Eliminating Nuclear Weapons - 25 November 1998
ELIMINATING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
A Survival Guide for the Twenty-first Century
P J Keating
University of New South Wales
25 November 1998
Paul Keating saw the end of the Cold War, that epiphany at the end of the twentieth century, as an unprecedented and probably unrepeatable opportunity to create a new international strategic environment—one free of nuclear weapons. With the Cold War over, a concrete program of weapons elimination was possible; lacking was the imagination and the will. But no government had ever contemplated yet put its name to a report urging the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The Labor government in Australia was the first to do so. In 1995 Paul Keating established the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The Commission produced the first ever handbook of practical measures to move the world down the path to better nuclear safety and to a point of full nuclear elimination. The Report stressed that there could be no nuclear non-proliferation without de-proliferation—the notion that some states could have nuclear weapons but others not. The Report was a milestone in the international debate. Upon completion it was presented to the Howard government, which refused to promote its recommendations.
In earlier lectures at this university I have spoken mostly about Australia and its place in the world. Tonight I want to discuss a darker and more dangerous subject, one that threatens to cast a long shadow over the twenty-first century.
I am talking about the continuing inability of the international community, and more particularly the great powers, to take the steps necessary to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world.
In some ways, I suppose, I am an unexpected campaigner for nuclear disarmament. I am a realist about international affairs and I don’t have great faith in the inherent goodwill of the nation state. I have never seen much point in the politics of symbolism. During the Cold War I thought ideas of unilateral disarmament were naïve and dangerous.
And yet the issue of nuclear weapons worries me more than any other when I think about the sort of world young Australians will inherit.
Over the past decade the world has undergone deep changes. The Cold War, which defined our international system for 50 years, has ended and the information revolution is transforming our lives and societies. But in many ways our institutions, and our ways of thinking, have not adjusted. As a result, we find ourselves on the verge of the twenty-first century dangerously close to repeating the mistakes of this one.
One reason for this is the human tendency to avert our eyes from problems, to hope that if we do not look directly at them, they will disappear.
In the aftermath of the Cold War, this was what we did. No image in the twentieth century has seared our collective consciousness like that of the mushroom cloud. And in our minds that image of the bomb defined the Cold War. So although nuclear weapons had originally been conceived for a different conflict, we assumed that because the Cold War was over, the weapons that defined it had miraculously disappeared as well.
For most Australians, the realisation that this was not so came with the announcement by President Chirac, on 13 June 1995, that France would conduct a series of eight underground nuclear-weapons tests at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia.
In making this decision the newly elected President was following China in breaking an international moratorium on testing that had been in place since January 1993.
The resumption had been foreshadowed during the French election campaign, so it was not unexpected. But the outcry in Australia was immediate and strong.
In response to the tests, the government I led took a series of measures including recalling the Ambassador to France, curtailing defence contacts, and coordinating protest action in the United Nations and other international bodies, including the South Pacific Forum, which Australia was chairing that year.
This did not much diminish the public clamour. The government was being urged to break diplomatic relations with France, cut off all trade, and dispatch Australian warships to stop the tests. Sections of the media, especially commercial radio, were running a campaign that became more anti-French than anti-nuclear. It seemed at times as if the smoke of the Battle of Agincourt had only just cleared. At several points I had to underline publicly that our opposition was to the nuclear tests, not to the people of France.
The selfishness and cynicism of the Chirac decision appalled me and I was deeply concerned by the provocation it provided to some of the threshold nuclear states. But I was not interested in the sort of theatrical and ultimately pointless gestures that were being urged upon us. Trade sanctions would have harmed Australia more than France. I was certainly not prepared to permit Australia’s military forces to be used for symbolic reasons. Short of going to war with France, which was absurd, the only option for the warships would have been to steam around in circles while the French exploded their bombs. This would have underlined not Australia’s strength but our impotence.
The more I thought about the French tests, the more I came to feel that the understandable public outrage was in a sense directed at a symptom rather than a cause of the problem.
The French had reminded everyone of what we all wanted to forget—the unique, sickening sense of insecurity which comes from knowing that weapons exist in the arsenals of governments which have the capacity to destroy humankind. The problem, in other words, was the continued existence of nuclear weapons in the world.
As I reflected on this, I thought we had an unprecedented and possibly unrepeatable opportunity to begin to move to a new strategic environment which offered not just a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons, but their elimination. The Gulf War had shown that new, accurate, conventional weapons could accomplish the military purposes for which nuclear weapons had once been intended, but without such appalling, indiscriminate consequences. The Cold War had ended, all the declared nuclear powers were at least on speaking terms, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons had, for the time being, been reasonably contained. There was no prospect, however, that this situation would continue into the indefinite future.
The goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world was not new. It had been a long-term aim of the Labor Party and a goal that had been articulated forcefully by others.
But as long as the Cold War raged, the ambition was unachievable. Now, however, we had an opportunity to develop a concrete program to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world.
The successful negotiation of the chemical weapons convention in which Australia had played an important diplomatic role had shown that it was possible to put the genie back in the bottle; that a whole class of weapons of mass destruction could be abolished. And Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which had only recently been indefinitely extended, committed the nuclear-weapons states to ‘pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament’.
But of course the task of ridding the world of nuclear weapons was not something Australia could accomplish unilaterally. We had none of our own to eliminate and we were committed not to get them. We were well respected internationally for our arms control expertise. But we were now entering a domain where the deepest national security interests of the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France were involved.
Every country was directly affected by the nuclear threat, but nothing could happen without the five nuclear powers.
We decided, therefore, that the most useful thing we could do was to try to shape the international debate. Anti-nuclear groups had written many reports about the problems of nuclear weapons but, until that time, no government had ever put its name behind a report committed to their elimination. I wanted to put the authority of a sovereign government behind the push to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
So in October 1995 we announced the formation of a commission comprising a group of eminent scientists, disarmament experts, military strategists and statesmen and asked them to develop ‘concrete and realistic steps for achieving a nuclear-weapons-free world’.
The emphasis was to be on ‘concrete and realistic’. I saw no point in another rhetorical statement that nuclear weapons were evil and should be abolished. Any report which was to have a chance of convincing the hard-headed defence establishments of North America and Europe to change their positions had to be grounded in a deep understanding of what elimination meant, both technically and strategically.
These are matters of the greatest complexity and profundity. They are not easily resolved. The problems include verification—that is, how you can be sure everyone abides by an agreement; dealing with break-outs—situations in which one country tries to snatch strategic advantage by breaking the agreement; and the broader implications of such a major change in the global-security environment for issues such as the deterrence of chemical and biological weapons and of conventional war.
We were very lucky to get together an outstanding group of commissioners. The members included Joseph Rotblat, who had won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the Pugwash Foundation; General Lee Butler, who had been responsible until 1994 for all United States strategic nuclear forces; Field Marshal Lord Carver, the former chief of the British Defence Staff; Robert McNamara, the former US Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank; and a number of internationally regarded disarmament experts. The distinguished Australian strategic thinker, Professor Robert O’Neill, was a member, as was Richard Butler, then the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations, now the UN’s Chief Weapons Inspector. I believed the group should also include someone with direct political experience, so I invited Michel Rocard, the former French Prime Minister, to participate.
These were not people who had come down in the last shower. They had very different backgrounds and brought different assumptions about nuclear weapons to their work. Some were long-time peace activists; some had had nuclear weapons directly in their control. If this diverse and distinguished group could agree on the road ahead, we hoped they would be able to persuade others.
We provided resources to permit the group to commission more detailed papers from expert advisers on specific dimensions of the move to a nuclear-weapons-free world. This brought a range of international scholars into the project. Their work has provided a rich resource lode for further debate about this issue.
By the time the commission reported in August 1996, it was made to the conservative Howard government which replaced mine in March 1996.
The recommendations were based on the fundamental assumption that ‘the proposition that large numbers of nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used—accidentally or by decision— defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and the assurance that they will never be produced again’.
The report recommended a number of immediate steps to reduce the dangers of nuclear war as well as longer-term moves towards the larger goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The immediate steps proposed included taking nuclear forces off alert; removing warheads from delivery vehicles; ending the deployment of non-strategic nuclear weapons; ending nuclear testing; initiating another round of negotiations between the US and Russia to reduce their arsenals; and a joint agreement by nuclear-weapons states not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
The commissioners also recommended a series of reinforcing steps to build on these foundations. These included measures to prevent further horizontal proliferation, not only by countries but by terrorist groups, the development of verification arrangements for a nuclear-weapons-free world, and the cessation of the production of fissile materials for nuclear explosive purposes.
As we hoped, the recommendations were realistic and practical. The commissioners did not ask for unilateral disarmament or suggest any measure that might threaten security during the process. However, they did make the fundamentally important point that, in the end, the decisions that need to be taken are not technical decisions but political ones.
It was a good start. But many excellent reports lie languishing on shelves in ministries around the world. The next step was the diplomatic one of trying to persuade others to embrace the ideas and adopt the policies.
One of my regrets about losing the 1996 election—and I have several—is the opportunity I lost to pursue the report’s recommendations as Prime Minister. I would have taken the report to the United Nations General Assembly to launch it myself. It would have been high on my agenda for discussions with President Clinton and the leaders of the other nuclear states.
But beyond receiving the report in August and lodging it at the United Nations, the Howard government did not endorse its recommendations or try to sell them more widely. The Canberra Commission was associated with the government I led, and it had been labelled a ‘stunt’ by the foreign minister, Alexander Downer, in the political atmosphere of the time. So the political momentum—at least on Australia’s part—lapsed.
This is a great pity, and not just for Australia. But other governments, I am glad to say, have taken up the cause.
In June this year the foreign ministers of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden formed a new international coalition—called the New Agenda Coalition—to push for the elimination of nuclear weapons. They explicitly drew inspiration from the Canberra Commission.
In August, in another parallel with the Canberra Commission, Japan convened the Tokyo Forum, a meeting of eighteen prominent diplomatic and strategic experts from sixteen countries to discuss the impact of nuclear testing and issues of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. I think I can reasonably say that the Canberra Commission Report brought a new atmosphere to the debate, an optimism that something better was possible.
Three years after we convened the Canberra Commission report, what is the international environment for such initiatives? I want to turn now to the current situation and the prospects for the future.
On the positive side, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was finally adopted in 1996 and some progress has been made in opening the way for negotiations on a treaty to limit the production of fissile material for weapons.
But almost all other news on the nuclear front has been bad. Twenty thousand nuclear warheads still have the capacity to destroy the world many times. Two of the states on the nuclear threshold, India and Pakistan, have now stepped over it. Another regime with a known nuclear program, North Korea, tested a medium-range ballistic missile in August. Meanwhile, Russia’s capacity to control and store its existing nuclear arsenal is atrophying. And the strategic arms negotiations between the major nuclear powers are not going anywhere. Russia has still not ratified START II. Russia, China and the United States have still not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Across the board, in other words, the impetus for change has stalled.
After years of developing its nuclear capability yet never declaring itself a nuclear power, the new Indian government openly tested weapons on 11 and 13 May this year. India can undoubtedly deploy reliable fission weapons on a wide range of delivery systems including ballistic missiles. It probably has 60 to 80 weapons.
Pakistan, India’s long-standing rival, responded with its own tests on 28 and 30 May. Pakistan’s nuclear arms are not as sophisticated or numerous as India’s, but it has technical capacities which at some time it may be tempted to share with its Middle Eastern neighbours.
Then in August we saw the successful test by North Korea of a three-stage missile capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads over 5500 kilometres. The test suggested North Korea has also made progress on a longer-range missile that would enable it to strike targets throughout Asia.
The 1994 Framework Agreement, under which North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for heavy fuel oil, help in building two light-water nuclear reactors and an eventual end to the economic embargo, is now under pressure again. North Korea has reportedly continued to work on missile launch facilities, and just this week we have seen Pyongyang deny the United States access to an underground facility that Americans believe to be a nuclear installation.
After the Indian nuclear tests, President Clinton said forcefully and accurately that ‘to think that you have to manifest your greatness by behaviour that recalls the worst events of the twentieth century on the edge of the twenty-first, when everybody else is trying to leave the nuclear age behind, is just wrong’.
But the problem, of course, is that no one else does seem to be trying to leave the nuclear age behind, or not at least with any noticeable degree of urgency. And this, the non-nuclear powers note, is despite the fact that in order to secure the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1995, the five declared nuclear weapons states recommitted themselves to pursue measures of complete and general nuclear disarmament.
The essential issue here is that you can’t have non-proliferation without de-proliferation.
It is not just states that we need to worry about as a source of new nuclear threats, but terrorists and other groups as well.
Nuclear weapons are not hard to make. You can get instructions for a workable device off the Internet. Graham Allison, Director of the Centre for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, put it this way: if a state or a terrorist group obtained as little as 30 pounds of highly enriched uranium, or less than half that weight in plutonium, they could produce a nuclear device in a matter of a month or two with design information that is publicly available, equipment that is readily available in the commercial market, and modest levels of technical competence represented in graduates of any respectable engineering program.
The only difficulty is access to fissile material. That is why we need to address much more comprehensively the problems of ‘nuclear over-hang’—essentially the security of stored nuclear weapons and excess fissile material in Russia. This is a second area that has become more dangerous since the Canberra Commission report.
At more than 90 sites across Russia, 715 tons of nuclear material are stored. This is enough to fuel 40,000 weapons.
Guarding this deadly treasure are military officers and soldiers whose morale is low and who have sometimes not been paid for months. In 1996 the then Director of Central Intelligence, John Deutch, told the U.S. Congress that of the tons of weapons-useable nuclear material distributed to various centres around Russia over the past 40 years, none had what would be regarded in the United States as sufficient accountability.
Last July, thousands of scientists at the nuclear city of Arzamas-16 went on strike after months without pay. The Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy MINATOM has told its personnel that they can no longer rely on government funds to support them and that they need to market their goods and services.
The dangers are real. In November 1993, a Russian naval officer walked out of a shipyard in Murmansk with about 10 pounds of highly enriched uranium and went looking for a buyer while it was stored in his garage. In August 1994, almost a pound of weapons-useable plutonium was seized by German police in Munich.
It is not just in Russia: the reported theft of approximately 130 barrels of enriched uranium waste from storage in South Africa was reported in the press in August 1994.
Through the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program of 1991— named the Nunn–Lugar program after the senators who co-sponsored the bill—the United States provides about $400 million a year to help secure poorly guarded Russian nuclear facilities and to help destroy weapons earmarked for destruction under current arms-control negotiations. But this accounts for only one-sixth of 1 per cent of the US defence budget. The Nunn–Lugar program is a solid investment, producing lasting security dividends. It could easily be doubled or tripled. And if the build-down is to continue, it will have to be.
Some people willingly concede the dangers that nuclear material could be diverted to rogue states or terrorists. But that just proves we need nuclear weapons, they say, in order to protect ourselves against these very prospects.
But the argument is circular. It is the argument that we need nuclear weapons because we have nuclear weapons. It is not an argument we think persuasive when applied to biological or chemical weapons.
In an outstanding article in a new collection of essays called The Force of Reason to be published shortly in honour of Joseph Rotblat, a leading member of the Canberra Commission, Professor John Holdren of Harvard University, says that such criminal threats ‘could well be the dominant nuclear threat in the next century’. He argues that the threat is not only ‘greatly aggravated by the continued existence of national nuclear arsenals, but nuclear deterrence is likely to be useless against it (because terrorists and other criminals may not be locatable, or if locatable, could not responsibly be attacked with nuclear weapons)’.
The state of the Russian nuclear arsenal has other dangerous consequences. Thousands of Russian nuclear systems are on hair-trigger alert, ready to launch at the United States in fifteen minutes. The deteriorating condition of Russian early-warning systems and the erosion of military command and control heightens the danger of an accidental or unauthorised launch. It increases the incentive for the Russians to adopt a ‘use them or lose them’ strategy for their strategic arsenal. We reportedly came very close to such a situation in 1995 when a Norwegian research rocket was mistaken for a United States missile attack and the whole Russian system went on alert.
The economic collapse and the decline in conventional military capabilities tempts Russia to place extra weight on its nuclear forces to compensate. This is the reason Moscow has abandoned its long-standing declaratory policy of ‘No First Use’ of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the strategic nuclear negotiations are stalled. The burst of activity from the conclusion of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty of 1987, through START I in 1991, which halved long-range missiles, to START II in January 1993, which imposed a further 50 per cent cut in strategic nuclear forces, has run into the sand. And Russian hardliners are pointing to the expansion of NATO to the borders of the old Soviet Union as a reason for Russia to maintain its nuclear capabilities. The Russian Parliament has refused to ratify the START II treaty, which it believes advantages the United States. Russia cannot afford to modernise and replace ageing and decaying nuclear forces and it is slipping inexorably further behind the United States’ numbers and capabilities. It simply cannot afford its vast nuclear arsenal and is seeking much larger cuts.
In the United States political pressure is growing for a National Missile Defense System to respond to a perceived evolving ballistic missile threat. This would certainly mean abrogating the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and would cause the Russians to walk away from START I and II, fearing that the United States could quickly upgrade a missile defence system into a shield behind which it could launch a first strike.
In this depressing landscape—a period in arms control negotiations that some have called ‘the great frustration’—the agenda for action set out in the Canberra Commission report remains highly relevant.
First we need to urge the steps recommended by the Canberra Commission to de-alert the nuclear arsenals—to lengthen the fuse by extending real launch preparation time. This means removing vital parts of the systems. An agreement between the Russians and the Americans in 1994 to de-target missiles was essentially meaningless.
Original targets can be fed back into the computer in seconds. But de-alerting—in other words, standing the missiles down—will require an effective and intrusive inspection system.
Second, we need to press speedily ahead with negotiation of the fission material cut-off treaty which will halt the production of fissile material (that is, weapons-grade plutonium and uranium) for nuclear weapons. This treaty will begin negotiations next January in the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, but the scale and scope of the negotiations are still not agreed.
The fissile cut-off treaty will be a companion to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Banning tests constrains technological improvements. The fission treaty will constrain the production of the material that goes in them.
Third, we need to urge Russia and the United States to move as quickly as possible to leap-frog START II with a new and radical START III which rectifies the emerging numerical inequality in favour of the United States and gets nuclear numbers down so low that the other nuclear weapons states are brought into the negotiations.
For my part, however, I do not think such measures will be enough.
I don’t believe that any objective short of zero will be able to generate the political consensus necessary to stop an eventual break-out. Even if only a handful of weapons are held by Washington and Moscow and Beijing, even if they are held in ‘strategic escrow’ under some form of international supervision as General Stansfield Turner and others have suggested, I find it impossible to imagine why a future South American government, or some future African leader, convinced that Africa has been abused and marginalised, will not understand the disproportionate strategic advantages that accrue to states with even crude nuclear weapons and will not ask: why not us?
And there is no defensible answer to that question. That is why I believe only a full commitment to, and an active program to secure, the elimination of nuclear weapons will ever be sufficient to secure our safety.
Even so, the goal of elimination can’t be accomplished by the arms control route alone.
It is also—even essentially—a debate about global power and influence and I believe it will only be resolved in that context. We have come to see nuclear weapons as the ultimate global status symbol. Membership of the United Nations Security Council remains coterminous with the possession of nuclear weapons. And United Nations reform, so high on everyone’s agenda when the Cold War ended, has faltered.
The senior adviser to the Indian Prime Minister on security issues defended India’s decision to declare itself a nuclear state by writing that his country was ‘assigned a particular place in the world order and not treated as a subject responding to our own interests’. That frustration lies at the heart of India’s decision to test. I’m not arguing that countries should be rewarded for flouting international norms. But I do not think we can create an adequate architecture for the world without finding a place in it for the democratic government that speaks for the one billion people of India.
More broadly, a larger and more sustainable role has to be found for China, India and Japan. And with the EU’s expansion, and the creation of the euro, Europe urgently needs to address the fundamentals of its own structure to see how it can act more effectively beyond its own continent.
The link between nuclear weapons and the broad strategic environment is particularly important to Australia and its region.
In North Asia, more than any other part of the world—more, even, than the Middle East—a combination of historical animosities, unresolved relationships, territorial disputes and technologically sophisticated economies makes it distressingly plausible to envisage conditions emerging which might induce Japan or South Korea or Taiwan to seek nuclear weapons. The further introduction of nuclear weapons into the North Asian strategic equation would be catastrophic.
A very senior Chinese leader once told me—decisively and with great passion—that China would never permit Japan to possess nuclear weapons. It would act to pre-empt such a situation arising.
This raises again the urgent need for a more structured defence and security framework in the Asia Pacific, one which can provide transparency and reassurance at a time of growing uncertainty. The ASEAN Regional Forum has been a good first step, but it can’t carry us through pressures ahead. I had hoped the APEC Leaders’ Meeting might be able to develop as an umbrella on top of a regional security forum, but that hope is dimming as APEC membership expands and its energy diminishes. This is an issue of the highest priority for the region, and a program to eliminate nuclear weapons globally must also comprehend the more general problem of regional security.
People might well say this is an argument about which Australians can do little. Our capacity to influence the world is limited.
But Australia has shown it can play an active part in the global debate. We have an internationally regarded body of officials working on arms control issues. They form a national—in fact, an international—asset whose expertise should be preserved.
We can raise our voice. Both major Australian political parties are committed to the alliance relationship with the United States. This allows us at least the privilege of having our arguments heard. We should be using our voice as powerfully and persuasively as we can, and not just with the administration but with Congress as well.
I believe the government should seriously consider suggestions that have been made to reconvene the Canberra Commission, probably with a different membership, to re-examine in current circumstances its practical and realistic program for moving to a world without nuclear weapons. As a firm ally of the United States, with a high reputation in international arms control negotiations, Australia has a better chance than any other country to refocus international debate on the final goal of abolishing nuclear weapons. The government would have my enthusiastic support for such an initiative.
But this is not just a matter for governments. Increasingly, the international agenda can be shaped from outside. We have seen this with the success of the international campaign against landmines.
We face a long struggle to get rid of nuclear weapons and we might not succeed. But you can be absolutely sure that if the pressure is not kept on governments, if the issues and alternatives are not debated, if the voice of public opinion is not raised, then the line of least resistance will be taken.
And that line will always be to let things slide—to hope that in the next hundred years some new, more ruthless or more able Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il won’t emerge, that somehow the skills of Russian nuclear scientists now on the market will not be made available to some terrorist group, and that we will get through it all unscathed.
I want to end this lecture by quoting not a politician or an anti-nuclear activist but a man from the heart of the nuclear establishment. General Lee Butler was the former head of United States Strategic Nuclear Command, and a key member of the Canberra Commission panel.
Accepting the prestigious Henry L Stimson award for distinguished public service last year, General Butler said he was dismayed that:
‘even among more serious commentators, the lessons of fifty years at the nuclear brink can be so grievously misread, that the assertions and assumptions underpinning an era of desperate threats and risks prevail unchallenged, that a handful of nations cling to the impossible notion that the power of nuclear weapons is so immense their use can be threatened with impunity, yet their proliferation contained. Albert Einstein recognised this hazardous but very human tendency many years ago, when he warned that ‘the power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.’
I hope that is wrong. But drifting is the right word to describe what all of us—nuclear and non-nuclear powers alike—have been doing over the past few years.
And those who think there are no risks, who believe we are sure to glide safely past the rocks and shoals because we have done so before, should at least reflect on the history of the last issue I spoke of in this auditorium—the Asian economic crisis. The economic, social and political uncertainty we are seeing around us seemed unimaginable in 1997, to even the most informed and sober observers. Just so, ten years earlier, would the disappearance of the Soviet Union have seemed unimaginable.
And however unlikely nuclear catastrophe may seem to us now, here in Sydney on this peaceful November evening, if our judgements are wrong, the consequences will be terrible and ineradicable.
Our challenge—as always, in everything—is one of imagination.


The end of the world sure has its challenges. Staying alive is the primary one, and that isn't possible without some hefty weapons at one's side. Fallout 4's modding community has given the relatively straightforward weapons system quite a makeover throughout the years, and the results are spectacular.
RELATED: Fallout 76: The Weakest Weapons That No Player Wants To Use
The following is a list of the top weapons mods players can bring to their Fallout 4 experience. Some of these feature new weapons, others overhaul existing ones, and some mods affect the combat system itself. The number of available mods is so great that we have updated this article to feature five more which are guaranteed to provide some much-needed vibrancy to the existing weapons system.
Updated on June 27, 2022 by RItwik Mitra: Fallout 4 might be a pretty divisive game for many fans, but there are areas that the game excels in. The improvement of the series' overall gameplay is definitely a huge positive and makes for a great time, and the inclusion of mods can make Fallout 4 even more enjoyable. Players who want their weapon choices and selection to be extensive and unique should check out the following weapon mods for Fallout 4, this list now updated with even more entries.
THEGAMER VIDEO OF THE DAY
20 SIG MCX - Assault Rifle
The SIG MCX is one of the most effective and powerful firearms out there. Players who love modern guns can use a mod to bring this assault rifle over to Fallout 4.
The sheer level of customization options when it comes to this mod is pretty great, and is easily one of the more impressive parts of the overall package. It helps that the SIG MCX itself is a solid weapon, with good stopping power without being too overpowered.
19 Combined Arms
Sometimes, players might find it slightly cumbersome to download mods one at a time. It just feels more convenient to download a pack of weapon mods that are fairly good, but it's hard to find one particular collection that is universally beloved.
The Combined Arms mod is pretty great, with an interesting and diverse collection of weapons. This mod has an expansion pack as well, and is considered by most players to be one of the better weapon mods out there.
18 Machineguns Rebirth
Any rapid-fire machine gun is bound to be fun to use, and Fallout 4 understands this completely. It's easy to see why the miniguns in the game are some of the very best, and a ton of fun to use.
This mod brings back the classic machine guns of the Fallout series, along with new additions of its own. It's a great weapon mod that fans of heavy weapons should definitely check out.
17 Agency Arms Benelli M2 - Shotgun
Using a shotgun in a video game is a satisfying feeling that simply can't be beat. So, any fan of weapon mods in Fallout 4 would love the idea of downloading a custom shotgun that packs a ton of firepower.
RELATED: Fallout 4: The Best PS4 Mods, Ranked
Adding the Benelli M2 Shotgun is going to turn the Sole Survivor into an absolute powerhouse in Fallout 4. It helps that the gun is customizable enough to keep it fresh and engaging, hours after players are done using it.
16 The Zap Gun - A Makeshift Laser Weapon
The Zap Gun has the potential to go from a weak pistol into a deadly flamethrower that can absolutely destroy anything in its path. It's a great weapon that deserves all the praise it gets.
The immense customization the Zap Gun offers is the major reason why it has become a favorite of so many modders. Players who want their playthrough to be full to the brim with great, lore-friendly weapon mods should look no further than the Zap Gun.
15 Crossbows Of The Commonwealth
Post-apocalyptic TV shows, movies, and video games inevitably feature a crossbow at one point or another. From a psychological perspective, it's easy to see why. They're large, mean, and pack a tremendous wallop, without alerting scores of enemies.
Crossbows of the Commonwealth is a mod that seems to agree. It adds a highly customizable crossbow weapons system into the game, including various bolts that can be retrieved after a successful kill. The perfect mod for stealth players.
14 Extended Weapon Mods
If tinkering and customizing weapons is your thing, Extended Weapon Mods has all the goodies required to sate that desire. The mod allows players to Frankenstein weapons into a variety of makeshift and engineered variants to suit their playing style.
10mm pistols can be converted into rifles, .44s get bump stocks, and double-barreled shotguns can be turned into triples. That's just the tip of the iceberg. It's the perfect mod for those who feel that the vanilla weapons system is a bit too anemic.
13 LString Fallout Bow
There are a few bow and arrow mods for Fallout 4, but LString Fallout Bow is certainly one of the best. This mod adds a wooden, recurve, and compound bow to the game which can be crafted from the chemistry menu.
In addition, bows can be outfitted with several scopes for more accurate aiming, and they can also be used as a melee weapon up close. Craftable arrows include stone, field point, and broadhead, for maximum killing power.
12 Useful Crank - Laser Musket Doesn't Require Ammo
This is one truly excellent mod that deals with a gaping problem in one of the game's most popular (and primary) weapons. Useful Crank removes the ammo mechanic of the Minute Men Laser Musket, and focuses primarily on the hand-crank charging mechanism instead.
Not only does this feel much more realistic, but it makes sense from a logical perspective since lasers do not expend ammo. This is especially handy if one runs out of ammo during an excursion, and requires a ranged weapon to fall back on.
11 AnotherOne's Police Weapons Pack
This weapons pack adds a bit more flair to the various police stations strewn throughout the Commonwealth by leaving weapons that can be salvaged. The first is a large caliber rifle designed with maximum stopping power in mind.
The other is an Enforcer sidearm that can be equipped with a suppressor for silent takedowns. The mod helps add a bit more authenticity to the game by adding pre-war weapons that would normally be used by police in times of crisis.
10 Craftable Weapons & Guns
One of the most requested features from Fallout 4 was the ability to actually craft the weapons you wanted most, instead of hunting for them in the wild. Craftable Guns And Weapons gives gamers the power to develop their own versions, right from a workbench.
Version 1.9 of the mod is the most dynamic yet. It realistically keeps certain weapon recipes out of players hands until they've unlocked the appropriate perks. From pistols to combat rifles, and laser muskets to missile launchers, gamers will be able to craft the right piece for their next outing.
9 Third Person Melee Tweak
Getting up close in Fallout 4 means having the right play mechanics at your back. When it's time to hack n' slash foes, Third Person Melee Tweak is there to balance out the brutality a little more.
This mod fixes a problem with third-person sidestep attacks, making it easy to maneuver around a foe and inflict some strikes. Players may not have noticed the cumbersome third-person melee combat before, but this mod should be quite an eye-opener.
8 Modern Weapon Replacers - All In One Pack
If the makeshift look and nature of the game's vanilla weapons aren't to one's liking, and gamers might prefer something a little more up to date, the Modern Weapon Replacer All-In-One Pack is the best bet.
This mod doesn't actually contain any weapons, but instead acts as a FOMOD installer system which allows players to pick and choose which weapons they'd like to install in place of the vanilla items in the game. The mod page includes a full list of available weapons. Download the desired weapons, then follow the instructions for an easy replacement method.
7 Wasteland Tactical - Visible Weapons On Packs
For gamers who value realism and cannot accept the fact that they're carrying a ton of invisible weapons in their pockets, they should check out Wasteland Tactical - Visible Weapons On Packs. This cool mod lets players holster weapons directly onto a backpack for a little more rugged realism.
RELATED: The Most Powerful Builds In Fallout 4, Ranked
Read the instruction page carefully to get the most out of this mod. There are a few nifty things one can do that affect both the player and their colorful companions as well. It's an excellent way to look the part of a survivalist in Fallout 4.
6 Weapon Overhauls (AIO)
The6thMessenger has created a ton of weapons overhaul mods, and all of these can take up valuable slots in the load order. Weapons Overhaul (AIO) blends them down into one single merged mod so gamers can free up space for other mods, without hitting the limit.
This mod improves the stats and damage counters of weapons and their add-ons, properly scaling their destructive output. It's an excellent mod for those who want more balance and realism from their guns, and it affects everything from common weapons to Legendaries.
5 Doombased Weapons Merged Pack
DOOMBASED has crafted a lot of extremely cool weapons that can be added to the Fallout 4 world, and with that goodness comes the Doombased Weapons Merged Pack, distilling them all down to a single plugin to save space on one's load order.
New shotguns, submachine guns and pistols are just a few of the goodies in this pack. It's perfect for anyone who still wants to retain the vanilla Fallout 4 weapons, while adding in a few new extras to diversify the armament pool.
4 Weaponsmith Extended
If the Doombased pack is too limited for some, and they want to go all-in on a massive cache of killer weapons, then the Weaponsmith Extended pack is the right choice.
This mod gathers a collection of the best weapon mods uploaded to the Nexus site, tossing in everything from a Colt Python to a Star Trek Assault Phaser. It's definitely not the most lore-friendly weapons mod of the bunch, but it's an absolute treasure trove of cool guns that can really change the way gamers play Fallout 4.
3 Skibadaa Weapon Pack Redux
The Skibadaa Weapon Pack Redux is definitely a lore-friendly weapons mod by every standard. The rustic, realistic look of each weapon has been finely crafted down to the most minute detail.
RELATED: Awesome Pieces Of Fallout 3 Concept Art We Adore
Several new weapons complement a trio of Miniguns that can be picked off of dead raiders, or found in loot chests. Heavier weapons can be taken from deadlier foes as well. The distinctive design of each weapon really sets it apart from other weapons mods on this list, making it a definite must for those who love new toys.
2 Mikemoor's MCAM Weapon Pack
If melee combat is more your style, then Fallout 4's collection of up-close weapons undoubtedly leave a lot to be desired. The solution is to install Mikemoore's MCAM (Melee, Collectable and Adventure Mod) Weapons Pack, which tosses in 30 brutal new weapons featuring everything from katanas to tomahawks, and even a frying pan for laughs.
In addition, the mod includes two voiced NPCs and 6 new explorable areas that tie into the weapons system to help tell a bit of a story. It's definitely worth it to get one's hands on this bevy of personal space-invading whackables.
1 See Through Scopes
Of all the weapons mods on this list, See Through Scopes is undoubtedly the best, and the coolest. It creates a feeling of immersion that cannot be felt with the standard scope system in Fallout 4. The mod works its magic by getting rid of the black fade into a full-screen scope. Instead, aiming through a scope maintains the same third-person perspective by zooming the camera in close to the lens, while maintaining the surrounding environment in full view.
This is cool for several reasons. First, it's immersive. Second, it makes scoped sniper combat far easier, more intuitive, and realistic. And finally, it's perfect for gamers who are playing Fallout 4 on a 21:9 or 32:9 monitor, since the user interface doesn't get squished as it normally would through first-person scope mode. Read the instructions carefully to learn exactly how to install this mod. Once ready, gamers can enjoy a brand new scoped combat experience that will ruin the original system in the best possible way.
NEXT: The Best Bethesda Games, According To Metacritic


A novel Edition named "Maria", decorated with pearl grips (painted with Our Woman of Guadalupe) and nickel-plated with weighty damascene engraving, is carried by Benny (voiced by Matthew Perry), which he makes use of to execute the participant within the opening FMV. The player can then return the favor upon confronting Benny at his On line casino, The Tops, earning the challenge "Mention Owned," delivered they chose to destroy Benny ahead of the completion of "Ring A-Ding Ding!". Apart from currently being trendy, Maria boasts a greater hearth level, harm per shot and accuracy around the conventional 9mm pistol in a expense of not making it possible for mods to generally be hooked up.
The in-recreation Sawed-off model. Be aware the fairly steep angle of the pistol grip, compared to the graphic earlier mentioned. Also Be aware The one bring about (compared with Fallout three's Variation of your weapon), which fires both equally barrels at the same time; Ordinarily, both barrels of a two-barreled shotgun can only be fired by pulling both triggers at the same time, so it can be surmised that this weapon is possibly malfunctioning, or was only designed to be as painful to your person as feasible.
A twenty-Gauge double-barrel shotgun called the "Caravan Shotgun" appears in recreation; individuals that pre-ordered the 'Caravan Pack' Model of recent Vegas could receive a 'Sturdy' Caravan Shotgun that is a lot more resistant to use-and-tear, with duct tape around the stock as well as a crack from the forend.
Bolt motion rifle chambered in 5.56; retains five rounds; combined with the Browning Hi-Ability, it is most likely the first weapon acquired via the participant, as being a no cost 1 is obtained from Sunny Smiles through "Back again in the Saddle." It may be upgraded with 8-round prolonged Journals, an evening vision scope and also a suppressor. Initially, the Varmint Rifle was intended to be A further .
A unique variant was added While using the Gun Runners' Arsenal DLC, named "Lil' Satan". This one of a kind compact variant has a shorter barrel and synthetic black grips, as well as a dim matte end.
The back room, with its assortment of inaccessible weapons; one particular G3 is visible at the top-suitable on the shot, and another is basically obscured by Mick himself.
The GRA Variation, fitted with all of its mods. Be aware the "Stacked Magazine", which extends further more forwards around the receiver in comparison to the conventional one particular; Furthermore, it moves the rear sight forwards, reducing the currently brief sight radius to your mere handful of inches.
seventh Equipment Layouts makes Multi-Spark ignition systems for almost any motor. Our dual optically induced ignition units offer three precisely timed sparks from idle to redline
This has been going on because I bought the car utilised with 86,000 miles or so. click for source When it rains, the two headlights get loads of condensation. I happen to be reading through that this can result in the headlights to limited out Anytime, so I ma constantly concerned about my lights heading out. Also, commencing yesterday my headlights came on throughout the day (They can be established on auto) for no motive and if they arrive around the lights on my speedometer, tachometer, etc.
Compared with the Browning and two Colt pistols, It appears to function entirely in double action and might be modified that has a laser sight, suppressor, and prolonged journal. The 10mm is usually a relatively great weapon, here are the findings beating out the 9mm in harm and DPS but slipping shorter in the event the magnum revolvers come into play.
The in-match grenade model. Note is features a as well-compact Variation of the sort ninety one propellant charge hooked up to The bottom. The sharp check it out bend inside the spoon is more normal of Soviet grenades such as the F1.
A Single Shotgun arrange being a trap. Note the existence of what appears for being some sort of electrically-driven mechanism on the rear on the trap, Regardless of the lack of any apparent need for a person. Also, the weapon seems to be held in position with aluminum foil.
Persons in Group quarters - Wards in military services hospitals for patients who definitely have no usual household somewhere else (%)
Down load the absolutely free trial Model beneath to get started. Double-click the downloaded file to setup the application.


Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the Atomic Bomb and the 116 Days That Changed the World Free Audiobook Download by Chris Wallace
In 1945, the world changed with the first use of an atomic bomb. Though there is much controversy about whether this was a good or bad thing for humanity, there is no doubt that it led to the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, which in turn led to the Cold War. In this article, we will explore how this event unfolded and what its impact has been on society.
Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the Atomic Bomb and the 116 Days That Changed the World is an audiobook that tells the story of how atomic bombs became weapons, what their uses are, and how they changed history. It also discusses how scientists came together to form a nuclear bomb project in Chicago as well as other events that shaped the modern world.
Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the Atomic Bomb and the 116 Days That Changed the World is a new history that tells in detail about how the atomic bomb was created, who actually built it, and why the world decided to use it. It also discusses how America used it on Japan.
Countdown 1945 tells the story of the atomic bomb and how it changed the world in a span of 116 days at the end of World War II. The first part of this book covers how our "super bomb" was being developed up until its use on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6th, 1945. Around 7:30pm local time that night, two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan by US planes. Chris Wallace is your narrator and he does an amazing job of telling this story with his deep voice.
This is an extraordinary story that chronicles the period from August 1945 to July 1946. The atomic bomb had just been dropped and a new world order was in the process of being constructed. More than anything, it starts out with the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, Japan and ends with the Soviet Union's decision to test their own atomic bomb. This interesting non-fiction book is available as an audio download from audible.com
This is the definitive account of the events leading to and following World War II. The story is told from the perspective of a man who was in a unique position to understand the day-to-day happenings throughout Europe and Asia. Chris Wallace lived through these events, but his story wasn't one that was easy for him or anyone else.
|Duration||8 hours 41 minutes|
|Is It Free?||30-days Free|
|Parent Category||Military, Asia, North America|


LEAVE THE GUESSWORK BEHIND
You’ve never seen a bow sight like this before. It measures the angle-compensated distance to your target and provides an LED pin for the shot.
A bow sight with a mounted digital laser range finder? Yeah, we did that.
One-year battery life means more time hunting and more confidence in your shot.


Earlier this year, the federal government announced its plan to purchase 65 F-35 stealth fighter jets from Lockheed-Martin. The transaction, Canada’s most expensive military purchase to date, will cost taxpayers around $9 billion.
Since the announcement of the proposal, the federal government has come under significant criticism, most of it revolving around its large cost and the irregularities in the tendering of the contract for the jets. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Canada’s military, and especially its air force, is rather antiquated and is in dire need of updating. This modernization will also enable Canada to meet its treaty obligations in organizations such as NATO and NORAD. As a founding member of both of these organizations, Canada has an obligation to participate in their actions and operations.
The development of the F-35 jet was in some ways a NATO project, with development being shared by Canada, the United States, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Norway, all of whom plan to eventually adopt the F-35 for use in their respective air forces. As Canada’s current jet fighter, the CF-18/A Hornet becomes obsolete, Canada will become increasingly less able to meet its NATO and NORAD obligations effectively. The purchase and delivery of the F-35 jets will allow Canada to continue to make significant contributions to both organizations, as well as to meet its independent defence requirements as effectively as possible.
Once purchased and delivered, the new F-35 jets are sure to bring Canada’s air force into the 21st century. They will replace the CF-18/A Hornet, Canada’s ageing multi-purpose fighter jet. Although it has served Canada’s needs, the Hornet entered the Canadian Air Force 28 years ago and is beginning to show its age. In contrast, the F-35 saw its first flight in 2006, and is widely considered to be the most advanced combat aircraft ever designed. It contains state-of-the-art battlefield awareness, avionics, and stealth technologies, and can be used against targets in the air, as well as against land-based targets.
At this time, the F-35 is the most refined fighter jet Canada could have chosen, and it promises to be the most effective.
The proposed purchase of the 65 F-35 stealth fighter jets, although costly, is necessary. Canada’s air force is in dire need of modernization if it is to continue to counter such threats as those posed when Russian bombers entered Canadian air space earlier last month. The F-35 jet will help Canada honour the obligations to NATO and NORAD that it is treaty-bound to keep.


It's Blipfoto's Derelict Thursday and I went up to the South Foreland to take some photos of the magazine constructed for the battery of four 9.2 inch guns. Two of the guns were supplied from 'a huge twin-humped surface magazine protected by a very thick capping of reinforced concrete.'
'Designated as 290 Coast Defence Battery, part of 540 Coast Defence Regiment, the site also housed the Regimental Headquarters alongside South Foreland Lighthouse. Underground facilities at the site (the mining of which commenced on 13th March 1941) included the Battery Plotting Room (BPR) and Fortress Plotting Room (FPR), with the FPR and RHQ sharing a tunnelled shelter. This complex was accessed by two sets of stairways that entered either end of the individual 100' long parallel tunnels, which were joined to each other by three 36' long chambers. To the rear of Guns 2 and 3 was the Battery Shelter itself, a vast underground complex with three protected stairway entrances leading down into two 150' long parallel tunnels interconnected by three 8' x 9', 50' long chambers that housed medical services and sleeping quarters.'
'By the end of the war, the four guns of South Foreland 9.2" Battery had expended a grand total of 2,248 shells between them, the majority in 1944 - a huge amount considering that enemy shipping losses credited to, and shared between, all of the Dover batteries during the Second World War was listed as a confirmed 28 vessels.'
On 12th February 1942 the battery failed to stop the return of the German warships Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen which had broken out from the French port of Brest with a
screen of destroyers, U Boats and Luftwaffe air cover and had headed up the Channel in an attempt to reach the safety of German waters. Thirty three shells were fired but no hits were made, the
poor weather making it impossible to see where the shells fell.


Corps hardware, toys for the big boys!
The newly modified TG-51A is an armed fortress on wheels. If it's slow it more than makes up in fire-power. Utilising the latest corps hi-tech armour nothing can penetrate this beast. The best tactic against one of these is to run.
The TX-10 is the work horse of the space corps arsenal. Low-speed with little cover, the marines call it the 'sitting duck'. Not much good on the front-line, the TX-10 is mainly used in cargo and troop transport and can be seen patrolling the streets of many colonies cities.
The RT-60A is a local and deep space transport dropship. This model proved it's worth in the air battles of lv-21, ferrying troops to the planet surface. With no defensive turrets the RT-60A works on a get in and get out philosophy.
The RT-XL is the latest and best space cruiser in the corps fleet. Faster then the old bulk cruisers, this baby also packs three decimator cannons, capable of wiping out entire cities without recharging. With only three in the fleet, it's the perfect christmas present for every counseller.
The standard weapon for every self-respecting marine. The KG-60 fires 100 rounds a second, and is capable of melting even the best of armour. Coupled with unlimited ammunition makes it the best pulse rifle in the galaxy.
© Copyright 2007 Paul Davis, All Rights Reserved.


List of Bows
|Name||Damage||Level Required||Arrow Type|
|Short Bow||50||1||Short Arrow|
|Reinforced Short Bow||70||5||Short Arrow|
|Composite Short Bow||90||7||Short Arrow|
Critical chance with bows: +5%
A second bowstring lets you fire two arrows at once, but it takes longer to reload.
|Light Long Bow||110||9||Long Arrow|
|Long Bow||130||11||Long Arrow|
Attack speed with bows: +18%
Critical chance with bows: +9%
Arrows shot from this bow transform into acid upon impact, corroding the target for a few seconds. Especially effective against helmets, armor and constructs.
|Reinforced Long Bow||150||13||Long Arrow|
|Composite Great Longbow||170||15||Long Arrow|
|Great Longbow||190||17||Long Arrow|


These 7 Legal Weapons Are The Coolest Ways To Defend Yourself
With everyone up in arms over the Second Amendment (get it?), let’s take a look and see some of the weapons are currently legal throughout a majority of the U.S. You’ll be surprised by what made the list!
The martial arts weapon is currently banned in New York, Arizona, California, and Massachusetts. The weapon gained popularity thanks to Bruce Lee and his student Dan Inosanto. In modern times, nunchucks have been used for performance art as opposed to close-combat.


A fascinating and unusual podcast came in the series עושים היסטוריה! עם רן לוי (Making History with Ran Levi). Ran Levi interviewed Dr. Yehosha Sokol of the Academic Forum for Nuclear Awareness (AFNA) about the actual dangers involved in a nuclear strike.
Dr. Sokol delivered a couple of facts about nuclear arms that are simply not spread and are probably not even considered as nuclear arms seem about the grimmest in our arsenal and are surrounded by a mindscape of hell on earth. The facts show that in actuality, a nuclear strike, though by no means small and insignificant, is far from the world's end as we tend to think.
For those who know Hebrew this is about the warmest recommendation I can give for a podcast ever. Here is everything you needed to know on the subject, especially if you live in Israel and worry about the threat from Iran. If you don't know Hebrew, at least get on the website of AFNA which contains information also in English and Russian. And find out what Dr. Sokol's comparison in the end: an atom bomb is as destructive as the 9/11 attack with additional radiation for about 48 hours. That's bad, but it is certainly not as lethal as I thought it would be.
More Making History with Ran Levi:
Diamond Rain and other phenomena,
Myths and pseudo-knowledge,
What goes up, must come down.


I have a PGX4 receiver and a Shure URT (universal rack tray), but I have misplaced the four screws that fasten the receiver to the rack tray. Please provide the screw specifications.
Machine screw, hex head, plated steel.
Size: M4 x .7 (metric with a thread length of 0.7 cm or 7 mm)
Shure part number 30B8190B - as of January 2011


Class M rating - For those insisting on the best of the best...
This is our highest protection rating. This rating is currently used by no safe company other than Brown Safe and is reserved for our ballistic armor-encased safes and vaults.
Brown Safe is currently working with the U.S. military in ongoing testing to develop a new protection rating for safes made with this plating. It's expected that the new GSA rating will surpass all current protection levels.
The armor plating of an M rated safe is of the same thickness as steel plating from a Class B rated safe but with penetration resistance equaling that of the strongest hardplate material available.
This means an M rated safe can be installed in locations an excessively heavy Class F or TL-30 safe just can't go, like an upstairs bedroom, while providing superior protection beyond current ratings.
One major challenge our M rated test safe has already passed consists of firing multiple .50 caliber anti-sniper bullets directly into the safe. Aside from the missing paint, the safe shows little to no visible indentation, a feat no other known safe is capable of achieving, and a testament to the incredible strength of these safes.
This armor also resists conventional penetration entry attempts. Carbide-tipped drill bits, for instance, have little to no success at boring through as the armor hardness is an even match to that of the bits.
A .50 BMG anti-material rifle is not the usual tool a burglar would use to break into your safe...but this test clearly demonstrates the massive amount of force our ballistic armor can withstand.


Solar Smash Apk Download
Solar Smash is a planet destruction simulator, it lets in the player to apply loads of different guns to destroy the planet. These include nuclear missiles, lasers, and asteroids.
Solar Smash Apk Full download
Player discretion is suggested.
Space pictures credit:
NASAs Scientific Visualization Studio
NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center
Space Telescope Science Institute


It’s Federal Season – Episode No. 22 – Shooting for Glory Part 2
Check out the second installment of a two-part series with shooters seeking gold on the world’s biggest stage. USA Shooting women’s skeet team member Austen Smith and women’s trap team representative Kayle Browning join the podcast to discuss their roads to competing for an Olympic medal, the thrill of representing their country, and some great tips on improving shotgun skills.
Federal Premium Ammunition (https://www.federalpremium.com/)


Chronicles of the Shadowfell
This weapon, crafted specifically to murder the denizens of the Feywild was found in the caches of Father Rosh’s hidden temple. One can only assume that the heretical priest used the weapon to keep his Spriggan minions in line.
Though modified with a high-tension compound action by Cherubina for added power and range, the bow still portrays all of its original elegance. Meticulously etched jade brownies and fairies cover the outer face of the bow with a looks of fear and viciousness pointed outward. Though not readily apparent, the fey on the bow face seem to move and change emotion in between uses.


Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: El Paso, TX
Car Year: 2013
Car Model: Ford Fusion SE
Transmission: 6AT SportShift
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
I can't wait to see what your wheels look like (on the Foz).
FWIW, I hate DAO semiauto pistols as well. My 229 is DA/SA. My first pistol was a Colt Delta Elite, and I carried a 1911 in the Army, so I like SA also.
My Witness Elite Match is SA, and a very close cousin to the Jerico meifert has. They're patterned of the classic CZ-75. Mine's all steel, and very very accurate. I shoot it better than the 229. I've only had the TacOps out a few times, but I can shoot it about as well as the Witness. Which is to say, the bullets basically hit where you "think" them.
Back to cars: The whole plastidip thing seems cool. I was wondering how well it holds up. I keep hearing how easy it is to peel off overspray, etc. So, I was afraid it may not wear well.


Col. Gen.. Strategic Rocket Forces, ret.
RUSSIA’S NUCLEAR POLICY
The nuclear policy of Russia is a component of the military policy of the Russian Federation (RF). It is a system of officially recognized decisions about the development of nuclear weapons, their missions and role in providing for Russia’s security; maintenance of a viable nuclear deterrence; keeping strategic weapons in readiness for employment; and on the use of nuclear weapons in war.
The foundations of Russia’s nuclear policy were laid by the leadership of the Soviet Union. Russia inherited this doctrinal legacy when it took the place of the USSR in the international community, and assumed control of its nuclear weapons. It is important to note, however, that having declared itself the legitimate heir of the USSR, Russia, speaking through its first president, Boris Yeltsin, declared that it did not view any nation as an enemy. Moreover, Yeltsin emphasized that Moscow regarded as potential partners every nation whose policies did not threaten Russia’s national interest and security, and did not contradict the UN Charter. This declaration, reflected in the Main Provisions of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, approved by President Yeltsin in 1993, has determined the principles of subsequent Russian military policy, including its nuclear component.
The sections of the Main Provisions related to military doctrine were further developed in 1994-1996 to reflect the new positions of the Russian political and military leadership on the concept of nuclear deterrence, decision-making for the use of nuclear weapons, and release of authority for such use. Russia, together with the other Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) members in possession of Soviet strategic nuclear weapons (Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine), ratified the US-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I (START I), and, beginning on December 5, 1994, began to implement it. Nevertheless, in that period Russia still lacked an integrated nuclear policy. Only in November 1998 did the Russian Federation’s Security Council consider and approve the Policy on Nuclear Deterrence, subsequently signed as an executive order by Yeltsin on December 31, 1998. This executive order was the first comprehensive new formulation of Russian nuclear policy, no longer dependent upon the Soviet legacy, although it continued to strive for nuclear parity with the United States.
Security through Deterrence
The Policy on Nuclear Deterrence state that Russia’s nuclear policy is based on the constitution of the Russian Federation and the existing body of Russian law, and takes into account Russia’s international obligations. Russia’s nuclear policy plays a key role in creating favorable external conditions for the development of the Russian state; implementation of social, economic and military reforms, promotion of national interests; and preservation of the geopolitical position and status of the Russian Federation as a great power. Russian policy adheres firmly to a strategic course that involves:- Consistent reductions by the five nuclear powers of their nuclear forces, on the basis of reciprocity and equal security;
- Making nuclear non-proliferation global and universal;
- An end to the testing of nuclear weapons and a global ban on nuclear weapons.
The Russian Federation seeks to eliminate military threats by giving priority to political, diplomatic, international legal and other non-military measures, including collective actions by the international community to maintain peace and end aggression. At the same time, as long as the world lacks a reliable system of collective security, Russia regards its nuclear forces as the main guarantor of its national security, and will maintain them at a level sufficient to guarantee deterrence.
Nuclear deterrence is defined as the ability to convince any potential aggressor that is planning or considering war against Russia and her allies, that the use of force cannot hope to achieve the aggressor’s military and political goals. Deterrence is established by an obvious, viable and guaranteed capability and willingness to deliver unacceptable damage to the aggressor through the use of nuclear weapons. The deterrent warning may be conveyed to potential enemies both politically, through diplomatic and other channels, as well as militarily - by demonstrating Russia’s nuclear force capabilities for purposes of deterrence. Russia’s strategic nuclear infrastructure should provide:
- Guaranteed deterrence of any state (or coalition of states) from aggression on any scale, employing any weapons, including weapons of mass destruction (WMD), against Russia and her allies;
- A flexible nuclear deterrent adequate to all emerging threats and challenges;
- Timely detection of critical threats to the national security of Russia and her allies, and the swift provision of information about such threats to military and political leaders, who then can make and implement decisions on the use of nuclear forces within designated timeframes;
- Adequate levels of safety at all stages in the development, production and operation of nuclear weapons.
Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces (SNF) must provide for reliable global deterrence against nuclear and conventional attack, while the forces equipped with tactical nuclear weapons should be prepared for a flexible response to any changes in the security environment, in order to achieve the goals of deterrence. These tactical forces also must be able to carry out deterrence at the regional level.
Russia views the use of nuclear weapons as an extreme measure, forced upon it by the need to stop critical threats against its national security, when all other measures have failed. Only the president of the Russian Federation, who also is the supreme commander-in-chief of the armed forces, can authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
Russia will never use nuclear weapons against those states that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), that do not possess nuclear weapons (known as non-nuclear weapons states). Exceptions are in the case of an invasion or other attack against the Russian Federation, its territory, its armed forces or other troops, against its allies or a state with which it has treaty obligations, when such an attack is undertaken by a non-nuclear weapons state together with a nuclear power, or if such a state has an alliance with a nuclear power. Russia absolutely adheres to such “negative guarantees” to non-nuclear weapons states.
Russia’s main goal in the development of nuclear deterrent forces is to maintain them at a level that can guarantee the national security of Russia and her allies under any conditions. These forces are developed according to several key criteria:
- Maintaining the optimal composition of nuclear weapons to fulfill missions of deterrence;
- Planning for the balanced development and optimal combination of nuclear strategic and tactical weapons;
- Improving the protection of nuclear weapon systems and their command and control from unsanctioned use;
- Providing the maximum level of nuclear safety;
- Adopting all measures necessary to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation regimes.
Russia’s nuclear policy is not directed against any specific nations or alliances of nations. The RF confirms all its international obligations in the field of nuclear arms control, including consistent and systematic efforts to reduce nuclear weapons at the global level and eventually to eliminate them.
A New Era
A new stage in the evolution of Russia’s nuclear policy began after Vladimir V. Putin’s accession as president of the RF. In January 2000 he approved a new version of the Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation, and in April of the same year he approved the Military Doctrine of the RF. At the same time, Russia ratified START 2 and the international Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
These events required alterations in the nuclear policy that was in place under President Yeltsin. These emerging changes were formalized at a meeting of the RF Security Council on August 11 2001, along with decisions regarding further reform of the armed forces for the period up to 2010. Within the framework of START 2, which had not been ratified by the United States Senate and therefore had not entered into force, Russia’s political and military leaders addressed important decision on Russia’s nuclear policy that extended beyond 2010. The essence of these deliberations was the decision to end the race for nuclear parity with the United States, and instead seek an acceptable balance between the Russian and US nuclear arsenals. In terms of numbers, this meant that according to START 2, the United States could have 3,000-3,5000 nuclear warheads in its strategic offensive forces. Russia decided that its ceiling would be 1,500-2,000 warheads, on the reasonable and considered assumption that this number of warheads would be sufficient to fulfill the main mission of strategic deterrence against aggression.
There were two main factors behind this decision. First, in mid-2000 President Vladimir Putin, determined that the main goal of future Russian foreign policy would be to achieve rapprochement with the West and establish a partnership with the United States in particular, as well as with the NATO nations as a whole. Once it stopped viewing the United States as an enemy, it no longer was necessary for Russia to engage in a nuclear arms race with the Americans.
Second, most, but certainly not all, of Russia’s military and political leaders came to the conclusion that the main military threat to Russia, both external and internal, would for the foreseeable future come from regional armed conflicts. Russia’s armed forces already had proved themselves unready to neutralize or prevent such conflicts or to engage armed terrorist groups, demonstrated by the limited progress Russian “power agencies” (e.g., the regular military, internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the counterintelligence FSB) were making in counter-terrorist operations in the North Caucasus. Once Russia’s leaders recognized the need for this shift in priorities, they also saw the necessity of reorienting limited financial and material resources to improve combat capabilities and develop the regular components of the armed forces for these regional missions. It no longer made sense to continue spending limited resources on excessive nuclear weapons, which by their nature cannot be used in local armed conflicts.
Thus Russian nuclear policy finally shed the stereotypes it inherited from the USSR. It is true nevertheless that not all of Russian society approved of the new approach, especially members of the older Cold-War generations who had lived most of their lives under Soviet rule. But this is normal in a democracy. Certainly not everybody in the United States approves of Washington’s military policy.
After the Republican administration of George W. Bush came to power in the United States in 2001, and it became clear that Washington would withdraw from the ABM Treaty and would not ratify START 2, Russia’s political leaders made the utmost effort to prevent the disintegration of the established system of strategic stability. These efforts eventually met with a response from the Bush administration. During the 2001 summits between Presidents Putin and Bush, the two leaders agreed in principle to develop and sign a bilateral treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive forces (SORT). This agreement was facilitated by the strengthening of US-Russian cooperation in many fields of international politics, especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
When it became apparent, in April 2002, that the SORT agreement could be ready for signing during the US-Russian summit in Moscow scheduled for late May, President Putin met with select members of the Russian Security Council to discuss not only the final details of the SORT agreement, but also the changes in Russia’s nuclear policy, including appropriate responses to the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. The main thrust of the Council’s final decision was the need to review all previously adopted parameters relating to development of the SNF, according to START 2 limitations.
On May 24, 2003, Putin and Bush signed the SORT agreement, according to which, by December 31, 2012, each will have no more than 1,700-2,200 warheads. Within these limits, however, each side is allowed to determine the composition and structure of its strategic offensive forces. SORT was to be ratified according to the constitutional requirements of each of its signatories, and come in force on the day ratification papers were exchanged. The presidents also confirmed that the START 1 agreement will remain in force.
The American side ratified SORT on March 7, 2003. Moscow intended to ratify in later that same month, but put off a decision when the United States, Great Britain and their allies attacked Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein without the approval of the UN Security Council. The Russian State Duma is expected to consider final ratification again in mid-May 2003. It is likely this time that ratification will be supported both by the Duma and the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of theRussian Federation.
As part of preparations for the ratification decision, President Putin ordered the research institutions under the General Staff to conduct a system study of various nuclear deterrent weapons. The study confirmed that Russia could, without overburdening itself with military expenditures, have 1,900-2000 warheads in its SNF by the end of 2012. Out of this number, 550-600 warheads would be in the Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF), 800-850 in the navy, and up to 560 in the air force. The actual number of warheads in Russia’s SNF by the end of 2012 will be determined by the condition of the Russian economy, as well as by trends in the global strategic situation. On January 1, 2003, Russia’s SNF had 4,950 warheads.
Russia’s policy in the field of tactical nuclear weapons has not changed substantially since SORT was signed. The earlier decision to reduce the arsenal of tactical weapons to a sufficient minimal level is being carried out meticulously; excessive weapons are being decommissioned and dismantled.
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev pledged in October 1991 to reduce substantially the Soviet Union’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, in response to a similar unilateral initiative made on September 27, 1991 by US President George H. W. Bush. This pledge subsequently was confirmed and broadened by President Yeltsin. Russia so far has destroyed one third of its naval tactical nuclear weapons, one half of its nuclear warheads for anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) and anti-aircraft missiles (SAMs), one half of its nuclear gravity bombs for tactical aviation, and all nuclear charges for artillery shells and land mines. (The process of decommissioning of nuclear charges may not be completed because the Ministry of Atomic Energy lacks the necessary productive capacity). None of Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons are actually deployed with troops any longer; they are kept under reinforced guard at storage facilities belonging to the 12th Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense. Nor does Russia have any tactical nuclear weapons outside of Russian territory, unlike the United States, which continues to deploy up to 200 B61 nuclear gravity bombs at ten airbases in seven European NATO states (Belgium, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey).
Russia’s political and military leaders are determining the future qualitative and quantitative composition of tactical nuclear forces with the following goal in mind: Russia should have an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons sufficient for regional nuclear deterrence (apart from Russia’s SNF, which are responsible for global deterrence). To fulfill this mission, experts conclude that Russia should have about 3,000 tactical nuclear warheads.
Such a bi-level system of nuclear deterrence will enable Russia’s leaders to react in a flexible and effective fashion to any changes in the military-strategic situation, and will allow them, with minimal risk, to defend against emerging threats to the state’s military security.
Russia, along with the United States and the other official members of the nuclear club, has legitimate concerns that the traditional mechanisms of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament can no longer fulfill their mission. Events of recent years demonstrate that some states are willing not only to circumvent but to ignore outright existing agreements and treaties, even those to which they are legally bound signatories (North Korea is a characteristic example). Although the UN Security Council reacts appropriately to such actions, it does not carry out the critically necessary activities of monitoring and managing treaty compliance on a systematic basis.
In order to make progress in this area, which would in turn make the mechanisms of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament stronger and more effective, Russia and the United States together should initiate the establishment of a permanent commission of the UN Security Council for monitoring the observance of treaties on nuclear arms and delivery system reduction, and non-proliferation. (Such a commission could also broaden its mandate to include chemical and biological weapons.) The UN Security Council should give the commission broad powers, including the power to sue UN members’ military forces, to enforce nuclear disarmament obligations. These should include the security of dismantled and surplus nuclear materials that could be used in any program to resume production of nuclear warheads and other nuclear explosive devices, and confirm the irreversibility of the disarmament process. The commission will have access to the rich experience of UN peacekeeping operations, that employed military formations provided by the UN members, and could benefit from the experience of the UN Security Council commissions on the disarmament of Iraq - UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, even though these were not a complete success. Both the commission members and all military formations assigned to carry out any special missions mandated by the UN would require specialized training.
This proposal for strengthening the effectiveness of control mechanisms relating to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament is not the only possibility. But addressing it in a positive spirit would allow development of an internationally recognized mechanism, in addition to those that already exist, for neutralizing threats related to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Russia and the United States, which have a mutual interest in maintaining international stability, should proceed from an understanding of the obvious importance of this task.


Check Price on Amazon. Price Range: Around $40 My Review: If you’re looking for a pink BB gun for girls, this is a classic rifle is much like the one I recommend above in brown (which I personally own). It is made by the reputable Crosman company and is a great BB gun for kids and teens. In the rear of the gun above the trigger area is a compartment that holds a ton of BBs, so you won’t. Air pistols typically come in or caliber. Air guns are designed to shoot BBs, pellets or sometimes both using air-powered propulsion such as CO2 or pre-charged pneumatic air tanks.
Featuring the same BB reservoir, spring-piston powerplant and lever action as the original youth rifle, this model adds some length to the stock and a little more heft to the whole package so as to be better suited to adult shooters. The adult versionweighs in at . BB guns for sale at your local store are great for kids, but are not what I am talking about. I am talking about quality high powered, precision large caliber pellet shooting air rifles. The best top rated adult air rifles are highly powerful, extremely quiet guns that can kill small game, shoot accurately and pack a punch up to 50 yards. The.
Shop BB guns at DICK'S Sporting Goods. Find low prices on BB guns with our Best Price Guarantee. 3 Powerline Air Rifle Kit, Dark Brown/Black, Inch. Now we move on to this Powerline Air Rifle Kit, which comes in a slick-looking dark brown and black. It measures out at inches. A full BB gun kit This is a great little kit that includes a 4x15mm scope with rings, a pair of safety glasses, caliber Daisy pellets, and caliber BBs.
A bb gun will shoot caliber steel bbs and don't require an orange tip as the intended use is target shooting, plinking or hunting. There are several types of bb guns on the market today, but the most common are BB air pistols. They can be powered by CO2 or by a pneumatic pump (multi-pump). Bought the grandkids a couple of bb guns. Got this so I could shoot with them. I'm 6' this bb gun is comfortable & fun to shoot. Does shoot a little to the right, but a tight group. Thought about getting a regular Red Ryder & making my own stock. Happy to find this Adult sized Red Ryder.


Are there poachers, that poach poachers?
In April 2009, police discovered 10 single-barrelled muzzle guns (SBMGs) with several rounds of poison-tipped bullets from a farmhouse on the boundary of Nameri national Park in the Sonitpur area.
Naba Bora, the leader of the Jamugurihat police, said, “Just one of these bullets could kill an elephant or rhino with one shot, regardless of where it hit”. Normally, poachers must hit an animal through the head or in the chest, where its vital organs are, Even if the shot doesn’t kill the animal, the wound from the bullet becomes infected and still causes the death of that animal. When a bullet is combined with poison, just one bullet could kill the animal by poisoning within 10 minutes.
The use of poison bullets isn’t very common to the police and that makes it hard to track the poachers, although poison has been used in hunting since ancient times, with poison darts being used to hunt small prey. If a poacher kills an elephant or rhino with the poison bullets, they will then hack off the horn or tusks, leaving the poisoned carcass behind. Other animals would then feed on the carcass, which means they, too, would become poisoned and die.
“It is a well-knit gang of poachers with international connections,” said Naba Bora. He also said that most of the gang members are from Nagaland and Manipur.
“The gang has local connections and charts out its plans at these small farmhouses on the fringes of the park,” he said.
If all things stay true, and the gang is made of international people, it could be nearly impossible to track the weapons back to the poachers.


