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: 2) by Hartree on Friday March 02 2018, @05:15PM (3 children)
The SLAM was cancelled because there really was little mission for it. The ICBMs by the mid 60s could destroy all of the USSR's major cities/industry and even if they got taken out on the ground, the sub launched missiles could as well. Subs could also launch missiles at you from just about any direction, not just over the North pole.
It was an interesting idea in some ways, but there wasn't anything it gave you that you didn't already have and it was becoming yet another expensive forever development program.
The impact of it would have been psychological as it sounds scary. But really a few ICBMs are just as scary and get there much faster.
(Score: 2) by Rich on Friday March 02 2018, @06:00PM (2 children)
Immediate destruction wise, yes. But the SLAM would not only have been able to drop a dozen or so hydrogen bombs on widely distributed targets, and do the job of a dozen ICBMs, it would also have killed the people and animals in its zig-zag flight path with the shock wave. In addition to irradiating the whole territory with fission products.
So it would have been rather unresponsible to launch a SLAM on days other than doomsday.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Friday March 02 2018, @06:52PM (1 child)
Yeah, the idea was that after the bombs were gone, you just kept driving it around the countryside. The question gets to be "what's your purpose" with it. The fallout from ground bursts going after hardened sites is probably already causing a lot of environmental damage for agriculture. The point of warfare is to either destroy the enemy or persuade them to do something (surrender, change a policy, etc.). It just really didn't add that much in those directions.
You allude to another question I have. If the Russians have tested it, either it's some sort of closed cycle system or, if it's an open cycle we should have detected the fission fragments given all the monitoring that's going on (especially with the NK situation). There have been some unexplained releases, but they look a lot more like isotope accidents at Mayak and such.
If it's some super clean nuclear propulsion it gives it loiter time, but removes the radiation warfare aspect from it. (Though such a system might be useful for a long term flying probe for planets/moons that doesn't tear up any possible life forms you're looking for.)
(Score: 2) by Rich on Friday March 02 2018, @08:31PM
Well, not neccessarily. As I understood it, the SLAM had something like ceramic composite fuel cells that were directly exposed to the air flow. If you'd encapsulate the fuel like in a power plant, no immediate fission products would be released, just a tiny amount of neutron-activated air components. The trivial O-16 -> 17 and N-14 -> 15 activations don't leave radioactive isotopes. On the other hand a "classic" zirconium hull would limit the reactor temperature, so a hypersonic ramjet would be difficult to do. Maybe they have some ceramic encapsulation that can resist higher temperatures and they were able to land it in one piece and recover the hot reactor?
Also, the video that showed a conventional looking cruise missile flying around South America by far didn't look as frightening as a SLAM mission. Maybe some atomic lab was kept busy by the military-industrial complex to design a small nuclear burner for a conventional turbojet? With the strategic intention to signal: "And even if you manage to shoot down re-entry units flying evasive maneuvers, we still have options to get through."?