So not very accurate them?October 26, 2016 Tim WorstallMilitary31 CommentsRussia unveils ‘Satan 2’ missile powerful enough to ‘wipe out UK, France or Texas’ previousNone so blindnextWill the Tories screw Zac or not? 31 thoughts on “So not very accurate them?” Nautical Nick October 26, 2016 at 8:00 am …nor, it would seem, very discerning. Maritime Barbarian October 26, 2016 at 8:01 am I think you’ll find that it’s not the missile that does the damage but the warhead on the end of it. Jason Lynch October 26, 2016 at 8:10 am Russia updates elderly ICBM fleet and makes vague boasts about the new system. Shock, horror, film at eleven. Tim Newman October 26, 2016 at 8:15 am Wonderful snark! bilbaoboy October 26, 2016 at 8:19 am With Spain refuelling the decrepit aircraft carrier, we have fallen off the hit list! DocBud October 26, 2016 at 8:37 am 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. gunker October 26, 2016 at 9:00 am 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 ? Mr Ecks October 26, 2016 at 9:08 am 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. Bloke in North Dorset October 26, 2016 at 9:12 am Do they mean 10 ton nuclear equivalent of TNT? Surreptitious Evil October 26, 2016 at 9:27 am Do they mean 10 ton nuclear equivalent of TNT? Which is tiny. To “wipe out the UK”, you would be looking at major asteroid equivalencies. Gigatonnes TNT equivalent. abacab October 26, 2016 at 9:27 am Heh. More Russkies trolling Obama who’d been pushing nuclear disarmament. bloke in spain October 26, 2016 at 9:35 am 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. john malpas October 26, 2016 at 9:46 am 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 Surreptitious Evil October 26, 2016 at 10:03 am 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. Dongguan John October 26, 2016 at 10:06 am 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. Rupert Fiennes October 26, 2016 at 10:27 am 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…. So Much For Subtlety October 26, 2016 at 11:17 am 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. So Much For Subtlety October 26, 2016 at 11:23 am 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. Surreptitious Evil October 26, 2016 at 12:40 pm 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. Surreptitious Evil October 26, 2016 at 12:42 pm As a pendantic note – yes, 10 20kT bombs would destroy pretty much every city. That’s 10 per city. And that still wouldn’t reliably wipe out all of London. Martin October 26, 2016 at 1:44 pm 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. Lionel Ebb October 26, 2016 at 4:39 pm I think they must be using the same guidance system as this terror of the skies: http://bit.ly/2a8ona4 We are so. Screwed. BniC October 26, 2016 at 4:40 pm you mean they haven’t released a hellbomb in Birmingham? Surreptitious Evil October 26, 2016 at 5:43 pm 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. Bloke in Costa Rica October 26, 2016 at 7:11 pm 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. Bloke in North Dorset October 26, 2016 at 9:05 pm 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. DocBud October 26, 2016 at 9:22 pm Putin just needs to ensure large numbers of refugees and economic migrants keep on coming. Eventually all cities will be like Luton. Martin October 26, 2016 at 10:22 pm 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. So Much For Subtlety October 27, 2016 at 12:25 am 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? So Much For Subtlety October 27, 2016 at 12:27 am 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. Martin October 27, 2016 at 11:01 am SMFS – sure, the first 3 that were set off. Los Alamos test area, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.