The Nuclear Thread

west, my bad.

hey, I don't mean this as an offence, but is it normal for americans to have these holes in their history? where I'm from modern history is drilled into us. names, dates, events.
lol what I meant was when I was growing up it seemed every white middle aged authority figure knew a lot of random shit about the county/town/state they lived in. Now that I'm 39 I'm starting to become the same way, for example did you know the Lost 49ers (the guys who discovered Death Valley) camped at Groom Lake, where Area 51 now sits, before splitting up in search of water? They left several inscriptions along the way to mark their progress. There was actually an archeologist, Jerry Freeman, who was interested in these inscriptions (having discovered one of them that had been previously lost). In 1997 Jerry actually managed to sneak past the perimeter into the restricted area in search of an inscription left behind at Papoose Lake, which is right next to Area 51. He ran out of water, forcing him to turn around and didn't get to find it, though he did reach Papoose Lake.
Threads is absolutely horrifying. If the sirens go, I’m heading for Ground Zero.
If I remember correctly during the ending of the movie they say something to the effect of they turned down the effects of the bombs for the story, in actuality there would be nobody left in Britain after an exchange with the USSR.
 
I had my hopes up for Russia to use low yield nuclear artillery after they had the initial failure to leverage their first push in to Ukraine. Once the mud had become a problem and armor couldn't cope with ATGMs I figured the easiest counter would be .5kT rounds in the entrenched areas and pushing forward, the US and Europe would just idly threaten retaliation while China and India just shrugged their shoulders.
 
I figured the easiest counter would be .5kT rounds in the entrenched areas and pushing forward
There's a lot of historical debate on the usefulness of TNWs. Whether it favors attacker or defender, how much of an impact they'd actually have, whether they're worth the cost, etc.

At least in the west, with our technology base, we've since decided that high-accuracy conventional weapons are more effective (and avoid escalation risk).
the US and Europe would just idly threaten retaliation
Nuclear use would most likely force NATO retaliation. Failure to respond would destroy what's left of western deterrence and promote nuclear proliferation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Suburban Bastard
There's a lot of historical debate on the usefulness of TNWs. Whether it favors attacker or defender, how much of an impact they'd actually have, whether they're worth the cost, etc.

At least in the west, with our technology base, we've since decided that high-accuracy conventional weapons are more effective (and avoid escalation risk).

Nuclear use would most likely force NATO retaliation. Failure to respond would destroy what's left of western deterrence and promote nuclear proliferation.
NATO is only forced to exact policy if a NATO nation is attacked. Ukraine isn't that. No one in their right mind would force ICBM diplomacy over the lowest form of nuclear weapons being used in a lost front of a non-NATO nation. Anytime bigger than nuclear arty and I would agree with you, but Russia could have totally gotten away with it at that point in time
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Suburban Bastard
In 1997 Jerry actually managed to sneak past the perimeter into the restricted area in search of an inscription left behind at Papoose Lake, which is right next to Area 51. He ran out of water, forcing him to turn around and didn't get to find it, though he did reach Papoose Lake.
We must be watching the same content, as I've recently come across this story in the S4/UFO context. Then I had to refresh myself on the 49's, Donner Party, etc. But yeah he apparently witnessed activity at Papoose lake indicating there might be something to the portholes-in-the-mountain story after all. When you look on satellite, it's just desert out there.

I had my hopes up for Russia to use low yield nuclear artillery after they had the initial failure to leverage their first push in to Ukraine. Once the mud had become a problem and armor couldn't cope with ATGMs I figured the easiest counter would be .5kT rounds in the entrenched areas and pushing forward, the US and Europe would just idly threaten retaliation while China and India just shrugged their shoulders.
This is what I've talked about before about people being so nihilistic they want to actually see this happen. Dude - no. They can't just use 1 and your .5Kt quickly turns into many dozens of kilotons. And salts the earth with caesium for the next 300 years. They are not stupid, they want that land to live on, not another exclusion zone for stalkers to film youtube videos. Poland - maybe, but again probably no as they don't want that liability in terms of both optics and ecology.
 
