Russia reveals chilling first images of super-nuke 'Satan 2' which has 'power to devastate area size of Texas'
Russia has revealed its biggest ever nuclear missile which is powerful enough to destroy a country as big as France with a single strike. Vladimir Putin is seeking to replace his arsenal of SS-18 Satan weapons with the new RS-28 Sarmat super-nukes. They are packed with up to 16 nuclear warheads according to pictures revealed online from the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau. The weapons – which will be ready for launch in 2018 – will make the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like “popguns”, experts have said.  Moscow weapons experts have said the so-called Satan 2 will be able to evade radar defences and could travel far enough to strike London or the East and West Coast of the US, according to the Daily Star. Tensions between the UK and Russia are at breaking point with prime minister Theresa May having recently blasted Putin for "undermining the West's efforts" to provide a political settlement in Syria. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-reveals-chilling-first-images-9118075 ------------------------------------------------------ lol and trump want to be a friend with this old man what a joke Go Hillary |
 |
| And which country has caused this new cold war, oh ya that would the US. And this is why I say we'll lose a war with Russia there Tech in certain areas is 2-3 Gens ahead of ours. |
Newhopes said: . . . You do realize that if it came to nuclear war, both the US and Russia could blow up the entire world many times over right? There is realistically no reason why a "bigger nuke" is actually needed.And which country has caused this new cold war, oh ya that would the US. And this is why I say we'll lose a war with Russia there Tech in certain areas is 2-3 Gens ahead of ours. I wouldn't call something so clearly redundant as a "generation ahead", just something redundant. |
 |
| like i said on another thread, Putin should be blame for this cold war thing going on and he prioritize military spending like this over their economy that is going to shit for years now, the Russian people are suffering because of their weak economy and all Putin does about it is to threaten the world more |
| This is more and more starting to look like some kind of dick measuring contest Except that Murica and Soviet Russia are comparing their nukes instead of their penises |
Comic_SansOct 25, 2016 3:22 PM
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
| 1. I'm skeptical that a single nuclear missile could destroy an area the size of Texas, I'm calling bullshit on this one. 2. Will people please stop posting articles from The Sun and The Mirror. They are the lowest form trash newspapers with a loose grip on reality that are not taken seriously by anyone with an IQ of over 70. |
 |
Bobby2Hands said: 1 I'm calling bullshit on this one. 2. Will people please stop posting articles from The Sun and The Mirror. 1- lol do u call experts are talking bullshit , not sure if u have read op but it say experts 2- how about independent - yahoo and others media..... are they also thrash http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/russia-nuclear-missiles-sarmat-satan-nuclear-war-cold-war-putin-us-a7378876.html but yeah that's ur op |
|
AllenVonStein said: Bobby2Hands said: 1 I'm calling bullshit on this one. 2. Will people please stop posting articles from The Sun and The Mirror. 1- lol do u call experts are talking bullshit , not sure if u have read op but it say experts 2- how about independent - yahoo and others media..... are they also thrash http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/russia-nuclear-missiles-sarmat-satan-nuclear-war-cold-war-putin-us-a7378876.html but yeah that's ur op And The Independant says "Dr Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, said in a blog post that the new class of missiles would be powerful enough to “wipes out three-fourths of New York state for thousands of years” That's not even nearly the size of Texas or France. Come on dude, stop believing obvious bullshit. |
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Agreed, HOWEVER the fact it can evade radar defenses is the thing though.Newhopes said: . . . You do realize that if it came to nuclear war, both the US and Russia could blow up the entire world many times over right? There is realistically no reason why a "bigger nuke" is actually needed.And which country has caused this new cold war, oh ya that would the US. And this is why I say we'll lose a war with Russia there Tech in certain areas is 2-3 Gens ahead of ours. I wouldn't call something so clearly redundant as a "generation ahead", just something redundant. |
 |
| @AllenVonStein You do realize Trump is speaking peace with Russia while Hillary wants War right? You talk about how they have a radar evading huge ass nuke and you want to vote for the women that wants to poke the bear? That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've heard. |
 |
