Author Topic: Russian Nuke Arsenal  (Read 381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
Russian Nuke Arsenal
« on: October 19, 2016, 02:58:59 PM »
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/13/0096340215581363.full.pdf+html

Numbers for Soviet missiles (2015)

SS-18  with 10 x 500/800KT MIRV warheads - 480 total warheads
SS-19  with 6X 400KT MIRV  - 180 Total Warheads
ss-25  with 1 800KT  war head - 99
ss-27 (mod 1)  1 800KT warhead  - 78
ss-27 Mod 2  4 x100KT Mirv  - 222 total warheads
SS-N-18 3 x 50 KT  MIRV  94 total warheads
SS-N-23  4 x 100KT MIRV    384 total warheads
SS-N-32 6 x 100KT  MIRV   192 total warheads

So  assuming those numbers are roughly accurate and that there are no unaccounted for weapons there are 1721 warheads,  5%  are 50 kt, 47%   are 100Kt, 10%  are 400kt and 37%  are 800 kt. --and most of these really big ones are past shelf life 

Looking at these ,if accurate, indicate the Russian new equipment may be standardizing on 100KT weapons and nothing larger.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 40538
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2016, 07:07:37 PM »
Most nuclear nations that have been modernizing have been settling in at more tactical yields, indicating both a desire not to irradiate the whole globe on the one hand and thinking their use will be more acceptable if pushed to it on the other...all driven by the conventional status or lack thereof too...and the few who have remained aggressive territorially like China.
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Online Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
  • Get some!
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2016, 09:01:50 PM »
That trend might ultimately be more dangerous than the big 20+ megaton yields of the Cold War, because it somewhat lowers the barrier to use of nuclear weapons and encourages a mindset where they might be used as something other than a weapon of last resort.

In the 50s, 60s, and 70s the USSR was badly behind the USA in miniaturization technology, meaning they had to have huge rocket boosters to deliver their bulky warheads.  The Soviets were forced to either use a smaller yield warhead or sacrifice range with larger ones.  But I'm sure ever since Clinton gave away our boost, guidance, and re-entry technologies in the 90s we no longer have any sort of technological advantages.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 40538
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2016, 07:08:41 AM »
Don't worry...it's all just as good as can be, it is merely conditional upon the sanity of the people behind the triggers...

Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Online Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2016, 03:16:07 PM »
And te big news today - the The RS-28 Sarmat missile

http://www.infowars.com/as-globalists-push-war-russia-unveils-defensive-nuke-that-can-destroy-texas-size-area/

Quote
According to the Russian new network Zvezda, the RS-28 Sarmat missile is said to carry sixteen 40 megaton thermonuclear warheads capable of destroying the area of France.

Um yeah.  Its nice that some Russian network is spreading propaganda just like in the old days.  Or more likely the inforwars reporter as it wrong for sensationalism purposes.  It could deliver a single 40 Megaton war head, perhaps.  The old model could carry a single 20MT warhead if desired. The soviets may have deployed 5 of those at one point. FIVE.

They claim the rocket can lift 10 tons, or just about 9000 KG., and you are gonna carry 16  40 Megaton warheads? I doubt it.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/12/23/kilotons-per-kilogram/

That cart shows 10 megaton weapons are in the 1000Kg range. This thing could possibly carry  8 of those. But not 16.
Bottom line they can make wild claims, but in real life they will deploy 5 more of these big boys with 40 MT warheads, and then the vast majority will carry 800 kt warheas in a MIRV. Possibly a 16 vehicle MIRV..






Online Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
  • Get some!
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2016, 07:17:11 PM »
Yeah I heard them talking about it on his show today.  I immediately assumed somebody got the terms wrong and meant it could carry sixteen 40 kiloton warheads.  No way does that, or any ICBM, carry multiple 40 Mt warheads.  I doubt they could even carry one.  The Tsar Bomba was the biggest warhead ever detonated at 50 megatons, and that one required a specially modified heavy bomber to carry it.

Wikipedia cites the theoretical maximum yield conversion of 6 megatons per 1,000 kilograms of fusible material.  That's theoretical limits.  I don't know how far off practical limits are, but even assuming an unrealistically perfect efficiency, it would be a stretch to put such a big warhead on a missile.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 40538
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2016, 07:10:01 AM »
Yeah, that's some good math there...did the Russian's build a Saturn V rocket?

I don't think we MIRV anything much above 1.2MT.
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Online Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
  • Get some!
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2016, 11:01:54 AM »
To put it in perspective, the most powerful of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan (Fat Man) had a yield of around 22 kilotons.  That's a fraction of what a single re-entry vehicle on a modern MIRV can do.  So while the Cold War mythos of the nuclear winter and an entirely scorched planet are probably just exaggerated sensationalism, if you happen to be near a high value target it's still total devastation.  Imagine a single ICBM releasing 16 warheads, each one of them being 40-50 times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 40538
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2016, 12:14:39 PM »
Bigger isn't necessarily better...but neither is more necessarily better...the right tool for the job applies to just about everything we can think of.

Back in my Cold War days, we used to giggle about how the Rooskies liked big, heavy armored and armed to the teeth tanks and planes...but back then our technology and mobility gave us an edge over numbers and their big heavy creations usually lacked range and required more logistical support that exposed their supply lines to easy harassment. 

They saw how all that Soviet era equipment crumbled in the Gulf Wars (partly due to less competent leadership and tactics and sub-standard air defense systems as much as anything)....but people have all gone more tactical and mobile in their equipment now too.

Things aren't less dangerous now...just dangerous still.

Doesn't help that the moonbat idiots are now on our continent!   ::gaah::
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Online Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2016, 01:02:23 PM »
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/724410/Vladimir-Putin-Russia-east-coast-satan-nuclear-weapon-Hiroshima-Nagasaki-world-war-3

Quote
Russia has the largest haul of nuclear weapons of any country in the world and reportedly has the most powerful bomb named the SS-18 – menacingly nicknamed the Satan. A staggering 112.6million people could be at risk of extermination from the deadly missiles. Experts estimate Russia has 55 of the deadly weapons, but only five would be needed to destroy the East Coast of the US. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would look like “popguns” in comparison to the demolition the Satan missiles could inflict. Dr Paul Craig Roberts, who served under Ronald Reagan administration, claimed the bombs would "wipe out three quarters of New York state for thousands of years”

Where are these people getting their information? 

Even so..  The circle  is the maximum  blast radius ( beyond which you won't even get burned) - and its of a similar size to this 20 Megaton Payload if all 10 800kt warheads hit in the same place... but these are the 80's missiles that are way past their shelf life.



http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effects/wenw_chp2.shtml

 Yeah, The fallout could get 3/4 of New York State, but 1000 years? No.

Quote
Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. It is a major source of radiation in nuclear fallout, and since it parallels potassium chemistry, it is readily taken into the blood of animals and men and may be incorporated into tissue. Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with a half-life of 28 years, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days. Strontium-90 follows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorporated into the bones and teeth, particularly of young children who have received milk from cows consuming contaminated forage. Iodine-131 is a similar threat to infants and children because of its concentration in the thyroid gland. In addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in nuclear explosives. A bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodged in the lungs, where its intense local radiation can cause cancer or other damage. Plutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) and has a half-life of 24,000 years. To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years. Both are taken up through the food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter...

So yes, you MUST get out of the path of fallout - but depending on the concentrations of Strontium and Cesium isotopes, you could probably live safely there within a couple of years  ..

Just a reminder, there are people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today. Those were air bursts and most of the radioactive crap blew out and was scattered over a wider area.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/11784827/70-years-after-the-atomic-bombs-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-then-and-now.html?frame=3398248

But Chernobyl was a meltdown - direct soil contamination and Animals and even some of the original residents - have returned to Chernobyl.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/wildlife-returns-to-radioactive-wasteland-of-chernobyl/

The point is the after effects are not immediately lethal.  Will you probably eventually die of cancer? Sure. But that could take decades. 