This non-fiction historical book is based on a North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) exercise that took part in the early morning hours of the 10th May 1973. Through interviews with the participants the reader gets an understanding of the various roles played by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in the scheduled event. The military personnel involved range from the administrative staff at remote Canadian radar sites, to the air weapons controllers and the fighter interceptor aircrew.
NORAD is responsible for the safety of the North American continent from hostile forces and is on alert every minute of the day or night. Two allies, Canada and the USA, maintain this vigilance to protect their homelands. The NORAD motto is to Deter, Detect and Destroy. Exercises are held frequently to ensure the capability of the system, such as the 1973 Amalgam Mute exercise featured in the book.
The reader will be progressively introduced to the components that make up this vast defence network; the reason that NORAD was conceived, the Cold War, and what exactly the organisation is. An introduction to radar and electronic warfare will be followed by a description of the Canadian radar defence network. The reader will be informed of the history of the CAF Voodoo fighter interceptor and its squadrons. Inside knowledge of the Canuck electronic warfare aircraft and its role of Soviet aggressor will be explained.
With these details the reader will be able to fully understand what is happening as the exercise is described in the final chapter entitled "Sparks in the Night Sky". The reader will enter the world of the target aircraft's cockpit full of electronic jamming gear simulating a Soviet bomber, sit at the air weapons controller's radar screen directing the intercept, work the hangar line as the aircraft are prepared for battle and fly the night skies with the fighter interceptor crew. Will Mute One Zero Four get to bomb its target, Ottawa, the Canadian capital, or will Kilo November Zero Four shoot it down, albeit electronically, and prove that NORAD can Deter, Detect and Destroy?


My Airsoft gear has been modeled on the tactical kit of the 22nd SAS Counter Terrorism Warfare unit.
My 22nd SAS Counter Terrorism Warfare tactical kit consists of Black Ski Mask, Gas Mask with Gas Mask Hood, Tactical Helmet, Black Military Jumper, Black Tactical Vest, Black Tactical Gloves, Black Tactical Belt, Black Tactical Trousers and Black Military Boots.
I have a variety of support weapons consisting of an Airsoft Retractable Blade Dagger, Airsoft Glock 17 Gas Pistol and the old faithful Heckler and Kock MP5 K Semi Automatic Gas Machine Gun.
Also in my arsenal I have a couple of Airsoft Smoke Grenades and Airsoft Impact Grenades. Depending on the venue I have a couple of other devices including Trip Wires and other Anti Intrusion devices which can be used various inside or outside venues.


The evolution of the Pathos spear gun continues with the Laser Open Pro. This spear gun comes with ergonomic D’ Angelo II Care for for left and right handed use. The sensation of high accuracy in the water prevails when the use of this gun. It’s targeted toward demanding spear fishermen who require smooth and powerful shots. The Care for D’ Angelo II, is a low profile Care for with stainless steel reverse trigger mechanism that adds an extra 7cm (2.75″) of arming length. This spear gun uses a reverse style mechanism with trigger and fully polished steel mechanism. This leads to greater band stretch and overall more-gun in a smaller package. The Pathos Laser Open Pro comes standard with a 6.75mm stainless steel Sandvik shaft with shark fin tabs, single flopper and tri-cut tip, in conjunction with two 16mm (0.63″) bands with Dyneema wishbones, which leads to a powerful shot. The muzzle is open, for circular bands and the fully sharkskin finished anodized aluminum barrel is very rigid with large inner diameter walls. The tube is applied a special remedy that hardens and gives a roughness to the touch, like a shark’s skin and makes it very manageable to harsh open water. The aluminum barrel has 1.25±.05mm wall thickness. The gun has a removable rubber loading butt, reel base and a shaft rail for better shooting accuracy. Overall an excellent spear gun is to be had in a couple of sizes and is covered by a 24 month limited warranty.
This Item Includes: Pathos Laser Open Pro Spear Gun
Pathos Laser Open Pro Spear Gun
Evolution of the Spear Gun Continues with Pathos
Ergonomic D’ Angelo II Care for: Left or Right Handed Shooting
Low Profile Care for with Stainless Steel Reverse Trigger Mechanism


Why The 10 Gauge Shotgun is Obsolete Jan 3, 2009 4:21:15 GMT -5
Post by Buck on Jan 3, 2009 4:21:15 GMT -5
Why The 10 Gauge Shotgun is Obsolete
By Randy Wakeman
The 10 ga. had a brief resurgence when there just wasn't room for the early "light and fluffy" steel inside 3 in. 12 gauges for effective waterfowl loads. Early steel loads were extremely bulky for weight, and the paltry pellet count found in a steel "BBB" 3 inch 12 ga. load proved woefully ineffective compared to the lead loads that preceded it. There was simply not enough room inside a 12 ga. 3 inch hull for a stack of large, relatively light pellets.
The advant of the 3-1/2 in. 12 ga. appears to have finally killed off the 10 ga. for good. The 10 ga. has a SAAMI limit of 11,000 PSI to work with, the lowest of any reasonably common gauge. When the 20 ga. was punched out to 3 in., there was no allowed pressure increase. It was the same back when the 3 in. 12 ga. first appeared.
But, the 3-1/2 in 12 ga. is a different matter. Instead of 11,500 PSI to work with, the SAAMI spec was increased to 14,000 PSI. So, you have a lot more potential efficiency to work with in the 3-1/2 in 12 ga. than in the 10 ga. Now that no-tox shot has nearly equaled, equaled, or exceeded the weight of lead, depending on which manufacturer you believe, the need for tremendously more room inside a shotshell hull has vanished in concert.
That's it in a nutshell--the 10 ga. is dead, as you can actually get more performance out of a 12 ga. 3-1/2 in. load, with a less bulky firearm that is more versatile, lighter, better handling, less costly to shoot, with more factory load options. Federal Cartridge, for many years, has offered more factory shotshell loads than any other manufacturer, so I’ll use Federal as an example. Federal currently lists five 10 ga. loads in total.
Federal’s only lead "smaller pellet" load is the GST101 (originally named ‘Grand Slam Turkey’) that gets a 2 oz. payload of 4, 5, or 6 shot out the muzzle at 1300 fps. Federal’s High Density steel load is the new PHD106 load available in BB or #2 shot that moves 1-5/8 oz. out the muzzle at 1450 fps.
By comparison, Federal offers over SEVENTY-FIVE different 12 gauge shotshell loads, in a wide variety of shot sizes per load as opposed to the grand total of five 10 gauge loads. One 12 ga. 3-1/2 in. load, for example, is the PFC139, a 2 oz. buffered lead load. The Federal PFC135 actually offers a heavier payload in 12 ga. lead than found in 10 ga.: 2-1/4 ounces.
The Federal PHD195 12 ga. High Density waterfowl is the same as their 10 ga. load in both payload (1-5/8 oz.) and shares the same muzzle velocity of 1450 fps. So times have changed, and there is no particular reason for the 10 gauge to exist as a "preferred choice" anymore. The lack of shotshell choices, aftermarket choke tubes, the improvement in no-tox waterfowl approved loads, and the introduction of the 3-1/2 inch 12 ga. have all combined to moot its waterfowl advantage it held for a time, and its ponderousness for other applications makes it largely impractical.


While enemies are the core of the Battle system, there are a variety of ways to make battles more interesting and complex, through the use of certain items, resistances and vulnerabilities, and custom fields.
Armor is a passive item. It does not need to be equipped or unequipped, and calculations are done using the armor with the highest defense only. In short, the adventurer automatically equips the strongest armor. Armor also does not lessen damage. Rather, it makes attacks less likely to hit.
|Defense bonus||A flat value added to the adventurer’s DEX during damage calculation, functioning as a modifier.|
Weapons create an attack command in battle, in addition to the default ‘unarmed attack’ command. This means that you can use as many weapons in battle as you want.
Weapons are highly customisable and follow many of the same principles as enemy attacks.
|Hit Bonus||How likely the attack is to hit. This acts in the same way as stat modifiers, with 0 being the default.|
|Damage Roll||Determines how much damage the attack does by rolling the specified dice. An unarmed attack has a roll of 1d4.|
|Damage type||This is covered in more detail below.|
|Attack Group||This is covered in more detail in the Expert Adventuring section.|
Damage types can be thought of as different kinds of attacks. Damage types don’t do different amounts of damage, and for the most part function as flavor text There are three default damage types:
You can also create custom damage types. Selecting ‘other’ in the weapons dropdown will allow you to type in whatever you like as the damage type. You can also edit in the “damage type” line in the enemy attack menu. Doing either of these will add the damage type into the damage type dropdown on the weapons page.
Resistances and vulnerabilities also utilize damage types. These two dropdowns can be seen on enemies and all item types. Resistances mean that the specified damage type will do half damage if the attack hits, whereas vulnerabilities mean that the specified damage type will do double damage if the attack hits. Resistances and vulnerabilities can also use the custom damage types, although you cannot create them through those dropdowns.


Ready to Rock
From custom Cerakote to sight selection and zeroing to gas block adjustments, we make sure your gun is reliable and competition ready the moment it comes out of the box.
We don't just manufacture AR's here. Each rifle is hand fit and adjusted while going through rigorous quality control inspections. The end result is the highest accuracy in an AR platform. Did we mention that there are no rattles?