Putin: Russia’s new nuclear weapons can avoid any missiles

Thanks all for the discussion. I have to admit I was puzzled by Putin's blurb on nuclear offensiveness and the suggestion that Florida is a target example. I only have a few notes here that may be of consideration.

1.) Anything we hear about any superpower military is probably at least 20 years old. There's surely all sorts of crazy stuff the public never sees, no Wiki write-up, and no amount of internet searching will reveal.
2.) People make noise when their feeling threatened or are trying to demonstrate to their public that they gave fair warning.
3.) Those who actually have power aren't talking.
4.) No country is likely to immediately lose a major trading partner to start a war. Watch for trade to sever first, then sanctions, blockades, etc.
5.) Even maintaining large militaries not at war is big business, so both Putin and Trump would have something to benefit for ramping up rhetoric.
6.) No defense system is likely to block 100% even if it has the ability. A country needs to be angry to go to war (see Pearl Harbor to start WWII).

Any other pointers? Any corrections?

originally posted by: soundguy
Considering we outspend them what 20 to 1 I think we need a refund.

Putin’s a liar doing what liars do.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

The only thing that proves is that there is no significant correlation between military spending and actual development. You do realize that most of your defence budget is a scam: the use of “public safety” rhetoric to syphon vast amounts of taxpayer dollars straight into discrete bank accounts.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

arent nuclear engines considered too dirty by the UN?

I don’t know. I don’t pay much attention to the UN, since nobody else does.

But keep this in mind: Russia just signed a serious deal with China for joint space exploration and colonization. Major project milestones expected to begin in 2022 with a Lunar shuttle. A nuclear engine on a rocket will be very useful.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Actually a nuclear power source onboard of a long range travel, to say the moon or Mars, with manned exploration would be an advantage. It would remove the need for say batteries to power systems, and replace it with something far more long term and running of equipment, and increasing the power capacity of a space vehicle.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

It would also weigh quite a lot to get it up their I would think?

Batteries and solar power is unlimited in space (although still heavy)!

a reply to: sdcigarpig

The Russians have already embraced the idea of using mobile nuclear reactors for rapid development in remote regions. While this has been a thing for awhile, what’s new is the development of purpose-built ships with nuclear reactors on board, with the purpose of powering remote Arctic outposts before a permanent power solution is implemented.

Realistically, you would use the same pioneering method in space as well: a ship with a nuclear reactor that powers both the engine and everything else.

I am curious about one thing though in regards to the announcements. What I’ve seen is the Russians not only claiming that they’ve tested one of these missiles already, and that they have one deployed already with their forces. Maybe they are alluding that the test model is still flying around.

originally posted by: vinifalou

...

So what do you guys think?

Things are getting hotter and hotter or is it just the global warming?

Mercury news

NBC News

Putin's just out to make it perfectly clear he's nobody's bitch.

Every country of some size basically is (or at least should be) always ready for war. I remember discussing this with a British army veteran - He pointed out the difference between Norway (where our army basically can't defend even the capital for more than a few days without foreign assistance) and UK, which is always ready for war.

One might like it or not - but fear and war mongering fills the coffers of the arms industry.

Putin's huffing and puffing - but don't doubt for a second that he WILL blow your house down if # hits the fan.

He's merely pointing out that Russia won't take # from anyone.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

The US has been using nuclear energy with the exploration satellites for years, a decay battery, to power the systems when there is no sunlight. That would be the same principle in a ship.

While a nuclear engine would seem good for the propulsion, however there would have to be something to provide the push for said craft to go. Mostly when a ship is launched into orbit, the speed is required to get it into orbit and then they use inertia to propel the craft to its destination, only using the engines to maneuver, or to break and park.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Testing it is one thing, however, based on what little information there is, it would be a ground based weapon, that once fired would be launched and then sent up. I really don't think that they would want to have one just floating around up there, waiting for commands, too risky, cause if something went wrong and it detonated early or fell, and crashed, it would be an international incident that could start a war.

a reply to: Forensick

Not if was assembled in space. Bringing the component up individually and then assembling them while in orbit would be far safer and thus the weight is distributed.

