Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Hidden nukes by Cedric Bremmlepack - Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:34:04 EST ID:a5jYKwwr No.43469 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1515436444589.jpg -(42851B / 41.85KB, 800x537) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 42851
So it seems to me that one of the easiest and most effective way to deploy nuclear weapons would be not with a missile that shoots into space before coming back down halfway across the world, but to simply smuggle your nuclear weapons into enemy territory and have them waiting there ready to set off. Now that missile defense is becoming a reality, this is almost a necessity, and the vast amount of international trade all countries do with each other at this point and the small size of nuclear warheads would make it very easy. With this tactic you could even do a preemptive nuclear strike that would destroy most of your opponents nuclear weapons before they even get a chance to fire them assuming you know where most of them are. Then you just have to worry about the ones on subs or in locations you couldn't discover or couldn't smuggle a nuke into. With decent missile defense it would be possible to completely win a nuclear war taking very little casualties using these tactics.

Do you think there are hidden nukes already deployed around the major cities of the world in nuclear enabled countries that were smuggled there by hostile forces? If there are, obviously it would be difficult to guard them well, secrecy would be your only safeguard against them being stolen. But what if that fails? What if some hacker finds the location? It could lead to terrorists getting their hands on nukes.
>>
Graham Wabblehack - Mon, 08 Jan 2018 20:29:07 EST ID:k1mgJQlZ No.43471 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lol naw. Imagine the outrage if it was discovered that a country had smuggled a god damn nuke into another country. It might very well be considered an act of war by some states. The risks aren't worth it IMO.
>>
William Drummlefield - Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:40:35 EST ID:Ym13wj4S No.43472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
ive been saying this all along about NK. everyone is freaking out about their missiles when its like nigga they could put a nuke on a cargo ship and hit a major coastal city no problem
>>
David Nickleridge - Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:07:14 EST ID:QExrXuTH No.43473 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>43469
I mean they're pretty big. It's not like smuggling drugs where you can just stick it up someones butthole. It's more like importing a stolen car. A difficult enough feat.

Assuming they had a plan that would work though yea, it would be very tough to stop. As tough as stopping pressure cooker fags. And that's why the world will blow itself up unless society gets its shit together and stops tolerating retards.
>>
Walter Dommerridge - Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:50:16 EST ID:v8jw372i No.43475 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>43469
If there's enough time you could just build it on-site right?
The main problem would be the radioactive material. No idea how much would be needed, but I reckon it's compact enough to smuggle into a country somehow.
>>
Jack Billingville - Wed, 17 Jan 2018 03:52:02 EST ID:QTj8eann No.43477 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516179122834.jpg -(9786B / 9.56KB, 260x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>43472
>>
Samuel Tillingham - Sun, 21 Jan 2018 02:26:39 EST ID:YD7/3LZh No.43482 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The problem with this strategy is that, in the event of a single person being unable to keep his mouth shut, or as a consequence of even the smallest mistake, you've just given your enemy the most lopsided arms deal in history. Not to mention a technological coup, casus belli, and PR victory....

In any case, all the ideas suggested in this thread would be far more feasible with a dirty bomb than an actual nuke.

But going down that avenue of theory, best place to hide a real nuke would IMO be on a satellite. Highly difficult for an enemy to access/inspect/neutralize; comes with a plausible cover story if it's a communications satellite etc. It would give the ability to EMP an entire continent at a moment's notice, with very little advance warning.

Only major caveat would be failure to launch (and it would be major), but I hear they've got some whiz kid who's figured out how to build a launch pad in the middle of the ocean. In the event it actually does crash, you could possibly get away with calling it the nuclear reactor/fuel system.
>>
Doris Dartlock - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 05:56:07 EST ID:5OlHSXru No.43506 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>43482
But the obvious recipient for this kind of strategy would be the US.

>you've just given your enemy the most lopsided arms deal in history
Who cares if the US has one more bomb?

>Not to mention a technological coup
Probably not.

>casus belli
The US hasn't needed these since they stopped declaring wars. They just invade whenever they feel like it now.

But really that's not helpful unless the nuke discovered is your first and only one. Assuming you implemented lots of them, all over your enemy's back yard, it really doesn't matter. You still have a knife to their throat.

> far more feasible with a dirty bomb than an actual nuke
But dirty bombs don't let you surgically disable enemy launch sites, which is crucial to MAD theory.

What this does is short-circuit the "nuclear deterrent" which allows nuke-equipped nations to stomp all over everybody else with impunity, because they're uninvadeable. I mean, you wouldn't even need to have all the ground nukes under the control of a
single party, and they wouldn't even need to be nukes.
But regarding feasibility, you can still airbust by having your ground nukes do the bouncing betty thing. Your launch mechanism needn't be remotely sophisticated, a super crude rocket or one-shot giant gun would work, or like anything all the way down to literally a fucking pop-up trebouchet.
For that matter, using a larger number of smaller nuclear mortars makes a lot of sense. Far more portable, far easier to smuggle, far easier to disguise their installed launch sites and shield them from radiation trackers, more targetable with less overkill (ie a more efficient use of plutonium if you're on a budget), and enough of them would do the exact same job as a smaller number of truck-sized bombs.
>>
Emma Hucklecocke - Fri, 16 Feb 2018 22:51:54 EST ID:YD7/3LZh No.43512 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>43506
>But the obvious recipient for this kind of strategy would be the US.

Would it? I, for one, was speaking in general terms. But no matter; delivering a powerful weapon that you developed at-cost in to the waiting hands of your enemy is pretty fuckin' lopsided.

I still think a satellite would be the way the way to go for a hidden nuke, but uhh, have fun with those nuclear mortars, and good luck building an atomic bomb on-site in a hostile nation without anyone noticing. Might as well use drones if you are going to go for the zerg rush approach.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.