The Gaming Den

Stahlseele wrote:Germany beat Canada in their national sport ice hockey in olympia . .
Now, granted, that was only their reserve team, because the NFL is still ongoing but still . .
A bit strange.

So, Canada has to be very politely annoyed, and Germany has to be excited, but without taking any national pride?

More or less . .
Beating Canada in their own national sport is a bit cheeky i think.
Kinda as if one were to go to brazil and then score 7 to 1 in soccer . . oh wait, that appearantly happened as well?
Gods damn it since when is germany worth taking serious in sportsball things? x.x

Stahlseele wrote:More or less . .
Beating Canada in their own national sport is a bit cheeky i think.
Kinda as if one were to go to brazil and then score 7 to 1 in soccer . . oh wait, that appearantly happened as well?
Gods damn it since when is germany worth taking serious in sportsball things? x.x

German divegrass has been world class for a good couple of years now.

interesting O.o
i have not been paying much attention to that . .

I always thought Germany does anything it sets its mind to with a ruthless efficiency. Also wouldn't that be NHL? NFL is the American National Felons League (Handegg)

'Prolly not, since there were no NHL players at the Olympics this year, and the US team was comprised of minor league and collage players. And lost to the Czechs.

The Czechs are a hockey power and sometimes even take Gold. They commissioned an opera to celebrate their Olympic hockey victory in Nagano. I've seen it, it's definitely a fun opera. It celebrates their victory over the hockey powers of United States, Russia, and Canada. It remains the only time I have ever seen Canada represented in art as an enormous bully.





-Username17

*blink blink*
ok now that is cool ^^

In Putin's speech, yesterday, he boasted Russia developed low-flying missile with a random path that cannot be detected or intercepted by current or future (?) technology. It would bypass the US defense shield for Europe and Asia. It delivers a nuclear payload that can reach anywhere.

He used this point to pivot, saying this is done as defense.

No better defense than a good offense right?

Eh, Russia says a lot of things about its military.

In this case, I think I'd mostly believe them, because he's just gone and tacked "practically unlimited range" (yeah, whatever) onto "guided missile with nuclear warhead (yeah, had those for decades).

The same article also say "Another weapon he discussed was a submarine launched, long-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead". Those have been around since Putin was...*googles*...7 years old.

The US (and for that matter, UK) has SSBNs, so, again, yeah whatever.

Possibly he's talking about nukes cause Trump is, though.

RobbyPants wrote:In Putin's speech, yesterday, he boasted Russia developed low-flying missile with a random path that cannot be detected or intercepted by current or future (?) technology. It would bypass the US defense shield for Europe and Asia. It delivers a nuclear payload that can reach anywhere.

He used this point to pivot, saying this is done as defense.

In this case, a missile like this actually is a defensive weapon. The only possible defense against a nuclear capable foe is owning your own nuclear weapons with a method of delivery guaranteed to work even if that foe is trying their best to kill you. Ideally, your nuclear weapons must seek their intended targets and explode over them even if that foe already killed you.

Having this is what changes your foe's language from "we're stablishing a no-fly zone" to "we'll impose harsher sanctions". This is just how international relations work.

nockermensch wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:In Putin's speech, yesterday, he boasted Russia developed low-flying missile with a random path that cannot be detected or intercepted by current or future (?) technology. It would bypass the US defense shield for Europe and Asia. It delivers a nuclear payload that can reach anywhere.

He used this point to pivot, saying this is done as defense.

In this case, a missile like this actually is a defensive weapon. The only possible defense against a nuclear capable foe is owning your own nuclear weapons with a method of delivery guaranteed to work even if that foe is trying their best to kill you. Ideally, your nuclear weapons must seek their intended targets and explode over them even if that foe already killed you.

Having this is what changes your foe's language from "we're stablishing a no-fly zone" to "we'll impose harsher sanctions". This is just how international relations work.

In before said missile rolls a 1 and random paths back to somewhere in Russia.

Pariah Dog wrote:

nockermensch wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:In Putin's speech, yesterday, he boasted Russia developed low-flying missile with a random path that cannot be detected or intercepted by current or future (?) technology. It would bypass the US defense shield for Europe and Asia. It delivers a nuclear payload that can reach anywhere.

He used this point to pivot, saying this is done as defense.

In this case, a missile like this actually is a defensive weapon. The only possible defense against a nuclear capable foe is owning your own nuclear weapons with a method of delivery guaranteed to work even if that foe is trying their best to kill you. Ideally, your nuclear weapons must seek their intended targets and explode over them even if that foe already killed you.

