There’s noises about the US sending nukes to Saudi Arabia. If so I reckon to deliver them they’d be using the BGM-109A version which can carry the W80 nuclear warhead. Those are a single fusion warhead with variable yield between 5 and 150 kt equivalent.
They have a range of about 2,500 km and so can cover the entire Middle East easily. Submarine launched versions can also target pretty much everywhere they desire.

But to the main point. And yes, I am perhaps being too paranoid but the Leaning Tower Of Feces is insane and may just go that way because reasons. I really hope I’m being too paranoid.

I’ve had a think about it and I reckon if it all turned bad after a limited local exchange in Iran and perhaps other countries, then Russia may decide to join in a lob a few small ones at Ukraine. China may also take the opportunity to invade Taiwan as the US will be pretty much completely tied-up in the Middle East. France & the UK have nukes, not sure if they’d shoot a few at Russia but I guess it very much depends on the specific situation(s). Pakistan and India likewise. South Africa might have a nuke or two as well.
The most dangerous wildcard is Israel. I would guess they’d take the opportunity to lob a few here and there as well. Get rid of their perceived & real nearby threats.

Thinking a little further, I doubt that most of Australia would be targeted if at all. Perhaps only a few US & Aussie bases such as Pine Gap, Tindal, maybe the Jindalee OTH radar installations, and maybe Amberly, etc.
I suspect that the only player that might do that is China, but the good news – if there is any – is that with ICBM’s carrying multiple warheads, I don’t think they can cover a huge area and since our various military installations are quite some distance apart it probably wouldn’t make sense to fire an extremely expensive missile at them and certainly not civil centres.

So I reckon the closest one to us, Amberly Air Force Base, may not get hit. But if it does it’s likely to be a smaller weapon. In such a case I reckon we would be pretty much okay where we are as we’re 80 km away and there’s a series of hills in between us and Amberly. Maybe some broken windows but not much more I reckon. Most of the time the winds blow in directions other than from there to here so I wouldn’t be worried too much about a lot of fallout hitting us.

Anyway that’s my paranoid worst-case scenario. If you have any thoughts I’d love to hear them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_

I think the biggest threat is Israel lobbing nukes at Iran, just because they are mad psychcos

If that happens I reckon Iran will flatten Israel using their conventional weapons. Israel is a small country and nukes are not really necessary to destroy it. But if some other nuclear armed power (China or Russia or Pakistan) issues a statement that a nuclear attack on Iran by Israel with result in nuclear retaliation on Israel.

But even then Israel might still do it just because they are mad psychcos

I think Iran is too big to be destroyed by tactical nukes. It is about as large as QLD and is mountainous. They have a population of 90 million-ish and they have spent decades building tunnels and hide-outs in the mountains. A ground operation is out of the question.

the other thing is … Iran might already have nukes by now. We know they have ballistic missiles that can reach Israel.

party_pants said:

the other thing is … Iran might already have nukes by now. We know they have ballistic missiles that can reach Israel.

even a dirty bomb.

party_pants said:

I think the biggest threat is Israel lobbing nukes at Iran, just because they are mad psychcos

If that happens I reckon Iran will flatten Israel using their conventional weapons. Israel is a small country and nukes are not really necessary to destroy it. But if some other nuclear armed power (China or Russia or Pakistan) issues a statement that a nuclear attack on Iran by Israel with result in nuclear retaliation on Israel.

But even then Israel might still do it just because they are mad psychcos

I think Iran is too big to be destroyed by tactical nukes. It is about as large as QLD and is mountainous. They have a population of 90 million-ish and they have spent decades building tunnels and hide-outs in the mountains. A ground operation is out of the question.

Yes.

It’s hideously mountainous, with very little level terrain. No scope at all for armoured war, and the country lends itself to guerilla operations even without tunnels etc.

Trump is becoming increasingly panicked, that’s obvious. To loss the Congress to the Democrats would isolate him, to lose both houses would negate him entirely.

If his panic develops far enough, he might do the unthinkable, if merely to reinforce his own delusions of himself as a ‘tough guy’.

We can only guess at, and hope for, whatever provision the US military brass might have made for an insane order by an insane President.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I think the biggest threat is Israel lobbing nukes at Iran, just because they are mad psychcos

If that happens I reckon Iran will flatten Israel using their conventional weapons. Israel is a small country and nukes are not really necessary to destroy it. But if some other nuclear armed power (China or Russia or Pakistan) issues a statement that a nuclear attack on Iran by Israel with result in nuclear retaliation on Israel.

