Confirmed: SS-21 Scarab launchers in S. Ossetia!

The bombs used in Japan were 10-20 KILOTONS each. A megaton would have been far more devastating.

A 100 kiloton warhead has a maximum yield of 100KT but can be "dialed in" to less than 20, if desired. The dialing in feature basically adjusts the cones/reflectors/gun trigger pressures to allow a less efficient primary & secondary explosion.

At the full 100 Kilotons, the largest city on earth would be completely in ruins and everyone outdoors/upstairs within a couple miles cremated. 20 miles or more away would be fairly safe though shattered glass would still be a life threatening hazard. 50 miles away and the only immediate risk would be blindness to bird watchers, if they had their binoculars focused in the direction of the explosion. Over the following hours, the threat would be radiation exposure in the form of fall out, at fatal levels in the wind corridor up to a hundred miles maybe. Outside the general damage area, away from the wind current etc you would be safe 20 miles or more away.

1 Megaton is far too much for even the largest city on the planet. Its only use is strategic targets like deep bunkers, fortified hangars etc. Its area of devastation is wide enough to effect 2 mid size cities next to each other.

The Russians blew off the largest nuke ever at 57 megatons. An explosion that size would turn the greater New York city & surrounding area into the world's largest man made saltwater pool, as well as the deepest harbor. They would find the molten torch of the statue of liberty in Philly.

Originally posted by Backwoods

Originally posted by D.E.M.
Uh. Well. Hell.


Oh and for the record a nuke that small would not reach out much beyond a mile or two. The bombs used in Japan were just under a megaton. Or 10 times the size this weapons system can deliver.


[edit on 11-8-2008 by Backwoods]

[edit on 11-8-2008 by Backwoods]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Atlantican]

reply to post by Interestinggg


Your crazy if you think russian cruise missiles are crappy. Sunburn anyone? Russia has the most technologically advanced surface to surface cruise missiles bar none. Anti-ship nuclear cruise missiles capable of over mach 2 flight velocities!

reply to post by TruthTellist


I'm sure the Russians are 100% innocent and came bearing flowers and cuddly puppies.

There is no one country totally at fault here, least of all the Russians, but that point has been beaten to death on the main thread.

Again, I reiterate that it is stated Russian doctrine to use tactical nuclear weapons if precision guided conventional weapons are used against them. Don't get me wrong, Russia has some GREAT stuff. The mere mention of the word "Alfa" is enough to send shivers down the spine of the most hardened sub captain. The darn things are near fast enough to outrun our ADCAP torpedoes...and they can if the other captain fires too soon. Backfire bombers aren't anything to sneeze at either. Heck, my personal home defense weapon of choice is an AK from the Tula Arsenal that I rebuilt from a demil parts kit.

The fact remains is their conventional weaponry is not as good as ours. They know this. Personally, I don't think it's such a bad thing. I know it was a long time ago, but the Battle of Stalingrad is the proof in the pudding. IMO the US military is too dependent on technology anyway.

Oh yeah. They also can field *alot* more trigger fingers than the US can.

If you want to see a web link to Russian doctrine I suggest you ask the Russian government. The video is from a retired Col. Forgive me if I take his word for it. But I do remember the fuss when they made that announcement.

And yes their equipment can be very good
But as Iraq proved your equipment alone will not win the fight.


[edit on 14-8-2008 by Backwoods]

reply to post by Backwoods


"The bombs used in Japan were just under a megaton."

False in fact, as far as I can tell. Generally accepted figures are around 15 kT (Hiroshima) and 21 kT (Nagasaki). "Just under a megaton" would mean about 5 times greater yield than generally accepted.

reply to post by mattguy404


that depends on the size of the nuke it fires. it's a 100kt nuclear warhead, the blast radius should be around 8km and the thermal radiation zone should be around a 31 km region, so no, firing a 180kt explosive from a distance of 120km should not put the launcher or troops in the near vicinity in danger.

Some Nuclear weapons fact for you people

Facts..

Hiroshima's "Little Boy" gravity bomb 12–15 Kilotons (Air burst)
"The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile), with resulting fires across 11.4 km² (4.4 square miles)."

According to most estimates, the immediate effects of the blast of the bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from burns, radiation and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 140,000.[22] [3] Some estimates state up to 200,000 had died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects

Nagasaki's "Fat Man" gravity bomb 20–22 Kt (Air burst)

Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000. The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile), followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 miles) south of the bomb

The Above two weapons were detonated at about the same hight 1000-1500 feet (Air bursts) Nuclear weapons effects are dictated by 2 things. the Explosive amount and the hight it is detonated at.


W76 warhead 100 KT Twelve of these may be in a MIRVed Trident II missile; treaty limited to eight

Mathmatical equation = D = D1 ×W 1/3

Scaling for blast intensities
e.g. the effect which occurs
for a 1 kT blast at distance
D1 occurs for a 100kT blast
at distance D. D1=10,000ft
ðD=24,662ft

So lets do a little math.. If a 20KT weapon has a range of 1 mile (Airburst at 1500 feet) The a 100 KT weapon Airburst would have a range of 5 miles.

Now.. Think about this for just a second.. A majority of nuclear weapons are Much larger then 100kt. They are in the MegaTon range..

A 1MT weapon detonated at 2km would have a ground effect =

Urban areas almost completely levelled out to 2.4 km
Destruction of most civilian buildings out to 6.2 KM
Moderate damage to civilian buildings out to 17km

Thermal radiation effects
Conflagration 10km
Third degree burns 12km
Second degree burns 15km
First degree burns 19km

Effects of instant nuclear radiation
Lethal2 total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) 2.3km
Total dose for acute radiation syndrome2 2.9km

Survivability

This is highly dependent on factors such as proximity to the blast and the direction of the wind carrying fallout. Death is highly likely, and radiation poisoning is almost certain if one is close enough within the radius of the blast, for example 3 to 4 miles for a 1 megaton atmospheric blast


Etc......... There is Plenty of information online about effects of nuclear weapons on citys etc.. A little known fact is that Both Russia and the US have so many weapons they practise a multiple weapon per target policy.

Some citys have upwards of 5+ weapons targeted at them.. Just incase any of the others miss or malfunction.

Nukes are nothing to scoff at and anyone who wants a nuclear war is suicidal.

sources
en.wikipedia.org...
www.nd.edu...

Let's say Russia did not start this, why the hell are they getting so riled up to the point of nuclear weapons over a country so small, that is called STUPIDITY.

Originally posted by wolfmanjack

And you were doing so well up to here.

So lets do a little math.. If a 20KT weapon has a range of 1 mile (Airburst at 1500 feet) The a 100 KT weapon Airburst would have a range of 5 miles.

It's not logarithmic so it doesn't quite scale like that.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

Now.. Think about this for just a second.. A majority of nuclear weapons are Much larger then 100kt. They are in the MegaTon range..

A long long time ago, yes. In these times the majority of American warheads are mounted on SLBM's with a stated yield of 100 KT ( W76 but they can carry the W88's which are around 500 KT) with the land based missiles having a yield of anywhere between 170 - 500 KT , and normally 350 or 475 KT, as per Pentagon statements. Russian warheads are normally in the 500 Kt - 750 Kt but larger warheads might be deployed by both sides for specific missions. These are just the normal 'layouts' as per treaties and information you find in most sources.

Survivability
This is highly dependent on factors such as proximity to the blast and the direction of the wind carrying fallout. Death is highly likely, and radiation poisoning is almost certain if one is close enough within the radius of the blast, for example 3 to 4 miles for a 1 megaton atmospheric blast

This is obviously all data for person above ground in normal build up areas; even a underground shelter with 50 cm of soil cover will DRASTICALLY reduce fatalities within the first KM's from the air burst. As you indicate flash fatalities are quite dangerous and will kill far further than the blast that follows. Flash damage is also more dangerous because there is exceedingly little time in which to respond

Etc......... There is Plenty of information online about effects of nuclear weapons on citys etc.. A little known fact is that Both Russia and the US have so many weapons they practise a multiple weapon per target policy.

The multi targeting for warheads is always the case against silo's and strategic targets ( they are hardened and might be protected by ABM defenses) but might also be employed to saturate large cities.

Some citys have upwards of 5+ weapons targeted at them.. Just incase any of the others miss or malfunction.

Moscow were targeted with hundreds of warheads during the cold war and the same were true for a number of other well protected Russian cities. Since the Russians invested so heavily in civil defenses nuclear weapons had to be exploded much lower, to cause sufficient damage against hardened factories and shelters for workers, thus leading to dozens of warheads being allocated to many industrial centers.

