Russia's developing 100 megaton dirty Tsunami Creating submarine drone bomb

[Onkel Neal]

Russia's developing 100 megaton dirty Tsunami Creating submarine drone bomb (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/russias-developing-100-megaton-dirty.html)

The Russian government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported that to achieve ‘extensive radioactive contamination' the weapon ‘could envisage using the so-called cobalt bomb, a nuclear weapon designed to produce enhanced amounts of radioactive fallout compared to a regular atomic warhead,'" Schneider said.

Retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, has said development of the underwater nuclear strike vehicle is one element of a "troubling" Russian strategic nuclear buildup.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), chairman of the House subcommittee on strategic forces, has said that the Russians assert the nuclear drone submarine will be used to target coastal areas and inflict "unacceptable damage to a country's territory by creating areas of wide radioactive contamination that would be unsuitable for military, economic, or other activity for long periods of time."

Russia calls the system "Ocean Multipurpose System 'Status-6," and it is allegedly capable of traveling underwater to distances of to 6,200 miles. It can submerge to depths of 3,280 feet and travel at speeds of up to 56 knots.

The Pentagon has confirmed that a new Russian nuclear delivery drone is real. The undersea drone, which carries an enormous nuclear warhead to destroy coastal cities and military bases, was tested late last month.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rVBpMtH8WQo/WLxiw0WxddI/AAAAAAABTec/ruuZoV1bUdsNPKbwT3fyTClPB7FY5fRgACLcB/s640/status6drone.jpg

Great, just what the world needs.

[Skybird]

Isn't man clever.

But honestly said I just waited for somebody bypassing the air-delivery of nuclear warheads by sending them in below the water surface. Not thinking about tsunami creation, but about undetected delivery avoiding anti-missile systems.

If mankind succeeds in wiping itself out, we certainly have no right to cry about ourselves.

[STEED]

More evidence the human race is de-evolving. :nope:

[ikalugin]

Those news are old. And yes, if armed with a high yeild weapon it is one of the ways to bypass US ABM in a second strike scenario.

However there is a reason why it is called "multipurpose" - the long endurance UUVs have many uses. For example they can carry sonar and lightweight torpedoes and assist the mothesub in attacking hostile subs.

[Oberon]

:hmmm:

Seems a bit overkill, but I guess that's how things are going now. Guess the US will have to re-activate the Neutron bombs.

[Dowly]

More evidence the human race is de-evolving. :nope:
Devolving compared to what? The Antiquity? The Middle-Ages? The past 100 years where we've had two bloody world wars?

[STEED]

Devolving compared to what? The Antiquity? The Middle-Ages? The past 100 years where we've had two bloody world wars?

We need to get on with each other, want a beer Dowly? :)

[Commander Wallace]

And how long before the U.S and other countries develop the same sort of weapon or something similar. Just think of all that would be possible if all the money used in research and development and production of weapons like these were instead used in medical research or improving the quality of life of it's citizens.

[August]

Devolving compared to what? The Antiquity? The Middle-Ages? The past 100 years where we've had two bloody world wars?

Exactly. I'm still waiting to read about this mythical era when everyone got along and the world was filled with peace and friendship. As far as I can tell the human race is more peaceful and friendly than it ever was in hte past.

[ikalugin]

:hmmm:

Seems a bit overkill, but I guess that's how things are going now. Guess the US will have to re-activate the Neutron bombs.
As a strategic platform - it is a decent deterent, but in my opinion it's tactical applications are more valuable.

p.s. we have a consistent effort to introduce various non TT launched UUVs onto our submarines. Currently:
- we have Oscar-II->Oscar-III refits which would receive non autonomous UUVs.
- experimental Oscar-II refit to house various UUVs, including Status-6.
- purpose built Status-6 carriers (Khabarovsk class).
- future Husky class multirole SSNs/SSGNs which would also carry various UUVs.

Some of the UUV systems, such as the ones selected for the Oscar-III configuration are already quite mature.

Makes me wonder how RN and other second class Navies are doing on UUV front.

[Skybird]

The difference between now and back then is that back then people might have imagined they had the power to send mankind into oblivion, but they never were able to acchieve that, not at all: it was just imagination, a fantasy. Only nature could achieve that, by using epidemic diseases or asteroids. And occasionally, it had some serious tries.

But today, man can extinct himself by his own hand for sure. And that is not just imagination, but fact. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, both options are facts. Both weapons were not existent in earlier times.

Quite big a difference.

[August]

The difference between now and back then is that back then people might have imagined they had the power to send mankind into oblivion, but they never were able to acchieve that, not at all: it was just imagination, a fantasy. Only nature could achieve that, by using epidemic diseases or asteroids. And occasionally, it had some serious tries.

But today, man can extinct himself by his own hand for sure. And that is not just imagination, but fact. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, both options are facts. Both weapons were not existent in earlier times.

Quite big a difference.

Good thing we're more peaceful and friendly than we've ever been. Can you imagine the tyrants of the past with access to such power? We'd long since had our Götterdämmerung I think.

[Oberon]

Makes me wonder how RN and other second class Navies are doing on UUV front.

Nice wording. :O:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/october/14/161014-royal-navy-tests-unmanned-fleet-of-the-future

Primarily though our UUVs are in an anti-mine warfare role, we'll probably branch into USVs more in the future for coastal patrol in combination with UAVs, but I doubt we'll go too far with UUVs since we don't really have an operational need for them at this stage. However, when it comes time to develop a successor for the Astute, probably 20-30 years from now, I'd put decent money on a UUV, or at the very least a highly automated, lower crewed submarine, a bit like the original plans for the Alfa before reality got in the way.

[Oberon]

Good thing we're more peaceful and friendly than we've ever been. Can you imagine the tyrants of the past with access to such power? We'd long since had our Götterdämmerung I think.

But is it the weapons that have secured the peace, or the peace that has secured the weapons? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Could you imagine a Horton H-XVIII with a German nuclear bomb approaching your East Coast in late 45 or during 46 and your air defence helpless to intercept it in time? ;)

Or waves of smaller Horten fighters ruling the sky over Britain at will, reducing British reaction times from 18-20 minutes to less than 2 minutes?

That era is not that long ago.

And what about IS getting WMDs today? Saddam Hussein? Assad?

Tribal wars and rassist genocides in Africa going on until today?

Some things have changed, yes. The Westerner has become less willing to use violence, while others currently put violence of their own onto a new level, thanks to having just gotten access to according technologies.

I would be careful to claim that mankind in general has become "kinder". Whoch also is true for the West. We have just learnt to betray ourselves and let the killing and dying do by others, and preferrably without us taking note of it.

Also, history can reverse, and undo civilizational achievements. We see that happening in Europe currently, the mass migration and the growing conflicts it fores upon us - to defend achievements again that we thoguht were already safe and won since decades, now being rejected with the greatest naturalness under the cover of respect for "foreign culture".

I probabbly know what you meant, but I would not take it that much for granted as your words seem to imply. As I see it, we currently walk backwards, not forward, and "democracy" is in open retreat all around the globe, including Europe and America. We already live in the post-democratic era. Our optimism was unfounded. Our hope was misled. Things decline. Freedom dies, slowly, but it dies.

[Oberon]

Could you imagine a Horton H-XVIII with a German nuclear bomb approaching your East Coast in late 45 or during 46 and your air defence helpless to intercept it in time? ;)

http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/f80.jpg

http://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/meteorshow-614x300.jpg

:03:

The thing is that if Hitler had known that the Allies had a nuclear bomb and he also had a nuclear bomb, and both sides knew that the other had the means to deliver it to a major city unimpeded, would Hitler have still gone ahead and told the Luftwaffe to deliver that bomb?

With religious terrorism it doesn't really matter because suicide is a perfect option, but with leaders and people who look to keep their power and keep rich while oppressing their people, they generally want to keep the status quo. Take a look at Kim, for example, he does just enough to keep his image of a 'dangerous foe' alive, but not enough that Pyongyang gets plastered.

[Skybird]

The issue here is that the Horten fighters could have flown during 1945 - and they were stealthed. A US docu I saw on TV once, mentioned a radar reflection loss of over 20% for the small Horten (which was rebuild and then tested by Northtrop Grumman in some test facilities in the Mojave Desert). British radar at that time, they said, could have reached 180-190 km, and so from the cliffs of Dover they could see the German fighter packs forming up over France. With the Horten, and its huge speed advantage, that British time advantage (early warning time of 18-19 minutes) would have shrunk to 2 minutes - and even to almost nill if the fighter would have flown below I think 50 meters.

I do not know if the US Air Force could have had jets by the end of 1945 or in 1946 already, but the big bomber version of the Horten could have existed during 1946, if they would have been pushed to be build, and some say that the Germans maybe were far less than 1 year away from a nuclear bomb - maybe even justa few months. If that is true, in 1946 there would have been no defence against nuclear bombing raids against the East coast of the US. Not just because of their speed, but because they were indeed stealth bombers. Not as stealthy as today'S stealth planes - but the reduction in detection range coupled with the speed advantage would have made it impossible for the defender to react to an incoming attack in time.

And before Hiroshima and Nagasaki nobody really had a clue what demon was inside that bottle. Of course the Nazis would have struck nuclear, if they would have been the first. There can be no doubt on that. America did it for that reason: nobody knew the demon that was to be unleashed.

[Mr Quatro]

Those planes were not ready yet to intercept anything Oberon, but I'm sure you knew that and just wanted to put something up to defend our country with, besides Hitler would've attacked GB with a nuclear weapon first, right?


I feel so safe with this news of Russia willing to field a weapon of mass destruction based on an unproven submarine drone with or without a mother ship. What will they do put a Russian Czar on board the mother ship to make sure it is in the best interest of their country? :o

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011/03/5-worst-russian-nuclear-accidents-of-all-time/

Russian expansion would increase the amount of power derived from nuclear energy from 16 percent to 25 percent by the year 2030.

