Russia Is Building a Nuclear Space Bomber (thedailybeast.com)

So this is Russia answer to the ,, by quax · 2016-07-15 19:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

... anti-missle systems.

Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:41 · Score: 5, Informative

ICBMs hit their targets a lot faster then 2 hours after launch (~30 min give or take, given launch/target). Anything that can "intercept" a faster-moving ICBM can also intercept the bomber moving 25% of the same speed,, and they know it. It's part of why they are so pissed about the Thaad deployments and the rest of it. Yes, the bomber may be able to deply decoys, but it's no different then a crappy version of a MIRVing ICBM with extra dummy warheads.
AKA *yawn*
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:06 · Score: 1

I don't see how.
Either it deploys from orbit, in which case the missile has to survive reentry, while not a huge problem there is a problem that it'll be effectively blind while doing so. making it a really easy target for interception.
Or the bomber has to come down to deploy, in which case the bomber is doing reentry, and that's pretty much the opposite of stealthy, so again, a nice long straight predictable flight path while the bomber is blind to anything coming to intercept it.
Plus the Americans had the benefit of being a lot closer to the equator. Anything the Russians want to put into orbit from their own soil is going to burn more fuel and take a bigger rocket to get there, and that means smaller payloads, or a MUCH bigger rocket.
Running patrols with something like this would be ruinously expensive, (like, say you wanted to put the classic B-2 stealth bomber into orbit. That'd cost around 5 billion dollars). and if you didn't run patrols with it, its launch would be a big fat telegraph of intent.
The thing is fucking useless, really expensive, but its sounds bad ass. "Nuclear space bomber!" Its a PR move.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by pjt33 · 2016-07-15 20:37 · Score: 1

Either it deploys from orbit, in which case the missile has to survive reentry, while not a huge problem there is a problem that it'll be effectively blind while doing so. making it a really easy target for interception.
So? ICBMs also have to go through reentry. And the B stands for ballistic: they're not intended to do complicated dodging. Is there any reason why MIRVs wouldn't be as successful an anti-interception strategy for orbitally launched missiles as for submarine-launched ones?
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Hognoxious · 2016-07-15 20:54 · Score: 1

To survive re-entry they need heat shields. That's got to add weight.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 21:25 · Score: -1

Missile, not missle. Why do so many people not get that? Not to mention your terrible title.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by pslytely+psycho · 2016-07-15 22:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not to mention that they need to invent the single stage to orbit spaceplane first....

--
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 23:00 · Score: 0

Missile intercept is typically done at apogee because it presents a larger target on the missile cross-section, at least useful for kinetic interception. For explosive and/or nuclear intercept proximity is the only requirement, but again speed is less at apogee because of rotation.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Opportunist · 2016-07-15 23:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Most are still working on nukular, give them time.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by JoeMerchant · 2016-07-16 00:13 · Score: 1

Seems like a logical extension of nuclear subs, except that orbital space planes can be fully automated. WCGW?
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 00:16 · Score: 0

There's a big difference between re-entry velocity from a ballistic trajectory and from orbit. You don't need huge heat sheilds on a ballistic missile, it'll be doing 2-4000 mph in the upper atmosphere and actually get more heating on the way up.
Coming down from orbit it'll be doing about 8000 miles an hour. Bear in mind that air resistance is a cube ratio to velocity, and its obvious how much more heat that'll generate.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by CrimsonAvenger · 2016-07-16 00:40 · Score: 1

WCGW?
Not much, really. No, a nuclear weapon won't go off if the silly thing crashes.
Nor will it make things radioactive, really. Remember, your basic ICBM warhead is already designed for reentry, so it's not going to vaporize and spread Pu239 all over the place if the spaceplane crashes.
About all the nuclear bomber in space does, when it gets down to it, is give you an ICBM that you can change your mind about. Once you pull the trigger on an ICBM, it's done. With the spaceplane, you can decide not to be so hasty if you get nervous over the half hour from launch to deployment of the nukes from the plane.
So, ultimately this is about having the delivery speed of an ICBM with the recall-ability of a bomber....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 00:59 · Score: 1

An SSTO that can loiter on patrol in the atmosphere then "ascend to orbit" on command, no less.
Sounds like some general's fantasy.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by LifesABeach · 2016-07-16 01:51 · Score: 1

"...strike a target with nuclear warheads and then return to its home base." Some people may still think that the use of one new clear bomb is enough to start/stop a war. They would learn a hard lesson on that topic. But lets consider the unignoreable facts, after bomb 27 goes off; it won't matter how noble you are.
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 02:14 · Score: 1

IMHO This story is intended for domestic Rusky consumption.
The Russians I know wouldn't believe it, but they are all technical professionals now living in the west. Don't know if a Russian 'tractor driver' would buy this.
Opinions from Russians?

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by JoeMerchant · 2016-07-16 02:18 · Score: 1

Spacecraft never "go dark," uncontrollable, unrecoverable. Re-entry from geo-stationary orbit would take too long (and GEOS is expensive to get to), so they'll likely be flying it LEO, with potential to re-enter basically anywhere if it loses command/control.
I'm not sure which would be worse: fissile material scattered across hundreds of miles, or a mostly-intact warhead falling in a random (70% likely water) location.
Ultimately, the space plane is cheaper to operate than a nuclear sub, but it lacks the stealth location capability, and if it doesn't have people on-board that makes it an easier diplomatic target for pre-emptive strike - everyone will know exactly where it is and any orbital maneuvering to make direct passes over targets can be interpreted even more clearly than the movement of naval fleets. Next up: killer satellites making precautionary strikes against weaponized satellites and spreading so much orbital debris as to make LEO commercially useless.
If there aren't explicit treaties against these things, there will be the moment a country actually starts deployment of one.
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 02:49 · Score: 1

Opinions from Russians?
In non Soviet Russia space race bankrupts YOU.
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 03:29 · Score: 0

Spaceplane launches might be less dramatic, less predictable than an ICBM? They could loiter in orbit until called upon? Sounds like characteristics desirable in a first strike system?
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 03:38 · Score: 0

If there aren't explicit treaties against these things, there will be the moment a country actually starts deployment of one.
Ahem
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by MobSwatter · 2016-07-16 04:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

I personally believe this to be propaganda in support of current saber rattling between NATO forces and Russia trying to force feed Russia US debt because the Dragon family proved to be just too badass for Rothschild who got handed his ass in a currency war and China began to dump US debt. Current multi warhead ICBM's are far more efficient in delivery to multiple targets to justify spending to develop a reusable craft to do the same. This appears to be an attack on pretty much the only country that still has a viable space program the US has be dependent upon for over a decade as a taxi service to orbit simply because bankster run US has been rendered fiscally incapable of maintaining one, nice shoot'n uncle Sam there's another hole in your foot. There are also globalization benefits to the story as well in an attempt to level the playing field so that we can all have a one world government and a single point of failure because the corrupt elite are simply too lazy to have to make multiple calls dealing with multiple governments to pursue some twisted agenda -boohoo. Not sold on the story, distinct smell of bullshit.
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by garyebickford · 2016-07-16 04:32 · Score: 1

I think this would be a suborbital vehicle. It's one thing (and a pretty good approach for fast point-to-point flight) to get out of the atmosphere for a significant part of a flight - this may be the real market for fast trips like London-Singapore. This is hypersonic speeds, plus maybe a bit more. But orbit requires three to five times more velocity, which requires 1/2 MV^2 more energy, which requires that much more fuel, which increases the mass ...
The only plausible SSTO vehicle I am aware of right now is the British project for the Skylon spaceplane that uses the hybrid jet/rocket SABRE engine. While the most critical element of SABRE, the cooler system, has been successfully tested, the first actual running engine is not projected to be until 2020 or 2022.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by garyebickford · 2016-07-16 04:34 · Score: 1

Funny thing - I hear new readers and politicians say 'nukular' all the time. It wasn't that long ago that Bush Jr. got blasted for saying that - even though at least 1/2 of the people back then were saying it that way as well.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 04:35 · Score: 0

Seems like a logical extension of nuclear subs, except that orbital space planes can be fully automated.
No. It's completely illogical. Both Russia and the United States already have submarine launched solid fuel ballistic missiles (SLBM) that are fully automated after launch and with multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRV). This technology has been around since the 1970s and has reached a very refined level in the US/UK Trident missile. If nuclear weapons delivery is the goal, there's no better system. This "space bomber" is a bullshit political stunt, designed to frighten civilians and politicians on the other side who don't know any better.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by garyebickford · 2016-07-16 04:42 · Score: 1

Indeed. It's worth noting that prior to OST, both the US and USSR set off nukes in space.
One of the long term problems of space development is that almost everything in space is a potential weapon. For starters, they are kinetic kill vehicles if just aimed in the "wrong" direction. Then nuclear propulsion and power systems are going to be essential for almost every activity past the orbit of Mars. (I'm hoping for use of Thorium MSRs for most of that, as it removes almost all of the problems associated with Uranium and Plutonium, not only because this almost eliminates nuclear power plants as bomb sources.) For example, the recent Juno probe is the first outer planet probe to use solar panels. The solar power available at that distance is about 4.3% of the power available at one AU.
But despite the difficulties, I expect a lot of in-space mining, refining, and manufacturing to be based on solar power for many reasons, not least being that it's cheap and almost entirely zero maintenance, and you can make a solar power system as large as you need. Perhaps the biggest difficulty will be finding the necessary materials in space to make them out of.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 06:08 · Score: 0

Unless you send up your own and booby trap the thing when it fires (or even better, install some sort of over ride).
Next will be some sort of counter measures.....
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 07:56 · Score: 0

Missile, not missle. Why do so many people not get that?

