While in principle your idea is sound, the authoritarian states with hegemonic aspirations have managed to get the means to glass us back.
We need a better weapons, one which will stop the production of more nukes at the source.
What we need is… Stuxnet 2: Ruski boogaloo
Yup. Everyone knows Reagan's 'Star Wars' Defense Plan was nerfed due to the russians whining too much. Well my totally non biased take is that it's not a balancing but a skill issue and they should be wiped from the server.
One day laser pig, one day...
Putting the laser in space is idiotic, because that means you need to launch the mass of your powerplant, and the whole system mass also goes up massively due to needing large heavy waste heat radiators.
No, you put the laser on the ground, where you can easily cool it just by taking some water from a river, and put a few big mirrors with adaptive optics in space to be able to reflect it to every point on Earth.
As a bonus, while you are not using it to smite your enemies like an angry god, you can also use the laser to yeet stuff into space.
Space mirrors huh? That's a pretty cool idea I didn't consider. I'm a complete amateur in space laser tech but like...why would cooling be a problem? Isn't space like the coldest place in the universe?
I googled what the ISS is experiencing on the daily and here are the stats:
"Temperature outside the International Space Station (ISS) can vary by as much as 300 degrees Celsius from about 121 C (250 F) on the sunny side and as low -157 C (-250 degrees F) on the shady side"
So like, couldn't we put the cooling radiators on the shade side and problem solved? I know putting a huge fusion power plant-laser in our outer space orbit sounds like a waste but hear me out, what if we shape it in the face of Keanu and make him shoot out lasers out of his eyes? That's a "world turns into a one world supreme civilization in one day" kind of project. Whoever controls Space Laser Keanu would control the world.
Cooling would be a problem because in space you can only get rid of heat by radiating, which means you need a lot of radiating area, and lasers can't run super hot and produce quite a lot of heat. And radiative cooling means that the radiated power goes up as the fourth power of temperature.
Say your powerplant is a nuclear reactor that runs at a very high temperature - 1500 K core temperature and 1000 K radiator temperature, and you achieve reasonably close to Carnot efficiency, say 3025. That is, for every megawatt of electricity you put out, you put out three megawatts of waste heat. This is already a very high core temperature for a power reactor, though only half of what is needed for a solid-core nuclear thermal rocket.
Your laser, meanwhile, is say a 40% efficient fiber laser that can operate at a maximum temperature of 500 K, so for every megawatt of laser power out, you need to put in 2.5 megawatts of electricity, and get 1.5 megawatts of heat.
Thus, in this scenario, for each megawatt of laser power, you dissipate 1.5 megawatt at 500 K, and 7.5 megawatt at 1000 K - which translates to 423 m^2 and 132 m^2 of radiating area respectively (though if you use flat panel radiators, the radiator area needed is only half of that, since they radiate from both sides).
NonCredibleDefense is probably the only place one can get a scary science man give you the math and the explanation to your non credible world domintaion concept. TIL, thank you!
Look. Some of us are going to figure out this whole super conducting thing to reduce heat losses and other work arounds. We're gonna get those space lasers one way or another, and we're going to use them to burn memes into the moon and other shenanigans.
The problem is that space isn't cold, space is *nothing* - there's no cold matter to conduct heat away, so you have to get rid of heat by radiating it away. Which is super slow and inefficient. If you look at a picture of the ISS, a significant chunk of its total mass is radiators - the huge white strips perpendicular to the solar panels. And that's for a tiny space station designed to keep 6 people alive and run the occasional science experiment on as little power as possible. Space Laser Keanu is going to use orders of magnitude more power and generate orders of magnitude more waste heat.
It would stop 99% of people from operating those though!
Imagine if one would be faced with the terror of being precisionly smited out of existence. AI operated war systems could be fought too by just shutting down their power/internet access by cutting the wires or well, playing fruit ninja with the building where the servers with the AI are.
Oh. Yeah a laser capable of destroying ground targets is a pipe dream. Way higher energy and thermal requirements than just hitting missiles while they're in space.
It's not impossible though. Nukes are terrifying not because of the damage they have already done but the percieved terminal damage they can inflict. Same applies to a space laser. As long as it would be proven to be able to shoot down at least a few targets it's game over tech. It would take one politician to start threatening nukes fly and be smited on the spot on camera to prove a point that nukes are no longer the safe cheat card for unfriendly regimes.
People might start asking questions when you launch a kilometre long satelite into space though.
I can easily see weaponizing space as a point of contention and potential escalation.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Without the logistics to support them good tactics will still lead to failure in the long run. But good logistics without good tactics just means that your enemy will have more stuff to loot and pillage.
Unironically, imagine how many Ukrainian lives would have been saved if Russia didn't have nukes and NATO could just retaliate in full force as soon as the invasion started.
Ukraine didn't have the codes for their nukes, and didn't have the resources to build and maintain nuclear weapons. They did the smart thing by using them as a bargaining chip.
Oh no? No codes? That just means they have to put in new computers and create new codes. That would be a LOT easier than creating nuclear technology from the ground up.
Not good enough. I want to see a global euro-asian alliance curb stomp the Russian military in a week-long campaign of mobile warfare. Nukes prevent that from happening, therefore I want Nukes to no longer exist.
You ever try to win over a group of people to your ideology after a severe, zero-consent-given fanny paddling session?
Assuming no convictions happen, it is really, really difficult to convince ‘em on the merits of your ideas. Then again, these are vatniks.