While many believe this is a viable solution to weening the country off of fossil fuels, many more believe this expansion may not be the best idea. The concern is due to the fact that the Russians have had more than 58 separate nuclear incidents or accidents since 1954.

Not to mention all of the submarine accidents reported and unreported :yep:

[ikalugin]

Good thing we're more peaceful and friendly than we've ever been. Can you imagine the tyrants of the past with access to such power? We'd long since had our Götterdämmerung I think.
The world's peace is secured either through violence of through the threat of violence, not through the good will of countries or their elites. Without that threat of violence the apparently benighn democratic leaders (ie Obama) would destroy other countries in order to reach ideological and political objectives.
Thanks God that Russia has a nuclear deterent.

Nice wording. :O:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/october/14/161014-royal-navy-tests-unmanned-fleet-of-the-future
Primarily though our UUVs are in an anti-mine warfare role, we'll probably branch into USVs more in the future for coastal patrol in combination with UAVs, but I doubt we'll go too far with UUVs since we don't really have an operational need for them at this stage. However, when it comes time to develop a successor for the Astute, probably 20-30 years from now, I'd put decent money on a UUV, or at the very least a highly automated, lower crewed submarine, a bit like the original plans for the Alfa before reality got in the way.
I knew you would like the wording.

I see. How about retrofits, I mean Oscar-II->Oscar-III is a mid life repair with a retrofit.

[vienna]

...

With religious terrorism it doesn't really matter because suicide is a perfect option, but with leaders and people who look to keep their power and keep rich while oppressing their people, they generally want to keep the status quo. Take a look at Kim, for example, he does just enough to keep his image of a 'dangerous foe' alive, but not enough that Pyongyang gets plastered.

A good point. There was reference to a 'cobalt' bomb at the beginning of this thread. Way, way back when I was still in elementary school, I first heard of the cobalt bomb as being in development as the net step up from the hydrogen bomb, at that time the 'mightiest' nuclear bomb of all. Later, in high school, cobalt bombs were mentioned again as having been built, but not tested. The cobalt bomb, itself, was being touted as a "clean bomb", one that would have a limited field of physical damage but a very large field of human casualties due to radiation, leaving most of the existing infrastructure and resources intact for the 'victorious' attackers. In years after high school, there were references to newer permutations of the cobalt bomb, one of which had the bomb capable of causing elemental reactions in the atmosphere so as to separate the various gases (hydrogen, oxygen, helium, etc.) into temporarily unbreathable 'pockets', suffocating the populace, yet preserving the infrastructure. I have never heard of any real full testing of a cobalt warhead and I do have doubts about how 'clean' a bomb they might be, but all the things I have heard over the years do support your contention a principal aim is to preserve as much of the wealth of a vanquished region as possible; after all, what good is it if "to the victor go the spoils", if the spoils continue to glow in the dark for hundreds of years?...




<O>

[Oberon]

The issue here is that the Horten fighters could have flown during 1945 - and they were stealthed. A US docu I saw on TV once, mentioned a radar reflection loss of over 20% for the small Horten (which was rebuild and then tested by Northtrop Grumman in some test facilities in the Mojave Desert). British radar at that time, they said, could have reached 180-190 km, and so from the cliffs of Dover they could see the German fighter packs forming up over France. With the Horten, and its huge speed advantage, that British time advantage (early warning time of 18-19 minutes) would have shrunk to 2 minutes - and even to almost nill if the fighter would have flown below I think 50 meters.

Oh, they had a reduced radar cross section, about 40% of that of a 109 I believe, so we'd have had to put up constant patrols and vector in the Meteors for intercept, and then things would have gotten interesting. I think the Horten fighters would have had the edge over the Meteor, but I imagine that they would have been a handful to fly, the B2 is a similar aircraft in design and that requires computers to keep it in the air, the Ho-IX had no such things, so it would have required some very well trained and practiced pilots, and you'd need to train them up which takes time, as Japan found out.


I do not know if the US Air Force could have had jets by the end of 1945 or in 1946 already,

The P-80 went up in '44, but didn't enter service properly until after the end of the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star

but the big bomber version of the Horten could have existed during 1946, if they would have been pushed to be build, and some say that the Germans maybe were far less than 1 year away from a nuclear bomb - maybe even justa few months.

They came very close, but botched some of the final parts, I believe they got a reactor critical by the end of the war, but after the first reactor got blown up by a hydrogen explosion it set them back majorly. I'd have said that they were a year away, personally, unless some new evidence comes up. The Ohrdurf incident is something that has to remain in the 'unknown' file, along with the 'Virus House' and the old favourite 'Die Glocke'

If that is true, in 1946 there would have been no defence against nuclear bombing raids against the East coast of the US. Not just because of their speed, but because they were indeed stealth bombers. Not as stealthy as today'S stealth planes - but the reduction in detection range coupled with the speed advantage would have made it impossible for the defender to react to an incoming attack in time.

I would agree there, they would probably not make it back to Germany, but they would most likely hit their targets first.

And before Hiroshima and Nagasaki nobody really had a clue what demon was inside that bottle. Of course the Nazis would have struck nuclear, if they would have been the first. There can be no doubt on that. America did it for that reason: nobody knew the demon that was to be unleashed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfK9G7UDok

They knew, they didn't know the full demon, but they knew of its existence. Anyone who looked at that mushroom cloud in 1945 knew, and it was also known that the first target was going to be Germany. The US was a year ahead of Germany in the nuclear weapons program, so two cities in Germany would have gone up in atomic fire before Germany could possibly return the favour. Then it would have been a race to produce as many nuclear bombs as possible, and Germany couldn't have won that race.
Of course, this is assuming no Normandy invasion and a reduced Soviet advance. To be honest, Hitler would probably have been more interested in using his nuclear weapons on the Soviets to counter their manpower advantage.


But getting back to my original point, both of our scenarios here revolve around one side getting the weapon before the other, not actual parity. If Germany and America had gained the weapon at the same time, and both knew this, and both knew that any attack using the weapon would result in retaliation along the same lines then neither would have used it. It's the same reason that the Nazis never used chemical weapons against the US or British, and only a small amount against the Soviets. It's the same reason that the Soviets never tried to use nuclear weapons against NATO and vice versa.

Now...if the leaders of the first world war had access to battlefield nuclear weapons.... :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Those planes were not ready yet to intercept anything Oberon, but I'm sure you knew that and just wanted to put something up to defend our country with, besides Hitler would've attacked GB with a nuclear weapon first, right?

Either us or Russia, although he did want the Amerika Bomber, so he could have gone for the US, but it would have been a one way trip and not easily repeatable.
The P-80 was about, just not ready for combat service. If intel had picked up that the Nazis had a jet bomber ready with a nuke, I think the P-80 would have made a much earlier launch into service and to hell with the chances of it crashing. :yep:


I knew you would like the wording.

I see. How about retrofits, I mean Oscar-II->Oscar-III is a mid life repair with a retrofit.

They could possibly use the Vanguard once the Dreadnaught (I still prefer the name 'Successor', Dreadnaught should be used for a surface vessel imho) class is introduced, but I doubt it. If anything is going to get retrofitted it'd be something like a small coastal patrol boat.

[Oberon]

By the way, that '100 megaton' weapon? Actually more likely to be a 10 megaton device:

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

Still bad, but not 'likely to wipe out most of the eastern seaboard with one weapon' kind of bad.

Also, it's uncertain just how large a wave such a device could create, if the 10mt device detonated in the middle of San Francisco harbour, for example, it could probably send in a wave that was maybe ten meters high, which would wreck waterfront areas and that would be about it. If they detonated it off shore then most of the energy would slam straight into the continental shelf and a small wave might just destroy a kids sandcastle on the shore.

For the sort of city destroying device that is probably wanted you would need that 100mt to go off in the middle of the harbour and you'd probably need an entire submarine to put that bomb in, they barely managed to fit the Tsar Bomba into a Tu-95.
The Japanese tsunami reached 40 meters and the energy from the earthquake and tsunami was the equivalent of 9,320 gigatonnes or 800 million Hiroshima explosions.

In short, I don't think this is quite the devastating weapon that Russia thinks that it is, certainly compared to a conventional nuclear air or ground burst, and against inland cities it's completely useless.

[August]

Without that threat of violence the apparently benighn democratic leaders (ie Obama) would destroy other countries in order to reach ideological and political objectives.

I don't like the man but I don't see Obama dropping The Bomb just for some dark shadowy political or ideological objective, nor do I see Trump doing that either. Putin on the other hand I think would not hesitate to pull the nuclear trigger if he thought he could get away with it.

From several posts that you've made here on this forum it seems to me that you think we here in the west are just itching to wipe you out. Now I can't speak for the Europeans but that's not how we roll here in America.

Just remember this. After the fall of the USSR when you folks were in disarray and couldn't mount much of a response we could have nuked your country into a glass floored, self lighting parking lot and gotten away with it, but we didn't and we wouldn't. Can you say the same thing about your leader?

Thanks God that Russia has a nuclear deterent.

Russians still believe in God? Really? I thought the Soviets stamped out religion and sent all the believers to the Gulag in order to create that workers paradise. :)

[Oberon]

Now I can't speak for the Europeans

Western Europe, no, we'd be about the same.

Eastern Europe....

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Missile-Launch.gif

[ikalugin]

From several posts that you've made here on this forum it seems to me that you think we here in the west are just itching to wipe you out. Now I can't speak for the Europeans but that's not how we roll here in America.
Just remember this. After the fall of the USSR when you folks were in disarray and couldn't mount much of a response we could have nuked your country into a glass floored, self lighting parking lot and gotten away with it, but we didn't and we wouldn't. Can you say the same thing about your leader?Sure we remember. While the physical existance of our country was assured through the strength of our nuclear deterent we had to endure humiliation and abuse, both at home with the foreighn agents (and I use the US legal term here) undermining as from within and abroad, with Russia being unable to defend it's national interests. And that would have been fine, if not for the false promise to treat us fairly that was given at the end of the Cold War and in exchange for our surrender.

