this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
609 points (94.8% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3536 readers
214 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scoobford 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.

We don't know exactly how much "most" is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. You don't just fire only nukes at a country. You fire a multi pronged attack with regular bombardment aswell.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Will the ones shit down rain down radioactive dust everywhere?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes, but to a way lesser degree.

The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.

Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.

It's like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)

Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you're to close, but one is comparably insignificant.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Shooting down a nuclear icbm doesn't really help as much as you think, if it catches it.

Not to mention the atmosphere lighting up wouldn't be much better

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You know they don't go critical when you shoot them right?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Doesn't that depend on how they're set up? I'd imagine in the 50+ years since they've been invented they would have designed it so it could, specifically because modern anti missile defenses exist.

I mean, I know world governments can be dumb, but I would imagine they're not that dumb as to bother maintaining a key super weapon just to not upgrade it / design it so that it won't work if used.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe but no not really the triggering process is extremely fast but kinda fragile because everything needs to be compressed just so.

They upgrade them, it's public knowledge for the budget. Usually it's faster smaller or different form factor plus renewal programs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But any knowledge on how modern triggering works on them I'd imagine would be kept a state secret wouldn't it? I don't think it's something you'd want others to know.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Someone has to know because scientists and engineers are educated in universities and not in military boot camps. Universities are the origin of all scientific expertise in a nation, including the nation's military.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

They hid the Manhattan project really really well, if you've ever looked into the history.