"Russia's "Nuclear Tsunami" Torpedo" Topic

I recall reading about Russia's nuclear torpedo a while ago, which is purported to have an intercontinental range of about 6,200 miles, and that it could be used to attack our naval bases, and sea ports.

However, I don't recall reading about the details of how this might be done. Apparently, it is believed that an underwater detonation could create a radioactive tsunami with a height of over 500 meters, which is very large indeed:

YouTube link

Apparently, Russia is planning on deploying 4 of these submarines, which are believed capable of carrying 6 of these very large, long-range torpedoes each.

There seems to be no mention of any concerns related to the long-term, if not permanent, detrimental effects to the world's environment should even one of these "Doomsday Weapons" actually be used.

I guess Russian citizens may hold their breath and hope that they don't have another accidental "Kursk Disaster" in home waters, in the future.

I did read in another article that Russia also intends to test the weapon. Not sure how they will be able to do that operationally, and safely.

The new blurb mentioned them testing it off of Norway, presumably in Russian waters/EEZ, adjoining the Scandinavian country.

YouTube link

That truly sounds like a terror weapon.

Yep, makes me wonder how they'll "test" such a weapon, safely, though granting that Russian "safety" practices are not the same as US ones.

link

Same topic different conclusion

Those tests right after WWII were with smaller, multi-kiloton weapons, IIRC, AND it did tremendous damage to a whole fleet, and it was just a 23 kiloton warhead.

Multi-megaton weapons ARE vastly more powerful. Imagine the underwater crater depth and width that could cause, and the effects of that displacement that would ensue on anyone and anything nearby.

From a Wiki article:

"Meanwhile, lagoon water rushing back into the space vacated by the rising gas bubble started a tsunami which lifted the ships as it passed under them. At 11 seconds after detonation, the first wave was 1,000 feet (305 m) from surface zero and 94 feet (29 m) high.[108] By the time it reached the Bikini Island beach, 3.5 miles (6 km) away, it was a nine-wave set with shore breakers up to 15 feet (5 m) high, which tossed landing craft onto the beach and filled them with sand.[109]".

link

One of the scariest weapons I've heard of.

Note these are dirty bombs designed to spread huge amounts of radiation around a huge area.

20 or so years ago, I bought property 30 miles inland because I was told the oceans would rise and it would be beach front land now.

If the Russian set one of these off, maybe my investment will finally pay off.

It is a doomsday weapon. So environmental issues will no longer be significant in the event of a nuclear war)))
This concept, if I am not mistaken, was developed by the famous Soviet dissident, Academician Sakharov. Its meaning was to place similar torpedoes along the entire coast of the United States and activate them simultaneously in the event of a nuclear war.
This is what used to be called the "dead hand". Even if NATO succeeds in delivering the first strike against Russian nuclear facilities, this should not prevent a retaliatory strike of sufficient force to inflict unacceptable damage on NATO countries.
Also, with the help of such a torpedo, it is possible to attack aircraft carrier formations of the enemy fleet at sea.

YouTube link

Using it is just begging for massive retaliation.
It would be a Dumb Thing.

The use of nuclear weapons is generally stupid. But not being able to respond to the blow is doubly stupid

"not being able to respond to the blow is doubly stupid"

Dozen of years Americans were capable to nuke out fascist muscovites without any fear about retaliation. They didn't. Why they must do this now?

Dozen of years Americans were capable to nuke out fascist muscovites without any fear about retaliation.

Dude I would lay off the drugs.

Another case of making sure to lock the door after the horse has already escaped?

What about the deployment of American interceptor missiles in Poland?
The answer was not long in coming.

"What about the deployment of American interceptor missiles in Poland?
The answer was not long in coming."

If victims will defend himself, then muscovites answer with bigger weapons of mass destruction. Sure.

Not to take the fun out of it, but where exactly are the advantages of sinking, say, LA or NY with a nuclear-powered superweapon that frankly looks to me like a doomsday device from a James Bond movie, rather than just nukeing them from orbit with a much smaller nuke whose effects are well known?
It's certainly not the only way to be sure, but why bother sneaking in a submarine, making waves and laughing megalomaniacally?

So, perhaps it is just applied propaganda out of Nixonese Madman theory by that nasty creep with his gruesome powder box full of nerve agent?

Who knows? But just imagine cruising range and autonomy of the torpedo-drone, which has a nuclear engine. I do not see any special technical problems for the creation of such a weapon, the more its development was started back in the USSR.
Benefits simple – missile defense useless.

Ah, I see.

But, since Russia obviously has the technological capabilities, why not build that assumed missile defense system to counterbalance a possible threat from the USA?

Russia cannot deploy interceptor missiles near US borders to shoot down American missiles on takeoff. NATO now has this opportunity.

Fine.
So, the robot torpedo undermines the defenses and discharges the kinetic energy of rumoured two Tsar Bombs, preferably salted with cobalt-60 underwater to cause a radioactively contaminated tsunami?

The sneaky bit I buy, to undermine the defense and gain the necessary speed advantage.
But I'm still not convinced of that tsunami creepyness yet.
I can't be bothered to do the math and physics, but I still think the kinetic energy and dirty radiation would be more effectively used when launched from those torpedos directly onto population centers.

As for the horror effect, we know what an atomic mushroom looks like and what happend to Hiroshima and Nagasaki the time the USA won its first nuclear war in 1945, but personally I think it doesn't scare if you can't show off what you can do.

By the way, did anyone cared to look up where the Dr. Strangelove creepyness (Tsunami, 100MT, C-60) in all those articles since about december 2015 originated?
Is it yours or ours?

I'm still trying to work out the advantages of a 6200 mile range. If the torpedo goes 50 knots that is a 5 day delay between launch and arrival. At 50 knots it would wake up every sonar operator within 100 miles and aircraft could easily get in front of it and destroy it. if it goes slower, say 20 knots it would be less noisy but take 13 days to arrive and any tactical benefits would be horrifically out of date. And you'd have to worry about someone picking it up by accident on the way. Makes me wonder how serious that number is.

Hmmm…
Where does it store the fuel for a 6500 mile range? At 50 knots?

As far as I understand, the main purpose of such a weapon is deterrence. The use of such weapons will put an end to the existence of human civilization. This is not a first strike weapon – if used, there will be no winners.
Therefore, this weapon must be practically irresistible.

Conventional ballistic and cruise missiles are vulnerable. They are effective in a nuclear war against a technologically equal enemy only when used on a massive scale. And with the maximum reduction in flight time. NATO has tremendous advantages here simply by virtue of its location and the location of its nuclear weapons and missile defense systems. Moreover, the missile defense system is actively developing again, which further complicates the use of familiar carriers of nuclear weapons in the future. Well, if you get an advantage in weapons, you are tempted to use it first to achieve your goals. It is tempting to attack Russian nuclear missile targets en masse, even with conventional weapons, and then shoot down the few missiles that can launch. Even if some of them find their target, there is a high probability that the global Armageddon will not happen, and Russia will be destroyed.

It is extremely difficult to detect and destroy a nuclear torpedo, which travels at a depth of a kilometer and can appear from any direction in the ocean. This is a drone, a robot, and it can be quite a difficult target for the enemy. And if there are hundreds of such torpedoes?

Tactical advantages in a war that should destroy civilization? What for? It's just the end of everything. There will be no winner. A large-scale attack on Russia is tantamount to suicide — that's all it takes.

This is a torpedo – with a nuclear engine)))

Ah, now I do understand.

There was an 'article' in 'The Sun' lately about Agent Putins Powder Nose Doomsday Device (APPNDD)[TM].
Russian Radioactive Tsunami Torpedo Babble at The Sun online
Does The Sun do articulate text or do they just publish vids with mediocre special effects?

At the same time the Chinese rattle their Kung Fu Sabres in the South Pacific and the Russians bully the Ukrainians to do their bidding.
That'S trusting partnership.

The US gets a warning that it isn't exactly a good idea lately to send some cruise liners on a sightseeing trip to the sea of Azov.
And they take their chance and back off.

Thank God at the same time we are informed the Russians are really, really evil people, better taken seriously.
Because, you see, they build DOOOMDAY DEVICES!

DOOOMSDAY, I tell you.
With TSUNAMIS.
And C-60.
ONE HUNDRED MEGATONS!

Okay, no flying sharks, but hey, it's a start.

…
In short, the Ukraine is ****ed.
But there is a good reason for it, because as I said those evil Russians have DOOOMSDAY DEVICES!

DOOOMSDAY, I tell you!
With THREE O!!!

We'll know everything someday)))
And of course, it would be much better for the Russians to follow the good orders of the US and NATO. After all, the United States and NATO want Russians exclusively for good and prosperity)))
In 2007, Putin said that Russia's interests are neglected (Munich speech), that Russia feels a threat from the West, that if this situation persists, Russia will be forced to defend its interests by force. Then they laughed at him. Now you can watch funny Russian cartoons)))
Is it wonderful that there are so many funny things happening in the world now?

Personally I don't think, the wider population will ever know what is or was going on.

I know Russia was pulled over the table.
That is the way it is.
At least from its perspective.
The Baltics, Poland an some others naturally see things differently.

Of course, the geostrategic situation is rearranging.
There will be losers and winners.
Just ask the Armenians.

I'm German.
First time we wanted to answer the 'German Question' in Europe it wasn't only our desaster.
Second time we ed up great, but the brighter heads knew beforehand there would be another round after the first one. Nonetheless, after that we were still in high demand.
Lucky bastards aren't we?

And after the West won Cold World War III, we're still on a roll.
WE have a buffer in the east and a more agressive and robust Russia will be an incentive.
At least I hope so.
Like Nietzsche said, that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger.
If not, so be it.

The Times They Are a-Changing.
And a lot of opportunities out there.
Competition is good.

I agree. Competition is the engine of progress.

For the record, a handful of interceptor missiles installed in Poland is/was NO threat to Russia's thousands of nuclear weapons in inventory.

Well, the problem is, Thresher01, you were never invaded by us Germans, lost your status as a world power and also feel still fooled.

I can relate to that, allthough we were the lucky ones.
Which makes it even sadder.

Perhaps this "torpedo, if it really exists, is already in place waiting to be triggered. No need to go 50 knots, noisily, for 6500 miles.
It just needs to reach a destination and wait.
So, if it exists, it's already in place and waiting.

Thresher01 may be sufficient if you are the one to launch the first strike at the Russian missile launch sites. Who knows how many of them survive?

I expect it's a bit of misdirection as to the weapon's real purpose and capability. The whole point of MAD requires an immediate response, and a weapon like this doesn't provide that (not only are we going to nuke all your cities into the stone age, we're gonna contaminate your coast with radiation! how scary is that?). I doubt the Russians would put one of these off the coast and leave it either, nukes lying around unattended hasn't been anyone's practice. Realistically carrier-buster is the most likely purpose.

Actually, in WWII, the USA was "invaded" by Germans. Granted, in very small numbers dropped off by U-Boats, but a few men were captured before they could do any damage.

I can see them being used to take out a naval port or three, should war break out, since they could wipe out entire fleets if they do that, because our vessels are not adequately dispersed, so they ARE very vulnerable to a sneak attack, just like Pearl Harbor in WWII.