Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the nuclear-arms-race-in-space dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: The Russian military claims it's making progress on a space plane similar to the U.S. Air Force's secretive X-37B robotic mini-shuttle. The tech is pretty basic. But alone among space-plane developers, the Kremlin is proposing to arm its space plane. With nukes. Lt. Col. Aleksei Solodovnikov, a rocketry instructor at the Russian Strategic Missile Forces Academy in St. Petersburg who is overseeing the space plane's development, said the orbital bomber would be flight-ready by 2020. It's unclear how much money the Kremlin is investing in the project, and how serious senior officers are about actually deploying the space plane, if and when Solodovnikov and his team finish it. In any event, the military space plane could give Russia a potentially history-altering nuclear first-strike capability. "The idea is that the bomber will take off from a normal home airfield to patrol Russian airspace," Solodovnikov said, according to Sputnik, a government-owned news site. "Upon command, it will ascend into outer space, strike a target with nuclear warheads and then return to its home base." Thanks to its orbital capability, the bomber would be able to nuke any target on Earth no longer than two hours after taking off, Solodovnikov claimed.

140 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. So this is Russia answer to the ,, by quax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... anti-missle systems.

    1. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · · 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*

       

    2. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by pjt33 · · 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?

    4. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Hognoxious · · 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."
    5. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by pslytely+psycho · · 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
    6. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Opportunist · · 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.
    7. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Seems like a logical extension of nuclear subs, except that orbital space planes can be fully automated. WCGW?

    8. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by CrimsonAvenger · · 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"
    9. Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by LifesABeach · · 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.

    11. Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by HornWumpus · · 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'
    12. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by JoeMerchant · · 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.

    13. Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Opinions from Russians?

      In non Soviet Russia space race bankrupts YOU.

    14. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by MobSwatter · · 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.

    15. Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by garyebickford · · 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/
    16. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by garyebickford · · 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/
    17. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by garyebickford · · 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/
    18. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by robi5 · · Score: 2

      ... in the US maybe

    19. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by quax · · Score: 1

      Time to claim my foreign language exception. English is not my native tongue.

    20. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by quax · · Score: 1

      Dunno. I am not particularly frightened. The Russians aren't irrational actors. They won't go nuclear unless you force their hand.

    21. Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by tigersha · · 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
    22. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by MobSwatter · · 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.

    23. Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, by garyebickford · · 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/
    24. Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, by Aighearach · · 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.

  2. Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by LifesABeach · · 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?

    2. Re:Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by garyebickford · · 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/
    3. Re:Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by angel'o'sphere · · 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.
    4. Re: Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. by DougF · · Score: 1

      No. Two separate airframes and development cycles.

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
  3. Sounds Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some Russian officials want some attention.

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

  4. This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · · 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."
    1. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Gaerek · · 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.

    2. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by AK+Marc · · 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
    3. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · · 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."
    4. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · · 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."
    5. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · · 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."
    6. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by AmiMoJo · · 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
    7. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by peragrin · · 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.
    8. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why drop a nuke.... all they need to do is drop rocks from space.

    9. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by qbast · · Score: 1

      What happens next is that Trident II makes Russia glow.

    10. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by FilatovEV · · 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.

    11. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      You know Russia exports a shit-ton of oil right? They have their own, no need to buy it.

    12. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Archtech · · 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.
    13. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Archtech · · 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.
    14. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · 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.
    15. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Archtech · · 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.
    16. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by KiloByte · · 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.
    17. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
    18. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Killall+-9+Bash · · 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
    19. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by MightyMartian · · 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.
    20. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by dbIII · · 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.

    21. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Oil gas and vodka

    22. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      But in either case, what next?

      ... "guess I'll have a Coke"

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by HornWumpus · · 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'
    24. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      It is a very useful retaliatory weapon. Russia's ICBMs can be taken out in a United States first strike.

    25. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Place+a+name+here · · Score: 1

      So how is this better than FOBS? Sure, fractional orbital bombardment is illegal, but presumably so would this thing be.

    26. Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    27. Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · · 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."
    28. Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by HornWumpus · · 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'
    29. Re: This is better than an ICBM because...? by tigersha · · 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
    30. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Hognoxious · · 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."
    31. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Fallout

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    32. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Aighearach · · 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.

    33. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Aighearach · · 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.

    34. Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They have a lot of timber, they could come at us with millions of biplanes.

  5. I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by jonwil · · 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...

