/k/ - Weapons, Combat, Outdoorsmanship

wepon

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Captcha
no cookies?
Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


what's a war board without a conflict?


Open file (63.00 KB 500x406 66364a.jpg)
Where can I get plans to build a nuke? Atomicon 02/19/2021 (Fri) 20:03:37 No.13445
I'm looking for blueprints to build a nuke.
>>13650 I mean, alternatively, you could just rely solely on tactical nukes outside a small border protection force. That might actually make deterrence easier for a smaller country. Sure, it's always a risk to use nuclear weapons, but if you make sure to keep it tactical and exclusively defensive, there's little argument any country can really make to justify a strategic response. I mean, what, you're gonna nuke someones cities because they destroyed invading forces within their own borders? Yeah yeah I get it, nuclear weapons are different and all. I still think there are scenarios where a countervalue response is just retarded for the country issuing it. Actually, I think in general it's a pretty bad doctrine, and I think it's much safer to deter an enemy just by the fact that they stand to gain nothing by attacking a country that can delete their military forces when they get in range. Think about it, tactical nuclear weapons could have the same deterrent effect, but without the looming threat of MAD, and if it comes down to it you can actually use them to prove you really will without committing to a zero sum game the moment you DO have to actually use them. Risky? Yeah, any use of nuclear weapons hypothetically risks a strategic exchange. But so does fucking around in Cuba, or Syria, and it's a lot less safe in my opinion when the only deterrent option is all or nothing: no wars ever again or everyone fucking dies. Just seems like setting yourself up for failure.
It's strange to remember that at one point even Swedes thought that peppering enemy formations with nuclear shells should be an integral part of their national defence. On that note: in theory what kind of nuclear artillery shells could we develop today? I've read something about how only gun-type nukes were possible for 6" and 8" calibres, and that they are somehow inferior to implosion devices, but I'm not knowledgable enough to make much of that information, and reading what more knowledgable people know is better than trying to make my own research.
>>13723 And I'd post that webm about the Swedish SPG from hell, but we still have the robot, and so I can't, because somebody somewhere already posted it.
>>13723 I'm not knowledgeable, but from a pure uni physics perspective, an implosion device would be cleaner but needs a precise timing mechanism that the impact of a shell could throw off or create duds from. You could use the slamming method of creating a supercritical mass (two sub-critical pieces slamming together), but that method produces more of a dirty bomb and at which point the ecological damage might be a bigger factor than it would be with conventional artillery.
>>13724 r9k mode should be disabled, did you try recently?
>>13723 We had nuclear artillery for a wide variety of calibers, and a very wide variety of yields. 6inch, 8inch, 11inch, 16inch and whatever the Russians had just to start. The lowest yield I know of was the W48 with just 72 tons, and the highest yield was a 40,000 ton variant of the W33. The most common yield though was just about 1000 tons and preferably with an enhanced radiation option. I know the smallest designed and completed shell and possibly the actual lightest nuclear system ever developed had a yield of 200 tons, and being in a rocket boosted 6 inch shell was probably 2/3rds of the shells weight. This might have been only 50-60lbs without the metal jacket, cap, and rocket motor. This is just from declassified material, so it's nothing super-mysterious. At lower yields the greatest reaching effect in terms of damage scaling is the prompt radiation emitted by the detonation as it happens. This seems to be the primary intended use of nuclear artillery, you would use the radiation to kill "hard" targets and troops protected from the heat. The blast wave is actually pretty useless against most mobile military targets relative to its scale. For some reason, in the US army field manuals on tactical nuclear weapon usage, the effect on which damage against tanks is based on is heat and not blast or radiation. Just judging from the scaling laws of effects, I found out that it matches thermal radiation scaling laws the closest and in fact perfectly for some yields, and when considering that they list ranges in multiples of 25 meters, it's obviously this scaling law. I don't know what specifically we could develop today, but modern nuclear weapons are still in the same place they were in the late 60s. The thinnest linear implosion device was 5 inches across, 24 inches long and had a yield of 200 tons unboosted. Most artillery shells were larger physically and had higher yields, but the boosted version of this device was probably going to be about 1500 tons. It's conceivable that a nuclear artillery shell made today could be the same size with a yield of over 10,000 tons just based on modern primary sizes. Enhanced radiation might no longer be as useful with tank armor protecting much better against it now, and I suspect in practical warfare it would be desirable to use a reduced radiation warhead if possible just to make it more reasonable to use against urban targets. Going above 500tons is also probably pretty pointless with modern targeting systems, or just in general. Keep in mind that the largest tianjing explosion was equal to about a 500 ton nuclear detonation blast wave.
