SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Putin, before vote, unveils 'invincible' nuclear weapons to counter West
President Vladimir Putin unveiled an array of new nuclear weapons on Thursday, in one of his most bellicose speeches in years, saying they could hit almost any point in the world and evade a U.S.-built missile shield. [...] His remarks were greeted with scepticism in Washington, where officials cast doubt on whether Russia has added any new capabilities to its nuclear arsenal beyond those already known to the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.
[...] Among weapons that Putin said were either in development or ready was a new intercontinental ballistic missile "with a practically unlimited range" able to attack via the North and South Poles and bypass any missile defense systems.
Putin also spoke of a small nuclear-powered engine that could be fitted to what he said were low-flying, highly maneuverable cruise missiles, giving them a practically unlimited range. The new engine meant Russia was able to make a new type of weapon - nuclear missiles powered by nuclear rather than conventional fuel. "Nothing like it in the world exists," Putin told the audience. "At some point it will probably appear (elsewhere) but by that time our guys will have devised something else."
Other new super weapons he listed included underwater nuclear drones, a supersonic weapon and a laser weapon. In one of his video clip demos, a weapon appeared to be hovering over what looked like a map of the state of Florida.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02 2018, @05:28AM (15 children)
A missile that can attack from the "wrong" direction: sure, easy enough
A missile that can bypass any missile defense system: no way, though the US mostly hasn't bothered to install one so this is moot
A small nuclear-powered engine: sure, but...
A small nuclear-powered engine that can fly a maneuverable cruise missile: damn unlikely (fission can't be small, and RTG is weak)
Underwater nuclear drone: easy to make, but rather unlikely and almost pointless. When your drone costs as much as a proper submarine, causes a nuclear spill when it crashes, and is as dumb as a Russian computer program... this is not a practical weapon.
Supersonic weapon: We have these. An AR-15 will do about Mach 3. Air-to-air missiles commonly go about Mach 5.
Laser weapon: This is expected. The USA has them. Many countries probably have them. The interesting bits would be power level, portability, aiming/tracking quality, and recharging/refueling/reloading issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02 2018, @05:55AM (2 children)
This is a very practical weapon. No need for submariners, provisions or extra equipment for life support. A lot of subs are nuclear now, anyway, so no real diff there. Development cost similar to manned submarines, but operation costs should be less. Missions can be longer; think sleeping at the bottom of the ocean for years.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02 2018, @06:22AM (1 child)
Communication underwater is pretty damn awful. You won't be driving that sub around with VR goggles. It has to be autonomous.
Autonomous stuff is lacking in brain power.
Sitting on the bottom of the ocean is kind of crap. The sub can be located, then targeted when the enemy feels the moment is right. The sub can be destroyed or just... modified. You have to keep moving for security, but then the dumb computer program can crash and piss off the world with a nuclear reactor problem.
If the sub is close enough to run a communication cable, then you don't need the sub to be nuclear. Simply plug in the power cord.
(Score: 2) by TGV on Friday March 02 2018, @07:42AM
> piss off the world with a nuclear reactor problem
That's something Putin doesn't care about. He'll just add an insult to injury.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Friday March 02 2018, @06:44AM (3 children)
That can be done and "small" is somewhat relative. Jet engine that blasts air through a mass of concentrated U-235 or Pu-239 which is barely critical at the operating temperature. For example, the US has some experience with a nuclear ramjet [wikipedia.org] and has actually run one for five minutes. Smaller sizes can be achieved with weapon-grade (or higher) concentrations of nuclear fuel. This would actually be the most dangerous of the weapons listed, but then again, Russians even if they're developing a viable design are far from being able to deploy it in the field.
Despite the unlikely viability of many of these weapon systems, it appears to be a rather effective bit of propaganda on Russia's part.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 03 2018, @01:21PM (2 children)
I love your link about the SLAM Ramjet. I love the name, it sounds like a very rough, very sexy porno, or a delicious and very filling breakfast. It's not porn, it's not food, it's much better. It's a nuclear missile that runs on nuclear. The engine is nuclear. It worked very well, we built it and put it in MOTHBALLS, why? And Russia is getting that, something a lot like that. They're upgrading their nuclear arsenal tremendously. Because of me. I said America is going to have the best and most awesome nuclear arsenal, the likes of which the world has never seen. We're MODERNIZING. With very small, very quiet nuclear bombs. Like the ones we dropped on Japan. And even smaller. Because the Russians are getting those, they call them tactical. Those are like a buffet, the Russians can have as many as they want. And so can we. So we will! And let's bring back the SLAM. Terrific name, terrific weapon. Invented in America, now they're building them in Russia. Our workers & factories sitting idle. Shameful!
