Satan 2 - Russia's new "country destroyer" missile

[jugzilla]

lol poor Skroe. Takes all this effort to educate people, giving us direct links the researchers and policy makers whose careers are dedicated to this field of study, and the internet waves it off as "well, you know, that's just like...your opinion man." Love your posts Skroe!

[Dug]

Explosion the size of Texas? lol yeaaaaah suuuuure

[Deleted]

lol poor Skroe. Takes all this effort to educate people, giving us direct links the researchers and policy makers whose careers are dedicated to this field of study, and the internet waves it off as "well, you know, that's just like...your opinion man." Love your posts Skroe!

It is opinion. Unless you actually field-test a world war 3, you can't be an "expert" in the subject. It's all theories n maybe's, as for Skroe he is super-biased and would never rise very high in the military because you need to be a helluva lot less dismissive of enemy capabilities, tactics n weapons than he is. People like him are better suited scrubbing toilets with tooth brushes than get their men killed cuz of "'murica! fuck yeah!" attitude.

You can theorize about 'knowns' capabilities but there are a lot of 'unknowns' n how things change depending on what transpires n what next is put on the field can swing shit this way or that way.
Only zombies listen to Skroe.

- - - Updated - - -

Explosion the size of Texas? lol yeaaaaah suuuuure

It's blast-wave + glow green in the dark + region becomes unihabitable. One Missile becomes many several smaller missiles n take out major population centers, how many will stay in texas after that? There won't be a texas, or france, if one of those smashes down like the fist of god.

[jugzilla]

It is opinion. Unless you actually field-test a world war 3, you can't be an "expert" in the subject. It's all theories n maybe's, as for Skroe he is super-biased and would never rise very high in the military because you need to be a helluva lot less dismissive of enemy capabilities, tactics n weapons than he is. People like him are better suited scrubbing toilets with tooth brushes than get their men killed cuz of "'murica! fuck yeah!" attitude.

You can theorize about 'knowns' capabilities but there are a lot of 'unknowns' n how things change depending on what transpires n what next is put on the field can swing shit this way or that way.
Only zombies listen to Skroe.

I guess your saying there are no experts on nuclear war? I don't know if you are aware, but RAND developed MAD, and the theory was adopted by the US government. Maybe you should go back in time and tell Kennedy that RAND are not actual experts on anything, and they should listen to you.

At any rate, our policy has worked out pretty well. The nuclear exchange never happened, pretty sure that was the intention of MAD to begin with.

[Kellhound]

Since I don't agree with you, I'm sure you believe that.
But your links aren't anything.
They're scenarios..so what? They are what for worst cases.."maybe this will happen...This might occur..."
That's all that you have "Maybe...Might..Possible...scenarios.

Has a nuke exchange ever happened? Yes or no?
We already know the answer.

Those hairy-scarey scenarios are typically used for funding and for support. That's it.
I realize that it might be tough for you to admit it, but you've nothing in history that backs up your opinion other than other peoples' opinions. Which means your conclusions are...just more opinion.

Two nuclear armed countries have also not gone to all out war with each other either, and as nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, there has been no reasonable opportunity to use them. Pakistan/India/China are the most likely countries to use them against each other as MAD does not apply.

[bufferunderrun]

Doomsday Clock still 3 minutes to midnight. Wonder if this beast will nudge it closer.

what is scary is that continuous scaremongering about Russia, instead of pushing for a profitable cooperation (especially europeans) you guys are building up a giant strawman that will lead to a catastrophe.

[Shakadam]

Basically, under a counterforce strike, of all SS-27 silos, for example, hit by highly accurate warheads (like the ones the US has), there is a 2.097% chance of survival of one or more of them.

That's a bit speculative though isn't it? I mean, you can have all the experts in the world do analyses off satellite imagery and whatnot but to my knowledge there's no real hard evidence exactly how well a Russian-made missile silo can withstand a reasonably well-placed detonation from an American-made warhead or vice versa?

That's what really irks me about all this warmongering from both sides or how USA/Russia is so much better at this or that. Lots of people quoting numbers taken from manufacturers who naturally hype up their own products or from a panel of "experts" who base their opinions on their own agendas, the same manufacturer numbers and tests that can be considered best-case scenarios at worst.
There's just no hard evidence because there hasn't ever been a nuclear exchange in modern times, so there's no data to fall back on. It's all speculation, no doubt very good speculation from many sources but speculation all the same, and if the numbers are off by even a little when it comes to nukes.... Well then we're all royally fucked.

Wish people would just cool down with this cold war 2.0 bullshit.

[Kellhound]

It is opinion. Unless you actually field-test a world war 3, you can't be an "expert" in the subject. It's all theories n maybe's, as for Skroe he is super-biased and would never rise very high in the military because you need to be a helluva lot less dismissive of enemy capabilities, tactics n weapons than he is. People like him are better suited scrubbing toilets with tooth brushes than get their men killed cuz of "'murica! fuck yeah!" attitude.

You can theorize about 'knowns' capabilities but there are a lot of 'unknowns' n how things change depending on what transpires n what next is put on the field can swing shit this way or that way.
Only zombies listen to Skroe.

- - - Updated - - -



It's blast-wave + glow green in the dark + region becomes unihabitable. One Missile becomes many several smaller missiles n take out major population centers, how many will stay in texas after that? There won't be a texas, or france, if one of those smashes down like the fist of god.

Everything concerning warfare is an opinion, even historical evaluations. That does not mean the opinions are not well though out and modeled. Nuclear warfare has been intently studied.

Blastwaves and fallout are dependent on the altitude above ground of detonation as well as warhead yield. Air bursts are more destructive, surface bursts produce more fallout.

[Dug]

It's blast-wave + glow green in the dark + region becomes unihabitable. One Missile becomes many several smaller missiles n take out major population centers, how many will stay in texas after that? There won't be a texas, or france, if one of those smashes down like the fist of god.

The fall out is one thing but the original claim was the "explosion" would be the size of Texas. That would have to be a mighty big bomb

[Deleted]

Everything concerning warfare is an opinion, even historical evaluations. That does not mean the opinions are not well though out and modeled. Nuclear warfare has been intently studied.

intently studied something that has never happened..yes, I'm aware of that, but it always needs to be taken with a grain of salt, if always war plays out as things have been studied, I'd have a lot more respect for such "expertise"...

Two nuclear armed countries have also not gone to all out war with each other either, and as nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, there has been no reasonable opportunity to use them. Pakistan/India/China are the most likely countries to use them against each other as MAD does not apply.

China? Hardly, unless Japan goes full imperialist retard again, but they have been softed up with anime girls n tentacles..

Pakistan n India, they have their own mini-cold war but difference from us n ussr is that india n pakistan occasionally shoot at each other in kashmir with some artillery pieces but it never goes farther than that (maybe they are saying hello to each other?).
Indian economy is taking of these last few years also n their conventional mil capabilies becomes too much for pakistan to ever risk a new real war n india is building a navy that could devastate pakistan with nukes from ze ocean which makes it hard for a "small" country like pakistan to plan for..

No, what should worry us is if your Saudi friends build nukes...

- - - Updated - - -

The fall out is one thing but the original claim was the "explosion" would be the size of Texas. That would have to be a mighty big bomb

That's media trying to sell papers, an explosion that size would need to be from some big-ass asteroid, that would probably end humanity..

[PACOX]

Two nuclear armed countries have also not gone to all out war with each other either, and as nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, there has been no reasonable opportunity to use them. Pakistan/India/China are the most likely countries to use them against each other as MAD does not apply.

Russia isn't interesting with cooperating with anyone, Russia wants to assert itself as USSR Russia.

- - - Updated - - -

intently studied something that has never happened..yes, I'm aware of that, but it always needs to be taken with a grain of salt, if always war plays out as things have been studied, I'd have a lot more respect for such "expertise"...



China? Hardly, unless Japan goes full imperialist retard again, but they have been softed up with anime girls n tentacles..

Pakistan n India, they have their own mini-cold war but difference from us n ussr is that india n pakistan occasionally shoot at each other in kashmir with some artillery pieces but it never goes farther than that (maybe they are saying hello to each other?).
Indian economy is taking of these last few years also n their conventional mil capabilies becomes too much for pakistan to ever risk a new real war n india is building a navy that could devastate pakistan with nukes from ze ocean which makes it hard for a "small" country like pakistan to plan for..