If not for the strength of arms and will we would have been destroyed and subjugated, a plausible excuse would always be found to justify it by one who searches with the intent to find it.
Russians still believe in God? Really? I thought the Soviets stamped out religion and sent all the believers to the Gulag in order to create that workers paradise.This was there to make you think (which apparently you did not) and to mirror your own question. However to answer it - I am, personally, a follower of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Not all of my kin died in the purges, despite being old servants of Russia. So we remember the good, the bad, the ugly.

[ikalugin]

They could possibly use the Vanguard once the Dreadnaught (I still prefer the name 'Successor', Dreadnaught should be used for a surface vessel imho) class is introduced, but I doubt it. If anything is going to get retrofitted it'd be something like a small coastal patrol boat.
Don't you plan to retire the V-class boats?

By the way, that '100 megaton' weapon? Actually more likely to be a 10 megaton device:
This is a miniature nuclear powered submarine after all, with only 4-6 carried per mothersub. The UUV is sufficiently larget to carry a number payloads - for example torpedoes (it can carry full size heavyweight ones) or the 100mt class physics package. The physics package is salted and is desighned to deny large coastal areas to an adversary for extended periods of time via fallout.
Tsunami effect, while it was studied back in the 60s, is not the primary intent behind this desighn.

[August]

If not for the strength of arms and will we would have been destroyed and subjugated, a plausible excuse would always be found to justify it by one who searches with the intent to find it.

You're assuming intent (where there was and still is none). The fact is your military at the time was in tatters so like I said we could have wiped you out if we had that intent but we didn't.

I do however notice that you avoided the question of what your ex KGB leader would do. That's because I think we both know that he would push the button.

[ikalugin]

You're assuming intent (where there was and still is none). The fact is your military at the time was in tatters so like I said we could have wiped you out if we had that intent but we didn't.

I do however notice that you avoided the question of what your ex KGB leader would do. That's because I think we both know that he would push the button.
You could not, as the nuclear deterent was still there. If you desire to know more about the causes of the current conflict I would advise you to access this article:
http://pozneronline.ru/2014/03/7200/
If you wish, I could partially translate it and, in good faith, provide context for it's origins and/or content.

I actually did answer your question. Though if you remain confused I would clarify it in explicit form.

[mapuc]

They may build hundreds of nukes and better nukes and stronger nukes-But a human can only die once, not 8 or 10 times
( In a nuclear war that is)

Markus

[nikimcbee]

Meh, $5 says is catches fire in port. Non-factor.

[Oberon]

Don't you plan to retire the V-class boats?


This is a miniature nuclear powered submarine after all, with only 4-6 carried per mothersub. The UUV is sufficiently larget to carry a number payloads - for example torpedoes (it can carry full size heavyweight ones) or the 100mt class physics package. The physics package is salted and is desighned to deny large coastal areas to an adversary for extended periods of time via fallout.
.

Well, first you'd need to be sure that it would work properly, look at the Tsar Bomba, tamped down to 50mt and most of the energy went into space. As to fallout, you're probably not going to take out as much as you would with a conventional air or ground burst, because underwater explosions produce a much smaller cloud, see:
http://www.abomb1.org/nukeffct/enw77b2.html

Then you've got the real possibility that what you dump into the sea is going to wash back onto the shores of Vladivostok before it's stopped being radioactive. Of course, in that scenario Vladivostok would be a glass parking lot by then so it wouldn't really matter.

[ikalugin]

Well, first you'd need to be sure that it would work properly, look at the Tsar Bomba, tamped down to 50mt and most of the energy went into space. As to fallout, you're probably not going to take out as much as you would with a conventional air or ground burst, because underwater explosions produce a much smaller cloud, see:
http://www.abomb1.org/nukeffct/enw77b2.html

Then you've got the real possibility that what you dump into the sea is going to wash back onto the shores of Vladivostok before it's stopped being radioactive. Of course, in that scenario Vladivostok would be a glass parking lot by then so it wouldn't really matter.
Well some comments:
- "Tsar Bomb" was specifically modified to deliver lower yeild to limit fallout (the decrease in the set yeild allowed the bomb to be detonated in a way that prohibited contact between the fireball and the surface)
- after the "Tsar Bomb" was built we have developed newer, more mass and volume efficient physics packages, the most well known was for the UR-500 series ICBM (which later became the well known Proton series space booster).
- fallout patern changes from salting and scale/enviroment of a detomation.
- the weapon is essentially a doomsday device.

[ikalugin]

They may build hundreds of nukes and better nukes and stronger nukes-But a human can only die once, not 8 or 10 times
( In a nuclear war that is)

Markus
Both Russia and the USA (and PRC) have expensive leadership preservation programs. We know that Russia has never really stoped expanding it's program and now the research indicates that it is possible that US restarted theirs post 9/11.

Then there is the whole aspect of secure national reserves and post attack rebuilding, you can read about some aspects of the Russian side here: https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201608_whr_4_16_if_war_comes_tomorrow.pdf (http://www.abomb1.org/nukeffct/enw77b2.html)
(in english)

While the article is rather imperfect and focuses on the other aspects it can still be quite interesting.

[Oberon]

Well some comments:
- "Tsar Bomb" was specifically modified to deliver lower yeild to limit fallout (the decrease in the set yeild allowed the bomb to be detonated in a way that prohibited contact between the fireball and the surface)
- after the "Tsar Bomb" was built we have developed newer, more mass and volume efficient physics packages, the most well known was for the UR-500 series ICBM (which later became the well known Proton series space booster).
- fallout patern changes from salting and scale/enviroment of a detomation.
- the weapon is essentially a doomsday device.

Well, it was predicted that the fireball would hit the ground, but as it turned out the shockwave from the explosion prevented this, and I think if they had gone for the full 100mt it would have also vaporised the Tu-95 which dropped it. But yes, part of the decision to knock it down to 50mt was to reduce fallout, which was a smart move really, would have soured the achievement a bit if it had made most of the Soviet Union radioactive.

Not even the Proton could get the Tsar-Bomba into LEO, it has a payload of 50,000lb, the Tsar Bomba was 60,000lb. I imagine that advances in science since then though could probably bring the size of a 100mt device down somewhat, so a Proton could probably take it, but as was the case with the Tsar Bomba it's a very inefficient device, most of the energy from the explosion went into space, it's more efficient to use a couple of low megaton warheads and bracket the target.

Well, yes and no, fallout is still fallout, it's tiny bits of radioactive debris, in this case tiny bits of cobalt-60, that get carried up into the atmosphere by the explosion and then fall to earth downwind of the target. The height into the atmosphere that the cobalt-60 is blown by the explosion the further it will be able to travel. In the Baker test, which was a 23 kt device, the mushroom cloud went up to 10,000ft, obviously with a megaton device you'd need to multiply that, plus there are the base surges to take into account which would likely be the things that spread the most radiation, they can get up to around 1000ft and will head downwind from the explosion. It would probably do in a city, but you'd need to detonate it pretty much at the shoreline for maximum effect, the further out to sea it is, the less effect it will have.

It's a doomsday weapon, like all nuclear weapons, but not the most efficient of them, and if Russia starts messing with cobalt bombs, then the US will no doubt resume its cobalt bomb production, and is this the kind of nuclear arms race that Russia really wants to have? :hmmm:

[Mr Quatro]

By the way, that '100 megaton' weapon? Actually more likely to be a 10 megaton device:

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

Still bad, but not 'likely to wipe out most of the eastern seaboard with one weapon' kind of bad.

Also, it's uncertain just how large a wave such a device could create, if the 10mt device detonated in the middle of San Francisco harbour, for example, it could probably send in a wave that was maybe ten meters high, which would wreck waterfront areas and that would be about it. If they detonated it off shore then most of the energy would slam straight into the continental shelf and a small wave might just destroy a kids sandcastle on the shore.

For the sort of city destroying device that is probably wanted you would need that 100mt to go off in the middle of the harbour and you'd probably need an entire submarine to put that bomb in, they barely managed to fit the Tsar Bomba into a Tu-95.
The Japanese tsunami reached 40 meters and the energy from the earthquake and tsunami was the equivalent of 9,320 gigatonnes or 800 million Hiroshima explosions.

In short, I don't think this is quite the devastating weapon that Russia thinks that it is, certainly compared to a conventional nuclear air or ground burst, and against inland cities it's completely useless.

I played war games a child on a picnic table covered with sand and dirt and little plastic figures and of course tanks. One time I was playing a friend and unknown to my observations had planted bottle caps in the dirt on the picnic table and after making an advance he blew my whole army up, becasue I didn't even know it was there.

Seattle has a port, San Francisco has a port as Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego on the west coast. New York to Philly to Norfolk to Georgia to Florida to the Gulf Coast all have ports.

How hard would it be to hide a submarine drone in a freighter ship to launch in any of these ports with a SS capsule and device that could bury it in the ports bottom to surface on command by a mother ship for the purpose of exploding a device of mass destruction?

I started with children playing a backyard game, but those children grow up and give thought to such plans to present to the shadow people for a budget. I think it's worth someone's time to check out with seal team any irregularities in every port although it may never turn up anything it would still make a good training action ... :yep:

Fear in the Greek language means respect it will be too late after such a catastrophe to have any fear left.

[Oberon]

The size of the bomb would be anywhere from a Humvee to an RV, not so easy to place, but do-able. Could probably just chuck it over the side to be honest rather than mess around with a mini-sub.

It's probably already been done. Especially around the Gulf ports, good oil areas.

[ikalugin]

Well, it was predicted that the fireball would hit the ground, but as it turned out the shockwave from the explosion prevented this, and I think if they had gone for the full 100mt it would have also vaporised the Tu-95 which dropped it. But yes, part of the decision to knock it down to 50mt was to reduce fallout, which was a smart move really, would have soured the achievement a bit if it had made most of the Soviet Union radioactive.