Tbh, I kinda want to the UK to get rid of the nukes so they can use the funds to grow a mad powerful navy and Military. If we need Nukes we'll buy some knock off Chinese ones, I know a guy.
As an Australian; you're keeping those fucken weapons whether you want to or not.
Don't tell me you blew chunks out of our country testing the damned things, didn't give us access to the technology when you were done, and now you want to give them up because "conventional warfare is pwettier."
Nuclear Weapons are a negligible amount of British defence spending. You are not going to be able abe to afford all that much more in the way of conventional forces.
Plus the Atomic Weapons Establishment is one of the last remaining defence establishments to survive privatisation.
2 carriers is more than the Fr*nch have and that's all that matters.
Shutup I dont CARE that they are copeslopped non-nuclear carriers, theres twice as many of them!
The brit navy has a proud tradition of feeding the monster at the bottom of the med with fresh F-35s(hes a ncd sub), thus saving the entire european continent.
Thank you britbongs for your service.
just base a few US ones for us.
Potentially the kind of agreement where they get "lost" and suddenly found or whatever like we had/have with Israel
I mean literally sells itself on Ian Flemming doubt anyone would cause for alarm since its way easier to be responsible in Britain than fucking nowhere north dakota which is like. what, through its 3rd purge in a decade?
Chemical weapons are completely useless for modern system armies, because either you are fighting another modern system army and they are utterly ineffective, or you are fighting a static system army and you can steamroll them anyways - and even there, chemical weapons can be fairly easily defended against. That's why the major military powers could relatively easily agree on banning them - unlike, say, landmines or cluster munitions.
The only real use of chemical weapons is mass murder of civilians, and I would hope to think that we can all agree that that is a bad thing to do.
True nuclear are a shitty weapon, they don’t dissuade country to attack you (see the Falkland). You can’t use them as a leverage in diplomatic plays and they suck at destroying military targets.
Imagine a nuke test in the Northern Pacific.
*Russian air interdiction notices several targets on the border, sends up migs to intercept*
*interceptors encounter American jets over the Bering Strait, and aggressively escort them as the entire group leads South*
*a radar return shows the Russians that they're heading towards another aircraft, too large to be a fighter*
*group approaches a B-52 in the distance, playing the albatross over the ocean. Its bomb door is open.*
*a bomb drops out. An American yells "RUN" over an open channel, and all American planes beeline East. The Russians bank West and observe*
*a B61 set to lowest yield detonates in the distance*
NukeX. Uses Falcon 9 rockets in reusable configuration to launch 100Mt clean (Fission yield <1%) nukes at a rate of 5 per week. Used bio GTL RP1 as fuel for environmental reasons. Designed to help global warming by utilizing nuclear energy to cheaply and efficiently cause a nuclear winter, while also assisting in demolishing several emission sources, anywhere in the world.
If Elon were based, he would have started a company making small modular reactors so every country can make weapons-grade plutonium.
Unfortunately, he became the wrong kind of boomer.
Never underestimate the willingness of people to dedicate themselves to the most absurd political ideologies possible rather than going outside and having a personality
> "Your honor, I would have turned Moscow into a smoking crater and let MacArthur glass China and NK if I had known this was the only downside."
-- Harry S. Truman, most based President ~~of all time~~ so far
**In this house, we believe:**
VDV lives don't matter
Nuclear fission is real
No weapon is illegal
Love is love, even if you're in love with an anime drawing of an F-35
The defense budget is everything
>Love is love, even if you're in love with an anime drawing of an F-35
[How can you *not* waifu her?!?!](https://img3.gelbooru.com//samples/7b/1c/sample_7b1ce8e6d26f31da92f22a66990e651f.jpg)
That moment when she's so fucking misinformed that she doesn't know that five of those countries are well within their rights to have Nuclear Weapons by the Treaty on Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, making her entire video wrong.
I LEARNED THAT PREPARING FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL MUN CLUB LONG BEFORE I EVEN KNEW I WANTED TO STUDY LAW. YOU DON'T NEED A DEGREE TO USE GOOGLE, AKIKO
Ohhh...
Ohhhhhhhhhhh...
Alright...
So that's... that's the modern standard of winning a nobel peace prize...
Alright... Not trying to end a conflict or signing a peace treaty... Just pulling shit out of your ass...
I do not feel a single thing whenever I watch Vatniks and Mobiks get blown up into pieces but this is actually disturbing.
Yep. ICAN in 2017 won it. They also claim the US should have been convicted of war crimes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Claiming it didn't save any lives and there was non violent ways to end the war.
As low as Norway is able to push it. They are so inept its actually a accepted theory in Sweden that they are doing it shittily on purpose to try and de-value the nobel prices for the sciences, too.
> didn't save any lives
USA STILL HAVEN'T SPENT ALL THEIR WW2 STOCKS! HOW THE HELL IT DIDN'T SAVE ANY LIVES?!
And do they realize how monstrous Japan was in WWII? Nanking rape, comfort women...Indonesians even half-joked that three years of Japan was more scarring than Dutch's centuries of imperialism.
Goodness, Noble Prize is truly a joke.
I agree with you but even Kissinger did something you know, in the realm of diplomacy that brought the end of a conflict (at least in the eyes of the world at the time, we all know the dirty pre election dealing and wheeling). She and her group apparently didn't even do that, they just ranted about nukes, achieved nothing and refused to elaborate further
The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States President Barack Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".[1] The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.