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @02:44PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:40PM
We have so many missiles. So many submarines. And so many bombers, they call it the Triad because it's 3 things (so complicated). But we don't have those things, those 3 things, running loose. Not anymore, it happened in the '50s, it happened in the '60s. And in 1980. In the great states of Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana. And so many foreign Countries. But our nuclear arsenal, since 1980, it's been VERY SAFE. And even then, you could say it was very safe. We dropped so many Hydrogen bombs by accident. But they didn't hurt anybody. Our government would Hydrogen bomb people by mistake -- big mistake -- and it was a big secret. Nobody knew they'd been bombed. 1950s, 1960s cyber wasn't great. Many problems. But the 1970s cyber is great. We modernized, we're using that for our nuclear now and it's very reliable. SLAM Ramjet, all they had was '60s cyber, the missile worked great but if they had an accident, very big mess. But maybe we can modernize it. Put in that '70s digital. And we'll have nothing to worry about. But the Russians will have A LOT to worry about! Big time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday March 02 2018, @07:43AM (2 children)
Fission can be small - the radiation protection is what makes it big and heavy.
On a missile carrying a thermonuke, I don't think that the radiation protection matters that much, except for the electronics in the guidance system. Using a modicum radiation hardening and an isotope emitting very little as γ, you don't need that much protection.
I imagine something like a classic rocket engine for the takeoff and place it on a high altitude ballistic trajectory, then it switches on using Po210 (140W/g) to heat the propulsion gas.
Once in the stratosphere, the drag is substantially reduce, kilowatts of power should suffice to keep the missile on track and 10kg of Po210 will get you in the (low) MW range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02 2018, @03:45PM (1 child)
The world, mostly Russia, produces about 100 g per year. At that rate, getting 10 kg would take a century.
One would want more than a single weapon. One would also want to test the weapon, preferably without spilling all over one's own country.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 02 2018, @10:11PM
Given the 100-something days as the half-life, it can't be polonium then.
But replace it with plutonium and arrange a subcritical but hot enough mass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02 2018, @09:43AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02 2018, @10:41AM (1 child)
Look up Prof. Ted Postol.
He has noted again and again how USA's anti-missile technology is vastly oversold.
The times that the tests have "worked", it's been because they have cheated (e.g. homing beacons on the targets).
Patriot anti-missile missile batteries in the spat with Iraq:
Zero warheads destroyed; they all impacted and detonated pretty much where they were headed.
...though USA's anti-missile systems there did manage to shoot down 2 allied fighter planes.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02 2018, @03:30PM
Test the tracker by flying it hung under an F-15.
Test the rocket carrying a chunk of concrete.
Test the software in a simulation running on a PC.
Test the maneuvering by flying a rocket toward a homing beacon.
Eventually... test it all together.
It's been an engineering technique for ages. It probably goes back many centuries. Do you figure that the Wright Brothers cheated if they tested their engine while it was supported by a table instead of an aircraft? Did they cheat by testing wind shapes in a wind tunnel without having engines on them?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by crafoo on Friday March 02 2018, @01:52PM
I don't think anyone cares what you think. You write as if you are some authority on nuclear power and weapons development but have done nothing to convince me that this is the case.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 03 2018, @12:48PM
Russian cyber is VERY WEAK, as everybody knows. But the guys they put on their submarines, and the way they make decisions, is TERRIBLE. Was terrible.
Let me tell you, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a great opening for them. They could have won that one very easily. Because they brought a tremendous nuclear arsenal to Cuba. JFK -- one of our worst presidents -- thought they had missiles in Cuba, he thought that was a problem. But they weren't just missiles, they were NUCLEAR missiles. He didn't know they were nuclear. And he didn't think they were nuclear. But they were. So he moved very strongly, very foolishly. Russia was very strong, he had no idea. And his navy attacked a Russian submarine. The Russians didn't know what was going on, why so many explosions? And the guys on the submarine held a vote, should they launch their nuclear? This was Soviet times, they had a VERY SPECIAL kind of democracy, where 3 guys voted. And only if they all voted "launch" would they launch. Well, one guy was an OBSTRUCTIONIST -- like the Dems in Congress -- he voted "no." So they didn't launch. And Russia lost very badly, they took all their missiles out of Cuba. And later they lost so much of their Country. Because of "democracy." With drone submarines that's not a problem. There's no guy on the submarine to say "no." It launches when it's supposed to launch. And maybe it launches when it's not supposed to. Maybe it's very UNPREDICTABLE, right? And surprises everyone. That you launched your nuclear when no one was expecting it. You catch the enemy off guard. And you WIN!