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

[Oberon]

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.

[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.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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.

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

[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]

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

[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>

[Skybird]

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

https://www.visualnews.com/2012/04/2...nuclear-bombs/

"Mine is longer than yours."

[Jimbuna]

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

[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.

[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.