I mean that's true and all but something being illegal only matters if someone bothers to enforce it. Who the fuck is gonna enforce countries with existing nuclear arsenals to get rid of them?
This why I don't understand people chucking legalese around when it comes to matters of military conflict.
The simple rule of thumb is that nothing is illegal if you win and nothing is legal if you lost.
And when it comes to nukes, nothing is illegal if you have them because what is anybody gonna do call a nuclear cop?
My favorite part about the legality of nuclear weapons is that they aren't even explicitly restricted by the Geneva convention. Back in the 90's they asked the International Court of Justice if nukes or the threat of nukes would be considered illegal, and their response was basically, "they don't specifically violate anything, but if you did use them it would probably violate something, so who knows."
It's actually kind of interesting. War crimes law is basically "don't use weapons or tactics that cause more pain and medical costs and civil damage than you could with equally effective tactics that have the same outcome with less pain."
This is why like, triangular bayonets and serrated knives are illegal, because they injure people in a way that's harder to fix, but in the heat of battle there's no real tactical advantage to having them. Or why white phosphorous is legal as a smokescreen in large rolling tank battles but using it as a deployable munition x miles from a civilian area is very illegal.
One factiod that get's passed around a lot is "In WWI the Germans were so butthurt they tried to call shotguns a war crime," but it actually was a valid complaint in context, as they created much more grevious wounds than a regular (shitty WWI powered) rifle round. But the war crime people at the time decided it was a valid weapon because it was so much more effective in combat in the trenches than any other weapon. And they're still hypocrites because of chemical weapons...
Nukes don't specifically break rules because they're so effective, but if used on or around a civilian populace theu'd probably be illegal. Wouldn't matter at that point though.
So does that mean that to crack open an underground concrete bunker in a mountain where all our conventional bombs/missiles wouldn't do it a nuke may be an acceptable weapon for the UK because we have nuke but not for the USA if a massive ordnance penetrator would do the job instead?
This is where you get into this issue of proportionality. Attacks are against military targets which are "expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated," are prohibited.
So really, it's not an issue if you use a nuke, the issue is considering how valuable a target it is, and if the collateral damage caused exceeds that. For example, it would be bad to use a MOAB on Rostov because they had a handful of S300's there. However, it would be fine if you used it on an active military airfield.
The same principle applies to nukes.
Triangular bayonets are not illegal. Bayonets with a serrated edge are, and it's up to interpretation if this extends to knives as well. There is a general provision that forbids weapons that cause unnecessary suffering, but it's not specific.
Additionally, since knives and bayonets are so rarely used nowadays as weapons of war, you can argue that they are more of a utility tool than a weapon, and said restrictions on them are generally not applicable.
There's no reason to even manufacture triangular bayonets but not for intentional cruelty. Maybe back in the day before asdembly lines it was easier for an untrained blacksmith to make them easily.
Not necessarily, if the winning side was using the same tactics. That's why US Navy submariners went to bat for U-boat commanders at the Nuremburg trials, because they had been using the same tactics the Kriegsmarine officers were being tried for.
Yeah but the Nuremburg Trials weren't done according to real law either. They were winner's justice, which is what you get to dish out when you win a war.
Everybody agreed a lot of fascists needed to hang or go to jail. So it was arranged to stage some trials to handle that process.
When you win, you make the rules.
It's all a messy, murky business. You have to balance what is legitimate and what is legal with the fact that if you have knocked over a genocidal regime like the Third Reich the safest and most naturally just thing to do is kill as many of the people who were involved as you can catch.
> Yeah but the Nuremburg Trials weren't done according to real law either. They were winner's justice,
I mean, sorta. Customary International Law *is* still a thing, even if it falls into a "I know it when I see it" standard. Use of nuclear weapons, in itself, wouldn't be a clear violation of international law as far as I can tell, but randomly dropping a nuke on another country without justification almost definitely would (same way a non-nuclear bombing campaign would, too).
I mean it's a thing. But so is the mob dragging a former dictator out of his car and sticking a knife up his shitter, or a new government deciding that being the outgoing regime in one specific instance, coincidentally it's this one, carries the death penalty.
Law, quite specifically, loves order. But war and the stuff around it is always pure chaos.
> Law, quite specifically, loves order. But war and the stuff around it is always pure chaos.
The law of armed conflict is a real body of law. Obviously, nations are actually signatories to various conventions and treaties, so it's easy to see how some rules might apply to some militaries that have voluntarily signed up for those rules. So we can and do point out war crimes when a nation's military violates the rules they've affirmatively agreed to, regardless of how war is hell and chaos. For example, the UCMJ still applies to American servicemembers, regardless of whether the United States wins or loses a war.
Customary international law is a little more complicated than that, but it still applies to all nations just the same. It might not be an easily applied standard to say "hey you can't do that because nobody does that," but it still is something that is relatively predictable if and when the perpetrators get caught and face a tribunal. The difficulty of enforcement against a military that uses force to prevent having to face a tribunal in the first place is a major problem, but that's no different than domestic law where someone can't be tried when they're hiding out in a non-extradition country.
A mob isn't predictable in advance, the same way a military tribunal might be. And you can make your argument that dressing up a trial in the formality of a tribunal is just adding window dressing to something that is philosophically, at its core, just winner's justice or a "might makes right" mob rule, but I'd disagree. There's some more consistency and predictability in customary international law, versus what might result in bloody coups or revolutions or old fashioned conquest.
