Slashdot Mirror
Russia Unveils 'Satan 2' Missile Powerful Enough To 'Wipe Out UK, France Or Texas' (telegraph.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Telegraph: Russia has released the first image of its new nuclear missile, a weapon so powerful that it could wipe out nearly all of the United Kingdom or France. The RS-28 Sarmat thermonuclear-armed ballistic missile was commissioned in 2011 and is expected to come into service in 2018. The first images of the massive missile were declassified on Sunday and have now been published for the first time. It has been dubbed "Satan 2," as it will replace the RS-36M, the 1970s-era weapon referred to by Nato as the Satan missile. Sputnik, the Russian government-controlled news agency, reported in May that the missile could destroy an area "the size of Texas or France." Russian media report that the missile will weigh up to 10 tons with the capacity to carry up to 10 tons of nuclear cargo. With that type of payload, it could deliver a blast some 2,000 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia reportedly tested a hypersonic warhead in April that is apparently intended for use on the Satan 2 missiles. The warhead is designed to be impossible to intercept because it does not move on a set trajectory.
Remember when Putin said that the defense systems installed in Poland and Romania will be useless because they are working on "something else"?
Please don't lose the thing or misplace it. And for the love of God, don't blow yout lazy asses up!
Why does this need to be innovated?
That is a big firecracker, but it is no Tsar Bomba. The Tsar Bomba was tested in 1961, so the technological capability for high yield bombs is old news. Best bit about the Tsar Bomba: "In theory, the bomb had a maximum yield of 100 megatons if it were to have included a U-238 tamper, but because only one bomb was built, this theory was never demonstrated."
Here is a short documentary film on the Tsar Bomba.
...to let Russia in on the fact that all this fearmongering and dick-waving they've been doing lately is just part of their scheme to do everything in their power to distract people from wikileaks, keep Trump out of office, and preserve their ultra-lucrative oligarchy.
And nothing of value was lost
will make America great again!
By kissing Putin's big hairy arse!
Or France for that matter.
At least, they certainly didn't make a missile with that kind of damage potential.
While it could throw a single 40 megaton warhead, it would more likely carry a handful of weapons topping out at about 50 megatons, total. Maybe.
Which is a lot, but nowhere near big enough to "wipe out" a medium-sized country like France.
They could pretty much destroy up to 15 separate cities with 300 kiloton airbursts (if the MIRV systems gives them that much spread and control, which it probably doesn't), but everything in between would be effectively untouched, and with a single weapon, most of Paris itself would only be lightly to moderately damaged. Modern high-efficiency weapons don't drop a lot of fallout in air burst mode, so that's not a consideration.
If they used ground burst targeting, they could cause a lot of downwind fallout, but it would leave large areas untouched upwind.
Forty to fifty megatons sounds like a lot, but when you compare it with how big the world is...
If they would ever attack the United States, they'd hit Yellowstone National Park in the most likely location to set off the super volcano.
I think my girlfriend has one of these in her drawer.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Why can't we detect alien civilizations? One answer to this question is known as the filter theory, that sufficiently advanced civilizations voluntarily or involuntarily wipe themselves out. This does not require wiping out the whole species, only enough to fall back into the dark ages and make advanced civilizations cyclic. Like what Oswald Sprengler said in the first half of 20th Century.
It seems that Russia just made a big step towards confirming this thesis, because one thing is sure: If such rockets should ever be used accidentally or intentionally, a global nuclear holocaust is practically certain.
would even build or help build something like this?
unless you are in Texas or near Texas, which also could be loosely defined as on the same planet as Texas.
In some ways this changes nothing MAD ensures that the launch of the Satan2 would result in a counter strike which even with smaller Warheads would do just as much damage. I won't say harder to defend against because there is no defence, against nuclear weapons only retaliation and the threat of retaliation works.
Maybe Donald Trump might get a clue as to the answer to his question why can't we use nuclear weapons? serously thou the Russans are equally as crazy building this thing as if their existing missiles were not sufficient to effectively end life on this planet anyway.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
The Telegraph article got the details wrong. Check out the RT version instead.
It is a 100+ ton missile that can carry about 10 tons of payload. They are also designing a new warhead that is maneuverable in order to avoid anti-missile defenses. They are claiming that it can hold 10 heavy warheads or 16 light warheads and/or a combination of warheads and decoys/countermeasures.
The whole "destroy an area the size of France or Texas isn't clear, but this is a missile announcement, not a warhead announcement, so they are probably talking about the area which could be covered in a single launch. I.E. one spread of warheads from a single launch could theoretically hit Paris, Barcelona and Milan. That would be pretty hard for anti-missile defenses to deal with.
You'd think by the time it was soo bad that it deserved the name "Satan", they'd have stopped.
So, most modern countries have the ability to wipe out all life with nuclear weapons, and Russia still relies on nuclear deterrents? They're like the downs step brother of modern world powers.
Looks like Russia expects Trump to win and needs a counter-measure. Hillary isn't going to opt to use nuclear weapons, and Putin knows damn well that such a weapon wouldn't get off the ground before everyone knows about it.
