1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Putin boasts of new Russian nuclear weapons

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Andrey, Mar 1, 2018.

  1. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Both WAPO and ABC News among others have posted about Putin's claim of a functional nuclear-powered Cruise Missile.

    How theoretically does it propel itself? Nuclear reactors in general including those in ships and boats simply heat water to steam and that process turns turbines that turn blades.

    On the other hand, rockets or jets or prop planes move by generating thrust via rockets, jet engines or props on engines all powered by fuel.

    How does the Russian missile propel itself?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...8e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.365a247aeabb

    Putin boasts of new Russian nuclear weapons
     
  2. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Keep in mind our three naval assets that have been involved in collisions in the last year, and our state of what I call unreadiness with planes on the ground being robbed of parts to keep the rest flying, reduced training missions, short staffing and other problems with the US military. I suspect the US is less prepared for war at the present than compared to WW II and every conflict since. If we don't start whipping our military into shape we won't be able to respond to serious challenges unless our homeland, and there it's do or die.
     
  3. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    You can bet steam isn't involved and it can't be something like Nerva which also requires fuel even if it's hydrogen or water. My guess would be a nuclear plant providing either heat (or less likely electricity which would be just an efficiency killing intermediate stage) to drive a turbine in the same way as turbojet engines operate except without the front stage in which fuel is burned. Think of it as a tube filled with a shaft of compressor blades driven by a nuclear motor. My guess would be a closed cycle system using nuclear heat to spin the motor section of the engine, which in turn drives air through the compressors and out the back to provide thrust.

    Whatever it is, it can't expend anything other than depleting the nuclear source, which presumably would have a lot longer life than the mission length. Probably much longer.
     
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Twitter cleaned out all of the Russian trolls so here we are. :)


    Just kidding, Andrey Vorobey. :)
     
  5. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    In our exploration of hypersonic air vehicles we actually considered nuclear power. Hypersonic typically requires a launch to get up to speed with ramjet technology taking over to get to the high speeds. The usual ramjet has the supersonic air directed to a duct where fuel is injected and the hot supersonic air ignites it. The nuclear version would have the nuclear reactor providing the heat instead of fuel so you have supersonic air being further heating by the reactor. At the time we examined it we determined it could be built about the size of a current F-16 fighter. But you could not have much shielding so the reactor would be dangerous on the ground. Additionally you would have an exhaust that emitted hot isotopes over the launch area as well as over friendly nations on the route as well as the targeted nation.
     
  6. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Shiny, your post raises the issue of would the "exhaust" of the claimed nuclear-powered cruise missile leave a radioactive trail? How long would that trail be detectable?

    An entertaining example: A cloaked Klingon Warbird is firing upon Federation Star Ship Enterprise. Since the warbird is cloaked the Enterprise can't shoot back and is getting hit often.

    Someone on the Enterprise figures that even though the warbird is cloaked it has to emit an exhaust in some form of plasma or gas so lets program one of the Enterprise's photon torpedos to home in on the exhaust source. (Sort of like a heat-seeking AIM missile used today.)

    The result in HD:

     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2018
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I am sure it could be tracked. It has been hypothesized that some readings in Europe of nuclear isotopes could have been from testing of such a device.

    So we track it after launch but at Mach 5-10 speed that is small consolation to the target. What is the launcher? If an aircraft or sub it could escape. But would you put a relatively unshielded reactor on either? Of course, this is all speculation.

    But keep in mind the timing of the announcement. Putin used his Russian version of the state of the union address at a time when he is once again running for office. A new cold war helps keep him in office. A new cold war could also be used by American politicians to keep or gain office.
     
  8. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    I think that's the whole point of the announcement. My stock market was just collateral damage. The market can price it in and the bears will go back into hibernation. The market was probably more steel and aluminum anyway. It's kind of rude that Trump strafed Wall Street instead of gradually introducing the tariffs in a way that wouldn't shock the market. Boo!

    Keeping in mind that shielding and leaving behind a radioactive trail are two entirely different things. With little shielding you can emit a hell of a lot of gamma radiation and yet leave no radioactive trail. We don't know if this is a closed loop system in which case it may leave little or nothing behind. On the other hand if it's spewing radioactive pollutants like a Nerva then it will obviously be launched from a mobile platform.

    I'm told that nuclear explosions can be traced to point of origin by isotopic composition of the bomb residue. What happens when we trace the bomb back to US? Jeez, Hillary, thanks for selling Putin the weapon raw materials used to kill us with. I hope you made enough money to live in Hell.
     
  9. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    The fallout of nuclear blasts (or the material itself, pre-blast) can be analyzed for the impurities in it. This can trace the origin of the processed materials, i.e. what facility the Uranium was processed into Plutonium. I do not know if they can determine the mineral's origin.
     
  10. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Sorry to crap on your post Mark, but to sum up your post: "I know nothing."

    Please offer a citation for the part of your post that you claimed you know. I'll tell ya right now all I know is what I heard. Don't got no citation. We need an expert. I've heard that when a nuclear bomb is detonated that it can be traced back to the country of origin. That's it.

