So not very accurate them?

Russia unveils ‘Satan 2’ missile powerful enough to ‘wipe out UK, France or Texas’

31 thoughts on “So not very accurate them?”

  1. I think you’ll find that it’s not the missile that does the damage but the warhead on the end of it.

  2. Russia updates elderly ICBM fleet and makes vague boasts about the new system.

    Shock, horror, film at eleven.

  3. Hank Scorpio: By the way, Homer, what’s your least favourite country? Italy or France?
    Homer: France.
    Hank Scorpio: Ha, ha, nobody ever says Italy.

  4. Russian media report that the missile will weigh up to 10 tons with the capacity to carry up to 10 tons of nuclear cargo.

    How the hell did anyone manage to print this nonsense ?

  5. A ten ton missile that can carry its own weight.

    What’s it use for fuel–spinach?

    Also that would leave Russia in a position to conquer the Solar System. The old Star Trek analogy Klingon= Russian would come true.

    Interesting times.

  6. Isn’t 10 tons rather small for an ICBM? The Yank’s Minuteman fleet mass over 30 tons/per & the Poseidons, which aren’t strictly speaking ICBMs, much the same. S’pose if you were only firing them at Alaska from Siberia, the IC part’d be true but there’s no reason to think the Russians hate Sarah Palin more than the US media.

  7. The Satan 2 is full of very good quality passports which will enable such a huge number of migrants that the UK etc will be wiped out

  8. Isn’t 10 tons rather small for an ICBM?

    Very small. Polaris was 16 tonnes, with a total throw-weight less than a tonne.

    Trident D-5 is 59 tonnes. I’ve no real clue of the throw-weight – much of that is for a significant range increase but the throw-weight is about three times that of A-3T.

  9. Even the 100 Mt ‘Tsar’ warhead would have taken out only most of East Anglia. The idea that a nuclear bomb could wipe out the UK is nonsense.

    Not that we want to get hit by even a small one mind.

  10. Throw weight of 10 tonnes is fairly large. I assume they want to replace the SS18 mod3/6 variant, with it’s 25MT penetrator warhead they developed for turning Chenyenne Mountain into a lake….

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    gunker – “How the hell did anyone manage to print this nonsense ?”

    That is an excellent question. A missile that had a 1:1 weight to payload ratio would be impressive. A laser-based system might be able to do that. But a liquid fueled rocket? Hell no.

    The SS-18 Satan missile weighs over 200 tonnes. Its replacement is unlikely to be much less. The new one is more likely to have 10 warheads. Which, yes, could do the UK a lot damage.

    With that type of payload, it could deliver a blast some 2,000 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    So they were somewhere around 15 kilotons. So they are claiming 40 MT? 10 of those would not make the UK’s day.

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “To “wipe out the UK”, you would be looking at major asteroid equivalencies. Gigatonnes TNT equivalent.”

    The British government did not think so. They did studies in the 50s that said as few as three or four nuclear weapons would destroy the UK as a civilised country. Ten 20 kT bombs would destroy pretty much every city in the UK with a population over 500,000. The rest would soon starve to death without massive outside aid.

  13. Ten 20 kT bombs would destroy pretty much every city in the UK with a population over 500,000.

    ??? Well, no. You get a much better effect with a spread of smaller bombs than one large one (which is what the article was implying was fitted to the Satan 2) but the UK is large.

    I would be interested in seeing these studies because this isn’t how the UK government behaved when targeting _its_ weapons. In the 1980s and 1990s.

  14. Depends if using ground bursts or airbursts.

    The airbursts are incredibly more damaging and much wider area.
    You do not need to destroy every single building in a city to destroy the city. One 20kt warhead over parliament at a height of say 400 metres would effectively kill London. You may have people staying in damaged property around the edge of the city months or years afterwards but your devastation area would be considerable.

    Now if the Russians built a hellbomb (which has been theorised as possible) then one hitting Birmingham city centre and you may survive in far northern Scotland. England would be gone as would a chunk of Scotland.

  15. You lot have been imbibing too much CND propaganda.

    The “published” studies of the effectiveness of nukes are hideously exaggerated.

    And what’s a “hell bomb”? Neither years in the industry nor a quick Google help me out. It seems to be a thing in a video game? Hence as unreal as early Lara’s boobage.

  16. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I think it’s fairly safe to assume that during the Cold War if it had all kicked off the 5 PSI overpressure contours would have overlapped over most of southern England. There were plenty of warheads to spare.

    The real news here is that Putin isn’t even bothering to pretend Russia will pay much attention to New START. START II and START III never went anywhere; why we should assume this latest version will have any teeth is beyond me.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    Anyway, if Putin wants to destroy a few of our cities he wouldn’t be stupid enough to do it with nukes, that could attract retaliation.

    Much better for him to keep supporting the left and agitating against capitalism and eventually enough people will be seduced and we’ll have a left wing Government. Rent controls will do the the work without the fear of retaliation.

  18. Putin just needs to ensure large numbers of refugees and economic migrants keep on coming. Eventually all cities will be like Luton.

  19. Depends what research you read and who you talk to. Its a step up on the H bomb just as that was a step up in destructive power over the A bomb. Whether anyone ever builds one and gets it working… probably won’t ever want to find out.

    Flash, overpressure, heat – plenty of studies done into those. Including of course the first 3 urban areas that had a nuclear bomb.

  20. So Much For Subtlety

    Martin – “Its a step up on the H bomb just as that was a step up in destructive power over the A bomb.”

    Uh huh.

    “Flash, overpressure, heat – plenty of studies done into those. Including of course the first 3 urban areas that had a nuclear bomb.”

    Three? Would you mind naming them for me?

  21. So Much For Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “And that still wouldn’t reliably wipe out all of London.”

    But why would anyone want to wipe out every rat and every cockroach in London? Destroying 10 square kilometres of central London is going to cause a whole world of pain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *