Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Document Confirms Existence of Russian Doomsday Torpedo (popularmechanics.com)

Popular Mechanics reports that "a key U.S. nuclear weapons document confirms that the Russian government is developing the most powerful nuclear weapon in more than a half century...a 'new intercontinental, nuclear-armed undersea autonomous torpedo'" with a range of 6,200 miles. But what really makes "Kanyon" nightmare fuel is the drone torpedo's payload: a 100-megaton thermonuclear weapon. By way of comparison, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 16 kilotons, or the equivalent of 16,000 tons of TNT. Kanyon's nuke would be the equivalent of 100,000,000 tons of TNT. That's twice as powerful as Tsar Bomba, the most powerful thermonuclear weapon ever tested. Dropped on New York City, a 100-megaton bomb would kill 8 million people outright and injure 6 million more.

Kanyon is designed to attack coastal areas, destroying cities, naval bases, and ports. The mega-bomb would also generate an artificial tsunami that would surge inland, spreading radioactive contamination with the advancing water. To make matters worse there are reports the warhead is "salted" with the radioactive isotope Cobalt-60. Contaminated areas would be off-limits to humanity for up to 100 years.

Slashdot reader schwit1 adds that "being sea-based makes it immune to ballistic missile defense."

243 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. Can It Get Past Sharks With Laserbeams? by dryriver · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can it?

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
  2. A great leap backwards by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 4, Funny

    WTF is going over there, Vlad ? Are you guys having some kind of retro movie festival (Dr Strangelove, Wargames, On the Beach) with free vodka and meth ?

    Large exchanges of salted weapons is mindlessly catastrophic.

    1. Re:A great leap backwards by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the hell do you expect from the former head of the KGB? They were monsters from day one, and that hasn't changed.

    2. Re:A great leap backwards by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Maybe the past year show of nuclear force and ballistic missile defense on the part of the US before North Korea gave Russia strong incentive to build something of importance.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:A great leap backwards by jouassou · · Score: 2

      The US has been riling up NATO against Russia for some time now. You had the whole debacle of trying to force all NATO countries to spend 2% of their GDP on their defence budget, even though the US alone has an ~8x larger military budget than Russia. Then you have the new military activity along their border, such as the deployment of US soldiers to Værnes in Norway, even though there are already NATO bases along most of the Russian border. Then the US spent most of the past couple of years accusing Russia of "hacking their election", still without rigorous proof of their claims. When Obama wanted to expel Russian diplomats from their soil after the election problems, the Russians responded by inviting the US diplomats to a Kremlin Christmas Party.

      So what do you expect? The Cold War is resuming, and Russia is the scared underdog. If the US was in the situation that Russia had an 8x larger military budget, had military bases all along the border in Canada and Mexico and maybe some rockets on Cuba, tried to up the military spending of their allies, spent the last couple of years yelling at you for meddling in their elections, and expelled your diplomats, how would you react?

    4. Re:A great leap backwards by haruchai · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How about by not fucking meddling & fixing my own domestic problems?
      Russia's been playing games a long time, long before Obama was elected.
      Aside from oil, Russia has nothing America wants & they can get it in trade. If they should be worried about anyone, it should be the 2 very large nearby nations filled with billions of brown & yellow people and who also have nukes.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re: A great leap backwards by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      Because it's true....

    6. Re:A great leap backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly, this is America's fault.

      Did Russia invade and annex the Crimea? No. It was America.

      Was MH17 shot down by a Russian missile? No. It was American.

      Has Russia violated numerous trade encumbrances with North Korea? No. America has.

      Has Russia provided North Korea with nuclear missile technology? No. It's all American.

      Does Russia have a troll farm trying to exploit divisions in rival countries in an effort to destabilize them? No. That's the American way.

    7. Re:A great leap backwards by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the past year show of nuclear force and ballistic missile defense on the part of the US before North Korea gave Russia strong incentive to build something of importance.

      Umm, no.

      Assuming this isn't someone's fantasy, it wasn't developed in the last year. It would probably have had to be in development for a decade or two.

      Note also that it's never been tested. And I'm not talking about the bomb, I'm talking about the torpedo. Until it goes through a real test, it's not worth wasting time with.

      And then there's the bomb. Until one is detonated, you never really know if it'll work as designed. And one hasn't been detonated....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:A great leap backwards by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

      And then there's the bomb. Until one is detonated, you never really know if it'll work as designed. And one hasn't been detonated....

      Not really. A common-or-garden H-bomb has a yield of a few MT. To achieve more BANG! the thermonuclear core is surrounded by more fissile material. Essentially it is an atomic bomb to initiate the fusion weapon and then more fission. I do not know if there is an upper limit, apart from a practical limit on the device's weight, to how much this scales.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    9. Re:A great leap backwards by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The US has been riling up NATO against Russia for some time now. You had the whole debacle of trying to force all NATO countries to spend 2% of their GDP on their defence budget, even though the US alone has an ~8x larger military budget than Russia.

      IMHO that was way overdue. The US went to war all over the globe to stop the spread of global communism, so naturally they'd aid Europe if they came under attack by the Soviet Union. But after the Soviet Union fell most of Europe has massively cut their military spending relying on US backing through NATO, while the US has lost their main ideological reason to send their soldiers to fight in our wars. The Ukraine/Crimea situation became the opportunity to remind the other NATO members that it's a mutual defense treaty where each has to contribute their part. I'm not sure how that translates to aggression towards Russia, most people saw that as the US backing out of Europe and saying Europe must be able to fend for itself.

      Of course he had to backtrack and reaffirm that the US is fully committed to the alliance and that an attack on one is an attack on all, but I think the lingering message was clear. The US will help you with arms and high tech weaponry etc. but the US is in no hurry to get into another Vietnam, you'd better have a basic army that can do most of the shooting and dying. Just because we're allies there's a sliding scale of how much and how quick we're willing to help. There's not a whole lot of good things I have to say about Trump, but that's one area I think is absolute lack of political correctness did some good. The NATO treaty is an exceptionally simple and unconditional "us against the commies" agreement you'd never make today.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:A great leap backwards by sphealey · · Score: 2

      = = = And then there's the bomb. Until one is detonated, you never really know if it'll work as designed. And one hasn't been detonated....= = =

      The Soviet Union conducted an atmospheric test of a weaponized device with a nominal 100 MT yield. Actual yield was around 65 MT - sufficient for the pressure pulse to cause damage hundreds of kilometers away - reputedly because a non-fissionable metal was substituted for uranium in the jacket of the final stage. Google "Tsar Bomba" for details.

    11. Re:A great leap backwards by stabiesoft · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Tsar bomb was detonated, and the scientists went against orders and made it smaller than it was supposed to be. As I recall the original design called for 100MT. The scientists were concerned at 100MT, it would set the atmosphere on fire. I completely believe both the US and Russia are more than capable of building 100MT nuke. The torpedo I don't know. But again, seems like fairly old tech. Frankly the real problem I see with stopping nuclear proliferation is it has become old tech. Like most tech, stuff that used to be very expensive and only in the hands of a few becomes old and available. Consider people doing CRISPR in their garage. Imagine that 70 years ago when we dropped our first nuke.

    12. Re:A great leap backwards by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Until one is detonated, you never really know if it'll work as designed. And one hasn't been detonated....

      Oh, I think we've got you covered.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re:A great leap backwards by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The whole point of a doomsday weapon is that you only use it if you've already lost.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    14. Re:A great leap backwards by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Note also that it's never been tested. And I'm not talking about the bomb, I'm talking about the torpedo. Until it goes through a real test, it's not worth wasting time with.

      How do you know? It's not exactly hard to test. Launch it in the South Atlantic, see if it gets home.

    15. Re:A great leap backwards by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I will bet that the torpedo HAS been tested. Send it from Parts of EUrope to Cuba, with no warhead.
      This would have to be nuclear powered.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re:A great leap backwards by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I always have to laugh at idiots that use such things as absolute numbers for budgets.
      Russia's money is nearly worthless, so, $ comparison makes little sense.
      Interestingly, CHina manipulates their money, as well as hides the bulk of their military spending so that it appears to be far less.
      But with Russia, and China, BOTH are spending a great deal more of their budget and GDP on military than does America.

      And claiming that America has been wiping up NATO is a another joke. America/NATO were quiet when Russia invaded Georgia.
      BUT, once they invaded Ukraine, Eastern Europe are the ones that got VERY upset and said that they wanted NATO backing (and rightly). Personally, I have no issue with Russia taking back Crimea, but eastern Ukraine has belonged mostly to Ukraine, as do most of the ppl there.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    17. Re:A great leap backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly, this is America's fault.

      Did Russia invade and annex the Crimea? No. It was America.

      Was MH17 shot down by a Russian missile? No. It was American.

      Has Russia violated numerous trade encumbrances with North Korea? No. America has.

      Has Russia provided North Korea with nuclear missile technology? No. It's all American.

      Does Russia have a troll farm trying to exploit divisions in rival countries in an effort to destabilize them? No. That's the American way.

      Exactly this, this is Russia's fault.

      Did America invade Afghanistan and bomb it to the stone ages? No. It was Russia.

      Did America invade Iraq which led to the spread of Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, ISIS, Al-Fuckedup? No, It was Russia.

      Did America arm the Syrian rebels that led to the "Nightmare State"? No, it was Russia.

      Does America elect an smelly turd as president? No, it was Russia!

    18. Re:A great leap backwards by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      OH MY GOD! Why did we do those things?! ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    19. Re: A great leap backwards by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're conflating a few different things.

      There was some thought by US scientists that the first nuke test might start the atmosphere on fire.

      The tsar bomba was designed with a max yield of 100 megatonnes if the jacket material was uranium. But that would cause a huge amount of fallout so they tested it with an inert casing, which made it one of the cleanest nukes ever detonated, proportionally.

      Everyone stopped making giant nukes because they're pointless. It's better in pretty much every way to scatter lots of little ones than detonate one big one. Which is what makes this story so unlikely to be true.

    20. Re:A great leap backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was a long time ago since the US where the good guys, but not saying that Russians or China are any better..

      Messing with the internal affairs of other countries..
      http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

      US helped to build up Al-Qaeda and ISIS..
      https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/

      And their meddling brought on the refugee crisis in Europe
      http://watchingamerica.com/WA/2015/09/30/america-caused-the-refugee-crisis-in-europe/

      The US government has used their spying capabilities to spy for commercial benefits.
      https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/business/us-snooping-on-companies-cited-by-china.html
      heck.. They even write about it themselves..
      https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol37no2/html/v37i2a02p_0001.htm

      The US goverment spies on their allies..
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964

      The US forcing other countries to abide by international laws and then ignoring them themselves.
      https://www.thenation.com/article/you-must-follow-international-law-unless-youre-america/

      The US testing biological weapons on their own population
      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-admits-bio-weapons-tests/

      The US ignoring treaties about biolocical and chemical weapons..
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/29/usa.julianborger

      I do like the bill of rights and the way the country is presented and is said to stand for, but government seems to have taken quite a few wrong turns over the years.. Just wish the US went back to basics and stopped meddling everywhere and followed the procedures set up by the UN if they want to overthrow oppressive regimes... Maybe that would be a good thing for the US to since they could cut back on the amount of money they throw at the military.

    21. Re:A great leap backwards by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Russia's measures look proportional:

      > Norway is now a nuclear target due to the deployment of 330 US Marines in its borders, a senior Russian politician has warned.

      330 US Marines, that's nothing. Also, Norway is a NATO country so what's new here. Yet Russia threatens 5 million Norwegians and their neighbors with nukes.

    22. Re:A great leap backwards by Archtech · · Score: 1

      There is a right and wrong in the world, we are the good guys, and the world is a better place if we win.

      OK, everyone, this is conclusive proof that we are dealing with a deluded lunatic. No need to pay any further attention to his ravings.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    23. Re:A great leap backwards by Archtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US went to war all over the globe to stop the spread of global communism...

