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"?
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.
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...
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.
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.
It's surprising what people will do in the name of "patriotism". And even now, other nuclear powers will have looked at this and immediately instigated a program to design and build an equivalent which will involve their some of their own populace who will be happy to participate.
And there's many countries who do not have nuclear weapons but want them and undoubtedly have many citizens that would enthusiastically work toward that goal.
Rather than being "inhuman", it seems to be very human to develop these weapons. It's really only a matter of time before they are used again.
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.
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.
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.
And Sarmat means "Muffin" in Russian.
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.
Presumably anyone who lives in a country that is mentioned in sentences like "I think a preemptive nuclear strike against [countryname] would be a good idea."
The next question would of course be, "what kind of inhuman piece of shit would even consider a preemptive nuclear strike?"
I don't think a global nuclear was is likely. I think it's more likely that a small state actor that has nuclear weapons ends up getting hit in a pre-emptive or punitive strike for credibly threatening or actually using one against the US or Russia in a single strike.
Should that happen, it seems unlikely that a major nuclear power would risk some kind of retaliation what would surely end up mutual destruction.
I also doubt that any small state actor, no matter how apparently crazy, would try to do so because you just can't fight and win a nuclear war with Russia, China or the US. The Iranians or the North Koreans simply lack the ability to hit a major player hard enough to prevent an overwhelming retaliatory strike that would be the end of the regime and knock back the country's development by at least 500 years.
If we didn't have a nuclear war in the early 1960s, we aren't having one now.
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.
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
I call it "Satan 2".
Eat the rich.
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?
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.
If you want your voice heard, you should probably vote for the person who you align with best.
Or to put it another way, you wouldn't tell a Trump voter in Massachusetts not to vote. Trump has a zero percent chance of winning in Massachusetts, but millions will still vote for him even though their vote is "wasted". You can say the same thing about Hillary voters in much of the south. Their candidate can't win in their state, but they'll still go out to the polls and make their voice heard.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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
The problem with disarmament is when the other side cheats and doesn't disarm. Note the date - 2002. But go ahead and blame Russia.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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
Cooler heads? Kennedy blockaded Cuba, a direct military threat to the Soviet Union.
I think interdependence is a bigger reason it wouldn't happen. The major nuclear powers in the 1960s were largely self-sustaining, and wiping part of the map wouldn't have had much an impact. At worst we may have had some dependencies on third world countries for raw materials in some of the same sectors we had in WW II, like rubber
Now? Even a six month major disruption in economic activity would bring even the US to its knees as we can't make much of what we need at home, and its probably worse elsewhere. The US has the know-how (probably) to jump-start its manufacturing base given a 3-5 year strategic commitment to investment, but we would need to operate at WW II levels of rationing and economic intervention.
There's also the question of elite status -- the elites are in a powerful position in terms of economic status and political power, there's no telling what even a limited nuclear exchange would do to them. A handful may become more powerful, but it seems more likely that a large number would lose their status forever, either due to the economic disruption or due to outright nationalization of assets and the promotion of national security/military interests.
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'
No, it wouldn't. Nuclear weapons may be the most destructive thing we know how to build. But they're not black magic. And witless alarmism does no one any good. A 400MT nuke airbursted over Paris at the optimum height would pretty well wipe out it, its suburbs, and quite a lot of the surrounding countryside. But the majority of France would survive. and the UK would be untouched:
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nuke...
Imagine all the people...
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.
punch in 400000 (kt) in the yield box, and see what happens. Yeah it's big, but not as big as Texas. That would take something about 100 times the size of tsar bomba. I don't even know if that's theoretically possible.
The entire purpose of nukes in the modern age is as an existential and territorial guarantee. They are not offensive weapons, because to use them as such would lead to the much dreaded nuclear war. Countries with nuclear weapons and a reasonable delivery system, or countries who are under a nuclear power's nuclear shield, simply won't be invaded. If Ukraine had been a NATO member, there wouldn't be a Russian-backed civil war and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine, but because it gave up its arsenal for a now clearly useless guarantee of territorial integrity, and because it didn't join NATO like a number of its former Warsaw Pact neighbors did, it could easily become Russia's plaything.
This I completely disagree with. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender from Japan, just like they had from Germany. The Allies refused to accept Admiral Donitz's Flensburg Government as a de facto or de jour government, so why would they have accepted any wartime Japanese ministry? After the Hiroshima bomb, the Japanese cabinet still refused the unconditional surrender, attempting rather for a conditional armistice and surrender. The US refused absolutely, just as the Allies had done when the Flensburg Government had tried to make overtures. Even after the Nagasaki attack, a group of Japanese officers took part in an abortive attempt to kidnap the Emperor before he could command his government to surrender unconditionally.
It is a myth that Japan was ready to unconditionally surrender before either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Probably where this went to - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...