• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Russia reveals giant nuclear torpedo in state TV "leak"

Kind of pointless when a Russian fishing boat carrying a bigger bomb can dock in American ports for a lot less money.
 
I think the real point was the reference to them possibly using cobalt bombs, right? Those are nasty.
 
Thats not as alarming as this: Russian media training Russians to not fear nuclear war.

"Why are you all so afraid of nuclear war? Why are you afraid of nuclear war?" presenter Aleksey Gudoshnikov asked listeners to the pro-Kremlin station Govorit Moskva last month.
He went on to say that people had survived the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and that these were actually not as destructive as the bombing of Dresden some six months earlier.
"This fear of nuclear war is exaggerated, in my view," the 26-year-old Gudoshnikov concluded.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31557254
 
It's kind of clever; if the delivery system never leaves the water most anti-ballistic systems wouldn't be able to engage it (I assume). Could we detect and intercept such a device?

Another idea a friend of mine proposed was to use civilian cargo ships and simply push a nuclear warhead into the target nations' harbors before a customs check during peace time where the bomb(s) can await remote detonation if needed.
 
Jaepheth said:
It's kind of clever; if the delivery system never leaves the water most anti-ballistic systems wouldn't be able to engage it (I assume). Could we detect and intercept such a device?

Another idea a friend of mine proposed was to use civilian cargo ships and simply push a nuclear warhead into the target nations' harbors before a customs check during peace time where the bomb(s) can await remote detonation if needed.
Click to expand...

having to travel 6000 miles underwater, it'll probably hit a whale and detonate in the middle of the ocean.
 
BxgJ said:
I think the real point was the reference to them possibly using cobalt bombs, right? Those are nasty.
Click to expand...

Nobody actually fields salted bombs. It was pointless back in the cold war and it's pointless now.
 
Sounds like a Soviet attempt to respond as best they could to the US development of US submarine-launch Polaris missiles.

Reminds me of the nuclear depth charges that US had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_depth_bomb

Supposedly to be used on enemy submarines preparing to launch nuclear strikes. Pretty sure I wouldn't want to be on the ship that dropped it. D:
 
IronWing said:
Kind of pointless when a Russian fishing boat carrying a bigger bomb can dock in American ports for a lot less money.
Click to expand...

The point isn't to destroy actual US military assets... it's to damage US economic assets. I could see them detonating this over prime US fisheries and in US offshore oil areas rendering those areas completely useless for centuries to come. Cutting off local seafood would be huge and local oil impact, especially if Russia were to manage to cut us off from foreign oil would be devastating.
 
QUICK, NUKE EM BEFORE THEY KNOW WHAT HIT THEM

twinrider1 said:
Putin's foreign policy is so hamfisted. I'm amazed it plays well to his people.
Click to expand...
His nationalist bent plays well probably because the people long for the supposed "greatness" of the Soviet Union.
 
SunnyD said:
The point isn't to destroy actual US military assets... it's to damage US economic assets. I could see them detonating this over prime US fisheries and in US offshore oil areas rendering those areas completely useless for centuries to come. Cutting off local seafood would be huge and local oil impact, especially if Russia were to manage to cut us off from foreign oil would be devastating.
Click to expand...

Irradiating US assets would be considered an act of war. It would also be impossible to cut off US access to foreign oil unless Russia was willing to nuke Canada and Mexico in the bargain.
 
K1052 said:
Irradiating US assets would be considered an act of war. It would also be impossible to cut off US access to foreign oil unless Russia was willing to nuke Canada and Mexico in the bargain.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure detonating one of these anywhere within US waters/ports would be considered an act of war...

That said, I'm pretty sure North Korea saw the torpedo design and said, "Why didn't WE think of that?!"
 
I'd guess using a nuke anywhere outside Russia would be considered an act of war.

Anyways considering the quality of Russian weapons systems. This thing wouldnt make it an hour before veering off course and blowing something useless up. Like some Russia port.
 
K1052 said:
Propaganda
Click to expand...

From Russia? Unpossible.

clamum said:
His nationalist bent plays well probably because the people long for the supposed "greatness" of the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's not surprising that he's so popular, he's like a Russian G.W. Bush with no (real) term limits, no checks on his power, an endless propaganda machine, and even more barbarians at the gate that he can rally his people around. Between the US, all its European allies including several former Soviet satellites like the Ukraine, everyone in the Caucasus, China, and everyone in his country that wants to live in a free country he and his political allies have a shitton of enemies and rivals, and nothing rallies people around a despot like an enemy.
 
Last edited:
PowerEngineer said:
Sounds like a Soviet attempt to respond as best they could to the US development of US submarine-launch Polaris missiles.

Reminds me of the nuclear depth charges that US had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_depth_bomb

Supposedly to be used on enemy submarines preparing to launch nuclear strikes. Pretty sure I wouldn't want to be on the ship that dropped it. D:
Click to expand...

Nuclear depth bombs in no way resemble conventional depth bombs and require a completely different delivery system. Whereas in WW1 & WW2, you could roll them off racks from the side of a destroyer. As the war progressed and depth charges got bigger to be more effective against deeper diving and faster subs, there was a danger that the delivering ship would be sunk/damaged by its own weapons. These charges got so big that only fast ships (usually destroyers at full steam) could use the bigger charges.

A nuclear depth charge cannot be safely delivered this way. The only reliable delivery mechanism would be a missile (or aircraft). Lookup ASROC and SUBROC.
 
SunnyD said:
The point isn't to destroy actual US military assets... it's to damage US economic assets.
Click to expand...

Smart move. The more saber rattling they do, the more we enrich the military complex even while our domestic infrastructure turns to shit.
 
Nothing but butthurt posturing. I guess Russia felt left out after we test launch that Trident missile last week to much fanfare.
 
They are basically taking a shitty, one trick pony torpedo design armed with a shitty area denial solution and launching it from a shitty drone sub.

I'm guessing they classified this as secret because they have no plans of actually bothering with this.

It's the equivalent of a "doodle" in class
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top