Not even the Proton could get the Tsar-Bomba into LEO, it has a payload of 50,000lb, the Tsar Bomba was 60,000lb. I imagine that advances in science since then though could probably bring the size of a 100mt device down somewhat, so a Proton could probably take it, but as was the case with the Tsar Bomba it's a very inefficient device, most of the energy from the explosion went into space, it's more efficient to use a couple of low megaton warheads and bracket the target.

Well, yes and no, fallout is still fallout, it's tiny bits of radioactive debris, in this case tiny bits of cobalt-60, that get carried up into the atmosphere by the explosion and then fall to earth downwind of the target. The height into the atmosphere that the cobalt-60 is blown by the explosion the further it will be able to travel. In the Baker test, which was a 23 kt device, the mushroom cloud went up to 10,000ft, obviously with a megaton device you'd need to multiply that, plus there are the base surges to take into account which would likely be the things that spread the most radiation, they can get up to around 1000ft and will head downwind from the explosion. It would probably do in a city, but you'd need to detonate it pretty much at the shoreline for maximum effect, the further out to sea it is, the less effect it will have.

It's a doomsday weapon, like all nuclear weapons, but not the most efficient of them, and if Russia starts messing with cobalt bombs, then the US will no doubt resume its cobalt bomb production, and is this the kind of nuclear arms race that Russia really wants to have? :hmmm:
There is no reason to not make Tu95 carrier aircraft unmanned if need be. But yes, decrease in yeild was intentional.

I stated that UR-500 was an ICBM (with that specific payload), meaning that it did not boost it's RV into the LEO. There was also UR-700, but that was never built.

With the high yeild device there is little difference if you explode it at sea level or at a low depth due to the fireball size.

Turning normal thermonuclear bombs into so called "cobalt bombs" is a matter of adding a jacket. Considering that we view strategic nuclear weapons as a deterent and only as a deterent we would actually welcome change of a precision counter-force potential into broad effects counter-value potential as that would improve strategic stability.
Morever if push comes to shove we would probably benefit relatively with increased global fallout due to the superior shelter, reserves and post attack reconstruction.

[Skybird]

This old visualization nicely shows what retarded idiots we humans are.

https://www.visualnews.com/2012/04/24/visualizing-the-frightening-power-of-nuclear-bombs/

"Mine is longer than yours."

[Jimbuna]

Oh great, yet more chance of yet another nuclear arms race!!

[Oberon]

There is no reason to not make Tu95 carrier aircraft unmanned if need be. But yes, decrease in yeild was intentional.


Now that would be interesting, a Tu-95 drone, of course the key factor in it, as in all drones, is the control link. Although given that the target of the Tu-95 isn't likely to move around or change then you probably don't need a control link, just point it at the target and let it go on its merry way.
You'd need air superiority though, otherwise it'll just get eaten by an enemy fighter as soon as it reached the frontline.

I stated that UR-500 was an ICBM (with that specific payload), meaning that it did not boost it's RV into the LEO. There was also UR-700, but that was never built.

Fair point, I didn't take that into consideration. Although it would be a bloody big target for ABMs, but on a sub-orbital trajectory...I guess it could be done. There's also the N1, although that was never really designed as an ICBM. Korolev was a busy man, a smart man too, it was to Russias great fortune that he managed to get released from the gulag and wasn't executed by the NKVD during the purge. I've had the fortune to look at a few of Russias space objects close up, including Valentina Tereshkovas (who turned 80 the other day, Happy Birthday!) Vostok 6 capsule and the Voskhod 1 capsule, as well as the LK-1 lander test unit. It's a shame that after the Apollo landings the Soviet Union gave up on trying to get a cosmonaut on the moon.

With the high yeild device there is little difference if you explode it at sea level or at a low depth due to the fireball size.

Again, true, as soon as the bubble breaches the surface it will release the radiation from within it up in the pillar. Obviously though you do reach a point where the depth will be greater than the fireball, with the Tsar Bomba that would be anything deeper than 6 miles, although in that instance even though the fireball itself would be shielded, the bubble would breach the surface, so you'd still get the radiation release.

Turning normal thermonuclear bombs into so called "cobalt bombs" is a matter of adding a jacket. Considering that we view strategic nuclear weapons as a deterent and only as a deterent we would actually welcome change of a precision counter-force potential into broad effects counter-value potential as that would improve strategic stability.

I see where you're coming from there, to make the consequences of using the weapons so dreadful that they'd never be used.
Of course, the ones that you should be concerned about, rather than the more accurate ICBM guidance systems, are the bunker-buster devices, because if a President is going to go nuclear, that's probably the most likely device they'd go nuclear on, especially against someone like North Korea who is found of digging holes. Fortunately, they've fallen out of favour in the US, in line with using standard explosives, but I know that Russia was quite interested in the bunker busting technique and designs because a group of Russian spies were checking it out back in 2010.
The whole point of the nuclear taboo though is the de-normalisation of nuclear weaponry, and I don't think increased accuracy does that. Increased accuracy with an impenetrable defensive shield doesn't do that either, but it does make it seem as though a nuclear war can be 'won', but even then I think that only 'General Rippers' would be tempted to launch a first strike, but I can understand Russias desire for insurance.
That being said, the Oscar-IIIs are going to have to dampen their sound signature by a lot or have a constant escort otherwise what's to stop the US assigning a Virginia SSN to every Oscar-III it can find and then blowing the thing out of the water as soon as war is declared? :hmmm:

Still, while the US has not officially declared a 'No First Use' policy, the 2010 review did assure that ""The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations." So I think Russia can rest easy there, still...Доверяй, но проверяй as they say. :03:

Morever if push comes to shove we would probably benefit relatively with increased global fallout due to the superior shelter, reserves and post attack reconstruction.

:hmmm: Perhaps, again though it comes down as to whether a nuclear war can be 'won'. I mean your major cities have shelters, what about the small villages and towns? The farming communities? The reserves will last a while, but can they last over a century?

[Skybird]

He who argues along lines of "shelters in cities" and surviving a major nuclear exchnage, imo simply lacks the imagination to form an idea what those who crawl out from the fallout in struck cities would have to deal with.

Me, living in a city and knowing that a nuclear war is striking it, would deliberately chose to not seek a shelter. There are worse things than death.

Fighting for survival after a major exchange only may make sense if you live in a distant, rural place on a continent that does not get directly engaged. But even here you could face the horrors of survival, due to fallout wandering around the globe, and psychologtical stress and despair. Men break down and commit suicide over far less than witnessing the dying of a whole planet or the self-exticntion of a whole species.

Hollywood screenplay writers may disagree with me. But I am not Hollywood. Being a prisoner in a KZ of the Nazis, still left you with the knoweldge that there is a world outside, and that times will brign chnage, even if you will not live to see it. But a major exchange leaves you not even this abstract hope.

In other words: shelters in cities for lets say 10% of the population, is a non-argument, a distractive strawman argument, a deception.

In a world that leaves you no chance for hope, survival is pointless.

[ikalugin]

Oberon - to clarify, Oscar-II->Oscar-III submarines do not carry Status-6 (it is too big for them), only an experimental Oscar-II refit and the purpose built Khabarovsk class does. Maybe the currently desighned Husky class would, but Husky class would be laid down after Yasen-M series is complete.

Skybird - shelters provide a relative advantage after the attack. Together with dispersion pre attack and evacuation post attack they allow the critical personel to survive. Back in the Soviet days those measures extended not only to the critical military and administrative personel, but also to the critical industries. Together with secure strategic reserves, the mobilisation program this would allow post attack recovery. Now those measures are not as extensive, but we are getting that fixed.
In Moscow in particular sheltering and evacuating even general populations is not as difficult as it may at first appear - Moscow has a very extensive system.

[Skybird]

Skybird - shelters allow to have a relative advantage after the attack. Together with dispersion pre attack and evacuation post attack they allow the critical personel to survive, back in the Soviet days this program was very extensive - allowing for survival of entire critical industries for rebuilding post attack using the strategic reserve stores. Now it is not as extensive yet it still allows survival of critical administrative and military personel (and various others valuable members of society - ie MSU students, Lenin's library readers, etc) and we are rebuilding this program.
I think you have no clue of the horrors that you claim could be "managed" this way. To me what you say in this whole paragraph, is utmost absurdity.

Allout nuclear war cannot be won. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." You can bet your life and soul on it.

What you say, nevertheless is dangerous, for it creates dangerous illusions. For exmaple that preemptively triggering a nuclear war may be rewarding, since it can be "won". That kind of thinking paves the way to hell.

There is only one scenario where the use of nuclear wepaons is somethign you could get away with: if the other has neither a nuclear arsenal nor biological weapons.

[ikalugin]

I think you have no clue of the horrors that you claim could be "managed" this way. To me what you say in this whole paragraph, is utmost absurdity.

Allout nuclear war cannot be won. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." You can bet your life and soul on it.

What you say, nevertheless is dangerous, for it creates dangerous illusions. For exmaple that preemptively triggering a nuclear war may be rewarding, since it can be "won". That kind of thinking paves the way to hell.

There is only one scenario where the use of nuclear wepaons is somethign you could get away with: if the other has neither a nuclear arsenal nor biological weapons.
There are few simple points here.

First point is that the strategic nuclear arsenal's primary purpose is deterence. This means that their job is to decrease the likelyhood of war between nuclear armed nations particularly in Russia-US(+UK+France) billateral relationship. This leads to the problem strategic stability. It would be irrational for powers that cannot defend themeselves adequately conventionally against agressive foreighn powers to disarm as they would then perish.

The second point is that nuclear weapons are what they are - weapons, military means to achieve political ends. While very efficient in their job of destruction their power is finite and can be rationally accessed.

