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.

11 of 1,028 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember when Putin said that the defense systems installed in Poland and Romania will be useless because they are working on "something else"?

    1. Re:Hmm by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you analyze the outcomes of the demilitarization treaties, you'll notice that Soviets really got the short end of the stick. They were forced to scrap some modern weapons which they just finished developing, meanwhile USA just finished building defenses against all older Soviet weapons. In short, if it came to exchange, USA would be fine, Russia would be a nuclear wasteland. They are merely catching up and fixing mistakes of Gorbachev.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re: Hmm by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hell, without the Marshall Plan alone, I think Europe would be in one of three states right now:

      - Annexed by Russia and presently in second world status, with the Iron Curtain still alive and well.
      - Starting yet another world war, as if the first two weren't enough.
      - Technologically even worse off than former Warsaw pact states are presently.

    3. Re: Hmm by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Marshall Plan was a win-win-win situation. First, the US companies got rid of their overproduction after the war. Second, it was a good propaganda stunt to make the US look more appealing than the USSR. And finally it did actually help the destroyed countries because they had no infrastructure to build that crap themselves.

      But, frankly, that last part was just the icing on the cake. Not the cake itself.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Re:What kind of inhuman piece of shit by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One that doesn't want to see his own country nuked. That's the thing about an arms race you see. It's compulsory. The peace loving hippy gets his stuff taken away by the guys with the guns. Every time.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  3. Re:Tzar Bomba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are you so sure it would? You will need one such bomb to decapitate France, UK or USA.
    A single bomb built into a plane looking like passenger wide body on one way mission with crew of genuine patriots, flying in a slot assigned to a regular flight of their national airways?
    I think, that nation state with resources similar to Russia (or China) can manage it.
    With a bit of creativity (delays at airports etc.), it should be possible to synchronize three such strikes at three different capitols separated by minutes.

  4. Re:Why? by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why? Because once a genie is out the bottle it can't be put back in because it only takes one person to use it. Plus an arms race seems to be a fact of life on this planet between humans and other animals too.

    But hey, don't worry, we have the hippies at CND to save us. I'm sure one day they'll stop protesting at everything the west does and head off to russia to do the same thing there, right? I'm mean they're not a bunch of moronic congenital cowards who only protest against governments who they know won't hurt them are they.

  5. Where have we seen this before... by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  6. And yes, this is the guy Trump admires by wisebabo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  7. Re:BULLSHIT US saved Russia by halivar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Russia contribute man power and equipment like tanks that the west has no concept of.

    And they got them to the front lines thanks to Buick.

    The truth is Russia WON ww2 by blood and guts.

    They might have won it with superior tactics and fewer casualties if they hadn't been so murderously barbaric in Stalin's purges. Beating someone by drowning them in your own blood is not something to be proud of.

    Also, Russia would have lost without American lend-lease. We sent them tanks, trucks, rockets, gold, aircraft, jeeps. In ordinance and jet fuel, we sent them over half of what we produced.

  8. Re:No, they didn't. by Alioth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Wipe out" is indeed what it would do.

    Let's imagine this is a MIRV with 15 separate warheads, totaling 50 megatons, total (maybe). Let's imagine the targets are the following British cities: London, Bristol, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinborough, with the larger ones receiving two warheads.

    Britain would basically cease to exist as a nation. So much damage would be done the economy would be non-functional. All the transport links in the country flow through those now destroyed cities, and that infrastructure would be destroyed. Every single piece of modern electronics in the country and in neighbouring countries that was not EMP hardened would no longer work, and everything (especially the transportation system) depends on all this stuff working. The prevailing south west winds would ensure that enough fallout would end up on surrounding areas adding to the casualties, and areas with nearby nuclear power stations would receive a lot of extra fallout. Just feeding the survivors with a barely functioning transportation system would be a logistical nightmare - ground transportation would be difficult thanks most of the major road and rail routes having been destroyed. Injured survivors would be left to fend for themselves - the entire capacity of the health service would be overwhelmed with the casualties of just one of the bombs. The electricity grid would be destroyed, even to the undamaged areas, it would be years before power was restored.

    The survivors themselves, many of them would be suffering PTSD in the years afterwards, and virtually everyone will have lost friends and family and probably most of what they own in the attacks. What survived wouldn't be Britain, it would be a grotesque almost zombie like Britain with at best third world conditions for decades following.

    Just because there are survivors and some land left untouched doesn't mean the country is effectively destroyed.