8 ms·
Russia's Putin reveals 'invincible' nuclear weapons
- trisimix 9y agoWhy?! 21st century and one of the super powers still sees 'has world ending superweapon' as an election point.
- d1ffuz0r 9y agobecause NATO is getting closer to our borders, we can't leave it without response
- keymone 9y agoyeah, NATO occupying one chunk of neighbouring country and igniting and fueling armed rebellion in another chunk is certianly reason to be worried. oh wait, that wasn't NATO, was it?
- d1ffuz0r 9y agoyes it was NATO who fueled it, just like many other revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
- keymone 9y agowell for sure, comrade putin and his friends are the best so any protest against them must surely be a CIA coup! your logic is impeccable tovarish!
- d1ffuz0r 9y agofunny, please read more about current relationship between Ukraine and Poland, Hungary, Romania (all NATO members). they supported the revolution at first, but now they treat them to acquire Ukrainian territories https://www.unian.info/politics/2184929-certain-statements-in-pace-by-hungarians-romanians-seem-to-hold-concealed-territorial-claims-to-ukraine-gerashchenko.html https://www.unian.info/politics/2184929-certain-statements-i...
- keymone 9y agodo tell which territories have Poland, Hungary and Romania have occupied? because russia is already occupying crimea and parts of some eastern regions via puppet governments funded and armed by russia.
- d1ffuz0r 9y agohttps://www.unian.info/politics/2183494-mfa-ukraine-demands-that-hungary-cancel-self-determination-for-zakarpattia-event.html https://www.unian.info/politics/2183494-mfa-ukraine-demands-...
- gandhium 9y agoSurprisingly, there wasn't a single word about 'NATO fueling' in that article.
- keymone 9y agos/S/Uns/
- Ygg2 9y agoWould you prefer it the other way around? Let's say hypothetically Russia puts their bases and ICBM in Canada and assures everyone, it's only to target Mexico, in case a large narco or terrorist threat appears there.
- keymone 9y agoi would prefer Russia to not interfere with internal political processes. like giving Yanukovich $15bn loan on the eve of signing EU association which ultimately led to tens of thousands of people being killed.
- Ygg2 9y agoThat's avoiding my question. But meddling into internal political processes seems like bread and butter for any would be superpower. Or are Iraq and Afghanistan invasion somehow not interference with political processes?
- keymone 9y agoyour question poses a false dichotomy. the choice is not between russia occupying ukraine versus russia behaving differently somewhere else, the choice is between russia occupying ukraine and russia not occupying ukraine. i prefer russia not occupying ukraine.
- gandhium 9y agoAre you implying that US or NATO put their bases and ICBMs in Ukraine?
- mtgx 9y agoIt's not a invalid point per se, but I think everyone knows NATO's recent moves against Russia are a direct consequence of Russia invading and annexing Crimea. It probably won't end well if everyone decides to "one-up" each other, though, similar to how WW1 started.
- d1ffuz0r 9y agotry digging deeper, like ready history of NATO from 90s til current days. you will find something new for yourself
- the_gastropod 9y agoAmbiguous "read history" statements aren't helpful. If you have a point, we'd love to read it.
- rovek 9y ago> invading and annexing Crimea This is one of few times I've seen "invade" used to describe Russia's actions in Crimea. I find it strange that even western media talks about "annexation" when they usually employ exaggerated terminology for all kinds of trivial events. edit: I'm not saying the invasion was trivial, I'm saying the media response was/is understated compared to non-events they exaggerate
- gandhium 9y agoWell, at least media don't play the Russian-proposed "we were heroic defenders" tune, like it was with Georgia in 2008.
- ionised 9y agoWasn't NATO putting missile bases/defences in Turkey long before all this though? Russia saw that as a provocation and a breach of previous agreements.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoAnd why is NATO getting closer to your borders? It's not because NATO is expansionistic, seeking bases to launch an invasion of Russia. No, it's because countries like Poland fear Russia invading them, and so they seek protection via NATO. What should NATO do, when Poland asks to become a member? Say no, because Russia has the right to meddle in Poland? Say no, because not upsetting Russia is more important than Poland's future? Say no, because defending the western half of Europe is all we should care about? If Russia doesn't like everyone wanting to join NATO, it's really easy for them to fix: Stop making everyone feel threatened by Russia. (Now, in the real world, that may not work, because Russia is paranoid, because of a couple of guys named Napoleon and Hitler who, starting from further west than the eastern edge of Poland, got all the way to Moscow - or within 15 miles of it, in Hitler's case. So Russia has some grounds for concern based on history. Nevertheless, NATO has exactly zero interest in invading Russia. My main point, however, stands - it's Russia's fault that NATO is expanding, not NATO's fault.)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoBecause MAD only works if destruction is assured. Missile shields prevent that so Russia has to figure out a way to penetrate those shields to bring MAD back.
