Is there anything more terrifying than a Nuclear War?

Is there anything more terrifying than a Nuclear War?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare
twitter.com/AnonBabble

religion

yes, & humanities

Life.

Abortion

anime

Hillary getting elected

Nuclear War and a Huge Spider

conventional war

Black people

Hello.

Making love to a beautiful woman

attractive women

Hillary Clinton

For a serious answer (I can already tell that you're thinking: "A serious answer? On Veeky Forums, of all places?" But anyway...), I would suggest biological warfare.

Consider: While the effects of chemical weaponry and nuclear fallout can be geographically contained (relatively speaking, of course), bioweapons are far less discriminate. With our era of rapid travel to just about anywhere in the world, a hyper-pathogen created in a lab and released on a battlefield (or as part of a terrorist attack) would easily spread far beyond its original confines, perhaps infecting most of the population of Earth.

Go look at examples like the Black Death and the Spanish Flu, then think about the effects of a bug that's been engineered to be exceptionally hard to counter through most available medical means...

a post-chemical warfare scenario is even worse than a nuclear one

No.

That there is a big chance that once humanity leaves this mortal plane of existance, little to nothing will remain from us.

I'm so fucking tired of people going on and on about how terrible war is. Yes i'm serious, and all memes aside. In war, there's winners and losers, just like in every single other aspect of life, love affairs, economical, housing, even just the lottery. Cleary war is horrible for the loser, and quite enjoyable for the winner who takes all the spoils. And so war is only horrible if you presuppose that you are the loser. People need to literally man the fuck up and start having more victorious attitudes to life, fuck. Inb4 i'm a really really edgy faggot for legitimately holding this opinion. I admit, on one hand it was much better back in the old days, but on the other hand, if the Romans were introduced to nuclear intercontinental missiles i'm sure they would tremble in their sandals too, like we do.

not to mention the fact that countermeasures to weaponized pathogens would quickly lose efficiency due to the fact the damn things will evolve to withstand it

To me, nothing is more terrifying than the concept of nothingness.
Not pain, not death, just nothingness. Not even knowing that you are nothing. No senses, no thoughts.
That's what I fear the most.

bees

>And so war is only horrible if you presuppose that you are the loser.
Slaughtering soldiers and civilians would have a tremendous psychological impact, even if you were the winning side and didn't lose any men and material at all, which is never the case.

War is always associated with costs, and almost always with very high costs, sometimes so high costs that, in hindsight, you wouldn't even be happy about winning and would prefer the war to not have happened at all.
WW1 was horrible to all sides involved, even the winners, and we all know how horrible a nuclear war would probably end up being. It is simply wrong to say that war "is only horrible if you presuppose being the loser".

You realise that the only people able to win in a war are those who survive, and odn't get supremely fucked up by seeing combat, right? War is terrible for those that fight, as well as for those that die.

You should read lord of the rings.
Not even joking.

Isolation.

Hillary getting elected is, exactly Nuclear War.

This guy gets it.
Fuck bees. Or rather wasps and hornets.

Nuclear war is bad, but at least you can see what is killing you. Although, related to the mildly ignorant fool who said "you can win a nuclear war", you cannot win once nukes start flying. Nobody does.

Chemical warfare is really scary to me, because I don't like the idea of something invisible basically shutting down your nervous system. Biowar isn't any better

Dying alone

> implying I don't beg for a nuclear war every single day

Two nuclear wars

Would a nuclear war include chemical and biological warfare by default? It seems like in that occasion they would go all out

In which case are you more dead?