      Yes, and that worked out really well. One of the classic cases, of course, was Vietnam. Several US presidents and other Washington officials solemnly assured us that, if "the commies" were allowed to "overrun" their own country, there would immediately ensue a "Domino Effect" with all the rest of South-East Asia going communist, followed by India, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, South America... and eventually they would come for the good ol' loveable US billionaires and take away their hard-earned dollars to give to worthless starving poor people.

      Anything was preferable, so the USA spent over a decade and about 50,000 of their own soldiers' lives to kill over 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians while destroying villages, farms, and forests with napalm, Agent Orange and other pleasant substances.

      And when they finally got ignominiously kicked out, having to fight for places on the last helicopters out, what happened? How many nations did the Domino Effect claim? Did the Red Tide reach the shores of the USA? South America? Africa? Europe? India?

      No, it didn't. So those 3 million people died for nothing at all, except to boost the MICC's profits and to prove that the Domino Theory was complete and utter nonsense.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    24. Re:A great leap backwards by ahodgson · · Score: 1, Insightful

      America should maybe stop interfering in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, then.

    25. Re: A great leap backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow. An actual Russian troll!

      maskirovka sound familiar? It is something the Russians are EXCELLENT at doing - full props to you guys. But really, do not overdo it or it loses effectiveness.

      Russians tell the truth. LOL. This from the country that brought us Pravda and the whole concept of communism as anything but the tyranny of the majority.

    26. Re:A great leap backwards by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I do not know if there is an upper limit, apart from a practical limit on the device's weight, to how much this scales.

      Exactly. You won't know whether it'll work as designed till you set one off.

      And yes, I knew that high-end nukes were fission-fusion-fission devices. What I don't know is whether Tsar Bomba was such a weapon. I doubt that anyone outside the project knows....'

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    27. Re:A great leap backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did America invade Iraq which led to the spread of Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, ISIS, Al-Fuckedup? No, It was Russia.

      Actually, Al-Qaida and all that is a direct result of the US. Osama Bin Laddin was a cool dude while on the CIA payroll and training.

      keep beleiving the propaganda you are fed.

    28. Re:A great leap backwards by haruchai · · Score: 1

      America should maybe stop interfering in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, then.

      I'd rather see an end to meddling in the Middle East - which is REAL meddling.

      "Eastern Europe & the Caucasus"? Don't make me laugh.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    29. Re:A great leap backwards by Digital+Avatar · · Score: 1

      More specifically, send it from Kaliningrad or Arkhangelsk to Havana with an inert 'warhead' composed purely of an equivalent weight of tungsten and see if it can successfully maneuver on whatever fuel is budgeted for it.

    30. Re:A great leap backwards by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      But after the Soviet Union fell most of Europe has massively cut their military spending relying on US backing through NATO

      Read: Europe no longer saw a reason to prop up the US economy by spending billions on the worst US equipment the Pentagon doesn't even want.

      Some of us here remember that the US Military-Industrial Complex has resorted to bribery and using the State Department as their sales arm.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    31. Re:A great leap backwards by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The US went to war all over the globe to stop the spread of global communism

      Well, that's what they said anyway. Looking at a map and some history, there are a few inconsistencies. Despite the US story of fighting to hold expansionistic communism at it's post-WWII extent, it's Russia and China, neither of which is really properly communist, that seem to have become encircled by US military bases.

    32. Re: A great leap backwards by swillden · · Score: 1

      Everyone stopped making giant nukes because they're pointless. It's better in pretty much every way to scatter lots of little ones than detonate one big one.

      But scattering lots of little ones pretty much has to be done from the air, which exposes them to counterfire. Attacking from under water is very stealthy, but you can only hit the coastline. If you want to do damage further inland, you either need to get the bomb(s) further inland... or use a much bigger bomb.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    33. Re:A great leap backwards by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Communism was fought to a standstill. It's hard for us today to understand how popular and forward thinking communism was regarded. Respected intellectuals were all for getting rid of messy democracy and going full collectivism, and they would not scruple at murdering millions to do it. And the end of the war wasn't like you falsely remember. US troops withdrew in 1972 with the communists promising not to invade. 3 years later, they poured across the border like Nazi Germany into Poland. Liars and murderers.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    34. Re: A great leap backwards by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The strategy of scattering lots of little ones using ballistic missiles also has the benefit of negating any missile defense system up to and including a working version of Reagan's Star Wars.

      The other problem with this is that although the idea of nuking cities is good for scaring people, what you really want to do is nuke the other guy's nukes. The US keeps all theirs buried in silos in the interior or deployed in submarines scattered around the world. Sneaking up to the coast underwater and launching shorter range ballistic missiles is a big advantage because it decreases warning time, but that's one of the roles of existing ballistic missile subs.

      If you wanted to commit national suicide it would be much easier just to sail a nuke into New York harbour on a regular boat and wait for the counter strike.

    35. Re:A great leap backwards by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Hey, I said that I had no issue with Crimea going back to Russia. It has actually been more Russian than Ukraine throughout time.
      BUT Eastern Ukraine has not. While it has been part of Russia at times, it has mostly been Ukraine. As such, that IS an issue.

      BTW, the election in Crimea was a joke.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    36. Re:A great leap backwards by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. My money is on a Ukrainian fighter jet - but it may have been a Ukrainian SAM.

      The exact firing location, ownership and model of the SAM is disputed, but when even the manufacturer of the Buk weapon system recognizes that the weapon belonged to the Buk family, you can pretty much rule out a fighter jet.

    37. Re:A great leap backwards by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Someone hasn't taken their medication today?

      Hmmm..

      "Bubba Bill"
      "Norks"
      "Deep state"
      "Troll armies"

      I'll take a guess and assume that you're are the member of a political party that takes advantage of people like you?

    38. Re: A great leap backwards by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Like... elder Bush.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    39. Re:A great leap backwards by slashrio · · Score: 1

      No no, you can't post this stuff, it's too politically incorrect, and above all, no one would believe you.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    40. Re:A great leap backwards by slashrio · · Score: 1

      It's not that America would want something that Russia has, it's that America is afraid as hell that Eastern Europe (Russia) and Western Europe (and especially Germany) would join in a megalomaniacally strong economic block that would make America insignificant in comparison.
      Already more than 100 years America is trying to prevent that, and quite successfully.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    41. Re:A great leap backwards by slashrio · · Score: 1

      You forget to mention how 'Russia' destroyed Libya.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    42. Re: A great leap backwards by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Actually it was Wall Street that brought us communism by adopting, feeding, grooming and paying Trotsky for his work, after completion of which they sent him off with a train load of gold to start a revolution in Tsarist Russia.
      This worked quite well and the Tsar and his family were (savagely, as a warning) wiped off the face of the earth.
      And all of that because the Tsar had refused the Rothschild bankers a Central Bank modeled to the British one.
      Just saying. :)

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    43. Re:A great leap backwards by Archtech · · Score: 2

      The generally expressed desire of "America first" can not be criticized. It is a perfectly correct aspiration for our people to cherish. But the problem which we have to solve is how to make America first. It can not be done by the cultivation of national bigotry, arrogance, or selfishness. Hatreds, jealousies, and suspicions will not be productive of any benefits in this direction. Here again we must apply the rule of toleration. Because there are other peoples whose ways are not our ways, and whose thoughts are not our thoughts, we are not warranted in drawing the conclusion that they are adding nothing to the sum of civilization.

      "We can make little contribution to the welfare of humanity on the theory that we are a superior people and all others are an inferior people. We do not need to be too loud in the assertion of our own righteousness. It is true that we live under most favorable circumstances.

      "But before we come to the final and irrevocable decision that we are better than everybody else we need to consider what we might do if we had their provocations and their difficulties. We are not likely to improve our own condition or help humanity very much until we come to the sympathetic understanding that human nature is about the same everywhere, that it is rather evenly distributed over the surface of the earth, and that we are all united in a common brotherhood.

      "We can only make America first in the true sense which that means by cultivating a spirit of friendship and good will, by the exercise of the virtues of patience and forbearance, by being "plenteous in mercy," and through progress at home and helpfulness abroad standing as an example of real service to humanity".

      - Calvin Coolidge, speech to an American Legion convention in 1925

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    44. Re:A great leap backwards by joh · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone need a country like Russia with a GDP smaller than that of Italy to create a "megalomaniacally strong economic block"?

    45. Re: A great leap backwards by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I had thought one of the lessons of tsar bomba was how after a certain point it isn't really all that effective to just keep increasing yield. That is what MIRV (multiple independent re-entry vehicles). Anyway the whole thing seems ludicrous, and I'd question it's validity.

      Heck why not just load smaller short range missiles into the same platform to fire off the coast? I mean you are essentially building a small nuclear powered autonomous submarine you plan to blow up anyway.

    46. Re: A great leap backwards by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Exactly. A bomb's area of destruction is limited by the inverse square law, so you get sharply diminishing returns as you make them bigger. The way to get real destruction is to have lots of much smaller bombs and scatter them over the area you want to destroy. It also has the benefit of making missile defence nearly impossible, and works way better on the type of hardened targets you actually want to destroy: the other guy's missile silos.

      Missile submarines enabled surprise attacks with very little warning easier, but also made it nearly impossible to prevent a retaliatory strike. I guess you could make a drone missile sub, and that would eliminate problems with actually getting humans to fire the things, but a) you'd have to communicate with it to give the launch order, b) you'd have to trust that it wouldn't break or go missing and not fire when you needed it to, and c) I don't think anybody is that crazy yet.

    47. Re: A great leap backwards by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      You're not even worth a down vote.

      Good thing you're not on reddit then.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    48. Re: A great leap backwards by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      lol ya sort of forgot to finish my sentence/thought after the parentheses... Anyway that is what MIRV's are for.

      Also seeing as it is supposed to explode underwater, I'd imagine that is why it is salted with Cobalt as otherwise you wouldn't get the normal radioactive fallout as water is one of the better insulators of radiation in the world, that way you still get the contaminated effect I suppose.

      Anyway the whole idea seems a bit silly. Unless you have things things just lurking around all the time, which you probably wouldn't want to do, as someone could find one, and you wanna bet that would be a pretty good excuse for first strike, they would be much too slow. If anything ever did happen, by the time these things launch, chug across the ocean in a couple weeks, all they would be doing is blowing up a bit of toxic wasteland that had already been obliterated in the first day of ICBM strikes, bomber strikes, etc...

      I think I saw that these might be "attached" to a hull of a normal nuclear sub, and launched, however I got to think that by doing so you pretty much cripple the original sub for anything as it would be easier to see, easier to hear, slower, less maneuverable, etc...

      Though the first thing that came to mind was the design was adopted due to need. i.e. hey we have these mostly useless 100MT nuclear things laying around we spent a ton of money on and are too large for any conventional use, any ideas as to what to do with them other than collect dust? Well what about a torpedo? Well it is much too slow. Well we could attach it to a normal sub... Just seems like they are trying really hard to make some use of a 100MT warheads, when there are already much "better" alternatives to making them in the first place.

    49. Re:A great leap backwards by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Does America elect an smelly turd as president? Also yes!

      FTFY

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    50. Re: A great leap backwards by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Everyone stopped making giant nukes because they're pointless. It's better in pretty much every way to scatter lots of little ones than detonate one big one. Which is what makes this story so unlikely to be true.

      Yup. Realize that explosions are spherical and targets largely exist on a plane. Therefore, a lot of energy is wasted on the volume above and below the plane. This is one reason for multiple reentry vehicles, and cluster bombs.

      Now, a "shaped" nuclear weapon that could focus more energy on the target plane would be a game changer.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    51. Re: A great leap backwards by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I suspect the reason it's salted with cobalt is because "intercontinental torpedo with 100 MT warhead that could destroy New York" isn't as scary as "... salted with cobalt to cause lots of radioactive death!" The only thing salting a bomb would do is make sure that any allies you might have had who would stick with you through a nuclear first strike would definitely decide the world was better without you.

