[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ][Options]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Select/drop/paste files here
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


[Embed]
[–]

 No.476326[View All]

The nuclear threat is back. But we don't see any nuclear panic like in the 1980s. Why is that? Why does nobody care?

I am not some prepper retard but even I am getting nervous.

Just look at this shit
A time of unprecedented danger: It is 90 seconds to midnight
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
>This year, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward, largely (though not exclusively) because of the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine. The Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight—the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.
>As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned in August, the world has entered “a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War.”

and also this
US Nuclear Test Raises Concerns of New Arms Race With Russia
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-19/us-nuclear-test-on-day-of-kremlin-s-treaty-abdication-fuels-doubt

https://archive.ph/EoqWY

>The US conducted a high-explosive experiment at a nuclear test site in Nevada just hours after Russia revoked a ban on atomic-weapons testing, prompting concerns of a new arms race between the world’s top nuclear powers.


So, are you going to PROTECT AND SURVIVE, anon? Or are you just going to give up everything and die?
195 posts and 35 image replies omitted. Click to expand.
>>

 No.485749

>>485745
>The entire thing is probably a nothing burger.
>So if he's honest about wanting to exit the Ukraine war
LOL
>>

 No.485750>>485754>>485757>>485758

>>485736
>I know this feels like some kind of threshold. But if the Russians knock down a Missile factory in the US, UK or where ever those are made.
>What are they gonna do ? Send NATO troops to Ukraine, western populations don't give a damn and will not fight for this.

If Russia actually struck US or UK soil, there would absolutely be an open direct "intervention" lol. The US wouldn't invade "just" for Ukraine, but would absolutely invade if they had a pretext like that, even if the American public thought it was stupid.

>>485732
I think this is probably what's actually going on - for the record, I don't buy the notion that Trump & Biden are at odds at all. Biden is basically handing Trump a domestic political victory, where Trump can get credit for "deescalating" the conflict in Ukraine without actually doing anything to effectively end the war. The American state will seek to minimize concessions made to Russia, probably try to keep the war going on in Ukraine (even if at a lower boil), and try to get Russia not to intervene against US attacks on Syria & Iran, and possibly to be neutral in future fuckery in China/the ROC.

There are a few problems with this, though. Firstly, the US has proven itself to be very dishonest in the past, and Russia is unlikely to abandon its current partners for the US, especially China, which the US sees as the biggest threat.
Secondly, if Russia does abandon Iran, that will still prove to be a bad deal economically for both Russia & China, because the ensuing war will interrupt oil & trade routes. This outcome, even if Russia was to agree to it, would be a disaster for the region & for the people of the US as well. It's unlikely that this would actually be contained, even to just that region.
Thirdly, even if it is "contained" (and Israel effectively expands further), that's obviously a complete disaster which is unlikely to remain contained for very long.

So it's likely a more 'nuanced' strategy than it seems on the surface, yes, but it is still incredibly dumb.
>>

 No.485754>>485756

>>485750
>If Russia actually struck US or UK soil, there would absolutely be an open direct "intervention" lol. The US wouldn't invade "just" for Ukraine, but would absolutely invade
The US doesn't have the ability to deploy 5% of the ground forces required for an invasion of Russia and Europe won't have the ability to field a military until it's got at least a decade of social democrats doing a re-industrialization. So don't be ridiculess.

The US currently does not have a counter for Russian anti-air and anti-ship weapons, so it likely would turn into a long distance missile slog fest.

Scott Ritter and Larry Wilkerson think Russia might decapitate the Zelensky regime as retaliation to the recent red-line crossing. The logic being that's the thread they can pull to unravel the neocon project in Ukraine.

Your premise that Russia is motivated to exercise restraint based on western military prowess likely isn't true. They just won a war of attrition against NATO. It's more likely the Russians would choose not to rock the boat too much because they promised China to not spoil their peaceful rise.

