crazy russian military industrial complex accident (nuclear cruise missile)

[chris_leyson]

Didn't the Russians drop a Burevestnik missile into the Barents sea in 2018 and then send a load of recovery vesels to fish it out or was that fake news. Anyway, how hot does the exhaust gas need to be in order to make a viable ramjet, 1000C maybe I don't know, the hotter the better. Now make a fission reactor that will run at those sort of temperatures, it's probably possible with new alloys and ceramics developed over 60 to 70 years of nuclear and rocket engine research.

Project Pluto back in the early 60s was a success but deemed to be "too provocative" and was cacelled.
Nuclear fission propulsion is feasible with modern materials and it's one step above the ICBM concept because they can fly for days, weeks if not months and therefore no part of the planet is safe.

It's a nuclear war game changer if and only if you could fly it around for a day or two.

[RoGeorge]

The argument that nuclear weapons prevents war is .

Then the argument that N.W. dont prevent war is equally 
You just can't prove either

I think the first one is not only true (mutual assured destruction is the best possible strategy), but mathematically provable as the best possible outcome for all sides.  Not sure if John von Neumann was the one who first proved it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Mutual_assured_destruction

[Mr. Scram]

I think the first one is not only true, but mathematically provable as the best possible outcome for all sides.  Not sure if John Von Neumann was the one who first proved it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Mutual_assured_destruction

Except that they don't prevent war. Instead of going at it head to head there are proxy wars instead. Other conflicts are created by additional countries wanting to develop them to equalise the balance. Soldiers and citizens still die, just different ones. Creating two buttons which can each destroy the world solves nothing. Of course MAD is already absolete with the advent of digital warfare. MAD requires a clear cut enemy to strike back at. There's no such thing when it comes to digital attacks. Digital warfare can also be actually used without provoking an all out conflict, contrary to nuclear weapons. You can attack whatever you want whenever you want with impunity. No holding back required.

[coppercone2]

And I wanna know what changed in the engineering world that make this a good idea. If it crashes its going to make a mess.

Is this video legitimate. The text seems like it's not from an English speaking person, and sounds like a computer voice. Kinda strange to be coming from a big company.

all the defense contractors have videos like this (people selling missiles in particular).. I think its supposed to make purchasers feel better about it being a 'tool' (where the reality is actually Buck Turgidson (they probably had salesmen like this in 1960 lol )



like look at this one. They don't destroy, blow up, eliminate or kill air defenses. In military talk its 'suppression and in corporate talk is 'dismantling



yea its dismantled like a highway accident 

[coppercone2]

suppression of enemy air defenses make sense, if you consider the jim carrey movie 'the mask' .

This is military idea of 'suppression' of air defense (like a muffler suppresses a car):

It's suppressed all right.



and the acronym is 'saad' lol. And you get a nice little hologram disapearing so the purchasing department can sleep at night (rather then some Russian with a antenna sticking out of his eye socket after the car get hit by a missile)

[VK3DRB]

The argument that nuclear weapons prevents war is .

Then the argument that N.W. dont prevent war is equally 
You just can't prove either, but IMHO in the 50's to early 60's there was a huge chance for the WW3, especially the Cuban crisis of 62. And fear of nuclear armageddon certainly played a role in defusing the situation.

I agree somewhat, but it is likely going to be a mistake that will trigger the end to us all. MH17 was most likely a mistake by Russian meatheads. The American terrorists who bombed the Kunduz hospital fully knew it was a civilian hospital. How the Russian and American governments handled these events during and afterwards showed the world cowardly and amoral they are. Between the two of them, they harbor the biggest arsenals of nuclear weapons that could easily exterminate the human race many times over. A very dangerous recipe.

We are letting children play with matches.

[coppercone2]

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/08/13/2210250/russia-orders-evacuation-of-village-near-site-of-nuclear-accident-then-cancels-it

[windsmurf]

Here's the news from last year when Putin announced he would begin testing the following weapons:

Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile
Avangard hypersonic missile system
Sarmat (ICBM)
Poseidon underwater drone
Kinzhal hypersonic missile

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/20/europe/russia-new-weapons-videos-intl/index.html

[borjam]

The Russians are reaping what they have sowed. Putin recently violated on the INF treaty, so Trump decided to abandoned it also.
The hall of shame... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons.

The argument that nuclear weapons prevents war is . In 1983, Soviet meatheads almost triggered global nuclear Armageddon by a blunder in their dodgy defence system. That's all it takes. A stupid mistake with tragic consequences.

To be honest, NATO was insane with the Able Archer exercises that really fueled Soviet paranoia. If I am not wrong, hard lessons were learned about communication with your potential enemy in order to avoid deadly misunderstandings.

[coppercone2]

able archer was like banging on trash cans to scare away racoons

[SiliconWizard]

Low-intensity wars are an integral part of today's world.

Have you read 1984?

[coppercone2]

Low-intensity wars are an integral part of today's world.

Have you read 1984?

I feel like there have always been low intensity wars, and there is less of them now. Look at the 40 year war or something. Just the casualties were so bad the wars in between them were considered peace (i.e. 30 years war). Was there really a peace after the 30 year war? I bet it was still 'light skirmishing' and 'quelling bandits (terrorists)' for another30 after it 'ended'.

I wonder what romans called it, barbarian maintence procedures?

[raptor1956]

Antarctica still safe 

Not if all hell breaks lose and that is more probable today than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis ... and possible more so!


