
Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile - 1gor
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vladimir-putin-russia-nuclear-weapons-including-invincible-cruise-missile/
======
pytonslange
This reminds me of this horrendousity: [https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-
crowbar-the-insane-doomsday-...](https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-
insane-doomsday-weapon-america-1435286216)

------
greedo
I doubt this will see much traction. A nuclear powered ramjet will not be a
small device (like the ALCM, or the upcoming LRSO), and will not be cheap. If
it's large, putting out a lot of heat, it will be detectable. If it can be
detected, it can be shot down.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Cruise missiles fly very, very low. No chance of ground-based radar noticing
them for long enough to shoot anything (milliseconds as they streak overhead).
So space-based, or some pursuit missile seems like the only chance of shooting
them down.

~~~
greedo
Current plans are for fighters to be directed by AWACs. But the larger the
missile, the higher it has to fly. It's difficult on an airframe to fly low
and fast, so the detection range will increase the higher the altitude.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Often height is for fuel efficiency? Thinner air up there. With an atomic
engine, that's moot.

~~~
greedo
Higher altitude to avoid CFIT (controlled flight into terrain). The faster you
fly, the less reaction time you have. So instead of being able to hug the
ground at say 100ft AGL, you have to bump up to 1000ft.

------
vfulco
Interesting that he's out rattling the saber after US opened a can of whoop
a$$ on his undocumented mercenaries in Syria. The chess pieces are moving
around the board a little more vigorously.

------
John_KZ
The sad part is that they're kind of right in doing so.

NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's
border (with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this
strategy) essentially nullifying their ability to strike back in case of war.
So now they have to find a new way to deliver their weapons, with our missile
shield in place, be it cruize missiles or something else, and this is
escalating the new cold war.

I don't like seeing research in nuclear weapons done by anyone, especially
Russia, but I can't help but feel like this one is on NATO and not Russia.

~~~
chrisseaton
> NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's
> border

How can it be too far to install an anti-missile system on your own territory?
That seems eminently reasonable and uncontroversial to me. It's not even a
euphemism is it? It literally is purely a defensive system?

It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door.

I've seen this opinion put forward and I don't really get it - wondering what
your underlying principles to reach that opinion are?

~~~
MadcapJake
> It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your
> door.

This is a poor analogy due to a nation-state not being analogous to a burglar.
Especially due to a burglar being a deviant and a nation-state not
(inherently) being a deviant. Also in your scenario, one party is deviant and
the other is protecting their home (one-sided).

A defensive act like setting up missile shields runs counter to "mutually
assured destruction" (it's not so mutual when one side has a missile shield).

~~~
Const-me
> and a nation-state not (inherently) being a deviant.

I think modern Russia is a deviant. Here’s a recent news about high-ranking
officials doing large-scale international drug trafficking, using a government
jet for that:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-
argent...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-argentina-
cocaine-smuggling-operation-plane-air-drugs-embassy-a8231406.html)

------
lurker12390879
I wonder how useful for space exploration this could be? That is, make a non-
cruise variant for long distance satellite/human launches?

~~~
tim333
I assume the Russian missile is a nuclear powered jet engine, assuming it
exists, while for space you need a nuclear powered rocket engine. Different
tech. The US tested a nuclear rocket engine on the ground in 1967 and it
looked well cool. I'd vote for giving it's development a go.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#/media/...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#/media/File:NERVA_XE_nuclear_rocket_engine_being_transported_to_test_stand_-
_GPN-2002-000143.jpg)

The US also built nuclear powered jet engines in the 60s but found for piloted
aircraft you'd either need tons of lead shielding or kill the pilots. It's
rumoured the Russians actually flew one and killed said pilots.