If you zoom out all the way, it appears almost as if all those countries are searching for the thing they can threaten in order to deter the neocons from the war-path.
>>

 No.485756>>485759

>>485754
>The US doesn't have the ability to deploy 5% of the ground forces required for an invasion of Russia and Europe won't have the ability to field a military until it's got at least a decade of social democrats doing a re-industrialization.
What's ridiculous is expecting the current US leadership to look at its limitations and make a rational decision based on those.

>Scott Ritter and Larry Wilkerson think Russia might decapitate the Zelensky regime as retaliation to the recent red-line crossing. The logic being that's the thread they can pull to unravel the neocon project in Ukraine.

Ritter's too optimistic sometimes tbh.
This would be more effective than striking the US directly ftr, though.

>Your premise that Russia is motivated to exercise restraint based on western military prowess likely isn't true. They just won a war of attrition against NATO. It's more likely the Russians would choose not to rock the boat too much because they promised China to not spoil their peaceful rise.

When was that ever my premise?
>>

 No.485757

>>485750
>I don't buy the notion that Trump & Biden are at odds at all. Biden is basically handing Trump a domestic political victory
Why ascribe to conspiracy when you can simply attribute this to a demented, spiteful old man who is no longer mentally competent enough to think ahead?
>>

 No.485758

>>485750
>I think this is probably what's actually going on - for the record, I don't buy the notion that Trump & Biden are at odds at all. Biden is basically handing Trump a domestic political victory, where Trump can get credit for "deescalating" the conflict in Ukraine without actually doing anything to effectively end the war. The American state will seek to minimize concessions made to Russia.
OK if they're doing a really clever good cop bad cop routine, why are they doing all the other really dumb shit ? They had some major self-owns lately, like helping to bootstrap BRICS, accelerating dedolarization, tanking western economies, provoking a war without having enough ammunition to fight it and on and on. I don't really see what they gain from duping the Russians into delaying a retaliation.

>There are a few problems with this, though. Firstly, the US has proven itself to be very dishonest in the past, and Russia is unlikely to abandon its current partners for the US,

I don't think betrayal was ever on the table. I think the deal that can be had is that the Russians could be moved to convince the Iranians to not get nukes and not finish-off Israel, if they get in return a Ukraine arrangement that they like.

At the moment Israel is destroying it self chasing after gReaTer iSrael. Iran will soon become the dominant regional player as a result, and the Russians probably are the only ones that can convince Iranians to have mercy.

Keep in mind that the more force-projection the US has to expend to prop up Is-failed-state-rael the fewer resources there will be for messing with Russia. So for the Russians it probably doesn't matter that much which way this goes.

>So it's likely a more 'nuanced' strategy than it seems on the surface

It looks like unhinged emotional decisions without any strategy what so ever.
>>

 No.485759

>>485756
>What's ridiculous is expecting the current US leadership to look at its limitations and make a rational decision based on those.
Ok there's truth to that. But the Pentagon probably wouldn't go along with it, they've demonstrated self-preservation so far.

>Ritter's too optimistic sometimes tbh.

>This would be more effective than striking the US directly ftr, though.
So hypothetically if the Russian decapitate Ukraine, that'll be the result ?

>When was that ever my premise?

OK never mind then.
>>

 No.485760>>485763>>485769

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2312-1.html



Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping's reported order to the Chinese military to be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027 and China's ongoing nuclear buildup have raised U.S. concerns over the prospect of a U.S.-China conflict. A conflict with China would be distinct from the wars the United States has fought in the post–Cold War period against regional powers without nuclear weapons. This report summarizes a series of reports on how U.S. joint long-range strike, especially the U.S. Air Force's bomber force, could adapt to better balance military operational effectiveness, force survivability, and escalation management to achieve desired military and political objectives without triggering catastrophic escalation, specifically Chinese nuclear first use.

