Russia Developing Drone Sub To Deliver Large Nukes

[AAAintheBeltway]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-reveals-secret-nuclear-armed-drone-sub/

Since various republican candidates like Marco Rubio seem to want to have permanently bad relations with Russia, maybe they should stop and think what that means for a minute. This article reports on a russian drone submarine that is expected to be able to go over 3000 feet deep and run at over 50 knots. Experts say it would be impossible to stop such a weapon. It could deliver a megaton class warhead capable of devastating coastal cities and making them uninhabitable for a very long time. In case you don't have a map handy, the majority of large US cities fall into that category.

In other news, the Defence Department just inked an $80 billion contract to build a manned bomber. Seriously, they want to build a manned bomber and of course congress is eager to start pumping out the money. We know how these defense contracts always go. By the time that bomber is built, they will cost tens of billions each and be way too expensive to risk in actual combat. The fact they will be obsolete and sitting ducks for any third rate military power might also be a consideration. If only we could use drones instead...nah then the generals wouldn't have vast squadrons of pilots to command and a lot of big shiny planes.

Still, I wonder just how many drones $80 bill would buy?

 

[ETcallhome]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-reveals-secret-nuclear-armed-drone-sub/

Since various republican candidates like Marco Rubio seem to want to have permanently bad relations with Russia, maybe they should stop and think what that means for a minute. This article reports on a russian drone submarine that is expected to be able to go over 3000 feet deep and run at over 50 knots. Experts say it would be impossible to stop such a weapon. It could deliver a megaton class warhead capable of devastating coastal cities and making them uninhabitable for a very long time. In case you don't have a map handy, the majority of large US cities fall into that category.

In other news, the Defence Department just inked an $80 billion contract to build a manned bomber. Seriously, they want to build a manned bomber and of course congress is eager to start pumping out the money. We know how these defense contracts always go. By the time that bomber is built, they will cost tens of billions each and be way too expensive to risk in actual combat. The fact they will be obsolete and sitting ducks for any third rate military power might also be a consideration. If only we could use drones instead...nah then the generals wouldn't have vast squadrons of pilots to command and a lot of big shiny planes.

Still, I wonder just how many drones $80 bill would buy?

Why is it our enemies are always parading their weapons around and we never know what weapons we have?

 

[Ricter]

Why is it our enemies are always parading their weapons around and we never know what weapons we have?

Because we're smarter than them. Does anyone here think the US is not already working on submarine drones?

 

[Ditch]

Consequences of a large nuclear war. It makes you think you're better off dead than being a survivor.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/

 

[Scataphagos]

Consequences of a large nuclear war. It makes you think you're better off dead than being a survivor.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/

Ditto.

Can't get onboard with any politico suggesting WW III with Russia, China, or anyone else. At some point, nuclear weapons will get deployed and that will effectively be IT for all of mankind.... everywhere around the world.

Even if one of them "only" does a high-altitude detonation for EMP effect... won't their enemy deploy the same? It would take only a few EMP weapons to effectively throw the entire world back to 1800, or worse. Who the Hell would want that??

We can't have radiation poisoning from fallout making the entire planet uninhabitable any more than we can have all of modern civilization crippled/destroyed by having our reliance upon electricity and our electronic devices destroyed. Who actually wins if that happens, and what would "winning" actually mean??

Robert Oppenheimer, who headed up the Manhattan Project developing America's 1st nuclear weapons,... and after the 1st successful nuclear bomb test detonation, said something to the effect, "... What we've accomplished here today makes future World Wars unthinkable..."

WTF are these politicos thinking??

 

[Ditch]

Ditto.

Can't get onboard with any politico suggesting WW III with Russia, China, or anyone else. At some point, nuclear weapons will get deployed and that will effectively be IT for all of mankind.... everywhere around the world.

Even if one of them "only" does a high-altitude detonation for EMP effect... won't their enemy deploy the same? It would take only a few EMP weapons to effectively throw the entire world back to 1800, or worse. Who the Hell would want that??

We can't have radiation poisoning from fallout making the entire planet uninhabitable any more than we can have all of modern civilization crippled/destroyed by having our reliance upon electricity and our electronic devices destroyed. Who actually wins if that happens, and what would "winning" actually mean??

Robert Oppenheimer, who headed up the Manhattan Project developing America's 1st nuclear weapons,... and after the 1st successful nuclear bomb test detonation, said something to the effect, "... What we've accomplished here today makes future World Wars unthinkable..."

WTF are these politicos thinking??

One Ohio-class submarine carries enough nukes to completely wipe out China. Let's assume the USA would be able to do this in a first strike all out attack. What do you gain by that if the whole world enters a nuclear ice age after that? What the world needs most now is a US president willing to put an end to this madness.

 

[Scataphagos]

One Ohio-class submarine carries enough nukes to completely wipe out China. Let's assume the USA would be able to do this in a first strike all out attack. What do you gain by that if the whole world enters a nuclear ice age after that? What the world needs most now is a US president willing to put an end to this madness.

In the cold war, we had M.A.D., Mutually Assured Destruction, as a deterrent to nuclear confrontation. Apparently today's politicos don't understand that.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

In fairness, I am using hyperbole when I suggest Rubio or Fiorina or any of the other super neo-con hawks want to start WW III. However, their judgment seems so flawed and so willfully oblivious to our recent history that it does frighten me.

I know the popular media putdown is to ask if you really want Trump's finger on the nuclear trigger. From what I have seen and heard so far, my answer is I trust him, Paul and Carson the most, and Rubio and Fiorina the least. The first three don't seem to feel the need to posture to show how tough they are. Neither did Reagan.

 

[ETcallhome]

One Ohio-class submarine carries enough nukes to completely wipe out China. Let's assume the USA would be able to do this in a first strike all out attack. What do you gain by that if the whole world enters a nuclear ice age after that? What the world needs most now is a US president willing to put an end to this madness.

or cleaner weapons

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Just to expand on why Rubio and Fiorina frighten me, they advocated our declaring a no-fly zone over all or parts of Syrian air space. That is an act of war that should require a formal Declaration by the congress, ut of course they brush that off.

The effect and intention of the no fly zone would be to prevent the Assad government from confronting islamist insurgents who want to take over the country. We did the exact same thing in Libya after reports of atrocities by the Khadaffi forces, reports that were later discredited. The aftermath of the Obama/Clinton intervention was a failed state with large oil revenues, Benghazi etc and the rise of ISIS. There is no rational reason to expect a different result if Assad is deposed.

Finally, a no fly zone would involve a direct confrontation with Russia, which has a large number of planes in the country already at the invitation of the legitimate government. It is totally incorrect to call Russia's intervention an "aggression", like Rubio did. Aggression is what we did in Iraq and Libya. The neo-con warmongers like McCain desperately want to force a humiliating backdown by Putin. Maybe they do back down, and go home seething with anger at the US. Is that really a good thing? And what do we do if they stand up to us? How many planes are we prepared to lose, because we aren't going up against Saddam's second rate air force. We will be going up against the best the russkies have and that is pretty damn good. Plus, we'll be doing it a long way from home. What do we do if we shoot down a couple of theirs, they shoot down a couple of ours, then they sink one of our aircraft carriers, which they could easily do?