      As you pointed out, the whole thing is ludicrous in many ways. It sounds like American or Russian propaganda (it's hard to tell the difference between the two).

    52. Re: A great leap backwards by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Forgot:

      The Russians don't actually have any 100 MT warheads. They made one and blew it up. IIRC correctly they had a second in some state of assembly, and they had a few extra casings around. Everything was disassembled after the test. There's a casing or two on display in museums. The things weren't practical, and the Soviets knew it at the time.

    53. Re:A great leap backwards by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, Tsar Bomba was a fission-fusion device to cut down on fallout, and the fission-fusion-fission bomb would have been about twice as powerful.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    54. Re: A great leap backwards by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The USN also keeps track of Russian submarines through various means. Exactly what they do and how effective it is is classified information, probably Top Secret. I'd have no confidence that a Russian sub could approach a major US coastal city.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    55. Re: A great leap backwards by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, Germany wanted to knock Russia and then Italy out of the war so Germany could concentrate on France and Britain, so the Germans sent Lenin into Russia. That's normally considered the decisive act in the Bolshevik revolution.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    56. Re:A great leap backwards by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Communism provoked strong feelings, for and against, for quite some time early in the 20th Century. Various intellectuals praised the Soviet Union, typically either being unaware of the megamurders or not believing in them. The Soviets weren't at all interested in providing other countries with a view of what was actually happening.

      The infatuation with Communism reached a peak in the Great Depression, when it looked like democracy and capitalism had failed. If you didn't actually know what was going on in the USSR, it was easy to imagine it as working better than capitalism and democracy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    57. Re:A great leap backwards by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      However, a doomsday weapon is completely useless unless widely publicized, including efforts to explain why it will work. If you have to dig around to find evidence of a doomsday weapon, then either it isn't, or the government with it is completely inept. Putin isn't completely inept.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    58. Re:A great leap backwards by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Exactly this, this is Russia's fault.

      Did America invade Afghanistan and bomb it to the stone ages? No. It was Russia.

      I get that you're trying to be satirical and call out the United States for the invasion of Afghanistan, but realistically Russia set in motion the original destruction of Afghanistan in the early 80's getting into a proxy war with the US. That's where the US originally trained Osama Bin Laden to fight *against* the Russian invasion, effectively turning Afghanistan into Russia's version of Vietnam. Now you can argue that the US should have properly rebuilt Afghanistan the first time around, but the fact remains that Russia set into motion the chain of events that originally led to the rise of the Taliban, the events of 9/11, and ultimately the "War on Terror" which was the crux of your attempt at a witty reply.

      So yeah, if you want to go back to first causes, Russia *is* essentially at fault for all of the things you listed.

    59. Re:A great leap backwards by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      And why did we train Osama Bin Laden? To fight Russia! So yes, Osama Bin Laden is *also* Russia's fault!

    60. Re:A great leap backwards by slashrio · · Score: 1

      You're measuring it wrong. America isn't afraid of its current GDP, but, as I implicated in my reply to haruchai, for its possible cooperation with Western Europe, especially Germany.
      Just listen to the opposition by German industries against the current sanctions against Russia.
      They don't like it at all, so there clearly is a 'want' for doing business with Russia.
      Join the Russian resources with the German capital and knowledge 'et voila', there is your threat (as seen by America).

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    61. Re: A great leap backwards by slashrio · · Score: 1

      That's interesting, thanks.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    62. Re: A great leap backwards by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Or simply pre-stage them amongst the tens of millions of shipping containers which arrive here each year, only a tiny fraction of which are ever inspected. You'd have to do some work to evade the radiation scanners, but nothing I imagine a determined enemy or potential enemy wouldn't be able to do. That is how I suspect the U.S. ends. Every major U.S. city probably has dozens of Chinese nukes (among others) already ready to go as soon as someone gives the order; no ballistic missiles or bombers needed. And I suspect the same is true everplace else. It's demonstrably easy, safe, and cheap to pull off, so why not?? Everyone always thinks in terms of the last war, but the next one is never as pretty, nor as predictable.

    63. Re:A great leap backwards by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: respectable intellectuals and college professors today still think communism is the way of the future. They teach their students this. It looks like democracy today has failed with Trump, and capitalism has always been wrong. Let's ask our mainstream media journalists how they think.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  3. A typhoom class boomer by rossdee · · Score: 1

    wpold be more effectivw

  4. Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    Part of Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" program was satellite based ballistic missile defense. I've seen little sign that its various researched programs ever worked, but there were several theoretical programs, such as the nuclear device triggered orbital X-ray lasyers, that might theoretically have been effective against such an attack. Part of the difficulty is that such a "defensive" technology is far easier to target against ground targets than against moving ballistic missiles: it would have constituted a direct violation of the "Outer Space Treaty". That treaty is now over 50 years old, and has helped prevent the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in orbit.

    Other powerful orbital weapons also run into some treaty limitations. The nuclear pumped X-ray laser may be the most notorious.

    1. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      The speed of that torpedo is 100 knots (180 km/h), much less than an ICBM. However it could be launched from a submarine close to the US coast.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Why launch anything. Blow it underwater in the harbor. 100MT is a lot

    3. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to launch it from your submarine anyway - you don't want it to detonate on top of you, do you?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole story sounds like complete and utter bollocks quite frankly.

      Consider

      1) How big is the torpedo. There's a picture of the original Tsar Bomba here

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It's enormous. Way larger than a torpedo tube.

      2) How far away from the launching submarine would 100 Mt warhead need to be? 100 Mt is obviously an enormous amount and explosions under water are more damaging.

      3) How is an 'intercontinental torpedo' propelled? It seems the propulsion system would add more weight to an already heavy concept

      4) How is it guided? GPS won't work because it's underwater. Submarines use all sorts of subtle techniques like passive sonar to avoid revealing their location and ultra low frequency radio transmissions. A human crew on a sub can do this. It's far from clear a drone submarine is viable

      5) Why salt the bomb? That would poison the oceans over a vast area.

      It just sounds like the Russians have leaked this in attempt to make the US give up on missile defence. There's no evidence this project got funded. And Russia is so cash strapped it didn't even an SLBM subs patrolling as recently as 2006. Putin has pushed for new SLBMs and new subs to put them with the result the US no longer has nuclear primacy but that process was not exactly embarrassment free - tests failed for a while.

      E.g. here in 2013

      https://www.military.com/defen...

      The idea Russia is going to get what is effectively a drone submarine working anytime soon when it seemed to have significant teething troubles doing what was the Russian equivalent of an Ohio class replacement is absurd. Most likely they're bullshitting in the hope it gives the US left an excuse to say that 'ballistic missile defence can't non ballistic missile threats, therefore it's not worth doing'.

      Actually what it reminds me of is the US announcement of 'Star Wars' aka SDI. It wasn't technically practical then but the Russians didn't know that. If you read Gorbachev's autobiography him and Shevardnadze used SDI to make the case that the USSR had lost the Cold War and it was time to surrender. Rumours of this device are presumably intended to cause the same sentiment in the US.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, you have to launch it from your submarine anyway - you don't want it to detonate on top of you, do you?

      This is a "Drone Torpedo" capable of 6,200mile range. It *is* the submarine.

    6. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually what it reminds me of is the US announcement of 'Star Wars' aka SDI. It wasn't technically practical then but the Russians didn't know that. If you read Gorbachev's autobiography him and Shevardnadze used SDI to make the case that the USSR had lost the Cold War and it was time to surrender. Rumours of this device are presumably intended to cause the same sentiment in the US.

      SDI was part of the Strategy of Technology. It was an economic strategy, not a military one. The wikipedia page is awful, by the way. I only link to it to show that it was a real thing that people took seriously. To learn about it, it is better to go straight to the source.

      The goal here isn't to demoralize us, it is to force us to spend money to develop underwater anti-drone technology.

      Unfortunately for them, I think it will backfire. We can afford it. We'll end up with underwater drones and underwater anti-drones and our economic growth will still outpace Russia.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    7. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      It is only named 'torpedo'.
      It does not mean it is launched from a sub from a torpedo tube.
      It could be launched from a port in Russia, and then need 2 days to reach its target.
      The propulsion could be nucear, after all it is a small submarine.
      Navigation via ineritita navigation plus magnetic field detection. Basically every cube meter of ocean water and especially sea floor is mapped for the orientation of the earth magnetic field.
      So: navigation is most likely the most simplest problem.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Regarding SDI, you must be a moron.
      If the russians are good at some things then it is math, physics, making robust tech from thin air and Vodka.
      They likely know more about any imaginary space weaponary than the US ever will.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      If it is fast enough it would not need to try to be stealthy in attack mode, but the propulsion method seems to be the key logistics issue.

      My guess is that it would be more of a manned submarine that has a 100MT warhead built in, and the crew is sacrificial.

    10. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add that US attack subs and various deployed sonar systems from ships, planes and undersea installations routinely follow all Russian subs from the time the leave their base to the time they return. It's not difficult, as there aren't very many of them any more and it gives the attack sub commanders something to do.

      Like you say, this is more of an imagined threat than a real one.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    11. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Ivy Mike weighed 82 tonnes and was the size of an aircraft hangar.

      So obviously there's no way they'll ever be able to produce any hydrogen warhead that can be carried by a missile or torpedo.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's enormous. Way larger than a torpedo tube.

      So tow it behind the sub. Grab onto it with external brackets. Launch it from a large surface ship. Drop it in the water in Murmansk and let it drive to New York.

      2) How far away from the launching submarine would 100 Mt warhead need to be?

      6200 miles is probably enough.

      3) How is an 'intercontinental torpedo' propelled? It seems the propulsion system would add more weight to an already heavy concept

      I'm guessing they put an engine of some form onto it.

      Weight is less of a concern in the sea. Things weighing 97000 tons float on top of it, I'm guessing this will come in a bit lighter.

      4) How is it guided? GPS won't work because it's underwater. Submarines use all sorts of subtle techniques like passive sonar to avoid revealing their location and ultra low frequency radio transmissions. A human crew on a sub can do this. It's far from clear a drone submarine is viable

      With a 100MT detonation you don't need to be terribly precise. Not to mention ease with which you could just float up a GPS receiver (or other radio based navigation device) every few hundred miles to confirm position and course-correct.

      5) Why salt the bomb? That would poison the oceans over a vast area.

      At last a sensible question. I don't know the answer to this one.

    13. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Fencepost · · Score: 1

      It's not a torpedo. It's a really large undersea drone.

      It avoids one issue you might have with a sub-launched nuclear torpedo, namely that underwater nukes would probably be a suicide mission for any sub crew launching them.

      I don't know what level of communications are really feasible with subs, but I'd expect this to be primarily programmed navigation, with occasional coded status/location reports and the ability for remote controllers to choose from a set of pre-programmed changes at appropriate decision points.

      --
      fencepost
      just a little off
    14. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      5) Why salt the bomb? That would poison the oceans over a vast area.

      At last a sensible question. I don't know the answer to this one.

      Area denial. There would be a lot of leftover resources that would not be able to be scavenged.
      Poisoning of the coastal food-chain.

    15. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Most likely they're bullshitting in the hope it gives the US left an excuse to say that 'ballistic missile defence can't non ballistic missile threats, therefore it's not worth doing'.

      Which has been the US Left's line (though for all missile defense, not just non-ballistic) more or less forever.

    16. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to launch it from your submarine anyway - you don't want it to detonate on top of you, do you?

      This is a "Drone Torpedo" capable of 6,200mile range. It *is* the submarine.

      To have that range yes, it was have to more or less be a complete drone submarine. Which makes it even more dubious.

    17. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      2) How far away from the launching submarine would 100 Mt warhead need to be?

      0m away. Well maybe 15m away. Give it a chance to leave the torpedo tube first. I'm interested to know why you think in a time of war that there aren't incidental friendly casualties? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      5) Why salt the bomb? That would poison the oceans over a vast area.

      Yeah but that would be an entire ocean away from home. (pun intended)

    18. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Cederic · · Score: 1

      While true, that's the mechanical effect. What's the geopolitical strategy here?

