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.

29 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remind me, why are we picking a fight with Russia again?

    2. Re:Hmm by bucket_brigade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because having Russia dominate the world would be horrific?

    3. Re:Hmm by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because a world dominated by the US is all peaches and cream?

    4. Re:Hmm by some+old+guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because Russians remember the 20+ million they lost in WW2 and are never going to let 1941 happen again. They are justifiably paranoid. That's what Westerners do not get about the Russian national psyche. They trust no one, especially the US.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    5. Re:Hmm by bucket_brigade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In comparison, yes.

    6. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good thing comparisons don't change the fact that most of the world hates the USA and Russia equally, and don't excuse either being such assholes.

    7. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yup it was touch and go whether america would join at all. Just had to wait until the old world powers had bankrupted themselves and destroyed their industry. It all worked out very nicely for the new world order.

    8. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are an idiot if you think "that safe and technology loaded western lifestyle" has even meaning in the vast majority of the World.

      America, as any dominating nation, fucks up the World to protect its interests. Don't be naive as to think America is doing everyone a favor or something like that.

    9. Re:Hmm by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because they want to remain a sovereign nation going their own way

      Which is why Russia is invading Ukraine and supporting terrorists when Ukraine wanted to go their own way and have closer trade relations with the West, right? Because the sovereign nation of Ukraine didn't want to live under the thumb of Russia any longer.

      Why the fuck the rest of the European leaders don't go the same way as Russia I have no fucking clue.

      Because people don't want to live under a dictatorship where the guy at the top can steal your business on a whim and hand it over to one of his oligarch friends.

      Nor do they want to live in a place where the dictator decides who can and cannot run for political office and where, if you become too popular with the people or reveal the corruption endemic in his rule, he'll have you killed.

      If you can't see the obvious, you might be a Russian troll.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re: Hmm by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of which was built in China / Korea ^.^

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    11. Re: Hmm by tshawkins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The web was invented by tim berniers lee, a brit working in cern, a european city.

    12. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I don't personally know a single Trump voter who isn't a racist or a sexist."

      So let's see if I've got this right. You don't know any Trump voters? Somebody I work with summed it up nicely. I'm going to vote Trump, I'm not thrilled about it, I'm not proud about it, I'm not going to broadcast it to the world, but for as bad as he is, he's a damn sight better than Clinton.

      And I've been thinking about it. Who you view worse depends on your view of political correctness and corruption. If you think political correctness is important (view being unoffensive and standing up for social causes as the height of importance) and you may not be thrilled about corruption but will deal with it, you support Clinton. If you're sort of sick of the PC agenda being shoved down your throat but are incredibly pissed off about corruption in politics, you support Trump. And I know you're going to try to point out how corrupt Trump is with his business deals, but remember, corruption requires political power, and as much as you may not like how he does business deals, he's never held political office so has never been in a position to demonstrate corruption. And Clinton....well, when the FBI said she shouldn't be charged on a gross negligence charge because she didn't intend to commit gross negligence, well, those of us who can't stand corruption were just left with our jaws dropped unable to believe just how far the corruption went.

    13. Re:Hmm by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quotation needed. And no, Ukraine does not count. They had a vote and voted to be part of Russia; that's a far cry from rolling in the tanks and taking it by force.

      They did send in their military, that's who the "Little Green Men" were. Even Putin has publicly admitted this. The "vote" was held under occupation, not internationally recognized, boycotted by significant segments of the population, and even Russia at one point accidentally released the "real" numbers from the vote which didn't match the official ones.

      Do recall that Russia is a country where Chechnya "voted for" United Russia (Putin's Party) 99% in 2001. Some parts of Grozny voted for "The Butcher of Grozny" by well over 100%. You seriously think that's legit?

      Amazing how many apologists for Russia there are here. False equivalencies are clearly alive and well.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    14. Re:Hmm by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're talking like Putin isn't the madman.

      Note: I don't think he's a madman - he's too smart to actually go down the road to a full-on military engagement against NATO. I do, however, think he is beating the nationalist drum in order to bring back the glory days of the USSR that everyone seems to remember without also remembering the crushing human rights violations, the starvation and bread lines, and the ever-looming threat of nuclear oblivion between the Soviets and the West.

      For the millenials that have no idea what Soviet Russia was about: everything sounds nice and rosy until you find yourself being forced into being a farmer because that's what some bureaucrat designated you as. Don't like it? Better not say anything about it, or you're off to a gulag in the next purge.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    15. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If your tiny little syphilitic Eurobrains can't handle that, by all means keep using your soft, pussy-ass metric system.

      It is pretty much this unlikely combination of arrogance and ignorance that much of the rest of the world considers "uniquely American".

      Also, doing the right thing -- for the wrong reasons, after having tried everything else.