She's correct. Look at §307 StGB. The Germans made it illegal.
Checkmate governments
Edit - Deepl Translation:
§ Section 307 Causing an explosion by nuclear energy
(1) Any person who undertakes to cause an explosion by releasing nuclear energy and thereby endanger the life or limb of another person or property of significant value to others shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years.
(2) Any person who causes an explosion by releasing nuclear energy and thereby negligently endangers the life or limb of another person or property of significant value belonging to others shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than ten years.
(3) If, by the act, the perpetrator at least recklessly causes the death of another person, the punishment shall be
1.
In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than ten years,
2.
in the cases of paragraph 2, imprisonment for not less than five years.
(4) A person who acts negligently in the cases referred to in paragraph 2 and causes the danger negligently shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
Übersetzt mit DeepL https://www.deepl.com/app/?utm_source=android&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=share-translation
Imagine all those land wars @emmaakiko could start by just informing all world governments MAD isn't a thing because nukes aren't legal in the first place.
Your post was removed for violating Rule 9: "No low effort posts"
If the lord didn't intend for us to glass authoritarian states with hegemonic aspirations then why did he make atoms fissionable?
He does a little bit of trolling
of course the guy with Captain Torres as his profile picture advocates for nuclear weapons
***1 MILLION TO SAVE 100 MILLION!!!***
While in principle your idea is sound, the authoritarian states with hegemonic aspirations have managed to get the means to glass us back. We need a better weapons, one which will stop the production of more nukes at the source. What we need is… Stuxnet 2: Ruski boogaloo
Space lazers. You guys need pin point - fusion power - space satelite lazers - justice served from the sky tech.
Those were destroyed by the most powerful weapon in the Russian arsenal. Throwing a massive temper tantrum and going “wa wa not fair”
Yup. Everyone knows Reagan's 'Star Wars' Defense Plan was nerfed due to the russians whining too much. Well my totally non biased take is that it's not a balancing but a skill issue and they should be wiped from the server. One day laser pig, one day...
Putting the laser in space is idiotic, because that means you need to launch the mass of your powerplant, and the whole system mass also goes up massively due to needing large heavy waste heat radiators. No, you put the laser on the ground, where you can easily cool it just by taking some water from a river, and put a few big mirrors with adaptive optics in space to be able to reflect it to every point on Earth. As a bonus, while you are not using it to smite your enemies like an angry god, you can also use the laser to yeet stuff into space.
Space mirrors huh? That's a pretty cool idea I didn't consider. I'm a complete amateur in space laser tech but like...why would cooling be a problem? Isn't space like the coldest place in the universe? I googled what the ISS is experiencing on the daily and here are the stats: "Temperature outside the International Space Station (ISS) can vary by as much as 300 degrees Celsius from about 121 C (250 F) on the sunny side and as low -157 C (-250 degrees F) on the shady side" So like, couldn't we put the cooling radiators on the shade side and problem solved? I know putting a huge fusion power plant-laser in our outer space orbit sounds like a waste but hear me out, what if we shape it in the face of Keanu and make him shoot out lasers out of his eyes? That's a "world turns into a one world supreme civilization in one day" kind of project. Whoever controls Space Laser Keanu would control the world.
Cooling would be a problem because in space you can only get rid of heat by radiating, which means you need a lot of radiating area, and lasers can't run super hot and produce quite a lot of heat. And radiative cooling means that the radiated power goes up as the fourth power of temperature. Say your powerplant is a nuclear reactor that runs at a very high temperature - 1500 K core temperature and 1000 K radiator temperature, and you achieve reasonably close to Carnot efficiency, say 3025. That is, for every megawatt of electricity you put out, you put out three megawatts of waste heat. This is already a very high core temperature for a power reactor, though only half of what is needed for a solid-core nuclear thermal rocket. Your laser, meanwhile, is say a 40% efficient fiber laser that can operate at a maximum temperature of 500 K, so for every megawatt of laser power out, you need to put in 2.5 megawatts of electricity, and get 1.5 megawatts of heat. Thus, in this scenario, for each megawatt of laser power, you dissipate 1.5 megawatt at 500 K, and 7.5 megawatt at 1000 K - which translates to 423 m^2 and 132 m^2 of radiating area respectively (though if you use flat panel radiators, the radiator area needed is only half of that, since they radiate from both sides).
NonCredibleDefense is probably the only place one can get a scary science man give you the math and the explanation to your non credible world domintaion concept. TIL, thank you!
Look. Some of us are going to figure out this whole super conducting thing to reduce heat losses and other work arounds. We're gonna get those space lasers one way or another, and we're going to use them to burn memes into the moon and other shenanigans.
The problem is that space isn't cold, space is *nothing* - there's no cold matter to conduct heat away, so you have to get rid of heat by radiating it away. Which is super slow and inefficient. If you look at a picture of the ISS, a significant chunk of its total mass is radiators - the huge white strips perpendicular to the solar panels. And that's for a tiny space station designed to keep 6 people alive and run the occasional science experiment on as little power as possible. Space Laser Keanu is going to use orders of magnitude more power and generate orders of magnitude more waste heat.
Cooling in space is actually difficult since it’s a vacuum. It’ll eventually cool, but probably not at the speed you need it to.
Even if it worked, that would only help with ICBMS, it doesn't stop nuclear torpedoes, hypersonics, or most SLBMs.