We must be watching the same content, as I've recently come across this story in the S4/UFO context. Then I had to refresh myself on the 49's, Donner Party, etc. But yeah he apparently witnessed activity at Papoose lake indicating there might be something to the portholes-in-the-mountain story after all. When you look on satellite, it's just desert out there.
For me it's really just a general interest in the history of Nevada more than anything, I don't really believe in Aliens or Bob Lazar or anything like that. I did go to Rachel and the Backgate once after I did the NTTR tour. It's kinda neat for thirty minutes until the Area 51 novelty wears off and you realize you're in the middle of desert- miles from civilization essentially in the middle of nowhere. I didn't even bother going to Tikaboo point since it would have been like an hour detour (both ways) and at that point the novelty had long worn off. I don't imagine I'll ever go back, I'm married now and I don't think she'd appreciate me dragging her hours into the desert to look at a gate. The scenery is pretty though, so if you're ever nearby the trips worth it for the sights alone.

Even though I don't believe in the Lazar stuff I will say this, if I was the Government and I was choosing a place to do covert stuff the Nevada Desert would be a good choice, it's so remote if you go deep enough off the main road you can probably still find wagon tracks and other artifacts the pioneers ditched. Though some of the mushrooms clouds were visible from Vegas so I guess they didn't go far enough into the desert for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XYZpdq Jr.
We must be watching the same content, as I've recently come across this story in the S4/UFO context. Then I had to refresh myself on the 49's, Donner Party, etc. But yeah he apparently witnessed activity at Papoose lake indicating there might be something to the portholes-in-the-mountain story after all. When you look on satellite, it's just desert out there.


This is what I've talked about before about people being so nihilistic they want to actually see this happen. Dude - no. They can't just use 1 and your .5Kt quickly turns into many dozens of kilotons. And salts the earth with caesium for the next 300 years. They are not stupid, they want that land to live on, not another exclusion zone for stalkers to film youtube videos. Poland - maybe, but again probably no as they don't want that liability in terms of both optics and ecology.
How long do you think 24 rounds of low grade nuclear artillery from the Soviet era would take to be safe for habituation?

I only ask because I actually know the exact answer, and it's nowhere near what you would think, certainly what I thought atleast before I ended up getting read in.

Here's a hint, it's measured in months.

The entire point of tactical nuclear weapons is they're only short term area denial. The propaganda states and media have screamed at the top of their lungs about atomic ANYTHING since the 70s has been hilariously overblown. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt within the same lifetime of the guys who dropped the bombs on them. Cancer isn't actually as bad per capital for the people in rural NV and NM than it is for urban people who don't smoke.

Modern Tactical Nukes are built to eliminate threats and retake swathes of land quickly in a defensive battle. It's literally the doctrine the reds built them for in the mid 60s, they've only gotten better. I honestly believe the first nation to use a nuclear weapon in aggression or defense again wins the battle for 21st century dominance. Because then the cat is out of the bag, all these pointless police actions can stop because we can bust admit glassing a few goat rapist farmers and their shitty village is better than giving around with IEDs in 130 degree heat for decades on end.
 
Last edited:
How many tests where conducted there and what sort of yeilds? Was this before or after the tests moved mainly to Bikini Atoll etc?
Like someone above me mentioned, almost all of our early tests were undertaken in the Pacific Proving Grounds (Bikini and Eniwetok Atolls). It was way out in the middle of nowhere, which is great for security/secrecy but having to move all that equipment and personnel down there for each test series was a logistical nightmare. There were so many new designs coming out of Los Alamos and Livermore that we needed a test area that was much closer to keep pace with advancements in weaponeering. The PPG were still used for our really big tests - Ivy Mike, Operation Castle, since the yield on these weapons was enormous, but most testing took place in Nevada once that facility opened.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Kiwi Sneed Snake
Modern Tactical Nukes are built to eliminate threats and retake swathes of land quickly in a defensive battle. It's literally the doctrine the reds built them for in the mid 60s, they've only gotten better. I honestly believe the first nation to use a nuclear weapon in aggression or defense again wins the battle for 21st century dominance. Because then the cat is out of the bag, all these pointless police actions can stop because we can bust admit glassing a few goat rapist farmers and their shitty village is better than giving around with IEDs in 130 degree heat for decades on end.
OK, so you want to use 24 tactical 1/2Kt nukes, 12 Kt total, that's about what was used in Hiroshima, except over a wider area. Ideally, you'll need 24 delivery systems such as a howitzer, but you can probably drop them from air. The ethics of using nuclear weapons aside. What's the damage radius of one of these? Let's draw a line on the map 24 of these long somewhere from Chasov Yar to Slovyansk. Then what? You roll through in tanks and APC's and land your infantry behind the damaged areas. Then what? The drone operators that are behind that line are still in the area and they take these out. Then what?