Brian

[coppercone2]

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

its actually.. surprisingly uniform since like 1400. You would think after WW2 it would be blank until yugoslavia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_OMON_assaults_on_Lithuanian_border_posts and you learn something new every day

[windsmurf]

Apparently, accident victims were brought to the local hospital wrapped in plastic, completely naked.  Staff were told they were in a "military accident."   The doctors that treated the patients were then escorted away to Moscow for specialized treatment, and rooms where patients were treated sealed up; ambulances also sealed with plastic as they left.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/16/exclusive-russian-doctors-say-they-werent-warned-patients-were-nuclear-accident-victims-a66896

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/hospital-staff-not-told-of-nuclear-risk-of-russian-blast-reports/vi-AAFVpCf



Official Russia news attribute increased radiation to "inert gas" passing through.
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201908171076572249-possible-reason-behind-radiation-spike-in-russias-severodvinsk-revealed/

[coppercone2]

what zombie movie had the plastic wrapped man attack ?

this sounds exactly like the coverup from the movie theater 'passification'. I sure hope russian authorities won't prevent people from getting proper antidotes and treatments based on secrecy....

[SiliconWizard]

I sure hope russian authorities won't prevent people from getting proper antidotes and treatments based on secrecy....

Uh huh... do you, like Sting, also hope that the Russians love their children too?

[raptor1956]

Apparently, accident victims were brought to the local hospital wrapped in plastic, completely naked.  Staff were told they were in a "military accident."   The doctors that treated the patients were then escorted away to Moscow for specialized treatment, and rooms where patients were treated sealed up; ambulances also sealed with plastic as they left.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/16/exclusive-russian-doctors-say-they-werent-warned-patients-were-nuclear-accident-victims-a66896

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/hospital-staff-not-told-of-nuclear-risk-of-russian-blast-reports/vi-AAFVpCf



Official Russia news attribute increased radiation to "inert gas" passing through.
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201908171076572249-possible-reason-behind-radiation-spike-in-russias-severodvinsk-revealed/

Apparently the doctors and nurses that treated the first patients are now patients themselves. 

I've seen a number of the videos and still pictures of the blast and by my observation that was one hell of a blast.  I can't imagine the blast was nuclear, but from what other source would the energy needed to create suck a blast come from.  The only thing I can think of is the booster rocket motor but even that seems suspect given the size of the blast.  If I were to guesstimate the size of the blast I'd put it around 2500kg of HE -- possible for the rocket motor but that's a bit of a stretch.  I have to believe the booster rocket is solid fuel so leakage and an ignition source aren't likely.

I've noted that the trolls are dealing with this by making fun and memes out of it.


Brian

[coppercone2]

do you think it had a warhead and it fizzled?

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-what-a-nuclear-fizzle-looks-like-1821962142

[chris_leyson]

Nobody would put a nuclear warhead on a test launch system, it would be a waste of a warhead. If it was a Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and the solid rocket boosters went up then that would explain the fall out, than again the nuclear propulsion system might have gone critical and taken everything out.

[coppercone2]

Nobody would put a nuclear warhead on a test launch system, it would be a waste of a warhead. If it was a Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and the solid rocket boosters went up then that would explain the fall out, than again the nuclear propulsion system might have gone critical and taken everything out.

cost cutting measures fast design approach less testing strait to mounting a warhead to satisfy some kind of vibrational studies on explosives and electronics with new turbine and enhanced passive rad flux (this shit can't be cold, its running right near a reactor on a light weight highly maneuverable missile) etc? never put it past corporate

maybe they meant to put a dud on it, but they put a live nuke (it happened before, where there was a B52 flying around america in the late 2000's armed with nukes because some tech screwed up

[chris_leyson]

The 1980 Titan missile explosion accidentally launched the second stage and a warhead out of a silo. Hypergolic fuel systems are unforgiving.

[coppercone2]

all because someone forgot to follow procedure with a wrench.

[raptor1956]

Nobody would put a nuclear warhead on a test launch system, it would be a waste of a warhead. If it was a Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and the solid rocket boosters went up then that would explain the fall out, than again the nuclear propulsion system might have gone critical and taken everything out.

cost cutting measures fast design approach less testing strait to mounting a warhead to satisfy some kind of vibrational studies on explosives and electronics with new turbine and enhanced passive rad flux (this shit can't be cold, its running right near a reactor on a light weight highly maneuverable missile) etc? never put it past corporate

maybe they meant to put a dud on it, but they put a live nuke (it happened before, where there was a B52 flying around america in the late 2000's armed with nukes because some tech screwed up

Do you have a pointer to the information about a B-52 flying with a live nuke in the 2000's -- it's not like the command level for that is at the enlisted airman ranks...

There have been several 'broken arrow' events with the B-52 including one that happened at the base I was stationed at in the late 70's -- Seymour Johnson in North Carolina.  Back in 1961 a B-52 from Seymour Johnson was attempting a mid-air refueling when the boom operator noted a fuel leak from the B-52's right wing.  They attempted to make it back to base but they lost control and most of the crew bailed out.  Also on board were two Mark 39 nuclear bomb's with a yield of about 3.8MT each.  One of the bombs was found to have all but one of the safeties activated -- just one circuit short of detonation 200X as powerful as Hiroshima.


Brian

[coppercone2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident

The nuclear warheads in the missiles were supposed to have been removed before the missiles were taken from their storage bunker. The missiles with the nuclear warheads were not reported missing, and remained mounted to the aircraft at both Minot and Barksdale for 36 hours. During this period, the warheads were not protected by the various mandatory security precautions for nuclear weapons.[1][2]

Maybe the russian military wanted to test the warhead electronics, explosives, etc and had a mock warheads with a dummy physics package installed, but failed to perform the switch correctly and loaded a live bomb on the cruise missile. I mean, the nuclear powered cruise missile only needs a small booster to get it to the correct velocity for the reactor heat to power it (like a V1 ramjet?)

I imagine there is a whole slew of things they want to test on a nuclear bomb... thats strapped to a fucking flying nuclear reactor