This report is the product of a mixed-methods research approach that combined regional studies, analytic strategic theory, and historical case studies, all informed by operational analysis. The authors (1) conducted original Chinese-language research leveraging open-source Chinese military writings; (2) supplemented the limited information available from open-source Chinese military writings with historical case studies and a broad review of analytic strategic theory dating back to early RAND work in the 1950s, along with a literature review of Western scholarship on China; (3) reviewed publicly available U.S. Department of Defense documents and recent non-U.S. government wargames; and (4) developed an analytic framework that linked China’s nuclear escalation with specific technical or employment characteristics of U.S. joint long-range strike.
Key Findings

If fully committed to fighting and winning a war with China, the United States must be prepared for nuclear escalation and place more emphasis on managing these risks.
China's nuclear threshold is unclear but also likely movable, meaning that the United States has an opportunity to make the threshold better (but also risks making it worse).
There will likely be trade-offs among military operational utility, force survivability, and escalation management.
The single most influential factor under U.S. military control for managing escalation is target selection.
Munitions can have a direct impact on the U.S. military's ability to manage escalation.

Recommendations

Prioritize development of a robust denial capability to minimize the need for kinetic strikes on mainland China and to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation.
Build a portfolio of U.S. joint long-range strike force structures, postures, and capabilities to execute war plans across various possible mainland strike authorizations.
Ensure the ability to prosecute a variety of targeting plans that can help balance operational effectiveness, force survivability, and escalation management.
Manage Chinese perceptions of long-range strike before and during a war.
Incorporate considerations of escalation risk into the acquisition process, especially for systems that are likely to appear highly escalatory to Chinese leadership.
Establish an Escalation Management Center of Excellence at the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command both to train senior and junior personnel and to have a dedicated organizational structure through which escalation risks can be weighed during peacetime force development.
Avoid making U.S. long-range strike capabilities an attractive target for a limited Chinese nuclear strike.
Avoid long-range strike missions that could accidentally or inadvertently engage a nuclear armed third-party, such as Russia or North Korea.
Avoid extemporaneous responses to dangerous moments by preparing communication strategies and responses to Chinese nuclear signaling or use ahead of time.
Avoid peacetime training of conventional missions that appear most likely to trigger Chinese nuclear use, such as large-scale cost-imposition, leadership decapitation, or counterforce.
>>

 No.485763

>>485760
The language in these is just amazing.
<Balancing the force survivability
<escalation management
<Build a portfolio of strike force structures

The ability to linguistically trivialize existentially threatening brinkmanship is unparalleled. I wish George Carlin was still alive.
>>

 No.485769

>>485760
>Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping's reported order to the Chinese military to be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027
I think this translates to the neocons planning to make Taiwan declare independence, to provoke the Chinese in 2027.
It's probably not going to work because the Taiwanese don't want to become the next sacrificial goat like Ukraine. Also the Chinese can make a naval blockade to force the Taiwanese compradore elite to remove US weapons systems from the Island. It will probably work because the Chinese will be able to guarantee the rest of Taiwan that it retains its current arrangement where it's got it's own political system and the ability to conduct trade as they see fit. Which means that they neither disturb Taiwanese citizens nor commerce.
>the U.S. Air Force's bomber force
That's referencing the stuff that's parked in Guam, right ? That likely won't come into play.
There might be some boat-colisions, you know "bumper-tubs".

Messing with Taiwan likely means the Chinese will focus intense diplomacy efforts with economic development deals on Latin America, and that'll likely retire the Monroe doctrine. The next unintended neocon policy consequence might be Brazil leveling up and becoming a big player.
>>

 No.485770>>485772

Oh là là
Ukraine says Russia launched an intercontinental missile in an attack for the first time in the war
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-icbm-attackddnipro-38b0faf6eed2cef98bdbc9be18f58244

>KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine claimed Thursday that Russia launched an intercontinental ballistic missile overnight at one of its cities. If confirmed, it would be the first time Moscow has used such a weapon in the war.


>Ukraine did not provide any evidence that an ICBM was used in the attack on the central city of Dnipro, apparently armed with conventional warheads.


