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

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011...s-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

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Nice wording.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and...-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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/Lockhe..._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.

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....

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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]

Originally Posted by August

Now I can't speak for the Europeans

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

Eastern Europe....

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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?

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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]

Originally Posted by August

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