Nukes are nothing to scoff at and anyone who wants a nuclear war is suicidal.
sources
en.wikipedia.org...
www.nd.edu...

While i share the sentiment that no one should want nuclear war but they are in fact quite survivable for the vast majority of citizens given proper preparation and stores of food and water.

The preparations that led to the following estimates were by no means cheap but they could have been implemented in the US without much disruption of other economic activities.

Management Agency (FEMA), the Soviets have built at least 20,000
blast-resistant shelters to protect approximately 15 million people, or
roughly 10 percent of the people in cities of 25,000 or more. The FY 1981
Department of Defense Annual Report to the Congress noted that
"the Soviets will probably continue to emphasize the construction of
urban blast sheltering. If the current pace of construction is continued,
the number of people that can be sheltered will be roughly doubled in
1988." The Soviets apparently plan to evacuate and disperse the general
population to pre-assigned resettlement areas where they will be fed
and either provided with a fallout shelter or put to work building one.

According to Soviet civil defense SOVIET FATALITIES (SAY SOVIETS): "BETWEEN THREE
AND-FOUR PERCENT" manuals, this plan for the evacuation and dispersal of people is designed
to limit casualties in the event of a nuclear exchange to between three and four percent of the
population. Modest, feasible measures to protect machinery from nuclear effects greatly increase
both the probability of industrial survival and U .S. retaliatory force requirements . . .
[FEMA and the CIA] estimate that the Soviet Union, given time to implement
fully these civil defense measures, could limit casualties to around fifty million, about half of
which would be fatalities. This compares to the approximately 20 million Soviet fatalities suffered in
World War II . There is no significant U .S. civil defense effort, and the Soviets
recognize this. The potential impact of Soviet civil defense on our deterrent
could be devastating. Calculations based on reasonable assumptions indicate that Soviet civil defense

www.tfxib.com...

Soviet Union. The role civil defense plays in Soviet strategy is significant. Based on the view that nuclear war is a clear possibility and that civilization is protectable, the Soviets have implemented a massive and thoroughly integrated civil defense effort.22 Soviet leaders have shown interest in civil defense for many years, but they enhanced their efforts following the 23rd Party Congress in 1966. Despite SALT I agreements in 1972, the U.S.S.R. further intensified its civil defense program. CD currently ranks as a separate force organizationally equal to other Ministry of Defense Forces. The CD chief, General of the Army Altunin (four-star rank), is also Deputy Minister of Defense with three CD deputies of colonel-general (three star) rank serving under him. A Stanford Research Institute (SRI) study23 in 1974 stated that there were at least 35 to 40 active list Soviet army general officers holding posts in the Soviet CD system, which is intricately organized in the 15 constituent republics of the U.S.S.R. The SRI report mentioned a three-year CD military officer candidate school that might indicate the Soviet interest in a continuing civil defense program.

The Soviets spend the equivalent of more than $1 billion annually (the CIA in Soviet Civil Defense estimates approximately $2 billion) on their CD program and have conducted some tests of their city evacuation plans. Although the extent of these tests is not fully known, they concentrate efforts on protecting political and military leaders, industrial managers, and skilled workers. Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard sees the CD organization under Altunin as "...a kind of shadow government charged with responsibility for administering the country under the extreme stresses of nuclear war and its immediate aftermath."24

The potential lifesaving effectiveness of the Soviet CD program is not a matter of unanimous agreement. However, several studies estimate casualty rates as low as two to three percent of the Soviet population in the event of nuclear war.25

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

The vast Soviet network of shelters and command facilities, under construction for four decades, was recently described in detail by Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci.The shelters are designed to house the entire Politburo, the Central Committee, and the key leadership of the Ministryof Defense and the KGB. Some are located hundreds of yards beneath the surface, and are connected by secret subway lines,tunnels, and sophisticated communications systems. "These facilities contradict in steel and concrete Soviet protestations that they share President Reagan's view that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought,"Carlucci said (Ariwna Republic, April 3, 1988). These facilities reveal that they are preparing themselves for just the opposite." The shelters are also protected against chemical warfare agents, and stocked with sufficient supplies to allow the leadership to survive and wage war for months.In contrast, the limited US shelter system begun in the 1950s has mostly been abandoned."To have something comparable, we'd have to have facilities where we could put every governor, mayor, every Cabinet official, and our whole command structure underground with subways running here and there," Carlucci said. "There's just no comparison between the two."

www.oism.org...

I do not want to be understood to be a advocate of nuclear war as regular war but to not prepare for war based on the presumption that no one else will prepare, and be thus prepared to fight it, is utter foolish.

Stellar


[edit on 16-8-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by netwarrior
I'm sure the Russians are 100% innocent and came bearing flowers and cuddly puppies.

Indeed.

There is no one country totally at fault here, least of all the Russians, but that point has been beaten to death on the main thread.

Again, I reiterate that it is stated Russian doctrine to use tactical nuclear weapons if precision guided conventional weapons are used against them.

According to who? Since one or both sides will lose the vast majority of the satellites in the first day of the war you can kiss GPS goodbye and with it much of vaunted 'accuracy' of western weapons. Laser designators on attack aircraft can make up for a great deal but as the Serbs proved fog or smoke ( they stored and burnt tires upwind of bridges thus keeping them operational for weeks) can make these weapons as inaccurate as they used to be.

Don't get me wrong, Russia has some GREAT stuff. The mere mention of the word "Alfa" is enough to send shivers down the spine of the most hardened sub captain. The darn things are near fast enough to outrun our ADCAP torpedoes...and they can if the other captain fires too soon.

And at that speed it's blind deaf and dumb and heli- dropped torpedoes will make a meal of it LA class escort subs are outmaneuvered. I really don't know about the shivers part but according to my understanding submarine warfare largely resembles guys in a very dark room having at each other with baseball bats. As always the side with most bats, and some measure of organization, is going to carry the day and in that respect the USSR always had and never lost the advantage during the official period of the cold war.

Backfire bombers aren't anything to sneeze at either. Heck, my personal home defense weapon of choice is an AK from the Tula Arsenal that I rebuilt from a demil parts kit.

Backfires are definitely nothing to sneeze at and while they are by most means not comparable to the standard set by the Lancer ( which operational capabilities have been degrade by decisions that seems hard to understand) they were produced on a almost 5-1 basis posing a additional massive threat to Atlantic convoys and NATO holdings in Europe.

The fact remains is their conventional weaponry is not as good as ours.

While i have a great deal of sympathy with those who claim it i have rarely found that the advocates are convinced once they have taken a long at comparable systems in use by both sides. When doctrinal and operational considerations are taken into account one can normally see that the performance advantages are rarely clearly in favor of the 'technological advanced' west and that far larger deployments of similar systems in the Warsaw pact would have negated much of the advantage.

Just like the Tiger tanks didn't save German so a few clearly superior weapons would not have saved NATO. Just like the SU and western powers overcome the Wehrmacht with the use of Sherman's and T-34's so the USSR would have prevailed over NATO by deploying not only FAR more weapon systems but also systems that where by no means generally inferior.

They know this. Personally, I don't think it's such a bad thing.

What they know is that they would have been able to reach the Channel coast in months if not a month thus probably inviting a nuclear response which they were in my estimation far less sure of being able to deal with. In my reading the USSR were not the aggressor state in world affairs and the Warsaw pact formation a direct response to NATO as much as everything else they did was defensive responses to aggressive western moves to destroy democracy and liberation movements everywhere they could.

If the USSR's self styled leaders had any doubts about a conventional war they doubted the morale of their soldiers who might not take to aggressive warfare with any greater determination than they did back in world war two. To defend you can teach ( it's more approximate to a science) but on the attack morale and other far less easily determined factors come into clear play.

I know it was a long time ago, but the Battle of Stalingrad is the proof in the pudding. IMO the US military is too dependent on technology anyway.

Technology employed, like all other factors, does not lead to any obvious advantages which is only gained with respect to synthesis.

Oh yeah. They also can field *alot* more trigger fingers than the US can.

Not even in theory and unless they can deliver a knock out blow ( thus destroying the recruitment and production infrastructure back in the US) or gain access to the manpower of western Europe they are going to be outnumbered and have thus always concentrated on mechanization and technology themselves. NATO always greatly outnumbered the Warsaw pact, with respect to population if not suitably aged citizens) and it's no surprise that the Warsaw pact had to concentrate on outnumbering the enemy in weapon systems as well as creating a very large pool of reservists.

Stellar

Here's some facts for those lazy to check world's history.

1) starting in 1970's, all Russian ballistic/cruise missiles had better range and CEP than their US counterparts; for detailed articles on ICBM issues in particular, google 'second missile gap'. That continues to the present day.

Before 'cannot be!' stupid comments spawn, look closely on military doctrines of the Russians and Americans. Basically, Russian always had crappy strategic bomber air force since it was kinda useless to them - they had no bases near USA borders, while USA had lots in Weatern Europe/some Asia countries encircling Russia; for sure, the chances of any soviet strategic bombers to reach US coast if war starts (passing lots of US SAM sites, airfields with interceptors) were quite small.
So Soviets invested in single-role specialized missiles, while Americans had the luxury of effectively developing multi-role strategic aviation.

In soviet times and nowadays, Russian missiles have the same role as US precision airstrikes, i.e. delivering some HE warheads precisely to their targets w/o exposing valuable assets (such as in case of strike aircraft like A-10 or Su-25).

As for missiles used, the one hitting target within the city (georgian military base) is not SS-21, but SS-26 (Stone/Iskander) which apparently got some field testing there. It has been tested to have 5-10m CEP, so that allows precise strikes at targets within city. Also, it has optoelectronic homing, that means, you take satellite/UAV/jet-made photo of your intended target, feed it into targeting computer and it aims at the target when it 'sees' it in optics; think OCR, that's rougly the same concept.

As for actual precision of strikes, we can only evaluate in about 3-4 months after war when all the propaganda BS from both sides cease.

2) Looking at Kosovo campaign (aka Operation Allied Force), they did A LOT of BS targetting; Asian media was MAD at them for it, but who in the West ever saw Asian media?
There are lots of articles in internet everywhere, but for some list, look at
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
You can check references if you don't trust wiki (what is good... 'trust but verify' in wiki's case).


This one is overkill
May 7, 1999: Cluster bombing of Niš

Main article: Cluster bombing of Niš

NATO confirmed that a cluster bomb aimed at an airfield in the Yugoslav city of Niš hit a hospital and a market, killing 14 civilians. Local officials said that a further 60 people were injured in the daylight attack which left unexploded cluster bombs lying in gardens.

So before speaking about 'non-precise' missiles, look at 'precise' warplanes!

just curious. but if the scarab-c was deployed, would that not put the oil pipeline running through georgia in range? basically a couple launchers with conventional warheads sitting in south ossetia with tblisi and the pipeline in range would mean russia effectively holds a knife to the only oil pipeline in the region not going through russia or iran. basically russia could now withdraw troops from undisputed georgian territory but still be in control at least strategicaly of the most important thing in the region; the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. normal capacity was scheduled to be reached in 2009 of 1 million barrels/day. that is a lot of oil. the only pipeline going through friendly nations. the only one not going through iran or russia.

now for some daydreaming.....what if, for whatever reason, iran closes the straight of hormuz??? how important would this pipeline be?? it would be of incredible significance. ss-21s in south ossetia? maybe pointed at the pipeline? maybe pointed at multiple locations of the pipeline to hamper repairs? maybe some medium ranged missles also targeted on the pipeline incase someone tries to take the scarabs out before hand? i dunno...your guess is as good as mine but that would be one hell of a bargaining chip.

end of daydream

sounds to me much more reliable a theory than nuclear/bio/chem weapons. that would be just madness.


any thoughts?


by the way....i found info on the ss-21 being deployed on some mainstream sites this morning(Central European Time) including cnn, bbc, etc. as of several hours ago, they have been disappeared. not the first time i have seen that on the big sites.

To all,
Great discussion RE Georgia and the SS-21s.
Real imagery of an unexploded SS-21 as well as other significant ORDATA can be seen at the council.smallwarsjournal.com....

This was one of three UXO all carrying sub-munitions and one ditched more than 7 clicks off target. Not exactly what I would consider precision guided munitions

All told, greater than 50 percent of the aerial ordnance dropped ended up being UXO. If one dumps WWII class junk, that's pretty clear what will happen... Nothing !

Rest assured, while the Russian military overwhelmed the Georgians at 100 to One odds, they hardly are worth losing sleep over as a military of the 21st century.

Have a great holiday folks !