That's the thing about weapons. You're not going to disguise a nuclear weapon, not one bit. Conventional explosives don't do enough damage, but you general want the pin-point precision with conventional explosives (seeing as how many hospitals and schools are blown up every year.) If you drop a nuke on a target, you're going for broke. Japan in WWII might have needed convincing, but no other country other than a few dictatorships (eg North Korea) would ever have the balls to fire a nuke as a first strike.
But Trump, ugh, he would. Trump would basically brag about having a nuke that could wipe Russia off the map and wouldn't think about using it on Russia or China or North Korea.
A large Nuclear weapon has a lot of collateral damage. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki didn't need to happen, but the Americans convinced us that it was necessary when really only the first bomb was necessary, because that's when the Japanese and the Russians threw a panic.
Russian media report that the missile will weigh up to 10 tons with the capacity to carry up to 10 tons of nuclear cargo.
The story here is that Russia has escaped the tyranny of the rocket equation, and designed a missile that is 100% payload and apparently 0% fuel.
I knew I needed to stop reading Slashdot and finish my PhD when I started to miss articles by Bennett Haselton.
...with the original article. If "the missile will weigh up to 10 tons" then it's not going to get very far laden down with "up to 10 tons of nuclear cargo".
Deary deary me. I suspect the translation service they used (Google Hackslate, perchance or Bing Ablator) got stuff very very wrong.
Looking at it without the hype the new missile is an upgraded version of an older design with similar capabilities. It's probably constrained to fit into existing land-based silos the same way the US Trident missile upgrades were. The MIRV payloads may be getting updated to ensure penetration of close-in missile defence systems like Standard and Patriot plus possibly a target-seeking option to allow for hitting a US CVBG on the high seas, and that extra capability may be why they're building something with more payload capability than the older SS-18. I'd expect them to reduce the total number of ready missiles as they decommission their older missiles though.
Theres a big difference between "helping" and "saving". Russia contribute man power and equipment like tanks that the west has no concept of. For example there were literally 10x more Russian armies when Germany surrended. The truth is Russia WON ww2 by blood and guts.
Please dont tell me bullshit about LL. LL was arranged in late 41, just a few months later Russia won the biggest fight in history, involving about 4 -5 million soldiers - the battle of Stalingrad. That was the start of the end of the NAZIS. Befor eyou jump... theres no way anythign got thru to Russia by the time of Stalingrad.
Stop you hubris. America would not have landed in Europe without the UK as well, just like the UK would have had serious problems without its friends like Canada and the rest of Empire helping it from day one.
That's Russians being sensitive.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The warhead is designed to be impossible to intercept because it does not move on a set trajectory.
Cremlin: Oh Shit ... it is coming back to us
Why would humans create a weapon like that? :(
Nobody in their right state of mind wants it to be used.
If it is ever used, it could mean the end of the world is nigh.
Why would anyone invest the resources in developing such a weapon?
Fuck the Russians, and the Americans, and the defense departments, and the technicians and engineers willing to take on such a job, and the generals and presidents commissioning such a thing. You are all assholes.
I'd say there are all ready plans on the table for a missile that can easily blow up the whole Planet Earth.
Your pathetic Mexico / French size destruction BB gun.
Take that Russia ! Wanna see Us blow this thing hah ? Wanna ?
End of transmission...
That thing will take out the entire planet. Get your assured destruction without including a second party!
The saddest thing about all of these "treaties" was that only the western world is required to abide by them. Russia, China, and the rest of the Red world are not held to the same standards.
There have never been any sanctions against India, China, or Russia, for their continued development, deployment, and proliferation of nuclear weapons.
On Iraq.
Or Iran.
Or Pakistan.
Or Israel.
Or UAE.
Or Dubai.
How can we be sure it works as advertised?
A cynic might suspect Putin is trying to reverse the smoke and mirrors strategy epitomized by the Strategic Defense Initiative to trick the US into spending itself broke countering a non-existent threat.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Assad did not gas his people. It was Al-Nusra, using captured Syrian weapons, framing the government.
...can you MiRV a cow?
Why on earth is a weapon that powerful needed? That is pretty much a world ending weapon.
The insanity of Trump's admiration/support/connections for a leader who murders his opponents/journalists, commits war crimes deliberately attacking humanitarian convoys and hospitals (yes, I know the U.S. hit one but at the very least they admitted their wartime error and presumably is making reparations), breaks arms control agreements and violates fundamental agreements on not seizing land by force (Crimea was taken despite the Russian pledge to respect Ukraine's border in exchange for them giving up their nukes), drives his nation into an economic dead-end by focusing on one commodity (oil) instead of diversifying (which, of course would have required him to respect rule of law and cut down on the kleptocracy), etc. well this is amongst many many reasons why Trump is completely unqualified (should be disqualified) for being the president of the U.S.
So of course supporting a guy who basically says "I have a gun that can clean blow your head off", I guess that's nothing new for Trump. (and don't tell me that the announcement of this weapon wasn't authorized by Putin). Let me be clear, I do mean Trump supports Putin; by refusing the unanimous consensus of (all?) 17 intelligence agencies that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic Party (gee I wonder why no Republicans were hacked?) saying, he can't say who hacked the Democrats, he is supporting Putin.
Likewise Assange, by selling himself out to Putin because of his problems with Sweden (and presumably the U.S.) indicates that he is willing to sell us all (and especially for his fellow journalists* who have been dying in Russia) out for his own skin. It has really debased the once sterling reputation of Wikileaks, hasn't it? So sad.
*but I don't think very many journalists would still be willing to say he is one of them now
Why are people still developing/improving/refining lunatic weapons like this? The one we have already (even the ones we had in the 1940's) are plenty powerful enough. Being able to incinerate an entire capital city is surely enough "deterrent".
I call it "Satan 2".
Eat the rich.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
POLITICO's Battleground States Polling Average:
Florida Clinton Avg 46.8 Trump Avg 43.4
Trump has trailed Hillary Clinton in 10 of the 11 public polls conducted in October. According to POLITICOâ(TM)s Battleground States polling average, Clinton has a 3.4-point lead. Even private surveys conducted by Republican-leaning groups show Trumpâ(TM)s in trouble in Florida, where a loss would end his White House hopes.
âoeOn the presidential race weâ(TM)ve found Clinton with a consistent 3% - 5% lead in surveys that attempt to reflect Floridaâ(TM)s actual electorate,â Ryan D. Tyson, vice president of political operations for the Associated Industries of Florida business group, wrote in a confidential memo emailed to his conservative-leaning members this weekend and obtained by POLITICO.
As of Monday morning, Florida Republicans had cast fewer than 42 percent of the more than 1.2 million absentee ballots. Democrats had cast 40 percent. Though that 1.7 percentage point lead is in the GOPâ(TM)s favor, itâ(TM)s greatly reduced since the same period in 2012, when Republican ballots outpaced Democratsâ(TM) by 5 points.
Of the nearly 12.7 million active registered voters in the state, 38 percent are Democrats, 36 percent Republicans and the balance are independent voters, with the majority of them registering as having no party affiliation.
Another change since 2012: Floridaâ(TM)s voter rolls have become less white by 3 percentage points, an advantage for Democrats, who enjoy higher rates of minority support than Republicans.
"While Iâ(TM)m still very confident in our partyâ(TM)s ability in the vote-by-mail universe, it is clear our colleagues on the other side have growing success,â said Brian Hughes, a Florida Republican consultant and former spokesman for the state party and Gov. Scott.
One bright spot for Florida Republicans: Sen. Marco Rubio, who leads Congressman Patrick Murphy by 5 points in AIF polls and has bested the Democrat in more than two dozen other surveys. But increasingly, Rubioâ(TM)s team and supporters are nervous as Trumpâ(TM)s fortunes appear to wane. They fear that if Trump loses by 5 points, it could signify a Democratic blue wave that swamps Rubio.
âoeThis is the nightmare scenario weâ(TM)ve all worried about,â said one top Rubio backer who didnâ(TM)t want to go on record for fear of âoepoking the Trump people in the eye.â
A Rubio loss would seriously endanger his political career. It would mark his second defeat in a year, having lost the state GOP presidential primary to Trump. âoeTrump could be directly responsible for one Rubio loss and indirectly responsible for the other,â the Rubio backer said.
The concern isnâ(TM)t limited to Rubio. In tracking whether Florida voters prefer a generic Republican or Democrat, AIF found that âoeRepublicans have taken a hit in the generic ballot since the Access Hollywood tapes were released on Friday October 7. In our initial track it was Republicans +4%. In this weekâ(TM)s track they have dropped -5% to Democrats +1%.â
Trump will be costing Republicans the presidency, the states and ultimately - the party.
Which is now chasing away its last conservative members, turning into a party of radical reactionaries.
On its way to join the Whig Party on the trash heap of history.
The elephant trundled off to the jungle and was never seen again...
There is no weapon on earth that can destroy an area the size of France or Texas. Even a 100MT fission-fusion-fission-type abomb can't do this.
Occams Razor tells me to dismiss this as political propaganda.
I remember reading a number of years ago that the yield size of nuclear warheads was decreasing as the missiles became more accurate. Interesting to see what's happened to accuracy under Putin.
Nearly everything the mainstream news has been feeding you about Trump is either taken out of context, twisted, or just an outright lie.
Nice troll. There's almost nothing about Trump that is out of context. He's the one putting it all out there like a monkey flinging poo. You have to be either a troll or a completely moronic fanboi to actually believe that statement.
I'm amazed at how otherwise intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by lies that come from so-called experts that the media routinely trots out on stage.
You support Trump and you're complaining about people easily manipulated by lies? Hahahahaha.... I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while. That's one of the more astonishingly stupid things I've read in quite a while. Let me guess, you think folks like Hannity and Coulter are telling you the gospel truth too, right?
