Jump to content

Nuclear Subs for Australia?


Recommended Posts

5% of GDP doesn't sound like much, except GDP also includes non war equipment stuff like agriculture, which was probably a significant part of Soviet GDP at that point. But what was sent was important:

paraphrasing a bit:

"2/3 of the trucks the Red Army used were foreign built at the end of the war" - logistics are king

"British tanks made up 30-40% of the Soviet medium and heavy tanks before Dec 1941 in Moscow..." probably helped stop the German advance

"about 1/2 the Avgas"

"about 1/2 the high explosives" from 1941 to 1945

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Diesel subs are awesome for littoral waters, but suck balls for ocean crossings. I infer this as we have decided a close defence isn't what is needed anymore and we are moving to a forward projection

Gotta wonder why Australia wants subs at all but nuclear subs? They're scary expensive, like $2B, and loud whereas a diesel sub will only set you back $500M and can run dead silent on electric. Since

This is one of the dumber things ever on PA. You think the USA has even a 0.000001% chance of wanting to invade Australia? What The Actual Fuck The USA has no interest in invading anyplace

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, Zonker said:

5% of GDP doesn't sound like much, except GDP also includes non war equipment stuff like agriculture, which was probably a significant part of Soviet GDP at that point. But what was sent was important:

paraphrasing a bit:

"2/3 of the trucks the Red Army used were foreign built at the end of the war" - logistics are king

"British tanks made up 30-40% of the Soviet medium and heavy tanks before Dec 1941 in Moscow..." probably helped stop the German advance

"about 1/2 the Avgas"

"about 1/2 the high explosives" from 1941 to 1945

 

 "5% of GDP" is like saying plutonium was only 5% of Fat Boy, isn't it?  A useless statistic.  

 The gun powder issue might be the key one. It's not that easy to come up with a big pile of potassium nitrate in a hurry. Then again we don't know if they might have found a way if they hadn't gotten it from us. Counterfactual history is tricky stuff.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Simple question.

Country X sends nuclear missiles at Country Y. Country Y should:

A - Send some back at X

B - Do nothing

 

Public proclamation:  'Bomb them into oblivion.   Let them join us in hell'  Just as "the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret" (to quote Dr. Strangelove), the whole premise is the other guy fears you will use it.   

Private response:   Why bother?   Better a few humans survive then no humans survive (if you like the species).   Governments are temporary.  Extinction is permanent.   The fallout, EM pulse and nuclear winter crop failures will topple most governments within a couple seasons anyway.   Blow up the enemy leader's mistress if you must make a statement.   Why bother with the rest of the planet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Lark said:

Public proclamation:  'Bomb them into oblivion.   Let them join us in hell'  Just as "the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret" (to quote Dr. Strangelove), the whole premise is the other guy fears you will use it.   

Private response:   Why bother?   Better a few humans survive then no humans survive (if you like the species).   Governments are temporary.  Extinction is permanent.   The fallout, EM pulse and nuclear winter crop failures will topple most governments within a couple seasons anyway.   Blow up the enemy leader's mistress if you must make a statement.   Why bother with the rest of the planet?

This is the eternal paradox of nuclear war on a large scale. We will posit that an all-out nuclear exchange between any of the Big 3, i.e China, Russia, and the US/NATO, would end modern civilization worldwide at best and might do a whole lot worse. So if the USSR launches everything they have at the USA, maybe the rational response would be to just all die quietly and not do anything about it. Or vice-versa, the Russians see the whole US missile fleet headed their way and decide they'll just take one for the team and all die peacefully.

The problems with this idea are many. The first problem is even a nuclear half-war might be about bad enough to finish modern civilization. It actually is IMHO almost a certainty. So a half-war is hardly an improvement. The even bigger problem is you just made war MUCH more likely. If during the Cuban missile crisis the Russians had said "Go ahead and nuke us if you want to, we won't do anything", what do you think the result would have been :o So trying to reduce the damage by a little increases the risk of catastrophe by a LOT.

The last issue is human nature at its best and worst, there is no way that everyone would just sit on their hands and watch their country incinerate, they would get those weapons launched somehow one way or another.

MAD seems mad all right, but it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The last issue is human nature at its best and worst, there is no way that everyone would just sit on their hands and watch their country incinerate, they would get those weapons launched somehow one way or another.

This. Want to reduce the risk? Find a way to build a near 100% effective missile shield.

Still won't stop smuggled nukes and things like sub launched cruise missiles (maybe stop the latter) but the mass destruction element of multiple warhead, multiple missile launches drops off.

I'm not at all anxious to see a single nuke strike mind you, but I'm not too keen on having totalitarian places like China and the old USSR have their way either.

I still think Iran and Pakistan are the most likely countries to try a first strike, with Israel in close second to strike Iran if they think Iran is going to do it if they don't act first.

The good news is, I live in the Southern Hemisphere.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This is the eternal paradox of nuclear war on a large scale. We will posit that an all-out nuclear exchange between any of the Big 3, i.e China, Russia, and the US/NATO, would end modern civilization worldwide at best and might do a whole lot worse. So if the USSR launches everything they have at the USA, maybe the rational response would be to just all die quietly and not do anything about it. Or vice-versa, the Russians see the whole US missile fleet headed their way and decide they'll just take one for the team and all die peacefully.

The problems with this idea are many. The first problem is even a nuclear half-war might be about bad enough to finish modern civilization. It actually is IMHO almost a certainty. So a half-war is hardly an improvement. The even bigger problem is you just made war MUCH more likely. If during the Cuban missile crisis the Russians had said "Go ahead and nuke us if you want to, we won't do anything", what do you think the result would have been :o So trying to reduce the damage by a little increases the risk of catastrophe by a LOT.

The last issue is human nature at its best and worst, there is no way that everyone would just sit on their hands and watch their country incinerate, they would get those weapons launched somehow one way or another.

MAD seems mad all right, but it works.

Nukes take all the fun out of war. Places everybody on the front line, not just the soldiers. Not as easy to get people all filled up with nationalist team spirit.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

This. Want to reduce the risk? Find a way to build a near 100% effective missile shield.

Still won't stop smuggled nukes and things like sub launched cruise missiles (maybe stop the latter) but the mass destruction element of multiple warhead, multiple missile launches drops off.

I'm not at all anxious to see a single nuke strike mind you, but I'm not too keen on having totalitarian places like China and the old USSR have their way either.

I still think Iran and Pakistan are the most likely countries to try a first strike, with Israel in close second to strike Iran if they think Iran is going to do it if they don't act first.

The good news is, I live in the Southern Hemisphere.

FKT

Other ways to reduce the risk:

1. Reduce the numbers. Killing all the Russians just once is enough and really you don't even need that, say 10 major cities and "Russia" as a political entity is no more and probably the same for the USA.

2. Make damn sure you have a survivable second-strike force. There should be no way that a president should be looking at a "use or lose" scenario where you launch on a perhaps faulty warning or lose it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Nukes take all the fun out of war. Places everybody on the front line, not just the soldiers. Not as easy to get people all filled up with nationalist team spirit.   

Yeah, per the old schedule we should have had WW IV by now. Nukes just ruin it for everyone, we have to make do with silly shit in the third world and then you find out blowing shit up in places that look blown-up to start with isn't even all that effective :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Are you under the impression that posting on here is my job?

I'm under the impression that you have not been forthcoming about your conflicts. 

That smacks of dishonesty. 

To put it mildly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

No, it was about convincing the North Vietnamese to negotiate a peace deal. 

You are wrong, it was about convincing the Vietnamese that the US was insane enough to use nukes.

The Viets successfully called that bluff. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This is the eternal paradox of nuclear war

Thanks for making my case for me. 

The entire nuke weapons project is nutso on every level. 

And what are your conflicts again ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

The WORST presidential failure since the end of WWII ,, 

,, was something would have  make the ICBM as obsolete as a flintlock muzzleloader.

Obumbler killed the Airborne Ballistic Laser.

 

I assume like the stealth, it works unless it rains.    Like the LCS and various other new toys, it can be relied upon as long as the enemy schedules in advance so we can pull an all nighter to get one in operation.   Have any of the super weapons we bought on credit in the last 20 years actually worked as well as a British car?   They just let us lose wars expensively and slowly.   I saw an unclassified demo of an automated navy gun on the tube (Nat Geo), but the video has since been pulled.  They had to delay the 'attack' so civilian technicians could be flown in to fix the automated systems so the ship could fight off RC speedboats.    If the navy can't fight off the equivalent of a planned attack on a known date by civilian speedboats and needs a rematch, we need to quit wasting money.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mark K said:

No, it was about convincing the North Vietnamese to negotiate a peace deal. 

You are apparently and blissfully unaware of the many times the US has threatened to use nukes - not all were public at the time.  

They don't merely pretend to be madmen, they are madmen. 

The article will come up if you google this . .  . 

U.S. Nuclear Threats: Then and Now - SAGE Journals

" The madman theory, or as Nixon and his chief of staff Bob Haldeman described it, “the principle of the threat of excessive force,” was at the center of this strategy. “Nixon was convinced that his power would be enhanced if his opponents thought he might use excessive force, even nuclear force. That, coupled with his reputation for ruthlessness, he believed, would suggest that he was dangerously unpredictable,” according to analysts William Burr and Jeffrey Kimball. As part of the strategy, underlings transmitted information to foreign officials saying that Nixon might be unstable or unpredictable . . . " 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

You are apparently and blissfully unaware of the many times the US has threatened to use nukes - not all were public at the time.  

They don't merely pretend to be madmen, they are madmen. 

The article will come up if you google this . .  . 

U.S. Nuclear Threats: Then and Now - SAGE Journals

" The madman theory, or as Nixon and his chief of staff Bob Haldeman described it, “the principle of the threat of excessive force,” was at the center of this strategy. “Nixon was convinced that his power would be enhanced if his opponents thought he might use excessive force, even nuclear force. That, coupled with his reputation for ruthlessness, he believed, would suggest that he was dangerously unpredictable,” according to analysts William Burr and Jeffrey Kimball. As part of the strategy, underlings transmitted information to foreign officials saying that Nixon might be unstable or unpredictable . . . " 

Nukes may or may not be part of Madman. Did Nixon ever threaten to use nukes on NV, ala MacArthur on the Chinese? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

Nukes may or may not be part of Madman. Did Nixon ever threaten to use nukes on NV, ala MacArthur on the Chinese? 

Of course he did ya idjit !! 

Read the damn article !! 

Jeebus 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2021 at 5:07 AM, justsomeguy! said:

Did you lose a paycheck?

No. 

747 first commercial flight was 17 years before I hired in,, which is the point.

747 is "off the shelf". We can pop them babies out PDQ

As far as the laser, no involvement. That was a completeley different bunch of nerds than the Black Hole folks I was involved with.

 

19 hours ago, Lark said:

I assume like the stealth, it works unless it rains. ,,,

Ummm, It doesnt rain at 30k ft,,,

, and then spin away into Brit cars ??

 

The Laser part of this is the "Wright brothers" version.

, and it DID shoot down "threat representative"  booster.

Watch the video.

 

 

 

23 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Making ICBMs obsolete isn't even necessarily a good thing anyway.

discuss

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

What is the "not good" part ?

Think about it for a second. You tell Russia and China you are rolling out something that makes their ICMBs worthless. What do you think they will do next?

They might attack while they still can. Much more likely they'll think of 101 other ways to deliver nukes that won't be detectable in time to do anything about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Nixon did not have to threaten with nukes.

Except that he did . . . and other times as well. 

Initiated on October 27, 1969, President Richard Nixon authorized a squadron of 18 B-52 bombers to patrol the Artic polar ice caps and escalate the nuclear threat poised. The goal was to coerce both the Soviet Union and North Vietnam to agree on favourable terms with the US, and conclusively end the Vietnam War.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Except that he did . . . and other times as well. 

Initiated on October 27, 1969, President Richard Nixon authorized a squadron of 18 B-52 bombers to patrol the Artic polar ice caps and escalate the nuclear threat poised. The goal was to coerce both the Soviet Union and North Vietnam to agree on favourable terms with the US, and conclusively end the Vietnam War.

   North Vietnam is in the southern hemisphere, and nobody thought Ho was just the Soviet's bitch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Think about it for a second. You tell Russia and China you are rolling out something that makes their ICMBs worthless. What do you think they will do next?

They might attack while they still can. Much more likely they'll think of 101 other ways to deliver nukes that won't be detectable in time to do anything about it.

This.

The genie is out of the bottle and despite all the wailing, gnashing of teeth and angst from people like AJ, it's not going back in.