The third point is that deterence can fail, thus one considers the great yet finite power of the potential attacks and attempts to allow a degree of survival through and after such an attack. This however does not mean that the nuclear exchange is not costly and thus that deterence becomes irrelevant.

However if you do not view nuclear weapons or other WMDs rationally but rather through a quasireligeous prism then sure, you can elect to do other things, for example you won't build shelters and other means to survive and then rebuild.

[Skybird]

I know that a deterrant that bases on MAD is meant to not be used preemptively by both - or any - side. These weapons are no military weapons. Their use against somebody who owns them himself, triggers your own destruction. That is the meaning, the essence and core of the MAD doctrine.

And there you have it. No military weapons. It is unreasonable to dream of an "in case of" scenario where these unusable weapons get used in a major exchange and so one must be prepared for it to survive. There is no preparation for assured mutual destruction, MAD. There is no survival worth to be witnessed.

"The only winning move is not to play."

You could as well argue that one needs to prepare to win one's own defeat, or to survive one's own suicide. And that is why all that nonsense about precious staff and perosnell and oublic shelters, is meaningless, and feeds dangeorus illusions. You fall for this illusion yourself: that a nuclear war with a nuclear armed opponent could be "won".

Or would even be worth to be survived.

This folly was fed by both the US and the USSR during the 50s and 60s ("duck and cover!" :haha: ), but already during the 70s at least in the West we started to understand that this was totally misled reasoning. Reagan again started to dream of winnable nuclear wars, but he already had to meet a strong civil movement countering him, and I do not mean the peace movement that was massively infiltrated and controlled by the USSR.

You cannot win nuclear allout exchanges, ikalugin. And even wanting to survive them is not worth it, but means despair and horror. Believe it, its better for you. In hell, the living would envy the dead.

[Oberon]

We must not allow a mineshaft gap!!

[ikalugin]

We must not allow a mineshaft gap!!
Americans are working on fixing it, but they prefer improving their offensive potential.

[August]

Americans are working on fixing it, but they prefer improving their offensive potential.

That's news to us. Did you get this information from the Trump-Putin channel?

[ikalugin]

Skybird, you attribute mystical properties to physical objects - nuclear weapons. I understand the futility of debating a subject matter with a person who expresses irrational behaviour, but I will do this none the less.

The power of nuclear weapons despite being great is finite and can be accessed rationally. That power is great enough to deter any rational adversary from attacking as even 10 percent population losses the USSR suffered in the GPW are too great a cost to bear (not to mention material losses).
However that power is not great enough to assure the total loss of life, especially for protected populations. So it is not a suicide, as suicide implies total and final loss of life by the subject. This means that if there is a chance that deterence may fail and that chance always exists a responsible leader must take measures to ensure survival of the country.

Morever as historic programs show it is quite plausible to both assure general survival after the attack and to both beging rebuilding and maintain military relevant production after the attack.

Because with such measures the attack would not lead to total and final loss of life nor material means to sustain such life I do not see why I should not keep living and working after such an attack. Sure my personal living conditions would be inferior to those I have at the moment, but then I would still have means to improve them through my hard work, so I don't see a problem there.

p.s. Soviet programs were on a qualitevely different level than the "duck and cover" stuff. There were comprehensive plans to not only achieve survival of crtical personel, but also of critical industries, to maintain war production, to initiate post attack rebuilding.

[ikalugin]

That's news to us. Did you get this information from the Trump-Putin channel?
No, open source intel. Here we get enthusiasts who for some reason love underground structures, a group of such enthusiats decided to look for sighns of underground construction that follows the patern of Russian underground construction by the TIS contractor (who amongst other things builds state's underground fascilities) and they found those in Washington DC.

[August]

No, open source intel. Here we get enthusiasts who for some reason love underground structures, a group of such enthusiats decided to look for sighns of underground construction that follows the patern of Russian underground construction by the TIS contractor (who amongst other things builds state's underground fascilities) and they found those in Washington DC.

We're modernizing our nuclear weapons stockpile but considering that our minuteman missiles were built in the 1970's and our bombers are even older this is not unreasonable. Of course your government needs the US boogeyman to justify it's own modernization program and it seems from your posts that iit working.

But hey at least we're not inventing dirty tidal wave drone nukes which are a brand new type of offensive nuclear weapon right?

[ikalugin]

We're modernizing our nuclear weapons stockpile but considering that our minuteman missiles were built in the 1970's and our bombers are even older this is not unreasonable.
You are just poorly informed. Minuteman series ICBMs currently in service are newly produced weapons as they were completely rebuilt during the modernisation program using newly produced parts and subassemblies.
This process while may appear harmless to a uneducated observer actually lead to improvement in capabilities - I mentioned the changes to the payload before but they were others.

Same applies to the bomber fleet. Not only does US modernise it's current force of various bomber classes, including modern stealth B2As, it also has a program to construct new stealth bombers in the future (B21s) as well as to maintain a significant surge capability by keeping older bombers in allegedly conventional role.

Of course your government needs the US boogeyman to justify it's own modernization program and it seems from your posts that iit working.If it was true it would still be better than the first strike US programs which US initiates during the arms reduction negotiations and tries to sell as harmless.

a brand new type of offensive nuclear weapon right? It is a second strike weapon, which improves strategic stability. But I guess if you have a first strike in mind then yes, it may be detrimental to you.

I guess you are not interested in US military construction then?

[Skybird]

Skybird, you attribute mystical properties to physical objects - nuclear weapons. I understand the futility of debating a subject matter with a person who expresses irrational behaviour, but I will do this none the less.

The power of nuclear weapons despite being great is finite and can be accessed rationally. That power is great enough to deter any rational adversary from attacking as even 10 percent population losses the USSR suffered in the GPW are too great a cost to bear (not to mention material losses).
However that power is not great enough to assure the total loss of life, especially for protected populations. So it is not a suicide, as suicide implies total and final loss of life by the subject. This means that if there is a chance that deterence may fail and that chance always exists a responsible leader must take measures to ensure survival of the country.

Morever as historic programs show it is quite plausible to both assure general survival after the attack and to both beging rebuilding and maintain military relevant production after the attack.

Because with such measures the attack would not lead to total and final loss of life nor material means to sustain such life I do not see why I should not keep living and working after such an attack. Sure my personal living conditions would be inferior to those I have at the moment, but then I would still have means to improve them through my hard work, so I don't see a problem there.

p.s. Soviet programs were on a qualitevely different level than the &quot;duck and cover&quot; stuff. There were comprehensive plans to not only achieve survival of crtical personel, but also of critical industries, to maintain war production, to initiate post attack rebuilding.

And if the party/the state has planned it, it must be good. - You are a hopeless believer of state and its authority. But you call me irrational. Well. Irony surely has some twists and turns build into it.

[ikalugin]

And if the party/the state has planned it, it must be good. - You are a hopeless believer of state and its authority. But you call me irrational. Well. Irony surely has some twists and turns build into it.
So instead of attacking the nessesity of such a system you attack the fact that it is implimented and provided by the state?

My personal need for such a system is quite well served by the state, as a person affiliated to said state I have the ability to verify the quality of service. You can attack my morality next, but I have repplies to that as well.

[Oberon]

Stepping back a moment, let's look at the Russian mindset, they've been the whipping boys for Europe through-out most of the 19th century and into the first half of the 20th. Out of all the nations in the Second World War, only Russia and Germany suffered the greatest of casualties and saw some of the most brutal fighting, this wasn't warfare as we see it, it was warfare at its most base level. Sure, from place to place there was traditional honour in war, but in other places there was systematic extermination, and brutality. The Russian people got trapped between the hammer of the Reich and the Anvil of the Soviet government, and they bled, they bled a lot.

Ever since then, there has been a sort of almost paranoia that someone will try to complete what Hitler failed, whereas in the west the very idea of invading Russia is talked about as insanity, in Russia they still have a generation who remembers what happened when someone tried and did very well (to begin with). That paralysing shock in the opening days of Barbarossa, particularly Stalins three day breakdown, is something that anyone who has the security of the country in mind will have learnt, studied and vowed never to have happen again.

Therefore any threat to the safety of the home nation must be countered or dealt with before it becomes as large a danger as the Third Reich became.

With that mindset it makes sense to work on defensive structures in order to try and protect the civilian population in a nuclear exchange. Of course, such things are primarily hopeful talismans because the aftermath would be so terrible that the living would indeed envy the dead, however if a government did not try to protect its people it would be seen as negligent, especially a government of a country which had suffered so much in a war not a few decades before.

That being said, the whole British approach to protecting its civilians in a nuclear war makes for an interesting comparison, because basically it gave out leaflets, made sure that local government would survive and then left the civilians to it. :haha:

[August]

It is a second strike weapon, which improves strategic stability. But I guess if you have a first strike in mind then yes, it may be detrimental to you.

Bull. I don't know what you've been told but a nuke carrying drone designed to swamp coastal cities with radioactive tsunamis is about as offensive as it gets. Besides all of our nukes are second strike weapons because we'll never use them unless it's to obliterate you for attacking us with yours.

I guess you are not interested in US military construction then?

Sure I am. I just listen to different propaganda than you do.

[Oberon]

Bull. I don't know what you've been told but a nuke carrying drone designed to swamp coastal cities with radioactive tsunamis is about as offensive as it gets. Besides all of our nukes are second strike weapons because we'll never use them unless it's to obliterate you for attacking us with yours.

