6 ms·

I also saw russias recent video of their new insane weaponry. I don't have the long term scope on this section of the news, is this just routine flexing on both

I also saw russias recent video of their new insane weaponry. I don't have the long term scope on this section of the news, is this just routine flexing on both parts or is something more serious going on?

steve19 7y ago
Russia has been publishing videos about ultra high tech weapons and even doing comical leaks of "secret" defense technology for years. I remember one "leak", although I can't remember if it was the nuke torpedo or something else, where they were doing a press briefing about some weapon but "accidently" left a classified poster up in the room detailing some super secret high tech weapon. It was clearly put there so the press would see it and make headlines about secret new Russian technology. Even if legit, they are prone to hype it. I wouldn't worry about it, anymore than they worry about darpa's latest experiments. Sure maybe one day we will have easily cooled rail guns... But nobody in Russia is worried on the off chance we we actually figure it out in 25 years time. The worst offenders are definitely Iran who are known to outright fake photos of weapons tests that never happened (or happened poorly).
- baybal2 7y ago
  I doubt that anybody in Kremlin realistically believe of their ability to provide real military deterrence. The deterrence here was of political nature. I also don't believe that any sane military strategist in NATO high command believes that any conflict with Bloc can be won with nuclear advantage. Even at the height of cold war, the combined nuclear arsenal of NATO countries would've only been enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances. Unlike common misconception suggests, war and politics is not always the same. What may look as a sure win for a general, may look like a loss to a politician: Russia's choreographed invasion of Georgia had no real military objective, and may be seen as a botched war, but it was a total victory on the political stage, scaring shit out of many politicians in the West.
  - derefr 7y ago
    > Even at the height of cold war, the combined nuclear arsenal of NATO countries would've only been enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances. Is there a reason nuclear weapons would be aimed at military targets, rather than political targets? I always assumed a nuclear war would just be a bunch of decapitation strikes where suddenly nobody has capitol cities.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      I can't provide you with a good source for this at the moment, but it's my understanding that during the Cold War a team of US ethicists determined that the most ethical direction to point nuclear weapons was at major population centers (not military targets) because targeting military targets would be necessary to launch a first strike. Targeting civilians signaled that those weapons were intended for retaliation. Adopting a retaliatory posture was considered to lessen tensions, if only by just a little, making nuclear war less likely to occur. Edit: @justin66: Right, there is a difference between what a few ethicists determine and what policy is actually enacted. America was actually postured for a first strike, with Russian airfields,etc being the highest priority targets, urban-industrial targets being lower down the list. After that, population centers were considered targets. This was based on the supposition at that time that a Russian attack could be anticipated and preempted. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/ https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear...
      - pcnix 7y ago
        I would love a source for this, or any further reading recommendations on similar topics.
        darkpuma 7y ago
        This is not the particular source I recall, but is related: Kavka, G. S. (1978). Some Paradoxes of Deterrence. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(6), 285. doi:10.2307/2025707 (https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707 https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707)
- darkpuma 7y ago
  As I understand it, the so called KANYON/Poseidon nuclear torpedo is likely a real project, albeit with somewhat exaggerated capabilities. The Project 09852 / Belgorod submarine is certainly real, and there is some reason to believe it is being created in part to carry and launch those massive torpedoes. But supposing its claimed capabilities were accurate, 10,000 km at 100 km/h would take the torpedo over four days. The original claim of 185 km/h is much faster, but travel time would still be measured on the order of days. It's fast enough to be very noisy but slow enough to be seen coming days away; totally nonsensical for a first strike weapon. The conclusion is that if such a torpedo is in development, it's intended as a retaliation weapon.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Or perhaps covert local-ish deployment from places closer than 10 Mm. Essentially a medium range torpedo with higher top speed.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Yes but used in such a role, there would be little that's special about it. Nuclear armed torpedoes and short range missiles aren't new. What's special about KANYON is specifically it's range and payload (but frankly the payload could be a tenth of what's advertised and it would still be a chilling weapon, so really the range is the real interesting part.) It's likely it would never be operated near it's maximum range, but would nevertheless be operated at few thousand kilometers. The reason for this is because its likely host, the Belgorod, would be safest operating under the polar ice cap where sonar is, relatively speaking, a clusterfuck.
    - siffland 7y ago
      Would not that of violated the I.N.F treaty? This is a serious question because I am not sure.
      - SiempreViernes 7y ago
        No, INF treaty is about ground launched weapons, the same thing launched by boats are fine. On of the things the Russians did was to take a boat launched weapon capable of INF prohibited ranges, putting it on the ground but only testing it out to ranges allowed by the INF. )I think they put something heavier on it so it wouldn't go as far as the naval version.)
- pps43 7y ago
  That's Status 6 [1]. Unlike other more questionable developments, this one seems to be real. It's even mentioned in US Nuclear Posture Review. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
fenk85 7y ago
Literally fake news, the state of Science and engineering in Russia is dire, the generation that was brought up under excellent Soviet schooling is dying off or retiring (keep in mind male life expectancy in Russia is on par with Africa). The people who designed, built and maintained their advanced technology are dying off and there is only a trickle to replace them, anyone with an advanced degree and experience tries to get the hell out of that country for a better life. I be very worried about nuclear meltdowns in coming years as there are still Chernobyl class plants running and are crumbling.
SiempreViernes 7y ago
Depends on what you mean with routine I guess, but it is a clear regression to the times when total nuclear war was the logical end awaiting all conflicts.

