Does anybody have screen caps of books Oppenheimer recommend about nuke Theory? Currently writing a report about nukes and how overblown the destruction of nuclear war is.
Trying to dispell the fear:
(There won't be anything left but the cockroaches!!!)
Plz halp
Other urls found in this thread:
pastebin.com
desuarchive.org
armscontrol.org
twitter.com
Why do you want to dispell the fear? Do you want nukes to be dropped?
>I am become death, destroyer of worlds
RIP I hope he found happiness somewhere
autist like Oppenheimer cant be happy, it just turns up a 404
Best chance we have to reverse this insectoid-urban-IoT-psuedotechnocommunism future we are trending towards.
Fuck you man, that hit close to home.
>>now I am become death
>>The destroyer of worlds
Or as Truman said-
>>Get that fucking cretin out of here."
Nukes won't be dropped on NYC, LA and DC, they'll be dropped on middle America and 3rd cities like Houston as a show of strength, our food prices will fly to the moon, population centers will grow denser, you'll cause what you fear.
Lemme get this straight
They won’t go for a knockout punch with a first strike, even though our doctrine is to do just that in response? Am I tracking?
The fact is, we’re the ones who invented nuclear warfare and we’re the only ones who know how to do it. All these late comers are kind of making it up as they go. Therefore and ergo, any nuclear war stuff that’s not done by us is categorically wrong.
You’re just going to have to accept that our potential enemies are going to do retarded shit like targeting freeway overpasses and Safeway warehouses. It’s what they think is a winning strategy.
>You’re just going to have to accept my child’s understanding of nuclear warfare
No, I fucking don’t, you bumbling idiot. This is the country that planned to wipe out an entire race of people because they blew up a couple of our colonial naval bases. Mutually assured destruction is mutually understood. Better make it worth it (ie not nuking a basedbean field)
Yes
>writing a report
looks like you'll have to do actual research on your own and learn stuff, gay. All the people with actual information fled this place years ago.
>how overblown the destruction of nuclear war is
the long and short of it is that it isn't overblown, it just happens differently than Hollywood would have the masses believe
here's a good one to start with: pastebin.com
>Do you want nukes to be dropped?
You don't?
>Why do you want to dispell the fear?
Nuclear war will always be far too risky, the economic cost would always be too high.
That would piss off the Base God
>wake up to news radio
>military guy talking about nuclear politics and history
>wonder if it's Oppenheimer
Best tripfag desu
Oppenheimer was a communist subversive.
McCarthy was a hero to all who value freedom.
desuarchive.org
this is the exact kind of faggy shit archives are for
MAD isn't real tho lol
MAD is real any time two people have equal access to force.
This is the purpose of the second amendment.
the homicide pact ain't real tho my kid oppen told me so lol
>a commie told me I don't need guns
wew
>Citations:
>Some guy on Jow Forums
Not being an asshole as I know he's vetted but you fucked up y pushing this off to the last week and don't have time to do any proper (book) research on the subject.
All you're going to get is fearmongering bullshit (((science))) articles from google scholar. Perfect since if you want an A for half assing a paper you need to suck teacher cock anyway and I doubt she's Mrs. Nuke the Gooks.
Iirc, there's a bbc drama called "Threads" that's an accurate representation of an actual worst case scenario for survivors of a large scale nuclear exchange. It's free on youtube.
>bbc
>accurate
what you're saying he can't read on thermonuclear war in like an hour????
tbqh though it would be nice if someone still had a link to oppens book list I only got through a few of them before I got side tracked and I can't find it in the archive anymore
Oppenheimer told me about it a couple of years ago. I tend to believe him in these matters.
I want this too. Does anybody have this?
doesn't know "threads"
nigga how new are you
I just want Oppenheimers book list, and none of your lip you jackass
Poe’s Law still in effect, I see.
i think that's it. Managing nuclear operations by ashton carter and principles of defensive deterrence by steinburner are also a worthwile read, i think at least the first one was also on some list but i only have this picture.
Also use the fucking archive
>an accurate representation
Based on what real-world data?
Thank you!
Oppenheimer was in this thread
I'm not going to look through it but there you go
OH BOY, good thing the united states is making nukes to lower yields to lower the impact of actually using them so sane people will be okay with using nukes
also
OP, LOOK AT THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW, THAT GIVES A VERY CLEAR REPORT ON CAPABILITIES AND TECHNOLOGIES IN USE AROUND THE WORLD
It really is to bad this list is so basic. Shame oppen doesn't seem like old books by less pop-polisci oriented academics.
I think the point of the list is to establish a foundation level understand and by the point you've finished the list, you'd already know what takes your interest of nuclear theory/strategy/history/technology and be well grounded enough to find books that aren't bs in that particular area.