Actually August, he did make a fair point earlier in the thread. Now, let's say that a nuclear exchange has begun, it doesn't matter who started it but it's under way. America has a fairly good ABM system under way right now, and Russia is lagging behind there, so let's say both sides fire 100 ICBMs, the Russian ABM system shoots down 25% so 75 ICBMs are able to deliver their payload on target. The Russian ICBMs suffer a greater attrition rate, more like 50%, therefore only 50 Russian ICBMs are able to deliver their payload on target. Now, if the American system gets advanced enough to insure a 100% kill rate, then America could hit Russia and suffer little to no retaliation because of the ABM shield. Now, both you and I know that the US isn't going to launch a first strike, but Russia cannot and will not take that chance, and therefore it needs a retaliatory option and if it cannot retaliate through the US missile shield then it has to find another option, in this case, through an underwater weapon against coastal targets. Not exactly a weapon without its limits, but the point is that it acts as a deterrant rather than a first strike option.

Remember how much we all thought the Russias would be the first to pull the trigger in the Cold War? They thought the same of us, and thankfully, neither side ever did. With any luck it will remain that way.

[ikalugin]

Stepping back a moment, let's look at the Russian mindset, they've been the whipping boys for Europe through-out most of the 19th century and into the first half of the 20th. Out of all the nations in the Second World War, only Russia and Germany suffered the greatest of casualties and saw some of the most brutal fighting, this wasn't warfare as we see it, it was warfare at its most base level. Sure, from place to place there was traditional honour in war, but in other places there was systematic extermination, and brutality. The Russian people got trapped between the hammer of the Reich and the Anvil of the Soviet government, and they bled, they bled a lot.

Ever since then, there has been a sort of almost paranoia that someone will try to complete what Hitler failed, whereas in the west the very idea of invading Russia is talked about as insanity, in Russia they still have a generation who remembers what happened when someone tried and did very well (to begin with). That paralysing shock in the opening days of Barbarossa, particularly Stalins three day breakdown, is something that anyone who has the security of the country in mind will have learnt, studied and vowed never to have happen again.

Therefore any threat to the safety of the home nation must be countered or dealt with before it becomes as large a danger as the Third Reich became.

With that mindset it makes sense to work on defensive structures in order to try and protect the civilian population in a nuclear exchange. Of course, such things are primarily hopeful talismans because the aftermath would be so terrible that the living would indeed envy the dead, however if a government did not try to protect its people it would be seen as negligent, especially a government of a country which had suffered so much in a war not a few decades before.

That being said, the whole British approach to protecting its civilians in a nuclear war makes for an interesting comparison, because basically it gave out leaflets, made sure that local government would survive and then left the civilians to it. :haha:
I think it comes from the WW2 industrial evacuation and post war rebuilding.

[Oberon]

I think it comes from the WW2 industrial evacuation and post war rebuilding.

The 'Never Again' mentality?

I think though when it comes down to nuclear weapons and first strike use, this clip from 'Yes Prime Minister' says it all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJh3qKjSMk

"Yes but I probably wouldn't use it."
"Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't!"
"They probably do."
"Yes, they probably do know that you probably wouldn't but they can't be certain, you know!"
"They probably certainly know I probably wouldn't."
"Yes! But even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that although you probably wouldn't, there's no probability that you certainly would!!"
"What?"

[ikalugin]

The 'Never Again' mentality?

I think though when it comes down to nuclear weapons and first strike use, this clip from 'Yes Prime Minister' says it all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJh3qKjSMk

"Yes but I probably wouldn't use it."
"Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't!"
"They probably do."
"Yes, they probably do know that you probably wouldn't but they can't be certain, you know!"
"They probably certainly know I probably wouldn't."
"Yes! But even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that although you probably wouldn't, there's no probability that you certainly would!!"
"What?"
I think it is less about "never again" (although that is there) and more about "been there did that" - with the GPW experience being studied and applied to the new problem. The scale ofcourse is different but core mechanics remain the same.

[August]

Actually August, he did make a fair point earlier in the thread. Now, let's say that a nuclear exchange has begun, it doesn't matter who started it but it's under way. America has a fairly good ABM system under way right now, and Russia is lagging behind there, so let's say both sides fire 100 ICBMs, the Russian ABM system shoots down 25% so 75 ICBMs are able to deliver their payload on target. The Russian ICBMs suffer a greater attrition rate, more like 50%, therefore only 50 Russian ICBMs are able to deliver their payload on target. Now, if the American system gets advanced enough to insure a 100% kill rate, then America could hit Russia and suffer little to no retaliation because of the ABM shield. Now, both you and I know that the US isn't going to launch a first strike, but Russia cannot and will not take that chance, and therefore it needs a retaliatory option and if it cannot retaliate through the US missile shield then it has to find another option, in this case, through an underwater weapon against coastal targets. Not exactly a weapon without its limits, but the point is that it acts as a deterrant rather than a first strike option.

Remember how much we all thought the Russias would be the first to pull the trigger in the Cold War? They thought the same of us, and thankfully, neither side ever did. With any luck it will remain that way.

Well I would venture to say that even with only 75 of our ICBMs and 50 of yours making it to target most of them multiple warhead rockets it won't much matter who has what left anyways. We'll have irradiated both our countries into the stone age.

[Skybird]

Well I would venture to say that even with only 75 of our ICBMs and 50 of yours making it to target most of them multiple warhead rockets it won't much matter who has what left anyways. We'll have irradiated both our countries into the stone age.
^ This. It just doe snot matter.

There is a reason why in this context time and again the term "overkill capacities" gets mentioned.

Shooting your head with 3 shots through both brain hemispheres, or with 30 or with 300, makes no difference. The result is always the same.

A full exchnage would not stop with just 150 missiles, btw. The arsenals would be spent competely (flooding the enemy's defences). Enormous ammounts of dust and ashes in the air, dust from the nuclear detonatiosn,a nd smoke and ashes from the hundreds of thousands of fires following in their wake. Vegetation dying even in parts fot he world that saw no direct impacts, due to sunlight losses in the range of factors between 50 and 100. Higher animal life forms dying, insects being good candidtes to survive - and threatenign every attempt for agriculture some years later. If then sufficient social structure still is there to run siomething like agriculture. Biospheric homeostasis completely off balance in many parts of Earth'S surface, with most animal life gone or at risk. Climate change, nuclear winter.

You cannot prepare for this, you cannot manage this, you cannot control this. Civilizational structures would desintegrate in reverse order of how their formed up or were built. The complex structures go first. No communication. No traffic. No transportation. Means: no trade. No medical drugs. No food. No gas and heating oil. No replacement of reserves being consumed. No state law and order. Anarchy. The rule of the strongest.

No gender equality debates. No climate saving policies. No injections at the dentists. Damn, not even the dentists without inhjections.

Pain. Agony. Dying. Despair. Hopelessness. And the omnipresent monuments ans signs of what once was, but is no more, and dear things and loved ones gone forever, killed and vaporized in unimaginable quantities.

Surviving to endure this, is no victory. It is the penultimate penalty.

[Oberon]

I agree, there is no victory in a nuclear war, but imagine a scenario where there could be no retaliation, that only one power could get their weapons to target? How unacceptable does nuclear warfare become when the firing nation doesn't have to suffer the consequences of mutually assured destruction?

[ikalugin]

You cannot prepare for this, you cannot manage this, you cannot control this.You can. The only problem is cost and degree of such preparations.

No communication. No traffic. No transportation. Means: no trade. No medical drugs. No food. No gas and heating oil.Secure reserves (ie Rosreserv underground warehouses), comunications (hardened backbone comms, redundancy), transportation (urban and suburban hardened underground metro systems).

No replacement of reserves being consumed.Dispersal (pre attack) and evacuation (post attack) of industries, restoration of production. That is - of industries that cannot maintain production under attack, there are those as well (nuclear weapons production and storage)

I mean none of the above measures are cheap, nor do they allow one to maintain full pre attack production after the attack and even after the initial restoration efforts. If you are interested and if you did read the article I have posted a while back (https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201608_whr_4_16_if_war_comes_tomorrow.pdf) I can drop some more information on the topic in english.

p.s. if you feel like building a shelter, here you can access the current standard regarding construction of short term civilian shelters, the ones implying evacuation post attack:
http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200111826

p.p.s. if you system of preferences values quick death more than survival - it would be rational for you to invest into means of suicide. I would suggest both firearm and a cyanide pill.

[Skybird]

Blödsinn.

Come to your senses.

[ikalugin]

Blödsinn.

Come to your senses.
Well, for example lets consider comunications.

I know for sure that a certain company called Rostelecom had (and still has) extensive preparations for eventuality of the global thermonuclear war (or a conventional war or a natural disaster or an alien attack) and a mission to maintain said comms between priority users.

Much of those preparations do come from the Soviet times, but then we never quite stoped improving on them. Those preparations include hardening (secure comunications and related infrastructure), post attack restoration means, security forces.

As an example of the preparations in the comms industry - a civilian sister agency of the Rostelecom, the Central Telegraph sold the ГО-42 fascility in the post Soviet era (now a Cold War museum) because they felt that it was both redundant and obsolete.
(ГО-42 = Civil Defense fascility Moscow #42, obviously there is a fascility #41, #40 and so on, as a rule they are still in operation)

The floor plan can be seen here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%BD%D0%B0_ %D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D 0%B9_%28%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%E2%8 4%9620%29%2C_%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD% D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D 1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B8_1950%2C_1 953_%D0%B8_1954_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2.jpg/800px-%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%BD%D0%B0_ %D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D 0%B9_%28%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%E2%8 4%9620%29%2C_%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD% D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D 1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B8_1950%2C_1 953_%D0%B8_1954_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2.jpg

So such a generic obsolete low ranking fascility in Moscow has:
- 90 days of autonomy.
- secure transportation (civilian metro is hardened agaisnt blast and fallout).
- secure comunications (underground cables).
- 11000 m2 of usable floor space.

[Skybird]

Na dann ist ja alles gut.