I prefer 'hittle'...
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 08:40 · Score: 0

Hey uncle sam how many anti missile defense systems you planning on putting around the good ole US of A? Think of the cost and ability to change trajectory from a flying freaking saucer of doom. We are entering cold war part 2 because idiots in Washington keep playing risk with our tax dollars.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 08:49 · Score: 0

Then 2 hours after launch what?
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by robi5 · 2016-07-16 10:59 · Score: 2

... in the US maybe
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Opportunist · 2016-07-16 11:49 · Score: 0

So 50% of the people in the US are too stupid to understand where words come from and how they are properly pronounced?
Who would have thought?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by quax · 2016-07-16 14:10 · Score: 1

Time to claim my foreign language exception. English is not my native tongue.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by quax · 2016-07-16 14:16 · Score: 1

Dunno. I am not particularly frightened. The Russians aren't irrational actors. They won't go nuclear unless you force their hand.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by rtb61 · 2016-07-16 14:54 · Score: 0

As propaganda to feed into American greed to drive more defence spending, it seems a logical step by Russia. Reality is, long range stealth cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads is all that is required and they know it because that is why there is an arms limitation treaty on them.
When it comes to global agenda, that is mainly all bull. The psychopaths and narcissists at the top do not trust each other and at the first beneficial moment will stab each other in the back. The corruptive actions they take, just happen to align because those actions serve the same individual destructive egoistic goals. In the end they are far more likely to bring global society crashing down right on their own stupid egoistically risk taking heads, than anything else. Take over is doomed to failure by it's very own corruptive nature ie the individual greed corrupts their own temporarily conspired efforts, failure is inherent in the system because of that.
I don't think the Russian government is serious in this effort, so much as simply trolling the US government and NATO, the North American Territorial Occupation farce. Mocking the US and NATO (especially the US trying to force other countries into spending more with the US military industrial complex under threat of government destabilisation if they do not) into spending more as well as a modicum of misinformation to hide what they are really up to. A much bigger commercial push into space.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 17:49 · Score: 0

They are trying to match the US X-37B space plane that has been conducting long term missions over the last 6 years. The Russians are just blowing hot air. They are desperate to show how strong they are when in reality they are on their way to become a 3rd world country. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia does. There is no missile defense any where in the world capable of stopping ICBM's. Anyone launching nuclear weapons at the US is committing suicide. Just one submarine has enough nuclear missiles to totally destroy any country or region in the world so why waste money on a project to put ICBM's in orbit? And if they actually did put nuclear weapons in orbit those weapon platforms could be destroyed quite easily.
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by tigersha · 2016-07-16 19:42 · Score: 1

Same problem with space based solar Energ. Lots of energy to be collected in space but anything that involves beaming it down with microwave lasers also makes for a giant city busting death ray.
So all the viable schemes is a political dead end

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 20:09 · Score: 0

AFAIK, Sputnik news isn't really targeted for domestic consumption. Don't know about nationals living abroad though.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 21:26 · Score: 0
I have no idea how this would bring anything valuable against "anti-missile systems" (let's just call them surface based aerial defense) especially taken into account "conventional" approaches:
- Natural development cycle of strategic deterrent systems and aerial defense systems. New interception capabilities prompt new evasion methods etc and the other way around. I think the advantage is on delivery side - ie evasive maneuvers are easier than hitting (=> modern aerial defense systems might have decent chances of interception against couple of generations old strategic deterrent delivery systems).
- Tactical missiles. Easier to make non-interceptable to destroy aerial defense systems to make way for the strategic deterrent delivery.
- Barges. Basic artillery concepts - firing a barge at once (or actually target it to land at once) tends to be more efficient than firing single artillery piece. Same applies to delivery of strategic deterrent. While US has managed to shoot down few postcards (artillery rockets) from Saddam, facing a barge of them is another story...
- Radar saturation after nuclear blast. It shouldn't be that hard to fire couple of warheads ahead of the actual barge and explode them in relative vicinity of the target. Bit like firing smoke on ground so your troops can advance without getting visual-aided ass-kicking. The related fun fact: USSR didn't develop anti-radar (conventional) missiles for quite long time because "first nuclear blast would render radars unusable" (someone forgot the prospect of proxy wars altogether).
Aerial defenses capable of harassing strategic deterrent delivery get one credit though: the complication of sensing the strategic deterrent causes a delay. Delay makes sending appropriate Re: easier.
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-17 05:21 · Score: 0

US has been publically talking about our first stike capability for 15 years. Russia is not talking about THEIR first strike capability but making our first strike capability fail. THIS also has the virtue of not being a launch on warning system. Further it is fully legal system.
And great. If they launch into space as a warning, it is illegal, but who is to say they are carrying. Just a test. I am not sure on the legals there, but I expect our space plane is equally legal.
Suppose the payload is very large. And it is intended as an orbital explosion. My cuban missile crisis childhood nightmares. I bet you do not have any MEMS at home.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by MobSwatter · 2016-07-17 05:29 · Score: 1

I do not see this as being sourced from Russia on propaganda, this is a western promoted story which Russia doesn't have any control over and as of recent has made a public complaint about western media aligning against Russia.
The global elite are bound by secret societies and if they run counter to the Rothschild agenda they would pay a price for, usually when dealing with those types it is the ultimate one.
I don't believe the Russian government has any interest in reinventing the wheel when it comes to nuclear ordinance delivery packages, far too much economic turmoil in the world at the moment to be thinking of that. One thing I have seen out of Palmdale recently was the development of a Mach 10 scramjet capable of delivery of a nuclear payload. Sad they bothered to reopen the PAPERCLIP documents that OXCART was basing development on simply to carry a bomb. Says a lot about the US that really isn't admirable.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-18 05:07 · Score: 0

The problem is almost nothign can intercept a modern ICBM when it does not know from WHERE it will come.
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by garyebickford · 2016-07-18 08:13 · Score: 1

The designs I'm familiar with are not microwave lasers (technically 'masers', which actually predate lasers), but an extremely diffuse beam that covers dozens of square miles at the surface. OTOH, if we assume that the beam comes from a single source, then the difference is just in the focus, which indeed could be altered at will to form a 'death ray'.
This raises an interesting fundamental but not very widely discussed aspect of technological civilization. At every stage of technological advance the amount of economic resources and destructive power available to a single individual increases. At one time not so long ago it was a rare thing for an individual to be able to create or destroy very much - mass killing required at least hiring a bunch of henchmen, and it was a rare individual who was left in control of, say, the lifetime income of a dozen average people. But today, as we are painfully aware, a single individual without any training or much preparation, or money, can kill thousands. And yet we continue to accept individual ownership and control of vehicles that have the capability. Thus civilization always demands ever higher levels of cooperation and self-control of its citizens. We have people (with the appropriate training and evaluation of ability and reliability) driving $100 million aircraft on a regular basis, and entrepreneurs developing what are lineal descendants of ICBMs, for purely commercial purposes. It's not a coincidence that both the US Atlas and Delta, and at least one of the Russian rockets, started out as ICBMs - the military were the first ones willing to pay the costs of 'first mover' development, back when it was a lot harder and more expensive than it is today.
And we are all used to the idea that in general we can depend on others to not use these technologies for ill. If space solar power does get built (I have my doubts for other reasons), it will probably happen after the vehicle launch rate reaches an average of one or more per day, with a significant percentage of those being manned launches. Space will then be mundane, and we will have gotten used to big, visible things flying around in the sky. There will be a significant regulatory and enforcement of rules present in space (a "Space Force", at least for near-Earth activities). By analogy, there was a time when if a very large ship appeared over the horizon, it was almost certainly a military or pirate ship. Today it may be Bill Gates' yacht.
I'm hand-waving the concept here of course, trying to get to a useful conclusion. I suppose the appropriate conclusion is that, human nature being what it is (and that is just 'nature nature' as expressed in humans), the size of the potential catastrophe is going to track the size of the civilization forever. This implies that if we become an interstellar civilization, some idiot at some point really will destroy a planet. I can only hope it will be just one among thousands that are not destroyed.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Aighearach · 2016-07-21 15:31 · Score: 1

It is just another silly thing where it sounds like something new because it might have humans along for the ride. But a space bomber is not as good as a missile. It probably isn't even a space bomber. It is probably a space missile command vehicle.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 17:37 · Score: 0

Dunno. I am not particularly frightened. The Russians aren't irrational actors. They won't go nuclear unless you force their hand.
That would depend on how you would define "irrational". Putin is a paranoid man, he had to be to rise through the ranks like he did. Paranoid people can be very unpredictable (aka irrational). Religious leaders (like Iran and Pakistan) may wake up one day and go "God told me to nuke $X" and go do it. Putin, on the other hand, would wake up and go "OMG, the USA are preparing to strike at the motherland! LAUNCH ALL MISSILES!!!".
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 23:19 · Score: 0

There are treaties that specifically say you are not allowed to do this. The US and USSR signed a no weapons in space treaty in the 70's. That was one of the things that the USSR yelled about constantly with Reagan's SDI, it was a treaty violation if they ever put it up.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 01:57 · Score: 0

Part of nuclear war is that the bomber would only have a radioactive crater to come back to. The Russians should know this, so I'm not sure why they would purposely build to a return-and-rearm requirement. The one advantage I can see is if the space bomber is manned and can go higher than LEO to give itself better intercept avoidance (this would also require more maneuvering than most space vehicles are capable of in a vacuum), thus putting ordnance on target with a higher probability.
I could see where the logic would come from (21st century version of an SR-71, which drew Soviet ire for decades due to repeated misses with various SAM's), however as others have indicated there is a lot of risk in design and operation. It could also be to pre-stage weapons in orbit that can return to Russia prior to a war (new twist on the bomber part of the Nuclear Triad), which would make more sense as a weapon in orbit would reach a target quicker than one being launched from the ground. This is also in major violation of various international treaties prohibiting the weaponization of space.
if I had to guess, Putin is trying to draw the US into Regan-esque defense spending to bankrupt the country (i.e. he's not going to develop this any faster than is necessary to panic the US Joint Chiefs and Intel community) or he wants to cache weapons in temporary orbit.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 02:18 · Score: 0

Sorry to reply to myself but:
a)
"require more maneuvering than most space vehicles are capable of in a vacuum"
should be
"require more maneuvering than most space vehicles are NOT capable of in a vacuum"
b) Putting nuclear warheads in orbit is the entire reason why the Outer Space Treaty specifically bans the practice. This was due to the existence of:
Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (USSR)
Strategic Defense Initiative (USA)
It was followed in 2006 with the Space Preservation Treaty, which also covered conventional weapons.
As GWB began deploying missile based active protection systems for theater ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in NATO countries the Russians raised the same grievances as they did with SDI ("Star Wars") in the 1980's. This development is probably also related to Putin trying to make good on those threats / grievances.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 02:37 · Score: 0

actually, you can abort ICBM's.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 18:10 · Score: 0

More or less southern US. It's part of the dialect, y'all.

