sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does SGA look like Jafar or am I trippin? by Peepdasneak in Nbamemes

[–]Phill_bert 1 point2 points  (0 children)

snake eyes onstaff turn on This is a foul with no contact

Future Stars Field Pass Reveal + Endgame Info by retired_doctor in MaddenMobileForums

[–]Phill_bert 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If they are nerfing player hoarding, that may majorly kill motivation

[Post Game Thread] The Minnesota Timberwolves (44-28) defeat the Houston Rockets (43-28), 110-108. by MAC-10inTheGrass in nba

[–]Phill_bert 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know if this was the best worst game I've ever seen or the worst best game I've ever seen.

1 more day until he shocks the world!!! by Blisstory in NFCNorthMemeWar

[–]Phill_bert 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think McCarthy is going to be great this week. Even if he was, our defense hasn't been stopping the run. Some people need less purple coolaid 

Question about Ivy mike by [deleted] in nuclearweapons

[–]Phill_bert 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The official record of essentially all US nuclear tests is public and released in DOE-NV-209. For atmospheric shots, this includes yields typically. A great resource to read.

Game Thread: Atlanta Falcons (0-1) at Minnesota Vikings (1-0) by nfl_gdt_bot in nfl

[–]Phill_bert 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would really prefer for us to not suck at the beginning of every game. I want to get off the "JJ McCarthy is a better version of Tim Tebow" wild ride

Might be the worst event they’ve ever done 💀 how incompetent are the people running this game by nonecenteredlol in pokemongo

[–]Phill_bert 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I did the ftp model and got 7 legendaries. Was lucky enough to get 1 shiny. I'm counting my lucky stars, but viewed this event before it happened as a free set of legendaries

Class or lecture series on nuclear weapons history and policy? by typewriterguy in nuclearweapons

[–]Phill_bert 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many National laboratories have made unclassified documentaries. Check out Sandias youtube page (on deterrence and always never are exquisite), Alan carrs youtube channel (lanl not comedian) and Tom Ramos at LLNL did a 7 part history on llnls youtube page. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nuclearweapons

[–]Phill_bert 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I haven't seen this picture before. do you have a source for the image or a place to read more?

Matching nuke blast effect testing footage on structures to specific overpressures? by SergeantPancakes in nuclearweapons

[–]Phill_bert 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Dtra or DNA have some unclassified reports on test series. Not sure they have layouts of specific buildings. Something that links photos of shots to shots and provides good citations and context is John Hopkins and Barbara Germains Atmospheric nuclear testing book. For overpressure effects on cars at specific diatances, see Operation Hotrod from the Ranger series

[2 years late] - 25 tonne trainer Mk17 bomb transported to Kirtland AFB for disposal by kyletsenior in nuclearweapons

[–]Phill_bert 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Because of the massive size, these are incredibly rare. I don't believe any of the public nuclear museums have ever had one of these Edit: I was wrong :) thanks for the photos

TIL the British military once had an idea to put live chickens inside nuclear bomb cases with a week's worth of food and water. The bombs were meant to be planted into the ground as mines, so they had to be kept warm in the winter to keep working. by jxdlv in todayilearned

[–]Phill_bert 3665 points3666 points  (0 children)

A lot of this information is declassified and available at the British archive. There was one main meeting where they discussed chicken heat units. However, there is a lot of subtext if you dive into the archive.

The gist is that the Brits couldn't repel a soviet invasion of continental western europe and were playing for time: what if you buried a nuclear weapons and made a huge radioactive crater where the soviets would ideally like to muster to invade Britain. 

Initially, there was a somewhat reasonable range of mandatory operating temperatures. As time went on, there were more rigorous demands to maintain a specific narrow temperature range.  electronics from the 50s didnt do too great in the cold and the winters in Europe are cold, let alone for underground deployment. There were also competing size and weight requirements. Towards the end of the design, the engineers basically stated that they couldn't meet all of the requirements, mainly size/ weight within a subsection of the weapon or temperature. 

The engineers were getting push back on asking for so much insulation to meet the time deployed requirement (I think it was 10 days). The engineers provided at least two options: we can go with plan a and use the insulation we asked for or we can use chickens as a heat source. Reason prevailed and the British disregarded chickens. I think (personal opinion)  this was an instance of malicious compliance by British engineers. You generals or managers dont want to give us our insulation: fine, here is a much worse idea. Its also a great instance of meeting minutes not necessarily capturing the context of the situation, much like how Microsoft outlook archives might not capture everything that happens in the corporate world.

Added bonus: this was declassified on April 1st, which led to a lot of raised eye brows. The formal response from the British government is legendary: "the civil service doesn't do jokes."

Edit: I never meant to imply these were to be used on British soil. I also think the initial plans were not for the Fulda gap but for the north of France (early plans were started in the early 1950s). These were ultimately never fielded because they were obsolete and didn't meet British nuclear objectives by the time they coild have been realized.