A) Killed in a nuclear bomb blast; or

B) Killed by a sharpened stick.

this guy gets it, theres obbiously nothing more terrifying than a nuclear bomb blast/

Don't even

A big guy.

democracy comes pretty close

Libertarianism

Losing a nuclear war.

c o m m u n i s m

narco-communists

>Not even knowing that you are nothing. No senses, no thoughts
this is precisely why i fear death

So what you fear most is something you literally cannot experience

Right. And now we will prepare to defend ourselves against a man wielding a banana.

theoretically no, but those theories aren´t worth shit, like the ones who speak about "tactical" nukes

A real war. Nuclear war is quick, and if you're lucky, painless. You're simply engulfed in fire. Unless, of course, you die of radiation sickness

>limited nuclear war
What did they mean by this

assholes who fail to see nuclear war for what they are: 100% political weapons, not military

>nearly cut me with that edge kid

why should I believe you, some dumb asshole on the internet, over two obviously very qualified and most certainly knowldedgeable policy people.

Airborne Ebola with a week-long incubation period.

control of the nukes is in the hands of the head of state, ever wondered why?

Engineered super plague

The president of the United States is also the supreme military leader.
Also its still up to the nuke crews to decide whether to launch, iirc.

he's the commander in chief you dolt

He doesnt actually control the nukes just the ability to give the order to fire

kek

The aftermath of a nuclear war

What's it like permanently living in 1913?

Global Communism.

Visitation

Having a Mac

UK Cabinet documents speculated that Chemical weapons would be used, but not biological. Biological is too much of a loose cannon, more than nukes. In fact nukes are in some respects, safer than Chemical or biological.

This

Women in power

Not having one.

Only on point comment in this thread.

They meant this:

(1/2)

...

this, mortality as a concept just fucks me up senpai

>Although, related to the mildly ignorant fool who said "you can win a nuclear war", you cannot win once nukes start flying. Nobody does.

Define "winning"

The real answer is that it depends. Chemical weapons at the strategic level aren't a thing, so beyond their limited deployment at the tactical level, they wouldn't be used in the same say that nuclear weapons are.

Biological is typically off the table due to the unpredictability.

So when we're talking about IBCMs and SLBMs they won't be relevant as they would be ineffective compared to a nuclear one for removing counterforce.

Tactical nuclear weapons are a thing. Their yield and deployment and delivery method define whether they are considered tactical or strategic.

k

war is very much like making love to a beautiful woman, first you scope out the terrain and probe different areas, then you bring out the big guns and target key areas for the spearhead, once penetration has been achieved you keep moving until the final thrust

a massive loss in biodiversity paired with an exponential rise in human population and climate change. As a biologist I feel like everything I love is disappearing beneath me.

Full scale biological warfare. There are diseases stored in Fort Detrick that make radiation poisoning seem like a sweet death in comparison.

Looks like we need a nuclear war to cut down on the human population then.

Antimatter war.

>he's never heard of the Cobolt bomb
xD


>Assume a cobalt bomb deposits intense fallout causing a dose rate of 10 sieverts (Sv) per hour. At this dose rate, any unsheltered person exposed to the fallout would receive a lethal dose in about 30 minutes (assuming a median lethal dose of 5 Sv). People in well-built shelters would be safe due to radiation shielding.

>After one half-life of 5.27 years, only half of the cobalt-60 will have decayed, and the dose rate in the affected area would be 5 Sv/hour. At this dose rate, a person exposed to the radiation would receive a lethal dose in 1 hour.

>After 10 half-lives (about 53 years), the dose rate would have decayed to around 10 mSv/hour. At this point, a healthy person could spend 1 to 4 days exposed to the fallout with no immediate effects.

>After 20 half-lives (about 105 years), the dose rate would have decayed to around 10 μSv/hour. At this stage, humans could remain unsheltered full-time since their yearly radiation dose would be about 80 mSv. However, this yearly dose rate is on the order of 30 times greater than the peacetime exposure rate of 2.5 mSv/year. As a result, the rate of cancer incidence in the survivor population would likely increase.

>After 25 half-lives (about 130 years), the dose rate from cobalt-60 would have decayed to less than 0.4 μSv/hour (natural background radiation) and could be considered negligible.