>>13783 >I know the smallest designed and completed shell and possibly the actual lightest nuclear system ever developed had a yield of 200 tons Fuck, missed a zero. 2000 tons, not 200. I don't want to confuse it with the 200 ton device we tested.
>>13783 I'd imagine that American tanks are probably safe from general radiation since they use depleted Uranium and other high-density solids in their alloys/ceramics, and the air filters designed to handle sand/dirt probably also filter out most radioactive materials.
>>13599 >>13603 >the only truly secret thing about a H-bomb is exactly what FOGHORN is in it. >FOGBANK I think the general speculation is that it's probably some sort of aerogel.
>>13787 Well, the thing with radiation shielding is that it depends on protection factor more than anything else. Past a certain point it becomes impractical to shield from high enough levels of radiation. No matter the tank and no matter the nuke, lethal radius will always be measured in dozens of meters at least. At 100m from a 1kt detonation, the prompt radiation is something like 100,000 rem which would require a protection factor of 2000-3000 to prevent the tank crews from being killed. No tank has a protection factor over 100, and most are closer to 20. This is where you'd probably rather not be in a tank, because at those distances unprotected you'd get a mercifully quicker death of full body roasting and shock wave organ damage instead of seizures and death by nervous system shutdown.
>>13819 At 100m the heat radiation will cook the tank like a can of beans over a fire so I don't understand arguing semantics.
>>13825 Yeah sorry I wasn't trying to argue. My point was that radiation near the blast is pretty intense. I think even out around 400m or so the radiation is lethal to most tanks.
>>13618 It's not the Cold War any longer. The world doesn't stand on the precipice of total nuclear war if something pops off. While MAD is the legacy doctrine between the Cold War superpowers, the climate has changed significantly, and so-called rogue states and non-state actors won't trip the "fire ze missiles" response if something happens outside the framework of major nuclear players exchanging ICBMs. If, say, China fired a nuke at the US, there would absolutely be protocols in place to immediately retaliate, but chances are, there would be diplomacy unless it was certain that the effort was exactly as a Cold War scenario depicted in the (now-legacy) Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), and even then there was wiggle room for modest amounts of sanity.
Open file (291.67 KB 1084x786 happening threads.jpg)
>>13829 You just ruined happening threads forever with one post. How dare you.
>>13836 Ehh, I wouldn't be so sure Strelok. Daily reminder all those nukes still exist. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Odd situation currently tbh. Bolshevik usurpers currently sit with their fingers (plural) on the button in the USSA. The Chinese Marxists are no less warmongering than is traditional since the Chinese Communist Revolution of 1949. They are more confident in their aggression than ever, and their timetable to overrun and capture Taiwan is a short one I imagine. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, former KGB leader, is probably the coolest head in the bunch. The batshit insane (and allegedly the) US 'Administration' certainly mean to go to war of some sort soon, and will immediately get into something over their heads through sheer incompetence. The Chinese will stop at nothing to take over all the high-tech fabs, etc., in fake-China, and meanwhile the Russians are mad at the increasingly-mudshit-controlled-EuropeanCuckropan Union (most of whom have their own nuke arsenals). Add in the new kids on the block. the Ancient Aryans in Iran, The Poo-in-loos, The mountain goatfuckers in Pakistan, even the batshit insane sycophantic tyrant friendly leader of Best Korea -- all with their fingers currently on the button. Top it all off with Greedy Hand-Rubbers running their game 'business as usual', the odd Mudshit golem or two with a suitcase nuke, and literally millions and millions of cargo containers quite capable of carrying the cheapest-made (but quite effective) nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological WMD, scurrying here, there, and everywhere around the globe. Let's see, did I forget anything?