Having this is what changes your foe's language from "we're stablishing a no-fly zone" to "we'll impose harsher sanctions". This is just how international relations work.

In before said missile rolls a 1 and random paths back to somewhere in Russia.

I think you're giving him too much credit. Just claiming to have magic invincible missiles should just be a moment for the audience.

I wonder when they will start making unmanned submarines with a nuclear payload for coastal attacks.
You should be able to make them small and with electric engines silent enough that they can simply drive straight into an enemy harbour for example, surface and go kaboom. Even if it is just a small tactical or subtactical sized warhead, it would still be a devastating thing to have happen, especially concerning morale . .

I'm totally on board with countries having unstoppable nukes so long as they can't prevent second strikes. Mutually assured destruction is way better than World War 3, even if only a handful of nukes successfully strike their targets.

ironically, ausfailia might be the sole survivor due to not being important enough to nuke . .
on the other hand, considering how horrible it is in ausfailia as of right now, imagine what wonders a bit of radiation could do for the aussie monstrosities.

Stahlseele wrote:I wonder when they will start making unmanned submarines with a nuclear payload for coastal attacks.
You should be able to make them small and with electric engines silent enough that they can simply drive straight into an enemy harbour for example, surface and go kaboom. Even if it is just a small tactical or subtactical sized warhead, it would still be a devastating thing to have happen, especially concerning morale . .

You don't actually need that, you can have a normal cargo vessel which leaves something on the sea floor when it sails away, they've been thinking about that since the 50s or so. Big cloud of radioactive steam over everything. Not sure why electric engines would be quieter, lots of subs have those already.

Stahlseele wrote:ironically, ausfailia might be the sole survivor due to not being important enough to nuke

Actually, no. The Soviets would have targeted minor countries, even neutral or allied ones if WW3 broke out. Usually just hitting the enemy capital, because anyone left alone is a dangerous world power after the dust settles.

Electric Engines just ARE quieter.
Much fewer moving parts, no combustion going on, no fuelpumps needed etc.
That is exactly WHY electric engines are used in submarines in the first place.
But an unmanned sub can be much much smaller, which means again it needs less power to move, so screws can turn slower and are smaller as well, which means again less noise produced. And things that small are remarkably hard to pick up at all on radar, sonar and basically anything else.
If you do not build it out of ferrous metals, even a magnetic anomaly detection system won't find it.

I will, however, concede the point of powers left alone becoming dangerous when the dust settles . . and nobody wants ausfailia to become a danger to the world. No not even a completely nuked one. Nobody deserves that.
Not even irradiated survivors of the nuclear holocaust and upcoming winter.

As far as I can tell, there's still no reliable method of controlling such a drone sub at any distance.

Stahlseele wrote:But an unmanned sub can be much much smaller, which means again it needs less power to move, so screws can turn slower and are smaller as well, which means again less noise produced. And things that small are remarkably hard to pick up at all on radar, sonar and basically anything else.

Ok, fair enough, though that sounds more like a torpedo rather than a sub.

Stahlseele wrote:If you do not build it out of ferrous metals, even a magnetic anomaly detection system won't find it.

Can you make an electric motor without ferrous metals?

In any case, I don't think many ports around the world would be set up very well to detect incoming torpedoes. Or intercept them in time if they did.

@angelfromanotherpin
autopilots work remarkably well for ocean going vessels with no real obstructions in the way.

@Thaluikhain
Yeah, basically a larger Torpedo but with a nuclear paylod in the kilotons range instead of conventional boomex.

Tactical Intercontinental TorpedoS(TITS). When they are getting used, stuff is going tits up!

No no, the MOTOR needs to have some ferrous/magnetic parts, but the hull does not!

Stahlseele wrote:@angelfromanotherpin
autopilots work remarkably well for ocean going vessels with no real obstructions in the way.

Would that be GPS based, though? GPS is easy messed with, and I don't know if the signal would work underwater at any depth.

(As an aside, seriously, people need to stop relying on GPS so much. And not just those people that drive off cliffs or something following directions from their GPS)

Stahlseele wrote:No no, the MOTOR needs to have some ferrous/magnetic parts, but the hull does not!

Gotcha.

Stahlseele wrote:@angelfromanotherpin
autopilots work remarkably well for ocean going vessels with no real obstructions in the way.

Harbors (and the surrounding waters) don't have 'no real obstructions.' They have the opposite of that, a large number of dynamic obstructions. Also, you still have to be able to communicate with the sub to tell it to arm and detonate the bomb; nobody's going to rely on a timer or other auto-system for that.