    19. Re: Practically immune, not theoretically immune by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Problem is, 1) your logic is applicable to any other torpedo, and 2) this one is submarine-launched, too, apparently.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re: Practically immune, not theoretically immune by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And yet, this is most likely what you're observing here.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    21. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And yet, submarines are already being built for it, apparently, and that removes the "two days to seeing any results" problem. (In fact, it also removes the "Russia has crappy western ports to reach the US eastern seaboard" problem.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    22. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Basically every cube meter of ocean water and especially sea floor is mapped for the orientation of the earth magnetic field.

      ...which has been changing substantially of late. It's normal for it to change, but right now it's changing a lot.

      I think you have to get it pretty close manually. That means attaching it to another vessel somehow. It doesn't necessarily mean putting it into a torpedo tube. You could put it into a missile tube, if you wanted to.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I would speculate the torpedo is a scaled up version of the VA-111 Shkval. It's an amazing piece of hardware on it's own.
      Length: 8.2 m (26 ft 11 in)
      Diameter: 533 mm (21 in)
      Weight: 2,700 kg (6,000 lb)
      Warhead weight: 210 kg (460 lb)
      Speed
      Launch speed: 50 knots (93 km/h; 58 mph)
      Maximum speed: 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph) or greater
      Range: Around 11–15 km (6.8–9.3 mi) (new version). Older versions only 7 km (4.3 mi)

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    24. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There have been submarines carrying torpedoes on the outside of the sub.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      and the crew is sacrificial.

      The crew in fact may have other ideas which may include not dying. Suicide weapons have tended to be one-man affairs. Keeping an entire sub crew determined on suicide may be difficult.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The US Left prefers not to spend money on military ideas that simply aren't going to work.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nothing that goes that fast underwater can be quiet. If the attacker is close to the target, and 15km counts as close, it may well not matter. Run one of those things for a long time and there will be time to set up countermeasures.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:Practically immune, not theoretically immune by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless the changes are slow, a very low increment per year, the increment is usually known, and with a rough position via centrifugal compass systems, you still can be very precise.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  5. Murphy's Law by InterGuru · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Murphy's Law, everything that can go wrong will go wrong, has not been abolished. Nuclear weapons have prevented major wars for 70 years, but this may be the conservation of catastrophe. Putting out many small forest fires builds up to a huge one. Connecting our cities to a large electric grid stops frequent small blackouts but builds up to occasional huge, multi-state blackouts.

    1. Re:Murphy's Law by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nuclear weapons have prevented major wars for 70 years

      5 years ago I planted a greengage tree in my back garden. I have not had an elephant sit on my fence in 5 years. Behold the protective effect of my greengage tree.

      Correlation is not causation.

    2. Re:Murphy's Law by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      Nuclear weapons have prevented major wars for 70 years

      5 years ago I planted a greengage tree in my back garden. I have not had an elephant sit on my fence in 5 years. Behold the protective effect of my greengage tree.

      Correlation is not causation.

      Being afraid of being nuked into oblivion is plenty of reason not to start a major war. We have lots of evidence that people behave in a self-preserving manner, and we have 70 years of history that corroborates the MAD theory. If that's not enough proof for some people, that's okay, since in real life, no one will ever prove causation sufficiently to satisfy a nut-job.

    3. Re: Murphy's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I planted one too at about the same time as you and ever since then I can't get rid of the god damned elephants!

      What's your secret??

    4. Re:Murphy's Law by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Did you have a couple of elephants sit on your fence before you planted the tree? If so, and you planted the tree, you might be able to make that claim. But if you never had the problem to begin with, there's no causation because the status-quo didn't change.

      Keep in mind there's a little bit of weasel word in there: "major wars". It's not that nuclear weapons have prevented wars--just major ones. And you can always play with what you consider to be a "major" war.

  6. Can we ever rely on missile defense? I doubt! by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    "being sea-based makes it immune to ballistic missile defense."

    What would its performance be in a situation whereby a target is inundated with hundreds of such missiles?

    That's why I sometimes laugh when I hear our PHBs brag about the marvelous missile defense systems we in the USA have. The Russians must be laughing even harder.

    1. Re:Can we ever rely on missile defense? I doubt! by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Our missile defense systems are designed to deter the guys who can launch one, or a handful of missiles (read: Iran or, until recently, North Korea). They were never seriously expected to defend against a full-scale Russian attack.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Can we ever rely on missile defense? I doubt! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I've never heard anyone every brag about "marvelous missile defense systems".

      The closest I've every heard have been counter-battery systems, where the missiles/shells origin point is pounded by artillery. But that's just about preventing launch #2.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Can we ever rely on missile defense? I doubt! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The US does have an effective defence against a full-scale Russian attack. They have their own missiles, and procedures for a final retaliatory strike. That's how deterrence works: "I can't win this war, but I can sure as hell make you lose."

  7. Summary Comparison by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    Considering that this is a torpedo and those travel through and under water, does it really make sense to talk about what a 100 megaton atomic weapon would do if it were dropped on a city?

    Something like this is scary enough in its own rights, if only because there may not be as good of defenses in place which make it individually more likely to succeed, but even a much smaller warhead would be effective if it came to nuclear war. Never mind that if we're in that situation at all, both the U.S. and Russia already have enough conventional nuclear weapons to destroy each other several times over and neither of us could stop the others entire arsenal.

    1. Re:Summary Comparison by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Considering that this is a torpedo and those travel through and under water, does it really make sense to talk about what a 100 megaton atomic weapon would do if it were dropped on a city?

      New York city is located on the coast, so yes. If you're quibbling about the altitude of the detonation, I don't think it matters that much with a 100 megaton payload. At 2000 feet ASL or -100 feet, New York would be toast.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Summary Comparison by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Probably one of the reasons this design (if it actually exists) needs a warhead this big to be effective at all. Sound much more to me that some (utterly insane) people stand to benefit from this rumor, for example by being the ones that supply the designs the US uses to counter this.

      A pity we cannot identify (and then reliably contain) such people at birth.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Summary Comparison by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Something like this is scary enough in its own rights, if only because there may not be as good of defenses in place which make it individually more likely to succeed,

      Russians can build supersonic torpedoes. If they can build intercontinental supersonic torpedoes, that dramatically changes the nuclear superiority game. We could detect it coming with our sonar network, but we probably couldn't stop it without bombing the shit out of the ocean, if even that would work.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Summary Comparison by c · · Score: 2

      Considering that this is a torpedo and those travel through and under water, does it really make sense to talk about what a 100 megaton atomic weapon would do if it were dropped on a city?

      It might not be easy, but I imagine something like this could be built with a secondary booster to launch out of the water when it reaches the coast and detonate a few miles inland.

      But it's not necessary for attacking a port city. Once you wipe out the docks and surrounding infrastructure, you've basically destroyed the utility of the entire city.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    5. Re:Summary Comparison by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Overkill. You do not need anything like 100MT to do that.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:Summary Comparison by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Probably easier to just make it really, really big. Say, 100MT. The destructive potential might be slightly lessened with a sub-optimal detonation altitude, but that's still enough boom to wipe out a city. 100MT is huge, even by nuclear standards.

    7. Re:Summary Comparison by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I always thought that the effects of nuclear bomb are significantly influenced by the height and most of the damage is done by the shockwave and heatwave rather than direct thermal and radioactive radiation.

      /me searches the web
      Perhaps here is a better explanation.

    8. Re:Summary Comparison by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Somewhat surprisingly, it actually matters a lot. You don't really want a nuke going off in your harbour, but you'd much rather that than one going off a couple thousand feet above your downtown. The underwater nuke is wasting a lot of energy out to sea, even more blowing through nearby rubble and ground to blast stuff below the horizon, and even more extra-crispifying the port and getting screwed by the inverse squared law.

      The Soviets built the Tsar Bomba, then everyone put away their multi-megaton bombs and concentrated on efficient weapons: missiles that spread multiple small warheads over an area to maximize destruction.

    9. Re:Summary Comparison by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Supersonic torpedoes have got to use a lot of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere. Running one for 15km is one thing; running one for thousands of km is another thing entirely.

      You can just launch an ICBM, and ballistics will work very well at determining where it ends up. One of these torpedoes would be underwater, where it can't use GPS, and where just pointing in the right direction won't work over very many km.

      One of those things would be very noisy and easy to track. It might well be possible to drop a net that will entangle it.

      Also, we can't stop Russian missiles. There's too many of them. The Russians know perfectly well that they can do incredible amounts of harm to the US, at which point we do incredible amounts of harm to Russia. That's what keeps the peace. Another unstoppable nuclear delivery vehicle would not change the situation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Summary Comparison by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Supersonic torpedoes have got to use a lot of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere. Running one for 15km is one thing; running one for thousands of km is another thing entirely.

      Sure, you wouldn't run it supersonic the whole time. But you might do so to evade capture, and you would certainly do so at the end of the mission.

      Another unstoppable nuclear delivery vehicle would not change the situation.

      That's probably the best argument.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. first leaked by Russian television in November 201 by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Title makes it sound like some kind of a secret

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  9. Seems like propaganda by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't find this scary in and of itself because we're already at the point where we could destroy human civilization several times over, and have been for decades. I'm far more concerned that so many are goading Trump into escalating with Russia to "prove" he isn't a puppet.

    Such information being made public so quickly seems to be in line with the "make people fear the Russians" campaign that's been going on since the election. Normally, this kind of thing would be classified (we overclassify EVERYTHING, and Russian nuclear capabilities is a legit secret), so a public release likely indicates an attempt to shape policy. IIRC, US intel overestimated the number of Soviet nukes by an order of magnitude, which made an easy sell for building a fuckton of nukes.

    Yes, Putin is bad. Russia is bad. That doesn't mean we should trust something the Pentagon releases.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Seems like propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >To make matters worse there are reports the warhead is "salted" with the radioactive isotope Cobalt-60.

      This part makes me skeptical. Nobody in their right mind would salt a bomb with cobalt, because it would spread all over the place and probably poison people all over the world. It takes a long time to kill, so you aren't getting a good result up front.

      It just doesn't make sense - you want a bomb that wipes all the living stuff out immediately, and then leaves the city intact for invasion and population. If you make it unlivable, nothing is gained.

    2. Re:Seems like propaganda by mark_osmd · · Score: 1

      > Trump into escalating with Russia to "prove" he isn't a puppet. I'd think the fact that the whole "colluding" thing has crashed and burned as a GPS Fusion scam paid for by the DNC has fixed that well enough.

  10. Unmanned nuke roaming the oceans - thief's delight by ffkom · · Score: 1

    It's not like manned submarines are immune to getting lost and into possibly the wrong hands - but unmanned drones will be even more likely to lose contact, getting lost and later found by someone who sells them to those willing to put some effort into hacking the fuse. Sounds like a new generation of "ransomware" will emerge - like "transfer us $$$$$$$$$ or we'll detonate the flotsam we just got hold of"...

  11. Re:first leaked by Russian television in November by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Funny

    leaked by Russian television in November 201

    Old news indeed!

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  12. Arms Control Treaties? by HuskyDog · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know whether this weapon (assuming it actually exists) would fall within any of the current US-Russia arms control treaties?

  13. First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At first thought, it would appear that this wouldn't be suited at all as a first strike weapon. Despite the immense damage it would cause, it would not directly cripple a retaliatory strike. The U.S.'s bombers and missiles are far inland and it would only sink the nuclear subs that happened to be in port nearby.

    However, it COULD be used to decapitate much of the the political "leadership" (if one were to call the Trump administration that) and also much of the military leadership if it were detonated right off of Washington D.C. In fact, assuming that it could get close enough to be used (which of course is the only way it could be useful) it would be an almost instantaneous first strike weapon. Unlike a ballistic missile launched from a sub offshore on a depressed trajectory (5 min.?) or a nuke disguised as a satellite that suddenly de-orbits (20 min.?) it would be able to wipe out its target with too little time to escape. That, coupled with a "normal" first strike that would take out the land based bombers and missiles might be enough to keep the retaliation to a minimum. Or in the words of General 'Buck' Turgidson, "10-20 million (casualties) tops. Sure (they'd) get their hair mussed but (they'd) win".