Open file (149.54 KB 450x437 kuso thread.png)
>>13836 On the contrary. It's knowing the truth about nukes that makes for even more interesting shit storms. When you realize that nuclear fallout is not nearly as big of a deal as countries want it to seem for propaganda purposes and that superpowers could use a nuke without repercussions because it doesn't benefit them if nukes are on the table, well there'd still be repercussions just not MAD, the world of possibilities for warfare shitposting skyrockets.
>>13838 >and their timetable to overrun and capture Taiwan is a short one I imagine. The official party line is that if Taiwan does not capitulate by 2025 they WILL invade.
>>13843 Could use a nuke without repercussions but choose not to* is what I meant to type. I need to stop editing my posts mid-sentence.
>>13838 Sounds like fun! >>13843 Isn't it more likely rogue actors will toss around dirty bombs before the interstate warfare initiates?
>>13843 >nuclear fallout is not nearly as big of a deal Yeah, I'm going to need to you to define that more specifically. What, only 2 billion dead within 2 years vs. 4 billion? There are no brakes on this train Strelok. Once the MIRVs start poppin', niggas be droppin'. And even if Fukishima, Chernobyl, et al, didn't argue against your basic position regarding fallout; the simple physics of multi-million-degree ignitions and massive air, surface, and seismic shock waves suggest otherwise as well. Regardless of the current propaganda du juor, human nature hasn't changed since the supposed end of the Cold War. The Chinese literally consider themselves insurmountable, unstoppable people destined to own the entire Earth. If anyone is going to glass North America, it will be them.
>>13848 You don't glass what you can rob, the Chinese have been reading the Talmud you know.
>>13848 >And even if Fukishima, Chernobyl, et al, didn't argue against your basic position regarding fallout Except they argue in my favor if you look at long-term studies of their effects. Shit's only dangerous for like a month tops. You're talking popsci/environmentalist garbage, anon. Your average thunderstorm contains more kinetic energy behind it than a nuclear blast. I think the Earth will be fine and humanity will survive just fine. Even in a worst case scenario we'll just be blown back to the Iron Age for a century or two until shit is rediscovered the way it happened 30 or so times after the Greeks.
>>13855 >we'll just be blown back to the Iron Age for a century or two If we will have a handful of people who remembers this stuff then we could go back to the technology level of the early industrial revolution quite quickly: https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58
>>13856 Unfortunately the vast majority are consumer retards that will probably lynch the geniuses unless they've locked themselves up in an island bunker somewhere.
>>13855 >Even in a worst case scenario we'll just be blown back to the Iron Age for a century or two >humanity will survive just fine
>>13836 Sorry dood, wasn't trying. And that's in no way the case. Sure, the odds of two nuclear superpowers slugging it out toe-to-toe are unlikely, but man oh man, the lack of dominant global entities keeping everyone in line and forcing them to essentially pick a side means the squabbles can be more granular, and conflicts between two minor players could absolutely escalate to the point where nuclear weaponry would be used. In other words, don't be sad because that happening never happened, be happy because there are now thousands of other happenings that could take place instead.
>>13855 Your average thunderstorm is also centered thousands of feet in the air and doesnt release all of its energy in a pin point location a few hundred feet in a city square, but lets talk about fallout. I don't know if you were >>13582 but I am still trying to find studies done to measure the level of fallout found in the aftermath of hiroshima and nagasaki to have been benign. Although matter pulled up and turned into atomic ash from the convection currents wont stay radioactive for long that still disperses enough material even at "airburst" height because of the presence of a mushroom cloud. Mostly alpha but as soon as the dust settles there could be radioactive micro particles floating around miles away from the epicenter into a neighboring county you could be inhaling.