>The range of an ICBM — which can exceed 5,500 kilometers (3,400 miles) — is beyond what is needed to attack Ukraine. But such missiles are designed to carry atomic warheads, and the use of one, even with a conventional payload, would serve as a chilling reminder of Russia’s nuclear capability. It also appears to send a message to Ukraine’s Western allies that Moscow has the ability to target them.
>>

 No.485772

File (hide): 1732205872327.png ( 12.16 KB , 1300x864 , doubtx.png )

>>485770
>Ukraine claimed a big whoop occurred
evidence required
>>

 No.485781>>485801

Some people might be wondering what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is up to, now that the world is on the precipice of annihilation. Where's their big statement of concern, warning us of an imminent catastrophe if someone doesn't initiate diplomacy? Not to worry, they're busy publishing warmongering trash like this, cheerleading on the US and Ukraine crossing Russia's red line:

https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/biden-allowing-ukraine-to-strike-into-russia-is-much-ado-for-little-consequence/

This is how the world ends: with thunderous applause.
>>

 No.485782>>485784

Putin warns West as Russia hits Ukraine with 'new missile'
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4n9vgwnnyo
>Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that an attack by his forces on the eastern Ukrainian city of Dnipro on Thursday morning was carried out using "a new conventional intermediate-range missile".

>He said that the missile, codenamed Oreshnik, was a response to the use by Ukraine of US and UK long-range weaponry to hit targets inside Russia.


>Putin added that Russia could attack military facilities of those countries which allowed their weapons to be used for this purpose.
>>

 No.485784

>>485782
>intermediate-range missile
Ok now it makes sense, the other news said intercontinental.

>the missile, codenamed Oreshnik

speculated 2500km 1500miles range, one tonne payload, maneuverable and hypersonic.

that's a big stick.
>>

 No.485786

https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/defense/news/21217513/us-nuclear-weapons-are-aging-quickly-with-few-spare-parts-how-long-can-they-last

>MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. — When hundreds of land-based nuclear armed ballistic missiles were first lowered into underground cement silos spread across the vast cornfields here in 1970, the weapons were only intended to last a decade before a newer system came in.


>Fifty years later, these missiles — called the Minuteman III — are still on alert, manned by members of the U.S. Air Force in teams of two who spend 24 hours straight below ground in front of analog terminals from the 1980s, decoding messages and running tests on the missiles’ systems to check if they could still launch if needed.


>But it’s not the age of weapons or the decades-old technology that troubles their operators. It’s that the original manufacturers who supplied the gears, tubes and other materials to fix those systems are long gone.


>Several years ago, the motor on one of the industrial-sized caged elevators that slowly descends 100 feet below ground to the launch control center broke, an airman with the base’s 791st Maintenance Squadron told McClatchy. A fix was not available for months.


>Instead, maintainers resorted to rigging a pulley to lower supplies down for the crews, the airman said, who spoke on the condition they not be named.


>“We’re severely constrained with spares,” the airman said. “The technology does its job. The challenge is sustaining it.”


>To make repairs, airmen are often forced to take parts from another machine. Two of the airmen at Minot told McClatchy the facility’s missile guidance system often needs parts or attention because of constant wear and tear.


>“You can only do that so many times until the system fails,” said Lt. Col. Steve Bonin, commander of the 91st Operations Support Squadron at Minot.
>>

 No.485801>>485802

>>485781
>Some people might be wondering what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is up to
Huh ? that's still a thing ?
Do they still have the clock ?
how many minutes or seconds till nuclear doom ?

>Where's their big statement of concern, warning us of an imminent catastrophe if someone doesn't initiate diplomacy? Not to worry, they're busy publishing warmongering trash

Maybe their website got vandalized ?
Or they got taken over by shills and it's now defunct.