We have 4 candidates.
Not in any meaningful sense. Two of them have an actual chance at being elected with one of those doing everything in his power to lose the election. The other two have as much chance of being president as I do. So really we have at most two candidates just like always. Only way that will change is if we change the voting system and get rid of gerrymandering.
While Trump is busy buddying up with Putin, Putin is building a bomb called SATAN. I can see that going down well with Tump god squad base.
Ballistic setups are old tech. Even if you outfit them with maneuverable warheads, some of todays systems we're using to knock them down are maneuverable as well post launch. We have multiple to choose from. Patriot, THAAD, and pretty much any naval ship ( or shore installation ) outfitted with Aegis and SM-3 interceptors. It will not be long before directed energy weapons or rail-gun tech is fielded rendering pretty much anything incoming with a radar signature obsolete.
So we basically have a giant missile. The US MX-Peacekeeper had similar specs from 1986 - 2005. We decommissioned them in favor of smaller units that we can hide on submarines and super sneaky cruise missiles instead. Note, it's difficult to move giant ass heavy missiles. They tend to live out their lives in silos. Besides, MAD is very much alive and well in the 21st century. The major powers understand that using nukes on anyone else all but guarantees the target will return the favor before the first missiles even reach their apex.
In short, Russia now has a shiny new ballistic missile that has similar characteristics of a missile we first fielded thirty years ago. The only new component being the currently-theoretical maneuverable re-entry vehicles.
I don't see where this really changes anything other than the fact that all the old treaties prohibiting these things are pretty much off the table now. Though I doubt they were ever worth the paper they were printed on to begin with.
They are justifiably paranoid.
Paranoid yes. Justifiably no.
That's what Westerners do not get about the Russian national psyche. They trust no one, especially the US.
True but a bizarre stance since the US is actually not a threat to Russia unless Russia gets really out of pocket. Why? The US is halfway around the world. China is a FAR bigger threat to Russia than the US could ever hope to be outside of a nuclear missile exchange. There is zero chance of the US ever invading Russia. Even if the US wanted to there aren't enough people and resources to make it happen. China on the other hand has 8X the population of Russia and a physical border with them and is an emerging super power. Russia worrying about the US makes almost zero practical sense.
The Trump 1 is many times more dangerous than the Satan 2.
While the Satan 2 can wipe out only Texas, the Trump 1 in contrast can wipe out the USA including Hawai and Alaska not harming Canada but harming Mexico.
And its paid for by russian tax payers.
Russia has a nuclear weapon capable of destroying Texas, the question is: why would they do us such a favour?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
as hiroshima bomb is NOT same as nagasaki
so lets say nagasaki was 20 KT so the article is sayin they made a 400 MEGATON BOMB?
wooooo
ya mean how we can get arrested and spied on all the time how since the berlin wall fell we've been losing civil rights as the good and lovely corporations steam role right over it...i welcome another cold war ....at least the corporations had to be nice to us more
server run buy foreigner HB1 holders , built buy koreans or chinese hardware ( OH WHOSE COMMIES FOR USING COMMIE HARDWARE?????)
and being shoved an os like windows ten ya mean? FORCED .....is not freedom asshole
AGAIN
And this time openly admitting it. Time to bring back either the MX to replace the MinutemanIII, and re-MIRV the MMIII while we are waiting
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
nagasaki bomb was 20 KT times 2000 = 400 megatons and yes at a proper height this bomb wold destroy france and easily wipe out england vaporize a nice bit of water as well
For g*d's sake pick one and let us know!
Signed
A Concerned Londoner
.
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
Not according to every single UN report on the subject, up to and including just days ago, but by all means, keep being a dictator's internet propagandist.
FYI, since you're late to the party, there no longer is anything called "Al-Nusra". The name changed to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham when they broke from al-Qaeda.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
As Dr. Strangelove put it: 1) How is it possible for this thing to be triggered automatically and at the same time impossible to untrigger? 2) Mister President, it is not only possible, it is *essential*! That's the whold idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of placing in the mind of the enemy the *fear* to attack! So because of the automated and irrevokable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday Machine is terrifying, simple to understand, and completely credible and convincing. 3) Gee, I wish we had one of them Doomsday Machines! (full quote)
And of course don't forget:
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?
Mutual Assured Destruction makes little sense....
Actually, my question is, what do any of these three nations have to gain by invading any of one another?
Nothing. Which is why it hasn't happened. The advantages of working together actually hugely outweigh any conceivable benefits of going to war. The only reason countries like Germany ever invaded Russia is that they elected a psychotic person with aspirations of conquering an empire.
They say "does not move on a set trajectory."
I think what they mean to say that it does not work on a "dummy ballistic trajectory".
Just because it is more than an inertial target does not mean even a little of "impossible to intercept". Impossible is a very big word. No scientist likes to say it.
Lasers go at the speed of light. If the can have just a little dwell-time on target then it will kill the missile.
There is always the trade-off of "maneuverability" for "top speed" and physics says the only way it can get high-ish levels of both is some version of wings or some version of scram-jet control. Scram jets might be easier to poison with area-of-effect defenses like particulate clouds.