No, what should worry us is if your Saudi friends build nukes...

- - - Updated - - -



That's media trying to sell papers, an explosion that size would need to be from some big-ass asteroid, that would probably end humanity..

The Saudi's won't get nukes in the foreseeable future, so far as the US is still friends with them or hasn't tried bring democracy SA and failed. The US keeps the Saudi's close because it at least that way they can keep some sort of hold and influence on the country. A SA free of the US is very dangerous for the ME.

[Skroe]

That's a bit speculative though isn't it? I mean, you can have all the experts in the world do analyses off satellite imagery and whatnot but to my knowledge there's no real hard evidence exactly how well a Russian-made missile silo can withstand a reasonably well-placed detonation from an American-made warhead or vice versa?

That's what really irks me about all this warmongering from both sides or how USA/Russia is so much better at this or that. Lots of people quoting numbers taken from manufacturers who naturally hype up their own products or from a panel of "experts" who base their opinions on their own agendas, the same manufacturer numbers and tests that can be considered best-case scenarios at worst.
There's just no hard evidence because there hasn't ever been a nuclear exchange in modern times, so there's no data to fall back on. It's all speculation, no doubt very good speculation from many sources but speculation all the same, and if the numbers are off by even a little when it comes to nukes.... Well then we're all royally fucked.

Wish people would just cool down with this cold war 2.0 bullshit.

At some level it's all a bit speculative, but that doesn't mean there isn't hard data to back it all up.

For example, the US (and Russia) have done many many hundreds of nuclear tests of all different shapes, sizes and purposes. It's well know how big a crater - or rather how deep of one - (and how deep) a weapon at X tonnage detonate X meters about the ground will dig. In fact one of (but not all) the reasons the US launches multiple warheads at one "aim point" in some cases is to "dig" in a sense... repeated detonations, some number of seconds apart in sequence, digging down deeper. Furthermore with that the US knows how strong a reinforced concrete bunker / silo is from building them on their own, and will have gathered intelligence, including from inspections under treaties, about how deep the silos go, how thick the protection is, and so forth.

Basically, especially for FIXED ICBMs, there is a lot that is "known". The Russians haven't reinforced their silos with unobtanium, right? A reinforced concrete bunker is a reinforced concrete bunker, no matter who builds them (hence the US developing non-nuclear alternatives for just that scenario, in case we have to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities). The US has built and destroyed all types of hardened facilities over the years, just to see how effective weapons are.

It's worth noting that nothing I've posted is from manufacturers and there isn't a "US Nuclear Weapons" manufacturer, in the way that Lockheed Martin is making the F-35 or something. The US Government, via tightly controlled subcontracting, builds it's own nuclear weapons, and they don't exactly tout them. In fact, you have to kind of do some digging to get to a clear answer to something as simple as "Yes, the US intends to retire the venerable W78, W87, W88 and W76 warheads and replace them with three new designs, IW1, IW2 and IW3, all largely based on the W88 design with modern advancements". If we were talking about a boat or a plane, that would be a big deal. A warhead? The only people who talk about that are the Department of Energy to Congress, Arms control groups and the CBO to Congress. It's not exactly a marquee item.



It's called the 3+2 Plan officially by the way. Notable because SLBMs and ICBMs will share warheads. I do find it interesting - without knowing as to why of course - they're planning on producing the IW-3 design to replace just the W76 and IW-2 replacing just W87 (in contrast, with IW-1 consolidating W88 and W78 designs). My educated guess is that this is part of their stated purpose of having reliability in diversity. That is to say, if there is a problem with the IW-2 design (for example) that requires them to be taken out of service temporarily and reliability, they still have IW-1 and IW-3 in the active deterrent that doesn't leave the US defenseless as all IW-2s are taken out.



Thanks Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

lol poor Skroe. Takes all this effort to educate people, giving us direct links the researchers and policy makers whose careers are dedicated to this field of study, and the internet waves it off as "well, you know, that's just like...your opinion man." Love your posts Skroe!

I appreciate it Really.

I get Shadowferal and people like him. I really do. There is not a thing in the world I could have produced that could adequately make my point to somebody like that. That type of fellow just doesn't care.

But the rest of us on the otherhand, maybe some of us learned something!

Out of this thread, maybe a few more people will now know, for example, that the US is building three new nuclear warheads over the next 25 years to replace the legacy late-Cold War designs with inter-operable warheads. Are they "better"? Probably will be, to some degree, bust mostly in that they are cheaper (in part because its cheaper to maintain 3 warhead designs rather than 4) and safer than what they replace. Far from "Tremble Russians, at our awesome new power! You're Finished!", it's more like "cool on the other end of this, we get to spend less on nuclear weapons". With Satan-2 Russians can measure their dongs. Americans with 3+2 can, at the end of it, measure our balance sheet.

Or consider, Obama floating a unilateral cut to the arsenal from 1550 to 1000 warheads, something he would have (foolishly, recklessly) done had Russia not been aggressive the last two years. Why 1000? How does that factor into the US aimpoint equation given above? Is it even legitimate considering that so many of those would go to the Hedge Stockpile and could be made active in a couple of days at most? Hopefully this data provides some context when people read news stories like that. People could be for or against such a proposed cut, or anything else of course... they have a right to an opinion. But they don't get to say "there is no purpose to haveing 1550 warheads compared to 1000": Well... know... RAND and others identified a purpose, it's just a matter of how much more risk you want to assume. If 1000 warheads means two warheads per aimpoints rather than three, then that is a decision that people should be fully in formed about before they decide to support something.

Go go gadget more informed citizens.


My problem with Shadowferal and the others is that they have this attitude that is so... like my analogy of "looking into the sun" is so fitting. It like hurts them to think about. They simply don't wanna know how the sausage is made.

We could be talking about basically anything... not even nuclear weapons, really... anything... I'm just the kind of person who really, really wants to know how the sausage is made before I eat said sausage and decide if I like the taste or not. I just can't relate to people who rather be blind, deaf and dumb to the questions of "how" and "why".

- - - Updated - - -

Since I don't agree with you, I'm sure you believe that.
But your links aren't anything.
They're scenarios..so what? They are what for worst cases.."maybe this will happen...This might occur..."
That's all that you have "Maybe...Might..Possible...scenarios.

Has a nuke exchange ever happened? Yes or no?
We already know the answer.

Those hairy-scarey scenarios are typically used for funding and for support. That's it.
I realize that it might be tough for you to admit it, but you've nothing in history that backs up your opinion other than other peoples' opinions. Which means your conclusions are...just more opinion.

See above. You are entitled to disagree with me.

You are not entitled to your own facts and findings when my sources are diverse and iron clad. You'll have a difficult time convincing anyone that RAND and the Carneige Endowment are part of some kind of right / Neocon / warmongering nuclear fetishist team.


You just don't like learning how sausage is made, so to speak. The problem exists between your chair and your keyboard.

[Kellhound]

Russia isn't interesting with cooperating with anyone, Russia wants to assert itself as USSR Russia.

- - - Updated - - -



The Saudi's won't get nukes in the foreseeable future, so far as the US is still friends with them or hasn't tried bring democracy SA and failed. The US keeps the Saudi's close because it at least that way they can keep some sort of hold and influence on the country. A SA free of the US is very dangerous for the ME.

It is believed that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a nuclear weapon sharing agreement.

[Shadowferal]

I guess your saying there are no experts on nuclear war? I don't know if you are aware, but RAND developed MAD, and the theory was adopted by the US government.

No.
John von Neumann created the humorous acronym, among other acronyms. (The man was a genius)

lol poor Skroe. Takes all this effort to educate people

Propaganda isn't education.

It is believed that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a nuclear weapon sharing agreement.

Yep...It was to counter Israel.

[Kellhound]

No.
John von Neumann created the humorous acronym, among other acronyms. (The man was a genius)

Propaganda isn't education.


Yep...It was to counter Israel.

It was more likely to counter Iran, not Israel.

[Ulmita]

in Revelation 12:7–12. In this passage, John sees a great war between Michael and the angels of God and the dragon (Satan)
and his fallen angels or demons that will take place in the end times. Satan, in his great pride and delusion that he can be like God,
will lead a final rebellion against God. It will be a cosmic mismatch. Thus, the dragon and his demons will lose the battle and be thrown out of heaven forever.

Amen

/char

[ringpriest]

It is opinion. Unless you actually field-test a world war 3, you can't be an "expert" in the subject. It's all theories n maybe's, as for Skroe he is super-biased and would never rise very high in the military because you need to be a helluva lot less dismissive of enemy capabilities, tactics n weapons than he is. People like him are better suited scrubbing toilets with tooth brushes than get their men killed cuz of "'murica! fuck yeah!" attitude.

You can theorize about 'knowns' capabilities but there are a lot of 'unknowns' n how things change depending on what transpires n what next is put on the field can swing shit this way or that way.

He's right about the relative vulnerability (for the present and near-future) of Russian strategic forces vis-a-vis the United States; this really isn't a matter for debate - it's a matter of X strike platforms with Y capabilities targeting Z delivery systems with W attributes. It's math, and not even particularly high-order math at that, just a lot of number crunching. That the US could get almost all of Russia's platforms with a surprise counter-force strike is pretty well-established (hell, even with its current less-than-parity, Russia could probably make a sizable dent in US capability with a similar strike, although its not really positioned to take advantage of such a scenario in any case).

The debate, and the "unknowns", revolve around edge cases (as I mentioned in my previous post), the subsequent costs and consequences, and the more abstract and philosophical motivations for or against any such decision - the practical realities are on the table (or helpfully linked by Skroe earlier in the thread) for anyone with two brain cells and a modicum of desire to educate themselves to peruse at their leisure and they're really not up for debate (there's plenty of debate about precise capabilities, but that's just changing the numbers you plug in by a bit - it doesn't really change the overall scenario much).

[Ulmita]

That the US could get almost all of Russia's platforms with a surprise counter-force strike is pretty well-established (hell, even with its current less-than-parity, Russia could probably make a sizable dent in US capability with a similar strike, although its not really positioned to take advantage of such a scenario in any case).

No its not, cut the bs pls and stop posting nonsense. Both the US and the Russian nuclear forces are in hair trigger alert. That means Russia (as well as the Americans) will have plenty of time to launch everything they got when they see a mass laucn sequence.

[Pengekaer]

No its not, cut the bs pls and stop posting nonsense. Both the US and the Russian nuclear forces are in hair trigger alert. That means Russia (as well as the Americans) will have plenty of time to launch everything they got when they see a mass laucn sequence.

Oh please. "When" they see a mass launch sequence? What happened to "if" and "hopefully not"? You sound almost excited about this. But what should I expect from a person who just wrote

"

Those are NOT intercept-able and the only EU country that has a problem is UK (If it ever gets down to that in which case the whole island will get literally sterilized from any form of life, including bacteria)

"

Lol there's no way, I tell ya, that Russian nukes would kill even bacteria in the UK. As the radiation from your beloved nukes break DNA phosphodiester bonds apart (and they will) in living beings, the cells will try to repair the breaks in a vastly complicated manner using different DNA-polymerases and other enzymes. The repairs however, will not always be successful and it will generate mutations (if the proofreading fails), DNA-deletions etc. For humans and primates, this is catastrophic and we will develop cancer from the radiation. But bacteria, they don't care particularly much. They naturally mutate alot (their DNA-proofreading enzymes are primitive and not as efficient as in primates) so bacteria are really used to deal with mutations in the first place. They deal with mutation by replicating fast, as their generation time is to be measured in only hours. Bacteria don't care if most mutations are deleterious: If 99.99 % of them die, they'll be fine. Exemplary, the fact that bacteria positive in enzymes that degrade penicillin are spreading rapidly throughout our societies testifies to their incredible resilience: they respond well to environmental threats because they mutate alot (poor proofreading) changing the properties of their enzymes etc., they replicate fast and then nature lets live those specimens who are viable. So they're extremely adaptable to new conditions in environment, including high radiation. That is also exactly what will happen when your precious russian nukes fall over the UK.
Now this whole biology thing isn't actually what I wanted to write. :P I just couldn't help it. Its besides the point. Anyways, my point is you seem to think that the people commanding these nukes are not humans, but some kind of Terminators just waiting for the right opportunity to use their toys.
This isn't how war works. What's for Russia, or any other nation, to gain by carpet bombing with nukes? Not much eh? What motives would drive such madness?
Even during WW2, even after five long years of full scale world-war, the US didn't go on a full-scale nuclear frenzy because it wasn't in line with their goals, they instead used them strategically to force a surrender from the japanese government (note, that they didn't even want to destroy the japanese government, let alone the japanese civilization or its people). They just used the nukes to force the japanese to the negotiation table for an unconditional surrender. It was a gruesome way of bringing the japanese to negotiate, but the US didn't want to remove japan from existence. That's because generals and politicians usually have plans and strategies and goals. They aren't like ants and thermites each wanting to kill the other down to the last individual. Thankfully, humankind has (for the most part) evolved past this.