Nuke powered subs would be a good way of laying nuke eggs off of sea ports, for example... just to stir the pot a bit more.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

This.

The genie is out of the bottle and despite all the wailing, gnashing of teeth and angst from people like AJ, it's not going back in.

Nuke powered subs would be a good way of laying nuke eggs off of sea ports, for example... just to stir the pot a bit more.

FKT

What AJ doesn't grasp is he is campaigning to make it safe to have major-powers wars again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

What AJ doesn't grasp is he is campaigning to make it safe to have major-powers wars again.

AJ is stupid.

If he'd ever studied games theory he'd realise what he wanted is a classic example of an incentive to 'defect' from an agreement in order to gain an advantage.

Assume everyone universally destroys all their nuke weapons. That wouldn't happen, but assume.

The knowledge still exists.

First to re-arm can threaten everyone else with impunity.

And AJ blithely assumes no bad actor would ever do this.

Pfffft. He's an idiot.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Assume everyone universally destroys all their nuke weapons. That wouldn't happen, but assume.

I'm sure there would be temptation in some quarters to forget where a few were hidden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaggy & FKT

get the tubular ball screws ,, 

,, great place to stash a fuel rod,,

,, power yer whole shop off that thing.

? any leftovers ?   

 ,, handloading mini nuke boolitts for an EBR comes to mind,, 

 

 

In 3d print for a compliant part,

Is there a mention of "flex" in your specs?

Regular ol' ti64 does not like to flex

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Shaggy & FKT

get the tubular ball screws ,, 

 

In 3d print for a compliant part,

Is there a mention of "flex" in your specs?

Regular ol' ti64 does not like to flex

 

 

I love 3d ball screws. They're just...satisfying. 

I think that was one of the cool things about that rig is it a non flexible titanium structure that through the action becomes flexible??? If I'm interpreting it right that is :).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

I love 3d ball screws. They're just...satisfying. 

I think that was one of the cool things about that rig is it a non flexible titanium structure that through the action becomes flexible??? If I'm interpreting it right that is :).

 

 

Anything will flex with the application of sufficient force...

Well, maybe not AJ's cranium.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Well, maybe not AJ's cranium.

FKT

I got meningitis and encephalitis once, which is a fancy way of saying swelling. The docs could press on my skull and see a change in the brain waves which was rather nauseating! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

I love 3d ball screws. They're just...satisfying. 

I think that was one of the cool things about that rig is it a non flexible titanium structure that through the action becomes flexible??? If I'm interpreting it right that is

It _is_ a cool rig,, 180* of flex.

The supporting structures are , essentially, long thin "noodles" that are bending,  with the 180* achieved with very slight moment at any point along the noodle.

The same shape, printed in whatever plastic they're using, is going to be much more tolerant of repeated bending.

 

Interesting experiment would be to print 1 each in plastic & ti.

Put them both in a "flex test fixture", and run to failure of one.

I think the ti will fail first.

 

:) , but the concept of flexy structures IS way cool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Quote

This month, the minister announced that Australia will be spending A$3.5 billion on 120 tanks and an assortment of other armoured vehicles, including 29 assault breacher vehicles and 17 joint assault bridge vehicles.  All will be purchased from the US military machine.  This will also include 75 M1A2 main battle tanks, which will replace the 59 Abrams M1A1s, purchased in 2007 and kept in blissful quarantine, untouched by actual combat.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/14/anachronistic-frivolity-australias-recent-tank-purchase/

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, bstrdsonofbtl said:

anachronistic-frivolity-australias-recent-tank-purchase/

Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time  . . ..

A great book, used to use it in my classes . .

Der AJ sez "Check it out"  !!!!

Slaughterhouse Five By Billy Pilgrim | emr.ac.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, bstrdsonofbtl said:

What's wrong with the old tanks :unsure: By the time Australia actually needs tanks things will have gotten WAY past the point of no return anyway, they need to be fighting 1,000 miles away from mainland Australia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

, they need to be fighting

Respectfully, my old foil, they do not "need to be fighting" . . .

no one does

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

What's wrong with the old tanks :unsure: By the time Australia actually needs tanks things will have gotten WAY past the point of no return anyway, they need to be fighting 1,000 miles away from mainland Australia.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...