lol like Hillary said and other politicians , Trump / clown shouldn't be near nukes i will remember u of what he said b4 Trump asked why US can't use nukes if u think that the most ridiculous thing you've heard, then let me tell u you haven't heard enough try to go out and speak with people Human are by nature socials to begin with, we are born like this |
|
AllenVonStein said: lol like Hillary said and other politicians , Trump / clown shouldn't be near nukes i will remember u of what he said b4 Trump asked why US can't use nukes if u think that the most ridiculous thing you've heard, then let me tell u you haven't heard enough try to go out and speak with people Human are by nature socials to begin with, we are born like this He's just saying nukes aren't completely off the table, and of course they aren't. There are circumstances where you'd have to use them. This is the standard thinking on it. With that settled, we're left with your deflection from Hillary's saber rattling against Russia, who was invited into Russia, whereas the US was not. It was a stable country before the US got involved. |
AllenVonStein said: lol like Hillary said and other politicians , Trump / clown shouldn't be near nukes i will remember u of what he said b4 Trump asked why US can't use nukes if u think that the most ridiculous thing you've heard, then let me tell u you haven't heard enough try to go out and speak with people Human are by nature socials to begin with, we are born like this Oh boy. Where to begin. You do realize his comments on nukes were directed towards the fact that they make a good deterrent. The threat of using a nuke is a pretty big deal, he was simply asking why you would even take that threat off the table. I would ask you to provide context for his words and not just paraphrase. As for Hillary she has no room to talk about him being a clown that shouldn't be allowed around nukes. He's not trying to go to war with Russia a potential super power. There is a difference between wanting to use a weapon as a deterrent and instigating a war with Russia of all people. Especially after you show us that they have developed an un-detectable nuke and Hillary said on national tv just how long the Russians have to shut down our defense grid before we're even capable of launching ours in retaliation. I'm good, it honestly doesn't get any crazier than voting for a war with Russia. Maybe a war with China would be more ridiculous but that's not on the table currently. If anyone shouldn't be trusted with nukes it's the women who tells our enemies on national tv just how long it takes use to launch ours. One of the most confidential pieces of information we have. Of course that's just a drop in the bucket for all of the confidential information she has been irresponsible with. Not like any of this really matters to someone from Sweden. You wouldn't be the ones picking a fight with Russia. However at least if Russia strikes us we won't have to be around to deal with the after effects when the world's economy crashes without the US. |
|
| Let's just remember who's most likely to get us into nuclear war: |
 |
Aka_Saber said: Not like any of this really matters to someone from Sweden. You wouldn't be the ones picking a fight with Russia. However at least if Russia strikes us we won't have to be around to deal with the after effects when the world's economy crashes without the US. this matter to me , to everyone basically lol first thing i read on Swedish biggest news site  about Russia moving nuclear in Baltic Sea about voting i have some family and irl friends in US and all of them are voting for Hillary , that's one of reason i am supporting her (there's actually many reasons) when the world's economy crashes without the US. that's why ur government killed Gaddafi becz he proposed a Gold Dinar currency that could save Africa. more countries separating itself from US would be better. |
|
AllenVonStein said: Aka_Saber said: Not like any of this really matters to someone from Sweden. You wouldn't be the ones picking a fight with Russia. However at least if Russia strikes us we won't have to be around to deal with the after effects when the world's economy crashes without the US. this matter to me , to everyone basically lol first thing i read on Swedish biggest news site about Russia moving nuclear in Baltic Sea about voting i have some family and irl friends in US and all of them are voting for Hillary , that's one of reason i am supporting her (there's actually many reasons) when the world's economy crashes without the US. that's why ur government killed Gaddafi becz he proposed a Gold Dinar currency that could save Africa. more countries separating itself from US would be better. Russia nukeing the US doesn't directly effect you, them moving near you effects you. Then again, if the US turns out to be powerless to stop them what really makes Sweden think it stands a chance? You also still have the economy to worry about but I'll stick to the physical damage of the nuke instead of the after effects of it. So