    16. Re:Hmm by deathguppie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems to me that the old-fashioned communists in Russia [and their modern day descendants] were much worse towards their population that towards foreigners

      except for Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria.. and every other country that they were able to occupy.

      I don't know what kind of world revisionist history you've been smoking but if you can't tell the difference between what happened in western and eastern Europe after WW2 then there is no reason to discuss anything. No one can argue with that kind of crazy.

      --
      once more into the breach
    17. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      How many countries has Russia invaded for profit or global politics and how many did the USA?

      In the history of the Russian Federation, which is less than 30 years old, we have seen the Russian military involved in the following conflicts:

      • War in Abkhazia (1992–93). Chewed off a chunk of Georgia.
      • Transnistria War (1992). Chewed off a chunk of Moldova.
      • Tajikistani Civil War (1992 - 1997).
      • Russo-Georgian War (2008). I think they chewed off another chunk of Georgia in this.
      • Ukraine (2014-ongoing). Currently a chunk of Ukraine is now part of Russia.
      • Syria (2015-ongoing).

      I left out the Russian military conflicts that were contained within Russian borders, for example the Second Chechnyan War between 1999 and 2009.

    18. Re: Hmm by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, Hitler merely repeated Napoleon's error, and ultimately met the same fate.

      The Americans etc.destroyed much German war capability, driving them back to Berlin. The Russians sapped the Nazis' eastern front and with just a little material help from the Americans counterattacked and pincered the Nazis. Had the Americans slowed we would have seen the Soviet empire established with a western border on France and maybe Belgium. whether that would have been better or not I would leave to your imagination.

      We could debate the potential success of the Allies if Russia had not counterattacked, but I'm thinking that Hitler's greatest weakness was believing he was a military strategist. Killing Nazi generals was the best Allied strategy, leaving him with successively junior and weaker staff, less likely to speak up and challenge his worst ideas. But any significant delay in defeating Nazi Germany could have resulted in a nuclear weapon being detonated either on the Continent or on Britain, and we would have a very, very different world than we do now. Japan was so isolated that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were considered events 'somewhere else' by most of the world, and underappreciated for the gravity and potential except for the US and Russian leadership, who entirely understood that any singular advantage in nuclear weapons could result in worldwide destruction or hegemony, with no middle ground.

      Thank your luck stars that the US held the early advantage. The Soviet Empire would not have hesitated to use such leverage to brutal effect, and that would be a different world also. The US had very different aspirations for world influence, and that made a difference to the relative benefit of the world.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  2. No, they didn't. by cirby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:No, they didn't. by cirby · · Score: 5, Informative

      The thing about a modern fission-fusion device is that the fusion neutrons help "burn up" a lot of the primary. They've supposedly moved away from the heavy uranium tampers of the early weapons to help reduce fallout (while losing some efficiency), or have fine-tuned them so much that they're effectively being burned up completely in the detonation.

      As you mention, part of it's that the fallout that's left disperses over a very, very wide area.

  3. I like the (alleged) picture of it by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  4. Summary picked the wrong article to copy by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. BULLSHIT US saved Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:BULLSHIT US saved Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Both the Russian historian Boris Sokolov and none other than Josef Stalin disagree with you. From the Wikipedia page about Lend-Lease:

        [Emphasis is mine]

      According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease played a crucial role in winning the war:

              On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR’s emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[24]

      Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:

              I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so. [30]

    2. Re:BULLSHIT US saved Russia by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Russia won by blood and guts, but they wouldn't have won if not for the allies. Stalin constantly petitioned the US and UK for a second front and even when Italy was invaded he still demanded more.

      Russia won by blood and guts,
      The western allies won by guile and intelligence. That's why we got half of Europe.
      But the truth is, Hitler was our biggest ally. Without his stupidity, Russia would have been swept aside. We didn't win the war as much as the Axis lost it.

      The Soviet leadership were dumb as bricks. Their strategy consisted of building up huge numbers and overwhelming German positions. They never changed this strategy. They never had to as Hitler had refused to allow the German armies to retreat. As such, armies were cut off by the hundreds of thousands with 300,000 troops trapped in the Crimea alone as the Russians bypassed the region. Hitler had to defend a 1000 mile line across Russia, if he had of fallen back to more defensible line or even just a smaller one it would have given the Germans the edge over the Russians just by shortening their supply lines and lengthening the Russians.

      The Germans had superior training, equipment, officers and more experience. Half the reason the Russians lost so many people is because they ordered them to run into German guns until they ran out of ammo. As Winston Churchill siad, "Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre, the more a general contributes in manoeuvre the less he demands in slaughter", the Russians used very little manoeuvre.

      Against a competent leader... Like Montgomery, let alone Eisenhower... The Russians would not have stood a chance.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. Re:Putin just out-tyranted Tsiolkovsky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    in sovjet-russia, payload carries rocket

  7. Why? by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Two candidates by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.