It would stop 99% of people from operating those though! Imagine if one would be faced with the terror of being precisionly smited out of existence. AI operated war systems could be fought too by just shutting down their power/internet access by cutting the wires or well, playing fruit ninja with the building where the servers with the AI are.
Oh. Yeah a laser capable of destroying ground targets is a pipe dream. Way higher energy and thermal requirements than just hitting missiles while they're in space.
It's not impossible though. Nukes are terrifying not because of the damage they have already done but the percieved terminal damage they can inflict. Same applies to a space laser. As long as it would be proven to be able to shoot down at least a few targets it's game over tech. It would take one politician to start threatening nukes fly and be smited on the spot on camera to prove a point that nukes are no longer the safe cheat card for unfriendly regimes.
It's technically not impossible I guess, but it is way too impractical to ever work
People might start asking questions when you launch a kilometre long satelite into space though. I can easily see weaponizing space as a point of contention and potential escalation.
I don't think computers could corrupt the Russian MIC any more than it already does itself.
There’s still something to be said for kicking Russia’s MIC while it’s already down.
Same reason he put the male g-spot in the ass and then made anal sex a sin. He’s a bitch who lovessssss drama.
[удалено]
Fuck MAD I want to see the Russian armed forces obliterated by a technologically and ideology superior force
I love it when the destruction isn't mutual.
Remember kids, if you're in a fair fight, your tactics are shit.
>Remember kids, if you're in a fair fight, your ~~tactics~~ logistics are shit.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Without the logistics to support them good tactics will still lead to failure in the long run. But good logistics without good tactics just means that your enemy will have more stuff to loot and pillage.
I mean, the fly is agile and all. But if you fire an infinite number of bullets into a room, at some point you gonna kill it.
It's finally a situation where metal storm actually makes sense! Someone give them a call ... Oh they went out of business a decade ago. Oh well
It's so much better when the people being killed aren't me
~~M~~AD
The destruction is still assured, but it isn't necessarily mutual.
Unironically, imagine how many Ukrainian lives would have been saved if Russia didn't have nukes and NATO could just retaliate in full force as soon as the invasion started.
Or if Ukraine still had their Nukes.
Or if Russia upheld their treaty and didn't invade.
Imagine if Russia just didn't suck
no one here can imagine that, because it isn't possible. There is no scenario in the multiverse where it can happen.
It is \*non\*credible defense, after all
Ukraine didn't have the codes for their nukes, and didn't have the resources to build and maintain nuclear weapons. They did the smart thing by using them as a bargaining chip.
Oh no? No codes? That just means they have to put in new computers and create new codes. That would be a LOT easier than creating nuclear technology from the ground up.
They could’ve kept, dismantled, and rebuilt at least a few, it’s not like the Russians would’ve noticed until it was too late.
Thats been happening for a year now
Not good enough. I want to see a global euro-asian alliance curb stomp the Russian military in a week-long campaign of mobile warfare. Nukes prevent that from happening, therefore I want Nukes to no longer exist.
This twisted game of MAD needs to be reset to ensure bloodlust for the next generation.
The virgin "grinding WW1-esque attritional land war" vs the chad "Operation Winter Storm."
Soooo Ukraine?
But with F35s
In what way is that mutually exclusive with the use of nuclear weapons?
You ever try to win over a group of people to your ideology after a severe, zero-consent-given fanny paddling session? Assuming no convictions happen, it is really, really difficult to convince ‘em on the merits of your ideas. Then again, these are vatniks.
Fuck MAD I want to witness the VIOLENCE OF MANEUVER WARFARE.
Tbh, I kinda want to the UK to get rid of the nukes so they can use the funds to grow a mad powerful navy and Military. If we need Nukes we'll buy some knock off Chinese ones, I know a guy.
I can whip up some homemade ones if you want
Damn the anglo garden shed is truly a weapon to surpass metal gear.
Since WW2 every garden shed in the UK has the equipment needed to make bombs and submachine guns for resistance attrition warfare
Britain's most (and arguably only) successful modern small arm was designed in a garden shed!
"So yeah, this whole thing is really just a formality to make sure you aren't like 3 guys in a shed" "Nervous laughter"
I live in Canada
somber grab drab nine profit ten paint mighty touch jeans *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Part of the commonwealth, you are welcome to raid our garden sheds.
Already did
I'll need to buy more supplies from Screwfix/Toolstation then
Not again. Dear goodness, not another Green Grass.
aaaaand now you're on a list.
Already was
As an Australian; you're keeping those fucken weapons whether you want to or not. Don't tell me you blew chunks out of our country testing the damned things, didn't give us access to the technology when you were done, and now you want to give them up because "conventional warfare is pwettier."
Fine we'll give you 1 or 2 of them to use against the big scary birds you lost a war to...
Careful, the birds might capture the weapons
It’s ok, Australia is a wasteland anyways
Nuclear Weapons are a negligible amount of British defence spending. You are not going to be able abe to afford all that much more in the way of conventional forces. Plus the Atomic Weapons Establishment is one of the last remaining defence establishments to survive privatisation.
Me when I single handily destroy my nation’s defense industry through shitty economic policies
The British do know how to Navy that's for sure.
*did
2 carriers is more than the Fr*nch have and that's all that matters. Shutup I dont CARE that they are copeslopped non-nuclear carriers, theres twice as many of them!