you're main reason to vote Hillary is that people you know are voting for her. So basically admitting to being a follower and not forming your own opinion? Who do these friends and family listen to anyways, are they also followers just listening to what the bias media tells them and taking it at face value? Please don't tell me it's petty things like the usual Democrat speech of Trump is a racist, sexist, blah blah blah. Hopefully they're actually paying attention to the corruption and serious possibility of war. I'd hate to think they're just un-informed people who believe any lies that Hillary spouts from her mouth and you're just following them because friends and family can never be wrong. Good luck making countries self sufficient. It's kind of hard not to be reliant on countries like the US. |
|
Aka_Saber said: Good luck making countries self sufficient. It's kind of hard not to be reliant on countries like the US. what's wrong living in world ruined by nuclear war wanna try to live in world similar to kenishiro listen to bomb 0:16  are u afraid of nuclear war? |
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Newhopes said: . . . You do realize that if it came to nuclear war, both the US and Russia could blow up the entire world many times over right? There is realistically no reason why a "bigger nuke" is actually needed.And which country has caused this new cold war, oh ya that would the US. And this is why I say we'll lose a war with Russia there Tech in certain areas is 2-3 Gens ahead of ours. I wouldn't call something so clearly redundant as a "generation ahead", just something redundant. Russia has always built bigger nukes while the US makes better nukes. |
AllenVonStein said: Aka_Saber said: Good luck making countries self sufficient. It's kind of hard not to be reliant on countries like the US. what's wrong living in world ruined by nuclear war wanna try to live in world similar to kenishiro listen to bomb 0:16 are u afraid of nuclear war? I have anime I want to watch, I'd really prefer not being blown up. Unless it was by Megumin  Nice bakuretsu.  |
|
| This feud is for naught. The two countries should strengthen ties and eradicate ISIS, as should have been done from the start, rather than provoking each other. Such provocation proves nothing. Not only does ISIS continue to strengthen, but if push comes to shove both countries would likely be destroyed regardless. In the OP you say Trump is a joke for "wanting to be friends with this man". America and Russia should be aligned, for the greater good. Would you prefer to start a nuclear war and destroy the world in the process? or would you rather ally with Russia and destroy ISIS, eventually providing a solution to the refugee crisis. Also, sure, Assad might be bad. But I'll tell you what's worse? The government being overthrown and the country being plunged further into chaos. But only Russia is the bad guy right? You need to educate yourself before making such threads, Allen. |
FuchsiaOct 25, 2016 7:17 PM
╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭ |
| The chance of that nuke launching under a Trump Presidency: 1% The chance of that nuke launching under a Clinton Presidency: 90-100% When you all go to the polls think of that nuke, the fact that it's pretty much is going to be sent America's way if the wrong candidate is elected and who will ensure the nuke has the least likely chance of ever being launched and thus be staying in whatever silo it's stored in. |
 |
| What's so bad about being friends with the Dude who's got a nuke? Not saying the US, should just take off their pants and let Russia or China have their way with them, but provoking them with war doesn't solve anything. We don't have that brilliant candidate that can do what JFK did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hilary would probably throw darts at a map and that is where nukes would land. I don't like Trump, but if it means surviving another 4 years, then I'll gladly vote for him. |
 |
Bobby2Hands said: And The Independant says "Dr Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, said in a blog post that the new class of missiles would be powerful enough to “wipes out three-fourths of New York state for thousands of years” That's not even nearly the size of Texas or France. Come on dude, stop believing obvious bullshit. I don't think you understand how modern nukes work. Look up "thermonuclear vs atomic" and then look up "MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle)" 1 thermonuclear warhead is about 50 times more powerful than an atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. A Satan-1 missile carried 3 thermonuclear warheads in its payload. A Satan-2 missile carries from 10 to 15 thermonuclear warheads in its payload. Do the maths, even based on old-outdated data concerning nukes, you'd end up with one Satan-2 having the capability of destroying around 750 Hiroshimas. And this is of course considering if the power of every individual warhead is limited to old standards. But dropping even 