Dude the threat is china by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:34 · Score: 0

and the bernie protesters.

Re:Dude the threat is china by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:33 · Score: 0

See. The part I don't get is Bernie protesters should be after Hillary, not Trump.
She is the one that kept him from getting anywhere.
Re:Dude the threat is china by LifesABeach · 2016-07-16 02:00 · Score: 1

Typical A/C, you're not thinking things through. Not that your existence mattered to begin with.
Re:Dude the threat is china by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 02:17 · Score: 1

Bernie would never have gotten as many protest votes if there had been a single good candidate running in the democrat primaries.
All the Bernie voters that are now planning on voting Trump (last poll I saw over 25%) were just protest votes from day 1.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Dude the threat is china by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 04:39 · Score: 1

All the Bernie voters that are now planning on voting Trump (last poll I saw over 25%) were just protest votes from day 1.
While there is some cross over vote between Bernie supporters and Trump supporters, I don't think it's anything like 25%. I would be shocked if it's more than 1% of Bernie primary voters. The Bernie supporters who chose not to support Clinton are more likely to leave the Presidential vote blank or write-in Bernie than vote for Trump.
Re:Dude the threat is china by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 06:02 · Score: 1

You think they lie to pollsters?
There is no way about 25% of the US population are actually commies. Many were protest votes from day 1.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Dude the threat is china by Xabraxas · 2016-07-16 11:51 · Score: 1

There is literally no way 25% of Bernie supporters vote for Trump. You don't even have to go that far back in time to see a similar phenomena. Remember the Puma's that weren't going to vote for Obama? They had bigger numbers at one point. The vast majority of them didn't vote for McCain and the vast majority of Bernie supporters won't vote for Trump.

--
Time makes more converts than reason
Re:Dude the threat is china by Hognoxious · 2016-07-16 21:55 · Score: 1

You think they lie to pollsters?

I know they do, and so does former UK PM Neil Kinnock.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not sure how this is better than an ICBM? Sounds more like they are just grasping for an actual use for spaceplanes.

Re:Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by LifesABeach · 2016-07-16 02:04 · Score: 1

There's the real question. What applications would space planes have other than what some dumb ass in the kremlin would "light up" for?
Re:Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by garyebickford · 2016-07-16 04:45 · Score: 1

The Boeing 707 was derived directly from the B52 bomber. It is quite plausible for both the US and USSR to fund a military spaceplane for its own purposes, in the process doing the essential big spend that no commercial company can afford to do. Then out of that work can come a derived fast commercial transport aircraft, providing all the benefits and more of the Supersonic Transport, without the sonic booms. Four hours London to Sidney, or New York to Capetown.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by angel'o'sphere · 2016-07-16 08:29 · Score: 1

ICBMs have a 'minimum' range. In other words, close to the missiles launch position it can not shot.
Also the existing ICBMs have quite huge war heads. I would assume such a plane would likely have plenty of very small ones.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re: Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by DougF · 2016-07-17 08:19 · Score: 1

No. Two separate airframes and development cycles.

--
Impetuous! Homeric!

Sounds Like by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:35 · Score: 1

Some Russian officials want some attention.

"We're still here guys... we really are!"

This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · 2016-07-15 19:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is better than an ICBM because...? I don't see the point.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:41 · Score: 0

The orbit. It nukes from the ORBIT!
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Gaerek · 2016-07-15 19:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

If by better, you mean more effective, it's because we can detect ICBM launches which gives time to possibly intercept and destroy them. With this, they could drop a nuke from orbit and we would have very little time to react. Sure, we're going to be tracking this motherfucker and we'll know when it's overhead, but having to intercept during the re-entry phase only is much more difficult.

This is a scary piece of technology. Could potentially lead to space race 2.0. If russia has nukes in space, it's only a matter of time before we will too.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:53 · Score: 0

The point is that this ICBM would fly over your country ever so many hours. Early warning systems can't detect something that's always there. Realistically it has no point at all other than the USSR proding the US for intel or with intel.
It's probably more of a subtle joke between world leaders than a realistic stance.
If you do arm your robotic shuttle with a nuke.. why would you announce it ahead of time or talk about it at all? That seems pretty dumb.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:58 · Score: -1

I'm guessing we both already have nukes in space.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:06 · Score: 0

With this, they could drop a nuke from orbit and we would have very little time to react.
Nitpick: dropping a nuke from orbit would only result in a co-orbiting nuke...
Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by Type44Q · 2016-07-15 20:07 · Score: 0

That's a foregone conclusion.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:29 · Score: 0

you could react to the plane itself, it takes longer, is slower and is bigger as well than an ICBM. but it is not history altering by any means.
and well, about the intercepts.. you don't have intercept capability for proper icbm nukes and YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW if a satellite launch is a nuke launch or not - or if said payload for a satellite launch is something course altering. You have somewhat working intercept capability for scuds etc battlefield scale weapons(a battlefield can be pretty large nowadays).
russia, china, eu and japan already all posses SUPERIOR first strike capability than what the plane offers, so really what is the point? personnel insertions and recon and such seem like a much more worthwhile use for it if you want to use it to deliver some package..
you know why sr 71 didn't have nukes? exactly. there is no point. they had some plans for that though.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by AK+Marc · 2016-07-15 20:35 · Score: 2

You don't re-enter. Detonate the bomb at the edge of space The EMP will cause havoc, and will be uninterceptable.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · 2016-07-15 20:47 · Score: 1

The summary suggests it prowls around over Russia and only goes into space when it's going to blow something up.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 21:27 · Score: 0

The timing is no accident. This is an attempt to influence the US election in November by forcing our Russian foreign policy center-stage immediately before the party nomination Conventions..
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · 2016-07-15 21:27 · Score: 1

You could do that with an ICBM too.
But in either case, what next?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · 2016-07-15 21:32 · Score: 1

How many of these would be needed to produce even a 50% successful counterforce first strike?
If god himself came down from heaven and gave them the planes they couldn't afford the oil to put in them.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-15 21:44 · Score: 2

So what's the plan, reduced the number of warheads but make it harder to stop them? Seems like at the moment the hear number of ICBMs and the submarine second strike capability make any kind of defence system largely pointless against an enemy with 1000s of nukes to throw at you.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by peragrin · 2016-07-15 22:00 · Score: 1

Did you read it? Russia has single stage to orbit flight abilities. By 2020 that should tell you how much of this is bs
Bombers have a limited flight envelope. 50-60 thousand feet but a few planes can go higher. To do an orbital hop requires much more. The best answer to 2020 possibility is an air launched ICBM.
The ICBM Is loaded into the bomber, the plane gets to altitude climbs higher and launches. As the plane stalls it falls clear of the ICBM which is picked up by heat trackers that record launches. Since it launches from 50,000 feet the missile defense shield doesn't have time to intercept.
Not scary tech, not amazing, the missile defense shield is only 30-50% effective anyways less so against an all out nuclear attack.
The thing with an air launched ICBM is weight and fuel. ICBMs are heavy, and the fuel for the rocket is limited

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:05 · Score: 1

Why drop a nuke.... all they need to do is drop rocks from space.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by qbast · 2016-07-15 22:30 · Score: 1

What happens next is that Trident II makes Russia glow.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:35 · Score: 0

What comic book did you see that in?
Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:36 · Score: 0

Which would probably be a better strategy. In Russia the bomber is in a patrol flight. On command, it goes into orbit, launches a handful of warheads, some decoys, then goes back to the Patrol flight or lands. Meanwhile those warheads are now heading or drifting towards the USA.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by FilatovEV · 2016-07-15 22:55 · Score: 1

What comic book did you see that in?
Obviously, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. Also, it's not a comic book.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by ogdenk · 2016-07-15 22:57 · Score: 1

You know Russia exports a shit-ton of oil right? They have their own, no need to buy it.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 23:09 · Score: 0

This is FAR better than an ICBM but this is also forbidden in some treaty all superpowers has signed back in the 50'ties.
You are not allowed to put weapons in space.
The idea seems "just like an ICBM" but ICBM's has a limit on warheads (in some other treaty) and are one launch only, this is reusable and could potentially be placed in orbit awaiting launch order... then you only have ½ of the way of an ICBM and you can't detect the launch.
It seems that Russia do not intend to respect the treaties signed by the Sovjet Union.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Archtech · 2016-07-15 23:10 · Score: 1

"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", a science fiction novel by Robert A Heinlein published over 50 years ago. Heinlein was a qualified engineer and a retired US Navy officer (who once commanded a gun turret on the battleship USS Oklahoma, and docked USS Lexington when she was the largest warship in the world). He knew what he was talking about. In the novel, Lunar colonists rebel against an oppressive Terran "Authority", ina fairly obvious rehash of the American Revolution. Instead of bombs, they merely launch loads of rocks into ballistic trajectories calculated to hit targets on Earth (such as Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado). The effect is similar to a nuclear explosition.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Archtech · 2016-07-15 23:12 · Score: 1

Edited version of my last reply:
"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", a science fiction novel by Robert A Heinlein published over 50 years ago. Heinlein was a qualified engineer and a retired US Navy officer (who once commanded a gun turret on the battleship USS Oklahoma, and docked USS Lexington when she was the largest warship in the world). He knew what he was talking about. In the novel, Lunar colonists rebel against an oppressive Terran "Authority", in a fairly obvious rehash of the American Revolution. Instead of bombs, they merely launch loads of rocks into ballistic trajectories calculated to hit targets on Earth (such as Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado). The effect is similar to a nuclear explosion.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-07-15 23:13 · Score: 1

This is better than an ICBM because...? I don't see the point.
You can recall it if needed, unlike an ICBM. This a/c would allow you to launch a retaliatory strike if you thought you were attacked and still have time to sop it if you were wrong.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Archtech · 2016-07-15 23:14 · Score: 1

Yes, because no one in the entire world outside the USA cares about anything except American politics - and especially elections. Ironically enough, a very great deal of military history and an immense amount of death and suffering has been caused as a mere side-effect of US elections, and leaders who wanted to "look strong" before them.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 23:15 · Score: 0

Depends on the target.
If it's ISIS, the losses could be rationalized by most people.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by KiloByte · 2016-07-15 23:21 · Score: 1

Oil and gas are basically the only things they don't need to buy.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by drinkypoo · 2016-07-15 23:30 · Score: 1

If by better, you mean more effective, it's because we can detect ICBM launches which gives time to possibly intercept and destroy them. With this, they could drop a nuke from orbit and we would have very little time to react. Sure, we're going to be tracking this motherfucker and we'll know when it's overhead,
We'll know when it ascends, too.. It seems of limited use.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Killall+-9+Bash · 2016-07-15 23:55 · Score: 1

We have nuclear armed cruise missiles. I'm sure Russia does too.

