It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia to test unstoppable 'Satan 2' stealth nuke capable of wiping out an ENTIRE NATION

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: FamCore

I guess that makes sense but still, I would think a bomb that could destroy Texas in seconds would have huge ramifications for the entire world, including the ones who launched it. The shock wave from such an explosion would be devastating for thousands of miles around I would think.


It's not one single bomb - you couldn't do that with one device. If you get to a certain size the blast goes up and out of the atmosphere, and you get rapidly less and less payback for the size.

This missile is a MIRV. It carries a busload of separately targeted warheads.

We've got 'em as well. Sub launched, land launched, you name it. You never know, we might even have something like a smart stealth cruise missile that flies around dropping little presents over a wide area of countryside.




posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
You never know, we might even have something like a smart stealth cruise missile that flies around dropping little presents over a wide area of countryside.


I wonder if a certain nameless poster worked on these.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: KnightFire

Why would an ICBM need "stealth?"


The idea is, once it's in orbit it's not totally ballistic - it has some OMS capability and can change the obvious target. How MUCH it can change I don't know. But it can maneuver during its exoatmospheric phase. That's where being stealthy is more important - if you can't target the bus, and you don't know exactly where it is, it makes it more difficult to render harmless using orbital assets, ground-to-space ABM lasers, fighter-carried anti-ballistic missiles and whatnot. Or maybe particle weapons of some sort.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bedlam
You never know, we might even have something like a smart stealth cruise missile that flies around dropping little presents over a wide area of countryside.


I wonder if a certain nameless poster worked on these.


If such a thing existed, I'd like to think of it as the sadder version of la chasse galerie.

The Devil's flying canoe, full of lost dead men, come from Hell and eager to find their final homes.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Well, regale us of tales about the happy nuke canoe.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED
exactly, the first nuke would mean the end of the world and eveyone knows it so i don`t understand why people keep improving them and making them.It doesn`t matter whether the first nuke is an obsolete 50 year old one or a new state of the art one,it will mean the end of the world.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: KnightFire

What is their effing problem?

The USA has not developed any nuclear ICBM's since the 80's and dismantled that one and uses a non-MIRV 60's technology ICBM. The only US development in nuclear weapons since 1991 is adding a GPS guidance system to a 1960's air-dropped small weapon.

And when the USA thinks about having a small anti-missile force in Europe, Russia accuses the west of being horrible warmongers. WTF?



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not so bad? A large region uninhabited by people?



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
This announcement probably has something to do with the U.S. switching on the European missile defence shield tomorrow.

U.S. to switch on European missile shield despite Russian alarm



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

This missile would be of epic proportions. Im curious how they could get that much firepower in one single launch.


* It's a very large missile.
* Modern warheads weigh less than before.

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

en.wikipedia.org...

Highly MIRVed weapons are intrinsically destabilizing and are a bad idea.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

This missile would be of epic proportions. Im curious how they could get that much firepower in one single launch.


* It's a very large missile.
* Modern warheads weigh less than before.

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

en.wikipedia.org...

Highly MIRVed weapons are intrinsically destabilizing and are a bad idea.


Thanks for those links. I haven't done any thorough reading on our most powerfull firepower since I was a teen, when I used to study how to build nuclear bombs.

I agree with your statement about the MIRVed weapons being a bad idea.

I hope we survive ourselves for the next hundred years. If we do I believe we will essentially become immortal as a species. Thats a really really big IF.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: KnightFire

What is their effing problem?

And when the USA thinks about having a small anti-missile force in Europe, Russia accuses the west of being horrible warmongers. WTF?


In my opinion....This is mother Russia waking up. Putin being ex-KGB, he still bleeds Soviet blood. Fun times are in our near future.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
What happened to "Satan-1"? How come we never heard of that? Do you really think a country would name a missile such a thing?

Targ manure I say, Targ manure.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: KnightFire

Even if the article is accurate (and I highly doubt that it is considering they can't even get the basics right in their bs tabloid nonsense) it would make no difference.

MAD would render the use of such a weapon impossible.

They can carry on wasting their money and resources on weapons they can never use if they like, all it's doing is making them less capable, and making them more of a threat, further justifying our placement of defensive weapons around Russia.

Rest assured that if Russia ever did actually use any nuclear weapon against any nation they would be effectively wiped out within hours. Moscow would be a hole in the ground.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

The problem with MAD is certain people buy into the Russian propaganda that they have "Cosmic weapons" and that the use of Russian nukes somehow restricts the fallout / radiation to international borders.

To cast more doubt -

PressTV - Russia to test-fire massive nuclear missile: Report


Russia’s Zvezda TV channel reported on Tuesday that the RS-28 Sarmat missile, dubbed Satan 2, will replace Soviet-era R-36M missiles, which NATO military experts had nicknamed “Satan.”



edit on 12-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
What happened to "Satan-1"? How come we never heard of that? Do you really think a country would name a missile such a thing?

Targ manure I say, Targ manure.

The 'Satan' moniker was assigned by NATO.

To Russia it is the R-36 system, with each variant given it's own GRAU designation.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The problem with MAD is certain people buy into the Russian propaganda that they have "Cosmic weapons" and that the use of Russian nukes somehow restricts the fallout / radiation to international borders.

Nyet, the problem with MAD is that people buy into it at all.

Probably the single best marketing piece ever utilized, as far as weapons manufacturers are concerned.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

When we are talking about thousands of nuclear warheads and an ability to respond to any launch before impact its guaranteed mutual destruction. When people dont understand that concept, and then compound it by thinking radiation / fallout only affects and stays within the borders of the nation that was hit... well that is a problem.

While we have come close to nuclear war the guarantee that no country will win in a nuclear exchange, MAD, has kept the nuclear peace.

It's when people buy into the propaganda, coupled with countries who have nukes who don't care about MAD that the ultimate nightmare becomes reality.

I am not sure about you but I grew up during the cold war and it seemed that nukes kept conflicts restricted to single theaters and conventional weapons.
edit on 12-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Do you check your closets for the boogeyman too?

Unless all the nuclear powers are working together, the majority of the world isn't going to be wiped out by MAD.

As for the nuclear powers themselves...sounds like a self solving problem to me.

Which is precisely why we won't be seeing it. Works great for getting budget increases though.

Edit to add:

Nuclear weapons keep wars in check much like militarized police keep populations in check...oh, wait...
edit on 12-5-2016 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ANNED
It does not mater if they have or use this nuke.
The US has sub launched nukes that will still rain hell on them and everyone loses.


Tinfoil hat time ... Russians caused Chernobyl on purpose to have a nuke disaster site to study to see how bad it might actually be ... and they are now thinking it's not so bad ...


It was not a nuclear explosion, it was the gas released by the nuclear 'pile' that exploded, typing of explosions, in October of 1961, the Soviets detonated a 50 megaton bomb, known as the 'tsar bomb' above the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, the world is still here, so is Russia, I'm more concerned with 30,000 miles a minute mountains hitting the planet.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join