1 single warhead on any city in Texas or France would be enough to render the whole state dead, due to the humanitarian and economic crises that would evolve from that destruction. Pirating_Ninja said: Newhopes said: . . . You do realize that if it came to nuclear war, both the US and Russia could blow up the entire world many times over right? There is realistically no reason why a "bigger nuke" is actually needed.And which country has caused this new cold war, oh ya that would the US. And this is why I say we'll lose a war with Russia there Tech in certain areas is 2-3 Gens ahead of ours. I wouldn't call something so clearly redundant as a "generation ahead", just something redundant. If I'm correct, the main purpose of the Satan-2 missile's development, was to provide new capabilities focused on penetrating current and prospective anti-missile systems. The time at which an ICBM nuclear missile is the most vulnerable, is between the moment it launched and the moment it enters orbit. After it enters orbit, there's virtually no way of stopping it from hitting its target. Russia's main concern is USA's development of the anti-missile shield in Europe, which could potentially shoot down Russian nukes at the moment of their launch, thus giving the US a first-strike capability. |
TsundereppoiOct 25, 2016 9:30 PM
| ... |
Tsundereppoi said: From reports I have seen (which mind you are not too recent), anti-missile systems, at best, have a 25% success rate. Given that either country can destroy the world a few times over, it is relatively meaningless.Pirating_Ninja said: . . . You do realize that if it came to nuclear war, both the US and Russia could blow up the entire world many times over right? There is realistically no reason why a "bigger nuke" is actually needed. I wouldn't call something so clearly redundant as a "generation ahead", just something redundant. If I'm correct, the main purpose of the Satan-2 missile's development, was to provide new capabilities focused on penetrating current and prospective anti-missile systems. The time at which an ICBM nuclear missile is the most vulnerable, is between the moment it launched and the moment it enters orbit. After it enters orbit, there's virtually no way of stopping it from hitting its target. Russia's main concern is USA's development of the anti-missile shield in Europe, which could potentially shoot down Russian nukes at the moment of their launch, thus giving the US a first-strike capability. Given this, I think it is fair to say that it was a waste of money. Increasing the accuracy of the anti-missile system has been by and large an extremely slow process, so realistically by the time an anti-missile system is capable of blocking an acceptable percentage (preferably 95%+), this new nuke will likely be obsolete. Certainly, it will be unnecessary for atleast another 10-20 years at least. |
Pirating_NinjaOct 25, 2016 10:02 PM
|
Tsundereppoi said: This is incorrect on numerous levels.I don't think you understand how modern nukes work. Look up "thermonuclear vs atomic" and then look up "MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle)" 1 thermonuclear warhead is about 50 times more powerful than an atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. A Satan-1 missile carried 3 thermonuclear warheads in its payload. A Satan-2 missile carries from 10 to 15 thermonuclear warheads in its payload. Do the maths, even based on old-outdated data concerning nukes, you'd end up with one Satan-2 having the capability of destroying around 750 Hiroshimas. And this is of course considering if the power of every individual warhead is limited to old standards. But dropping even 1 single warhead on any city in Texas or France would be enough to render the whole state dead, due to the humanitarian and economic crises that would evolve from that destruction. 1) Thermonuclear weapon is a classification, not a specific weapon. It covers a wide range of designs that can have yields only a fraction of that of the Hiroshima bomb up to the Soviet 100-megaton monster. In fact, a single weapon can even tailor its specific yield to a situation (look up variable yield). 2) The US currently deploys only 1 warhead type as powerful as you insinuate, and the B83 is a free-fall bomb deployed the same way as the Hiroshima one was. US MIRV warheads are only 20-30 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Historically, most Russian ones have been only 6 times as powerful (100 kilotons), though the current R-36M2 (NATO: SS-18 "Satan" Mod 5) does have warheads that may be about 50 (sources vary considerably). And actually, it has the ability to carry up to 10, but they cut that back as part of arms agreements (the same ones that have US D-5 Trident II missiles with 4-5 warheads instead of 14). 3) The larger the yield of a warhead, the greater the proportion of the energy is lost in creating a larger and deeper crater. How big a difference? That warhead 50 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb actually only devastates an area about 14 times the size. Therefore, larger yield weapons are far less efficient at devastating large areas than multiple small ones. For this reason, megaton-class warheads are usually intended for destroying hardened underground facilities, not city-busting. 