Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Random Nuclear Stuff


Recommended Posts

   152 mm Soviet artillery shell 3BV3 rated at 2.5 kilotons inside of storage container

OpPKrEe.jpg

 

Spoiler

35LBuNz.jpg

 

Quote

/.../

In March 1990, the last batch of all types of Soviet nuclear shells was produced. The total number of this last batch of shells of all types was 2,000. At the same time, the guaranteed shelf life of these shells was no more than 10 years (that is, the disposal of these shells was supposed to begin in 2000).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 9 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Belarus proposed amendment to article 18 of it's constitution remove any mention of nuclear weapons.

This article previously stated that nuclear weapons were banned from Belarus territory.

 

www.opex360.com/2022/02/07/la-bielorussie-modifie-sa-constitution-pour-autoriser-le-deploiement-darmes-nucleaires-russes-sur-son-sol/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/13676241

More Avangards to enter service in the end of 2022. Claimed speed of the entry vehicle - up to Mach 27.

Quote

   MOSCOW, 11 February. /TASS/. The second regiment of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) UR-100N UTTKh with Avangard hypersonic combat equipment will take up combat duty as part of the Yasnensky formation of the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) until the end of 2022. 

/.../

   "Existing plans provide that the second regiment of Avangards, consisting of silo launchers and the command post of the regiment of the 13th missile division of the Strategic Missile Forces, will take up combat duty approximately in December 2022" 

 

Quote

   As Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said at a day of military acceptance on January 20, the re-equipment of the first regiment with the Avangard missile system with ICBMs equipped with hypersonic glide wing units has been completed.

   The Avangard warhead is capable of flying in dense layers of the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds of up to Mach 27 (about 32,000 km/h), maneuvering in heading and altitude and overcoming any anti-missile defenses. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Soviet Union : Put the first man-made satellite in orbit, showing off to the American

US Air Force in answer : Must ... nuke ... the Moon

 

Spoiler

 

 

...

 

Spoiler

Soviet Union : Considering to nuke the Moon as well anyway

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • 4 months later...

Russia signals intent to quickly revoke ratification of nuclear test ban treaty

 

Translation : "Nuclear weapons we inherited from the soviet union are past their shelf-life and are now unreliable (or soon will be). Since we didn't built any facility similar to the NIF or the LMJ we'll have to resort to good-old test detonations to built the next generation or renovate the old ones."

 

Aside from the fact that this is yet another blow to the image of global power Russia is trying to project this is mainly a serious breach against non-proliferation which is particularly egregious coming from a country which has a permanent seat at the security council (though to be fair they weren't the only ones, AUKUS was almost as bad).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alzoc said:

Translation : "Nuclear weapons we inherited from the soviet union are past their shelf-life and are now unreliable (or soon will be). Since we didn't built any facility similar to the NIF or the LMJ we'll have to resort to good-old test detonations to built the next generation or renovate the old ones."

This is pretty much not the case. Building already existing design of warheads is not a problem. In worst case scenario there is a Vulkan-31.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alzoc said:

Russia signals intent to quickly revoke ratification of nuclear test ban treaty

 

Translation : "Nuclear weapons we inherited from the soviet union are past their shelf-life and are now unreliable (or soon will be). Since we didn't built any facility similar to the NIF or the LMJ we'll have to resort to good-old test detonations to built the next generation or renovate the old ones."

 

Aside from the fact that this is yet another blow to the image of global power Russia is trying to project this is mainly a serious breach against non-proliferation which is particularly egregious coming from a country which has a permanent seat at the security council (though to be fair they weren't the only ones, AUKUS was almost as bad).

 

What are you babbling about , proliferation is when you give nukes or technology to xy so AUKUS  ,not when you blow some up in tests. And unlike most of the nuclear US arsenal that is actually past expiry, Russians have been rebuilding the nuclear arsenal so its fairly up to date. Given it was breached with AUKUS , NPT its already dead, and mayor nuclear powers like India and Pakistan are not party to  anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

This is pretty much not the case. Building already existing design of warheads is not a problem. In worst case scenario there is a Vulkan-31.

 

Using older, proved designs is possible yes. Though, if you want to recycle the fissile material of older bombs, some testing/simulation will still be needed.

