- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Navy Missile Sub Has Begun Its First Patrol Armed With Controversial Low Yield Nukes
Posted on 1/29/20 at 9:29 pm to genuineLSUtiger
Posted on 1/29/20 at 9:29 pm to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
Nuke laden submarines. What could possibly go wrong? Humans get more and more efficient in their efforts to kill each other.
We have had nukes on subs for a looong time
0
Posted on 1/29/20 at 9:30 pm to Mr. Hangover
quote:
s by Mr. Hangover
I’m convinced that 90% of the people who will be outraged about this have zero fricking clue what a ‘low yield
This has been needed since they took nukes off carriers
Posted on 1/29/20 at 9:33 pm to BottomlandBrew
quote:
IMO, it's too much of a temptation to use a nuclear device because the yield is lower and the risks to our forces are less. "Oh, this bomb is only 5kt and will only knock out a military base without massive civilian casualties and it doesn't involve flying a slow-arse C130 with a MOAB over enemy territory? Where's the launch button?"
To keep the spades analogy going, that's like playing a two of spades to trump a king of clubs. Yeah, it works, but now the playing field is wide open, and you can only player higher spades from here on out.
Better than 5k dead Americans
Posted on 1/29/20 at 9:33 pm to Scruffy
quote:
How does it increase it any more than the current situation involving nukes
Because low yields means it is more likely that some president may regard them as a valid measured response.
Except when it launches, there is no way for anyone else to know that. They could be city buster MIRVS
It’s the exact same reason why they stripped all nuclear tipped Tomahawks.
This post was edited on 1/29/20 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 1/29/20 at 9:42 pm to genuineLSUtiger
I used NUKEMAP, the nuclear blast simulator and used Dillard University in New Orleans as Ground Zero so to speak for an airburst. Estimated fatalities would be 5170 with 18, 200 injured. The damage area would be from City Park to the West to Alvar St, to the East, North - South would not reach the river or the lake.
Contrast this with the normal 475 KT warhead. This would do NOLA in pretty much. The Chinese city busters are 5MT and that would screw up the metro areas
Contrast this with the normal 475 KT warhead. This would do NOLA in pretty much. The Chinese city busters are 5MT and that would screw up the metro areas
This post was edited on 1/29/20 at 9:45 pm
Posted on 1/29/20 at 9:45 pm to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
Nuke laden submarines. What could possibly go wrong? Humans get more and more efficient in their efforts to kill each other.
lmao...you think this is the first time we've had nukes on submarines?
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:31 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Low Yield Nukes
Posted on 1/29/20 at 11:01 pm to DavidTheGnome
Umm, big fricking deal. How old are you? Do you realize that before the wall came down that U.S. Army Artillery units had low yield nuclear projectiles?? They worked beautifully as a deterrent.
Both 8” (203mm) and later even 155mm artillery units had nuclear capable projectiles available that were very low yield in the case of a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. I’m not talking about intermediate range ballistic missiles back then, but actual artillery shells that could shoot up to 15 miles away and take out a 2000 meter by 2000 meter swath of terrain.
Frightening to think about? Yes. But I have zero problem with the Navy deploying this weapon.
Both 8” (203mm) and later even 155mm artillery units had nuclear capable projectiles available that were very low yield in the case of a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. I’m not talking about intermediate range ballistic missiles back then, but actual artillery shells that could shoot up to 15 miles away and take out a 2000 meter by 2000 meter swath of terrain.
Frightening to think about? Yes. But I have zero problem with the Navy deploying this weapon.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 12:33 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
What’s yalls thoughts?
What are your thoughts? Do you even have independent ones or are you just a mirror posting things that have been thought up by better people?
Posted on 1/30/20 at 5:12 am to DavidTheGnome
No big deal....they just replace the 'small' nukes that were on the old Tomahawk 'specials'. Those were very limited warheads as well....only difference is now we don't need to be 'close' to launch, as Tomahawks had a limited range as well.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 5:35 am to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
Nuke laden submarines. What could possibly go wrong? Humans get more and more efficient in their efforts to kill each other.
You do realize that the Ohio Class ballistic missile submarines have been patrolling the high seas, laden with nuclear warheads, for over 40 years? This isn't anything new.
This post was edited on 1/30/20 at 5:36 am
Posted on 1/30/20 at 6:03 am to Scruffy
quote:
Again, in what way does this actually change things?
It doesn't. The US has had small battlefield tactical nukes for decades. The only change here is how it its delivered.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 6:11 am to DavidTheGnome
When a terrorist group explodes a low yield dirty bomb in the US then this will be the response weapon.
This post was edited on 1/30/20 at 8:55 am
Posted on 1/30/20 at 6:43 am to tigervet4
quote:
What are your thoughts? Do you even have independent ones or are you just a mirror posting things that have been thought up by better people?
I posted mine in the sentence directly after the one you quoted jackass
Posted on 1/30/20 at 6:59 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
all seriousness, these will never be used. There will not be a war again where any public tolerates complete and total obliteration of civilian cities killing hundreds of thousands or millions of non combatants.
1945 called and laughs at you
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:02 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
In all seriousness, these will never be used. There will not be a war again where any public tolerates complete and total obliteration of civilian cities killing hundreds of thousands or millions of non combatants.
If a nuclear war ever does happen, I hope I'm taken out in the first strike. That is something I'd rather not live through.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:49 am to NATidefan
quote:any NBC attack in the US or against a US ally or US forces... would warrant said baby nuke response.
When a terrorist group explodes a low yield dirty bomb in the US. Then this will be the response weapon.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:50 am to Snipe
quote:this... from davey crockett's to low yield tactical nukes delivered by navy and air force light attack jets...
It doesn't. The US has had small battlefield tactical nukes for decades. The only change here is how it its delivered.
I believe some time after the gulf war they were removed from carriers.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:52 am to DavidTheGnome
Do y’all think low yield nukes are new or something? Hell, at one point we had Davey Crocket rockets in Europe....
We even had nuclear land mines in Germany until the late 80s.
We even had nuclear land mines in Germany until the late 80s.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:35 am to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
Nuke laden submarines.
Please tell me you don't think this is a new thing...
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News