Current Events > Russia is testing a nuclear torpedo that could flood the US with a tsunami

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-tests-nuclear-doomsday-torpedo-in-arctic-expands-military-2021-4?utm_source=reddit.com
Russia is planning to deploy a nuclear-powered missile to the Arctic next summer that's designed to detonate off the coastlines of enemy countries, CNN reported.
Satellite images provided this week to CNN by Maxar, a satellite company, indicated that Russia is testing weapons in the region and building significant military infrastructure in the Arctic which is increasingly free of ice because of climate change.
CNN reported that Russia would deploy the Poseidon 2M39 missile to its Arctic region next summer. The missile has been referred to in reports as a "doomsday" device because of its devastating power.
The device images of which first surfaced on Russian state television in 2015 is an underwater nuclear torpedo designed to hit the ocean floor, kicking up a radioactive tsunami that could spread deadly radiation over thousands of miles of land, rendering it uninhabitable.
Russian President Vladimir Putin requested an update on a "key stage" of the tests in February from his defense minister, and more tests are expected later this year, the Times of London reported.
Russia and NATO countries with a presence in the Arctic region have been increasing their activity there in recent years as rising sea temperatures make it more accessible, Insider's Christopher Woody reported.
Russia has the world's longest Arctic coastline and derives about a quarter of its GDP from the region, and the Northern Sea Route is a valuable shipping corridor for Moscow.
The Pentagon on Monday said it was watching reports of Russian military activities and infrastructure build-ups in the Arctic "very closely."
"Without getting into specific intelligence assessments, obviously we're monitoring it very closely," said Pentagon press secretary John F. Kirby at a briefing Monday.

---

.... can it reach ohio? :v

Welp, we had a good run, lads.

---

Teneritas posted...

.... can it reach ohio? :v

we safe bruh


---

If you're going to fuck over the world with nuclear devastation then you may as well go all out.

---

A nuclear weapon wouldn't be capable of generating a tsunami of any significant size
---

Midwest wins again

*gets killed by a tornado*

---

bump

---

go ahead, do it. put us out of our misery

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

A nuclear weapon wouldn't be capable of generating a tsunami of any significant size

You underestimate how good Russia are at making ridiculously overpowered explosives.

---

Fucking do it, $10 says you won't
>:v

---

China getting more aggressive in the South China Sea and now this.

WW3 seems ever closer

coh posted...

China getting more aggressive in the South China Sea and now this.

WW3 seems ever closer

*sigh*

---

Lmfao picture in the OP...

Caught me off guard

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

A nuclear weapon wouldn't be capable of generating a tsunami of any significant size

This, nor would the spread of radiation be as effective as an air-detonated bomb. Dust can carry over a far greater distance and can be inhaled into the lungs, which is what makes it so dangerous. Fukushima released FAR more radiation than any nuclear bomb and the estimated future deaths due to cancer is, like, 12.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Fukushima released FAR more radiation than any nuclear bomb and the estimated future deaths due to cancer is, like, 12.

about 2000 people died trying to run away, which may be the whole point to this thing.

We have a nuclear arsenal that can ruin the whole planet

Take that

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ7lKPSUc2g

---

I'd be more worried about those hackers that tried to make a water treatment plant poison a town's water with lye.

---

Also, for reference, major tsunami's like the Sumatran and Japanese tsunamis are created with more energy than literally the entire nuclear stockpile of Russia, and probably more than the entire nuclear stockpile of the USA as well.

---

Russia can already kill us all and they have been able to do that since the 1960's (and we've been able to do the same to them). I'm guessing this weapon is just a giant **** you to our ballistic missile defense efforts.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Also, for reference, major tsunami's like the Sumatran and Japanese tsunamis are created with more energy than literally the entire nuclear stockpile of Russia, and probably more than the entire nuclear stockpile of the USA as well.

Russia's stockpile is bigger than the USA's. And it's not even close.

---

IHeartRadiation posted...

I'd be more worried about those hackers that tried to make a water treatment plant poison a town's water with lye.

Obligatory ProZD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPUgjy-Pn-4

Questionmarktarius posted...

about 2000 people died trying to run away, which may be the whole point to this thing.

We already have weapons that are far more effective than that.

They're called "nuclear weapons".

---

Biden's America
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

We already have weapons that are far more effective than that.

They're called "nuclear weapons".