4) As noted in #2, the New START Treaty signed in 2010 places caps on both missiles and warheads. As long as it's in force, deploying large numbers of this weapon with 12 warheads each most likely violates the treaty. And while Russia may be planning on not renewing it when expiration comes up in 2020, it won't have the warheads anytime soon without violating the treaty limits on those. And if it does, the US has a ready-made response in inactive Trident warheads. As noted before, those missiles can fit 3 times what they currently carry. 5) Talks about how much area can be wiped out are all bluster. It's not how much area, but how many cities. What these people are talking about is not carpet nuking, but strikes to cause as much loss of life and infrastructure damage as possible. A single one of these missiles, assuming 12 1-megaton warheads, will completely devastate an area of up to 2000 square kilometers, possibly less depending on topography. But this will only hit 12 targets. Granted, this would allow every city in Texas with over 200,000 residents to get hit, but several of these would only be partially devastated. Some are simply that much bigger than the blast of a warhead, and others will be partially spared because some warheads will need to hit two neighboring cities at once, sparing a good portion of both of them. You are partially right on one thing though: The disruption will be far in excess of the loss of life, and the economic and infrastructure damage will be extreme. That's what they mean by "devastated." It won't, however, be completely destroyed or wiped out, and a good chunk of the population may still only be marginally affected. Also, the area will recover from much of the damage within a few years if it's not too extensive. A single warhead striking a single city, at least in Texas, isn't going to bring down the whole state - it's only on the level of a localized natural disaster at that point. But we are talking about 12 of them, so that's a bit different. |
lol Isis is just a weapon by Murica and others allies, it can be defeated whenever they want Putin will not ask your opinion. Russians want to invade Western Europe at least for a couple of years. and now they wanna war how many kids , people they have killed in Syria i can say the same for yourself , wake up lol. Trump says he may meet with Putin before start of his administration Trump is Putin's 'Perfect Agent of Chaos' but yeah America has been hijacked by Zionist and Rothschild family , they have cased war everywhere no wonder people hate government even Americans themselves we are going to die one day , what's problem. Go Hillary only her know what she is doing Russia will pay for "holding up progress in Syria" |
|
| Humans are so amazing, always finding new and interesting ways to kill ourselves. With nukes, we decided to go one step further by finding new and interesting ways of killing ourselves and everything else...... why are we such big idiots? |
 |
| Russia bad!! America good!! America sometimes bad. Russia badder!!! Russia very bad!!!!! |
 ~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
| For someone who is against the zionists and the rothschilds, you sure are drinking that hillary koolaid pretty damn hard. Taking one step forward, then two steps back. |
CabronOct 26, 2016 7:39 AM
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| Russia has a lot of trees so they won't feel the fallout out that bad, it's a smart move actually. |
 |
ErwinJA said: You are partially right on one thing though: The disruption will be far in excess of the loss of life, and the economic and infrastructure damage will be extreme. That's what they mean by "devastated." It won't, however, be completely destroyed or wiped out, and a good chunk of the population may still only be marginally affected. Also, the area will recover from much of the damage within a few years if it's not too extensive. A single warhead striking a single city, at least in Texas, isn't going to bring down the whole state - it's only on the level of a localized natural disaster at that point. But we are talking about 12 of them, so that's a bit different. Well, I would hate to appeal to authority, but being a political student and currently undertaking my nuclear politics module, our professors are convinced that a single nuke striking London would lead to the extinction of UK as a nation, as it would not have the human and structural resources to recover from the damage quick enough, to prevent the entire state from sinking into anarchy. Similarly, if Paris would be struck, a similar situation would unfold in France. The only states considered to be capable of surviving one or few nuclear strikes are those who possess massive territory and large population (i.e. USA [not Texas individually], Russia, China, India) But heck, maybe our professors are wrong and you're right. I won't argue. |