--
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by MightyMartian · 2016-07-16 00:13 · Score: 1

Historically, and I'm sure it's true today as well, the Kremlin has been deeply concerned about the direction of American foreign policy.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 01:10 · Score: 0

If you prefer, substitute what I considered writing instead - "pants for the pilots".
The fundamental point stands - they could never run enough of them to make a difference.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by dbIII · 2016-07-16 01:22 · Score: 1

Iron Sky:

"Who doesn't have weapons in space?"
Everybody turns and looks at the representative from Finland who is the only one holding up a hand.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by ray-auch · 2016-07-16 01:40 · Score: 1

Oil gas and vodka
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 01:44 · Score: 0

Oh good! The missing space between in and a made your first post completely unintelligible. Thanks for re-posting!
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by fustakrakich · 2016-07-16 01:53 · Score: 1

But in either case, what next?
... "guess I'll have a Coke"

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 02:11 · Score: 0

oil, gas, uranium and vodka.
Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 02:23 · Score: 1

Hint: Star Trek is _not_ science fiction, it is fantasy. You don't fall out of orbit when you lose power. You need to do a deorbit burn.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by BradMajors · 2016-07-16 02:31 · Score: 1

It is a very useful retaliatory weapon. Russia's ICBMs can be taken out in a United States first strike.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Place+a+name+here · 2016-07-16 02:50 · Score: 1

So how is this better than FOBS? Sure, fractional orbital bombardment is illegal, but presumably so would this thing be.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 03:03 · Score: 0

This is better than an ICBM because...? I don't see the point.
Hype, that's why. It's an attempt to show that the Russian military can keep up with the US technologically even though it's not true.
The Russian's military is aging. The government's budget is shrinking because it's heavily dependent on natural gas exports and with oil so low they've had to keep cutting the budget to maintain a budget surplus; just last year they ran their first budget deficit. Their foreign currency reserves are shrinking. Their military is aging; the Navy needs a serious modernization which they don't have the money for and their aircraft are older models like the MIG-29 and the SU-34; good platforms but 15 to 20 years old. Their new fighter, the PAK FA is so expensive they can barely afford 50 of them and they're trying to partner with India to buy more so they platform gains volume cost advantages so it's more affordable for themselves too.
Amidst all that they claim a nuclear armed space-plane? I don't think so, they don't have the budget for that.
Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 04:05 · Score: 0

Reuse? You think a nuclear war has a reuse component to it? You get one salvo to wipe out your enemy... If you don't, they won't give you a second chance. If you do, there won't be any one else to hit.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 04:15 · Score: 0

No, it's trashy daydreams for adolescents.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 04:17 · Score: 0

It's only overhead a few times a month So you get one off in a first strike. Again, how is different tan an ICBM?
Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 04:39 · Score: 1

Hint: Star Trek is _not_ science fiction, it is fantasy. You don't fall out of orbit when you lose power. You need to do a deorbit burn.
Actually you do. Space is not a vacuum. It's filled with gas that applies drag on anything in orbit causing the object to slow down and eventually causing it to fall out of orbit. That is unless you have power source to accelerate back up to the correct orbital velocity.
Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 05:38 · Score: 0

Are you saying that modifying the orbits of space rocks to hit a planet would not work?
Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · 2016-07-16 06:16 · Score: 2

True, the atmosphere doesn't just stop at a certain point. However the war would be long over by the time the nukes' orbits decayed naturally.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 07:49 · Score: 0

Well sure....we can tell if you're fueling a rocket on an open air rocket platform, and maybe can can tell if you're doing the same in a silo before you launch it (kind of doubt it though), but since they've got subs with nukes, and cruise missiles they can send on their way from an airplane that can hit us in 10 minutes or less.....does it matter if they've got an orbiter that can do it too in 2 hours from being "launched"?
I don't see the increased threat. We can't hit the low flying cruise missiles either. and I'd give is 1/20 of hitting a sub based launch with conventional intermediate/short rangers with multiple warheads.....If it makes you feel any better, we can do it to them too......
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 09:03 · Score: 0

And then? What happens next?
Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 10:35 · Score: 1

That's a precision aiming technique if I've ever heard of one. Somewhere east of perigee on an orbit between 1020 and 1025.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 11:29 · Score: 0

Space bombers are a silly idea. It is only the nukes in space that is worrisome.
Space bomber is less scary than take a boring old ICBM, harden the components for a long voyage, put it in orbit (the tricky part since they are normally sub orbital), and put the re-entry on hold. Do that and the doomsday clock would jump almost to midnight.
Set it up for automatic triggering if it detects nukes going off in your home country and you could get the rest of the way to midnight PDQ.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 16:49 · Score: 0

I doubt a cruise missile can reenter the atmosphere. It will melt straight up, shitting it's radioactive payload all over the atmosphere, but no boom.
Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by tigersha · 2016-07-16 19:51 · Score: 1

A re-entering cruise missile would make a great shooting star when viewed from the ground

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · 2016-07-17 09:42 · Score: 1

One, a first strike would be unlikely to get them all anyway.
Two, submarines.
This thing would be redundant even if it was feasible.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2016-07-21 14:14 · Score: 1

Fallout

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Aighearach · 2016-07-21 16:14 · Score: 1

Sure, we're going to be tracking this motherfucker and we'll know when it's overhead, but having to intercept during the re-entry phase only is much more difficult.
Well, consider that THAAD thing in the news, look up the acronym for that.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Aighearach · 2016-07-21 16:19 · Score: 1

But in either case, what next?
You laugh at the poor schmucks because all their new cars have ruined controllers and everybody is gonna be buying new computers? ...
Profit!
I think it would make more sense for the Chinese than the Russians, since they at least sell computers. But who would buy replacements from them, and would they still be making any?
Maybe dropping the bombs onto the cities would be more destructive. Dunno. But if you're not going to kill us, poking us that hard is a dangerous idea.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Aighearach · 2016-07-21 16:20 · Score: 1

They have a lot of timber, they could come at us with millions of biplanes.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 18:14 · Score: 0

Oil gas and vodka and borscht
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 18:20 · Score: 0

And yet we *still* haven't invaded. We confuse them terribly.

I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by jonwil · 2016-07-15 19:39 · Score: 5, Informative

I am not a legal expert but I believe their plan to produce a nuclear-armed spacecraft violates the Outer Space Treaty (to which Russia is a signatory) and specifically Article IV which says "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner." (which sounds like exactly what Russia wants to do)

Then again, with the way the Russian economy is these days, I dont think they have the funds to actually build or launch this thing so it wont matter...

Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by macklin01 · 2016-07-15 19:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am not a legal expert but I believe their plan to produce a nuclear-armed spacecraft violates the Outer Space Treaty (to which Russia is a signatory) and specifically Article IV which says "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner." (which sounds like exactly what Russia wants to do)
Then again, with the way the Russian economy is these days, I dont think they have the funds to actually build or launch this thing so it wont matter...

Sounds like it's planned to only ascend when needed, so nothing stationed in space. (And in any event, not in orbit until the point where treaties are moot.)

--
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Trachman · 2016-07-15 19:59 · Score: 1

Your legal interpretation is, without any doubt, correct. That being said, Russia is well known for breaking international treaties when it is strategically or opportunistically convenient for them. And we are not trying to single out Russia by the way, there is plenty of other, "nations, that are too large or too powerful to be punished", that are doing the same or worse.
There are two purposes:
first one is to replay "Star Wars" military program in reverse. Russians would salivate on the idea of causing economic cardiac arrest to the US economy because of unbearable military spending. Even now, US debt ratios are far worse than Greek. If a reader is not a math challenged person, it is not difficult to predict the future when debt is poorly managed.
second purpose is actually to build that orbital bomber. It will not be carrying nukes though. In reality it will be called scientific weather satellite orbiting carrier carrying "weather probes". In the case of actual war all those treaties are no longer considered binding.
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:00 · Score: -1

Mod this up please,
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:44 · Score: 1

it doesn't prohibit transit through orbit. it prohibits placing them on orbit, not having a plane fly to orbit and dump them back.
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by phayes · 2016-07-15 22:53 · Score: 1

"planned to only ascend": What exactly is it "ascending" with? MPPSP? Magic Putin Pixy Snorting Powder?
The X37B is launched with an Atlas V so if this russian nationalist's wet dream is anything like the X37B it's just a jumped up ICBM.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:56 · Score: 0

If you read further it says 'full orbit'. In theory, entering orbit, dropping the nuke and going back down would be fine. As long as you don't make a complete orbit around the earth to do that.
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by nazg00l · 2016-07-16 01:21 · Score: 1

Exactly. The described mode of operation does not really compute. Transition from wing-lift atmospheric flight to orbit requires A LOT of additional energy, so the plane taking off from a runway and then boosting itself to orbit does not seem physically possible. Launching a smaller orbital vehicle from a large carrier plane is another matter... but this would simply be an airborne ballistic/orbital launch, something much different from X-37B that stays in orbit for months and actually more similar to recent American commercial attempts (cf. the White Knight).
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by dbIII · 2016-07-16 01:29 · Score: 1

As an aside Putin has Stalin's library in his office and shows it off to visitors, getting them to read Stalin's comments in the margins of various texts.
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by LWATCDR · 2016-07-16 01:29 · Score: 1

Using this for Nukes is dumb. The advantage is that you could make a first strike at DC and take out the command structure but TACAMO should still be functioning. Now using conventional weapons from space makes a lot more sense. Russia could try and use it to take out our missile defense system or even an Ohio calls sub in port. A 1000 pounds (353 kg for the metric nazis) of tungsten at 15,000 mph (24140 kph for the metric nazis) could do a world of hurt to a sub or a ship. Ten 100 lb weapons at the same speed do a job on an airbase or radar site.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 02:38 · Score: 0

Even now, US debt ratios are far worse than Greek. If a reader is not a math challenged person, it is not difficult to predict the future when debt is poorly managed.
Yes, but we control our own currency; the morons in Greece gave up that ability when they entered the EU. It's a key tool for this situation.
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 06:57 · Score: 0

1) Develop plane and make sure it works
2) Drop out of the treaty like the US did with the ABM
About funding, all that happens is that Russia can't use foreign hardware. Their aerospace stuff is pretty much all homebrew so it's more do they have the brain power to do it. That is what is debatable. After all they have taken a long time to put their stealth fighter into production, new Angara rockets, etc.
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by NicknameUnavailable · 2016-07-16 11:43 · Score: 1

Well what do you expect? The left wants to vilify Russia to the point where Hillary will mostly likely start WW3 if she gets in office. This is one of the many reasons we need Trump.
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by k6mfw · 2016-07-18 03:50 · Score: 1

I wouldn't be concerned, and I haven't RTFA. This is usual every few years Russian guvmint makes an announcement of some grand new space vehicle, give it a few more years and it will be forgotten like Pet Rocks.