There's always VIPS
<Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
They tend to have decent takes on war and peace type of stuff.
>>

 No.485802

>>485801
>they got taken over by shills
That's been apparent to me since at least covid.
>>

 No.486152>>486154

There's a lot of other issues that one can easily predict how an oligarch will behave through simple class analysis. But I just find nuclear annihilation so perplexing. Do they really think this is all make believe? Do they really think they're gonna survive nuclear winter where "the living will envy the dead"?
>>

 No.486154>>486155

>>486152
>But I just find nuclear annihilation so perplexing. Do they really think this is all make believe? Do they really think they're gonna survive
During the cold war, on the extreme end of thinking, there were some rich people who thought that the solution to all this "nuclear trouble" was to build bunkers for them as well as their servants and then they would set off nuclear war on purpose. They and their descendants would remain in the bunkers for a few hundred years until the conditions on the surface had regenerated. After that they would come out and the earth would be theirs.

Even in that bonkers scenario where they mass-murder nearly all of humanity, in their minds this wasn't something they were doing, they were just regular people trying to deal with a situation that was imposed on them from the outside.

By the way the Soviets had build huge bunker complexes underneath factories, so the workers could survive a nuclear war and it would have ended in planet Soviet.
>>

 No.486155>>486157

>>486154
>By the way the Soviets had build huge bunker complexes underneath factories, so the workers could survive a nuclear war and it would have ended in planet Soviet.
It's difficult to imagine how. Nuclear winter does not discriminate. No crops and no ecology = no humans
>>

 No.486157>>486315

>>486155
That was meant tongue in cheek. Obviously extinction is the most likely outcome.

I did look into nuclear-survival strategies from the cold-war, while nobody actually had a viable plan, the Soviets definitely were somewhat more advanced in their attempts. They were looking into electro-chemical means for feeding micro organisms as the basis for a food chain. Eating nuclear generated electricity with extra steps.
>>

 No.486315>>486319

>>486157
>The Soviets were looking into electro-chemical means for feeding micro organisms as the basis for a food chain.
Never heard about this. Source?
>>

 No.486319

>>486315
It was long ago, if i remember i'll make a thread about it.
>>

 No.486780>>486782

[Embed]
Are you prepping, my fellow preppers?
Nuclear bunker sales increase, despite expert warnings they aren’t going to provide protection
https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-bunkers-war-atomic-bombs-0356fa5b34067c138c64b9143f73c308
>Global security leaders are warning nuclear threats are growing as weapons spending surged to $91.4 billion last year. At the same time, private bunker sales are on the rise globally, from small metal boxes to crawl inside of to extravagant underground mansions.

>Critics warn these bunkers create a false perception that a nuclear war is survivable. They argue that people planning to live through an atomic blast aren’t focusing on the real and current dangers posed by nuclear threats, and the critical need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.


>Meanwhile, government disaster experts say bunkers aren’t necessary. A Federal Emergency Management Agency 100-page guide on responding to a nuclear detonation focuses on having the public get inside and stay inside, ideally in a basement and away from outside walls for at least a day. Those existing spaces can provide protection from radioactive fallout, says FEMA.


It's the fucking Cold War shitshow all over again
>preppers start nuclear hysteria
>anti-nuke activists say that preparing for the war is le bad because it implies the nuclear war is survivable
>the government says that buying or building expensive bunkers is not necessary because you can survive the nuclear blast just hiding under the table
>>

 No.486782>>486925

File (hide): 1736294523516.png ( 43.35 KB , 459x457 , miner-mole.png )

>>486780
Impending nuke warnings are down to 5 minutes or so. Rich people won't have time to get to their bunkers. If somebody survives in a luxury bunker it will be the maintenance and cleaning crew. Sweet irony.

>Critics warn these bunkers create a false perception that a nuclear war is survivable. They argue that people planning to live through an atomic blast aren’t focusing on the real and current dangers posed by nuclear threats, and the critical need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

That doesn't work, wrong psychology. They should sell bunker-sealing-kits with a bunker-map, instead. You know something to block-off bunker-doors and seal-up the air-exchange-vents from the outside. The left-behind F-U kit. Psychology wise that might be more convincing, than explaining the logistics errors of trying to treat nuclear war like a contingency problem. People didn't investigate and understand the material consequences of nuclear war and based on that attempted to create a nuke-proof habitat. I think people treat this like a game of musical chairs where they pay to reserve a chair.