| ... |
Pirating_Ninja said: Newhopes said: . . . You do realize that if it came to nuclear war, both the US and Russia could blow up the entire world many times over right? There is realistically no reason why a "bigger nuke" is actually needed.And which country has caused this new cold war, oh ya that would the US. And this is why I say we'll lose a war with Russia there Tech in certain areas is 2-3 Gens ahead of ours. I wouldn't call something so clearly redundant as a "generation ahead", just something redundant. Yes everybody loses in a nuke war, however we'll more than likely lose a conventional war which will lead to the us trying to nuke them. |
Newhopes said: In a conventional war the US would absolutely shit on Russia, even if you combined it with China and it was only the US. The amount of equipment / strongholds the US holds is magnitudes more than Russia + China - it actually isn't funny since no war will break out, this is just a massive waste for the US as it consistently has to maintain the equipment gathering rust or scrap it.Pirating_Ninja said: . . . You do realize that if it came to nuclear war, both the US and Russia could blow up the entire world many times over right? There is realistically no reason why a "bigger nuke" is actually needed. I wouldn't call something so clearly redundant as a "generation ahead", just something redundant. Yes everybody loses in a nuke war, however we'll more than likely lose a conventional war which will lead to the us trying to nuke them. Thus, of the two, Russia would be more likely to use Nukes as it would be unnecessary for the US . . . But then the US would use nukes and everyone would lose. Of course, even if Russia did win, the US was destroyed, it would send the world into an extremely unstable era in which it wouldn't be strange for wars to break out left and right. I doubt the "winner" would remain a "winner" for very long. |
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Newhopes said: In a conventional war the US would absolutely shit on Russia, even if you combined it with China and it was only the US. The amount of equipment / strongholds the US holds is magnitudes more than Russia + China - it actually isn't funny since no war will break out, this is just a massive waste for the US as it consistently has to maintain the equipment gathering rust or scrap it.Yes everybody loses in a nuke war, however we'll more than likely lose a conventional war which will lead to the us trying to nuke them. Thus, of the two, Russia would be more likely to use Nukes as it would be unnecessary for the US . . . But then the US would use nukes and everyone would lose. Of course, even if Russia did win, the US was destroyed, it would send the world into an extremely unstable era in which it wouldn't be strange for wars to break out left and right. I doubt the "winner" would remain a "winner" for very long. You don't seem to understand just how much of a advantage Russia has over us, we have litrilly nothing that can counter current Russian missle technolgy, they're more or less 2 gens ahead of us. They can knock anything we put up in the air with ease and those big juicy aircraft carriors are just sitting ducks. The US military has been drained by 30 years of war using dated equipment and spread thinly around close to 800 bases around the world, I remember one of the top generals saying that only around 30% of our forces are useable strategically the rest is junk. |
NewhopesOct 26, 2016 4:40 PM
Newhopes said: Pirating_Ninja said: In a conventional war the US would absolutely shit on Russia, even if you combined it with China and it was only the US. The amount of equipment / strongholds the US holds is magnitudes more than Russia + China - it actually isn't funny since no war will break out, this is just a massive waste for the US as it consistently has to maintain the equipment gathering rust or scrap it. Thus, of the two, Russia would be more likely to use Nukes as it would be unnecessary for the US . . . But then the US would use nukes and everyone would lose. Of course, even if Russia did win, the US was destroyed, it would send the world into an extremely unstable era in which it wouldn't be strange for wars to break out left and right. I doubt the "winner" would remain a "winner" for very long. You don't seem to understand just how much of a advantage Russia has over us, we have litrilly nothing that can counter current Russian missle technolgy they're more or less 2 gens ahead of us. They can knock anything we put up in the air with ease and those big juicy aircraft carriors are just sitting ducks. 1) Russia has 0 Anti-Missile technology, so no, they can't counter anything. (not that it really matters since anti-missile systems are not actually all they are chalked up to be) 2) Missiles do not have infinite range, Russia is secluded to Russia, meanwhile the US has numerous bases literally on Russia's front door step. 3) The US quite literally owns the sea. Moving in closer to the US is practically not possible. 4) Similarly, thanks the owning the sea, and numerous bases within range of Russia, the US would also own the air. |