[ikalugin]

Na dann ist ja alles gut.
In case you ever change your mind, here is the current standard for the adaptation of metro stations for civil defense applications:
http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200035935

[mapuc]

I have sometimes wondered what would happen to the balance of terror(don't know if that is the correct phrase) if one of them (USA or Russia) developed a very advance defense system that allowed them to shoot down about 99-100 % of the ICBM or similar

Markus

[ikalugin]

I have sometimes wondered what would happen to the balance of terror(don't know if that is the correct phrase) if one of them (USA or Russia) developed a very advance defense system that allowed them to shoot down about 99-100 % of the ICBM or similar

Markus
The answer is simple - that party is no longer detered by the nuclear weapons. If significant tensions exists this would likely result in a one sided (nuclear) war.

[August]

I agree, there is no victory in a nuclear war, but imagine a scenario where there could be no retaliation, that only one power could get their weapons to target? How unacceptable does nuclear warfare become when the firing nation doesn't have to suffer the consequences of mutually assured destruction?

I'd say that depends on the size of the country being attacked.

I think that the number of weapons that would have to be used in order to ensure there could be no retaliation from a country the size of the US, China or Russia would pretty much mess up the planet anyways. That in itself should be a deterrent although I don't know how well it would apply to smaller nations.

[ikalugin]

I'd say that depends on the size of the country being attacked.

I think that the number of weapons that would have to be used in order to ensure there could be no retaliation from a country the size of the US, China or Russia would pretty much mess up the planet anyways. That in itself should be a deterrent although I don't know how well it would apply to smaller nations.
If that notion is a sufficient deterent, why doesnt USA (any other nuclear power) disarm?

[August]

If that notion is a sufficientdeterent, why doesnt USA (any other nuclear power) disarm?

I was talking about nuclear retaliation. Of course without them it wouldn't take destroying the planet to stop any conventional response that could be mounted.

[Oberon]

I'd say that depends on the size of the country being attacked.

I think that the number of weapons that would have to be used in order to ensure there could be no retaliation from a country the size of the US, China or Russia would pretty much mess up the planet anyways. That in itself should be a deterrent although I don't know how well it would apply to smaller nations.

I was speaking more in the instance of a nation developing an ABM system with a 100% kill rate. If a nation developed that, and also possessed a nuclear arsenal, then it would have the upper hand in being able to fire its missiles and not be hit with nuclear missiles in return.

[August]

I was speaking more in the instance of a nation developing an ABM system with a 100% kill rate. If a nation developed that, and also possessed a nuclear arsenal, then it would have the upper hand in being able to fire its missiles and not be hit with nuclear missiles in return.

Sure. But like Buck Rogers death rays a 100% effective ABM system remains an impossibility.

[Oberon]

Sure. But like Buck Rogers death rays a 100% effective ABM system remains an impossibility.

I'd be inclined to agree, as with most defence systems no sooner than you've built the mouse-trap, they've designed a bigger mouse, and that's part of what this cobalt torpedo nuke thing is about, creating a bigger mouse so that Russias retaliatory options are not limited by the American ABM system.

Oh, and the Buck Rogers death ray?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

Not so far off, from H.G. Wells's 'Heat Ray' of 1898 to todays chemical lasers, never say something is truly 'impossible'. :03:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmoldX1wKYQ

[Skybird]

Consequences of a regional/continental nuclear major exchange tend to be global. They wander around the planet and sooner or later affect every region and place. When a big volcano in today'S Korea broke out around a thosuand years ago, it darkend the sky above Japan with clouds of ashes. Chernobyl radiation was measurable practically everywhere in Europe . The shock wave of the Tsar bomb wandered three times around the planet, they write. A major exchange is no regional thing. In the region you just count the most craters. But nuclear weapons go far beyond just making craters.

[ikalugin]

Consequences of a regional/continental nuclear major exchange tend to be global. They wander around the planet and sooner or later affect every region and place. When a big volcano in today'S Korea broke out around a thosuand years ago, it darkend the sky above Japan with clouds of ashes. Chernobyl radiation was measurable practically everywhere in Europe . The shock wave of the Tsar bomb wandered three times around the planet, they write. A major exchange is no regional thing. In the region you just count the most craters. But nuclear weapons go far beyond just making craters.
Yet you do not view those effects rationally. They do not guarantee extinction or even denial of areas for prolonged time (something we have to build new specialist tools for, hence this thread) for example people live and even participate in agriculture in the exclusion zone.

You can survive those effects and begin reconstruction after.

The only real problem is restoring agriculture.

[Skybird]

You may want to live in that world. I don't.

[ikalugin]

You may want to live in that world. I don't.
Well then I suggest that you prepare for suicide, simultanious shot to the head and intake of cyanide pill appears to be the way to go.

If you live in an area close to a potential target there is no need to keep spare gazoline or trust worthy men to give you a burrial - the firestorm should do the trick.

[u crank]

Yet you do not view those effects rationally. They do not guarantee extinction or even denial of areas for prolonged time (something we have to build new specialist tools for, hence this thread) for example people live and even participate in agriculture in the exclusion zone.

You can survive those effects and begin reconstruction after.

The only real problem is restoring agriculture.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/limited-nuclear-war-could-deplete-ozone-layer-increasing-radiation/

“A regional nuclear exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons … would produce unprecedented low-ozone columns over populated areas in conjunction with the coldest surface temperatures experienced in the last 1,000 years, and would likely result in a global nuclear famine,


http://www.ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html

A nuclear war using as few as 100 weapons anywhere in the world would disrupt the global climate and agricultural production so severely that the lives of more than two billion people would be in jeopardy.

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/climate-disruption-and-nuclear-famine/

A regional nuclear war involving around 100 Hiroshima-sized weapons would disrupt the global climate and agricultural production so severely that more than a billion people would be at risk of famine, according to recent research by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Although it would not result in the extinction of the human race, it would bring about an end to modern civilization as we know it.

[ikalugin]

As I said restoring agricultural production is the only real challenge.

by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.Those people must be completely unbiased.
Although it would not result in the extinction of the human race, it would bring about an end to modern civilization as we know it.This depends on preparation measures.

While fallout shelter programs are common (ie Swiss and other European countries) it is only one third of the solution (and that is assuming that in addition to the short term shelters you have pre attack dispersion and post attack evacuation programs) - you still need extensive reserves (and not only for food and other nesseseties - you also need to store semi finished goods, means of production, raw materials and so on) and restorative measures and means (ability to restore transportation and communications, restart industrial production post evacuation).

The only historic example of a such comprehensive system I can think of was late USSR, but the costs of such a system were enourmous.

p.s. for context regarding the effects of low scale regional nuclear exchanges and their perceptions by major powers - US went ahead with it's B61 modernisation program. That program is desighned to make the B61s usable in limited scenarios. Makes me wonder if USG is nuke loving crazies then :)

[Dowly]

As I said restoring agricultural production is the only real challenge.Could always grow mushrooms in the Moscow metro tunnels. :O:

[ikalugin]

Could always grow mushrooms in the Moscow metro tunnels. :O:
Yes, we can do that, just need to avoid the ones growing outside - as they accumulate radiotoxins.

I think potatoes are viewed as one of the better post attack crops.

[u crank]

Those people must be completely unbiased.


:) Is that a good or bad thing in your opinion?

[Oberon]

Consequences of a regional/continental nuclear major exchange tend to be global. They wander around the planet and sooner or later affect every region and place. When a big volcano in today'S Korea broke out around a thosuand years ago, it darkend the sky above Japan with clouds of ashes. Chernobyl radiation was measurable practically everywhere in Europe . The shock wave of the Tsar bomb wandered three times around the planet, they write. A major exchange is no regional thing. In the region you just count the most craters. But nuclear weapons go far beyond just making craters.

There's a lot of talk about the effects of a nuclear war, about the 'nuclear winter' situation, the spread and concentration of radiation and so on and so forth. Some people theorise that an exchange between India and Pakistan (which is more likely to happen than one between Russia and the US) could have a knock-on effect to global climate. It's hard to know for certain, but certainly as you say, there have been historical events which have had drastic consequences on the world. I recall that when Mount Pinatubo went up in 1991 it knocked down global temperatures by 0.5c and temporarily increased ozone depletion. So I think it would be inevitable that there would be an impact on global temperatures and atmospheric conditions. Primarily I think it would be the remains of all the cities being thrown into the atmosphere and the smoke from all the fires that would do it.

Come to think of it, with a gradual increase in global temperatures bringing about an increase in wildfires, particularly in places like America and Australia...I wonder whether we'll ever reach a point where wildfires are able to create a small nuclear winter. :hmmm:

Either which way:

https://media.tenor.co/images/068156d1cfebbbef0799c54fd6f8858e/tenor.gif

[u crank]

Some people theorise that an exchange between India and Pakistan (which is more likely to happen than one between Russia and the US) could have a knock-on effect to global climate.

Here you go.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/fivemilliontonsofsmoke/

[ikalugin]

:) Is that a good or bad thing in your opinion?
Depends on how you look at it.

If effects of even a limited nuclear exchange are perceived as catastrophic, total and final from one side it strengthens the deterence by those weapons due to the perceived costs of using those weapons and thus improves the strategic stability which is a good thing.
On the other hand it can undermine the perception of assured use of such weapons by the enemy, which in turn undermines deterence value of such weapons and thus undermines strategic stability, which is a bad thing.

Sadly I am not qualified to say which of those effects is more significant.

[ikalugin]

Here you go.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/fivemilliontonsofsmoke/
I remember an academic work when instead of ignoring the greenhouse effect caused by the firestorms they ignored the light obscuration one and got the so called "nuclear summer". Was a nice change of pace. However, let me bring up some context:

War is fought with 100 Hiroshima-size weapons (currently available in India-Pakistan arsenals), which have half of 1 percent (0.05%) of the total explosive power of all currently operational and deployed U.S.-Russian nuclear weaponsOr less than the B61-12 stockpile in Europe. The idea behind the B61-12 upgrade package was to decrease that weapon's use threshhold as well as to improve it's counter-force capabilities.