>>13865 This is kind of a cheap throwaway answer but there should be a paper on it in the LANL.gov library. This article might give you a good starting point and some interesting information on Hiroshima in general https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/med/med_chp22.html. I just know in general from everything I've ever researched about nuclear detonations that an airburst detonation where the fireball doesn't touch the surface is simply too high for a meaningful amount of dust to get radioactive particles attached to it. This of course is a scale not a black or white problem, so there is SOME of what is called "local fallout" which is fallout that falls early enough before it decays too much to be a problem. However, because the amount is so low, it is prohibitively unlikely for there to be any concentrations in any one area great enough to exceed the normal radiation levels for say, a years average exposure before it decays into irrelevance. In a controlled environment, this amount can be tracked down and actually studied, but keep in mind that the amounts found are so low that they require careful sampling of the soil to even determine that particles were there at all. In the actual "combat" use of the nuclear weapons over Japan, the possible area was simply too large, and the probable amounts too low, for the fallout to be detectable. While some particles did land somewhere, this is a very small amount and in a practical sense, might as well not exist. The chances of it increasing cancer risk in even a single individual is insanely low. Now, no one is exactly going to be happy to know that radioactive particles were floating around near them, but if extensive searching was done they wouldn't actually know, and by effects alone it would never become apparent that they had encountered radiation at all. Since "militarily important" radiation levels are those levels high enough to cause any "hazardous" radiation illness, this is simply a non-issue from a military standpoint. I've never seen a military handbook that references any fallout danger in an airburst. The handbook I use most frequently is greatly concerned with troop safety margins as well. Would you prefer to be near these minimal fallout particles? No, but if you weren't told you would never find out.
>>13843 > the world of possibilities for warfare shitposting skyrockets. This is my main interest in nuclear weapons. Imagine fleets of nuclear missile boats wiping out each other in nanoseconds.
>>13868 Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the radioactive elements released by the nuclear detonation, in case of an airburst one, will just remain in the atmosphere instead of being deposited on the ground relatively quickly. But what goes up must come down and they will still fuck up any place the winds and clouds take them. If they don't fall down by themselves, rains shall help that instead. Not to mention that airburst detonations themselves seem to generate some amount of clouds. It's not an immediate danger in case of war, yes, but you can take the trail of radiation the Chernobyl disaster has left as an example.
>>13632 >Assuming these are 1 kiloton warheads, this will be enough to incapacitate tanks within a 150m radius and all other troops to a much greater extent. For aircraft this is a little harder with modern fast strike aircraft, but it's still reasonably possible to take them out with good confidence. >>13783 >At lower yields the greatest reaching effect in terms of damage scaling is the prompt radiation emitted by the detonation as it happens. This seems to be the primary intended use of nuclear artillery, you would use the radiation to kill "hard" targets and troops protected from the heat. The blast wave is actually pretty useless against most mobile military targets relative to its scale. >Enhanced radiation might no longer be as useful with tank armor protecting much better against it now, and I suspect in practical warfare it would be desirable to use a reduced radiation warhead if possible just to make it more reasonable to use against urban targets. Going above 500tons is also probably pretty pointless with modern targeting systems, or just in general. Taking these two posts at face value, what kind of yield a tactical nuke should have, how should it kill (raditation, balstwave, heat), and how should it be deployed? It seems like the answer is to burst one over the enemy and then keep up the nuclear bombardment if that's not enough to deescalate the situation.
>>13873 >and they will still fuck up any place the winds and clouds take them They won't really, although I guess it depends on your definition of "fuck up". Will they increase background radiation levels by less than half a percent and be detectable due to man-made elements? Yes. Will they affect a population in any physical way such as causing mutations, radiation sicknesses, decreased lifespan, etc.? No, they will not. In an absolute worst case scenario they will increase a few peoples risk for cancer by a marginal but still undeniably measurable amount. >you can take the trail of radiation the Chernobyl disaster has left as an example. No, you cannot. Chernobyl was thousands of times more dangerous than a groundburst detonation, let alone an airburst of significant height. Just because a nuclear detonation creates a big ominous looking cloud does not mean that it is a "fallout" cloud or that it will start producing black rain. Local fallout, which is the term for the "fallout" we know of in popular media and the one of risk, is caused by particles falling to the ground before they've decayed enough, this time period is around 15-30 days. The reason this changes with a groundburst is because soil and heavy particles are mixed up into the fireball and become carriers for the light fission products that produce constant radiation. This then falls back down rather quickly due to it's weight, and rain can increase the speed of this process. In an airburst detonation, the vast, vast majority of the "cloud" is water vapor and burning oxygen. For a low altitude airburst, such as say one for a 20kt detonation that is closer to the ground than usually used for soft targets like cites, you can get some percentage of heavy dirt and dust mixed in. This might create some noticeable local fallout, although the amount would be low enough to produce the worst case scenarios I mentioned earlier where the only long term effects are an increase in cancer risk. This increase is never desirable, make no mistake, especially at around 10%. But it will be the only noticeable affect. No radiation sickness. No mutations. No uninhabitable land that cannot be used for agriculture. For a high altitude airburst of the height used for cities, there simply won't be any fission products brought close enough to dirt to be sucked into the stem and carried away from the blast. This shot of Crossroads Able gives a good sense of scale, keep in mind that the "cap" of the mushroom cloud is the remnant of the fireball and the location of the actual detonation itself https://youtu.be/bbhl-Z9l0YY. The dark parts of the cloud are shadows, it is composed of water vapor for the most part. For a megaton range, high altitude burst, the fission products will be thrown so high up into the atmosphere that they will not come down for decades, after which they will be little more than scientifically interesting dust.