But even then Israel might still do it just because they are mad psychcos

I think Iran is too big to be destroyed by tactical nukes. It is about as large as QLD and is mountainous. They have a population of 90 million-ish and they have spent decades building tunnels and hide-outs in the mountains. A ground operation is out of the question.

Yes.

It’s hideously mountainous, with very little level terrain. No scope at all for armoured war, and the country lends itself to guerilla operations even without tunnels etc.

Trump is becoming increasingly panicked, that’s obvious. To loss the Congress to the Democrats would isolate him, to lose both houses would negate him entirely.

If his panic develops far enough, he might do the unthinkable, if merely to reinforce his own delusions of himself as a ‘tough guy’.

We can only guess at, and hope for, whatever provision the US military brass might have made for an insane order by an insane President.

I think the grown-ups have already stopped him from launching nukes a few months ago.

Kingy said:

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I think the biggest threat is Israel lobbing nukes at Iran, just because they are mad psychcos

If that happens I reckon Iran will flatten Israel using their conventional weapons. Israel is a small country and nukes are not really necessary to destroy it. But if some other nuclear armed power (China or Russia or Pakistan) issues a statement that a nuclear attack on Iran by Israel with result in nuclear retaliation on Israel.

But even then Israel might still do it just because they are mad psychcos

I think Iran is too big to be destroyed by tactical nukes. It is about as large as QLD and is mountainous. They have a population of 90 million-ish and they have spent decades building tunnels and hide-outs in the mountains. A ground operation is out of the question.

Yes.

It’s hideously mountainous, with very little level terrain. No scope at all for armoured war, and the country lends itself to guerilla operations even without tunnels etc.

Trump is becoming increasingly panicked, that’s obvious. To loss the Congress to the Democrats would isolate him, to lose both houses would negate him entirely.

If his panic develops far enough, he might do the unthinkable, if merely to reinforce his own delusions of himself as a ‘tough guy’.

We can only guess at, and hope for, whatever provision the US military brass might have made for an insane order by an insane President.

I think the grown-ups have already stopped him from launching nukes a few months ago.

Then much depends on who those ‘grown-ups’ might be, and how they feel about the changes that might occur in their own situations in the next few weeks.

Whoever they are, they’re carrying a very heavy burden, and their identities are well concealed, as there’s no public face to any ‘adult’ faction in the White House or the Cabinet. Marco Rubio might be the sanest of them, but he’s scared of Trump, too.

In Trump’s first term, there was a greater number of responsible people on hand, but, this time, Trump has done his best to pick only those who would swear total loyalty to him and him alone. The adult supervision is severely diminished this time around.

captain_spalding said:

Kingy said:

captain_spalding said:

Yes.

It’s hideously mountainous, with very little level terrain. No scope at all for armoured war, and the country lends itself to guerilla operations even without tunnels etc.

Trump is becoming increasingly panicked, that’s obvious. To loss the Congress to the Democrats would isolate him, to lose both houses would negate him entirely.

If his panic develops far enough, he might do the unthinkable, if merely to reinforce his own delusions of himself as a ‘tough guy’.

We can only guess at, and hope for, whatever provision the US military brass might have made for an insane order by an insane President.

I think the grown-ups have already stopped him from launching nukes a few months ago.

Then much depends on who those ‘grown-ups’ might be, and how they feel about the changes that might occur in their own situations in the next few weeks.

Whoever they are, they’re carrying a very heavy burden, and their identities are well concealed, as there’s no public face to any ‘adult’ faction in the White House or the Cabinet. Marco Rubio might be the sanest of them, but he’s scared of Trump, too.

In Trump’s first term, there was a greater number of responsible people on hand, but, this time, Trump has done his best to pick only those who would swear total loyalty to him and him alone. The adult supervision is severely diminished this time around.

You have mentioned a few times previously about the people in charge of the nukes who have sworn an oath to the US of A, not the mentally deranged child who has been voted in by other mentally deranged voters.

The grown-ups in charge of the nukes are not likely to hand them over to this imbecile to launch them at the kid who stole your lunch money when you were 5 years old.

Kingy said:

captain_spalding said:

Kingy said:

I think the grown-ups have already stopped him from launching nukes a few months ago.

Then much depends on who those ‘grown-ups’ might be, and how they feel about the changes that might occur in their own situations in the next few weeks.

Whoever they are, they’re carrying a very heavy burden, and their identities are well concealed, as there’s no public face to any ‘adult’ faction in the White House or the Cabinet. Marco Rubio might be the sanest of them, but he’s scared of Trump, too.

