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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Super Nuke, Satan 2 revealed today

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kamatty

It's a MIRV design. It carries 10-15 warheads and penetration aids. That many warheads will easily destroy an area the size of France.


Are you sure each of the devices is 40 Mt? It kind of sounds like it can carry a single 40Mt device. And that the 10-15 count is for smaller yield devices. I plugged in a 2.5 MT device into the Nuke Map and targeted France, and I don't see a scenario where 10-15 of those wipe France off the map. I do agree that a single 40 megaton device turns Paris in a crater.

If the Russians were silly enough to use this, then of course the blowback would be equally silly. The USA would go weapons free with our Minutemen III's and our sub fleet. The grand result would be everyone experiencing Christmas At Ground Zero. Not going to happen.




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Nemo418

No. They can carry 10 large warheads of undisclosed yield, or 15 lighter warheads, also of undisclosed yield. It can carry up to 40 MT, be it a single warhead, or total yield from what I understand.

You don't have to totally destroy a country to wipe it off the map. Destroy enough of the population and infrastructure and it will collapse and cease to exist.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
a reply to: Cinrad

I think it would be quite powerful, even more so than a tsunami created by an earthquake.

The R-36 Mod 2 warhead is supposedly 25 megatons:

The R-36 (SS-9) is a two-stage rocket powered by a liquid bipropellant, with UDMH as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as an oxidizer. It carries one of two types of re-entry vehicles (RVs) developed especially for this missile: SS-9 Mod 1 single nuclear warhead of 18 megatons TNT, SS-9 Mod 2 single nuclear warhead of 25 megatons TNT.

Wikipedia

I did some looking around and was able to find footage of a nuke test done underwater:
Operation Hardtack

That's footage of an 8 kiloton bomb detonated underwater with what looks like a cargo ship floating above it. The wall of water completely wipes it out. The 25 megaton Satan 2 would over 3,000 times more powerful than that. Imagine a wall of water 3,000 times as big as that, coming right at the United States.

While you would think the water pressure might suppress the blast if it's down deep, keep in mind that nukes burn hotter than the sun. The temperature differential rapidly turns a huge amount of the water into steam. Then consider that liquid water is in it's most dense form. When it turns to ice or steam, it expands. This means detonating them underwater would be ideal for creating a much larger shockwave than if detonated in the air, which isn't going to undergo a phase change. (except maybe a plasma, for a brief second right at the blast)

That's not how it works.

A 2 megaton bomb is not twice as powerful in its effect as a 1 megaton.

As yields increased, scientist found the destructive potential does not increase at the same rate. There is a reason beyond better targeting that lower yields are used in modern day.

This bomb is meant to frighten and be used on hardened targets. Much lower yield MIRVs are a much better option for targeting cities.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: kamatty
How do they know it will destroy an area the size of france without destroying an area the size of france when testing it?


How will they test it without exploding it? That's what I wanna know



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Slamminuk
The first images of the super-nuke were revealed today by Kremlin engineers. Satan 2, which is currently undergoing tests near Miass, is set to be rolled out by 2018.

Could destroy Britain twice over and has the power to devastate area size of Texas.


This part makes me laugh about the news covering this subject. Why name anywhere? Just say it would nuke this size of a place and let people go measure it up if they really have interest in nukes destroying the world. Just seems like propaganda to start fights. Annoying when media is like this, not that it ever changes.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Kalixi

You can test the conventional explosives by detonating them in their configuration. For the nuclear portion, computer modeling.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
So why don't you tell us what this new toy is?

Let me answer for you. Because you don't know, because all you are doing is making an assumption.

Of course both sides have something newer and secretive. They have many many secretive things.
Secret to you and I not to each other.

Nukes might be "old school" but they are very much relevant today, and both sides continue to upgrade their stockpiles.

They might be old school but that doesn't diminish the destructive power of them.

a reply to: BASSPLYR



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: mortex

From his posts in other threads, does not appear to just be simple conjecture. You should ask him about the sun-tanners from Dugway Proving Grounds, or poke through some of the Aviation forum topics he comments on.
edit on 27-10-2016 by DirtyBizzler because: Additions



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Why is humanity consumed with distruction?

Eff you guys and your extinctive toys... Im not going to play this game.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
Why is humanity consumed with distruction?

