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

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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?

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.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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?

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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!" ), 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.