    1. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by macklin01 · · 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
    2. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Trachman · · 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.

    3. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by phayes · · 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
    5. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by nazg00l · · 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).

    6. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by dbIII · · 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.

    7. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by LWATCDR · · 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.
    8. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by NicknameUnavailable · · 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.

    9. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by k6mfw · · 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
    10. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Missiles are better, they're just trying to hide that it is a mobile surveillance platform.

    11. Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty by Aighearach · · Score: 1

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

  6. Well this isn't destabilizing at all / sarcasm by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

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

  7. Hold it this is from the Daily Beast ??? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Hold it this is from the Daily Beast ??? by Aighearach · · 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.

  8. History-altering nuclear first-strike capability by WoOS · · 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.

  9. Physics ? by feufeu · · 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.

    1. Re:Physics ? by DamnOregonian · · 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.

    2. Re:Physics ? by dbIII · · 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.

    3. Re:Physics ? by HornWumpus · · 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'
  10. Bullshit artist by melted · · Score: 1

    An ICBM takes 9 minutes to "strike anywhere".

    1. Re: Bullshit artist by melted · · 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.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Because the shortest distance between 2 points is by popo · · 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 : )
  13. Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by DamnOregonian · · 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.

  14. Could lead? by ecotax · · 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
  15. Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by DamnOregonian · · 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.

  16. Yeah, sure by some+old+guy · · 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.
  17. Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by sg_oneill · · 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.
  18. Re:Tired of it by ogdenk · · 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.

  19. Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by popo · · 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 : )
  20. Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by DamnOregonian · · 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.

  21. Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    They thought about ad clicks. That is about it.

  22. Re:Tired of it by 110010001000 · · 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.

  23. Re: muricans = idiots by Archtech · · 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.
  24. Re:Tired of it by ogdenk · · 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.

  25. Re: muricans = idiots by MightyMartian · · 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.
  26. Re: muricans = idiots by MightyMartian · · 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.
  27. Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by pghmike4 · · 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.

  28. Even the Russian Ministry of Defense cries BS by anzha · · 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?
  29. What a ridiculous waste of money by TomGreenhaw · · 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.
  30. Re: Because the shortest distance between 2 points by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

    I saw moonraker, and you are wrong.

    --
    OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
  31. Re:Oh really... by dbIII · · 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.

  32. Nukes are obsolete by flyingfsck · · 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!
  33. Re:Dude the threat is china by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Typical A/C, you're not thinking things through. Not that your existence mattered to begin with.

  34. Just what we need by JustAnotherOldGuy · · 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...
  35. Re:Dude the threat is china by HornWumpus · · 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'
  36. Re: muricans = idiots by HornWumpus · · 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'
  37. yah think the US doesn't have this sorted yet?? by laurencetux · · 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

  38. Re:Defensive Weapon by HornWumpus · · 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'
  39. And by scary... by emil · · Score: 1

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

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

  40. Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by GodGell · · 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
  41. Re: History-altering nuclear first-strike capabili by HornWumpus · · 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'
  42. Re:Tired of it by HornWumpus · · 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'
  43. Re:Dude the threat is china by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  44. Re:Dude the threat is china by HornWumpus · · 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'
  45. It is a threat, not a weapon... by mlts · · 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.

  46. SNAAAAAAKE! by Zargg · · Score: 1

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

  47. Re: muricans = idiots by AF_Cheddar_Head · · 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.

  48. Re: muricans = idiots by HornWumpus · · 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'
  49. Re:Dude the threat is china by Xabraxas · · 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
  50. aha by superwiz · · 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.
  51. Just The Idea of Escalation by theshowmecanuck · · 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.
  52. Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by William+Baric · · 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).

  53. Re:Dude the threat is china by Hognoxious · · 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."
  54. Re: muricans = idiots by Archtech · · 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.
  55. Huh?! by obscuro · · 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.
  56. Re: muricans = idiots by AF_Cheddar_Head · · 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/...

  57. sounds slower than ICBMs by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't ICBMs travel faster?

    What is the advantage here?

    1. Re:sounds slower than ICBMs by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      and then there's these babies:

      http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

  58. Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Physics fail.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  59. Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points by Nethemas+the+Great · · 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.
  60. Re:History-altering nuclear first-strike capabilit by Aighearach · · 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.

  61. Re:Tired of it by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Nobody has the balls to push the button anyway.

    OK, smartypants, pop quiz:
    Q: 2 > none
    A: T/F?