This is such a predictable paradigm. This fits very well with the Skvall. Remember how well that went? Yeah - they gave the technology whole to China because they couldn't execute. While I expect them to execute, some, on this - the paradigm was predictable a decade ago. That means anyone with a brain has been working on a decent counter to this for over a decade. It also means that anyone with a brain isn't going to "tip their hand" before they need to win the war.
No way is the target of the propaganda outside of Russia. I'm betting this is "feel good about us" propaganda for Russian people. They used to be a super-power, like the USA also used to be a super-power. They have spent a fair time as a 2nd world country (coming soon to a USA near you) and so they are deeply hungry for the "days of greatness" (also coming soon to a USA near you) . The center of the world does not move like that.
The current super-power plays for the long game, not the short. I just wonder if their value-system is an existential threat to the survival of humanity. This generations great-grandchildren should know for certain, but I think this generation is the only one that can act against the existential threat.
If you want your voice heard, you should probably vote for the person who you align with best.
I think people should vote for the person who most closely fits their worldview who actually has a prayer of getting into office. Voting for a third party candidate who might get 2% of the vote is a waste of time. It just is. If it makes you feel good I won't quibble as long as you understand that it will accomplish nothing of value. If you actually want your voice heard then you should actually get involved in politics directly. There are far better ways to make yourself heard than through a protest vote for a fringe candidate.
The two-party lock-in is pure rhetorical garbage. I can't in good conscience vote for a completely unqualified demagogue or someone who is the closest thing to a living embodiment of the establishment.
I'll agree that the two party thing is annoying but it definitely is not "rhetorical" in nature. It's an inevitable function of how our voting system is set up.
I take a more realpolitik view of who I vote for. I rarely have warm feelings for either of the major party candidates and this election is no exception. I basically am trying to pick what I think is the least worst option among the available candidates that have a real shot at office. In this election Hillary is clearly the least worst option when the alternative is Trump so that is how I'm voting. It's not that I think she's amazing but she fits my worldview far better than Trump and I she is clearly far more competent to hold public office. Donald Trump is easily the worst presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime.
Pick Texas, that let the US with 49 remaining states, at least!
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Are the Russians planning to take over more territory? Or are they afraid that another country may be a military threat? And which one? I can see North Korea or Iran doing this on the basis of perceived ideological threats. I could see China doing this on the basis of perceived economic threats. But the Russians? What the heck do these people want?
Then again, the United States is often perceived as being a bully by many other nations too, so maybe these moves by the Russians seem completely calm and rational to them.
Please?
...if humanity didn't squander its resources on national defense.
Greed is the root of all evil.
... the UK or France...
This is more shilling for warmongers, what pathetic 'journalism' from the Left.
When, exactly, did Russia say they had any intention of attacking the UK or France? So why is the title of the article worded in this way? More laughable, and sick, propaganda from the Jewish nation-wreckers.
Ok, so this 80's nostalgia has officially gotten too far..
That would put this bomb's yield at 30 megatons. This is itself only a little less than third the size of the Tsar bomb, the largest man-made explosion of all time.
For comparison, it is also only slightly larger than the energies released in 1980 by the Mount St Helens eruption in Washington, USA (equivalent to about 24 megatons).
Radiation, not simple devastation area, is the real danger of nuclear weaponry.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Don't most ICBMs have the capability to wreak this kind of devastation? Sounds like they're simply maintaining their nuclear deterrence capabilities. I think we've been doing the same here in the US for decades under some laughable euphemism like "Strategic Stewardship" or something like that. With the attempts to revive the Cold War & the idiots/corrupt running for political office I feel like I'm watching the real life incarnation of "Canadian Bacon" (1995 John Candy film).
Russia claims this for all their new systems but the reality falls far short. For example, Bulava-M was supposed to have gone into production years ago and been deployed on all the new Borei class subs (which currently alternate between patrolling the drydocks and catching on fire). But the flaws of the Borei class aren't really that big a deal because 75% of the Bulava-M missile tests have failed so far.
For comparison, all the Trident II missile tests that the US has performed over the years so far have a... 2 percent failure rate. Our shitty ABM programs have a lower failure rate than post-soviet russian ICBMs. And intercepting an incoming warhead is far more difficult than lofting one.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia's ability to design, manufacture and field high tech military hardware has gone to shit. Their factories produce crap components which are poorly assembled, poorly maintained and then fail once deployed. It's the same story everywhere in Russia. Corruption and incompetence are more rife than ever before. This is the hilarious background against which the Russians continue to claim dominance in weapons systems.
The real threat isn't Russia's military capability, it's the combination of their aggressiveness with their lack of capability and several hundred still-functioning ICBMs. The major risk is that they will sooner or later get themselves in a situation that leads inevitably to defeat and then they go nuclear once they are cornered.
How about your start shutting your trap.....before you make Trump look sane!
France currently has 290 nuclear warheads.
