Russia has deployed the Avangard Hypersonic Nuclear Weapon

a reply to: schuyler

Many of us have far better sources than Wikipedia. We may only know a fraction of what's out there, but we know a lot more than others.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Russia has always had good engineers. Their problem is once production starts they have major issues. Some of their aircraft I dealt with periodically were kind of scary.

a reply to: CJCrawley

I surely wish all warmonger polititians replaced by less selfish individuals. Like people for people.

Maybe I m really deep in Christmas spirit 😜

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: schuyler

Many of us have far better sources than Wikipedia. We may only know a fraction of what's out there, but we know a lot more than others.

I'm happy for you, but the OP seems fixated on Wikipedia and certain that "we" don't have such a weapon. I'm simply suggesting that many people think they know a lot more than they actually do, regardless of their "secret" sources. On the Internet anyone can be an expert. I'm quite certain that I know very little. I'm not convinced anyone else does either.

originally posted by: Charliebrowndog
a reply to: gortex

I just don't get why any more of these are being created. There are already enough nukes to blow up the world many times over. Its just crazy to spend the resources on something like this

yep it's .......





it's just a matter of time....

Go out rockin....

as time goes on, nihilism almost makes sense.

a reply to: schuyler

When talking about anything that isn't publicly disclosed or doesn't have much information you're pretty limited in sources that can be used. So you get what can be found publicly, such as Wiki.

originally posted by: Forensick
You can still spot the launch and deploy your own ergo MAD.

All it does it cut down decision time making MAD more likely.

A bit like the B2 and B-21 dropping bombs on Russia, as soon as one goes bang the Russians will counter and everyone will die.

Pointless as t1ts on a nun.

Always hated nouns, ever since catholic school

a reply to: zatara

Hi Anza,
For the same reason President Regan brought up the star wars defense system. To make them worry about what we have . We of course will deny having this tech... but unlike what is being implied i.e. that we are behind the ball. We probably have something that eclipses this. The Military is 20 years ahead of all civilian tech, they let it trickle out as it becomes obsolete. My grandfather worked for Nasa , Ford Aerospace and JPL , and that was after he retired from the Army and he would talk about how great the future was going to be when stuff finally became available.

a reply to: Daranini

That's a lot more complicated than "the military is c years ahead of civilian tech". There are areas the military is 8-10 years ahead, and areas the civilian world is ahead of the military. It's not a blanket statement.

The way I see it the next major escalation will be in space. I don't mean satellites I mean something along the lines of a lunar base with manufacturing capability. I have read that smelting processes have been developed that could work in such an environment which would allow them to build.

The scary thing would then be simple kinetic weaponry along the line of a thor system. Launching from the moon would be near undetectable and from there it is all about the math and trajectories. If Elon gets his Starship working things will start changing very fast. Maybe his idea to colonize Mars is a good one. I still think the idea of having people make the trip without artificial gravity isn't feasible but time will tell.

a reply to: zatara

Something isn't right... Why would Russia give away the existance their most effective distructive weapon in their arsenal?

So that the rest of the world will wonder IF it is the best they have?

Everybody dies we just kill them slower .

a reply to: zatara

Because it's not. No ICBM can truly be defended against effectively. More than one and any defensive system will be overwhelmed. A boost glide weapon is just harder to stop with a single weapon as opposed to an ICBM. It doesn't have a mid course coast phase.

I f*cking love nukes, but keeping them on the table is stupid.
Spoils all the fun.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The way I see it the next major escalation will be in space. I don't mean satellites I mean something along the lines of a lunar base with manufacturing capability. I have read that smelting processes have been developed that could work in such an environment which would allow them to build.

The scary thing would then be simple kinetic weaponry along the line of a thor system. Launching from the moon would be near undetectable and from there it is all about the math and trajectories. If Elon gets his Starship working things will start changing very fast. Maybe his idea to colonize Mars is a good one. I still think the idea of having people make the trip without artificial gravity isn't feasible but time will tell.

Enter the private sector, via start ups like SpaceX paving the way.

The threat would be China as they can nationalize that endeavor, however I think Private sector will be the way to go, with a clear understanding on the national security implications.

I'm wondering what the coolest way to go out in a blaze of glory is:

1. Knowing there's an ICMB heading for You and there's time to crack a beer and watch it all unfold on the patio with a loved one

or

2. Taking a number 2 and never knowing what hit You

the Putin chess move: Russia has deployed the Avangard Hypersonic Nuclear Weapon


the Trump counter move: Trump creates Space Forces branch of Military


likely future-> no hypersonic nukes launched but a USA Aircraft Carrier task force will get 'disappeared' by an adversary in International Waters enroute to south China Sea operations

so no 'rods from god' (space forces retaliation response will ensue

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Willtell

That requires a form of globalism, something far too many people are against now days. Collaborate with other nations? Pfff fat chance. ME FIRST.

I wouldn’t classify arms treaty’s as globalism. And even so, I think it’s more important to save the planet from annihilation than worry about globalism.


Let's face it, sooner or later these weapons are going to be used massively and the world will regret that unlike anything EVER.


For any politician, this time Putin, bragging about powerful nuclear weapons is utter madness.

Unless they want to destroy the planet. Maybe they do.

(Bold mine, for the point I'm addressing.) That IS the prevailing thinking, but I just don't see it. Unless one of the superpowers decides to directly invade another - like if the US decided we were going to literally take over Russia via military invasion.

Arguments over proxy wars, wars over oil pipelines and opium fields, etc, are never going to lead to a nuclear launch.

Everyone knows the outcome if we go full nuclear. Unless its a conscious decision by world leaders and their puppeteers to destroy the human race and the livability of Earth, it won't happen.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Willtell

That requires a form of globalism, something far too many people are against now days. Collaborate with other nations? Pfff fat chance. ME FIRST.

The Irony being that we've been marched towards globalism for decades, and yet here we are...Its clearly worked.