Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

military.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 231 posts

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#91

Post by sandworm101 »

thelittleone wrote: post #62
poulsbohemian wrote: post #19

This isn't exactly a secret or new information... it was pretty well known when I lived on the peninsula 10+ years ago (thus the username, Poulsbohemian...). There's a state park right near the Hood Canal bridge where it isn't uncommon to watch the submarines come and go in and out of the canal. Always a bit surreal to push your kids on the swings while watching a first strike weapon capable of destroying the world p…

No doubt surreal, but a single sub destroy the world? That piqued my interest so took a quick look and found an article [1]. This article states that "even a single vessel [submarine] could reduce as many as 288 city-sized targets into radioactive ash in less than 30 minutes." Later in the article they say that the Ohio class is capable of carrying up to 24 UGM-133 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles.…

Take every one of those numbers with a grain of salt. For instance Hiroshima. By total energy released, the burning city after the explosion released more energy than the bomb. My point: the devestation yield of a nuclear weapon depends far more on where it is detonated than its physical power.

And remember the physics of spheres. Twice the energy in a 3d explosion does not mean twice the damage on the 2d ground. They very biggest bombs are not of much military utility. Far more damage can be done via multiple smaller bombs.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#92

Post by papito »

tzs wrote: post #90

> Since Bangor, Washington, now houses the largest single nuclear weapons site in the world, it needs protection from all sides, including the seaward side. Well crap. I just can't seem to catch a break. When I was a kid from ages 12 until I went away to college I lived within 3 miles of Castle Air Force Base and from ages 8-12 within 7 miles of it. Castle was home to a ton of B-52s and KC-135s and probably was a pri…

It's the best place to be - it will be over quickly.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#93

Post by dsq »

tzs wrote: post #90

> Since Bangor, Washington, now houses the largest single nuclear weapons site in the world, it needs protection from all sides, including the seaward side. Well crap. I just can't seem to catch a break. When I was a kid from ages 12 until I went away to college I lived within 3 miles of Castle Air Force Base and from ages 8-12 within 7 miles of it. Castle was home to a ton of B-52s and KC-135s and probably was a pri…

Though maybe being on ground zero counts as 'lucky' compared to being, say, 20 miles away in the fallout zone. One goes quickly, in the flash itself. Either that or on a Pacific Island somewhere (with a mountain, not sea level) with 10 years of supplies.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#94

Post by saalweachter »

theonemind wrote: post #21
chx wrote: post #12

These days you can't believe anything unless an official source is provided. This is it: https://www.niwcpacific.navy.mil/marine-mammal-program/

Some skepticism seems warranted for official sources as well!

I mean, the essence of the Cold War was each side trying to find any advantage they could, while pretending everything they tried worked.

Maybe the dolphins don't work well, maybe the enemy knows it, maybe they don't. Maybe the risk it works dissuades them from trying. Maybe the anti-dolphin countermeasures they carry are cumbersome and lead to their discovery. Maybe the dolphins work for once; I'm sure not every trial failed.

When you're throwing unlimited piles of other people's money at a problem, why not try some long shots?

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#95

Post by mlac »

thelittleone wrote: post #62
poulsbohemian wrote: post #19

This isn't exactly a secret or new information... it was pretty well known when I lived on the peninsula 10+ years ago (thus the username, Poulsbohemian...). There's a state park right near the Hood Canal bridge where it isn't uncommon to watch the submarines come and go in and out of the canal. Always a bit surreal to push your kids on the swings while watching a first strike weapon capable of destroying the world p…

No doubt surreal, but a single sub destroy the world? That piqued my interest so took a quick look and found an article [1]. This article states that "even a single vessel [submarine] could reduce as many as 288 city-sized targets into radioactive ash in less than 30 minutes." Later in the article they say that the Ohio class is capable of carrying up to 24 UGM-133 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles.…

The submarine might burrow itself down into the Mariana Trench and then set them all off at the same time. This would open a crack in the ocean floor, draining the ocean. I’m studying how these things work where this guy went to school: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#96

Post by vibrio »

henvic wrote: post #84
vkou wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single sub can destroy the world any time it's commander wishes, not by launching 288 warheads at 288 cities, but by launching one warhead, at either Moscow, or Washington. Contingency plans for responding to a decapitating strike will do the rest.

It's crazy how so many people are terrified of civilians with powerful fully automatic weapons, while keeping eyes shut to the risk the military and state actors represent to society.

There’s plenty of room to be terrified of select members of both groups.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#97

Post by NikolaeVarius »

mlac wrote: post #95
thelittleone wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt surreal, but a single sub destroy the world? That piqued my interest so took a quick look and found an article [1]. This article states that "even a single vessel [submarine] could reduce as many as 288 city-sized targets into radioactive ash in less than 30 minutes." Later in the article they say that the Ohio class is capable of carrying up to 24 UGM-133 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles.…

The submarine might burrow itself down into the Mariana Trench and then set them all off at the same time. This would open a crack in the ocean floor, draining the ocean. I’m studying how these things work where this guy went to school: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

Uh where is all this hypothetical water going in this drain.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#98

Post by KineticLensman »

alexb_ wrote: post #89
KineticLensman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Horses and dogs have been used on war for about as long as humans have been fighting Domestication of horses is surprisingly recent [0] - perhaps only 6000 years ago - compared with fighting between humans, which likely goes back to before we were even human. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse

6000 years ago is hardly recent. Cavalry is nothing new.

It is recent relative to the origins of fighting in humans.

Re: Militarized Dolphins Protect Almost a Quarter of the US Nuclear Stockpile

#99

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

thelittleone wrote: post #62
poulsbohemian wrote: post #19

This isn't exactly a secret or new information... it was pretty well known when I lived on the peninsula 10+ years ago (thus the username, Poulsbohemian...). There's a state park right near the Hood Canal bridge where it isn't uncommon to watch the submarines come and go in and out of the canal. Always a bit surreal to push your kids on the swings while watching a first strike weapon capable of destroying the world p…

No doubt surreal, but a single sub destroy the world? That piqued my interest so took a quick look and found an article [1]. This article states that "even a single vessel [submarine] could reduce as many as 288 city-sized targets into radioactive ash in less than 30 minutes." Later in the article they say that the Ohio class is capable of carrying up to 24 UGM-133 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles.…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN