Putin told to fire nuclear missile at largest US weapon range as a 'warning'

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I also remember the USS Kitty Hawk running over a Soviet sub in 1984. You are comparing apples and oranges. The Chinese sub was a diesel-electric boat. It got out in front of the Battle group and went silent. Russia's missile boats are nuclear. They can't go silent. Since this whole Ukraine mess started those boats have been tracked. Maintaince on Russia's submarines has been spotty over the last several years. That makes them detectable.

Ok, so if by chance one or two were well maintained, they are still detectable because they are nuclear?

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I'm not a scientist, but my understanding of nuclear arms is the material has to be refined to weapons grade from the start. Nuclear power rods can be of similar quality and likely used for weapons, but not after they're spent. At that point they can be used for dirty bombs. Even if they could be further refined, the spent material at chernobyl are under large amounts of concrete and water. I know it's accessible, but it adds a large amount of risk to acquiring it from one of the most well documented and monitored nuclear sites on the planet.

Ukraine derives a majority of their power from nuclear... So another site would probably yield better quality source material without all the optics.

Obviously I'm just speculating, but with the quality (or lack there of) of information in this conflict, all we have is our reasoning and read between the lines abilities to navigate this.

Multiple government planes were headed east this morning out of Moscow. Transponders on, so not hiding. Maybe to look as if there will be escalation, without actually doing it? Not sure.

Liveuamap-Twitter

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: lordcomac
I'm pretty sure if an ICBM is headed from Russia to Nevada, USA... retaliation will be in the air as it either reaches its target, or is shot down.

Doesn't matter if it's headed for a test range or not.

I wonder how many seconds of flight time there is for an SLBM launched off the Atlantic Coast to the US Capitol. (less than 30secs)

I wonder how many launch tubes there are on a Russian boomer. (16)

I wonder home many warheads there are on each missile. (6-10)

I wonder what the power comparison of one warhead is compared to Little Boy (Hiroshima) (approx 10X)

By all indications US forces are currently at Defcon 3, “Roundhouse”. That being said the USAF is ready to scramble in +15 minutes. Again, that indicates to me, that the bomb bays are loaded. If a Russian SLBM were inbound to the Nevada test site. I would imagine Space Command would see it as a first strike against Area 51. A US retaliatory strike of equal magnitude would be a given. Below is INFO that I pulled from the internet on Russian weapons appears to be the equivalent of the American Trident II (D5).


The RSM-56 Bulava is a submarine-launched ballistic missile developed for the Russian Navy and deployed in 2013 on the new Borei class of ballistic missile nuclear submarines. It is intended as the future cornerstone of Russia's nuclear triad, and is the most expensive weapons project in the country. Wikipedia
Designer: Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology
Warhead: 6-10 × 100-150 kt MIRVs
Length: 11.5 m (38 ft) (without warhead); 12.1 m (40 ft) (launch container)
Engine: Three stage solid and liquid head stage
Accuracy: 120-350 meters

a reply to: TrueAmerican

A nuclear sub can't totally shut down and hide. It still has to run coolant pumps for it's reactors. It is the same for US nuclear subs as well. That's one of the reasons that the US Navy is revisiting the diesel-electric submarine. Russian subs have been noisy even going back to the Soviet Union. Noise can be tracked. I've heard Soviet subs on sonar before. Our helicopters hadn't received the upgraded digital sonar when I was in. We still used paper and needle displays.

a reply to: lordcomac

I'm pretty sure if a ICBM is headed from Russia to Nevada, USA... retaliation will be in the air as it either reaches its target, or is shot down.

Doesn't matter if it's headed for a test range or not.

I am glad you trust Brandon enough to even be awake when that happens.

a reply to: MiddleInsite

I simply refer you to the existence of an organisation called "Campaign for nuclear disarmament" cnduk.org... which has been actively campaigning since at least 1960. In the Sixties, they were organising mass protest marches and demonstrations.

The actual expression I used was "abandoning deterrence-theory". It has been notorious for sixty years or so that many on the left mocked the theory of "nuclear deterrence" and wanted it to be given up. I refer you, again, to the existence of a film called "Doctor Strangelove", which was consciously intended to "debunk" the concept. Do you need a link about that film, or have you heard of it before?

a reply to: CriticalStinker
I might have been a bit wishy washy on the term "enrichment".

Like you point out, for fuel rods you need to enrich them first through isotope separation. That gives you the fuel rod. It's step 1 in becoming a nuclear power as in, utilizing nuclear reactions.

For a fissle reaction like happening in a nuclear bomb, you need at least 85% U-235. It's also a misconception by other laymen here on the forum (no offense to you) that you need centrifuges. There are plenty of other methods like laser enrichment that has a much smaller energy profile. You fire a modulated laser onto uranium so it will only ionize U-235, a charged plate then collects them.

Ukraine has 10% shares on a Russian enrichment facility in Siberia. Germany, Netherland and Norway are helping out with different tasks, knowledge, equipment, enrichment since like around 2016 for the Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

my understanding of nuclear arms is the material has to be refined to weapons grade from the start. Nuclear power rods can be of similar quality and likely used for weapons, but not after they're spent.

The thing with plutonium from spent fuel rods is, that it has a high rate of spontaneous fission. This might lead to premajure detonation and lower the yield. Not like detonating just like "puff" anytime but during ignition phase it might lead to the core being blowed apart. Weapons grade plutonium is around 93% and indeed needs to be enriched.

However they can breed it in special reactors using plutonium aquired from spent fuel rods and enrich it further, if I remember correct. My terrorist score just shot through the roof just making this post probably.

@NSA, BNI & BSI, I am just a nerd.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Nuclear power rods can be of similar quality and likely used for weapons...

Uranium for fuel is of differing enrichment levels of that needed for a fission device. Fuel refining centrifuges are typically more numerous but of less stages while weapons grade facilities will have more stages of higher RPM operating rates to produce purer Uranium.

You can achieve reactor grade at a few percent, weapons grade needs to be closer to 90%.

originally posted by: lordcomac
I'm pretty sure if a ICBM is headed from Russia to Nevada, USA... retaliation will be in the air as it either reaches its target, or is shot down.

Doesn't matter if it's headed for a test range or not.

Well... a launch like that isnt really about the end result but the statement in it...

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Snarl

I wonder how many "boomers" Russia has active? 8 the last time I checked.
I wonder what the maintaince condition of Russia's boomers is?
I wonder if the US Navy still shadows Russian boomers when they come out of port? They do.
I wonder if SOSUS is still active? It is.

Where the heck did you get 8 from?

Both the us and russia has around 1500 deployed nukes. The current big ones are RS-28.

The us has 200 of theirs in EU region nato countries.

a reply to: flice

He's referring to ballistic missile submarines.

If a "warning" shot is fired towards the USA, it's an act of war. It doesn't matter where it's headed IN THE USA. It doesn't matter if it's nuclear not. I can't believe what I'm reading on this thread.

We don't wait for a missile to hit the USA, determine if it's nuclear or not etc. to block or retaliate. What does everyone think our elaborate defense system we've been bragging about all these years is for? Our military on the ready and all that. But that's all questionable of how effective it truly is.

ETA: regarding those incidences of unknown senders that others are talking about that are mysterious, that truly is a concern. The USA has sold us on safety from our enemies but I sometimes warning how effective all that is. I have also wondered how 'ready' we truly are.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thanks.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I wonder if SOSUS is still active? It is.

Pretty old school and in need of repair/modernization ... from what I hear ... and won't do a damned thing if an adversary is determined to launch. Knowing where someone is and doing something about it are two different things. Why do we track Putin's subs instead of just killing them?

You can't preemptively kill one of Putin's subs without being guilty of firing the first shot. If he gets off the first shot, that's 4 missiles in the air before squat can be done about it, and that's a whole lot of boom ... followed by a butt-ton of disarray.

And what about those two missile launches that went up the West Coast a while back? No one knows who launched 'em. No one knows where they splashed. But ... they know there's a threat they've got no counter for. I wonder why 'somebody' showed their hand. Had folks pissin' their pants ... and those antics are more fun to watch than the threat.

a reply to: Snarl

You can kill him as soon as he floods a missile tube. That's part of the launch sequence.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Plus when they did the breakdown of what Chernobyl without power looks like, they have backup generators, and even if those go out the material is spent enough a full meltdown is unlikely.

I can't imagine that juice would be worth the squeeze for weapons when they have other sites they could skim from.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Agree with most of your post except this

WW3 would be invoked unless the US sees it's just one and logic dictates if there is one ICBM from Russia it may not be nuclear tipped.

Logic could also dictate that it has multiple warheads and can strike multiple targets.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I can't imagine that juice would be worth the squeeze for weapons when they have other sites they could skim from.

Unless you're counting the plant itself as a 'weapon' or they are looking to make a dirty bomb there is no weapons grade material at Chernobyl.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Snarl

You can kill him as soon as he floods a missile tube. That's part of the launch sequence.

LOL ... you don't flood missile tubes ... you flood torpedo tubes.

Missiles blow upwards through a bubble of air.