    Insane? Well so is the idea of an autonomous (meaning I presume there's no way to call it back) doomsday torpedo. Sounds like one could remake "The Hunt for Red October" with just a few changes; a robotic submarine capable of ending the world (or just the coast of many large nations) is accidentally launched and it must be found and destroyed before it gets within range (or becomes sentient).

    Since Russia isn't nearly as vulnerable as the U.S. from coastal attacks but seems to be way behind and falling further in space technology (thanks Elon!); why not put a big rock in the sky that, with just a little nudge, would fall down the gravity well and give a non-radioactive 100MT blast? Or, if the Russians are going to go ahead and violate the nuclear arms treaty (I'm pretty sure developing a whole new strategic nuclear weapon system is not allowed), use America's lead in new biotechnologies that could target specific regions or exact populations (I'd tell you how but probably not best to talk about such things publicly).

    1. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by wisebabo · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, by "put a big rock in the sky" I don't mean literally lift a large rock up there; until we have anti-gravity (or a space elevator) that'll be way too expensive. Instead, just find an appropriate sized NEO asteroid and, using a (very big) and slow ion engine or mass driver, bring it into a chaotic orbit between the earth and the moon. That was NASA's goal until Trump; to bring a (much much smaller) asteroid into cis-lunar space. It can then just be "nudged" carefully of course to impact in the right spot. Of course it'll have to be protected on the way down and it'll be the furthest thing from a first strike weapon but it'll have a great psychological impact to have the (asteroid) of Damocles hanging over your head.

      It's fitting that because Russia bio science was crippled by Lysenko that they are so far behind in genetics. Perhaps their computer virus attacks will one day be answered with real ones.

    2. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that's silly, merely moving such an asteroid would provoke retaliation. it's a "weapon" that takes months to stage for which immediate first-strike nuclear warfare is justified as response

    3. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      With ICBMs it's easy to see who launched them and retaliate. With a torpedo it's more difficult... Okay, only Russia has these, but if one takes you by surprise can you be sure it wasn't a Chinese submarine launching a shorter range one or on some kind of suicide mission? And in a decade or two other countries will have nuclear armed drones too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      Won't we still have second strike capability though? The vast network of nuclear missiles in the American West and the nuclear missile submarines. Sure, it would not be instantaneous, but eventually systems would come back online, the population would be clamoring for vengeance on those who carried this out, and we'd have massive targeted strikes on wherever Russian political and military leaders were thought to be.

      The world would sink into WWIII.

    5. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well it is pointless because subs are tracked. You will indeed know who launches it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      If russia REALLY wanted to hurt America, they would not attack Washington DC. They would leave all of CONgress and our current WH up. That would guarantee that Russia would win.
      OTOH, if Russia blows up DC only, esp the WH and CONgress, there is a good chance that many of us will cheer on Russia and thank them.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Any rock big enough to create a 100 MT blast doesn't really need to be protected on the way down. It would naturally have to have a ferrous core, and you could shoot at it with nukes, but a direct strike is extremely unlikely. A de-orbiting asteroid is traveling at 28,000 km/h. Near nuclear detonations would not affect a big ferrous asteroid.

      I recommend reading Footfall by Larry Niven, as this is basically the premise of his book. Great author BTW.

      https://www.amazon.com/Footfal...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    8. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If that were true then the second strike capability would be nullified, because it relies on submarines being largely untrackable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like one could remake "The Hunt for Red October" with just a few changes;

      This isn't a submarine, it's a torpedo. It's more like a missile.

      It's the hunt for Red Cocktober.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It might be more accurate to say that submarines can be tracked than to say they're always trackable.

      However, the US has some big advantages in keeping submarines tracked in the North Atlantic. It's easier for us to track them than them to track us.

      Also, a SLBM can be thousands of kilometers away from its target, so the sub can attack from almost anywhere. A torpedo would have much shorter range.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:First Strike Weapon by Decapitation? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We've been facing a potential decapitation system for a long time, with a nuke smuggled into the Potomac or a depressed-trajectory SLBM launch. I'd assume that the command and control structure exists to retaliate in that eventuality.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. Re:Don't worry. Twitler will make a deal by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    Just ask Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Eisenhower.

  15. Humanity? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "Contaminated areas would be off-limits to humanity for up to 100 years. "

    That would launch a planetary destruction and no humanity would be left to wait for a hundred years.

    1. Re:Humanity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Humanity in rural areas far from target sites would survive all over the world. Civilization would break down entirely, though, and none of the highly industrialized societies would stand a chance. It is mind-boggling how much we rely on labor division and global transport networks. Even just producing halfway transparent is an insanely complicated process, as many DIY glassmakers have realized.

  16. Good luck with that by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Something only that short-arsed Chekist cocksucker could dream up, thinking that somehow this makes ROSSIYA STRONK.

    Only a diseased, drunken gopnik Russian mind could come up with something simultaneously evil and totally useless.

    About thirty minutes after Putin uses this weapon, Russia ceases to exist -- forever.

    1. Re:Good luck with that by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Guess the Chekist gangster fuckwits running Russia started eating their own shit.

      Policy driven by paranoia, emerging from a conspirational KGB mindset. Goes to show how sick and diseased Russia as a nation really is.

  17. I don't think nukes are preventing wars by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    globalism is. The Aristocracy is global now. They don't own countries, they own the world. More specifically they have property all throughout the world and don't want to see it blown up. They'll allow a few bush fire style conflicts to keep war profiteering going (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) and they'll put down rebellions (Yemen) but they won't allow another full scale war to dip into their profits and break their stuff and, well, they're the aristocracy so they're in charge.

    Hell, maybe about a decade ago Pakistan basically looked the other way while a major terrorist incident happened in India and nothing came of it. That's because an India/Pakistan war would be bad for business.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't think nukes are preventing wars by gordguide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like your use of the word "allow" and the phrase "they won't allow". It's quaint.

      History tells us, and with startling consistency, that wars don't start based on who allows what, they don't play out based on who allows what, and they don't end based on who allows what.

      They start because of brinkmanship (check), territorial ambitions (check) and unexpected, often improbable and generally unanticipated (by both sides) events which lead to ad-hoc responses that weren't in the playbook devised by those who plan for such things.

      They play out in such a way that the weaker employs tactics that negate the stronger's advantages, and the stronger applies force that the weaker doesn't possess. Lord help everyone if there is no demonstrably weaker and stronger side, because then the Shit Really Hits The Fan, and for longer than everyone, often including the eventual losers, would like.

      The latter often means bigger and nastier weapons, often of a type yet deployed in battle, because ... well ... it's a perfect proving ground, there's a justification (to win the war and save {our side's / innocent civilians / the enemy's conscripted soldiers etc} lives ... and interested minds want to know how effective the thing is, and what's the weakness we need to engineer out for the next war, or this one, if it lasts long enough.

      Today we have a complex web of alliances and treaties that tends to prevent big conflicts by addressing small ones, but when the improbable and unexpected happens, that just means you get a bigger war. Throw in some widely held beliefs about the other side (one widely held by America's foes is that the US domestic population can't stand a prolonged conflict and will force political concessions to the enemy), regardless if they are actually true or not.

      Really, I don't see much "allowing" going on. More like stumbling, guessing, thrashing, and suffering. Oh, and let's not forget the best one of all, "testing".

    2. Re:I don't think nukes are preventing wars by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that anyone would think that "the US domestic population can't stand a prolonged conflict". I mean we're still fighting in Afghanistan and we've been there for 16+ years now. I mean WW2 only lasted 6 years, I'm pretty sure we're going to triple that in Afghanistan. If anything I'd expect people to view the USA as being incapable of pulling out once the military gets involved.

    3. Re:I don't think nukes are preventing wars by imrahilj · · Score: 1

      A lot of Americans believe that pulling out is immoral. /s

    4. Re:I don't think nukes are preventing wars by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I mean we're still fighting in Afghanistan and we've been there for 16+ years now.

      Well, that's a "brown people" war, so it doesn't count.

    5. Re:I don't think nukes are preventing wars by gordguide · · Score: 1

      It's not always easy to know what your natural enemies think of you; in fact it's the norm to be wrong there because everything is filtered through a ethnocentric lens. It doesn't have to be true for your adversaries to act as if it were. I think that is an important aspect to keep in mind.

      Afghanistan is an example, maybe, of the exception to the rule, while few historians on either side would disagree that it was precisely the belief that drove the doctrine and actions of the North Vietnamese. In our modern "fake news" super-connected world, where propaganda is front and centre in the peacetime rhetoric, morale at home is quite possibly even more fragile than in conflicts of the 20th century.

      I have little doubt a protagonist would not try to exploit that, and considering there is still a "commie faction" (small "c") that strictly controls it's own media, including the networked side ... the Arab Spring provided lessons that they definitely took notice of, while in the West we seem to think we can sidestep these controls. Maybe we can, but then again maybe the holes are being shut faster than we can open them. At least that's how it seems.

      It's a constantly changing landscape; there is ebb and flow, each side has it's successes and failures. But as we speak, it seems to me the closed media states are gaining advantages while we see erosion.

  18. Re:M A D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As Nicole Kidman said: "I'm not worried of the man who wants 10 nuclear warheads, I am afraid of the man who only wants one."

  19. Makes you wonder what our "Doomsday" weapons are by SigIO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While the article, true or not, is ripe with fearmongering...I wonder what our geopolitical rivals have to say about our undeclared "Doomsday" arsenal.

  20. Tantalum by Titanek · · Score: 1

    Tantalum salt would be worse, not that Cobalt-60 isn't bad enough... Besides, in the past year, the Russian presence in the Baltic area has more than doubled.. Rattling the saber? Or a prelude to a salted nuclear torpedo, I cannot say... Just hoping that the Swedish superpower keeps all this shit at bay...

  21. Hmmm by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    "Pentagon Document Confirms Existence of Russian Doomsday Torpedo"

    I would be be far more worried about this if it was a Russian document, of any sort. The headline basically says "The Pentagon thinks the Russians have this torpedo". If I wrote "I am Donald Trump" on a piece of Pentagon-headed paper, it wouldn't make it true, now would it?

    Same with recent "dossiers"...

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    1. Re:Hmmm by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It looks too much like "Hey, look!! The evil child-eating communists are deploying bigger doomsday weapons!!! We must spend another trillion dollars in weapons NOW!!!" (many time later someone points that the document about the russian weapon is fake or just speculation, but it does not matter anymore because money has already created new millionaires)

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:Hmmm by minstrelmike · · Score: 2

      The Pentagon is warning us about a new weapon enemies have. Good way to get funding.
      Kind of the same way antivirus companies sell lots of software during a new scare.

    3. Re:Hmmm by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I decided to read TFA, and it appears you are correct. The document in question compares the number of “New Nuclear Delivery Vehicles Over the Past Decade” between Russia, China, North Korea, and the US. The other three countries show numerous new ways to kill Americans, while the US section is woefully blank except for one only little blip in the far right corner.

      It really is apparent the referenced one-page infographic’s sole purpose is to convince politicians that we need to spend lots of money on new nukes.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the back side of the sheet had some sort of graphic spelling out the economic damage all those unemployed Bechtel engineers are inflicting on the US economy.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Hmmm by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      True, and I'm also inclined to post such a comment. So I'll add a complementary note: Obama has approved 1 trillion for new nukes and there's increasing antimissile systems on Russia's border which as is well known have both defensive as offensive value (attacking with impunity)There's bound to be a response and it will be asymmetric.

    5. Re: Hmmm by jafac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we're already defeated, considering our government is shut down.