The 290th largest city in Russia is Vidnoye, with a population of 56,752.
Say bye bye to all Russian cities with more than 57 thousand people.
(For our American friends the same logic takes out everywhere bigger than El Cajon, California, with a population of around 103,000).
(Yeah, ok, not all of those could be launched, but even if only one SNLE gets to launch that's still 96 warheads, to which you have to add the 40 odd aircraft deliverable bombs).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
So how many of these things have to go off before the planet has a nuclear winter causing ALL of Russia to die?
My understanding is that the kill radius goes up as the cube root of the explosion size. Hiroshima had heavy damage out to about 3 miles - let's call that the kill radius. Cube root 2000 is about 12.6. Even number, kill radius approx 38 miles. Smaller than Texas. Also, 2000 x 20 kilotons is 40 megatons. I think 10 megatons was a common size in the cold war so this isn't a huge leap in size for deliverable weapons.
In all seriousness, is this blustering by Putin (if we are correct in assuming that Putin=Russia in totality now, which seems to be the case) something we should be seriously concerned about? The Soviet propaganda machine was a force to be reckoned with during the Cold War (make no mistake, so was ours in the US). Is this just a resurrection of that PR engine or should we actually be concerned of a real threat of nuclear armageddon?? Won or lost, the Cold War isn't something for which anyone should be nostalgic.
Does the "wiping out" of Texas include Texans?
One can hope....
drop two or three Satan2s on Texas, fool, they'll send a Texas Ranger over to visit you. after all, one war, only one Ranger to end it. takes a few nukes to give a Ranger a twitch, you know.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"Russian media report that the missile will weigh up to 10 tons with the capacity to carry up to 10 tons of nuclear cargo."
Clearly an incorrect statement, as anyone who's read the rocket equation will realize. The actual weight, which one can look up in seconds, is 100 tonnes.
" could wipe out nearly all of the United Kingdom or France"
For argument's sake, let's assume the Soviets use a warhead roughly equivalent to the US's W88, one of the more efficient warheadsin the world. The W88 weights an estimated 360 kg, which means the 10 tonne capacity could hold about 26 warheads with about 480 kT each, or about 12 MT. That's maybe 2 to 3 cities worth, depending on the coverage you want.
In the 1950s the US Navy calculated you would need 400 MT to wipe out the Soviet Union. This number has been recalculated endless times since then, and remains basically the same. The US is somewhat more decentralized, so you'd need maybe 50 of these to kill the US, assuming that they spread out fairly evenly.
Really no change here - the numbers remain the same since the 1960s, although the bombs have gotten more efficient. Putting all those eggs into 50 baskets is cheaper than 500 baskets with one each, but the US has a lot more than 50 cruise missiles...
I have no idea if that is true, but Hillary didn't run at the time so I don't know why she would need to accept that election, it was a really close call, and a wonderful supreme court decision.
The 50megaton Tsar Bomba:
"All buildings in the village of Severny (both wooden and brick), located 55 kilometres (34 mi) from ground zero within the Sukhoy Nos test range, were destroyed. In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero wooden houses were destroyed, stone ones lost their roofs, windows and doors, and radio communications were interrupted for almost one hour. One participant in the test saw a bright flash through dark goggles and felt the effects of a thermal pulse even at a distance of 270 kilometres (170 mi). The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was observed in the air at Dikson settlement 700 kilometres (430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi)."
TX is 660 mi wide, 800 mi long. A bomb with a burst-damage radius of 100 mi wouldn't "destroy" Texas - although it would certainly mess some shit up.
-Styopa
Russia, stop...you had me at Texas.
The American bases were planted during an UNwanted occupation post-WWII. I am not sure that the Germans have entirely "accepted" the idea of foreign bases on their soil, even today. It may have been beneficial during the Cold War but post-1991, I don't see why they would want them anymore. I say that having been to at least one of those bases.
That said, Poland and Hungary asked for what they got.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Europe should take some responsibility for itself. If pre WW2 Europe wanted America's help, it should have forged a treaty. That may have meant giving up something worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and untold American treasure. Instead we saw the British Empire laying war plans against its WW1 ally and engaging in an arms race. And let's not forget the wars against European empires America had to fight in previous centuries. America hasn't had to do that in the last seventy years, nor has America had to fight the Germans in Europe again. That much has worked out well for both America and western Europe. However now America has to deal with international Communism, a problem that likely wouldn't have existed if America had stayed out of WW1 and let the Germans fight their way to a fair peace. Or straight up win, which they would have. The reality is that America has suffered greatly from the arrogance of Britain and France who forced a war when they could have showed a little appreciation for the precarious defensive position Germany was in (being faced with a two front war against France and Russia), and shown Germany some assurance that they wouldn't be attacked. We are all far from done with suffering from that little failure of diplomacy among European powers.
Decisions, decisions.
Back in my mil days, they could already fire enough Russian missiles to take out the Puget Sound area 500 times over.
It's like saying you have a giant monster truck but there's nowhere to park it.
