, so, fair play. You win. The Navy's just sociopathic and doesn't care about Connecticut, Georgia, or Washington.

In the Navy's defense, it is /Georgia/

 Seaward wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yeah, I think I'm going to go with the report in a national newspaper citing a panel of respected physicists appointed by the US government over "guy on forum".

You're more than welcome to. I'm sure information never becomes outdated, after all, and a report from 20 years ago is just as valid today as it was then, despite new iterations of the weapon. You're also clearly much more experienced with military hardware in general and procurement in particular than my lowly decade-plus of the same, so, fair play. You win. The Navy's just sociopathic and doesn't care about Connecticut, Georgia, or Washington.

Typical strawman rubbish - my willingness to defer to an actual confirmed authority on a subject means I'm claiming to have personal and substantial experience in the subject, right

As for your supposed experience; there's a reason I stopped referring to my own level of knowledge in my own field when discussing things in an anonymous online forum - anyone could be talking out of their so the only rational way to discuss and evidence things is to refer to external sources of information. I've produced concrete evidence to support my statement, can you produce evidence that shows the concerns of those scientists were addressed? That they've changed the layout of the missile, or the composition of the third-stage fuel, or developed some new safety feature?

As for the Navy, I can't speak to the mental state of those in charge but try reading that article again, near-misses with nuclear weapons aren't occasional freak events, so you do have to wonder whether governments and admirals that willingly park these monstrosities right next to major urban centres don't consider their populations to be potentially "acceptable losses", or "collateral damage", or whatever euphemism those in charge of militaries are using these days to justify callous disregard for life.

 Yodhrin wrote:
As for your supposed experience; there's a reason I stopped referring to my own level of knowledge in my own field when discussing things in an anonymous online forum - anyone could be talking out of their so the only rational way to discuss and evidence things is to refer to external sources of information. I've produced concrete evidence to support my statement, can you produce evidence that shows the concerns of those scientists were addressed? That they've changed the layout of the missile, or the composition of the third-stage fuel, or developed some new safety feature?

I can point you to several studies conducted (most by LLNL, I believe) that show detonation of fuel has not actually led to the sort of stuff this panel of yours predicted. I mean, I don't know. Does actual testing trump theoretical scenario-building? I think it does, but given the following comment...

As for the Navy, I can't speak to the mental state of those in charge but try reading that article again, near-misses with nuclear weapons aren't occasional freak events, so you do have to wonder whether governments and admirals that willingly park these monstrosities right next to major urban centres don't consider their populations to be potentially "acceptable losses", or "collateral damage", or whatever euphemism those in charge of militaries are using these days to justify callous disregard for life.

...I have a feeling your mind's already made up. I'm not sure how to rationally argue with someone who genuinely believes this kind of gak.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So in fact, I was correct

There are a lot of highly-qualified individuals claiming to be "correct" on the F-35 today, when I know for a fact they're not. If you're not inside the program and reading only unclass info, you're not getting the whole story. Believe it or not, we generally don't tell the world everything about our nuclear arsenal. You were correct twenty years ago with the C3s - maybe.

Whether you're correct today with the D5s is another question entirely, and the answer's "No."

Yeah, I think I'm going to go with the report in a national newspaper citing a panel of respected physicists appointed by the US government over "guy on forum".

The guy on a forum you're talking is one of the few chaps on here whom I genuinely tend to respect the opinion of on modern armaments (working where he does).

Truthfully? You're quoting twenty three year old report about a top secret nuclear deterrent, which is far from conclusive proof. If you're going to be objectively fair, you have to admit that you genuinely have no idea on how the matter currently stands. And the only way you're going to find out if you're right or not is if Snowden got more than intelligence files to leak.

Personally, I have somewhat more faith in our armed forces than you, and believe that in twenty plus years, they'd be capable of ironing out a minor design flaw. I've seen some of the intricacy of planning that goes into these things, and you'd be surprised what crops up in the initial tests/deployments (which was when that report you pointed out was commissioned) of just about any new piece of hardware. And then once stuff like that does crop up? They try and fix it quickly. Mainly because usually, you don't spend that money on a weapons system and then take a risk that it might not work when you need it.

Then again, if you seriously think the DoD or the Admiralty Board would sit there and go, 'What? Spend a couple of million fixing the third stage launch mechanism after sinking billions in? Nah, that sounds like far too much effort, let those Scotsmen eat hot radioactive lead! Fwahahaha! More port gentlemen?', well......

 purplefood wrote:
The people who practise for the apocalypse are the odd ones...

Yeah, but don't governments themselves have plans for such scenarios?
If you have the money to buy into a bunker complex then why not? It's one less thing to worry about should something really go wrong. I'm making a distinction here between people who have solid plans for various emergencies and people who live as though the emergency has already taken place.
Short of a major disaster like a Carrington Event or major volcano, I can't see the need for a bunker situation. Prolonged nuclear war? The environment would pretty much be unliveable so what would you be surviving for as you'd likely die of starvation soon after leaving your bunker anyway.
On the plus side, the Indiana guys at least have a temporary larder plus a convenient source of fresh meat should that run out before normal life resumes.