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

[nikimcbee]

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

[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.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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
(in english)

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

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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!!

[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.