--
mfwright@batnet.com
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-18 05:11 · Score: 0

There is a HUGE difference between " in orbit"and in space. Play a bit of kerbal space program, it is the easiest way to learn .
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Aighearach · 2016-07-21 16:30 · Score: 1

Missiles are better, they're just trying to hide that it is a mobile surveillance platform.
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Aighearach · 2016-07-21 16:32 · Score: 1

If you're actually dropping nukes, I think any treaties are irrelevant at that point.

Well this isn't destabilizing at all / sarcasm by Crashmarik · 2016-07-15 19:50 · Score: 1

On the other hand an arms race in space might be a real nice technology driver if we survive it.

muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:51 · Score: -1

great. another terrible weapon being introduced into this world all thanks to 'murican efforts to push a country into a corner with its NATO goons.

Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:55 · Score: -1

Go die in a fire, shithead. I hate you, your country, and your family. You are a massive piece of shit. I hope some day I get to go defecate on your grave and your parents' graves. Just like Russia, you're a complete waste of resources and contribute nothing useful to the world. Fuck off, you stupid cumstain.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:56 · Score: 0

He got you right where it hurts, didn't he? And he's right, too :-)
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 21:26 · Score: 0

Nah, I just wanted to flame someone. He's completely wrong and looked like a good target. The US would happily increase cooperation with Russia if only Russia would stop sabre rattling. Russia just can't accept that they're no longer a superpower and don't have the influence they once had. Instead of accepting this new reality, they're desperate to prove they're as powerful as ever, at any cost. That's the problem. Most European countries aren't individually the superpowers they once were, but they've accepted the reality and worked together to collectively increase their power. Russia will have none of it, and that's a big part of the problem.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 21:53 · Score: 0

Go die in a fire, shithead. I hate you, your country, and your family. You are a massive piece of shit. I hope some day I get to go defecate on your grave and your parents' graves. Just like Russia, you're a complete waste of resources and contribute nothing useful to the world. Fuck off, you stupid cumstain.
If you want an answer to 'Why do they hate us?', now you know.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:12 · Score: 0

The US would happily increase cooperation with Russia if only Russia would stop sabre rattling.
The US has bases in every country in the world except for China, North Korea, Iran and Russia. The US military budget is the same as the combined military budget of every other country in the world and the only country likely to have the capability is the US.
It might be ok, if the US government and military were controlled by the citizens of the US, but they are hostages just like the rest of the world is. Far from being a shining beacon of freedom, the US military is used as the whip controlled by the slaver that is corporate America and the hidden autocracy who runs it.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:34 · Score: 0

Nuke the fucks and they will pipe down. Worked with japs, will work with towelheads as well.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 23:19 · Score: 0

Right assumption, wrong input. Russia is an superpower. NATO, isn't. But wants to be. Nato is a wannabe, a bastard child of the cold war mindset, controlled by the Pentagon and the world war wanters.
Personally, a space plane finally! Damn right, but hopefully not low orbit. We need a low cost off planet mode, just to keep the use opeÃ±. Since the privates are all just doing nasa experiments, and little actual development. All I can say, do it.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 23:19 · Score: 0

Curious... Some of those countries also have nukes. So would your "nuke them" position equally apply to them "nuking" you?
Re: muricans = idiots by Archtech · 2016-07-15 23:35 · Score: 2

The US would happily increase cooperation with Russia if only Russia would stop sabre rattling.
Actually, the USA has over 1,000 military bases abroad - many of them in Asia, as close as possible to the frontiers of Russia, China, and Iran. Not to mention its 11 (give or take) massive carrier battle groups which prowl the oceans to intimidate other nations.
Russia has, from memory, three or four small military bases outside its own borders. Apart from Syria, where it is fighting terrorism (because someone has to, and the USA isn't) they are all in friendly nations next door to Russia itself - Belarus, Armenia, etc.
When the USA sails its carrier battle groups or other naval units a few miles from Russia and China, in waters many thousands of miles away from the USA, that isn't sabre-rattling.
When the USA organizes "NATO" military exercises that involve large numbers of soldiers and weapons parading around a few miles from Russia, that isn't sabre-rattling.
When the USA places German tanks as close to St Petersburg as they were in autumn 1941, that isn't sabre-rattling.
When the USA places missile stations that could, without anyone knowing, be equipped to fire offensive nuclear missiles, within a few miles of Russia that isn't sabre-rattling. (Although it is exactly equivalent to the Soviet actions to prevent which President Kennedy precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis).
But when the Russians or Chinese calmly announce the measures they have taken to defend themselves, or when they conduct military exercises entirely within their own borders - THAT is apparently sabre-rattling.
See http://www.globalfirepower.com.... Clue: Russia is the 5th-ranked in military spending, slightly below the UK. Its spending is less than one twelfth of the USA's.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/p...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 00:04 · Score: 0

"You are a massive piece of shit. I hope some day I get to go defecate on your grave and your parents' graves."
Oh, I get it now... I, C, BMs! It's your comment and this article both that I was looking at. They are all full of shit.
Re: muricans = idiots by MightyMartian · 2016-07-16 00:15 · Score: 1

NATO's combined military and economic assets dwarf Russia's. What an idiotic post.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re: muricans = idiots by MightyMartian · 2016-07-16 00:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Let's be mindful here that probably the only East Asian nations not happy that the US is keeping the South China Sea open to navigation is China, and probably North Korea (if NK even really cares at all). Everyone else wants the US there, even Vietnam, a one-time enemy now quickly becoming one of the US's pre-eminent allies. The Europeans sure the hell still want US/NATO military assets in Eastern Europe because of growing tensions with Russia.
And China using water cannons to attack Filipino fishermen is hardly "peaceful", China violating maritime law and trying to turn a sea mount into an island to extend its territorial waters and economic zone is hardly peaceful, and everyone should be damned glad that the US is now regularly reminding China that pouring a bunch of concrete on an atoll does not an island make.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 01:37 · Score: 0

It's sad. You used to represent hope but now you speak like the oppressor. You speak like a traitor to the values that made America great, freedom, justice and liberty FOR ALL. Even though you were given the right to bare arms, you can't stand up to your own government because you're a coward, you're afraid of it. You suppress your own countrymen because you think you are going to be the one holding the whip, when in reality the ones holding the whip are disgusted by you.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 01:59 · Score: 0

They might have nukes, but they have shit delivery systems - at very best medium-range (if it manages to launch at all). So nuke away and if any of them survives to whine about it, nuke them again.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 02:13 · Score: 0

Call the waaaambulance. And then nuke Mecca pour encourager les autres.
Re: muricans = idiots by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 02:36 · Score: 1

_One_ of those countries has nukes, Pakistan.
You can bet we know exactly where they are and have plans in place to drop an airborne division in and take them. Likely aided by a simultaneous Indian attack
Ask yourself, what happens when the muslim brotherhood takes over Pakistan? Do we just let them keep their nukes?
But that all changes when Iran finishes their nukes. Which won't be long now.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 03:37 · Score: 0

Don't nuke it.
Take their holy rock, carve it into a crapper, put it in a random American highway rest stop bathroom and move it once a week.
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 06:33 · Score: 0

Nope, you just turn the power off to them. Do you think those systems have yet to be completely infiltrated? We know where they are, we know who built them, we probably supplied them with the tech either overtly, covertly or through back channel deals.
This probably happened years ago and everybody knows about it. Politicians don't really care - they weren't going to use the things anyway. Military folks know that starting a nuclear war means Pakistan is the new word for radioactive toast.
Those things are just an expensive monument to human foolishness.
Re: muricans = idiots by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2016-07-16 08:14 · Score: 1

Actually, the USA has over 1,000 military bases abroad .
Citation please? The USA has been happily closing military bases worldwide since 1991, and no short-term locations used to fight the Afghan and Isis do not count as bases for the purposes of an argument about strategic goals.
Re: muricans = idiots by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 10:30 · Score: 1

Pakistanis aren't that incompetent. Don't assume stupidity based on belief in a stupid religion. There are even smart Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Scientologists.
I don't doubt the Pakistanis know little about maintaining nukes and a significant percentage would be duds.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re: muricans = idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 13:56 · Score: 0

Go ahead. It won't change the fact that you're a snivelling little lap dog coward. Pour encourager les autres? Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral.
now go off an baaaaaah with all the other sheep baaaaaaa traitor baaaaa
Re: muricans = idiots by Archtech · 2016-07-17 03:07 · Score: 1

Please do your own research. And you do not get to decide what "counts" as a US base. (Although if you want to introduce that criterion, Russia does not have one single strategic base outside its own borders - they are all small and tactical).

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re: muricans = idiots by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2016-07-17 06:23 · Score: 1

You made the point, up to you to provide documentation.
By the way Sevastopol, Cam Rahn Bay and Kant Air Base are all strategic Russian military locations located on foreign and their are numerous more in former Soviet states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Russia is a belligerent bastard country by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:51 · Score: -1

This is belligerent as hell. Russia deserves their sanctions for trying to do shit like this. They actually deserve for European countries to nuke the hell out of them before they can build this bomber. Fuck Russia. And don't mod me down, you piece of shit moderators. You can go burn in hell as well. Fuck Russia and fuck moderators.