Older designs are also sometimes difficult to recreate since some of the technology used isn't in production anymore and the know how to do it (mainly on the industrial side) lost.

 

Entirely new designs though will absolutely require testing though (either through full scale detonation, or low scale fusion experiments to validate the simulations results). For example I don't know if Russia has variable yields warheads in it's current arsenal which would be particularly useful for Russia and it's doctrine of tactical first strikes in the hope of putting the fear of a full scale attack into the opponent (escalation/de-escalation doctrine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mr.T said:

What are you babbling about , proliferation is when you give nukes or technology to xy so AUKUS  ,not when you blow some up in tests.

It's about trying to keep the rule of Law alive on the international level (at least for appearances sake). If a country on the permanent security council (which is supposed to make sure that international law are actually enforced) just plain don't care anymore what kind of message does it send to rest of the world ...

 

It's about lifting a taboo which held pretty well so far all thing considered.

 

If you want to live in a world where every wannabe dictator develop nuclear weapons and threaten to use them while invading their neighbours without being bothered (pretty much what Russia is doing) good for you. I personally don't. All you will achieve is that most smaller countries will be forced to also equip themselves with nukes to protect themselves from their imperialist neighbour. But in doing so it greatly increasing the risks of nuclear warfare on a global scale.

 

If Ukraine had kept their old soviets nukes instead of surrendering them to Russia maybe the invasion wouldn't have happened. But if Russia had invaded anyway things would most likely have already escalated to the nuclear level.

 

1 hour ago, mr.T said:

And unlike most of the nuclear US arsenal that is actually past expiry, Russians have been rebuilding the nuclear arsenal so its fairly up to date.

 

And that's the point the US actually have the capability to rebuild their nuclear weapons and to develop new ones.

 

With this announcement, all Russia is doing is to cast doubt on their capability to do so (mostly on the developing new ones side) and are trying to find a weak "legalist" excuse to restart nuclear tests because they are incapable to do without. They will eventually prove that they are still capable of designing nuclear weapons when they manage a successful detonation (and I have no doubt that they will get there). But in the meantime? It is pretty much admitting that Russian deterrence is possibly unreliable.

 

You categorically don't want to do that when speaking about dissuasion. I can't stress this enough. Dissuasion is not about having weapons but about convincing the rest of the world that they work reliably, that their delivery system will carry them to their intended targets and that you are willing to use them. Without all of those three points you don't have a dissuasion and nuclear weapons are nothing more than expensive paperweights.

 

1 hour ago, mr.T said:

Given it was breached with AUKUS , NPT its already dead, and mayor nuclear powers like India and Pakistan are not party to  anyway

 

And I agree that AUKUS was a massive knife stab to the NPT. All the US and the UK managed to do is to create a precedent where any nuclear state could gift highly enriched fissile material to a non-nuclear state under the guise of "assistance in developing naval propulsion". As I said, if you want to live in a world where Russia can gift HEU to Iran and risking nuclear war in the middle east with Iran and Israel as the main protagonists, good for you. I don't.

 

Sure Israel, India, Pakistan, NK have nuclear weapons, but so far they don't have (yet) the capability to deliver them all over the planet unlike the big fives. So for now proliferation was mostly contained. But if you drastically increase the number of states that have nuclear weapons, even short range ones, you increase the risk of nuclear conflicts that could drag the big fives into it by proxy.

 

I'm not even talking about the fact the NPT was put into place by the big fives in order to try limiting the number of actors that could challenge them. Russia is literally sawing the branch on which they are sitting. It's so mind-numbingly stupid that all it says is that Russian leadership is scrambling to keep up the appearance of control (failing spectacularly) and stave off their fall.

 

No matter the conclusion of the war in Ukraine, Russia has already lost on a strategic level. There are only 3 outcomes lefts :

  • The Russian population wakes up, get rid of Putin and the mafias controlling the country through him. There will be some civil unrest but it will allow them to have a good hard look at themselves and what their passivity allowed their leader to get away with and maybe they will be able to get forgiveness and actually move on. That is the most desirable outcome but sadly, also the least likely since all organized political opposition in the country has long been eliminated and even having political opinions is viewed as distasteful and potentially dangerous (has been the case since the soviet era). The population don't put its' nose in politics and the state mostly leave them be and allow them to live relatively comfortable lives. That's the current social contract in Russia.
  • Russia manage to get a stalemate/minor victory in Ukraine but is ruined and is slowly vassalized by China and milked dry of it's natural resources. It's the most likely outcome and the situation would be mostly stable but I don't envy the Russian population living through that. China is not a kind master.
  • Major civil unrest happen (either from a coup by a rival mafia/faction or revolution of the various ethnics groups throughout Russia) and what's left of the Russian empire splinter into smaller nations-states. It could be positive for the populations in the long run but in the short terms it will be the USSR collapse 2.0 : Major risks of arms trafficking and criminals and terrorists getting their hands on WMD (either chemical, cuclear or bacteriological). That's probably the worst case scenario as far as world stability goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

If you want to live in a world where every wannabe dictator develop nuclear weapons and threaten to use them while invading their neighbours without being bothered (pretty much what Russia is doing) good for you. I personally don't.

Hello, we already live in that world. North Korea developed their nuclear weapons while being sanctioned to death. Anybody who really wants to get this 70 years old tech can get it if they have enough brains and ability to be efficient enough in managment of their programm and country.

 

Also, invading neaighbours doesn't really need nuclear weapons as necessary ingredient. Azerbaijan and Artsakh/Karabakh; Turkey in Syria and Iraq; US in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, NATO in Lybia, Yugoslavia; Saudi Arabia in Yemen just to name major ones.

 

10 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

If Ukraine had kept their old soviets nukes instead of surrendering them to Russia maybe the invasion wouldn't have happened. But if Russia had invaded anyway things would most likely have already escalated to the nuclear level.

 

Its great that Nazi loving assholes are not also nuclear armed. Donbass would had "nuclear power plant incident" back in 2015 as a significant non-0% possibility is not what i would like to witness.

 

12 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Sure Israel, India, Pakistan, NK have nuclear weapons, but so far they don't have (yet) the capability to deliver them all over the planet unlike the big fives. 

NK have capability to launch them to most of what they would like to nuke already. 

 

13 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

I'm not even talking about the fact the NPT was put into place by the big fives in order to try to limit the number of actors that could challenge them. Russia is literally sawing the branch on which they are sitting. It's so mind-numbingly stupid that all it says is that Russian leadership is scrambling to keep up the appearance of control (and failing spectacularly) and stave off their fall.

That is not objectively true. At least until we see what happens and what results it will deliver.

 

13 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

No matter the conclusion of the war in Ukraine, Russia has already lost on a strategic level. There are only 3 outcomes :

We have a thread where people can write their fan fictions about Ukraine war, and it is not here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Quote

 

On January 4, 1974, the D-5U missile system with the R-27U missile was adopted by the USSR Navy to equip Project 667AU nuclear submarine cruisers. Developer - Mechanical Engineering Design Bureau (Miass), chief designer V. Makeev.

 

R-27U is the first naval missile with a cassette (three-block) warhead. The missile used two warheads: a more modern monoblock and one divided into three low-power warheads. The creation of a small-sized warhead of a small power class became the first necessary step and a condition for the subsequent development of multi-unit multiple warheads for individual guidance of naval missiles.

 

The warheads were installed at a joint that was identical to the front joint of the R-27 missile body, through appropriate adapters. The adapter for the MIRV contained a mechanism for deflecting the blocks from the transport to the flight position for their subsequent pushing away (at the end of the active section) and flight to nearby aiming points. A similar warhead of a cluster or dispersive type was used on the American Polaris A-3T missile and in versions of the domestic R-36 and UR-100U ICBMs.

 

For the R-27U missile, the propulsion engine and on-board control system equipment were upgraded to a limited extent. The firing range for the monoblock increased by 20%, for the three-block warhead it remained the same (2500 km), firing accuracy improved by 15%.

 

 

162411.png?ex=65a9a799&is=65973299&hm=a6cdcbe34cf91bf310d1506aa92e11d785f161bfe34b90e5c7dfff8dd59fac6c&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...