    Anyway if we got suddenly nuked by a cruise missile going umpty-thousand mph I'm pretty sure we know where to send the reply. Particularly if the CM has nukey exhaust. ;)
     
  11. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I do know, and I said so. Nuclear bomb debris holds clues to who planted it.

    I guess I wasn't clear enough in the second part. Uranium mined in Utah and processed into Plutonium will have a different 'signature' of impurities than Uranium mined in Utah and processed at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, TN (I've been to Y-12, BTW). I don't think (and it's really not that important) if you can tell that the material originally came from Utah.

    Don't worry about an ICBM or hypersonic cruise missile delivering a nuclear payload, there will likely be hundreds of them on the way at the same time. You need to worry about the one delivered by truck.
     
  12. Andrey

    Andrey A man who sold the world

    Small eductational program, just a few basic points (sorry for Russian, I hope Youtube's subtitles will work):




    USSR have not started the cold war, It was Churchill's Speech At Fulton (Iron Curtain Speech) not Stalin's Speach in Murmansk. You can't remind any USSR's nuclear attacks, just 2 absolutely meaningless in military sense american bombings of Hiroshima& Nagasaki (when USSR has already invaded to Japan according to alignments with US) just in order to scary us. Operation Unthinkable was the plan of Western Allies not USSR's one.

    Now we see the same, Russia has not breaked and left Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and haven't created the military bases around US. We see vice-versa situation.

    Certainly, we don't want to see Georgia and Ukraine in NATO (do you want to see Mexico & Canada as Russian satellites? I think "no" because you were not happy about Cuba&USSR friendship, were you?), so that's the root reason of what we have seen there in 2008 and 2014.

    All these weapons are just response to your actions, we just safe the mutual assured destruction parity. Don't touch and threat us, so we do the same.

    PS>
    China invests much larger money in their military programs (aircarriers, 5th generation fighter, hypersonic missles), we build our 5th generation fighter for India, so in 10-15 years there will be 3-4 great military superpowers and your total domination in this field which have started in 90s will be finished anyway.

    There will not be "one sheriff in the town" which can bomb Yugoslavia with out any UNSC permissions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2018
  13. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    I can understand why you don't want Ukraine in NATO. You and your hegemony, you want to invade the rest of Ukraine once you digest the first part you invaded. At least the US doesn't invade and annex sovereign nations.
     
  14. Andrey

    Andrey A man who sold the world

    Tell this funny joke to Cuban guys (they are very happy with your occupation of Guantanamo bay).

    What have you done in Panama in 1989 or Grenada in 1983, do you really think that there were not American invasions?
    Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, Dominicana, Lebanon,El Dorado Canyon, Cambodian Campaign, Praying Mantis were these territories of sovereign nations or just American backyard?

    Or sure, you need to protect your citizens everywhere abroad, OK so we do the same in Crimea in 2014, and unlike Texas or Puerto-Rico (the territories you have relatively recently conquired from other countries) , Crimea for centuries was our land (since 18th century), a lot of generations of russians was borned and died there, some of them, protecting those territories.

    Let live with out hypocrisy, we did what we did, the same does US or other large military power.
    The world is not fair and unfortunately it respects only the strength (military, economical, cultural).

    You don't like China, right? Does it lack democracy? Putin still afraids to change our Constitution, unlike now Chinese leader can rule eternaly? But you have to live with it and deal with it because China has enough power (unlike Norh Korea or Iran for them it's a trouble to keep their sovereignty from you)

    So returuning to original topic, we need these toys as possibility to return US to negotiation table, I hope it will return to Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which US've lightly abandoded and join other treaties for e.g. Anti-Hypersonic Missles.

    It would be greate if multipolarity in international relations is recovered and we'll not live in the world of one sovereign.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  15. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    I can tell now why Ethics thinks you are such a worthless POS. You're naming a bunch of stuff that happened anywhere from before I was born to centuries ago.

    Let's talk about how Russia planted sympathizers in Ukraine and played up existing RU sympathizers who were already there, and then just took the eastern part of Ukraine. They just grabbed it and swallowed it up.

    I think it would serve you Russian apoligists damned well well if US started exporting our bountiful natural gas to Europe. In fact I don't understand why you don't crawl back under that rock you used to hide under.

    What, next we're going to discuss the American Revolutionary War, the French Revolution, the Spanish-American war, the Mexican-American War...

    Let's stick to the world today, and discuss how Russia invaded Ukraine. I'm sure you'll call that the war of Ukrainian Independence. ... Independence against their own being able to govern themselves because now they are part of Russia.

    Go back under your rock Andrey. Go play with your little butt buddy Putin. You are nothing but a Russian apologist.

    I suppose that airliner crashed from a mechanical malfunction. I call that anti-aircraft missiles.
     
  16. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Andrey, you should have started with the original topic instead of "returning to the original topic" which are those Russian toys. Toys! No one will oppose that terminology because those new weapons you mention like the nuclear cruise missile are functionally just hype. They exist only in peoples' imaginations. Hypersonic nuclear-powered cruise missile? Not a chance.
     