The only reason this weapon exists is that the Russians see the US missile defense expenditures (insane amounts of money have been spent with limited results) as an existential threat if we actually manage to get a large scale system up and running and they see this as their way of saying "we don't even need missiles to deter you from nuking us".

Tracers work both ways.

---

Trumble posted...

Russia's stockpile is bigger than the USA's. And it's not even close.

Oh, the USA has dismantled a lot of their warheads since I last studied the topic, although that should have been expected by me. And Russia's stockpile is about 8% bigger as of 2020.

---

Cold War version 20000.2

Nothing new here.
---

Trumble posted...

Russia's stockpile is bigger than the USA's. And it's not even close.

Yet it doesn't actually matter whose is bigger since they can both fuck up the world many times over.

---

Jokes on them. We just buy scuba gear.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Oh, the USA has dismantled a lot of their warheads since I last studied the topic, although that should have been expected by me. And Russia's stockpile is about 8% bigger as of 2020.

We've both dismantled most our stockpile as part of treaty agreements we made with one another but it was going from tens of thousands of warheads to thousands of warheads. We can still (mostly) blow each other up. Think about it like this. If Russia has 1,000 Nukes that can hit the US (they have more) that would mean 20 nukes per state.

Can you name the top 20 largest cities in every state? Can you name the top 20 largest cities in your state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
Here are the 384 metro areas in the US with over 50,000 people.

How far down that list do you get before you start seeing cities you didn't even know exist?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention

Atralis posted...

We've both dismantled most our stockpile as part of treaty agreements we made with one another but it was going from tens of thousands of warheads to thousands of warheads. We can still (mostly) blow each other up. Think about it like this. If Russia has 1,000 Nukes that can hit the US (they have more) that would mean 20 nukes per state.

Can you name the top 20 largest cities in every state? Can you name the top 20 largest cities in your state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
Here are the 384 metro areas in the US with over 50,000 people.

How far down that list do you get before you start seeing cities you didn't even know exist?

I'm, uh, perfectly aware. However, it's generally accepted that the large majority of nuclear weapons usage would not be fired at metropolitan areas regardless, nor would Russia expend all of its nuclear capacity in an exchange with the United States--The majority would target military installations and tactical operations areas.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

I'm, uh, perfectly aware. However, it's generally accepted that the large majority of nuclear weapons usage would not be fired at metropolitan areas regardless, nor would Russia expend all of its nuclear capacity in an exchange with the United States--The majority would target military installations and tactical operations areas.

Once someone drops a nuke, it's all over imo. Any country capable would retaliate completely.

---

Funkydog posted...

If you're going to fuck over the world with nuclear devastation then you may as well go all out.

This

Time to catch some waves, the surfin is gonna be tubular dude.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Also, for reference, major tsunami's like the Sumatran and Japanese tsunamis are created with more energy than literally the entire nuclear stockpile of Russia, and probably more than the entire nuclear stockpile of the USA as well.

Correct, but it's closer to hundreds, or even thousands of times the global stockpile.

A magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases the same amount of energy as about 30,000,000 Tsar Bombas, which was several times more powerful than standard nukes in use today.


---

MorbidFaithless posted...

Once someone drops a nuke, it's all over imo. Any country capable would retaliate completely.

Retaliating with the full force of your nuclear arsenal is completely pointless, however. It is strictly an act of retribution. It is cutting off ones nose to spite their face.

If you view a small scale nuclear attack to be an existential threat to your country, then escalating to a full-scale nuclear war is pointless--You are actually destroying your country completely, as even assuming the government of your country somehow survives the full salvo exchange of nuclear hell fire, you've now depleted the last practical tool you had to maintain national sovereignty from the inevitable invasion across your border to conduct massive scale relief efforts and eventual annexation. Under the guise of "relief', what nation states remain in their post-nuclear Armageddon world would divide your land and people's up however they see fit over the coming decades.

Instead, it is more reasonable to expect the leaders, especially the military command of these countries, to take a more measured approach which would devastate their enemy but still allow them the ability to retain some modicum of control over the country they are fighting for.

For perspective, It is not an exaggeration to say that at the peak Cold War stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the total and irreparable systems collapse of a full nuclear exchange would send what remained of humanity back to the Middle Ages for centuries. Now, however, with the START treaties and the likes, humanity would at least be able to rebuild from a place greater than "zero"..

---