If this was a viable tactic, would they not have tried it already. First with thermobaric weapons, which approach tactical nukes in power minus the radiation.

Seriously. Go back to video games.
 
No one in their right mind would force ICBM diplomacy over the lowest form of nuclear weapons being used in a lost front of a non-NATO nation. Anytime bigger than nuclear arty and I would agree with you, but Russia could have totally gotten away with it at that point in time
While I agree going MAD over TNW use is non-credible and stupid, the opposite extreme (doing nothing) is incredibly dangerous. Use of nuclear weapons is basically universally agreed to be a unique threshold strategically, regardless of tonnage. To allow someone to break that threshold without response, you risk normalizing the use of nuclear weapons. This not only raises the general risk of a nuclear war, but it also promotes nuclear proliferation (which also generally raises the risk of nuclear war). At that point, it's not even about Ukraine, it's about preserving nuclear deterrence.
That's my best attempt at a TLDR
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mesh Gear Fox
My Dad was fucking terrified of nuclear war after watching "The Day After" when he was younger. He tells me that he used to have this visceral repeating nightmare where a Soviet flag was beginning to press down on him while in bed for years on end until he finally married my Mom and had me.

My mom was afraid of nuclear war too. I was born at the tail end of the Cold War and I remember seeing all those broadcasts about Russia. My mom also read those books by Hal Lindsay, who claimed the world was gonna end in 1989. Then 1989 came and went and nothing. Lindsey tried to backpeddle his claims. Of course he wasn't right. He knew it. How can he sell more books if no one's left alive to buy them? There sure were a lot of loonies and hucksters shilling apocalypse books back then. That's why when 2012 came and went I thought all the hysteria was ridiculous. Just a way for greedy people to make a quick buck. Sadly, the 2012 conspiracies still rage on. The 1989 ones were dead in the water though. I think a lack of internet at the time helped a lot.

I don't fear death. I've also lived in abject poverty and had to deal with things like hunger and cold being just a day that ends in "y". I could probably survive in harsh times. But the question is would I want to? What's at the other end of the tunnel. I might be better off just dying in the blast.
 
OK, so you want to use 24 tactical 1/2Kt nukes, 12 Kt total, that's about what was used in Hiroshima, except over a wider area. Ideally, you'll need 24 delivery systems such as a howitzer, but you can probably drop them from air. The ethics of using nuclear weapons aside. What's the damage radius of one of these? Let's draw a line on the map 24 of these long somewhere from Chasov Yar to Slovyansk. Then what? You roll through in tanks and APC's and land your infantry behind the damaged areas. Then what? The drone operators that are behind that line are still in the area and they take these out. Then what?

If this was a viable tactic, would they not have tried it already. First with thermobaric weapons, which approach tactical nukes in power minus the radiation.

Seriously. Go back to video games.
It's shock and awe, plain and simple. But I still don't think you understand on a strictly doctrinally way how the use of small nuclear engagements would work.

The individual shells aren't .5kt, that's cumulative per barrage. The idea is you mostly want 3 things from that deployment, initial shock, elimination of other area denial weapons and structures (mines, trenches, pillboxes) and short term loss of wireless communications (iirc the initial damage done to UHF and VHF capabilities would be around 40 minutes of difficulties) while you thrust a collection of motorized regiments around the further edges of the zone. Mind you, all of this is simply what Soviet doctrine was on paper up until 87 for what they thought it would take to hold off an incoming NATO push back across the Fulda, it's even a maneuver the Russian Army practiced in the months after the first conflict they had with Georgia when they were training conscripts near the Urals the following Summer, albeit without actually firing off nuclear shells.

Therms though, they have used in the opening days. It's how they cleared out suspected depots and rally points when they were making the first push through to Kharkiv because the Russians were pretty paranoid about a counter attack coming from the pretty open country to the East instead of through the heartland where they wanted to try and capture highways and preserve logistics.

And chill on the high and mighty arm chair general shit, dude. You ain't so cool that you dont wanna see atomic blasts in 4K
 
Here are some daisies found in the aftermath of Fukushima.
View attachment 6180860
View attachment 6180864
There's something unsettling about how "off" they look.
Uh oh. I've seen a bunch like these through the years, maybe not as wide as the bottom one. Must be from the remnants of the Chernobyl cloud passed over.
On Threads: I've said it a bunch, but do not take Threads as gospel, it shows a UK scenario, which is a shitload of nukes on a relatively small area.
The predecessor Panorama (also by BBC) was better in the sense that it was less "get scared now" and more regular people trying out the cooky instructions from Protect and Survive, as well as trying to figure out solutions on how to potentially exist after. I think some footage from this was used in Threads as well.
 
