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

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
Logic could also dictate that it has multiple warheads and can strike multiple targets.

Yeah, I mean how do you look at an inbound missile traveling at supersonic speeds and say, "Hmmmm, I don't think it has MIRV capabilities", let alone tell what type of payload it might or might not be carrying.

a reply to: BernnieJGato
Did not know they can split. How many nuclear warheads can such a device carry?

Logic would further dictate that putting all their bet's on just one ICBM is kind of silly. These things can also malfunction, it's not guarantied that it reaches the trajectory point where it seperates the warhead from the ICBM somewhere at the edge of space.

And just imagine the sheer size of the US, even if a single ICBM could carry 50 warheads, that's still just one per state and how many valuable military installations are there, a lot more than states.

That's where my logic is based on, also MAD.

originally posted by: Snarl

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.

Yeah but his point still stands if there are nuclear armed torpedoes that can takeout entire port cities. And if I am not mistaken, I believe they have had those for while now, no?

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Agreed about any meltdowns being unlikely.

If I had to come up with a reason why it would be there (in theory, wrote that explicit for you again AM), the only reason would be white noise because of the fallout, to tamper with detection.

But then it's highly unlogic to dig up contaminated ground to build a facility there*. There would be other places more suitable like inside / under a mountain, or just in plain sight because it's no secret Ukraine wants to enrich their own fuel.

The whole Chernobyl has enrichment theory has no legs at all. And again, if there was something and Putin knew, had evidence, the only reason why he didn't say it, provided by all chances there is an enrichment facility, would be still assembling evidence. Because as we both noticed, hyperbole a lot and for what if you can present.

@AM
That's why I asked RussianTroll originally for his opinion about why, provided there is enrichment happening there, Putin didn't play that card then. That's THE argument, better than any NAZI or other reasons he brought up. Why not play it. Again, that's on you, reading comprehension.

*in order to built a foundation even for over-ground buildings, you still need to dig up the ground.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

If i recall correctly up to 12, but most only have 4 or 5. been a while since I read anything on them and haven't been keeping up with it.

But back in the day when I baby sat them we were always being updated.

I use to know where most of what our government said would be targeted for a USSR first strike. Can't remember to many other than the state I live in Fl is pretty much gone if shtf, east coast especially Jacksonville / MayPort along with the, most of the U.S east and west coasts

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Tridents had 14.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Yeah but his point still stands if there are nuclear armed torpedoes that can takeout entire port cities. And if I am not mistaken, I believe they have had those for while now, no?

I dunno ... it's debatable.

Supposedly Russia has developed three things that are 'unstoppable':
1) The Dead Hand launch. If their strategic launch system doesn't detect a designated signal ... everything fires.
2) Some magic cobalt bomb that makes the Earth uninhabitable
3) Coastal City Killer (am guessing that's what you're referring to). This one is more like a submarine that supposedly hovers outside the 12 mile zone. Listens for an ELF signal. Creeps in to its target location and detonates, creating either a Tsunami or obliterates directly.

Great campfire stories all. I think they'll also have Red Matter before the end of the month.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

How was it for you to babysit such firecrackers? Is it just routine and an "abstract idea" that there are warheads capable of unleashing such amounts of energy? Or did you feel some kind of respect towards being around them?

Just interested because when I toured a nuclear power plant with my old company, I was very respectful for what just happened. Not afraid but there was some sense of alertness in the air, where I currently am.

a reply to: Snarl

Well perhaps knowing that they have been in service since a very long time ago might help.... I hadn't looked them up in a while, kinda forgot... but yep...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Snarl

You flood a missile tube as well. You flood before opening the missile hatch. If you don't the inrush of water can damage the missile. The burst of gas it to expel the missile from the tube after flooding.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Snarl

You flood a missile tube as well. You flood before opening the missile hatch. If you don't the inrush of water can damage the missile. The burst of gas it to expel the missile from the tube after flooding.

No ... just no ...

The last post you (almost) ever made to the boards was wrong.

a reply to: Snarl

Yes... just yes... they exist, see post above- and are launched from torpedo tubes. Therefore they will need to be flooded.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: Snarl

Yes... just yes... they exist, see post above- and are launched from torpedo tubes. Therefore they will need to be flooded.

Apples and oranges, Brother.

Yes ... torpedo tubes get flooded.

Missile tubes only flood after their payload has launched.

Why didn't you show up over @ RN3? I thought we had lost you.

a reply to: Snarl

I never even heard of that place till now, and still ain't been there. Not to mention we have forums at SpectroNet. www.abovetopsecret.com...

USSR use'd the bigest bomb EVER!
the Tsar Bomba.
"three-stage bomb with a Trutnev-Babaev second- and third-stage design, with a yield of 50 Mt. This is equivalent to about 1,570 times the combined energy of the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 10 times the combined energy of all the conventional explosives used in World War II,"

if the drop one like that in the middle of the north atlantic ocean.
The Tsunami would take out USA and UK and europe!
with one Bomb!

originally posted by: buddha
if the drop one like that in the middle of the north atlantic ocean.
The Tsunami would take out USA and UK and europe!
with one Bomb!

It's not nearly big enough to do that, the order of joules is magnitudes larger for an actual earthquake/tsunami.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

At first it was like aw sh@@, my ass is grass if shtf or one of the Navy ET's screw up. After about six months or so it was the same ol same ol.

I will tell you this, you know the saying when the cats away the mice will play? We use to joke that if people knew what happens in the compound when those in charge, the OD, OG, or certain SOG's, are gone, they wouldn't sleep at night.

Sometimes I wonder if it's still the same way. You can't put a bunch of 17 to 20 somethings in a confined space like that and not expect some kind of sh@@ not happen.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's true for the tsar, but russia claims they have a nuke that will create a Tsunami 500m/1650ft high,that can be fired from a sub.

That's is more than likely bullsh@@ though.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Sure.

They're self-satirizing at this point.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Any fuel rod can be enriched to weapons grade materials, including "spent" fuel rods. That is the nature of breeder reactors.

When fission takes place fast neutrons are released. These neutrons usually fly through the reactor and embed themselves in the walls, and thats it. Over time the walls may need some repair but that is the extent of their impact. In a breeder reactor these fast neutrons are slowed down using a moderator, usually D2O or graphite, to the point they become thermal neutrons. The main difference being thermal neutrons impact fuel rods and mutate non-fissionable isotope 238, roughly 95% of any fuel rod, into fissionable isotope 239.

With proper administration these types of plant could be the answer to our energy problems. Once primed with live fuel rods they can run indefinitely on spent fuel rods, the waste from other power plants. This solves two of our biggest problems at once. Unfortunately, with improper administration, these types of plants can be used to create weapons grade materials, or, suffer catastrophic meltdown.

Personally I always felt the use of D2O as a moderator was pretty foolproof. If the reactor starts to get out of control you just "flush" the core - drop the entire body of the moderator. It doesn't matter how much reaction is taking place at that moment, it will end without more live fuel to sustain the reaction. With no moderator, and no live fuel rods being fed in, the reaction has to end - even with no further human intervention. Though D2O is just as good a moderator as other choices, graphite seems to be the one used most often. It has failed more than once. To me, that should mean it is no longer on the list of acceptable moderators.