Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Hidden nukes

Reply
- Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:34:04 EST a5jYKwwr No.43469
File: 1515436444589.jpg -(42851B / 41.85KB, 800x537) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Hidden nukes
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 k1mgJQlZ No.43471 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 Ym13wj4S No.43472 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 QExrXuTH No.43473 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 v8jw372i No.43475 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.
>>
Samuel Tillingham - Sun, 21 Jan 2018 02:26:39 EST YD7/3LZh No.43482 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 5OlHSXru No.43506 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 YD7/3LZh No.43512 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.
>>
Shit Blytheson - Sat, 04 Apr 2020 22:44:31 EST DN+Y6wL1 No.44208 Reply
>>43471
Wtf lmao a nuke in general would require a state of war
>>
Emma Gocklemone - Sun, 12 Apr 2020 04:14:46 EST XLZdL15g No.44214 Reply
Do nukes even work this way? Don't you need the impact of a ballistic missile to trigger the secondary reaction that is the actual nuclear payload?
>>
Eliza Nickledale - Thu, 16 Apr 2020 04:15:59 EST L5fwx9xG No.44219 Reply
1587024959769.jpg -(19259B / 18.81KB, 600x338) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Missile defense has been a reality for a few years. The procedure is to send off 4 Patriots with an interception success rate of about 50%. 4 of them bump the odds up to 97%. I think we have about 200 of them or some number like that, so that would cover a rogue state but not a place like Russia. They work as kind of like a shotgun where they blow up into the path of the target.

Places like Russia have a huge investment in making sure their first strike is successful. Currently the idea is to use rocket-launched gliders to carry the warhead at a low altitude and steer around missile defenses. There is also a huge initiative for nuclear powered cruise missiles for the same purpose. Supposedly we had a proof of concept nuclear propulsion rocket engine mockup in the 1970's, but the initiative was scrapped entirely, and the scrapping was unfortunate because the 1970's Mars missions really seemed like the best thing for people to work on.

Present technology lazers could provide a 100% interception rate and would be an extremely effective shield, but I think it might be a bit of a glass ball for other countries to bust. You could probably put it in geosync orbit over the US. Space treaties currently make the concept illegal, and every Chinese country would be butthurt.

As far as the thread subject, I think customs does a pretty good job making sure NK can't import anything. I guess they could place the container in a Chinese port and say, "this is Chinese import lol," but it sounds difficult. They could dock a fishing boat the same way the Columbians do, but they have a longer voyage and would need a spy network. It would be a huge pain in the ass and if they got caught then... well, they would have nothing to lose. Sanctions are a foreign policy nightmare, but that's a load of opinion bias.

Best idea is to avoid the issue. The current treaties being scrapped is looking kind of bad.
>>
Alice Drupperham - Wed, 03 Jun 2020 19:06:57 EST LOcP/Ubv No.44240 Reply
>>44236
>>43469
Assuming this is actually the case the US has smuggled nukes everywhere, missile defense becomes irrelevant again and MAD applies maybe even more than normally. ..

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