Re: Russia is a belligerent bastard country by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:45 · Score: 0

Fascinating. This post, albeit trollish, gets modded down. However, there's a blatant flame of another poster that hasn't been modded down. Neither has the post that has no content at all and simply repeats the n word six times in the subject. It is logical that what are viewed as the worst posts will be the first to be modded down. Criticism of moderators seems to be considered worse than blatant flames and posts devoid of content that only contain ethnic slurs. Very interesting.
Re:Russia is a belligerent bastard country by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:58 · Score: 0

The most beligerent country in the world is the U.S., in case you haven't read any news for the last 70 years since WW2. The U.S. spends billions and billions on its invasion force (they call it "defense force") and improving nuclear strike capabilities, but when Russia does the same, then it's beligerent? You're a funny one.
Re:Russia is a belligerent bastard country by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 23:22 · Score: 0

This is something that US Citizens always fail to understand.
If you build 1 nuke, other countries will build one as well to prevent you from attacking them.
They just put nukes at Russia border and say they are are for "defensive" purposes, but when Russia puts a nuke in Cuba, suddenly it is an "offensive" weapon?
They paint Kennedy as a "hero" for starring down the Russians, but seem to forget about his secret deal to remove nukes from Turkey. Naturally he didnt want the US citizens to know about this "side deal".

Hold it this is from the Daily Beast ??? by Crashmarik · 2016-07-15 19:53 · Score: 1

What there wasn't a credible source like Gawker or the Weekly World News ?

Re:Hold it this is from the Daily Beast ??? by Aighearach · 2016-07-21 16:37 · Score: 1

Bat Boy is gonna drop a giant stink bomb on your house at night if you're not careful with that sort of talk.
But maybe they can get an interview with Lucifer to see his perspective on the Russians. Or at least Elvis.

NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 19:58 · Score: -1

History-altering nuclear first-strike capability by WoOS · 2016-07-15 20:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I really like articles which make large claims (here "a potentially history-altering nuclear first-strike capability") without spending the minimum of thought on them.
A first strike capability encompasses disabling the second strike capability of the opponent. I would be interested to learn how a rather large and slow plane would be able to find all the space-radars switched off so no one noticed the fleet of planes flying two hours through outer space, the early warning system not detecting re-entry of the warheads, and all the nuclear subs in the ports.
Very obviously the author of the article is privy to some information not about space planes but mind-altering capabilities of the Russians. I propose he gets a visits from the nice guys at CIA.

Even more so, Russia used to be firmly against by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:23 · Score: 0

such weapons. In the book Dead Hand, the story of the cold war talks in Reykjavik was told, where Gorbatchov was strongly voicing opposition against President Reagan's plan for SDI. While it was a plan for a missile defense shield, it did carry the outer space characteristic. The USSR in that time tried to create their own version of a space weapon, but was unable due to technical and economical constraints. As Russia is still going through a harsh economic time due to their Crimea actions, I doubt they have the money or even technical competencies to pull this one off. News at eleven. Probably internal propaganda.

Tired of it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:31 · Score: 0

Is anyone else tired of us coming up with expensive ways of killing each other? It's like we're a class room of kids one uping each other to see who can cause nuclear winter the fastest.

Re:Tired of it by ogdenk · 2016-07-15 23:07 · Score: 1

Sadly, expensive ways of killing each other get us very cool tech and achieve things that otherwise we'd never spend the money on. Like going to the moon. Or advances in modern computing.
So no, I'm not tired of it. Nobody has the balls to push the button anyway.
Re:Tired of it by 110010001000 · 2016-07-15 23:30 · Score: 1

No it doesn't. That is a myth. Most cool tech is from inventors trying to make something because it is what they love to do.
Re:Tired of it by ogdenk · 2016-07-15 23:37 · Score: 1

True, but to get those inventor's expensive pie-in-the-sky ideas funded, it often requires fear to get people to throw gigabucks at the project for facilities, R&D, staff and materials.
Re:Tired of it by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 03:43 · Score: 2

How do you account for the observed increase in invention rate when a nation is at war?
Funding is part of it, but motivation is the other part.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Tired of it by Aighearach · 2016-07-21 16:42 · Score: 1

Nobody has the balls to push the button anyway.
OK, smartypants, pop quiz:
Q: 2 > none
A: T/F?

Physics ? by feufeu · 2016-07-15 20:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

>The idea is that the bomber will take off from a normal home airfield to patrol Russian airspace,...Upon command, it will ascend into outer space, strike a target with nuclear warheads and then return to its home base.

Yeah, right. Why didn't anybody else build a plane than has the capability of ascending into orbit as needed and come back then ? Perhaps because the enormous energy needed to go from aerodynamic flight speed to orbital velocity can't simply be carried along in a pod or something ?

Let's assume that Mr. Solodovnikov's outline of the modus operandi isn't exact but that what is planned is rather along the lines of Airplane takeoff (vs. ICBM rocket which is much more detectable) and going to orbit and drop a heat shielded nuke from there. (No need to land back, it's nuclear war all over anyway by then.) Even this would be so expensive that it will once again stretch Russia's financial capabilities beyond what's possible.

Re:Physics ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 21:21 · Score: 0

The physics is in the part where it doesn't lift off until you know what you want to hit: if you send it in the wrong orbit, the Earth may need to make upto half a rotation before your target lines up with your orbit. Thta's 12 hours of circling the earth every 45 minutes, in a very predictable orbit, and that is an easy target.
If you don't wait in orbit, and instead do a direct route to the target, it's not much different than an extra expensive ICBM.
Re:Physics ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:39 · Score: 0

Try reading the summary, genius.
"The idea is that the bomber will take off from a normal home airfield to patrol Russian airspace."
Patrol; look it up. That means that you don't have a target, so you're flying around in atmospheric mode, lugging around all the fuel and oxidiser that you'll need to get into orbit as dead weight, waiting for something to happen. Even if they had performed a technological miracle and managed to designed a combined cycle engine decades ahead of the people currently known to have the most advanced programmes, that still wouldn't work.
In any case, it's already been refuted by the Russian Defence Ministry as utter bullshit; "The words of a teacher of that military academy about the hypothetical possibility of using his own theoretical insights in the sphere of defense engine technology were obviously misinterpreted."
Re:Physics ? by DamnOregonian · 2016-07-15 22:41 · Score: 1

Yeah, right. Why didn't anybody else build a plane than has the capability of ascending into orbit as needed and come back then ? Perhaps because the enormous energy needed to go from aerodynamic flight speed to orbital velocity can't simply be carried along in a pod or something ?
You're right... However, a significant suborbital fraction of orbital velocity is achievable with current cutting-edge-not-quite-functional technology, without massive tanks of oxidizer. I'm pretty certain their claim of 2020 for this being possible to them is a complete joke, and even if they could get the thing into a significant fraction of orbital velocity quiet enough not to be noticed... It sure as hell wouldn't be going home after.
Re:Physics ? by dbIII · 2016-07-16 01:35 · Score: 1

Even this would be so expensive that it will once again stretch Russia's financial capabilities beyond what's possible
Do you think they only export Vodka instead of vast amounts of oil and have close to a monopoly on gas sold in Europe? Sure, South Korea has an economy slightly larger but that's nothing to sneeze at either.
Re:Physics ? by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 02:44 · Score: 1

There is no way on earth you could land the thing without dumping the orbit fuel. Which would pretty much have to be really nasty room temperature liquid rocket fuel (what the word I'm looking for?).

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Physics ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 08:33 · Score: 0

mmm SABRE for the win, shame it's not Russian.
To be fair to the Russians it is the only way to be sure.

By all means, let's talk about sci-fi propaganda by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:39 · Score: 0

while there's a military coup in Turkey.

Space... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 20:45 · Score: 0

Space... where everyone can easily spot you.

Bullshit artist by melted · 2016-07-15 20:50 · Score: 1

An ICBM takes 9 minutes to "strike anywhere".

Re:Bullshit artist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 00:28 · Score: 0

An ICBM takes 9 minutes to "strike anywhere".
This system's 2-hour strike time is slower but it's *far* stealthier. Think of it this way. An ICBM gives 9 minutes warning. An orbital nuke gives 0 minutes warning. That's why this is a first-strike weapon, not a second-strike weapon.
Re: Bullshit artist by melted · 2016-07-16 12:58 · Score: 1

That's 9 minutes if launched from Russia. There are also nuclear subs patrolling both the Eastern and Western US seaboard (as well as US nuclear subs patrolling the Baltic Sea). You can't detect them, and they also have no warning.

Russia has already changed the Game by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 21:06 · Score: 0

They can fire Cruise Missiles from any barge in their extensive canal network

http://russia-insider.com/en/military/how-russias-cruise-missiles-change-strategic-military-balance/ri10730

Yes yes yes, of course by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 21:10 · Score: 0

It's to go with their fleet of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

More hype, more BS.

Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 21:15 · Score: 0

bit.ly/292cBQA

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2016-07-15 21:36 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Because the shortest distance between 2 points is by popo · 2016-07-15 21:38 · Score: 1

Because a straight vertical line from directly overhead is the fastest delivery route.

That's why.

But...

Missile silos are hard to pre-emptively destroy. A space plane on the other hand...

--
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )

Where are the anti matter bombs? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 21:53 · Score: 0

Surely such weapons of mass destruction can't be too far way now?

If the russian are going to get this tthen by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:18 · Score: 0

I bet you americans already have them, After all isn't that how you claim it works USA #1

Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:18 · Score: 0

lol space radar ... idiot ....... lol stilll chuckling to myself , those radar waves sure travel far in space lololol geek website come on man, im 30 now, been reading since 14, the level of intelligence of the new readers is whats wrong with /.

Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by DamnOregonian · 2016-07-15 22:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

One does not fire something straight down with 15,000mph of orbital velocity. there's no RV in existence that would survive such a maneuver. You have to hit the 15,000mph winds head on, which means *not* straight down. No matter what, your only way back in is ballistic. The only advantage this really has, is that you may potentially be able to get it into orbit without getting caught, which takes away the biggest early-warning to a hostile party that you're about to nuke them- the launch. With no early warning, a THAAD/Aegis, any terminal interceptor will likely not have enough warning to respond. The space bomber is the easy answer to terminal-stage interception. It carries the drawback of being very easy to shoot down, but likely not before it has de-orbited its payload. So, easy to take out in a first strike (making it a useless second-strike weapon), but also pretty much impossible to stop a first trike from the vehicle. This is an unwise escalation in nuclear armament. I thought we had treaties preventing this nonsense. It's a space Red October.

Could lead? by ecotax · 2016-07-15 22:25 · Score: 1

This is a scary piece of technology. Could potentially lead to space race 2.0. If russia has nukes in space, it's only a matter of time before we will too.

Not 'could' - it already did. In the article about the X-37B, you can find:

The robotic space plane launched atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket on May 20, 2015, kicking off the X-37B program's fourth flight. This mission, dubbed OTV-4 (short for Orbital Test Vehicle-4), remains a clandestine affair. "I can confirm the fourth OTV mission is approaching one year on orbit," Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Annmarie Annicelli said in response to Space.com's inquiry about the X-37B's activities.

So apparently a space race is already going on, initiated by the US (or possibly China), in which the US now has a head start of a few years on Russia. Same as with nukes, same as with H-bombs.

--
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks

It'll be a shame by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 22:31 · Score: 0

When some space "debris" takes out that shiny space plane

Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by DamnOregonian · 2016-07-15 22:34 · Score: 1

Re-entry isn't early warning. ICBM launch is early warning. By the time you see the plasma trail of reentry, your options are just about gone. This is a fantastic first-strike weapon, in that it can be done with precisely no warning. As for disabling second-strike capability? Na. This is just the Russians freaking out that THAAD/Aegis systems may be getting deployed around enough sensitive spots that they feel even their first strike capability is becoming limited. A plane boosting slowly into orbit can do so without being noticed. An ICBM cannot. An Aegis can't hit a terminal ICBM RV unless it has warning. With something that can achieve orbit, or even suborbital velocity slow enough to not be noticed can de-orbit payloads that will absolutely not be noticed until far enough through re-entry as to be impossible to intercept with THAAD batteries.

Yeah, sure by some+old+guy · 2016-07-15 22:41 · Score: 1

And the Chair Force is working on moon-based drone submarine interceptors, because we can't have a Nukular* Space Planes gap.

Idiots, all of them.

*Grammar Nazi Disclaimer: intentional colloquial misspelling for sarcastic effect. Do carry on.

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.

Re:Yeah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 01:48 · Score: 0

*Grammar Nazi disclaimer: intentional colloquial misspelling for sarcastic effect. Do carry on.
FTFY.

Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by sg_oneill · 2016-07-15 22:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yep. In fact both the US and Russia are signatories to the Outer Space treaty which pretty much forbids sending wmds into space.

Of course its nukes we're talking about. Once you pull *that* trigger, upsetting some lawyers in Geneva is about the last thing your worried about.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.

Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by popo · 2016-07-15 23:14 · Score: 1

Huh? Before firing, why would it be at a 15,000 orbital velocity and not geosynchronous?

--
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )

Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by DamnOregonian · 2016-07-15 23:21 · Score: 1

Because geosynchronous orbits are 22,000 miles plus in altitude. There's no conceivable way to get there without a really big rocket.

Oh really... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 23:24 · Score: 0

It seems that the russians can barely keep their old tech running, let alone do things the rest of the world can't. Hard to see them pulling this off, sounds more like chest thumping.

Re:Oh really... by dbIII · 2016-07-16 01:37 · Score: 1

It seems that the russians can barely keep their old tech running, let alone do things the rest of the world can't. Hard to see them pulling this off, sounds more like chest thumping.
So we say until we need a ride to the ISS because the Russians are doing manned space flight and we are not.

Re: History-altering nuclear first-strike capabili by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 23:29 · Score: 0

What radar coverages? There was more radar coverages inn the 1960,then now. Regan started star wars but he crippled the rest of the nation. After the second round of brac, we now know less about what is in our skies. And you have to remember any time there is a gust of solar wind, the long range radar has to be recalibrated.

Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by 110010001000 · 2016-07-15 23:29 · Score: 1

They thought about ad clicks. That is about it.

Re:If the russian are going to get this tthen by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-15 23:39 · Score: 0

Usually after the fact as well.

in the 50's Russia was into the "space race", the US was heavily focused on improving their new nuclear "toy".
Suddenly Sputnik, and the world sees what Russia can do leaving the US plays catch-up.

Thankfully instead of doing something useful for years, they wasted billions on nukes..

Defensive Weapon by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 00:04 · Score: 0

As Putin has advised us, the next war with Russia will not be fought only on Russian and European soil. It will be fought in American cities like New York and Washington, D. C.

Re:Defensive Weapon by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 02:48 · Score: 1

The next war with Russia will likely be with another former Soviet state.
IIRC the independent Georgian state that Russia setup after that invasion is on the verge of collapse. That would be my guess for the next place Russian soldiers will die (but of course not be at war).

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by pghmike4 · 2016-07-16 00:20 · Score: 1

Exactly -- the article is nonsense. If the plane leaves Russian airspace, that's a pretty clear warning that they want to attack. It's pretty much the same thing as seeing an ICBM launch. And submarine-based missiles are already able to hit by surprise any city in much less than two hours.

Even the Russian Ministry of Defense cries BS by anzha · 2016-07-16 00:38 · Score: 1

I am way too late with this, but it seems no one bothered to double check the links. Even the Russian MoD has stated this is totally incorrect:

The media reports suggesting that Russia is developing a strategic bomber that is capable of performing tasks in space, do not correspond to reality, Russia’s Defense Ministry said in a statement received by TASS on Thursday.

The ministry said that the media had misinterpreted the words of a military academy representative about an alleged development of "a space bomber".

http://www.ruaviation.com/news...

--
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?

Re:Even the Russian Ministry of Defense cries BS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 18:24 · Score: 0

Yes, but look at all the words it's generated. Now that's value!

So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 00:49 · Score: 0

Does anyone seriously believe that there aren't tactical plans sitting around for the US Air Forces X-37 as well? Maybe not anything naming nukes specifically but "multi purpose munitions racks" almost certainly. The purpose stated for this "bomber" seems pretty foolish, you can already do much more, much faster & much cheaper using ICBMs. However if they can make the Stage and a half (carrier craft and orbital space plane) concept work they may succeed where so many others have failed, creating a reusable space plane.

What a ridiculous waste of money by TomGreenhaw · 2016-07-16 01:00 · Score: 1

Can you imagine how much better we all would be without squandering wealth on this level of military spending?

--
Greed is the root of all evil.

Re: Because the shortest distance between 2 points by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 01:02 · Score: 0

No space launch, winged or not, is covert. The one advantage of this thing is the ambiguity about whether or not it's going to release weapons. There's no doubt about what country is targeted shortly after an ICBM launch. However, if this thing is real, and orbital, the first half of the launch timeframe for an ICBM still leaves the potential targets unsure of the target. Won't be used against the US or Britian, as our SLBMs can still get ordered to launch in a meaningful timeframe, but will push the Chinese, French and future nuclear powers to adapt fast. And no, the Indians and pakis are only pointing at each other and China, so they don't have a significant posture against Russia anyway.

Re: Because the shortest distance between 2 points by AgNO3 · 2016-07-16 01:20 · Score: 1

I saw moonraker, and you are wrong.

--
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(

Nukes are obsolete by flyingfsck · 2016-07-16 01:47 · Score: 1

Nukes are only used to scare the public. In reality, precision bombing is used in war. Just think of the TV coverage of all the wars in the middle east. There is no need to obliterate a whole city, if you can take out the military capability alone.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!

Re:Nukes are obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 18:18 · Score: 0

Nukes are only used to scare the public.
Excuse me, but that's just plain wrong. Nuclear weapons are strategic in nature. Their primary value comes in the form of deterrence of invasion or total war by any enemy otherwise large and powerful enough to complete the conquest. It's ironic, but nuclear weapons are responsible for one of the longest periods of relative peace among nations in the history of the world. Despite the rise of terrorism and it's global nature, there hasn't been a world wide total war since the founding of the nuclear age. The conflicts of today pale in comparison to the mass slaughters of WW I and WW II and we owe that largely to the deterrent value of nuclear weapons, not the good will of our fellow man. It's plain to see that we still hate each other and yet nobody is looking to start WW III.
Re:Nukes are obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 20:03 · Score: 0

I think you misunderstood the meaning of strategic deterrent. It's not really meant to be used except in scenario of MAD - and the whole existence of such scenario is quite motivating factor not to attack another (directly). The problems arise when war-mongering governments newspeaking about "peace" don't realize the seriousness and potential of uncontrolled escalation that might lead to the scenario.

Re: and of course by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 02:07 · Score: 0

> Oil and gas are basically the only things they don't need to buy.

as well as, so it appears, space planes and nukes.

Just what we need by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-07-16 02:13 · Score: 1

This is just what the planet needs right now- an orbital weapons platform armed with nuclear bombs. What could possibly go wrong?

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 02:38 · Score: 0

Now just ensure to drop one each on countries like Pakistan and others, who support terror groups.

yah think the US doesn't have this sorted yet?? by laurencetux · 2016-07-16 02:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

do you really think that the launch facility for the x37 does not have in a LockUp the needed bits to go nuclear??

all it would take is a swap of payload and maybe a swap of a server "blade" (to hook to the Football)

trust me lawyers have nothing on Military folks on evading the truth

Desperation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 02:54 · Score: 0

This is typical Russian Wunderwaffe-style bullshit.

Their economy is in the shitter, and they can't even close the deal on a 4.5 gen fighter pretending to be a 5th gen machine. India is pissed, and Russia is looking to cancel orders.

Even if they get this 'bomber' off the ground it's going to have it's own fan club courtesy of the USAF.

So whatever.. as soon as a US city goes up in nuclear flames so does the world.

Re:Desperation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 05:56 · Score: 0

Pretty strange considering they were first in space for so many things, where are all these supposed spinoffs you get from space?

And by scary... by emil · 2016-07-16 03:05 · Score: 1

...you mean that we likely already have one.

http://www.space.com/30245-x37b-military-space-plane-100-days.html

Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by GodGell · 2016-07-16 03:13 · Score: 1

those radar waves sure travel far in space lololol

They certainly travel farther than down here, in the air. You might know something we don't, but your chuckling is not very informative.