Big missiles mean small hands, if you get what I mean.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Apparently Putin did not learn from Gorbachav's mistakes.
Not if it blows up before it launches. Why don't they build one powerful enough to destroy the earth? That would be fun to see. Assholes.
Until you need quality BBQ. Then, you'll miss us.
So, on the one hand we have Putin making ever larger nukes and others trying to get to first base. On the other hand, we have Hawking an co. finding possible signs of intelligence elsewhere in the Universe. Let's hope our alien friends stay well away from us. We can't get along with someone on our own planet; don't even think about how we'd manage extra-terrestrial diplomacy! I guess that goes for colonising Mars too.... Some people think big, others think they are thinking big.
The internet was NOT British invented, the web was. And you're uneducated if you think the two words are even remotely interchangeable.
The two words are interchangeable outside of the tech community, and maybe even inside large parts of it. Ordinary people don't know the levels of the OSI model and will parse going "on the web" and going "on the internet" interchangeably. It's like how a person is not uneducated just because they think "scientist" and "physicist" are interchangeable words. For 99% of people 99% of the time, they are.
If you're in the 1% of people (you are) or the 1% of the time (like discussing who invented what), of course, it sounds ridiculous.
Real lawyers write in C++
Please?
My 2 cents....
Romney: "Russia is America’s number one geopolitical foe”
Obama: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back becausethe Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
Hillary: "“It’s somewhat dated to be looking backwards”
If you'd all have voted for Romney you wouldn't be in this position and wouldn't have to choose between twiddle dee and twiddle dumb.
But Obama said the Russians weren't a threat.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
they probably call it hilldawg or something like that
The USA today is nowhere near the USA of the WW2 era. Freedom and Liberty have given way to Socialist doctrine, PC police, and a perception by most of the public that facts are whatever soundbite media gives you.
This is not the USA I want, and absolutely not the USA I grew up in.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
How would you know? Seriously, this is not trolling. How many countries has Russia invaded for profit or global politics
Thirteen that I can think of offhand:
Afghanistan
Albania
Czechoslovakia
Estonia
(East) Germany
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldavia
Poland
Romania
Ukraine
Yugoslavia
Probably more that I'm not thinking of.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
But maybe there would be a lot less people targeting others or they'd set their sights lower, or maybe there aren't as many of them as the US wants everyone to run to them to protect them from. Ever thought of any of that?
P-p-p-lease let it be Texas!
John Stewart for president!
Has the US considered buying one?
When it happens, it will hopefully be over very quickly.
That said, I live in Switzerland and my apartment-building has bunker in the basement, complete with steel-enforced concrete door, ventilation and chemical toilet.
Out of reflex, I'ld probably flee there and survive a couple of days until the fallout brings me an agonizing death.
Maybe evolution is smarter next time.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
This is a helpful graphic:
https://twitter.com/DrJillStei...
Here's the linked article:
http://www.news.com.au/world/m...
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Why isn't there an international law banning the construction of such devices?
Or at least a law banning how much tons you can pack into a nuke? An upper limit?
Surely, the whole fucking world can cut off all economic to Russia if they choose.
This will make them think twice about touting their nukes.
What other species would work so hard on its own extinction?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
CERN stands for Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire. In English, it's the European Organization for Nuclear Research.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
The START proposal was first announced by United States President Ronald Reagan in a commencement address at his alma mater, Eureka College on 9 May 1982, and presented by President Reagan in Geneva on 29 June 1982. Reagan proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic forces in two phases, which he referred to as SALT III at the time. The first phase would reduce overall warhead counts on any missile type to 5,000, with an additional limit of 2,500 on ICBMs. Additionally, a total of 850 ICBMs would be allowed, with a limit of 110 "heavy throw" missiles like the SS-18, with additional limits on the total "throw weight" of the missiles as well. The second phase introduced similar limits on heavy bombers and their warheads, and other strategic systems as well.
What would have put the world on the right track is if every subsequent president had pushed for "dramatic reductions" as Reagan did. Unfortunately, Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama have done nothing of the sort.
How would this destroy all of Texas? Does this thing have thousands of MIRVS? If they scaled up a single warhead to the point where it can destroy Texas it would essentially be a doomsday bomb. So it's hyperbole or Russia created a mad scientist weapon.
Slashdot, come on, leaving it with inflammatory naming designation is practically propaganda!
But will it blend?
CAN'T MOSSAD THE ASSAD! Seriously, Bashar al-Assad is a good doctor, a great statesman, & under assault by unspeakable corruption. This guy gets it: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
UK, France or Texas are quite bad examples of countries to destroy, because they all have enough nuclear power to strike back.
This is probably a response of NATO missiles installed in eastern Europe. The NATO missiles geared at Russia made no sense, neither does the threat to UK, France and Texas.
Actually that is completely false. I really wonder where you got such tripe.
If you do some actual research you will find that while old style English is dead (as commonly happens) it is generally thought the closest living form is new Zealand English.
Which is very very different from American 'English'.
So.. No. You are completely wrong.