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Newhopes said: You don't seem to understand just how much of a advantage Russia has over us, we have litrilly nothing that can counter current Russian missle technolgy they're more or less 2 gens ahead of us. They can knock anything we put up in the air with ease and those big juicy aircraft carriors are just sitting ducks. 1) Russia has 0 Anti-Missile technology, so no, they can't counter anything. (not that it really matters since anti-missile systems are not actually all they are chalked up to be) 2) Missiles do not have infinite range, Russia is secluded to Russia, meanwhile the US has numerous bases literally on Russia's front door step. 3) The US quite literally owns the sea. Moving in closer to the US is practically not possible. 4) Similarly, thanks the owning the sea, and numerous bases within range of Russia, the US would also own the air. 1:Let's see, RZV-MD, SA-15, 50R6 Vityaz thats what I can remember off the top of my head and yes all are capible of shooting our missles down. 2: Missed the Russians using there new Kh-101 cruise missles last year didn't you, launched from Russian and hit there targets in Syria, Russian equivalent of o a Tomahawk with 3500 mile range yup that US carrior fleet couldn't flee the gulf fast enough. 3:The fleet is sitting ducks, go look at the falklands war if you want to see what happens to ships which get hit by advanced missles that you can't defend against. 4: We have nothing and I mean nothing that can get though there airspace if they have any airdefence in the area |
NewhopesOct 26, 2016 5:21 PM
Tsundereppoi said: No, you're not necessarily wrong, and neither am I. I'm talking about Texas, not the UK. Texas doesn't really have a "center" quite like the UK does. Now, if, for example, New York City were to get nuked, the entire state of New York would go down hard, and might even take New Jersey with it. Similar with hitting Chicago for Illinois. But hit Houston? Most of Texas is still okay. The infrastructure, population, and everything else are just too dispersed. Similarly, one could not take down California with just nuking one city.ErwinJA said: You are partially right on one thing though: The disruption will be far in excess of the loss of life, and the economic and infrastructure damage will be extreme. That's what they mean by "devastated." It won't, however, be completely destroyed or wiped out, and a good chunk of the population may still only be marginally affected. Also, the area will recover from much of the damage within a few years if it's not too extensive. A single warhead striking a single city, at least in Texas, isn't going to bring down the whole state - it's only on the level of a localized natural disaster at that point. But we are talking about 12 of them, so that's a bit different. Well, I would hate to appeal to authority, but being a political student and currently undertaking my nuclear politics module, our professors are convinced that a single nuke striking London would lead to the extinction of UK as a nation, as it would not have the human and structural resources to recover from the damage quick enough, to prevent the entire state from sinking into anarchy. Similarly, if Paris would be struck, a similar situation would unfold in France. The only states considered to be capable of surviving one or few nuclear strikes are those who possess massive territory and large population (i.e. USA [not Texas individually], Russia, China, India) But heck, maybe our professors are wrong and you're right. I won't argue. Of course, to a degree, this should be mostly mute. The R-36 was not really intended to strike cities. It was designed as a first-strike weapon that would go after strategic military targets, specifically US land-based ICBMs and key military infrastructure. It was actually smaller missiles, and especially SLBMs and mobile ICBMs, that the Soviet Union (and later Russian Federation) would use for targeting cities or a second-strike. And the R-36 was so good for its role that Russia could afford that dichotomy. It was for this reason that START cut the R-36 force in half, and New START cut warhead count. Unless this new missile is for propaganda only, it should have a similar role. Also of note: there is no target in the US or Europe that would warrant a 40 megaton warhead. There may be some in China (those supposed mountain facilities), but you'd still need a location to get any value. I expect to see few, if any, such warheads deployed. It was the same with the R-36. One variant had a 20 megaton warhead, but it was barely deployed at all and quickly phased out in favor if its MIRVed cousin - it just wasn't worth using up a treaty-limited slot for a single-warhead unit without any real target. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |