
Russia's Putin reveals 'invincible' nuclear weapons - sjcsjc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43239331
======
djrogers
> invincible in the face of all existing and future systems

Hmm, all future systems too, eh? One might almost think he was exaggerating,
but it was reported seriously so I suppose he can’t be, right?

~~~
madaxe_again
If it's a nuclear ramjet SLAM, while you could in principle shoot it down, if
it's anywhere near your territory when you do so, it's pretty much as bad as
not shooting it down, as both result in radioactivity spread over a large
area.

So, short of force fields and teleportation, there is no defence.

The Americans knew this when they were developing the technology in the
50's/60's, and axed the project in the interest of not encouraging the Soviets
to make the same unstoppable doomsday weapon.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
> If it's a nuclear ramjet SLAM, while you could in principle shoot it down,
> if it's anywhere near your territory when you do so, it's pretty much as bad
> as not shooting it down, as both result in radioactivity spread over a large
> area.

So obviously the only reasonable solution is to develop a system to shoot it
down way before it gets near you. To say that such a system can't be developed
in the future is not short-sightedness or a lack of imagination, but simply
propaganda.

~~~
madaxe_again
Unless it's launched by a submarine on your doorstep, which would be the
strategically intelligent thing to do. Same line of reasoning that led to the
development of SLBMs.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, even in that case, though there the “system to shoot it down” consists of
ASW supremacy and a policy of preemption if tensions escalate to the point
where a launch seems plausible; the less valuable post-launch defense is
against a weapon system, the more it encourages preemptive attack.

------
dalbasal
Couple of questions for anyone who knows about this kind of hardware.

(1) Is the nuclear arms "race" still on? Ie, Is the US still playing a game of
my offence/defence is better than yours with The States?

(2) does this count as a new bar or milestone or somesuch, and if so when was
the last "milestone." Ie, something that changes the strategic dynamic between
major powers in a somewhat meaningful way.

~~~
varren
1) yes, the race is still on. I don't want to go deep into the politics and
talk about who triggered what, but the breakpoint was the USA withdrawal from
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty(1972-2001)[1] and development of Aegis Ballistic
Missile Defense System(2002)[2] and Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense(2008)[3] and some other projects in that field. It can look like not a
big deal, but it is actually a crucial step to escalation, because if you
don't feel safe enough (without anti-missile system good enough to protect
you) you will never strike first. But if you have such a system what stops you
from using nuclear weapons? At least that was the main idea behind the first
ABM Treaty (1972). Back in the days USSR had huge progress in that field, and
now USA can easily create superior systems in a couple of years. While China
and Russia don't have the same resources, the only thing they can do is to
improve nuclear weapons(because it is cheaper). And after all SALT I
(1969–1972), the ABM Treaty (1972), SALT II (1972–1979) are all part of the
same deal. So yes, we can say that the world is changing and old system of
mutual nuclear disarmament is not working anymore. And it can't actually work
in the world where new nuclear power emerge every 10 years or so...

2) don't think so. Some leader bragging about some 'invincible' weapon before
the elections is not a big deal.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
Ballistic_Missile_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
Ballistic_Missile_Treaty)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defens...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
The US had to do something like this because of North Korea. We trust
deterrence with Russia much more than we do with North Korea.

I don't thing ABM defenses really change things. Russia can throw 2000
warheads at us. Can we stop them all? _No way._ But would we have a chance at
stopping one North Korean nuke? Yes.

So I think this is only destablilizing if Russia and China decide that it is.
If Russia is looking realistically at the situation, there is exactly zero
chance that the US will willingly take the amount of damage that Russia could
cause, even with ABM defenses reducing the damage.

~~~
varren
ABM defenses change things in a context of mutual nuclear _disarmament_ not in
ability to annihilate each other. If USA stops playing according to the
agreements, why others should?

Yes, USA is saying that it has to come up with something like this to counter
rogue states and I can believe that. But why should Russia/China or any other
country keep their part of the mutual nuclear disarmament bargain in that
case? (ABM defenses is part of the deal here) Everyone has a different view on
how to enforce peace. There is actually a theory in international relations
that the safest earth can get is when everyone have nuclear weapons capable of
destroying everyone else.[2] And it is part of a neorealist theory so Russia
and China are pretty "realistic" in their approach. To be honest the safest
way for any country is to have such a weapon that can crush the earth if used.
Is it safe for humanity? No. But it is definitely the safest way to ensure
your regime.