      Come at us, Ivan. Bring your best vodka and two shot glasses.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    6. Re:Hmmm by basicprimitives · · Score: 2

      Do you comprehend that it is impossible to win in nuclear war? All existing treaties are just gentlemen's agreements and nothing more. There is no 100% protection against retaliation attack. USA builds its anti-ballistic missile defense. So lets now ask ourselves what ballistic missile is? It is just a safe way to store nuclear warheads at your own territory within your own security perimeter, so nobody else has access to it, except you. The same we can say about any other type of conventional nuclear warheads. The main concern is not about penetrating defense of your potential enemy, but guarantee long term safety of your own nuclear arsenal at your own territory. That is why Russia eliminated nuclear trains, because it is just not safe. It is extremely dangerous to drive trains with warheads across your own cities. So as you can imagine the other way is juts to place warheads into orbit and just wait for the time to drop them from the skies back. What is the problem with this? This is absolutely not safe for your own country to deploy such weapon. It can be just an accident at orbit or such satellite can be taken under control by an idiot or terrorist. It is not safe for your own country. Flying nuclear warheads by planes is dangerous. USA had several accidents in its history. Keeping them aboard of submarines is dangerous. We had accidents with nuclear submarines already. We do all precautions but we cannot avoid accidents with nuclear power stations: Chernobyl, Fukushima. It is safer to have small nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles stored in nuclear silos under guard of special forces. Further escalation of cold war style nuclear race will force sides to use less safe ways of storing existing weaponry, make more powerful warheads, multiply methods of delivery, enlarge military personal having access to nuclear warheads, be less safe and develop dangerous less human manually controlled types of machines. The potential ways to attack will be always cheaper than ways to defend. The race will elevate risks of accidents and loss of weapons to terrorists to extreme levels. The current situation reminds me software engineering problems, when product managers are trying to redesign reliable working systems for the sake of having good job. When people having no idea about what to do in this life are trying to break what is working well.

    7. Re: Hmmm by GESUS · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl and Fukushima didn't use the best efforts or technology. Sadly for everyone.

    8. Re: Hmmm by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, they don't turn the bomb upside down.

    9. Re:Hmmm by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      This attempt to de-rail the points made in the poorly constructed parent post by pretending to be sophisticated and intelligent merely makes you a condescending and poorly executed troll. The fact that you only understood 1/4 of what was communicated shows your severe lack of intelligence, and paragraphs alone do make your post any more valid than the parent.

      Last but not least, you attack the person not the content, this called ad-hominem and you suck for trying it.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    10. Re:Hmmm by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Yeah - except when the Ruskies tested the Tsar Bomba, they found that (even at 50MTons) most of the blast went straight up and out of the atmosphere. This is why their ICBM nukes today are much smaller - there just isnt much point in making them that big.

      I believe the point of the "torpedo" was to result in a sub-surface blast for the sole point of causing a tsunami which would cause most of the real damage.

      But even after that, taking the fuel and putting it into MIRV-style missiles would probably be more cost effective.

    11. Re:Hmmm by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The fact that you only understood 1/4 of what was communicated shows your severe lack of intelligence

      People with a well-thought out point to make tend to make it in a coherent manner.

      Very long cut-and-paste jobs rarely fall into that former category, so I don't blame anyone who won't even start reading it. If the first poster can't even do a half-assed job making his point in an understandable manner, then I'm not putting in that work for him when the payoff chances are so low.

    12. Re: Hmmm by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      After all, why would Russia destroy or diminish its investment? It is now the proud owner of a President of the United States, which couldn't have come cheap

      Worse, there's an old saying on Capital Hill -- never give an office power that you don't want the next guy to have. He might not have your back like the current guy does.

      Case in point: The Democrats invoking "the nuclear option" in 2013, and the Republicans using it in 2017.

    13. Re:Hmmm by The123king · · Score: 2

      You're confusing nuclear bombs with nuclear reactors. Sure, they both use nuclear fuel, but one produces a hell of a lot of energy very quickly, and the other releases a much smaller quantity of energy very slowly.

      Whilst accidents have been known to happen with nuclear reactors, there has never been a case where an explosion has been caused as a direct result of nuclear fission. The explosion at Chernobyl was caused by hydrogen buildup, caused by the fission reaction stripping water molecules apart. Once the core melted, and an ignition source was found, the hydrogen exploded, blowing apart the reactor building.

      Apart from the possible meltdown risk of uranium based nuclear reactors, nuclear power is very safe. It's also worth noting that the impact of radioactive fallout has been exaggerated. For example, it's safer to walk through the exclusion zone around Chernobyl,than it is to fly to Ukraine to visit Chernobyl ). With Thorium Molten Salt designs, the risk of catastrophic disaster is rendered almost nil, which was one of the requirements (along with light weight and compactness) of the design when it was planned to be fitted into a Nuclear-powered bomber

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    14. Re:Hmmm by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      Salted bombs have been banned by treaties for over 50 years (they were banned before they even got as far as being tested) and the days of multi megaton weapons ended in the 1960s when ICBMs got accurate enough to be within 50 metres of target. The vast majority of weapons are in the 50-150kT range - which is still enough to give the world a very bad day due to the firestorms they'd kick up if used on population centres, but certainly not planet killers.

      An "intercontinental torpedo" sounds like something from a bad 1920s science fiction story.

    15. Re:Hmmm by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Do you comprehend that it is impossible to win in nuclear war? "

      The US military hierarchy does.

      The RAND institute published an analysis in the late 1980s of war games simulations run over the previous 20 years and found that nuclear-authorised commanders either refused to use nuclear weapons or if they actually did so, only ever tried them once. In every subsequent run the commanders who attempted to use nukes would use every possible method to avoid the use of nuclear weapons, including surrender _even if the other side tossed one first_ - the alternative was inevitable escalation and mass civilian deaths.

      The modern US military does not regard mass casualties of the people it's charged with protecting as a victory, even if they destroy the other side in the process. This isn't an era where everything swings on the ego of a few generals or leaders.

    16. Re:Hmmm by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      between Russia, China, North Korea, and the US. The other three countries show numerous new ways to kill Americans,

      T's all about America, isn't it. Never considered that the Russians and Chinese may have good reasons to throw nukes at each other? Ditto the DPRK and Russians? DPRK vs China is fairly uniikely, I'l grant.

      Russia, China and DPRK have mutual land borders, providing many grounds for mutual conflict. And you're also forgetting the joys inherent between Pakistan and India, and between Israel and all of their neighbours.

      Basically, America is hardly important enough to warrant worrying about.

      93 Escort Wagon

      I scrapped my Escort in 1993. Floorpan rust, IIRC ; not an economical repair.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re:Hmmm by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      While true, that's not the only, or even the most important problem with really big nukes. The bigger problem is overkill. You can destroy a tank with a direct hit from a ~50 kg hellfire missile or with a 900kg dumb bomb impact in its general vicinity. Only the latter is far more likely to result in collateral damage and political pressure to stop throwing bombs.

      While nukes are generally more of a strategical than a tactical weapon, similar principles do apply. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both mostly obliterated by bombs with ~20kt yields - that's kilo, not mega. At some point, hitting an urbanized area with a stronger nuke will not increase its strategic impact - only the international outrage at the barbaric mindset that caused so much more loss of life than necessary to attain a given goal, and hence the risk of retaliatory strikes. And in an all-out nuclear war scenario where retaliation is already a given, hitting the enemy's missile silos with an unnecessarily strong nuke instead of a MIRV of weaker warheads is pretty much a self-defeating strategy. Recognising this, the US at some point all but disposed of its warheads with yields above 150~300kt-ish - still roughly 10 Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs.

      Any talk about reviving higher-yield nukes is pretty much bluster. The Tsar Bomba was exactly that (even so long ago), and so is this tsunami bomb, causing a ton more "collateral" damage than a "clean moderate-yield strike" on a city center. (Also considering the source - Russia has a rich history of developing oversized weapons with debatable battlefield utility.) Granted, one could spin it as an attempt at "no sir, this was not a nuclear strike, just an undersea demolition with unforeseen circumstances for our enemy's coastal cities nearby." But that excuse almost certainly won't fly, especially when attacking an enemy that has a track record of overreacting on provocation, like the US.

      TL;DR: this doomsday torpedo is nothing but political brinkmanship with the goal of provoking a response rather than being used, and the document is just an attempt to trigger this very response - because there are always parties that will gain from it. We've seen this show over and over.

  22. Team B by SumDog · · Score: 1

    People should watch "The Power of Nightmares" and learn about Team B, a set of Ronald Regan advisers who made up a bunch of shit about Russia and gave them capabilities they didn't have.

    You remember the Caterpillar drive from Hunt From Red October? That came from a real Team B memo, where they couldn't identify all the Russian submarines, so they assumed they must have some super secret silent drive that makes them undetectable. Not the obvious answer of "We over estimated the number of Russian submarines."

    I bet this is all bullshit too. No one can use a nuclear weapon today. We are still in a world of mutually assured destruction.

    1. Re:Team B by careysub · · Score: 1

      I am with you on this one.

      There have been many claimed bizarre Soviet/Russian super weapons that never existed. The mighty Soviet particle beam program. Red mercury. Vast nuclear armed ABM networks that rendered U.S. weapons impotent. And an incredible civil defense program that was able to protect every Soviet citizen under ground with a years worth of food creating the conditions for a Soviet first strike.

      First problem is the fundamental ridiculousness of the described weapon from any military or strategic or budgetary viewpoint. It actually resembles schemes cooked up in the 1950s out of the novelty of hydrogen bombs, and lack of good delivery technologies at the time but they were all abandoned without ever beginning development because they were hare brained schemes.

      Second I started following the links from the Popular Mechanics article to the various reports and confirmations and so forth and they went out into a swamp of increasingly questionable sources. Some Administration crank put this on a Pentagon public relations briefing document, and suddenly stuff that appears of right-wing conspiracy sites becomes "confirmed by the Pentagon".

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:Team B by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I don't know how that drive is called in english, but it exists.
      It uses the MHD effdect and propells the water around the vessel backward, it is extremely inefficient, that is why no one uses it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Team B by careysub · · Score: 1

      The ultimate source of all this stuff is the reliably unreliable Bill Gertz formerly with the Moonie paper Washington Times and now with the right-wing rag Washington Free Beacon. Gertz is a conspiracy theorist who has a long history of "breaking" nonsense stories of horrible new super weapons in the hands of our potential adversaries that turn out to be vapor.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  23. Re:Dropped on New York City by gordguide · · Score: 1

    a 100-megaton bomb would kill 8 million people outright and injure 6 million more.

    Good riddance. Bring it on.

    Your quote is out of context.

    Dropped on New York City, a 100-megaton bomb would kill 8 million people outright and injure 6 million more.

    Torpedoes, last time I checked, weren't very good at leaping from the water into the sky thousands of feet to allow themselves to drop onto a city, thereby taking advantage of the largest possible and most lethal blast radius. An underwater nuke is far from trivial, but it's in another league, and a much less lethal league, in terms of mass casualties.

  24. Stop Worrying by amanaplanacanalpanam · · Score: 1

    Well that's it then. To ensure continuation of our species, I say we immediately hole out at the bottom of a some of our deeper mine shafts. Of course we'd have to decide who gets to go, and it only makes sense to select for youth, health, intelligence, cross-section of necessary skills, sexual characteristics of a highly stimulating nature...

    With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, 10 females to each male, we could work our way back to our current population within say, 20 years. I for one am fully prepared to provide prodigious service along these lines, in sacrifice for my country.

  25. An astonishingly good idea! by bill.pev · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, they'll tell the vorld when its ready, or ze whole point vill be lost, despite the fact that the Cobalt Thorium G definitely seems like overkill, if I may use the word.
    - paraphrasing the wise Dr. S.