I doubt either side is really planning on using ground bursts in an attack - its far, far too messy. Even so - we have already put 500 MEGTONS of nuclear ash into the atmosphere since the bomb was invented. 

Quote
A U.N. scientific committee has estimated that the cumulative per capita dose to the world's population up to the year 2000 as a result of atmospheric testing through 1970 (cutoff date of the study) will be the equivalent of 2 years' exposure to natural background radiation on the earth's surface. For the bulk of the world's population, internal and external radiation doses of natural origin amount to less than one-tenth rad annually. Thus nuclear testing to date does not appear to pose a severe radiation threat in global terms. But a nuclear war releasing 10 or 100 times the total yield of all previous weapons tests could pose a far greater worldwide threat. The biological effects of all forms of ionizing radiation have been calculated within broad ranges by the National Academy of Sciences. Based on these calculations, fallout from the 500-plus megatons of nuclear testing through 1970 will produce between 2 and 25 cases of genetic disease per million live births in the next generation.

This means that between 3 and 50 persons per billion births in the post-testing generation will have genetic damage for each megaton of nuclear yield exploded. With similar uncertainty, it is possible to estimate that the induction of cancers would range from 75 to 300 cases per megaton for each billion people in the post-test generation.

If we apply these very rough yardsticks to a large-scale nuclear war in which 10,000 megatons of nuclear force are detonated, the effects on a world population of 5 billion appear enormous. Allowing for uncertainties about the dynamics of a possible nuclear war, radiation-induced cancers and genetic damage together over 30 years are estimated to range from 1.5 to 30 million for the world population as a whole. This would mean one additional case for every 100 to 3,000 people or about 1/2 percent to 15 percent of the estimated peacetime cancer death rate in developed countries. As will be seen, moreover, there could be other, less well understood effects which would drastically increase suffering and death.

And  the peacetime cancer rate in the United States is 454.8 per 100,000. So a Full scale Nuclear exchange would add at worst 1000 to that number for the survivors born  into that new world. Humans and Animals were born under a giant Fusion explosion  going ton 100%  of the time. Yes we have atmosphere as shielding, but the fact of the matter is,  your body was built to withstand being irradiated to some extent.  The only reason Cancer is the killer it is  is because  modern medicine has pretty much eliminated most of the other stuff.  Now post Nuclear war, there probably won't be modern medicine tro the degree with have it now ( or even post Obamacare)  and  surival is hard work - and that means other injuries.  Could cancer inducing  radiation kill you after a nuclear war, sure. Its far more likely however it will be that infected cut you got harvesting or pneumonia  after a cold.

Online Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
  • Get some!
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2016, 02:44:26 PM »
Yeah Paul Craig Roberts is one of those ZeroHedge/PaulBot/Russophile types frequently on Infowars and is a good example of how you have to actively filter reports from there -- but they still spew less BS than the so-called reputable news outlets so I take the bad with the good.

But yeah, wipe out 3/4ths of New York state for thousands of years?  Where has anything like that ever happened?  The US detonated hydrogen bombs underwater and those locations were teeming with coral life a few years later. Now granted, it's not an area you'd want to go fishing, but the Doomsday stuff is Chicken Little histrionics.  You could certainly argue that compared to Nagasaki, a far worse bomb was set off in Detroit.  Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are advanced modern cities, built literally on top of ground zero.  Wildlife is thriving in the zone around Chernobyl.

I don't know, it just bugs me when melodrama and hyperbole get passed off as news reports.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 40538
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Russian Nuke Arsenal
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2016, 07:30:28 AM »
This is all true...and it is dangerous as well given the Obama/Clinton crazies ready to test things for real over a sh*t country like Syria that isn't worth one effing life!

I'm disappointed Donald hasn't launched a Daisy ad against Clintoon...IMO Obama and Clinton pose the greatest threat to world peace since the fall of the Soviet Union.

So, mushroom clouds, coming to a neighborhood near you...



Don't forget to properly thank the nearest Prog!
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)