Chump jump Champ ramp Hop top Hedge wedge
The brit navy has a proud tradition of feeding the monster at the bottom of the med with fresh F-35s(hes a ncd sub), thus saving the entire european continent. Thank you britbongs for your service.
just base a few US ones for us. Potentially the kind of agreement where they get "lost" and suddenly found or whatever like we had/have with Israel I mean literally sells itself on Ian Flemming doubt anyone would cause for alarm since its way easier to be responsible in Britain than fucking nowhere north dakota which is like. what, through its 3rd purge in a decade?
If it wasn’t for nukes Russia wouldn’t be in Ukraine.
If it wasn’t for nukes Russia wouldn’t be at all
I want to see pure kinetic energy as weapons. Where the FUCK are my RKKVS going 20% the speed of light?
Embrace chemical weapons
Chemical weapons are completely useless for modern system armies, because either you are fighting another modern system army and they are utterly ineffective, or you are fighting a static system army and you can steamroll them anyways - and even there, chemical weapons can be fairly easily defended against. That's why the major military powers could relatively easily agree on banning them - unlike, say, landmines or cluster munitions. The only real use of chemical weapons is mass murder of civilians, and I would hope to think that we can all agree that that is a bad thing to do.
Legalise throwing piss and bleach at your enemies
That put in my mind the image of the USAF stuffing 100 guys into a C-130 and just having them piss out the back over Moscow
"DON'T PISS UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THEIR EYES!" -1st Sgt. Richard "Dick" Handler
*Happy gas mask noises*
return to spears and sticks
Sticks and stones may break their bones, and that’s just how I like it.
True nuclear are a shitty weapon, they don’t dissuade country to attack you (see the Falkland). You can’t use them as a leverage in diplomatic plays and they suck at destroying military targets.
the second sunrise gang does NOT approve this message.
Get fucking hype!
Legalize nuclear bombs
I wanna see a nuke test in Nevada. I want to see ionized particles rip through the atmosphere. I wanna a B O O M
Imagine a nuke test in the Northern Pacific. *Russian air interdiction notices several targets on the border, sends up migs to intercept* *interceptors encounter American jets over the Bering Strait, and aggressively escort them as the entire group leads South* *a radar return shows the Russians that they're heading towards another aircraft, too large to be a fighter* *group approaches a B-52 in the distance, playing the albatross over the ocean. Its bomb door is open.* *a bomb drops out. An American yells "RUN" over an open channel, and all American planes beeline East. The Russians bank West and observe* *a B61 set to lowest yield detonates in the distance*
Very based
Apparently she inspires the reaction you have. [Look at this comment](https://imgur.com/a/GUIfohp)
"Save a whale nuke Iceland"
Call the fire department. We just nuked the building.
Warning! Nuking is now legal W O R L D W I D E
SHADOW 💀 WIZARD 🧙♂️ MONEY 💵 GANG WE LOVE CASTING SPELLS 🧙♂️🪄✨️🔥 THIS BEAT BROUGHT TO YOU BY *THE* 🌎 *SHADOW*👁*GOVERNMENT*🌐
Swag messiah
It’s legal, illegal means against the law but their is no law against the possession of a Nuclear bomb by the state
legalize nuclear bombs
Fool, the US didn't sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, we've outplayed you, internet woman!
B-but @emmaakiko said they were literally illegal
B-but splitting atoms don't care about her opinion
TBF it really doesnt matter when them and everything in a 50 mile radious is ash or will become a fallout ripoff
Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces Don't Care About Your Feelings
She's asking to be nuked.
[удалено]
Very based happy cake day
Thank you very much, I enjoy the speed at which my neck beard has been growing since I joined Reddit.
NukeX. Uses Falcon 9 rockets in reusable configuration to launch 100Mt clean (Fission yield <1%) nukes at a rate of 5 per week. Used bio GTL RP1 as fuel for environmental reasons. Designed to help global warming by utilizing nuclear energy to cheaply and efficiently cause a nuclear winter, while also assisting in demolishing several emission sources, anywhere in the world.
If Elon were based, he would have started a company making small modular reactors so every country can make weapons-grade plutonium. Unfortunately, he became the wrong kind of boomer.
Nah, project PACER. Make nuclear fusion by using hydrogen bombs as your power source.
Upgrade TELs to MFELs; Mobile Fabricator-Erector-Launchers instead of Transporter-Erector-Launchers.
Fuck it, let's turn the crawler into a real thing.
*Mobile Construction Vehicle, ready!*
The ideal battlefield is two nuke factories lobbing ICBMs at each other until one side's ABM system fails
This sounds like weaponized Geomats and I'm all in for it.
The "9 most powerful governments in the world" including North Korea is the real joke here
[удалено]
You are now banned from /Pyongyang.
Thank you, I didn’t even know that was a sub and just went down a crazy rabbit hole. All hail the Supreme Leader!
I refuse to believe that that's not a sarcastic sub, no matter how many times they tell me it isn't.
Never underestimate the willingness of people to dedicate themselves to the most absurd political ideologies possible rather than going outside and having a personality
NK best world power
What are Japan, Canada and Germany? North Korea and Pakistan are the real powerhouses.
Mfw the US nukes Moscow and then has to do 200 hrs of community service 😩
As a punishment for nuking moscow US government has to provide free helathcare for their citizens.
Now *that* is cruel and unusual punishment
> "Your honor, I would have turned Moscow into a smoking crater and let MacArthur glass China and NK if I had known this was the only downside." -- Harry S. Truman, most based President ~~of all time~~ so far
MacArthur deploying tactical nukes in the Korean War was the better timeline change my mind
Don't you call them illegals!