In Trump’s first term, there was a greater number of responsible people on hand, but, this time, Trump has done his best to pick only those who would swear total loyalty to him and him alone. The adult supervision is severely diminished this time around.

You have mentioned a few times previously about the people in charge of the nukes who have sworn an oath to the US of A, not the mentally deranged child who has been voted in by other mentally deranged voters.

The grown-ups in charge of the nukes are not likely to hand them over to this imbecile to launch them at the kid who stole your lunch money when you were 5 years old.

From the little that I have read there are a bunch of fanatical Christians, like Hegseth, who believe in end times/Armageddon…shit like that. So blowing the world up suits their beliefs.

I think it very unlikely nuclear weapons will be exploded by anyone soon, you see nuclear weapons do more work unexploded, deterrence they call it. Their main purpose continues to be that, though is somewhat challenged by long-range precision missiles, and additionally hypersonic missiles, also missiles that use changing evasive trajectories, dodging countermeasures. Add also saturation tactics using remotely controlled drones etc.

what’s really happening in the world, the backdrop, what fanaticism.

how about out of control borrowing, undermining the currencies we all rely on.

Kingy said:

You have mentioned a few times previously about the people in charge of the nukes who have sworn an oath to the US of A, not the mentally deranged child who has been voted in by other mentally deranged voters.

The grown-ups in charge of the nukes are not likely to hand them over to this imbecile to launch them at the kid who stole your lunch money when you were 5 years old.

There’s arguments and counter-arguments that could fuel a debate. The people concerned have a quandary

Briefly, the military people swore an oath to defend their Constitution, and to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic. In the same oath, there is the declaration that the person will obey the orders of the President of the United States. That’s because the Prez is the Commander-in-Chief, named as such in the US Constitution.

But, what if a President’s orders a quite clearly without good reason and/or to the detriment of the US and its citizens?

The law is quite clear: for orders that are merely unwise or harmful but not patently illegal, the military is legally obligated to comply.

The US Manual for Courts-Martial states explicitly:

“The dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”

So the legal threshold is “patently unlawful” — an order that a person of ordinary sense would recognize as criminal (e.g., ordering the killing of civilians, torture, targeting political opponents). A president who orders something detrimental to the US — a wasteful war, a harmful economic sanction, a politically motivated deployment — but which doesn’t clearly violate a statute or constitutional provision, must be obeyed under current law. Disobeying such an order exposes the service member to court-martial under Articles 90 and 92 of the UCMJ.

However, all is not necessarily lost. There is something beyond the strict legal minimum:

Professional/ethical duty: Army doctrine grants officers “moral autonomy” and obligates them to challenge orders “likely to harm the institution writ large—the Nation, military, and subordinates—in a manner not clearly outweighed by its likely benefits.” This is an ethical, not a legal, obligation — it doesn’t protect the officer from punishment, but it provides professional justification.

Again, much depends on the people concerned, where they see themslves in the situation, and on their character and ethics.

transition said:

I think it very unlikely nuclear weapons will be exploded by anyone soon, you see nuclear weapons do more work unexploded, deterrence they call it. Their main purpose continues to be that, though is somewhat challenged by long-range precision missiles, and additionally hypersonic missiles, also missiles that use changing evasive trajectories, dodging countermeasures. Add also saturation tactics using remotely controlled drones etc.

what’s really happening in the world, the backdrop, what fanaticism.

how about out of control borrowing, undermining the currencies we all rely on.

Almost all countries are borrowed to the hilt.

oh well at least the child sex abusers can have a bit of quiet

To be crude I reckon you’d get a number of US military people who would get a hard-on from using nukes
All that firepower sitting there doing nothing while them commies and ragheads acting all superior and that

Plus with modern weapons the deranged idea this time we can sneak them past defenses.

Mind you it might take limited scale nuclear war and a few hundred million dead to wake us out of our complacency.

I personally think our civilisation in the form we enjoy won’t make it another 20 years

Cymek said:

To be crude I reckon you’d get a number of US military people who would get a hard-on from using nukes
All that firepower sitting there doing nothing while them commies and ragheads acting all superior and that

Plus with modern weapons the deranged idea this time we can sneak them past defenses.

Mind you it might take limited scale nuclear war and a few hundred million dead to wake us out of our complacency.

I personally think our civilisation in the form we enjoy won’t make it another 20 years

I pretty much agree.