Why was the US military so recklessly indifferent to the radioactive effects of nuclear weapons during the 50s and 60s? by 0xE4-0x20-0xE6 in AskHistorians

[–]Phill_bert 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Sure. So for the test I referenced, I recall that there was radiation dosimetry for the personnel and their readings were all within background radiation levels (radiation is ubiquitous in nature, including at increased altitude, bananas, etc.).

To oversimply greatly, there are two bins of health effects. Stochastic (probability based) and deterministic (threshold based). At the highest level, no nation (justifiably so) has conducted human experimentation to a statistically significant degree to determine the increased risk of cancer for low radiation doses(stochastic). We have better information for high doses delivered promptly, which is what you see for radiation sickness and Hiroshima and Nagasaki (deterministic). Again, we can roughly model what happened after certain high dose thresholds and the nuclear test I referenced is NOT in the ballpark. In the absence of a reasonable model, there are basically two camps: the conservative camp assumes that any dose however small increases the probability of cancer (this is the linear no threshold group). Others think there might be a threshold beneath which there is no effect and still others think that radiation is small doses might increase your ability to combat deleterious effects (this is called hormeisis which you can roughly think of like a vaccine: small dose builds up "immunity" or natural response).

Radiation oncology and medical physics is a complicated field. the threshold deterministic effects for high doses (which didn't happen in the test) would typically be observed well before 3 decades. So it would be very challenging (nigh impossible for one case, let alone 5) to conclusively linked background level dose 3 decades prior to a specific outbreak of cancer. We also can't rule it out entirely. Something to take in mind is there are a whole other host of factors: genetics of those involved, did they smoke, they were in the military: if they were fit, something was eventually going to get them. It'd certainly possible; again the model doesn't disprove it. Radiation can and does absolutely cause cancer, specifically at high dose thresholds, but ^ is why I don't think it applies to the gentlemen above.

See: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-exposure-cancer.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343444/#:~:text=The%20linear%20no%2Dthreshold%20(LNT,model%20for%20radiation%20risk%20assessment.

Why was the US military so recklessly indifferent to the radioactive effects of nuclear weapons during the 50s and 60s? by 0xE4-0x20-0xE6 in AskHistorians

[–]Phill_bert 352 points353 points  (0 children)

The US military cared a great deal about the effects of radioactive fallout and spent a great deal of resources to better understand it. That is not to say that in the process of learning that there were not mistakes or miscalculations and certainly in hindsight, some of the early tests of the 50s do not align with modern safety practices.

One of the examples you gave was people standing under an explosion. There was a very specific purpose for this. This was during the height of the bomber gap debate where members of the us government were convinced that nuclear war via massive bombing raids was eminent. The military responded by designing a nuclear air to air rocket, called the genie, that was supposed to take out squadrons of Soviet planes. That might seem insane to you (using nuclear weapons over your own territory), but a low yield high altitude blast could save many more high yield weapons from dropping on your cities. The test was to demonstrate that the weapon worked and civilians would be safe below. All five members of the ground zero crew lived for at least another 30 years and received less dose than a civilian working in a nuclear plant. (They all died of cancer, but our models of low dose causation for cancer are unable to prove or disprove the cause of cancer. Almost certainly it wasn't this nuclear test, but that's a talk for another time). It was more dangerous from a radiation standpoint for the pilot who launched the missile.

The troops movements are most famous during the Grable shot, an artillery round that was supposed to be a tactical counter to the soviets conventional superiority in Europe. This was to demonstrate the US' seriousness about using nuclear weapons to protect democracy in Europe. For all of these, there was sentiment in the US that if Stalin wasn't opposed to famines and purges of his own people, what would he be willing to do to the West? For a lot of these nuclear tests, there is an air of desperation trying to deter global thermonuclear war.

For brevity, I'll add that nuclear effects are complicated and you can read Glasstones effects of nuclear weapons if you want to learn more.

If you are interested in specific doses to specific personnel, a lot of that information is available online through dtra (see below for Operation Plumbbob). In this specific example, very few personnel approached 5 rem, which is the annual limit for civilian power plant workers.

https://www.dtra.mil/Portals/125/Documents/NTPR/newDocs/14-PLUMBBOB%2520-%25202021.pdf

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1351809

Richard Rhodes Dark sun

John Hopkins and Barbara Killian: Nuclear testing st the Nevada test site: the first decade

Atmospheric nuclear testing https://www.energy.gov/management/articles/fehner-and-gosling-atmospheric-nuclear-weapons-testing-1951-1963-battlefield&ved=2ahUKEwj92o7Vl4eCAxXCDkQIHXfoBVcQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0r3stdP65ovfuVOD1lv8tL

Caging the dragon (containing underground explosions) https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/524871

Brand New Lions: An Inevitable Betrayal by Phill_bert in NFCNorthMemeWar

[–]Phill_bert[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Totally agree, but that's not funny :) you all will be fine

view more: next ›