- Santosh83 9y agoOnly one? Most of the countries with nuclear weapons program seem to be adding to their arsenal at differing paces, but adding nonetheless. Is there a country whose nuclear weapon stockpiles are absolutely static or has even shrunk, or will shrink in the near future?
- dazc 9y agoUkraine?
- lb1lf 9y agoIIRC the Ukraine handed all the nuclear weapons based on its territory back to Russia after the Soviet Union broke apart. The condition was that the boundaries of the Ukraine were respected by the Russians. So, today the Ukraine is nuke-less. Oh, and Crimea-less.
- djrogers 9y agoNo, western countries are reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles dramatically, and have been for decades. Some others are as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_sto...
- dx034 9y agoNuclear weapons are still a big election topic in the UK and the unwillingness of one candidate (Corbyn) to have/use them is seen as a weakness by many.
- eesmith 9y agoWhile true, that's because those weapons are more precise and robust. There's no need to have so much redundancy. Eg, with super-fuze all of our submarines have hard-target kill capability. That wasn't true a decade ago.
- baursak 9y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/us/politics/trump-nuclear-weapons-arsenal-congressional-budget.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/us/politics/trump-nuclear...
- djrogers 9y agoPretty sure Putin isn’t worried about losing elections, dictators don’t have that petty little concern.
- jbob2000 9y agoLast ditch effort of a failing regime. The Russian economy should be much larger considering their size. The oligarchs will use nukes to strong arm the international community into reducing the embargoes so they can bail on their failed state. Then they will take their plunder to south america, where they will live out the rest of their lives in paranoid ecstasy.
- toopok4k3 9y agoOhh gee, didn't someone promise a wall to win an election? Might have something to do with the active research and development on missile defense tech by the US. Let's not forget rail guns and lasers. Maybe it's just their way to respond to the peaceful American way? Who knows? It's all so complicated. /s
- yogthos 9y agoI wonder if NATO continuously deploying ever more weapons on the Russian border might play any role there.
- Tade0 9y agoTo me this looks like a way to provoke even more international backlash and perpetuate an image of Russia as a "sieged stronghold" in the eyes of its people. Come to think of it since it worked last time, why shouldn't it now?
- nopriorarrests 9y agoUS show of force sends Russia a message in Black Sea "You get ships up in the Black Sea, that makes them feel more threatened," the official added. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/us-russia-black-sea-show-of-force/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/us-russia-black-... Imagine Russia sending their warships to the gulf of mexico. Would that be ok?
- femidav 9y agoSo, you are saying that Russian warships never visited Cuba?
- kingcoin 9y agoI'm so glad the generation that lived through the cuban missile crisis saw it fit to elect a president into office that would bring those terrors back so that my generation could experience it as well.
- ralmidani 9y agoPutin was set on world domination long before Trump was elected. Obama and Clinton thought they could "reset" relations with Putin, but Putin was playing them the whole time. By the way, I voted for Clinton. Edit: typo
- kingcoin 9y agoNot that Russians have a real choice, but they voted too.
- baursak 9y ago> Putin was set on world domination I guess this is one of examples of Putin's quest for world domination, right? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/nato-deploys-troops-poland-russian-border-170413213541667.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/nato-deploys-troops-p...
- kazagistar 9y agoIsnt that a fairly rational defensive response to Russians invading and annexing parts of Ukraine? If Russia wants to strengthen defenses against Nato in response, fine, as long as they don't go invading pad those borders as well.
- adrianN 9y agoWe got the Apollo program out of the last arms race, maybe this time we'll get a settlement on the Moon or Mars?
- FLUX-YOU 9y agoTrump is not going to handle a confrontation with Russia well. Worse if China allies with Putin. While we could probably dust off Project Pluto and have an arsenal from other comments here, Trump has too much turmoil internally to be trusted with safely navigating a nuclear escalation like this.
- neuronic 9y agoBecause the motivation comes from having to flee the inevitable radiated craters in Europe etc.?
- mikeash 9y agoA nuclear cruise missile with “unlimited range”... the unwelcome return of Project Pluto?
- madaxe_again 9y agoIt's the only thing it possibly can be, to have limitless range. The Americans mothballed it as it was considered "too provocative". The technology is totally feasible, and not even that complex - it's just that it's pretty much the most evil thing man could devise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
- mikeash 9y agoThey also couldn’t figure out how to test it. Once you turn it on, you can’t stop it, and if you lose control it could go anywhere on the planet.
- Santosh83 9y agoCan you not stop it by sending it commands to turn off the reactor?