But you, you make it sound like nuclear powers exist only to kill all life on Earth and that Russia will be the oh-so-awesome nation to do it. It demonstrates a very poor understanding of what a nuke is, what its capabilities of life-eradication really are (which is why i couldn't help but to include the little bacteria-story :P) and how those who have nukes want to use them.
Those who have nukes want to use them for some political purposes (which thankfully means not using them), not to wipe entire populations or civilizations off the map. There's no strategy in that, on what level do you think governments and generals think? Like an angry gorilla? The fact that you think the russians, british and americans who commands the nukes as some sort of psychotic goth emo-kids who REALLY want push that big, red "DONT PUSH THIS BUTTON"-button shows that you know little history, nukes (I also know very little about nukes, I admit), or even human beings.

Skroe and Ringpriest especially write some pretty educational stuff that really tells the story of the nuke arsenals: how they exist in the form they do for historical, political, economic and strategical reasons and how those hold command over these nukes don't really want to unleash them. Thankfully - to you great regret I guess - real generals and top-level politicians are mostly rational people (to some degree at least :P) and not bat-shit crazies like this guy

[Skroe]

Skroe and Ringpriest especially write some pretty educational stuff that really tells the story of the nuke arsenals: how they exist in the form they do for historical, political, economic and strategical reasons and how those hold command over these nukes don't really want to unleash them. Thankfully - to you great regret I guess - real generals and top-level politicians are mostly rational people (to some degree at least :P) and not bat-shit crazies like this guy

The recurring theme in this thread, is that despite Nuclear Weapons policy being kind of, ya know, one of the big ones... one that involes so many sub-discipline and has a foundation upon decades worth of really hard data... some folks really have zero interest in how such policy sausage is made.

They worship MAD like some kind of pagan elemental demi-god. They mistake saying "MAD only exists under certain circumstances because _______" as either denying MAD is a thing or advocating wiping out Russia or something. It's like their afraid to look at it and question the nature of their pagan god.

We've had close minded threads before, but this takes the cake.

This hooks into a conversation that was had in another thread on Cyberwar, namely how the "Nuclear Norms", such as not using a nuclear weapon in every given military conflict (say, something Iraq War or Ukraine invasion sized), or "only a President can order a nuclear strike in the US and Russia", or nuclear weapons are only built for specific purposes, are EMERGENT PROPERTIES that came as a result of trial, error, near misses and debates in the late 1940s and 1950s. There is no treaty on any of this stuff. The "Balance of Terror" is a series of informal norms upheld by stakeholders who have a vested interest in upholding them.

Nuclear parity is one of those norms. But there is no treaty that offers a floor for nuclear weapons, only a ceiling. What happens when nuclear parity isn't maintained, either through technological sophistication, warhead number or launcher number? What happens to MAD then? Because the day after in a US (or Russia) hit by 30 warheads instead of 3000 is a very different animal. Policy must exist for all scenarios, and not simply praying to the alter of a Pagan MAD god that assumes "Nukes FLy, We all Die". Well... the US and Russia would be totaled by 3000 warheads. 30 though? Catastrophic, but certainly recoverable. Vast swathes of each country (in both land area and population) would be entirely unaffected. That doesn't really make it MAD right? What policy exists for that scenario?

In the end, the MAD Pagans will continue being who they are regardless.