How long does it take Radiation to "arrive" after a blast, how much time to you have after an explosion before you need to get to your shelter to avoid radiation?
 
How long does it take Radiation to "arrive" after a blast, how much time to you have after an explosion before you need to get to your shelter to avoid radiation?
Gamma rays move at the speed of light, Alpha and Beta particles move at the speed of wind and weather movements. We'll see if my HS understanding of radiation gets contradicted.
 
How long does it take Radiation to "arrive" after a blast, how much time to you have after an explosion before you need to get to your shelter to avoid radiation?
Depends on the weather and where you are in relation to the blast. Can be hours, can be mere minutes. If you see a nuke go off you're better off just putting your ass in the shelter as soon as you can instead of prancing around and admiring the view.
This:
Gamma rays move at the speed of light, Alpha and Beta particles move at the speed of wind and weather movements. We'll see if my HS understanding of radiation gets contradicted.
Applies to the initial blast, in which case, if you're in the zone where that first wave of radiation goes, you're most likely cooked in more ways than one and don't have to worry about it, because from what I remember it's the 3rd degree burn circle.
Otherwise, all three radiation particles are coming from all that irradiated, pulverized junk that got thrown in the air during the blast. How soon it comes to you is, once again, depending on how far you are from the blast, and the wind. Also if it's an airburst (no stem/barely any stem on the mushroom cloud) you're gonna be hit with less fallout than from a groundburst (thick stem on the mushroom cloud, with the little skirt like a flykiller mushroom) so if you see that, prepare to be stuck in your shelter for a longer time than you'd like.
 
1. On the Beach
That movie is from a time when they truly believed the only thing to worry about was radiation and fallout.
That said, it will recover. Eventually.
No it wont, we'll be lucky to be back to 19th century levels after enough people have died that what little food can be harvested is enough to support who's left. Post-WWII reconstruction was possible because we were untouched so we could ship materiel and machinery to europe and japan. Case in point germany and japan were still pretty much in ruins in the late 40's until the treat of communistm forced us to help them. Had we and the ussr been as devastated as say germany the western world wouldn't have rebuild to pre-war levels until the 70's, and only because conventional weapons just weren't as destructive, else odds are we would still be living in worse conditions than pre-war people to this day.

Then there's the lost knowledge, because the bombs just obliterate any cities, industrial and scientific installations is not like with old bombs that you could run to an air raid shelter or even a ditch and survive, you're fucked because you're at ground zero. With those people gone you're gonna be left with a ton of other people who can at best repair a car or a tractor, but not the refinery to make fuel for those.
And if Australia is going to be hit, it would be due to submarine basing (assuming we're parking SLBMs there). Even then, I'd put the chance at low.

They would still hit the cities because nuclear war is a zero-sum game and cities still have manpower that the enemy can use to mount an attack.

While there aren't any declassified maps of Australian nuclear targets we do have a partial map of Soviet targets for the mainland US.
1726077468025.png
The only places besides cities and industry are military bases, see those clusters of bombs? those are to take down our silos before they can fire. Needless to say if you're in any of those states the fallout alone will kill you.
What's the solution then, an old wine cellar?
The only solution is to not have a nuclear war. Even NORAD runs on diesel generators and once the fuel is gone they can't even pump air to keep people inside from suffocating to death.
the possibility of Cobalt Nukes
Those were never made and likely never will because contaminating an area forever its counterproductive. Consider that there are still part of France that to this day are uninhabitable due to pollution from WWI chemical weapons.
we're on the cusp of fusion power becoming viable
We're always on the cusp, its always just around the corner.
Nuclear use would most likely force NATO retaliation.
It likely wont, not against a non-NATO target, because to retaliate means nuclear suicide to avenge another country. Even W.Germany was doubtful that if hit they would be "avenged" this way since why would France, the UK and the US sacrifice themselves for them?
Failure to respond would destroy what's left of western deterrence and promote nuclear proliferation.
The fact Ukraine got invaded after giving up its 600 nuclear weapons despite a promise of full NATO intervention if that happened its enough to get many countries to reconsider the NPT. However the latter is kept alive thru a mix of economical and political coercion, there are plenty of turnkey nuclear countries out there that have been told developing a bomb would put them in the same kind of isolation N.Korea has.
 
Back