- mikeash 9y agoThen it’ll crash and you’ll have a nice Chernobyl to deal with.
- IdeaHamstir 9y agoSeveral orders of magnitude less than Chernobyl. The reactor that lost containment was a gigawatt production plant. A gigawatt nuclear ramjet would be so huge there would be no trouble detecting it and shooting it down near the launch site.
- mikeash 9y agoMost of Chernobyl’s material stayed in the reactor, though. A hypersonic crash would disperse a much bigger proportion of the material. I don’t know how the two factors balance out exactly.
- evrydayhustling 9y agoThis is pretty terrifying, but weren't we already living in a world where sub mounted cruise missiles could bypass most defense systems? Anybody know a lot about modern ICBM strategy?
- fenk85 9y agoWe were not, these weapons (and medium range missiles) were banned under treaties, but Russia tore this up.
- evrydayhustling 9y agoI found a couple of recent articles with some of the details here. It looks like USA was known to have submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) but only recently announced adding cruise capabilities [1]... but I don't see a mention of a treaty there, although the other article [2] mentions these new developments as a way to pressure Russian compliance with existing treaties. Is INF the treaty you are mentioning being ignored? Is Russia's announcement a direct response to the USA's? Disappointed that recent history hasn't been even mentioned in most reporting around the announcement -- it's a pretty shocking headline to wake up to without context. [1] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/the-us-could-be-getting-2-new-nuclear-capabilities-here-are-the-details/ https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/the-us-could-be... [2] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/will-the-us-trade-its-new-sub-launched-cruise-missile-for-russian-arms-treaty-compliance/ https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/will-the-us-tra...
- dragonwriter 9y ago> It looks like USA was known to have submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) but only recently announced adding cruise capabilities No, the US had nuclear cruise missiles deployable on subs since the 1980s or possibly 1970s (I can't find a good date for introduction of the TLAM-N, only that development began 1972 and it was announced they would be transfered to storage in 1991 and they were retired between 2010 and 2013.) What your source reports is a recommendation to introduce a new nuclear cruise missiles replacing the retired TLAM-N.
- djrogers 9y ago> invincible in the face of all existing and future systems Hmm, all future systems too, eh? One might almost think he was exaggerating, but it was reported seriously so I suppose he can’t be, right?
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y agoI think it clearly shows who he is targeting - definitely not intelligent people.
- madaxe_again 9y agoIf it's a nuclear ramjet SLAM, while you could in principle shoot it down, if it's anywhere near your territory when you do so, it's pretty much as bad as not shooting it down, as both result in radioactivity spread over a large area. So, short of force fields and teleportation, there is no defence. The Americans knew this when they were developing the technology in the 50's/60's, and axed the project in the interest of not encouraging the Soviets to make the same unstoppable doomsday weapon.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> If it's a nuclear ramjet SLAM, while you could in principle shoot it down, if it's anywhere near your territory when you do so, it's pretty much as bad as not shooting it down, as both result in radioactivity spread over a large area. It's a lot worse to have the on-target thermonuclear detonation at the end, so, no, it's not “pretty much as bad” to shoot it down. It's still bad, sure, but it's a huge difference in how bad. But, yes, it does reduce the utility of missile defense, and is exactly the kind of thing that opponents of Bush’s decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty were worried about encouraging.
- mikeash 9y agoShooting one down over your territory would suck, but it would suck about a million times less than having a hydrogen bomb detonate over a city. Nowhere near “pretty much as bad.”
- 9y ago
- wiz21c 9y agoRussia:1, NKorea:1, US/Europe:0 The times are changing...
- fenk85 9y agoYou are welcome to move yourself and your family to Russia or NK and tell us all about how you get on..
- wiz21c 9y agoBesides the fact that the only thing I know from theses countries are what the (occidental) media say (basically, lies, framed truths,...) I was just pointing at the fact that I’d expect US/Europe to answer just for the sake of political influence over their own citizens. But they don’t. So I think that the balance of power is moving. It’s already been reported years ago in some newspapers or documentaries so nothing surprising. But considering the absence of response of US/Europe, I’d say that confirms the balance of power has really moved now.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- fenk85 9y agoJust 3 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16470788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16470788 Is that a good enough response for you? Does it make you happy that Putin decided to tear up treaties banning intermediate range missiles and start a new arms race?
- kazagistar 9y agoThe most important power had not been military for a long long time.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lettergram 9y ago> He [Putin] argued that Russia had reacted after years of pleading with the US not to break away from anti-missile treaties So let me get this straight... The anti-missle treaties, a defensive technology, is being used to justify offensive weapons. I understand that the counter strike capabilities are important, but why not just work on your own defensive tech? Also, of course Putin will win the election - he literally murders the opposition [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23...
