3 ms·

What about delivery by ship? I wonder what are the limits for cargo ships. Personnel could evacuate and remotely detonate.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
trhway 5y ago
Modern Russian “Tsar Bomba” in an autonomous nuclear powered 10000+ miles range mini submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_... . They are already being put into service.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The problem with nuclear UUVs is that they don't solve any tactical problems Russia actually has. Want to nuke Jacksonville, Norfolk, New London, San Diego, and Puget Sound? Russia can already clobber them with enough ICBMs. So... first strike? In which case the silos in the Great Plains launch on you, followed shortly thereafter by any SSBN on patrol. It only makes sense as a defensive weapon. And while Russia is paranoid, I don't think they're strategically expecting the US to be able to neutralize their road/rail mobile forces and submarines and strategic bombers in a first strike. In which case it only makes sense as a propaganda device. Good use of limited funding, there.
  - effie 5y ago
    It's obviously another unkillable deterrent weapon, similar to submarine ICMBs, Perimeter, etc.
  - trhway 5y ago
    > a propaganda device. that is of course. Another way of building an even bigger d.ck. >And while Russia is paranoid, I don't think they're strategically expecting the US to be able to neutralize their road/rail mobile forces and submarines and strategic bombers in a first strike. Russia has been losing on high-tech weapons - high precision, stealth, global and battlefield awareness/connectivity and now on the drones (which is for example why Russia so conspicuously amassed so many basically WWII style forces right now on Ukraine border - to show that if Ukraine uses its Turkish drones - the current huge, yet carrying a kind of expiration date, strategic advantage Ukraine got over Russia in Donbass - to "solve" the Donbass issue like Azerbajan did in Nagorny Karabah using the same drones a year ago in a big facepalm to Russian weapons - the Russian forces will strike behind Ukraine Donbass forces cutting them from the rest of Ukraine somewhat similar to the Ilovaysk battle of August 2014, only at the much larger scale this time), and it is pretty feasible that US would get a hold on the sufficient intelligence and would have the capability to use low yield (even non-nuclear) precision first strike to disable most of the current Russian MAD assets, and the good anti-ICBM missile can do the rest. I'm not saying that US is going to actually do the strike - just having credible capability would adjust the situation severely. So Russia not being able to match in the high tech, goes wider and larger scale - like those nuclear powered cruise missile and that gigantic torpedo "wunderwaffe".
    - SkittyDog 5y ago
      > that is of course. Another way of building an even bigger d.ck. I don't think it's appropriate to deride the security motivations of modern Russia, so casually. In the 20th century, Russia was very nearly wiped out, by surprise attack, TWICE. Their casualties were staggering, more than any other nation on earth has ever endured. And the trauma to their politics, economy, and culture will probably persist for decades, if not centuries. In the direct aftermath of WWII, a huge swath of top US & UK military and political leaders publicly insisted that the West should re-arm and continue Total War against the USSR, and completely dismantle their military capabilies. I don't mean to excuse ANYthing the Soviets or Russians have done, as a result of the national character they've been left with. But if we fail to fully understand how the world & its history look, from their perspective, we will be actively participating in the extinction of the human race.
      - trhway 5y ago
        Man, I'm a Russian from USSR, been living in US for 22 years, and I still feel like my own that mentality of building a big one :)
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Nuclear weapons under M.A.D. are already a propaganda / deterrance strategy. Even in their initial military use, absent M.A.D., the message was "we can deliver overwhelming destruction with little or no exposure, and you have no effective counteremasures, with the expectation that the enemy would cease hostilities. That messaging proved effective, even if it did require repeating.
SkittyDog 5y ago
The Russians are way ahead of you, buddy: • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpos... I live in coastal Los Angeles, and I regularly look out at the Santa Barbara Channel, and wonder if one of these nightmares is already out there.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

trhway 5y ago

Modern Russian “Tsar Bomba” in an autonomous nuclear powered 10000+ miles range mini submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_... . They are already being put into service.

ethbr0 5y ago
The problem with nuclear UUVs is that they don't solve any tactical problems Russia actually has. Want to nuke Jacksonville, Norfolk, New London, San Diego, and Puget Sound? Russia can already clobber them with enough ICBMs. So... first strike? In which case the silos in the Great Plains launch on you, followed shortly thereafter by any SSBN on patrol. It only makes sense as a defensive weapon. And while Russia is paranoid, I don't think they're strategically expecting the US to be able to neutralize their road/rail mobile forces and submarines and strategic bombers in a first strike. In which case it only makes sense as a propaganda device. Good use of limited funding, there.
- effie 5y ago
  It's obviously another unkillable deterrent weapon, similar to submarine ICMBs, Perimeter, etc.
- trhway 5y ago
  > a propaganda device. that is of course. Another way of building an even bigger d.ck. >And while Russia is paranoid, I don't think they're strategically expecting the US to be able to neutralize their road/rail mobile forces and submarines and strategic bombers in a first strike. Russia has been losing on high-tech weapons - high precision, stealth, global and battlefield awareness/connectivity and now on the drones (which is for example why Russia so conspicuously amassed so many basically WWII style forces right now on Ukraine border - to show that if Ukraine uses its Turkish drones - the current huge, yet carrying a kind of expiration date, strategic advantage Ukraine got over Russia in Donbass - to "solve" the Donbass issue like Azerbajan did in Nagorny Karabah using the same drones a year ago in a big facepalm to Russian weapons - the Russian forces will strike behind Ukraine Donbass forces cutting them from the rest of Ukraine somewhat similar to the Ilovaysk battle of August 2014, only at the much larger scale this time), and it is pretty feasible that US would get a hold on the sufficient intelligence and would have the capability to use low yield (even non-nuclear) precision first strike to disable most of the current Russian MAD assets, and the good anti-ICBM missile can do the rest. I'm not saying that US is going to actually do the strike - just having credible capability would adjust the situation severely. So Russia not being able to match in the high tech, goes wider and larger scale - like those nuclear powered cruise missile and that gigantic torpedo "wunderwaffe".
  - SkittyDog 5y ago
    > that is of course. Another way of building an even bigger d.ck. I don't think it's appropriate to deride the security motivations of modern Russia, so casually. In the 20th century, Russia was very nearly wiped out, by surprise attack, TWICE. Their casualties were staggering, more than any other nation on earth has ever endured. And the trauma to their politics, economy, and culture will probably persist for decades, if not centuries. In the direct aftermath of WWII, a huge swath of top US & UK military and political leaders publicly insisted that the West should re-arm and continue Total War against the USSR, and completely dismantle their military capabilies. I don't mean to excuse ANYthing the Soviets or Russians have done, as a result of the national character they've been left with. But if we fail to fully understand how the world & its history look, from their perspective, we will be actively participating in the extinction of the human race.
    - trhway 5y ago
      Man, I'm a Russian from USSR, been living in US for 22 years, and I still feel like my own that mentality of building a big one :)
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Nuclear weapons under M.A.D. are already a propaganda / deterrance strategy. Even in their initial military use, absent M.A.D., the message was "we can deliver overwhelming destruction with little or no exposure, and you have no effective counteremasures, with the expectation that the enemy would cease hostilities. That messaging proved effective, even if it did require repeating.

SkittyDog 5y ago

The Russians are way ahead of you, buddy: • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpos... I live in coastal Los Angeles, and I regularly look out at the Santa Barbara Channel, and wonder if one of these nightmares is already out there.