>preppers start nuclear hysteria

>anti-nuke activists say that preparing for the war is le bad because it implies the nuclear war is survivable
>the government says that buying or building expensive bunkers is not necessary because you can survive the nuclear blast just hiding under the table
First as a tragedy then as a farce.

There is a case to build houses and buildings underground tho, because temperatures below ground are stable and energy use for heating or air-conditioning would go down to a small fraction. Most people probably would only run a water draining pump and ventilation . Since building-roofs would be at ground level they could be little parks or gardens. Windows could be simulated with stereo-cameras and 3d-effect screens. It would also somewhat harden civilization against war. If we hide industrial society a little the reactionary anti-prosperity strain that took over a lot of environmentalism would fade away too.
>>

 No.486925>>486933

>>486782
>That doesn't work, wrong psychology. They should sell bunker-sealing-kits with a bunker-map, instead. You know something to block-off bunker-doors and seal-up the air-exchange-vents from the outside.

But how will that help?
>>

 No.486933

>>486925
>But how will that help?
If a nuclear war breaks out, it does nothing, just like the bunkers.

The bunkers are imaginary protection from nuclear war.
The bunker-sealing-kits are imaginary bunker-spoilers.

If you wanted to weather a nuclear war for real you need a fully fledged underground habitat, one that is self sufficient in everything, a fully fledged biome that yields food, geothermal energy, resource gathering , artificial atmosphere generators, … It would need to support a population of about 100000 people. More like a giant space station. You have to plan for unforeseen complications. A nuclear war could ruin the surface in ways that we can't predict. That means you need to include the capacity to rebuild civilization underground. The means to expand the underground habitat until a level of economic power and technological sophistication is achieved that enables terra-forming the ruined surface so that it once again supports human live. It means committing to a scifi scenario where the next 10000 years, humanity might have to larp as mole-people. We could technically do this, but lets face it, we won't.

Most people think that a bunker only needs to be a underground hotel room that has enough provisions. Explaining why that's wrong is complicated. Some rich people might see a bunker as nothing more than the ability to live out the rest of their lives, once nuclear war has extinct humanity, so they get to have the last party.

So with all that in mind, it's easier to tell people that those left behind will ruin their bunker and therefor the only option to deal with a nuclear war, is not having the nuclear war in the first place and idk throwing the WW3 lobby into a vat of boiling acid or something.
>>

 No.487611>>487638

[Embed]
Welcome to Idiocracy
Elon Musk orders mass firings of hundreds of nuclear weapons security employees
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/nx-s1-5298190/nuclear-agency-trump-firings-nnsa
>Scenes of confusion and chaos unfolded over the last two days at the civilian agency that oversees the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, as the Trump administration's mass firings were carried out before being "paused" on Friday.

Trump administration wants to un-fire some nuclear safety workers but can’t figure out how to reach them
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-wants-un-fire-nuclear-safety-workers-cant-figure-rcna192345
>The individuals, who work in an agency that oversees the nation's nuclear stockpile, had been fired on Thursday and lost access to their federal government email accounts.
>>

 No.487638>>487743

>>487611
I think this might be related to plans for reducing nuclear weapons. That wouldn't be a bad thing.
>>

 No.487743

File (hide): 1740305542377.png ( 423.04 KB , 1002x692 , mr_kemp.png )

>>487638
Let's hope so
>>

 No.488460>>488463

Fuckin snownigs
Sweden nuclear bunkers: As World War III fears grow, this European country has prepared 64,000 nuclear bunkers for 7 million people
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/as-world-war-iii-fears-grow-this-european-country-has-prepared-64000-nuclear-bunkers-for-7-million-people-here-are-more-details/articleshow/119878997.cms

>Sweden is moving rapidly to ready its people for war as tensions continue to escalate amid Russia's ongoing conflict with Ukraine, reported Daily Mail. The nation has committed £7.7 million (100 million krona) to upgrade and renovate its vast network of civil defense bunkers, demonstrating its preparedness for a war, according to the report.