  26. bluff by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Underwater explosion can't create any remotely dangerous tsunamis. Look it up.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:bluff by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Informative

      obligatory XKCD what-if: https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/

      Summary: even with twice Tsar-bomb level yields, trying to create a wave dangerous to cities is a waste of a good nuke. Instead just nuke a city with ordinary sized nukes, it'll ruin inhabitant's day in a much worse manner

    2. Re:bluff by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Summary: even with twice Tsar-bomb level yields, trying to create a wave dangerous to cities is a waste of a good nuke. Instead just nuke a city with ordinary sized nukes, it'll ruin inhabitant's day in a much worse manner

      You instead have the torpedo surface, and run it right up amongst the swimmers and the sunbathers before you detonate.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:bluff by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      This would be most likely a harbor explosion, not a deep sea explosion. So a Mariana Trench detonation analysis is a red herring. The combined effect of a fireball, a pressure wave, a deluge, and tertiary stage fallout could be nasty enough for a coastal city.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:bluff by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Exploding one in the middle of Pearl Harbor would take out any ships there, the docks, and any capability the US has of sending ships out from there for a long time. They'll be sending their naval ships out of California. Have a couple of extra going to San Diego and the large ports on the East Coast and you severely cripple the Navy.

    5. Re:bluff by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Who cares? If the nukes are flying, the USN surface ships aren't all that important anyway. Nobody's going to get a nuke into Pearl Harbor without being identified.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:bluff by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      but no pressure wave or deluge to speak of when in something as shallow as a typical harbor, the water depth is negligible when used with a bomb that large.

    7. Re:bluff by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you could do that from air with conventional nukes of small yield as cruise missles; a torpedo with an absurdly huge nuke is silly

  27. Re:Dropped on New York City by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    So you havet ad sub speeding with about 200 mph into the harbour, and you can not imagine it shooting a payload 300m high?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  28. The USAF... by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    Wants on too!

    We have a Doomsday Weapons Gap!

  29. what kind of wars? by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    globalism

    Unless of course we are actually fighting a war now - but nobody recognises it?

    What is the point of conquering an adversary and having to go to the trouble and expense of occupying it, suppressing it and only then being able to exploit it. When you can simply buy it, or its assets without causing damage. It seems to have the same beneficial results but without the hassle.

    Maybe the "war" we have been fighting for the past 20, 30 ... 40 years is one of economic conquest rather than military conquest. The only questions that remain are who are we fighting and who is winning? Maybe the "enemy" now is actually our own corporations and all the assets they keep offshore, tax-free.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:what kind of wars? by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      Interesting angle.

      Trans-national efforts (wars, colonization) are done for few reasons (this isn't an exhaustive list but I think the most weighted issues):

      1) Glorification of the leader
      2) Improvement of the country's economic status, which ancillarily benefits the population
      3) Turning young men's aggressive tendencies and tribalism outwards instead of inwards to the country

      Economic conquest satisfies 1) and 2). I think 3) has been solved for Europe and Asia with the slaughter of nearly a 100 million people in WWI and WWII - the most aggressive were killed off, along with their genetic lines. Today, we have small conflicts around the world, generally contained, and fought by special operations and mercenaries. Latin America and Africa have not yet conflicts resulting in megadeaths, though they have had constant lower-level warfare, much like the Europeans had for hundreds of years. That might actually result in honing of aggressive tendencies rather than wiping it out.

      I read a quote by a Euro-sceptic: "What Germany couldn't achieve with tanks and bullets, they will achieve with lawyers and accountants."

      I remember several years ago, the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" came out. I haven't read it but it was recommended to me by normal people. I heard the summary from them and thought, "Wow, I didn't know you had kooky thoughts." After the 2008 financial crisis and the response to it, and more of an understanding of how finance and economics actually works, it seems much more plausible.

    2. Re:what kind of wars? by epine · · Score: 1

      Unless of course we are actually fighting a war now - but nobody recognises it?

      I nearly finished Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted (2009) last night, a book which I highly commend to anyone as ignorant of the history of Islam as I was before picking up this book.

      It reads like hanging out in a bar with your favourite egghead drinking buddy, who casually injects 100 times more information than what you've ever known during an extended bull sessions about the history and politics of the Middle East. Rated against anal-retentive scholarship, there are no doubt many bones to pick; rated against general-information bull sessions, it's an epic romp.

      The Great Game

      East of Iran, the Cold War simply looked like the Great Game revisited. The differences were only cosmetic. What had been czarist Russia was now called the Soviet Union. The role once played by Great Britain now belonged to the United States. The dynamics, however, were the same: the intrigues, the pressures, the threat of violence, and the actual bloodshed. ...

      The core battlefield of the Great Game had been Iran, Afghanistan, and central Asia, and this region remained in play. The Russians of the nineteenth century has wanted to push south through Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf to secure a warm water port for their navies and shipping. The Soviets had the same interest, but with added stakes: geologists were now confirming that roughly 65% of the world's petroleum lay under and around the Persian Gulf ...

      Huh. I wonder if any American troops are stationed in Afghanistan this very minute?

      Afghanistan: 16 years, thousands dead and no clear end in sight — 2017
      The Forever War — 2017
      Trump shifts gears on Afghanistan — 2018

      "My original instinct was to pull out and, historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office," Trump said as he revealed the strategy.

      Wow, what an amazing reveal—it sure is news to me that he's ever heard that once in all his natural born days.

      Here's to your having a blast with your now spectacularly doubt-free "are we really at war?" executive time in the coming days and months, Mr Trump.

  30. OK... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    So this thing is slow, can only get at the coasts, and with a boom that big, there'd be no doubt the Russians did it. Thus, 40 minutes later, they die.

    1. Re:OK... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I believe the main benefit is that the US can no longer launch first, relying on its ABM defences to prevent retaliation.

      With this thing around, they can still launch first, but only if they're willing to wave goodbye to major US coastal cities.

    2. Re:OK... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, keep Russian subs away from the US coast and use a sonar network to find any subs or "giant nuclear death torpedoes" traveling at 30 knots and sink them before they get anywhere near US coastal cities. Honestly, it seems like Russia is asking the US to nuke them to the stone age...

      They had better watch their asses, Trump might take them up on the offer...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    3. Re:OK... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      I guess...but no one's been able to "launch first" since the early 60's, given that all the nuclear powers have had second strike capability since the start of the space age. So I don't see how this changes anything in practice. MAD still holds and nuclear weapons remain a deterrence weapon and not an offensive weapon.

    4. Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, keep Russian subs away from the US coast and use a sonar network to find any subs or "giant nuclear death torpedoes" traveling at 30 knots and sink them before they get anywhere near US coastal cities. Honestly, it seems like Russia is asking the US to nuke them to the stone age...

      They had better watch their asses, Trump might take them up on the offer...

      I know Trump isn't smart enough to come up with this directly, if it were real he would have tweeted about it.

      Also too much of a coincidence--government shutdown and suddenly Putin has a new super-weapon? More likely the small hand man's his ex-marine chef of stuff has been talking with his cronies in the pentagon about making some shit up to get funding and a budget. This is as real as Bush/Cheney fairy tale about WMDs around Baghdad and Tikrit.

  31. Re: Shouldn't the confirmation come from Russia? by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1

    It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

  32. KABOOM, comrade! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Putin isn't a lunatic who wants to end the world. He has murdered and robbed his way to the top, and he very much wants to retire with all his loot somewhere and enjoy it. Greedy materialists aren't really the type to want to destroy the world. North Korea isn't likely to shoot first unless Kim thinks that the US is about to kill him, and Putin is no different. His life is great, he has an entire country under his thumb. Both of these guys are monsters, but they are somewhat predictable in that they have motivation to want to keep their money, power, and health intact. They will act to preserve these things first and foremost.

    Any investigation into doomsday weapons will be colored by these motivations. A super torpedo would be very, very slow compared to a ICBM. It would also be very large, and if detected in transit, it would give an opponent quite a bit of time to react. Moreover, there is the Dr.Strangelove problem: Unless you tell everyone about it, it serves as no deterrent so you cannot keep it secret. By telling people about it, you are giving them a first strike target and making it less likely that it will survive to complete its mission. This weapon is also limited to hitting coastal targets, that is quite a limitation.

    This seems like a really expensive and risky weapon to construct. Wouldn't it just be simpler to restart the nuclear arms race, and start cranking out thousands and thousands of more conventional nuclear weapons to saturate anti-missile systems? You only need one or two to connect with a target.

    However, this doomsday weapon is a great disinformation weapon if you want to 'leak' its existence and cause your opponents to worry. How much time and money will they spend trying to detect and defend from such a weapon?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      He did organise the risky annexation of the Crimean peninsula though. He's an oppressive tyrant, we all know this - but that doesn't mean he is acting entirely selfishly. Perhaps he really does believe in rebuilding the glory of Russia and his people. A superweapon could be a valuable tool in achieving this aim, as it would reduce the risk of NATO getting involved in any further conquests for fear of escalation.

    2. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by gtall · · Score: 1

      I cannot imagine a weapon that big makes any difference. The West and Russia can already annihilate each other several times over with weapons that would survive a first strike. And anything that big will only drift fallout over his head. It probably just makes him think his dick is bigger than it is.

    3. Re: KABOOM, comrade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love how Americans have such simple world views. It must be comforting to not be able to think more deeply than a 9 year old.

    4. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Next time the Russian Empire falls apart the west needs to invade and go post WWII Germany on their ass.

    5. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by quax · · Score: 2

      The Russian public opinion clearly regarded Crimea as Russian. As bad as he is, there are worse hardliner than Vlad, and he needs to keep them at bay.

      He is not an old school imperialist, but his fear of NATO encirclement is real.

    6. Re: KABOOM, comrade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How did this dreadfully uninformed anal seepage get modded up? I guess few grammatical errors and a couple of Wikipedia links are enough to give an air of knowledgable authority here.

    7. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by mvdwege · · Score: 2

      What, lend them money at easy credit terms and help build up their country?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    8. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Seems to have worked better than the post WWI Germany approach.

    9. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by sexconker · · Score: 2

      The Crimean public opinion clearly regarded Crimea as Russian. Not all of it, sure. But the majority. Crimea was illegally separated from Russia. Russia just took it back.

    10. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by slashrio · · Score: 1

      He did organise the risky annexation of the Crimean peninsula though.

      What a totally ignorant simplistic bullshit.
      Study some geopolitics and then come back to report how stupid you were.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    11. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Illegally separated? It was an act of the Soviet government. How is that illegal?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that nukes don't work that way in diplomacy. They're only useful for deterrence, or if you intend to start a nuclear war, which Putin isn't. Other than that, they're pretty much useless. So it's a new way to deliver a really big nuke; it's still just a way to deliver a nuke.

      In 1982, Britain and Argentina fought over the Falklands (or Malvinas, as you prefer). The fact that Britain is a nuclear power, and quite capable of annihilating Buenos Aires simply didn't play a part.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Any investigation into doomsday weapons will be colored by these motivations."

      Indeed.

      It can be argued the cold war ended in the early 1960s when Soviet scientists proposed a _massive_ nuclear bomb - the size of a cargo ship. It would be built into a cargo ship and spend its life cruising up and down the US eastern seaboard. Detonation would wipe out most of the US east coast.

      The story goes that Krushev took one look at the plans and forbade any attempt to even try to build it. The Tsar bomba was supposedly a compromise to keep the "bigger is better" factions happy. As mentioned by others it was only detonated at half yield - because at full power there was no way for the aircraft dropping it to get to a safe distance.

    14. Re:KABOOM, comrade! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Then, there's the autonomous bit, which might get fried by radioactivity leaking from the bomb fuel."

      Bomb material isn't particularly radioactive (in fact being too radioactive is usually what makes them fizzle). Electronics-frying levels tend to come from things like caesium and that's not a component of weapons.

  33. the point of the doomsday machine by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

    Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH? Ambassador de Sadesky: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

  34. Stereotypical Russian weapon idea by hdyoung · · Score: 1

    Russia has a long history of designing the "biggest, longest, most powerful" weapons. Occasionally, they actually try to build or prototype them. Usually they make a big bang and then rot. They pretty much always turn out to be too expensive to maintain, or too impractical to use effectively, or a logistical nightmare, or have some other critical flaw. I would be surprised if this ever gets fielded.