>The 5.27 year half life of the 60Co is long enough to allow it to settle out before significant decay has occurred, and to render it impractical to wait in shelters for it to decay, yet short enough that intense radiation is produced.[
> and to render it impractical to wait in shelters for it to decay, yet short enough that intense radiation is produced.
> and to render it impractical to wait in shelters for it to decay, yet short enough that intense radiation is produced.

Literally nothing you can do but die.

“Death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist” -Epicurus

Theoretical weapons don't count, bucko.

It's only theoretical because why would they make and deploy it, there is no reason, yet.

>it's theoretical
>except everything about it has been planned and created
>it just hasn't been physically made yet
;^)

A cobalt bomb could be made by placing a quantity of ordinary cobalt metal (59Co) around a thermonuclear bomb. When the bomb explodes, the neutrons produced by the fusion reaction in the secondary stage of the thermonuclear bomb's explosion would transmute the cobalt to the radioactive isotope cobalt-60 (60Co), which would be vaporized by the explosion. The cobalt would then condense and fall back to Earth with the dust and debris from the explosion, contaminating the ground.

The deposited cobalt-60 would have a half-life of 5.27 years, decaying into 60Ni and emitting two gamma rays with energies of 1.17 and 1.33 MeV, hence the overall nuclear equation of the reaction is:

*Maths equation*

Nickel-60 is a stable isotope and undergoes no further decays after emitting the gamma rays.

The 5.27 year half life of the 60Co is long enough to allow it to settle out before significant decay has occurred, and to render it impractical to wait in shelters for it to decay, yet short enough that intense radiation is produced.[5] Many isotopes are more radioactive (gold-198, tantalum-182, zinc-65, sodium-24, and many more), but they would decay faster, possibly allowing some population to survive in shelters.

That's how you make one.

>deploy it,
They literally can not deploy it without causing massive damages to surrounding areas, let's hope it remains theoretical.

It's everything bad about the nukes x10. It's focus on radiation damage, not explosive damage.

The worse thing about this weapon? If done right ONE BOMB CAN THEORETICALLY KILL EVERYONE ON THE PLANET.

The only problem is when tests were done in the 50's it under performed. They have had over 50 years to work on this monstrosity.

You would need a teraton grade explosion to kill all of humanity and thats only happened once back in the Ordovician period.

Did you read anything? It doesn't "explode" big. I mean, it's a nuclear explosion. But the point is it deposits so much radiation so quickly nothing can survive, and it puts the land in such a state it's unusable for a lot longer than regular nuke. One bomb is also capable of blanketing the entire planet in so much radiation everything dies within 30 minutes, and those in shelters will be dead in a few years as there is literally nothing you can do, you can't go outside to clean the ground, you can't do anything.

Not everything is about explosive power.

Again, it takes all the after effects of the nukes and multiples it ten-fold. It's not an explosive weapons. It's 'radiological' warfare.

Teraton explosion would blanket the planet in a dust cloud for thousands of years that it would kill everything on the land that isnt an insect that can go underground.

>Teraton explosion
Kek. They do not work the way you think they do. They do not have much more power than 100 megatons, they explode into space, they are TOO big. It would essentially be a Tsar bomb while yeah, massive. It is in no way scarier than a weapon which makes the planet unusable for everyone, which is its explicit purpose. There is no point in a Cobalt bomb.

I mean what point is there to developing a weapon whose sole purpose is actually the destruction of the planet? Killing people is an after-effect of the Cobalt bomb, destroying the world is the goal of it.

>there is no reason, yet.

There's literally no reason.

Full retard and high yield warheads are unnecessary due to the improvement in rockery and weapon accuracy. Most warhead CEPs (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable ) are good enough that variable yield and lower yield warheads have a accept level for their purpose this weapon much like the Tsar bomb is pure propaganda and has no real use.

A teraton is 1000 gigatons or 10000000 megatons retardo.

Heres a nice hint how fucking powerful this explosion is.

