Does this look like a tactical nuke to you?
just a repost of your average ruzzian ammo depot smoking accident
No.
Five minutes ago saar great Russia lost thirty thousand depots in the blink of an eye saar and the benchods just fuckin' watched. Tomorrow saar there will be no shortage of real army showdown in Kyiv saar no shortage of needful replacement volunteers I know you need tech support 100%.
>>64446513Was this from an Ammo depot? Or one of the munitions plant that got blown to smithereens recently?
>>64446513No. Nuclear explosion look cleaner (no sparks or things flying from the center or secoundary explosions). >inb4 b-but the shrooomAll explosion will shroom, it's a consequence of hot gases being less dense and gravity.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbp-_NhCbxg
I could be dumb and not understand radiation. But I know that gamma rays will create random white dots on videos and pictures. I don't see any here.... but we could be too far away from the blast for gamma rays.
>>64446513>tactical nukeThere is no such thing as a 'tactical nuke'. There is a nuke and how you use it determines what it is. The idea that you'd drop a 50Mt nuke on an armoured thrust is retarded, but that doesn't make said nuke any less tactical. What you mean is 'low yield'. You drop a 1Mt nuke on an armoured thrust or a carrier strike group - you've used the nuke tactically. You are trying to change the tactical outcome by destroying high value targets. If you drop a 1Mt nuke on the government building in the capital of your opponent, you have used a low yield nuke strategically, as you've gone to hit a target to change the strategic outcome of the battle.Finally, the US view has been, since at least 2016, there is no such thing as 'tactical nuclear weapons' as ANY nuclear weapon use is considered 'a strategic game changer'.>b-b-but>a-a-autist!>s-s-shut up STOP correcting me!
>>64446513Is the /int/ bot back? Link? You guys get way better bots to fuck with, we just get BBC spammers.
>>64446546Fuck off stupid copypasta bot.
>>64446546yield doesn't appear to be all that low tbqhoverpressure secondaries propagating for 20+ seconds
Has anyone done cgi/ai nukes over a real video template? Just to see what a nuek would look like in HD, realtime, within a town/city.How bright does it get, how long does it stay bright? What does it sound like?
>>64446569>What does it sound like?if you can't make your warheads sing "rock you like a hurricane" you don't deserve to have them
>>64446546You're a fucking moron proving how a little knowledge is dangerous. Tactical, sub-strategic and strategic ARE DEFINED TERMS. You can find them references in US/NATO and Soviet/Russian documentation.fucking idiot explanation how would New Start even work if weapons had no role definition???
>>64446590i identify a tri-binary btw
>>64446513you want to see a tactical nuke? wait an hour and check your toilet.
>>64446513where is the lenticular ring?
>>64446666>it's a hohol depot
>>64446546No, there is no tactical first strike. There is a tactical nuke in that it is focused on an effect rather than AoE damage. Small nukes generally are tactical and MEANT for counter-force use.
>>64446546[muffled hon hon hon in the distance]
>>64446513Lucky for you the US conducted hundreds and hundreds of nuclear weapons tests, all recorded on high quality film, so we can all see exactly how hellish a nuclear bomb really is.
>>64446569>Just to see what a nuek would look like in HDThe US recorded their nuclear tests on cutting edge film cameras. The footage is already more than HD.
>>64446733meant to post the full size image
>>64446766>different time of day>different location>different explosionAre you retarded?
>>64446740why am I erect?
>>64446513No but this sure is.
>>64446513no, it would overwhelm the camera sensor if so
Unless the explosion occurs underground or underwater, a nuclear explosion will produce a flash of light that is incomparable to that produced by conventional explosives.
>>64446513The cameraman would be blind, and I’m pretty sure the trees would be on fire.
>>64446513if it was a nuke wouldn't the emp wave knock out the camera or is that hollywood bs?
>>64447297Mostly Hollywood BS
>>64447300isn't it something like the higher the nuke goes off the stronger and wider the EMP is? Goldeneye status?
>>64447307No.
>>64447218>The cameraman would be blindWhy? Feynman reportedly watched the first nuclear explosion with naked eyes, behind a simple windshield.
>>64447307It’s more complicated than that, but yes, elevation of the detonation plays a part.
>>64447332That’s either bullshit, or you’re omitting important details, because a nuclear blast is so bright it can leave an imprint of your shadow on a wall behind you.
>>64446513it looks like chun li
>>64447353If you’re within the blast radius, yes. Just seeing it from a distance won’t blind you.
>>64446513There's no faint blue glow in the fireball you get from ionization you would definitely see it in the dark like that.>tactical nukeHere's the 2020 beirut explosion. Approx 1 kiloton of fertilizer, tiny by nuke standards. How small an explosion do you consider "tactical"?
>>64446513Heh booba explosion
>>64447419
>>64447419there was a youtube channel that was posting footage from the explosion from every angle possible, it was the coolest thing ever
>>64446513>Tags: Breast expansion
>>64447433The explosion resistance of large grain silos is of interest.
>>64446666>>64446766You're both wrong. This is the 107th Arsenal detonation in Toropets from last year.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toropets_depot_explosionshttps://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-targets-western-russian-regions-with-drones-russian-officials-says-2024-09-18/
>>64447572I bet 10 rubles that the >It was an Ukrainian depotposters will quietly disappear into the ether now and won't challenge this post.
>>64446513Nope here is a 1 kiloton nuke for comparisonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSi2IRXrhSo
>>64446513It looks sexy as fuck is what it looks.>>64446531It's the Toropetz ammo depot explosion from last year. Absolutely spectacular blow, especially the secondaries.
>>64447997>hello 911? there's been a huge explosion in my region>oh wait, cancel that... its just me
>>64447572>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toropets_depot_explosions>On the night of 17–18 September 2024Of fucking COURSE it had to happen while I was off the grid. This reality is scared of me and does funny shit only when I'm not around.
>>64448075I hear camping can be a lot of fun; you should go more often.
>>64446529tomorrow the lobsters were whistling on mountains there will be no shortage of raised brows, no shortage of butter beneath the sandwich fucked of ass in ass
>>64447536Why did someone AI breast expansion this random video
>>64446569The nuclear chain reaction only lasts for about a microsecond, after which the core has self-annihilated and blown itself apart, preventing further reaction. The continued glow is the leftover plasma, which stays bright until it rises and cools.The sound of a nuke depends on how far away you are. Far enough away, it's just any other thundering boom, going down the scale to being close enough where you don't get to hear it, because you've been flash-fried. The follow-up soundwave that would let you 'hear' it, is also the pressure wave, which will blow you apart like a cannonball hitting a bag of jerky.
>>64446513it's very obviously a chemical explosion, nukes are much, much brighter and don't leave a deflagration behind
>>64446798nukes don't produce a flame
>>64446717>>64446733
>>64446717Oh my. This one is truly beautiful.
>>64448106You should see the one where she turns around.
>>64446513>Does this look like a tactical nuke to you?Thats nothing like a nuclear weapon
>>64446513No, because I'm not a scared ignorant idiot.
>>64446513No, not at all.
>>64447353>because a nuclear blast is so bright it can leave an imprint of your shadow on a wall behind you.Retard
>>64446513>September 21, 2024what a throwback