steve19 7y ago

Russia has been publishing videos about ultra high tech weapons and even doing comical leaks of "secret" defense technology for years. I remember one "leak", although I can't remember if it was the nuke torpedo or something else, where they were doing a press briefing about some weapon but "accidently" left a classified poster up in the room detailing some super secret high tech weapon. It was clearly put there so the press would see it and make headlines about secret new Russian technology. Even if legit, they are prone to hype it. I wouldn't worry about it, anymore than they worry about darpa's latest experiments. Sure maybe one day we will have easily cooled rail guns... But nobody in Russia is worried on the off chance we we actually figure it out in 25 years time. The worst offenders are definitely Iran who are known to outright fake photos of weapons tests that never happened (or happened poorly).

baybal2 7y ago
I doubt that anybody in Kremlin realistically believe of their ability to provide real military deterrence. The deterrence here was of political nature. I also don't believe that any sane military strategist in NATO high command believes that any conflict with Bloc can be won with nuclear advantage. Even at the height of cold war, the combined nuclear arsenal of NATO countries would've only been enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances. Unlike common misconception suggests, war and politics is not always the same. What may look as a sure win for a general, may look like a loss to a politician: Russia's choreographed invasion of Georgia had no real military objective, and may be seen as a botched war, but it was a total victory on the political stage, scaring shit out of many politicians in the West.
- derefr 7y ago
  > Even at the height of cold war, the combined nuclear arsenal of NATO countries would've only been enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances. Is there a reason nuclear weapons would be aimed at military targets, rather than political targets? I always assumed a nuclear war would just be a bunch of decapitation strikes where suddenly nobody has capitol cities.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    I can't provide you with a good source for this at the moment, but it's my understanding that during the Cold War a team of US ethicists determined that the most ethical direction to point nuclear weapons was at major population centers (not military targets) because targeting military targets would be necessary to launch a first strike. Targeting civilians signaled that those weapons were intended for retaliation. Adopting a retaliatory posture was considered to lessen tensions, if only by just a little, making nuclear war less likely to occur. Edit: @justin66: Right, there is a difference between what a few ethicists determine and what policy is actually enacted. America was actually postured for a first strike, with Russian airfields,etc being the highest priority targets, urban-industrial targets being lower down the list. After that, population centers were considered targets. This was based on the supposition at that time that a Russian attack could be anticipated and preempted. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/ https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear...
    - pcnix 7y ago
      I would love a source for this, or any further reading recommendations on similar topics.
      - darkpuma 7y ago
        This is not the particular source I recall, but is related: Kavka, G. S. (1978). Some Paradoxes of Deterrence. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(6), 285. doi:10.2307/2025707 (https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707 https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707)
darkpuma 7y ago
As I understand it, the so called KANYON/Poseidon nuclear torpedo is likely a real project, albeit with somewhat exaggerated capabilities. The Project 09852 / Belgorod submarine is certainly real, and there is some reason to believe it is being created in part to carry and launch those massive torpedoes. But supposing its claimed capabilities were accurate, 10,000 km at 100 km/h would take the torpedo over four days. The original claim of 185 km/h is much faster, but travel time would still be measured on the order of days. It's fast enough to be very noisy but slow enough to be seen coming days away; totally nonsensical for a first strike weapon. The conclusion is that if such a torpedo is in development, it's intended as a retaliation weapon.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Or perhaps covert local-ish deployment from places closer than 10 Mm. Essentially a medium range torpedo with higher top speed.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Yes but used in such a role, there would be little that's special about it. Nuclear armed torpedoes and short range missiles aren't new. What's special about KANYON is specifically it's range and payload (but frankly the payload could be a tenth of what's advertised and it would still be a chilling weapon, so really the range is the real interesting part.) It's likely it would never be operated near it's maximum range, but would nevertheless be operated at few thousand kilometers. The reason for this is because its likely host, the Belgorod, would be safest operating under the polar ice cap where sonar is, relatively speaking, a clusterfuck.
  - siffland 7y ago
    Would not that of violated the I.N.F treaty? This is a serious question because I am not sure.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      No, INF treaty is about ground launched weapons, the same thing launched by boats are fine. On of the things the Russians did was to take a boat launched weapon capable of INF prohibited ranges, putting it on the ground but only testing it out to ranges allowed by the INF. )I think they put something heavier on it so it wouldn't go as far as the naval version.)
pps43 7y ago
That's Status 6 [1]. Unlike other more questionable developments, this one seems to be real. It's even mentioned in US Nuclear Posture Review. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...

fenk85 7y ago

Literally fake news, the state of Science and engineering in Russia is dire, the generation that was brought up under excellent Soviet schooling is dying off or retiring (keep in mind male life expectancy in Russia is on par with Africa). The people who designed, built and maintained their advanced technology are dying off and there is only a trickle to replace them, anyone with an advanced degree and experience tries to get the hell out of that country for a better life. I be very worried about nuclear meltdowns in coming years as there are still Chernobyl class plants running and are crumbling.

SiempreViernes 7y ago

Depends on what you mean with routine I guess, but it is a clear regression to the times when total nuclear war was the logical end awaiting all conflicts.