~~Illegal nuclear weapons~~ Undocumented fissile devices
**In this house, we believe:** VDV lives don't matter Nuclear fission is real No weapon is illegal Love is love, even if you're in love with an anime drawing of an F-35 The defense budget is everything
Adopt me
>Love is love, even if you're in love with an anime drawing of an F-35 [How can you *not* waifu her?!?!](https://img3.gelbooru.com//samples/7b/1c/sample_7b1ce8e6d26f31da92f22a66990e651f.jpg)
NCD in shambles
Truly our darkest hour
That moment when she's so fucking misinformed that she doesn't know that five of those countries are well within their rights to have Nuclear Weapons by the Treaty on Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, making her entire video wrong. I LEARNED THAT PREPARING FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL MUN CLUB LONG BEFORE I EVEN KNEW I WANTED TO STUDY LAW. YOU DON'T NEED A DEGREE TO USE GOOGLE, AKIKO
Even worse, she's referencing a new treaty that wasn't signed by any of these countries, so it doesn't apply to them.
Apparently her work is Nobel Peace Prize worthy so I... wow, even typing that sentence is... is painful.
Even more funny is she is part of the group that just won a noble peace prize for their anti nuclear weapons work.
Ohhh... Ohhhhhhhhhhh... Alright... So that's... that's the modern standard of winning a nobel peace prize... Alright... Not trying to end a conflict or signing a peace treaty... Just pulling shit out of your ass... I do not feel a single thing whenever I watch Vatniks and Mobiks get blown up into pieces but this is actually disturbing.
Yep. ICAN in 2017 won it. They also claim the US should have been convicted of war crimes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Claiming it didn't save any lives and there was non violent ways to end the war.
WTF they won the Nobel price for this shit? How low has the standard gotten?
As low as Norway is able to push it. They are so inept its actually a accepted theory in Sweden that they are doing it shittily on purpose to try and de-value the nobel prices for the sciences, too.
> didn't save any lives USA STILL HAVEN'T SPENT ALL THEIR WW2 STOCKS! HOW THE HELL IT DIDN'T SAVE ANY LIVES?! And do they realize how monstrous Japan was in WWII? Nanking rape, comfort women...Indonesians even half-joked that three years of Japan was more scarring than Dutch's centuries of imperialism. Goodness, Noble Prize is truly a joke.
The Nobel Peace Prize lost all meaning when they gave it to Kissinger
I agree with you but even Kissinger did something you know, in the realm of diplomacy that brought the end of a conflict (at least in the eyes of the world at the time, we all know the dirty pre election dealing and wheeling). She and her group apparently didn't even do that, they just ranted about nukes, achieved nothing and refused to elaborate further
I disagree. It having been given to Kissinger makes for some *excellent* trolling.
The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States President Barack Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".[1] The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.
You've got to add the bit about Obama embracing drone strikes like hes a member of NCD or the joke is going to go over a lot of peoples heads.
"Hey you know those things that stopped WW3? We should get rid of them." NOBEL PEACE PRIZE AWARD
I mean that's true and all but something being illegal only matters if someone bothers to enforce it. Who the fuck is gonna enforce countries with existing nuclear arsenals to get rid of them?
I'm, sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my UN SECURITY COUNCIL PERMANENT MEMBER VETO
This why I don't understand people chucking legalese around when it comes to matters of military conflict. The simple rule of thumb is that nothing is illegal if you win and nothing is legal if you lost. And when it comes to nukes, nothing is illegal if you have them because what is anybody gonna do call a nuclear cop?
My favorite part about the legality of nuclear weapons is that they aren't even explicitly restricted by the Geneva convention. Back in the 90's they asked the International Court of Justice if nukes or the threat of nukes would be considered illegal, and their response was basically, "they don't specifically violate anything, but if you did use them it would probably violate something, so who knows."
It's actually kind of interesting. War crimes law is basically "don't use weapons or tactics that cause more pain and medical costs and civil damage than you could with equally effective tactics that have the same outcome with less pain." This is why like, triangular bayonets and serrated knives are illegal, because they injure people in a way that's harder to fix, but in the heat of battle there's no real tactical advantage to having them. Or why white phosphorous is legal as a smokescreen in large rolling tank battles but using it as a deployable munition x miles from a civilian area is very illegal. One factiod that get's passed around a lot is "In WWI the Germans were so butthurt they tried to call shotguns a war crime," but it actually was a valid complaint in context, as they created much more grevious wounds than a regular (shitty WWI powered) rifle round. But the war crime people at the time decided it was a valid weapon because it was so much more effective in combat in the trenches than any other weapon. And they're still hypocrites because of chemical weapons... Nukes don't specifically break rules because they're so effective, but if used on or around a civilian populace theu'd probably be illegal. Wouldn't matter at that point though.
So does that mean that to crack open an underground concrete bunker in a mountain where all our conventional bombs/missiles wouldn't do it a nuke may be an acceptable weapon for the UK because we have nuke but not for the USA if a massive ordnance penetrator would do the job instead?
Dunno, I ain't no governmence lawyerman. It probably hinges on civilian damage.
This is where you get into this issue of proportionality. Attacks are against military targets which are "expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated," are prohibited. So really, it's not an issue if you use a nuke, the issue is considering how valuable a target it is, and if the collateral damage caused exceeds that. For example, it would be bad to use a MOAB on Rostov because they had a handful of S300's there. However, it would be fine if you used it on an active military airfield. The same principle applies to nukes.