Spiny Norman said:

Cymek said:

To be crude I reckon you’d get a number of US military people who would get a hard-on from using nukes
All that firepower sitting there doing nothing while them commies and ragheads acting all superior and that

Plus with modern weapons the deranged idea this time we can sneak them past defenses.

Mind you it might take limited scale nuclear war and a few hundred million dead to wake us out of our complacency.

I personally think our civilisation in the form we enjoy won’t make it another 20 years

I pretty much agree.

You two are such Debbie Downers.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Spiny Norman said:

Cymek said:

To be crude I reckon you’d get a number of US military people who would get a hard-on from using nukes
All that firepower sitting there doing nothing while them commies and ragheads acting all superior and that

Plus with modern weapons the deranged idea this time we can sneak them past defenses.

Mind you it might take limited scale nuclear war and a few hundred million dead to wake us out of our complacency.

I personally think our civilisation in the form we enjoy won’t make it another 20 years

I pretty much agree.

You two are such Debbie Downers.

Sorry

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Spiny Norman said:

I pretty much agree.

You two are such Debbie Downers.

Sorry

S’o.k.

You good kid.

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Spiny Norman said:

I pretty much agree.

You two are such Debbie Downers.

Sorry

I was kidding. Personally I think the chances of AI going rogue and doing something militarily disastrous is more likely than foolhardy humans using nukes.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You two are such Debbie Downers.

Sorry

I was kidding. Personally I think the chances of AI going rogue and doing something militarily disastrous is more likely than foolhardy humans using nukes.

Muchly the same here but with a healthy dose of climate change making increasingly large areas of the Earth either uninhabitable or no long viable for crops or animals to feed from.
Unfortunately, I think I’m going to live long enough to see that happen.

Spiny Norman said:

Cymek said:

To be crude I reckon you’d get a number of US military people who would get a hard-on from using nukes
All that firepower sitting there doing nothing while them commies and ragheads acting all superior and that

Plus with modern weapons the deranged idea this time we can sneak them past defenses.

Mind you it might take limited scale nuclear war and a few hundred million dead to wake us out of our complacency.

I personally think our civilisation in the form we enjoy won’t make it another 20 years

I pretty much agree.

Long enough to make them the money they won’t be able to enjoy spending.

roughbarked said:

Spiny Norman said:

Cymek said:

To be crude I reckon you’d get a number of US military people who would get a hard-on from using nukes
All that firepower sitting there doing nothing while them commies and ragheads acting all superior and that

Plus with modern weapons the deranged idea this time we can sneak them past defenses.

Mind you it might take limited scale nuclear war and a few hundred million dead to wake us out of our complacency.

I personally think our civilisation in the form we enjoy won’t make it another 20 years

I pretty much agree.

Long enough to make them the money they won’t be able to enjoy spending.

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, and how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
Yes, and how many years must a mountain exist
Before it is washed to the sea?
Yes, and how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
Yes, and how many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, and how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, and how many deaths will it take ‘til he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Spiny Norman said:

I pretty much agree.

Long enough to make them the money they won’t be able to enjoy spending.

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, and how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
Yes, and how many years must a mountain exist
Before it is washed to the sea?
Yes, and how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
Yes, and how many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, and how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, and how many deaths will it take ‘til he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

Tell that to young people today and they won’t believe you.

Cymek said:

To be crude I reckon you’d get a number of US military people who would get a hard-on from using nukes
All that firepower sitting there doing nothing while them commies and ragheads acting all superior and that

Plus with modern weapons the deranged idea this time we can sneak them past defenses.

Mind you it might take limited scale nuclear war and a few hundred million dead to wake us out of our complacency.

I personally think our civilisation in the form we enjoy won’t make it another 20 years

so if someone in control of weapons is mass destruction is deranged, is there any obligation to take them out before they arbitrarily start mass destruction

or should we dig into alliances and wait for them to lash out before someone else responds while we happily sit on our arses thinking thank fuck it wasn’t us

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Long enough to make them the money they won’t be able to enjoy spending.

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, and how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
Yes, and how many years must a mountain exist
Before it is washed to the sea?
Yes, and how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
Yes, and how many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, and how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, and how many deaths will it take ‘til he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

Tell that to young people today and they won’t believe you.

can’t even remember the last time we heard it played

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Spiny Norman said:

I pretty much agree.

Long enough to make them the money they won’t be able to enjoy spending.

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, and how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
Yes, and how many years must a mountain exist
Before it is washed to the sea?
Yes, and how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
Yes, and how many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, and how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, and how many deaths will it take ‘til he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

And you tell me over and over again my friend
You don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.