  35. Unmanned planet killer roaming the galaxy by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Matt, where's your crew?

    I beamed them down to the Third Planet.

    There is no Third Planet.

    Don't you think I know that? There was . . . but not anymore!

  36. The BLAND Corporation by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    looked into it and rejected it because of what is happening right now.

  37. I call shenanigans by mark_osmd · · Score: 1

    So Russia with a GDP the size of Italy is now magically creating wonder weapons like this? Looks like oropaganda to me.

    1. Re:I call shenanigans by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Italy spends money on pizza and Russia spends it on yellow cake.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  38. Post modern telecomunications & air travel by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you might have been right. The aristocracy couldn't coordinate and communicate. Misunderstandings would happen and could escalate. Like a certain arch duke being assassinated. But that's not true anymore. The wealthy don't fear each other. They work together. Sure wish the working class would do the same.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  39. Strangelovian.. by RealGene · · Score: 1

    "Cobalt thorium G has a radioactive half-life of ninety three years. If you take, say, fifty H-bombs in the hundred megaton range and jacket them with cobalt thorium G, when they are exploded they will produce a doomsday shroud. A lethal cloud of radioactivity which will encircle the earth for ninety three years!"

    "Mr. President, we must not allow a mine shaft gap!"

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
  40. Good idea to make it nuclear powered by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    Fewer marketplaces when the Russian mafia sells the fuel. I think a better deterrent would be a plethora of rural civilization bootstrapping stations. Some of the robots predicted to take all the jobs can manage not to live in cities.

  41. Re:Prepare for the daily Cold War II fearmongering by hdyoung · · Score: 1

    Russia deserves every ounce of antipathy from the Western world that it gets. I have no beef with ordinary Russians at all. However, their government is autocratic, kleptocratic, violent, crafty and sneaky. Russia can't stand toe-to-toe with the modern Western world, and they can't bring themselves to admit that it's a superior system, so they pride themselves on screwing with Western countries in just about any underhanded way they can get away with. Russia has absolutely no ambition to make the world a better place.

  42. Countermeasures are much easier than ICBM by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Because of it's yield, minimum safe distance to fire that thing would be like 500 miles, and with a range of 6000 miles, the torpedo must look more like a small submarine. On top of that, the top speed of something that size is only going to be 30 knots or so. A few hundred sonar buoys/beacons up and down each coast in a grid from 100 miles offshore to 400 miles offshore (ideally a moving grid, so you never know where a buoy will be) and you can intercept this behemoth with anti sub weapons deployed from a helicopter within 10 miles of it's launch point (10 minutes after launch). Contrary to Hollywood, nuclear bombs do not detonate when you explode them, they implode to trigger the nuclear detonation, any other form of explosion just breaks the bomb apart.

    Given all that information, this looks like a last gasp of an irrelevant regime at trying to reclaim superpower status. Furthermore, I think we should tell the Russians that we are fine if they want to build that, but if they chose to, we will deploy a sonar defense net and sink any unidentified or Russian sub within 400 miles of US coastline, because we can't be sure if it is a sub or their nuclear torpedo, and if we do have to sink something Russian made in that safety barrier and we get a radiological response from the detonation, we will be firing 10% of our ICBMs (about 190 missiles) to vaporize every major city in Russia, while at the same time using missile defenses deployed in Eastern Europe to shoot down any Russian ICBMs over Russian airspace. If they don't like that they can cool their shit and stop trying to threaten the US and behave like the second tier country that they are.

    They had 8 years of dickless in chief reset button and hot mic "more flexibility" B. Hussein Obama, but that ended, and regardless of the tin foil hat wearing alt left conspiracy nuts, Trump is not going to take shit from the Russians any more than the Chinese or the North Koreans.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Countermeasures are much easier than ICBM by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that it's going to be moving fast and easy to pick up. It could move extremely slow and sit quietly somewhere on the route waiting for a signal. Or it doesn't have to travel all of the way on it's own. Just because it can travel 6000 miles doesn't mean that it will. Imagine a ship or submarine on the way to Cuba passes Florida and quietly slips something into the water (via the hull in the case of the ship) during the night. From there the drone can slowly make it's way stealthily to it's target.

    2. Re:Countermeasures are much easier than ICBM by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      If the thing was designed for stealth from sonar (not sure that is even possible in the real world, recall sonar is active) as well as extremely silent running as you suggest, so passive listening wouldn't hear it, then I agree it would be a much more serious threat as a first strike weapon.

      In that case it is a simple threat to Russia: "Don't build this. If you build it and it goes off, regardless if you meant to launch it or some third party stole it and launched it, we are going to nuke you until mother Russia glows for 1000 years."

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    3. Re:Countermeasures are much easier than ICBM by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Any of the countries that have nuclear weapons could build something like this. It wouldn't need to have the extended range. Just use a series of ships to drop off the drone while in motion. The drone could move to another location a day away. Another ship stops in what appears to let the crew some recreational swimming or hauling in a net while the drone is loaded aboard. Do that a couple more times and you can't easily trace where the drone comes from. There's more than one country with nuclear warheads that the US has ticked off. And Trump keeps adding to the list.

    4. Re:Countermeasures are much easier than ICBM by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      this looks like a last gasp of an irrelevant regime at trying to reclaim superpower status.

      More likely total bullshit from some crank trying to drive traffic to his website.

    5. Re:Countermeasures are much easier than ICBM by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      That is also a definite possibility.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    6. Re:Countermeasures are much easier than ICBM by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      True, but Russia wants to build it to threaten the US, so they get the bulls eye. As a consequence of threatening the US, now they not only have to worry about keeping their own military on a tight leash, but they have to worry about their satellites Iran and North Korea well behaved, because the shit will blow up in their face no mater who launches it.

      The countries that hate us are not Trumps fault, they are the axis of evil dating back at least a generation, please get over your Trump derangement syndrome. The guy is not that bad based on what he has actually done.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  43. Re:Makes you wonder what our "Doomsday" weapons ar by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    They fear our Doomsday arsenal, which is why we have so little war and things to worry about. If the good cop carries the only gun, the neighborhood is much safer. Weapons including WMD are, at the end of the day, tools, the ability to project force. In the hands of a stable, peaceful democracy, they are a deterrent to despots, dictators and governments with designs on world conquest as well as genocide and holocausts.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  44. Re:Prepare for the daily Cold War II fearmongering by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    huh,
    Most of Russia's new equipment has been in development for nearly 2 decades and now is being ramped up in production.
    America, in fact the west, has not been 'warmongering' that long.

    NATO's response is due to Russia's , and other nation's, increasing focus on weaponry.
    And BTW, it was Eastern Europe that really stepped up the push for NATO, not America.
    Why did they do that? Because they know Putin quite well.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  45. those kaiju have it coming by veron.claudio · · Score: 1

    autonomous nuclear torpedo. when the time comes to nuke The Breach, beats pouring trillions into giant mind-controlled robots and walls in cost/benefit.

  46. Re:Makes you wonder what our "Doomsday" weapons ar by qeveren · · Score: 1

    The whole "salted bomb" thing just screams FUD at me. Nobody has ever seriously considered using such a thing, because there's no point to them.

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  47. How many to kill 90% of the United states? by maybe111 · · Score: 1

    How many would be needed to kill 90% of the United states' population?

  48. Re:Prepare for the daily Cold War II fearmongering by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Its all about Cina and Russia now. The waves of US domestic propaganda will flow all over social media now.
    Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    "Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media" (18 Mar 2011)
    https://www.theguardian.com/te...
    Operation Earnest Voice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    So now its a confirmed story about a super big torpedo thats got a super long range and a super sized payload.
    Kanyon has what designers crave.
    It's got Cobalt-60.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  49. but.... by meglon · · Score: 1

    Dropped on New York City, a 100-megaton bomb would kill 8 million people outright and injure 6 million more.

    "being sea-based makes it immune to ballistic missile defense."

    Being sea-based also makes it immune to being dropped on NYC.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  50. Re:In technical terms, chickens coming home to roo by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    The Dossier?
    Appears solid
    Seems Steele merely confirmed FBI info from inside the Trump campaign so not random speculation

  51. Re:Makes you wonder what our "Doomsday" weapons ar by mvdwege · · Score: 1

    a stable, peaceful democracy

    Yes, but we're talking about the USA here.

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  52. No winner by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    "Global Thermonuclear War. Strange game. The only way to win is not to play."

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  53. Re:In technical terms, chickens coming home to roo by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    they already had the tsar bomba

    Which, contrary to what TFS says, was this powerful. The test detonation was at half yield.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  54. In WW2 by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    In WW2 the U.S. Navy had a problem with torpedoes turning back 180 degrees after launch and attacking the submarine that launched them. Lets hope the Russians didn't get the memo.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  55. what about disarmament treaties instead? by aod7br7932 · · Score: 1

    What if the US stopper encircling Russia/IRAN with military bases, and missiles and RESUMED the SALT treaties (instead of dropping off)? What if we kept just just enough to have MAD?

  56. What's the CEP? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    The only reason for having a large warhead is poor accuracy. If this thing has a 100 megaton warhead it's CEP must be like a mile or so!

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  57. Re:Makes you wonder what our "Doomsday" weapons ar by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    Please tell me, specifically, which other free democracy with a bill of rights and rule of law is keeping despots and rogue countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea in check from either world conquest or nuclear exchange/blackmail? ....

    That is what I thought smart ass.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  58. Re:Makes you wonder what our "Doomsday" weapons ar by mvdwege · · Score: 1

    Let's see your original statement:

    • Stable: You guys can't even fund the executive arm of the government.
    • Peaceful: The USA? Hah. Biggest military in the world, supporter of bloody dictatorships and prosecutor of countless proxy wars. Not to mention drone assassinations and special forces teams running around every war zone in the world, stoking the fires.
    • Democracy: Hardly. A plutocratic class ruling the nation by media manipulation and gerrymandering. Remember, even the Soviet Union held elections.

    In short: fuck off with your American Exceptionalism. 'Keeping despots in check' while arming fucking Saudi Arabia? It is to laugh.

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  59. Re:Makes you wonder what our "Doomsday" weapons ar by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    One of these days America is going to be gone, and you idiots will be squashed in a week by China or Russia and they will skin you and turn you into lamp shades, and you will have no one to thank but yourselves and your own stupidity. You have been watching too much BS on the BBC and other alt left propaganda. Assuming you don't completely abolish free speech and become a bunch of fascist dictatorships first (my bet is on the later).

    - Stable: We can actually fund the government just fine, thanks, and contrary to the fake news, no essential services are ever shut down. We just have some alt left nut jobs who want to import themselves a new voting block.

    - Peaceful: It is peaceful in the US. Crime is quite low outside of Democrat run big cities. We are all armed to the teeth and polite to our neighbors and fellow citizens. Global politics is complicated. Sometimes you make a deal with an evil dictator because the alternative is worse. We conquered Germany and Japan after WW2 and then rebuilt and modernized them and gave them democracy. Show me a European country ever that did that with the losing side. The shits in Europe have been warring for 1000 years and they always occupied the losing country and stole their wealth...

    We rebuilt and gave democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq after we were attacked by foreigners on 9-11 and it was apparent that we couldn't ignore foreign threats any longer, but it is apparent that democracy is unfit for Islamic nations...

    - Democracy: If you are comparing the free and fair US elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to those in Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which are demonstrably rigged, your brain has rotted beyond hope and I am done with this discussion. Comparing the most free and open elections to those held by a totalitarian state is a sick joke made by a fool eagerly waiting to reap the whirlwind.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  60. Re:Makes you wonder what our "Doomsday" weapons ar by mvdwege · · Score: 1

    Simply re-asserting your some empty bullshit is not a refutation. Now fuck off.

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  61. Re:Makes you wonder what our "Doomsday" weapons ar by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    Simply re-asserting your some empty bullshit is not a refutation. Now fuck off.

    The last refuge of the ignorant and ill informed who want to stay that way...

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like