20 million people die from the direct effects of the weapons, which is equal to nearly half the number of people killed during World War IIStill less than absolute Soviet losses during GPW (27M I believe?) and even less than relative Soviet losses during GPW due to the larger populations of modern day India and Pakistan. The shock effect however would still be there due to the shorter time frame.

Then there is agriculture relevant stuff which is the real problem with any nuclear scenarios, but then we survived the pre industrial era somehow.

[ikalugin]

By the way - that website also has some materials on "high alert weapons", they may be of intereste in the context of the recent "new first strike warheads for Trident SLBMs" discussion and this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-nukes-just-got-a-lot-deadlier-and-experts-say-it-could-cause-russia-to-attack-2017-3
news article on the subsim.

[August]

Then there is agriculture relevant stuff which is the real problem with any nuclear scenarios, but then we survived the pre industrial era somehow.

It took tens of thousands of years to develop and we've been merrily dismantling it for a century. It can't be recreated overnight.

[u crank]

Still less than absolute Soviet losses during GPW (27M I believe?) and even less than relative Soviet losses during GPW due to the larger populations of modern day India and Pakistan. The shock effect however would still be there due to the shorter time frame.


You appear to only be concerned with the effects of this nuclear exchange on the participating countries. Unfortunately many more would suffer.

From the linked article....

25-40% of the protective ozone layer would be destroyed at the mid-latitudes, and 50-70% would be destroyed at northern high latitudes. Massive increases of harmful UV light would result, with significantly negative effects on human, animal and plant life.
These changes in global climate would cause significantly shortened growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere for at least years. It would be too cold to grow wheat in most of Canada.
World grain stocks, which already are at historically low levels, would be completely depleted. Grain exporting nations would likely cease exports in order to meet their own food needs.
Some medical experts predict that ensuing food shortages would cause hundreds of millions of already hungry people, who now depend upon food imports, to starve to death during the years following the nuclear conflict.

[ikalugin]

You appear to only be concerned with the effects of this nuclear exchange on the participating countries. Unfortunately many more would suffer.

From the linked article....
Considering how I have mentioned the agricultural side of things in my post that perception is wrong. Specific partial quote:
Then there is agriculture relevant stuffYou would also notice that the nation-states (in general, not US specific) do not buy the disarmament narrative nowadays, for example in addition to improving it's nuclear first strike capabilities US now invests money into the B61-12 upgrade program, intention behind which is to make those weapons more usable and usefull in normal conditions and generic conflicts.

[mapuc]

Read ikalugin link about "high alert weapons"

What a dilemma the leader of a country would be in-if the opponent or perhaps the coming enemy has developed more advanced weapon than his own military forces have

Maybe he or she think
If I make an preemptive strike I may get 5-10 percentage of my nukes through their missile defense, while 70-80 percentage of their will hit us = We will bomb them back to Middle age and they on the other hand will bomb us back to stone age.

I can also give order to a massive buildup on our own nuclear arsenal and our conventional weapon and most important give billions of money to our scientist to develop more advanced nukes.

Markus

[Commander Wallace]

By the way - that website also has some materials on "high alert weapons", they may be of intereste in the context of the recent "new first strike warheads for Trident SLBMs" discussion and this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-nukes-just-got-a-lot-deadlier-and-experts-say-it-could-cause-russia-to-attack-2017-3
news article on the subsim.


I have quietly read through this article and the corresponding posts and had some thoughts:


If you think that the U.S arsenal of nuclear weapons has become more dangerous, you probably haven't seen anything yet. This new president, like Reagan many years before him, is committed to a complete modernization in the size and scope of all U.S forces across the board and a corresponding state of readiness. It's a pity your country hasn't learned from a great leader you had in President Reagan's time, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev regarding disarmament and peaceful coexistence.

You mentioned the underwater delivery system and submarine drone bomb. It is just that, a delivery system. If that would happen, your country would appear on a short list of countries capable of such an attack and I'm certain the U.S would respond in kind with the many and various deadly weapons it has at it's disposal. The U.S has enough weapons to destroy Russia many times over and the reverse is true as well. This is the basis for " MAD " or Mutually Assured Destruction.

Just like in President Reagan's time, I'm wondering why your country would mortgage it's future to build such weapons when if they were used, your country would undoubtedly be destroyed. Russia has enough problems financing the forces it has already. U Crank is correct regarding the effects of radiation on the Ozone. The U.S, Canada and Australia are the major producers of Wheat and agricultural products. I'm certain none of the aforementioned countries would sell anything to Russia even if it were able. What remains of your population after a nuclear exchange would face the daily horrors of trying to feed itself and painfully dying from the effects of starvation or radiation poisoning and or both. China would suffer as well trying to feed a large population. Then again, the whole world would suffer.

By the way, yield is spelled this way, not yeild. I before E except after C.

[vienna]

...

By the way, yield is spelled this way, not yeild. I before E except after C.



I wasn't aware Sailor Steve had started outsourcing... :D



<O>

[ikalugin]

It's a pity your country hasn't learned from a great leader you had in President Reagan's time, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev regarding disarmament and peaceful coexistence.Do you see USSR on the map of the world?

I'm wondering why your country would mortgage it's future to build such weapons when if they were used, your country would undoubtedly be destroyed.So that they are not used and our country does not get destroyed, with nuclear weapons or otherwise.

Regarding agriculture and the other effects - we have been discussing scenarios where western powers went ahead with first strike. Why would we care about their willingness to export grain to Russia if they attacked us using nuclear weapons? Considering how Russia is currently a net exporter of grain and other agricultural produce and prepration measures we may be in the better position in terms of food supply anyway.

What remains of your population after a nuclear exchange would face the daily horrors of trying to feed itself and painfully dying from the effects of starvation or radiation poisoning and or both.Which is why we prepare, to assure survival and post attack reconstruction if another country attempts a first strike.

[Commander Wallace]

Do you see USSR on the map of the world?
So that they are not used and our country does not get destroyed, with nuclear weapons or otherwise.


Russia is a net exporter of grain and food produce in general.

I doubt Russia would be exporting any thing after a nuclear exchange.

Are you saying that Russia and the former USSR do not occupy the same geographical area ? I'm sure modern guidance system won't care what given name a country goes by. Are you saying that Mikhail Gorbachev
wasn't the former General Secretary or president of your country ?

If there was a nuclear exchange, how would you grow food in contaminated ground let alone raise any live stock not killed. Where would they graze? On ground poisoned by radioactive contamination ? Could you then eat that live stock ? Who would be left alive to do the farming ? Who would be left alive to work in factories to produce farming equipment let alone do any farming ?

Those who forget the horrors of war are doomed to repeat it. Is this what you mean by exports ?

[ikalugin]

Are you saying that Russia and the former USSR do not occupy the same geographical area ? I'm sure modern guidance system won't care what given name a country goes by. Are you saying that Mikhail Gorbachev
wasn't the former General Secretary or president of your country ? I refered to this passage:
It's a pity your country hasn't learned from a great leader you had in President Reagan's time, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev regarding disarmament and peaceful coexistence. Gorbachev was not a great leader, as the country he lead no longer exists and he contributed to that fact. Nor did he pursue a policy of peacefull coexistance and cooperation - he surrendered the national interests of the country he lead fully.

If there was a nuclear exchange, how would you grow food in contaminated ground let alone raise any live stock not killed. Where would they graze? On ground poisoned by radioactive contamination ? Could you then eat that live stock ? Who would be left alive to do the farming ? Who would be left alive to work in factories to produce farming equipment let alone do any farming ?Soil contamination would vary from region to region depending on the fallout paterns (low yeilds of high precision weapons used in a first counter-force strike would lead to a smaller ammount of fallout overall and a less threatening patern outside of the Moscow region). Various crops are more (or less) suitable for farming under post attack conditions dependent on their climate requirements and absorbtion of radiotoxins (ie potatoes vs berries and mushrooms). Yes you can eat livestock, depending on the radiotoxin contamination of said livestock and the method of cooking you choose, you can also access the long term food storage, though I guess eating meat that is older than you is rather unpleasant. People living in Chernobyl exclusion zone (illegally I may add) farm it and consume the produce they farm. The populations who were either dispersoed pre attack or shelter and evacuated after the attack. The very same people.

Did anyone even bother to read the article on mobilisation I have linked above?

Those who forget the horrors of war are doomed to repeat it. Is this what you mean by exports ? Re-read the post edit post above.

[ikalugin]

http://s-gosrezerva.ru/published/publicdata/DBALEHAAA4/attachments/SC/images/0000012783-540x450.jpg
Generic Rosreserv food storage fascility. Other nessesities (clothing, fuel, etc) are also stored in a simmilar way, same applies to other resources. If you read about mobilisation you would understand how the industrial production could be restored post attack.

p.s.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/cd.htm
article on the Soviet civil defense in english, relevant part:
In 1989, the purpose of civil defense was to provide protection for leadership and population in wartime and to ensure the Soviet Union's ability to continue production of military matériel during a nuclear or a protracted conventional war. Officers from Civil Defense were attached to union republic, oblast (see Glossary), raion, and municipal governments, as well as to large industrial and agricultural enterprises, and assigned to supervise civil defense work, organization, and training. These staff officers developed and implemented detailed plans for the wartime relocation of important defense industrial facilities and the evacuation of labor forces to alternative sites. They supervised the construction of blast shelters and other installations to ensure that these structures could withstand nuclear strikes. Civil Defense operated a network of 1,500 underground shelters that could protect 175,000 top party and government officials. In 1989 Civil Defense had 150,000 personnel.
After a nuclear exchange, the civil defense effort would be directed at reestablishing essential military production through decontamination, first aid, and civil engineering work to clear collapsed structures and to restore power supplies, transportation, and communications. Civil Defense trained in peacetime by conducting simulations of the aftermath of a nuclear attack and small-scale evacuation exercises. It was also called on to fight fires, conduct rescue operations, decontaminate areas affected by nuclear and chemical accidents, and provide natural disaster relief.