>>13875 These two field manuals explain it better than I can. This first one explains the meaning of different terms, kinds of damage, targeting decision parameters, etc. http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM101-31-1C1%2869%29.pdf The second one (really the third but I couldn't find the second) lists the different yield and deployment options and tables for damage to different units at different heights of burst for each yield. Probably the most useful document you'll ever see regarding nuclear weapons as an actual weapon. Keep in mind, "moderate" damage is the damage sufficient enough to incapacitate a target. https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM101-31-3%2863%29.pdf
Of course all the fallout discussion goes out the window if you're talking about salted warheads. As far as I know though all such devices are completely hypothetical. >>13875 >Taking these two posts at face value, what kind of yield a tactical nuke should have, how should it kill (raditation, balstwave, heat), and how should it be deployed? It seems like the answer is to burst one over the enemy and then keep up the nuclear bombardment if that's not enough to deescalate the situation. Are you talking about a neutron bomb basically?
>>13896 Salted devices that would almost certainly work have been designed, but that's as far as it goes.
>>13603 >You mean FOGBANK, or is there another ridiculous component I'm unaware of? That would be it then. It's been years since I read the book, and I'm working off memory. My local library had a copy. >>13810 The book suggested it might have been some sort of styrofoam. Apparently they improved the manufacturing at some point, and the result was "too pure" so they had to add whatever impurities back in as an additive. Of course, all this is rather moot as the USA can't effectively manufacture it's own tritium anymore, or so reports indicate. That means variable-yield warheads will not be (re)manufactured further. There's also issues with Pu-239 or so I hear. Which begs the question: wtf has the DoE been doing these last few decades for technical production to get to that state?
>>13603 Also that "toxic brittle material" is Beryllium. There was word in the non-classified press that they were seeking alternatives. FOGBANK is whatever they use as a spacer between the fission trigger and the U-238 shell in thermonuclear devices ("H-bombs"). Apparently it acts as a waveguide for the released radiation(?) so it evenly fissions the secondary. Would post image but it keeps timing out.
>>13787 > American tanks are probably safe from general radiation since they use depleted Uranium All that the DU being there means, is that if the neutrons from a nearby nuke hit it, it will fission and you'll die not from the nuke's radiation, but from that coming off the DU armor. DU absorbs the neutrons and then fissions releasing it's own neutrons, which is VERY bad for you.This was a concern during the cold war, and I recall reading about this - it was raised within military circles as an objkection to the DU inserts. If you want to actually stop neutrons, you'll need to use boron or lead, and preferably lots of both. Spall liners on Soviet tanks are/were made of lead sheets covered by boron-impregnated kevlar-like plastic. Export models to the Warsaw Pact got the kevlar-ski, but without the boron, and the "monkey models" for Iraq, Africa, etc. got nothing. If you get nuked and are in a tank with DU armor, better have a rad-counter handy, and just maybe a single bullet too.
>>14001 >Which begs the question: wtf has the DoE been doing these last few decades for technical production to get to that state? From what I understand, budgitarily the DoE is 50 years behind schedule. Chances are there's some policy or law that has them by the balls and nobody cares right now.