>Sweden already has one of the most extensive shelter systems globally, with 64,000 locations throughout the country, reported Daily Mail. The bunkers have space for up to seven million individuals, which could fit over two-thirds of the population of Sweden


>Since becoming a member of NATO in March 2024, Sweden's Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) has accelerated inspections and modernization processes for these bunkers, as per the report. The two to three-year project involves upgrading critical filtration systems to protect against chemical and radiological weapons
>>

 No.488463

>>488460
>Fuckin snownigs
yeah well …

Bunkers are not objectionable, maybe not the best investment, but hey technically it still some kind of living space that people can use for something. Young people can play loud music in a bunker without disturbing anybody for example. They can be converted into dormitories or shelters for homeless people. Scientists that want to do sensitive experiments that need shielded rooms tend to like bunkers as well.

So while this is probably irrational, it's not that bad.

I wish we'd be adopting more advance filtration tech as a normal part of building design.
>>

 No.489768>>489769>>489771>>489780>>489807

[Embed]
Woah, woah, woah, this is some Reagan-style bullshit here
Trump selects concept for $175 billion ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system
https://apnews.com/article/golden-dome-missile-defense-trump-space-e74d637feac06edcfde79214d8acf179

>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has announced the concept he wants for his future Golden Dome missile defense program — a multilayered, $175 billion system that for the first time will put U.S. weapons in space.


>Speaking Tuesday from the Oval Office, Trump said he expects the system will be “fully operational before the end of my term,” which ends in 2029, and have the capability of intercepting missiles “even if they are launched from space.”


Russia, North Korea Slam Trump's Golden Dome: 'Space Nuclear War'
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-attacks-trump-golden-dome-project-2077338

>Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, told Washington to abandon the deployment of weapons in space and said the Golden Dome would undermine strategic stability.


>North Korea's foreign ministry said the Golden Dome creates "an outer space nuclear war scenario supporting the U.S. strategy for uni-polar domination," according to the state news agency KCNA, citing a memorandum from its American policy studies arm.


I wonder what LaRouchites think about all of this, lol (Consider they wanted Reagan to make "space laser beams" against the USSR)
>>

 No.489769

>>489768
it's over..
>>

 No.489771>>489780>>489819

File (hide): 1748372028858.png ( 444.32 KB , 2048x2048 , Space_Debris_Low_Earth_Orb….png )

>>489768
Hello Kessler Syndrome.
>>

 No.489780>>489819

>>489768
80% chance it never gets build and it's just a money-sink.

>>489771
Yeah if they actually try to put weapons in space the other powers have no choice other than to interdict it. And that might indeed cause a debris cascade. yay spacewar there is no Fermi paradox the aliens are just avoiding us
>>

 No.489807>>489811>>489813

>>489768
Will China let them build it?
>>

 No.489811>>489813>>489819

>>489807
No, and neither will Russia. It will be shot down and the era of satellite communication and perhaps the space exploration itself will come to an end.
>>

 No.489813>>489814>>489820

>>489807
The Chinese have big plans for space industry, you know stuff like orbital solar collectors and asteroid mining. So no, they won't tolerate that.

Poster >>489811 is essentially correct. The US's territorial understanding of weapons-platforms in space as a way of moving a weapon to a forward base that counts as US soil in space, that is not yet fired, is not going to be shared by Russia, China and many others. They will see it in a different way. If the US puts a weapon on a rocket and it lifts off, that will count as having fired the weapon and trigger retaliation or countermeasures.

If the US persists with this undertaking it is somewhat likely that the result of attempting to militarize space will result in a Kessler debris cascade. It will block space access until a big power creates a space janitor agency to clean up earth orbit.