- ekianjo 9y ago> Also, of course Putin will win the election - he literally murders the opposition [1] Despite what you hear on western news, Putin is still popular anyway in Russia. He would win any election against any current opponent.
- codewaffle 9y ago... then why does he murder his opposition?
- dazc 9y ago'He would win any election against any current opponent.' ...who is still alive come election day.
- dragonwriter 9y agoSometimes you win by getting more votes, sometimes you win by your opponent but not surviving to get (or enjoy the benefit of) any votes. Either way, it's a win, if your moral code is the kind that is willing to admit that option.
- yogthos 9y agoSounds like you've been drinking propaganda koolaid. While Putin does many terrible things, there's no actual evidence to support him murdering opposition http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2016/jan/04/does-vladimir-putin-kill-journalists/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2016/jan/04/doe...
- mtgx 9y agoLet the dictator world-destroying dick-measuring contest begin.
- DougN7 9y agoIf there is a US president that will jump in and build a bigger missile without considering all the ramifications, it’s Trump :(
- greggarious 9y agoMetal Gear?!
- dalbasal 9y agoCouple of questions for anyone who knows about this kind of hardware. (1) Is the nuclear arms "race" still on? Ie, Is the US still playing a game of my offence/defence is better than yours with The States? (2) does this count as a new bar or milestone or somesuch, and if so when was the last "milestone." Ie, something that changes the strategic dynamic between major powers in a somewhat meaningful way.
- pvg 9y ago1) No. Both principal sides have a fraction of the warheads they had at the end of the cold war. 2) It's hard to tell. The standoffs have been (fortunately) much talkier. Periodically, the US makes noises about nuclear arsenal modernization, smaller tactical nukes, 'theater missile defense' etc. Similarly, the Russians announce unstoppable super-missiles. There's always the risk these moves could lead to a full-blown nuclear weapons arms race.
- eesmith 9y ago1) Absolutely yes. Here's a quote from the New York Times from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear-russia.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&stream=top-stories https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear... : > Yet when President Trump called on Congress to “modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal” in his State of the Union address last week, he did not mention his administration’s rationale: that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has accelerated a dangerous game that the United States must match, even if the price tag soars above $1.2 trillion. That is the latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, one that many experts think is low by a half-trillion dollars. The CBO report is at https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53211-nuclearforces.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/re... . Sure, the US has fewer warheads. It's still something like 5,000 warheads which is far more than is needed for any sort of retaliatory strike. It is what's needed if you want a first-strike capability to take out all of Russia's hardened launch sites. "Makes noises"? Aren't we actually doing that, and have been doing that, for decades? The most recent is super-fuze. Quoting https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/ https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/ : > Under the cover of an otherwise legitimate life-extension of the W76 warhead, the Navy has quietly added a new super-fuze to the warhead that dramatically increases the ability of the Navy to destroy hard targets in Russia and other adversaries. ... > “As a consequence, the US submarine force today is much more capable than it was previously against hardened targets such as Russian ICBM silos. A decade ago, only about 20 percent of US submarine warheads had hard-target kill capability; today they all do.” ... > In the article we conclude that the SSBN force, rather than simply being a stable retaliatory capability, with the new super-fuze increasingly will be seen as a front-line, first-strike weapon that is likely to further fuel trigger-happy, worst-case planning in other nuclear-armed states. There are three factors to consider with "unstoppable super-missiles": 1) The US pulled out of the ABM treaty. This was predicted to destabilize things, because it implies the US might want first-strike capability, with the ability to prevent a retaliatory response. Since the US upgrades mean we can take out hardened targets, that means Russia will have to switch to launch-on-warning rather than launch-on-impact. 2) There has always been a strong argument against ABM systems because they are extremely expensive, they don't work well, and the counter-measures are cheap. 3) The "unstoppable super-missiles" are what you must have if you believe that a retaliatory second strike is a deterrent against a US first-strike attack. We have only to look at history to see how high-level people in the US have wanted to use nuclear weapons. The current president appears to be one of those. On the flip side, consider the nuclear drone torpedo. This cannot be used as a first-strike attack because it can only destroy coastal cities. It cannot take out the US nuclear triad. It therefore more effective for retaliation, by the threat of destroying millions of Americans should the US decided to nuke Russia.
- gandhium 9y agoOne of those 'revelations', picturing rockets descending on Florida, was a Russian TV clip from 2007. Link (in Russian): https://tvrain.ru/articles/grafiku_iz_filma_2007_goda_na_nej_rakety_bombjat_floridu-458655/ https://tvrain.ru/articles/grafiku_iz_filma_2007_goda_na_nej...