The new Russian weapons have triggered a significant outcry in EU-NATO circles, for "Urgent Talks".
Very good, deterrence is working as expected !

I got curious and did a bit of research and here is the question that I am wondering:

What new composite or materials have the Russians come up with that would handle the high temperatures from such a speed? It would not matter about the distance or how effective the weapon is, if in the course of the travel it fails due to the temperature that would ruin the inner components or destroy the weapon. So it would be interesting to know how they manage the heat from the high velocity of travel, and protect the inner workings of the weapon.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

It's more or less an ICBM reentry vehicle with aerodynamic features. It can be skipped across the upper atmosphere for long ranges.

Now the focus should shift on developing weapons that are designed to target the EU oligarchy specifically.
That means for example, understanding on what basis does the EU oligarchy have power. That basis is clearly their bank accounts hidden in countries with very low taxation on large accounts and with very good revenues.

So ... what's the best weapons to disable the source of EU oligarchs' power ?

It's an Anti-Bank missiles. This is not a joke!

I am talking about a nuclear shaped-charge penetrator, encased in a hardened shell for initial breach of the bank's roof (for example Union Bank of Switzerland) and for reaching as close as possible to the vault. At impact with the vault reinforced shell, the nuclear shaped-charge penetrator will take out the vault.

This method is very efficient at taking out the interests of Feudal Royals and other oligarchs who still think their gold is safe and secure. The problem in dealing with the west, especially Europe is that if you destroy infrastructure such as bridges or power plants, you are not hurting the oligarchs. If you disintegrate their vaults ... you are.

In fact common people don't store stuff in those vaults, they only get electronic bank transactions that would be only minimally affected by removing this loot from the hands of EU oligarch pigs.

Why didn't Hitler invade Switzerland ? Because German Nazi oligarchs were hiding their gold in Swiss banks! Not because of the supposedly fantastic military power of Switzerland.

a reply to: Flanker86

Destroying their money would be a fruitless endevour. That is the problem with valueless fiat currencies. Sadly none of our money has any actual value (ie: silver dollar, 50$ gold Eagle) so what would destroying it solve? These geniuses would simply print more of their worthless paper.

Besides, who really believes these national banks are brimming with gold? I certainly don't.

I don't expect the heroes of democracy to find any Burevestnik nuclear-powered missile at the bottom of the sea anywhere in the world, but if this excuse is used by the armed forces to side with neo-liberal putchists , they should always remember one thing. 11 / 12 aircraft carriers are basically sitting ducks.

The suggestion of "limited" nuclear war that every now and then pops up from NATO clowns is something that was already well studied and verified, including by the Obama administration in 2013. It did not bring any advantages for the west and only precipitated the situation into further chaos and loss of relevance for NATO.

Trying again the same idea now will inevitably lead to more catastrophic defeats for NATO, which since 2001 has collected and unbelievable set of strategic losses and even losses at the battlefield level !

I think Putin is on the right track.
What stops a nuclear war from happening isn't one side having technology to shoot down the other side's missiles, it's the sure and certain knowledge that the other side can destroy you, even if you destroy them too.
The essence of MAD.

I worry more about ABM systems tan new delivery systems as ABM is the game changer. As soon as one side feels safe from attack because of an ABM shield, then there is an increased likely hood of them thinking they can initiate an attack in relative safety...and knowing that, the other side might get more desperate and try to pre-emptively toss the kitchen sink at them, hoping something gets through to lower their ability to defend against a second wave.

The idea that production of any of the new Russian missiles can be halted or slowed, under the false pretext that it violates the INF treaty, and due to Stoltenberg's whining is a complete idiocy and won't happen ...

The Poseidon weapon system, will ensure that NATO cannot deploy ballistic missiles in Europe safely.
NATO needs land bases. Poseidon only needs the depths !