*****understanding
On Thermonuclear War by Herman Kahn is excellent and precisely one of the books you're looking for.
I'm confused on nuclear policy my dudes is deterrence theory any good anymore?
yes and no, you now need less destruction to mean more deterrence, the probability of using nukes with MAD is near 0%, the probability with using less dangerous nukes is higher than that, so less dangerous nukes = more detterent
Yes. What makes you think that deterrence as a concept is less valid?
Dude, what?
Nuke power is our best available energy source for infrastructure power.
Yet we can't harness it because hippies have spread fear and misinformation about anything atomic, so instead we're stuck with solar power and paying more taxes to subsidize China.
lots oh high level memers irl coming out saying it's not. hell the wiki page for deterrence theory is crammed full of criticism of it now and how it's empirically never worked ect. tbqh alot of it seems to be a kneejerk in reaction to their to their misunderstanding of the current president and thinking everyone other than them is insane.
>2018
>thinking anyone would use nukes
I mean, I would
Its the concept of using the appropriate level of force.
You dont use a RPG to kill a fly because it is way to much. You use a fly swatter because it does just enough damage.
Well if all of your nukes are big enough to level half a country, you arent going to use them to hit one city.
If you have a nuke that is the right size to level a single city, while leaving the one next to it basically ok, then you are significantly more likely to do it.
just off the top of my head i can tell you that the books by rhodes are from the late 70s or 80s so that's not true at all
They said the same thing about war between the imperialist powers prior to ww1.
Look what happened. Never say never.
1986 and Rhodes is definitely a pop-historian
of course, but that doesn't really diminish his work. The historical part won't be good enough if you're studying history but i'm sure almost everyone else appreciates him making it more digestible. And on the technical side there aren't many books that get it down better, at least i haven't found any
You realise that the MAD school of thought hasn't been in the front seat of nuclear thinking for decades, right? MAD more or less stopped being a thing since precision guidance.
NUTS is the prevalent thinking.
Your example doesn't make any sense, given you would tailor your warhead yields to suit how they are employed.
If anything, deterrence is only strengthened having flexible response with different sized yields. Not based on this imaginary red 'nuclear' line, but a chain of escalation.
>Needing your hand held for this
Do people in general straight up not know the archives exist? Is that the state of this site now?
>the archives exist
they don't
>now
welcome to 5 years ago
>They said the same thing about war between the imperialist powers prior to ww1.
The economic realities have changed over the last one hundred years and they didn't have the capacity to simultaneously attack every population center and military installation in an enemy country.
>People in general in fact do not know that the archives exist
Disgusting.
Absolutely fucking disgusting.
Eric Schlosser's Command and Control
On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner
The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan
Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérese Delpech
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser
Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang
Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford
Paper Tigers By Jeffrey Lewis
Managing Nuclear Operations By
Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism in the Post-9/11 World by David Hafemeister
an older list i've saved
I was responding to this guy, who didn't understand what this other guy was saying.
I agree with you and was giving an example the other guy might understand for having more smallet nukes.
>the archives exist
you keep reiterating these lies kid but I have photoshop too ok
Cease your memery at once.
>he thinks we're talking about the atom bomb creator
Fucking new fags I swear.
armscontrol.org
so can the US no longer launch after being warned by ir satellites or radar ew?
Oppenheimer gave the US the nuke. Without him and einstein they wouldn't have had it before the soviets.
stay mad
>implying the soviets didnt get the nuke from literally having the information leaked to them by communist scientists who only got caught because they also tried leaking i to the brits
Add "The Logic Of American Nuclear Strategy" by Matthew Kroenig
"Paper Tigers: China's Nuclear Posture" by Jeffery Lewis
"The Case for US Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century" by Brad Roberts
>they wouldn't have had it before the soviets.
Wrong, very wrong.
>This is the country that planned to wipe out an entire race of people because they blew up a couple of our colonial naval bases.
talk shit, get hit
I've always found this idea that we know exactly what the enemy will do because it's what we will do to be a little naive. Is sending a few warheads to population centers really so big a drain on stocks that it won't be done? I doubt it.
Sending warheads to population centers is wasteful, not sure why people can't get that idea. Not that I'm suggesting you do believe that.
>population centers is wasteful
Attacking financial and industrial hubs isn't.
edgy/10
its a 2 for 1 if you just nuke the agricultural and manufacturing centers, money means nothing without a means of production. you dont have to worry about "muh 100 gorrilion murders" als onuke sites are far away form population centers anyway
>Is sending a few warheads to population centers really so big a drain on stocks that it won't be done? I doubt it.
Yes.
