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

[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.

[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....

[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>

[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.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ...

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

[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.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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.

[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!!