The air blast radius is what you need to pay attention too not the heat range.

>this weapon much like the Tsar bomb is pure propaganda and has no real use.
Kek, that's funny because the last thing we heard of anything ABOUT the Cobalt bomb from actual authorities was in the 50's. THe only reason I know about it is because I was listening to a talk but Jacques Fresco and he simply mentioned it.

>and has no real use.
Eh, I can see many uses for the Tsar bomb outside of warfare, destruction of meteor's being one, terraforming being another, or at least mining projects on other planets, nukes were actually theorized to be used in building projects, they actually wanted to dig the panama canal with nukes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare

I do not understand how you can say they are working on the CObalt bomb for purpose propaganda purposes but it's kept under wraps for 50 years? Depositing radiation has much more of an effect than killing people. Romans did it with salt, muricans are looking to do it with Radiation.

This weapon would cause a first strike scenario if it was in serious development.

This weapon would completely kill everyone in America. What this doesnt show is the impact causing a mega earthquake on the North American continent.

>here is a picture from a very reputable online source as to how big it is.
It's literally, like literally factually wrong. It would blow into space, the actual damage it causes would have no more than a 100 megaton nuke, because most of it would be in space.

If actually implemented a tetraton nuke would damage the atmosphere more than anything.

You can find all this out with a simple google search.

The Yucatan meteor was in the gigatons yet blocked out the earth, stop talking already retard.

Kek.
>here is a theory
>it's evidence

Did you miss the part where nothing in that theory is proven? xD

Impacts are also not at all similar to explosions?

Because, as a weapon, it disproportionate for its targets and would be ineffective due to the numbers it could be deployed in.

>Depositing radiation has much more of an effect than killing people

Despite the prevalence of this myth, killing the population is not the primary goal of most nuclear nations, whilst of course there are exceptions, we're primarily talking about Russia and the US. Both of which regard counterforce targets as their real MO.

>This weapon would completely kill everyone in America. What this doesnt show is the impact causing a mega earthquake on the North American continent.

It would not, but like I said. It would trigger a pre-emptive strike. This makes it worthless as a weapon. You literally give your opponent a reason because you destroy any parity between you and them. The risk to him is too great that the cost of fighting a nuclear war is more attractive than *not* fighting a nuclear war.

>Despite the prevalence of this myth, killing the population is not the primary goal of most nuclear nations, whilst of course there are exceptions, we're primarily talking about Russia and the US. Both of which regard counterforce targets as their real MO.

Key word most. Cobalt bomb is an exception. What use does irradiating the planet to an usable degree have, past killing the inhabitants? Like you can argue it's to move hem out of the area, that's fair. But one bomb can theoretically coat the planet - it has no purpose.

The next part was not me, so I will not reply to it.

>it disproportionate for its targets and would be ineffective due to the numbers it could be deployed in.
If done correct, you only need ONE (1) Cobalt bomb. And you can make the world's land uninhabitable for about 150 years.

>If done correct, you only need ONE (1) Cobalt bomb.
It could be blown from your backyard, and you could destroy the whole world. At one stage we need to stop creating these weapons for the purpose of weapons. CObalts have literally no purpose past radiating the environment.

Nukes and other types of explosive weaponry have many uses, we just aren't using them yet.

Human morality limits our destructive power, not the other way around.

When we talk about nuclear war, we talk about Russia and US. These are the only nations that would have ability to field such a wunder-weapon to the correct scale.

>If done correct, you only need ONE (1) Cobalt bomb. And you can make the world's land uninhabitable for about 150 years.

You would need several. A single warhead or bomb is not sufficient for a creditable deterrent from a logistics stand point, warheads and missiles must have maintenance periods. Neither would a single warhead or bomb be sufficient to disable or destroy. Counterforce targets have 3-5 warhead assigned to them for varying reasons, for example CEP and survivability (a single one can easily be intercepted by defences).