"The US had to do something like this because of North Korea" Well, USA never
did anything about Israel, Pakistan, India. There are 10+ more countries
"being one screwdriver's turn" from the bomb. Why bother now? And here is
another POV: Initially ABM defense was advertised to stop Iran ballistic
missile development and USA sold lots of Aegis parts to Europe/Turkey/Saudi
Arabia. And Russians freaked out about radars in Poland covering most part of
western Russia and backed Iran... And I think they had their reasons for
concern because Poland wasn't even in range of Iranian missiles at that time.
And it goes on and on, but anyway it pretty much started the new race on a
global scale. Doesn't matter who was the first: India/Pakistan/NK/Iran, ABM
escalated it to a completely new level. Btw i doubt many ppl know that it was
Pakistan who started NK nuclear development in 2002.[2]

"But would we have a chance at stopping one North Korean nuke? Yes" And that's
the real danger. If someone in Japan or South Korea think the same, that they
are truly protected with this shield, they will have strong desire to
influence/provoke North Korea/ try a regime change... And that can cause a
full scale war with nuclear state. The point here: is it really secure or just
an illusion of security? And btw North Korea probably has more that just 1-10
or even 100 nukes at this point.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93Pakistan_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Well, USA never did anything about Israel, Pakistan, India.

Under current circumstances, neither Israel nor India are going to even try to
attack the US. Pakistan might be tempted, but I believe they don't have a
ballistic missile capable of reaching the US. So there was less reason to do
anything about them. (Iran, now, is more worrying.)

> If someone in Japan or South Korea think the same, that they are truly
> protected with this shield...

But I don't think anybody believes that. Could it stop a North Korean nuke?
Hopefully, yes. Is anyone confident enough to want to try it? I doubt it;
nobody believes that ABM defenses are anything like 100% reliable.

> And btw North Korea probably has more that just 1-10 or even 100 nukes at
> this point.

I think it's about 10-20 warheads. Do they have 10-20 ICBMs that are
operational? I doubt it, but I don't know for certain.

~~~
varren
Well, you may be right, it is just a matter of interpretation. But when it
comes to defence in international relations it is basically a variation of
Prisoner's dilemma[1]. It doesn't matter what reasons USA has to develop ABM.
Russia, China, NK and everyone else will never choose to disarm when their
oponent is arming.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#In_intern...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#In_international_politics)

------
trisimix
Why?! 21st century and one of the super powers still sees 'has world ending
superweapon' as an election point.

~~~
d1ffuz0r
because NATO is getting closer to our borders, we can't leave it without
response

~~~
mtgx
It's not a invalid point _per se_ , but I think everyone knows NATO's recent
moves against Russia are a _direct consequence_ of Russia invading and
annexing Crimea.

It probably won't end well if everyone decides to "one-up" each other, though,
similar to how WW1 started.

~~~
rovek
> invading and annexing Crimea

This is one of few times I've seen "invade" used to describe Russia's actions
in Crimea. I find it strange that even western media talks about "annexation"
when they usually employ exaggerated terminology for all kinds of trivial
events.

edit: I'm not saying the invasion was trivial, I'm saying the media response
was/is understated compared to non-events they exaggerate

~~~
gandhium
Well, at least media don't play the Russian-proposed "we were heroic
defenders" tune, like it was with Georgia in 2008.

------
mikeash
A nuclear cruise missile with “unlimited range”... the unwelcome return of
Project Pluto?

~~~
madaxe_again
It's the only thing it possibly can be, to have limitless range. The Americans
mothballed it as it was considered "too provocative".

The technology is totally feasible, and not even that complex - it's just that
it's pretty much the most evil thing man could devise.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto)

~~~
mikeash
They also couldn’t figure out how to test it. Once you turn it on, you can’t
stop it, and if you lose control it could go anywhere on the planet.

~~~
Santosh83
Can you not stop it by sending it commands to turn off the reactor?

~~~
IdeaHamstir
Several orders of magnitude less than Chernobyl. The reactor that lost
containment was a gigawatt production plant. A gigawatt nuclear ramjet would
be so huge there would be no trouble detecting it and shooting it down near
the launch site.

~~~
mikeash
Most of Chernobyl’s material stayed in the reactor, though. A hypersonic crash
would disperse a much bigger proportion of the material. I don’t know how the
two factors balance out exactly.

------
evrydayhustling
This is pretty terrifying, but weren't we already living in a world where sub
mounted cruise missiles could bypass most defense systems? Anybody know a lot
about modern ICBM strategy?

~~~
ekianjo
Submarines with nukes that cannot be easily located is where the deterrence
is. There is virtually no good defense against such capabilities, so this long
range low altitude nuke changes nothing.

~~~
madaxe_again
There is still however a chance of defence against SLBMs, between hypersonic
anti-missile-missiles, and THAAD -
[https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/thaad.html](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/thaad.html)

With a SLAM spewing radiation as it goes, however, you're stuffed either way.

~~~
spookyuser
Tangential, but just wondering: who is this website for?

Surely there are no private citizens buying ballistic missile defence weapons
and if a nation state had enough resources to consider buying something like
this, would they not also have enough resources that they wouldn't be
searching for their defense armament online?

~~~
mikeash
I imagine it’s for the workers who make up a big part of the decision-making
process for military acquisitions.

If you ride the DC Metro through the Pentagon stop, you’ll see a _lot_ of ads
for high-end weapons systems where other subway systems might have ads for
lawyers and universities and such. It’s amusing and peculiar.

------
mtgx
Let the dictator world-destroying dick-measuring contest begin.

~~~
DougN7
If there is a US president that will jump in and build a bigger missile
without considering all the ramifications, it’s Trump :(

------
gandhium
One of those 'revelations', picturing rockets descending on Florida, was a
Russian TV clip from 2007. Link (in Russian):
[https://tvrain.ru/articles/grafiku_iz_filma_2007_goda_na_nej...](https://tvrain.ru/articles/grafiku_iz_filma_2007_goda_na_nej_rakety_bombjat_floridu-458655/)

------
adrianN
We got the Apollo program out of the last arms race, maybe this time we'll get
a settlement on the Moon or Mars?

~~~
neuronic
Because the motivation comes from having to flee the inevitable radiated
craters in Europe etc.?

------
kingcoin
I'm so glad the generation that lived through the cuban missile crisis saw it
fit to elect a president into office that would bring those terrors back so
that my generation could experience it as well.

~~~
ralmidani
Putin was set on world domination long before Trump was elected. Obama and
Clinton thought they could "reset" relations with Putin, but Putin was playing
them the whole time.

By the way, I voted for Clinton.

Edit: typo

~~~
baursak
> Putin was set on world domination

I guess this is one of examples of Putin's quest for world domination, right?

[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/nato-deploys-
troops-p...](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/nato-deploys-troops-
poland-russian-border-170413213541667.html)

~~~
kazagistar
Isnt that a fairly rational defensive response to Russians invading and
annexing parts of Ukraine? If Russia wants to strengthen defenses against Nato
in response, fine, as long as they don't go invading pad those borders as
well.

~~~
baursak
That was but one example, there are plenty from before Ukrainian conflict
started, e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland)

Imagine US reaction if Putin tried to set up a "missile defense system" in
Cuba. Oh wait.

------
wiz21c
Russia:1, NKorea:1, US/Europe:0

The times are changing...

~~~
fenk85
You are welcome to move yourself and your family to Russia or NK and tell us
all about how you get on..

~~~
wiz21c
Besides the fact that the only thing I know from theses countries are what the
(occidental) media say (basically, lies, framed truths,...) I was just
pointing at the fact that I’d expect US/Europe to answer just for the sake of
political influence over their own citizens. But they don’t. So I think that
the balance of power is moving. It’s already been reported years ago in some
newspapers or documentaries so nothing surprising. But considering the absence
of response of US/Europe, I’d say that confirms the balance of power has
really moved now.

~~~
fenk85
Just 3 days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16470788](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16470788)

Is that a good enough response for you? Does it make you happy that Putin
decided to tear up treaties banning intermediate range missiles and start a
new arms race?

------
greggarious
Metal Gear?!