Also insight into others strategy isn't based off of what we would do. Its much more careful analysis of the systems they employ, among other things. Both sides made efforts to move away from the targeting of cities during the Cold War. Not that it wasn't still an option, but cities were no longer the main focus of nuclear forces. There a lot of reasons for this, and to explain it to someone who bases their conclusions on what 'makes sense' to them would require more than a thread or two on Jow Forums.
But if you really want to understand this, feel free to start reading.
>Attacking financial and industrial hubs isn't.
Yes it is.
More like based on game theory i.e. shooting in the dark.
Given that your opponent has their own nuclear arsenal, it certainly is.
Of course, this also depends down to what your objectives are, but attacking financial and industrial centers with nuclear are disproportionate to achieving some goal against them.
You have to consider the number of deployable warheads you have, each target requires at least two warheads, as they need to last for:
1. Inter-war.
2. Mid-war.
3. Post-war.
The bulk of those warheads with be held for deterrence value, destroyed or deployed (fired).
What is this gibberish? You've strung a bunch of words together that make sense individually, but make no sense at all together.
Can you specify what is exactly is 'gibberish'? Rather hard to make something more understandable if you're not specific.
You still have your CMANO scenario on the PC? I don't think any mega links exist anymore.
All of it?
>Warheads need to last for interwar
Nukes are dropping, inter war is the past
>Warheads need to last for midwar
Certainly ot your strategic nukes, they need to be used first, not later
>Warheads need to last for postwar
What an excellent idea, save your nukes so they can be of use after you lose the war
>The bulk of those warheads with be held for >deterrence value
When nukes are already dropping? Uh, okay buddy
destroyed
yeah okay, better fire them first then
>deployed (fired)
Well yes, that's the point
I'm sure you typed out what you thought was a very smart sounding post but it's literally just a word salad with no meaning behind them.
>Nukes are dropping, inter war is the past
No, It is quite possible for negotiations to be carrying on during the interwar period of the conflict.
>Certainly ot your strategic nukes, they need to be used first, not later
Why? Do you believe that all deployable SLBMs will be deployed? Or any deployable high-yield weapons would be used? Even though if you are fighting a nuclear war, having available options is preferable.
>What an excellent idea, save your nukes so they can be of use after you lose the war
Why are you under the impression that all deployable weapons will be used from the get-go? Totally by passing the concept of escalation. A nuclear war does not have to even reach strategic tier (either in yield or method of deployment), to qualify as a nuclear war. Limited nuclear war is quite possible and there's a few books highlighted in this thread that argue it far better than I possibly could.
>When nukes are already dropping? Uh, okay buddy
Yes, because you need to assume that there can be further conflicts. You cannot use you entire deployable arsenal as that removes all possibility of you having a credible deterrence.
You seems to be under the impression that through this, both sides will not be negotiations on how to deescalate the situation - something that goes entirely against how this has been done since nuclear parity began.
The idea of limited nuclear war is highly theoretical and unstable, and requires a huge set of prerequisites to even take place. Just because you read it in a book once doesn't make it real. You should approach these things with a critical eye.
>The idea of limited nuclear war is highly theoretical and unstable
Why? Nuclear war at sea only is everything but unrealistic.
>The idea of limited nuclear war is highly theoretical and unstable,
Like all nuclear war.
>and requires a huge set of prerequisites to even take place.
Do tell.
>Just because you read it in a book once doesn't make it real.
As opposed to your concept of nuclear war which is supported by real nuclear war?
>You should approach these things with a critical eye.
Indeed.
Don't be so disingenuous and change the subject either by singly focusing on one of my points.
>The idea of limited nuclear war is highly theoretical and unstable
Can you point be to a book or a paper that makes such a case?
>and requires a huge set of prerequisites to even take place.
Those being?
>Just because you read it in a book once doesn't make it real. You should approach these things with a critical eye.
Uh, right.. Because you know, SME lmao what do they know rite? just think of ur own opinions lmao
Indeed.
what archive?
The beginning of this quote chain is clearly assuming that the alternative is dropping onto hardened silos, limited war is not relevant here. You're just being autistic by dropping in where you're not warranted.
>The beginning of this quote chain is clearly assuming that the alternative is dropping onto hardened silos, limited war is not relevant here.
What?
Limited war is being actively discussed here.
>The beginning of this quote chain is clearly assuming that the alternative is dropping onto hardened silos
Or keeping them in reserve or deploying them against counterforce and *not* countervalue.
>limited war is not relevant here
It is when we're talking about escalation.
>You're just being autistic by dropping in where you're not warranted.
Be that as it may or not, you're not saying I'm wrong.
MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION LOL retard
Yeah I've read On Limited Nuclear War too, don't be such an asshat. You know what they are, stop playing your holier than thou attitude.
You made four sentences, but one point. It's not my fault you split up a single point into four pieces.