  17. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Andrey does not seem to understand the concept that the primary strength of cruise missiles is that they travel at such low altitudes ("nape of the earth") that they are below the radar horizon to terrestrial radar, and lost in the ground clutter to high altitude or space radar surveillance. They are stealth weapons. The only thing we have new here is their purported nuclear propulsion. If that's even true.

    What treaty are you going to have for that? "I promise to not have any nuke powered cruise missiles" and then hide them for when you need them.

    We don't even know if they have them, they could be FOS. Our own Hollywood can do better than that!

    I've realized why Ethics doesn't like Andrey. Ethics must have a good BS detector.
     
  18. Andrey

    Andrey A man who sold the world

    Yes it's posiible there is a nice article about the history of this projects in US and USSR and basic principles of nuclear engines work:
    Best bad idea ever? Why Putin’s nuclear-powered missile is possible... and awful

    Susan, I appreciate the culture of your discussion (when you switched from history and military facts to my personality) but it seems I have better understanding than Susan about what Andrey knows and what Andrey is thinking about.

    Certainly, I know the difference between ballistic and cruise missiles the types of missile attack warning system, the types of missile defence and their efficiency against ballistic, aero-ballistic and cruise targets. (S-300, S-400, A-135, Minuteman, Trident for me are not just words and abbreviations). It was one of main topics of my second military education and I served at the spaceaircraft division for 2 years after the graduation of university.

    If you carefully read the original post's link than you will mention that actually 6 types of weapons were presented 2 of them a hypersonic and 2 of them are nuclear-powered (Russia also have Zirkon hypersonic missle which has not been presented by Putin it's a already known and is tactical not strategic weapon).
    I'm sorry but it's a kind of child perception if you study the history of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and ABM Treaty you'll see that even such hard rivals as US and USSR were can succeed in creating of effective mechanism of mutual arms control and trust. Your specialist just lived and monitored in Russian weapon plants (there are photos with them skiing there =) ) and our specialists did the same. It really worked.

    Certainly it's possible to create extended version of treaty which will have limitation for hypersonic and nuclear-engined missiles, nuclear spacecrafts and effective measures to monitor the implementation of the treaty.

    Most of the named facts are from 20th century,
    Guantanamo bay occupation is our present (I remember the promise of your Obama, what do we see there now?)

    I'm not very old, but I clearly remember Yugoslavia (Serbia) of 1999 (I was a school boy at that time) for Russia it was a shock, the turning point in relations with US&Europe and breaking of our illusions we see our real future: not the part of EU and NATO, not the member of common european home (Gorbachev's dream), certainly not! Our future was Yugoslavia an orthodox slavic but multinational country which has been crucified, exsanguinated and dismembered. We didn't help it (we were on our knees asking for western loans at that time), international law did not worked, you didn't need the UN sanction to do what you wanted there.

    After that we have seen that the only way to survive is military muscles (btw Iran and North Korea understand it also). USSR is also dead as Yugoslavia, Warsaw Treaty country now are part of NATO (though you have promised other things to Gorbachev in the end of 80s) we don't have parity in basic weapons now, so the development of strategic and nuclear weapons which are able to overcome today's and future missile defense is the only way for Russia not to become the second Yugoslavia. If probable damage to you is unacceptable you will not attack.

    We also have to control the 'buffer zone' around us (short time of missile approach if you create your military bases there) that's why we create problems for all surrounding countries going to join NATO. That is the answer to all the questions about Ukraine & Georgia ("Russia first" and "Make the Russia great again" are our claims ;) we are not very different ).
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  19. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Andrey, you should read history. Gitmo was leased from Cuba in 1903 as a coaling station. After Castro assumed power, we would still send him a check every year per agreement, he never cashed the checks and kept them in a drawer of his desk.

    With the exception of Vietnam region and Korea, those places we invaded were for specific purposes and we went in, did what we were there to do and got out.

    And Andrey, how do you think we arrived at the current borders of every country? We fought over them, until one side said, "Fine. You can have it." It doesn't matter if the fighting was yesterday or a thousand years ago, the borders of every country is drawn in blood, from one or both sides.

    If given a choice between Putin, Kim Jong-Un and the collective Ayatollahs in Iran, I much prefer Putin. He is pushy, he is devious, he will advance every opportunity possible, but he is also sensible and reasonable. He wants to live and be in power as long as possible, and getting close to pushing the "Big Red Button" is not how to do that.

    The Ayatollahs on the other hand, want to destroy the Jewish people and they will do so, even if it means they get to meet Allah in the process.

    Kim (who it seems has stopped all nuclear weapons production and testing since the recent showdown) views himself like B5's Emperor Cartagia, who wants to ascend to Godhood, even if every one of his subjects die in the process.
     
  20. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Andrey, read your topic title and then read the first non-quote sentence of your OP. there's nothing new here except the nuke powered cruisers. The rest of your posts in this topic is just rehashing old facts. As far as your personality, there's nothing to discuss. Take that literally. Add all your posts together and it's a big yawn.

    Just one thing I want to point out, Russia's invasion of western Ukraine. I know the real story there because I have a friend, a teacher, who had to flee from Crimea to the east to escape Russia's tyranny. I'm sure you have some apologist excuse for that invasion. He wants to get out entirely, but can't.
     

Share This Page