There will of course be people that will seek to exploit this. They will try to find a way to create little launch-windows to slip a rocket through the "debris shredder belt" and sell exclusive access to that. They would of course than have an economic interest that it doesn't get cleaned up.

It could be that heavily armed spaceships launched by mass-drivers can punch through, and this only ends the age of relatively fragile rockets, but not space exploration all together.

It could be yet another scheme that tries to hold down China's rise (into space). Would the Chinese build 500 nuclear power-plants to power a giant laser broom that sweeps the sky ? they probably would
>>

 No.489814

>>489813
typo
>heavily armed spaceships
heavily armored spaceships
>>

 No.489819>>489821>>489823

>>489771
>>489780
>>489811
I've been thinking of expansion foam as a potential to be launched into space and chemically inflated to catch low orbit debris. Instead of capturing a mass through reaction it would kind of absorb the impact and turn it into angular momentum and work as a sponge.
>>

 No.489820

>>489813
I ultimately think that forcing China to act is the key here to world progress. They have exhausted the usefulness of Communism in One Country. They have to do something about the United States now.

Obviously movements in the US failed to gain traction to bypass this and "have our own revolution".
>>

 No.489821>>489822

>>489819
It's not going to work. Space debris collisions aren't like the forces in a typical car collisions. Objects in orbit are traveling at enormous velocities, that's how they stay in orbit in the first place instead of falling back to Earth. Space debris collision is more like being shot by a bullet or colliding with a rocket.
>>

 No.489822

>>489821
Well all of that momentum was developed by expending land based energy, there's no reason to think that technology couldn't decelerate those pieces, albeit at a great cost, again using those same energy sources. The technology however could be hundreds of years away and we might be locked out of space until we clean it up (if we can).
>>

 No.489823>>489824

>>489819
At orbital speeds, I do not think that the foam would flex and transfer momentum. I have seen slowmo footage of a sponge getting shot at 2000m/s at a rebar-reinforced concrete plate, and it looked like a cannonball smashing through a thin sheet of ply-wood. While this is the inverted scenario, it does highlight that material properties can be very different if there is a lot of inertia involved. I think you don't get any protection from this and you'll just get foam with small holes. The foam will behave like a brittle substance.

Proven low weight shielding methodes are, 1. Whipple shields, stacked sheets of armor that are spaced out from each other, designed to progressively fracture incoming projectiles into many more peaces as they puncture each armor sheet dispersing their energy over a greater area. These sometimes use expanding foam between armor sheets, as mechanism for deployment.

And second, spin-armor, where little disks are spun up to high rpm of over 100k rotations per minute. Those disks store a lot of kinetic momentum, if hit by high speed projectile they "ping off" (as they transfer angular momentum) and redirect the projectile in the process. This is basically the beginning of an energy shield.

I don't know how practicle it would be for rockets tho, that said Whipple shields are used on the ISS, iirc.
>>

 No.489824>>489837

>>489823
Inertial reactive armor is hardly proven at this point, the first research paper I can even find on the subject is from 2023.
>>

 No.489837>>489840

>>489824
I came across spin armor or inertial reactive armor as you call it, probably a decade ago. I'm not sure but it might have been in stuff about old Soviet military prototypes. Maybe from the 80s.

I don't think this is anything new.
>>

 No.489840>>489845

>>489837
Well if it's that old and still not adopted in anything then it probably amounted to a dead end. The best-case scenario I can think of is like modern flywheels: discs in vacuum-sealed containers held in place by magnetic bearings to reduce friction to zero. But you're still probably going to need a constant power source to maintain the magnetic bearings, especially if they're out in space dealing with fluctuations in magnetic fields.
>>

 No.489845

>>489840
It's not a dead end, you get a very light armor that can shrug off very powerful impacts, but the trade off is that it requires power. So it's the beginning of energy shielding. It's worth it if you have a lot of power-generation.

Unique IPs: 21
Replies: Files: Page:

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomRefresh: Home