Eff you guys and your extinctive toys... Im not going to play this game.


replace humanity with Putin and you got it. Russia is the only one threatening others with nuke, aside from N. Korea, whose nuke program was started by the USSR.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Am I the only one who thinks the media running with this wildly inaccurate story clearly designed to get everyone terrified of Russia a week and a half before the election is a bit obvious as far as steering the masses towards a certain candidate is concerned?



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Slamminuk

So now we have to build a nuke that can destroy a continent, then they will build one that can take out a hemisphere, then we build one that just blows up the whole planet. I guess at that point it will end, one way or the other.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Slamminuk

So what happened to Satan 1?


She is running for POTUS?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Slamminuk

So what happened to Satan 1?


They've been renamed to Hillary.
edit on 28-10-2016 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
Why is humanity consumed with distruction?

Eff you guys and your extinctive toys... Im not going to play this game.


replace humanity with Putin and you got it. Russia is the only one threatening others with nuke, aside from N. Korea, whose nuke program was started by the USSR.


Oh sure, the US never nuked anyone, like maybe Japan, and we sure never genocided anyone, except maybe the American Indians. Other than that it's all the Russians fault for (fill in the blank). Is that you Hillary?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Then maybe Japan should not have attacked the US.

Dont forget about the genocide the Europeans unleashed on American Indians.

In this instance Russia is the one keeping up the nuclear rhetoric and occupying Ukraine Crimea / East provinces, moldovas province and 2 of georgias provinces.

So yes it is Putins fault.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
You kind of conveniently forgot about the US backed incursion from Georgia into a Russian territory. The destabilization and overthrow of the Ukrainian government, etc. etc. a bit myopic to blame it all on Putin, huh!?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

You mean when russia sent forces into georgia and georgia responded? Gee I wonder why Georgia wanted to join NATO - Russian aggression.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Nope. Eyewitness testimony says you are wrong.




posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

What you fail to grasp is Georgia did not start the war. Georgia was taking action in their own country, specifically S. Osettia. The actions were taken when Russia ramped up the "separatists" attacks in S. Osettia. That resulted in "separatists" shelling Georgian towns, resulting in Georgia responding to the attacks in S. Osettia. What occurred in Georgia is the same thing that Russia did in Ukraine and Moldova. Place russian controlled separatists in place, set them free and then invade under the guise of protecting ethnic russians.

In other words Putin used Hitlers playbook... Ironic.

source Additional sources at the bottom of the wiki page. Not to mention Russian propaganda edited the Foxnews interview and used a voice over to change the narrative. If Russia was on the up and up about Georgia they would not need to lie to justify their position.


On 13 August 2008, Fox News interviewed 12-year-old Ossetian-American girl Amanda Kokoeva and her aunt Laura Tedeeva-Korewicki, who had returned from South Ossetia.[21] Fox began the interview by emphasizing the experiences of a 12-year-old girl. Invited to tell about Georgian bombings, the 12-year-old girl and her aunt said they were saved by Russians. As the aunt started to mention the conflict was started by Saakashvili, Fox News cut the interview for commercials. When the break ended and they were back on the air, Fox granted the aunt additional time to finish her thoughts during the last minute of the program at which time she started to blame the Georgian government but explicitly distinguished it from the Georgian people. Thereafter before the end of the program the anchorman said that there were grey areas in war.[22] CBS also had an interview with this girl before.[23]

This incident was highlightened in particular on NTV (Russia) and Russia 1. However, the Russian channels allowed many inaccuracies and even editing themselves. First both channels created impression that the anchor stopped the conversation as soon as Amanda's aunt expressed the thought that it was Georgia to blame for the conflict. However, they failed to show that Amanda has been saying the same for almost a minute before, and the anchor did not interrupt her. Second Russia 1 edited the sound superimposing what is supposed to be anchors cough on Amanda's aunt talk, creating an impression that he was trying to prevent audience from hearing her.[24] While in the original footage this sound is absent.[25] The reporters from NTV (Russia) translated the words of Amanda thanking Russian troops while showing Amanda's aunt talking.[26] Both channels also failed to translate the words of an anchor that the commercial break would interrupt the broadcast whether they liked it or not.[24][26]


Next time do more research and independent thought instead of parroting Russian talking points. It should have been obvious since we have seen the USSR / Russia do this very thing in other countries.

At no point did Georgia start a war with Russia. At no point did Georgia attack Russia.

Russia attacked Georgia.

Nice try though...
edit on 28-10-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join