Fucking moral relativism ...
here in Switzerland, blessed democracy, stable and as "western" as you can get, we try to sell weapons under guise to just about anyone we can
Everyone who sells weapons is selling them to morally questionable governments. ... ...
The USA is a morally questionable government. They even GIVE their weapons to "morally questionable governments".
So is France.
And Israel.
And Italy.
And the UK.
And Australia
And Russia...
And China
where do you see a morally UNquestionable government on this planet, sir ?
It's the fucking business of killing, the nature of the game, that as a weapons manufacturer, you will be collecting some significant sales revenue from scumbags. Wake up, sunshine !!!
There is nothing more destructive about the Sarmat - it actually has SMALLER warheads than previous missiles.
The difference is it is design to negate ABM defenses (which the US deployed in violation of the ABM Treaty - the US unilaterally abrogated that treaty).
The reason it negates all current US ABM technologies is because it has radically higher throw-weights, which are NOT used for warheads. Instead the higher throw-weight enables orbital trajectories that no other ICBM has ever be able to fly. For example you can launch it south instead of towards the north pole and take the long way around to the US. Because missile defenses are directly only towards the historically obvious direction facing Russia (the north pole, east from Poland, etc.) this negate the ABM system. Add to this: the missile is launch able from submarines immediately off the US or anywhere else in the world (with arbitrary direction to its target).
This is all started by the US when it abrogated the ABM Treaty - by definition the US escalated first!
Hey, this is the USA you're talking about. 'Merica. We'll see your Satan II and raise you Satan III. We'll invent a warhead that digs Putin out of his 300 foot deep nuclear war bunker, and glassifies Moscow and the other top 50 Russian cities. We may be dead, but we'll die with our dagger in Putin's heart.
That's it boys - keep making them bigger and better. It still won't change "mutual assured destruction." I love how Putin just put the USSR through a "Duck and Cover" response to a Nucular Threat, and stated "Most of USSR would live through the event." Which is probably true - except for the part where Nuclear Winter arrives and BOTH the U.S. and USSR are buried under ice from a new ice age. Then, when the ice does melt, a few years to decades later, anyone that hasn't starved to death will face the millions of rotting people who did die in the blast, and are now thawing and release their rotting plague upon the living.
You can kiss your country goodbye because there will be nothing left but a tribe of people in both countries.
That capule overview of the lend lease act was so......inaccurate and just plain ol wrong....I dont know were to start.
It is the same phenomenon pattern. Schizophrenics do not understand the mechanics of their communications and fail explaining them. People being heard have an incentive to NOT BE what they ARE, in the mind of schizophrenics. Add range issues, throughput, interpretation, normal people, carrying fields... they simply do not make good sense of it! It is NOT girls they are hearing, it is NOT males they are killing, there is NO GRANNY telling them what not to do, there is no MOMMA, it is a GUY! People are NOT the country they claim they are in but are LOCAL. Etc. All this can be more or less clarified to the less severe cases but it is not being published in all languages! I am sure Russia is falling prey to people being called AMERICANS by real ARABS and _CHINESE_, By Arabs speaking in FRENCH and promoting the Quran. By CHINESE saying they are in Texas, and so on and on. My thesis does not change: harbage in, garbage out, schizophrenics TRY to act rationally on more than dubious REAL information, and fail. And lots of this information is purposefully misleading, and incomplete. The field is hostile. So what do you expect? IT is not that easy to explain all this in abstract when you CAN bring into the picture (sic) over 50000 real, real connected people to explain the STATE of the channel. It is people (Humans) who hear voices who have to be made UNDERSTAND they DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. Lots to be done, but I neither have the time nor are the tools to make it so... SMOOTH. - DJB
"Because having Russia dominate the world would be horrific?"
Please ask ANYBODY who ever lived in a Russia dominated country. You could learn a lot about whether it would be horrific or not. Unless your are Russian yourself in which case you are selling the idea of your country dominating the World. But believe me, in either case, nobody is impressed.
And how Russians are our friends.
Probably where this went to - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
To be pedantic, they announced that they broke from al-Qaeda. No-one seems to have taken that seriously.
Only if you are short sighted.
Short sighted about what?
This is all about energy. Russia wants to control it.
Energy is a piece of the puzzle but there is FAR more to Russia's world view than merely controlling energy supplies. If you think a major nation state and culture like Russia can be simplified down to one short sound bite then you don't understand Russia at all.
Also, not even remotely halfway around the world if you look at it like this:
Are you familiar with the term "figure of speech"? Yes I'm well aware that Alaska is actually only 55 miles from Russia. But substantially all the population of both countries lives between 3000-8000 miles apart and there are oceans and polar caps in between. Stop being so pedantic because you are missing the point.
Will be better, but I still haven't seen the first one.
fuck me up fam
For a change of mood, check out a video narrated by Truman Bradley the host of 50's tv show Science Fiction Theatre (mentioned in Back to the Future).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It was a circa 1945 film produced to promote sales of savings bonds. I don't know about peaches and cream, but I did see apples and cattle in there.