UK to expand nuclear stockpile in post-Brexit security review https://archive.ph/RftL5 >Downing Street is to raise the number of Trident nuclear warheads the UK can stockpile by more than 40 per cent in its integrated review of defence, security and foreign policy to be published on Tuesday.Boris Johnson, UK prime minister, is set to announce that the cap on the number of nuclear warheads will increase from its current level of 180 to 260, according to two people with knowledge of the document. The move — which signals a move away from Britain’s pursuit of non-proliferation in recent decades — is intended to cement the UK’s status as a nuclear power and firm US defence ally. Post-Brexit UK to reshape its foreign policy https://archive.ph/NhfuD >The government is pledging to reshape an "outdated international system" to better protect the UK's interests and values, in a year-long review of post-Brexit foreign and defence policy.New alliances should be formed as the UK shifts focus towards Indo-Pacific countries such as India, Japan and Australia, it says.The review also paves the way for an increase in nuclear warheads. It's quite surprising overall. Are they preparing to nuke Shina if they don't leave the Aussies and Canucks alone?
>>14072 They're increasing their capacity not their stockpile, at least by what it says there. >It's quite surprising overall. Honestly yes, i wouldn't have expected any western country nowadays to openly admit to increasing their nuclear capacity
>>14076 >Honestly yes, i wouldn't have expected any western country nowadays to openly admit to increasing their nuclear capacity >Bolshevik-in-Chief successfully usurps the US Authority, initiating the USSA-era >Immediately begins a far-reaching purge to eliminate all political dissidents within the ranks >Restricts all travel and direct face-to-face communication by the peasant hordes >Turns over foreign policy and diplomacy decisions to even more batshit-insane aides >[Saber-rattling intensifies]* Is this really all that unexpected Anon. The alleged president intends to start the next World War on his watch. While he'll never live to see the outcome accidentally'd 14 times to the back of the head, no doubt yet the other (((puppets))) will carry through on the plan. Keep your feet dry, Strelok.
>>14072 >New alliances should be formed as the UK shifts focus towards Indo-Pacific countries such as India, Japan and Australia, it says. War plan red soon?
>>14124 They are the same branch now, especially since the UK wants to play empire again, and their only ally would be the US.
Open file (58.90 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0015.jpg)
Open file (124.98 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0016.jpg)
Open file (138.80 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0017.jpg)
Open file (79.77 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0018.jpg)
Open file (81.60 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0019.jpg)
It's all right here are your fingertits!
>>13516 >>13530 >>13523 >>13518 I think you guys are missing the true elephant in the room when it comes to these conspiracy theories. The people who believe in them (like this one) also follow other conspiracy theories like the flat earth theory or the giants are real theory (not always but a lot of the time), they believe all the governments are working together (yes china, the soviet union, Nazi germany, Japan, NK, Israel, Ukraine, Turkey and america are/were working with each other) to bring about the antichrist/satanist figure to bring about hell on Earth and ruin peoples lives, the elites make lies to convince people, through the theory of evolution/germ theory/nuclear physics/space/etc, that God/magic/whatever isnt real which would help with their satanic plan. If you dont believe me, go down the rabbit hole even further and you'll notice a lot of these low-level conspiracy theories sometimes overlap with each other
>>15233 Has it occurred to you that the creationist/mystical/reality-denying conspiracy theories are obvious bunk that no credible person would ever unironically believe, and on the other hand, that really extravagant and stupid ones about one-world governments and chemtrails and 9/11 controlled demolitions are deliberately fostered by people seeking to discredit legitimate questioning of authority via association? Just because authorities and media work around the clock to make any political dissidents appear like strawmen of cartoonish nutjobs doesn't mean that some things, like the obvious setup of the Parkland shooting, aren't evidence of real spooks afoot.
>>15261 Here's an idea for a society: no rusing allowed.
>>15261 I dont think all conspiracy theories are fake. I am just saying those that believe nukes are a hoax also are more likely to believe in creationist conspiracy theories as well. Also, as absurd as they are, there are people who believe in them, you can look up "flat earth proof" or "giants are real" or something like and you'll realise some people sincerely believe them
>>13445 Did you try using Yandex instead of Google?

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?