--
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10

Facepalm^10 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 03:21 · Score: 0

A coworker has been the cause of a certain amount of disturbance at work.

Originally having some shortcomings of his own, he would have no help from our archaic bureaucratic organizational structure and certainly not from our mostly tech orientated colleagues -- who think people have a switch on their brains to fix behaviors at will.

After some time, suggestions became bullying and mocking -- and so he decided to follow the "defense strategy" which says the best defense is an offensive. So he became a bully himself. To the point his company has become a PITA for everyone. Not too different from how Americans and Russians are seen by their neighbors, I'd say.

That's why I see a clearly different pattern in China from the US and Russia: the main fault of the Chinese is probably not willing to join themselves either with the US or with Russia.

The US and Russia are exactly where Japan was pre-WW2: they both a problem with internal militarism and thus are forced to have an external bullying Politics. Where will this lead them to? Well, let's say it didn't work that well for Japan, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki have shown us.

You reap what you sow.

Re: History-altering nuclear first-strike capabili by HornWumpus · 2016-07-16 03:41 · Score: 1

Launch detection is done with satellite infrared sensors. You couldn't fly to orbit without being detected. The IR sensors have to ignore large ground based fires, they can see hypersonic exhaust plumes.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 03:46 · Score: 0

Huh? Before firing, why would it be at a 15,000 orbital velocity and not geosynchronous?

You should be modded to oblivion for saying a stupid thing like that on a nerd forum.

They might get close to the rocks that we already by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 04:33 · Score: 0

see. Just fine.

vroooooooooom vrooooooooooom kshhhhhhhhhhhh kshhhhhhhhhh peew peww

Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 04:47 · Score: 0

The only advantage this really has, is that you may potentially be able to get it into orbit without getting caught

There is ZERO chance this gets launched without the United States knowing about it and tracking it. We track all launches from anywhere in the world. Hell, we even track orbiting space junk. This is going to be tracked. A secret launch is impossible anymore.

Discredited by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 04:48 · Score: 0

This story was already discredited. The Daily Beast is not a reliable source.

It is a threat, not a weapon... by mlts · 2016-07-16 07:20 · Score: 1

The thing about something like this, it appears to be less intended to replace existing delivery mechanisms, but be more of a means to convey a threat than anything else. If tensions get high, Russia can launch a number of these into orbit, similar to how in a situation where a handgun is pressed to someone else's face, the person holding the gun would pull the hammer back on their revolver to show they mean business, even though a single action pull on the trigger will do the same as cocking the hammer and firing.

Realistically, how dangerous is it? For this purpose, it is an excellent propaganda vehicle. However, I suspect these have multiple purposes, perhaps being able to launch/maintain satellites or other military purposes.

The ironic thing is that these "nuke shuttles" might not be all bad. It might be that they wind up being one of the few craft that can fix research satellites when in orbit, due to the decommissioning of the US shuttle fleet.

SNAAAAAAKE! by Zargg · 2016-07-16 08:03 · Score: 1

Sounds like the next Metal Gear, we need a super top secret mission to take it out.

So the agreements to not have nukes in space? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 10:43 · Score: 0

So the agreements to not have nukes in space that the Russians signed is like the agreement that after Ukraine gives over all of its nukes to Russia and the US, Russia will never ever ever invade Ukrainian territory and will respect the borders forever. So the agreement with Russia is valid while Russia doesn't have the capabilities, or at least while the ink is still wet. After that, pact or agreement is something that others believe will happen. They hold the paper while the bombs fall (suckers!) Russia never got to be the largest country by keeping the army quartered. The boys got guns to shoot. They got guns, they got ammunition, they got propaganda people to provide encouragement, they got people who can fabricate lies to incite the populace. The truth in Russia is what the government wants. You read the story, see the blurry picture, and suddenly you have people who will set their own hair on fire. Russia does not feel that what happened in Afghanistan (79-89) was fair. The Afghans were being slaughtered in large enough numbers before they got arms from the US (allegedly). And then all of a sudden they were losing a helicopter/plane or a tank/apc per day. And the Afghans were not taking prisoners (well ok, they were taken prisoner for a while, treated like a woman --sodomized-- then were either shot or decapitated). Even the Kremlin gets tired of manufacturing body bags after a while. But not enough to not try again, and again, and again.

Russian Aerospace PR tradition by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 11:09 · Score: 0

The Russian Aerospace entities have a very long istory of making bold pronouncements of the amazing things they are going to build and missions they are going to do "soon". They are worse (in the sense of bigger bolder plans yet weaker follow-through) than even the worst of this sort in the West.

Do a little googling. All sorts of fantastic Russian rockets, spacecraft, missions, that were all supposedly in various stages of funding, planning, and so on.

In the REAL world, they are sill flying their crews on the same R-7 family of rockets that Gagarin flew on (the Soyuz derivative in use today is not very different from the version flown in 1966). I am NOT insulting them or the Souyz! The people working in that industry have done a remarkable job of reliably operating that thing with fluctuating budgets and even total political turmoil while gradually making good incremental upgrades. There's also nothing wrong with driving a 1966 Volkwagon car (provided you maintain it well and it can pass a smog check) if it meets your needs. It might be the perfect car for you, just as Soyuz has been perfectly suited to the actual space missions the Russian government has been willing to fund. Russia'sBuran Space shuttle proves that they have the tech needed for such a project, but also proves they do not have the financial will. They only ever flew Buran once, unmanned, then left the fleet to rot in collapsing facilities. The point, however, is that all the bold promises and great concept art in the world will not replace funding, which is an indicator of commitment. Same problem with all the other space/military activities by all the other governments.

aha by superwiz · 2016-07-16 13:42 · Score: 1

Of course, Russian Federation is building a bomber. It can't manufacture cars, planes and despite its vast territory is forced to import food. But they are building technology more advanced than all industrialized countries can manage to, at this moment. I am guessing it's going to be manned by volunteers from RF who occupied Crimea. Didn't they say they were going to mars within 5 years at some point in the previous year? This is just another attempt at distraction or attention grabbing when the world's still shell-shocked from the events of the past week. Technologically, they are just coasting on the accomplishments of the past century. They still have designs of nuclear reactors, so they sell them states around the world. They still have tanks, so they use them to threaten their neighbors. It's highly doubtful that they can still mass produce tanks (something they were capable of 50 years ago). No brilliant scientist would work for RF government today. They don't have the money to pay them and they don't have a base cadre of scientist left to train new ones.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

Just The Idea of Escalation by theshowmecanuck · 2016-07-16 14:23 · Score: 1

I thought we had stopped nuclear escalation. Thank you Mr. Putin, you fucking cunt. I don't give a rat's ass what all the armchair experts here come up with, an escalating nuclear arms race is not a trivial thing. Going to read A Canticle for Leibowitz again and hope I got the ending all wrong.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

FOB and no launch signature is the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 16:54 · Score: 0

I see that only one person mentioned the acronym FOB (fractional orbital bombardment). The point here is that an ICBM reaches a max altitude of around 750 miles which makes it easily detectable. It's also moving at significantly slower than orbital velocity at the apex which provides time to react. An object in low earth orbit may be less than a tenth of that altitude, and is moving faster, at orbital velocity. So it can come over the horizon, burn to decelerate, and reenter more quickly than an ICBM, leading to a greater element of surprise. The mission profile described in the article also wouldn't have a traditional launch signature (the one big launch burn of an ICBM). With nuclear weapons it's a bad thing to be surprising, because it increases the likelihood that the adversary will get jumpy and falsely detect a threat, leading to a regrettable situation (yes I'm trying to be funny). This is why the US and USSR agreed to ban FOB technology in the 60s. For the Russians to re-invent FOB technology would be incredibly destabilizing. I hope they are just bluffing.

Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by William+Baric · 2016-07-16 17:51 · Score: 1

This is a reaction to the new missile system installed recently in Romania and the recent NATO maneuvers in Eastern Europe to intimidate Russia (among a series of other aggressive political actions against Russia). It's a way of saying to the US : stop threatening us, stop trying to extend your sphere of influence, or we will escalate. Now the question is who will back down first (hoping that at least one will back down).

Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-16 19:53 · Score: 0

The whole purpose of subs deployed on strike-on-ping-timeout orders was to eliminate possibility of your advisory somehow "sneaking" a nuke at you. So no, even though such plane could launch, orbit and fire unnoticed (which it won't), the Re: would be still coming thanks to the ping timeout so no, the "first strike" doesn't apply.

Again, strike-on-ping-timeout has it's own dangers which should demotivate one to develop "sneaky" systems to encourage the other to keep more of strike-on-ping-timeout subs deployed.

Huh?! by obscuro · 2016-07-17 04:38 · Score: 1

Orbiting, mobile, stealth platforms with hypersonic nukes scares me. This thing sounds like a bad TV movie from the 70s. Why the hell would anyone care if you could land a nuclear bomb delivery platform?! Let's hope this is where they're spending their money. It would indicate that they are even dumber than their counterparts in Washington.

--
Every rule has more than one consequence.

Really disurbing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-18 03:44 · Score: 0

It was just matter of time before something like this would happen. Assuming the US already have this capability (to some extent) - having russia a similar level of technology is just scary.
- This shit do not have to go into space. Just don't - go there ..

sounds slower than ICBMs by micahraleigh · 2016-07-18 04:36 · Score: 1

Wouldn't ICBMs travel faster?

What is the advantage here?

Re:sounds slower than ICBMs by iggymanz · 2016-07-21 12:57 · Score: 1

and then there's these babies:
http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by Nethemas+the+Great · 2016-07-21 14:16 · Score: 1

Physics fail.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.

Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by Nethemas+the+Great · 2016-07-21 14:30 · Score: 1

Please read before you embarrass yourself any further. In fairness though, to maintain geostationary orbit (earth) requires a bit less than 7,000MPH, not 15,000.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.

Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by Aighearach · 2016-07-21 16:39 · Score: 1

I don't doubt you've been reading since 14. It is never too late to learn, you're a glimmer of possibility.

Re: History-altering nuclear first-strike capabili by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 03:48 · Score: 0

You realize you're making his point, right?

Slashdot Mirror

Russia Is Building a Nuclear Space Bomber (thedailybeast.com)

256 comments