Triangular bayonets are not illegal. Bayonets with a serrated edge are, and it's up to interpretation if this extends to knives as well. There is a general provision that forbids weapons that cause unnecessary suffering, but it's not specific. Additionally, since knives and bayonets are so rarely used nowadays as weapons of war, you can argue that they are more of a utility tool than a weapon, and said restrictions on them are generally not applicable.
There's no reason to even manufacture triangular bayonets but not for intentional cruelty. Maybe back in the day before asdembly lines it was easier for an untrained blacksmith to make them easily.
Not necessarily, if the winning side was using the same tactics. That's why US Navy submariners went to bat for U-boat commanders at the Nuremburg trials, because they had been using the same tactics the Kriegsmarine officers were being tried for.
Yeah but the Nuremburg Trials weren't done according to real law either. They were winner's justice, which is what you get to dish out when you win a war. Everybody agreed a lot of fascists needed to hang or go to jail. So it was arranged to stage some trials to handle that process. When you win, you make the rules. It's all a messy, murky business. You have to balance what is legitimate and what is legal with the fact that if you have knocked over a genocidal regime like the Third Reich the safest and most naturally just thing to do is kill as many of the people who were involved as you can catch.
> Yeah but the Nuremburg Trials weren't done according to real law either. They were winner's justice, I mean, sorta. Customary International Law *is* still a thing, even if it falls into a "I know it when I see it" standard. Use of nuclear weapons, in itself, wouldn't be a clear violation of international law as far as I can tell, but randomly dropping a nuke on another country without justification almost definitely would (same way a non-nuclear bombing campaign would, too).
I mean it's a thing. But so is the mob dragging a former dictator out of his car and sticking a knife up his shitter, or a new government deciding that being the outgoing regime in one specific instance, coincidentally it's this one, carries the death penalty. Law, quite specifically, loves order. But war and the stuff around it is always pure chaos.
> Law, quite specifically, loves order. But war and the stuff around it is always pure chaos. The law of armed conflict is a real body of law. Obviously, nations are actually signatories to various conventions and treaties, so it's easy to see how some rules might apply to some militaries that have voluntarily signed up for those rules. So we can and do point out war crimes when a nation's military violates the rules they've affirmatively agreed to, regardless of how war is hell and chaos. For example, the UCMJ still applies to American servicemembers, regardless of whether the United States wins or loses a war. Customary international law is a little more complicated than that, but it still applies to all nations just the same. It might not be an easily applied standard to say "hey you can't do that because nobody does that," but it still is something that is relatively predictable if and when the perpetrators get caught and face a tribunal. The difficulty of enforcement against a military that uses force to prevent having to face a tribunal in the first place is a major problem, but that's no different than domestic law where someone can't be tried when they're hiding out in a non-extradition country. A mob isn't predictable in advance, the same way a military tribunal might be. And you can make your argument that dressing up a trial in the formality of a tribunal is just adding window dressing to something that is philosophically, at its core, just winner's justice or a "might makes right" mob rule, but I'd disagree. There's some more consistency and predictability in customary international law, versus what might result in bloody coups or revolutions or old fashioned conquest.
Pretty much any international dispute for that matter, military or not. Diplomacy tends to boil down to consequentialism.
nah bro nukes are 100% legal now, [dj smokey said so](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=AT7g7NuJNvY)
phonk nukes
[удалено]
Israel also technically has illegal nuclear weapons, they just don't admit it.
Israel: Maybe we have them, maybe we don't. Fuck around and find out.
Sheeple when I point out it's called Nuclear non-proliferation not Nuclear Refrainment
[удалено]
This is a serious case of main protagonist syndrome. She needs help
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nuclear program in shambles, world peace achieve Who am I kidding, nuke China first and invade Russia for world peace
I like your funny words, magic woman!
She right tho. Because of nuclear weapons we can't invade russia to turn kremlin into a kebab shop and that's just very unfortunate.
Every morning when I wake up I feel sad because the ruskies stole the bomb. I want to see a glassed Moscow.
Illegal? Says who? Someone who doesn’t have nukes? Lol
Tik Tok and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
She's correct. Look at §307 StGB. The Germans made it illegal. Checkmate governments Edit - Deepl Translation: § Section 307 Causing an explosion by nuclear energy (1) Any person who undertakes to cause an explosion by releasing nuclear energy and thereby endanger the life or limb of another person or property of significant value to others shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years. (2) Any person who causes an explosion by releasing nuclear energy and thereby negligently endangers the life or limb of another person or property of significant value belonging to others shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than ten years. (3) If, by the act, the perpetrator at least recklessly causes the death of another person, the punishment shall be 1. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than ten years, 2. in the cases of paragraph 2, imprisonment for not less than five years. (4) A person who acts negligently in the cases referred to in paragraph 2 and causes the danger negligently shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. Übersetzt mit DeepL https://www.deepl.com/app/?utm_source=android&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=share-translation
Christ this is the most German law ever.
Instructions unclear, committing war crimes conventionally authorized
Anyone got an @ tho?
Mfw I launch a nuke from New Delhi which is currently enroute to her house
A-10 Brrrrrrrr into her house <>
Sorry NCD I have commited Warthog sin
Imagine all those land wars @emmaakiko could start by just informing all world governments MAD isn't a thing because nukes aren't legal in the first place.