Russia’s Nuclear Tsunami Apocalypse Torpedo is Named 'Poseidon'

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...tsunami-apocalypse-torpedo-is-named-poseidon/

"Poseidon" and "Status 6" are different systems.
"Status 6" has a 100 megaton charge. "Poseidon" has charge - 2 megaton.
"Status 6" has long been is on alert duty around the US coast. "Poseidon" is conducting final tests. Next year, the serial production of "Poseidon" will begin.

This is a very good weapon. Especially considering that soon a big war will begin, these weapons can become a weighty argument in a military conflict.

But some feeble-minded people can continue to talk about the fantastically large GDP of the United States. I'm only interested - how capitalization, for example, Apple and Facebook, can protect the US from "Status 6" or "Poseidon."?

What do you think of it?

Dog hairdressers and stockbrokers are ready for a world of post apocalypse?

 

You will have to inform the stockbrokers in Kansas that there was an apocalypse. They won't notice it.

 

Why would you create a Tsunami, something you can't really control when you could just nuke the coastal city to start with?

Its not like we aren't going to know it was a nuke that created it or who did it.

 

Wel it make sence that its
1 harder to intercept and
2 less fallout
3 less warning if you dont see it coming i gues.
They might not even have a warning for this

 

Are you saying this in the sense that Kansas brokers have long been cannibals?

 

And the stupid Brits have just paid £gazillions for a couple of new aircraft carriers. Fat lot of good they'd be in the OP scenario?

I really ought to tick off Destroyer of Illusions for this theoretical sabre-rattling, but maybe it's not such a bad thing to inform our resident macho US nationalists that their desired war with Russia wouldn't be the pushover they believe it would be.

 

Tsunami can be a very effective weapon. Tsunami can not be intercepted or brought down. But the main task in this case is the instantaneous destruction of the American fleet and all of its infrastructures.
In addition, in the coastal cities of the United States, 80% of all industrial facilities are concentrated. Destroying this potential is a good result. Also, the destruction of a large amount of enemy manpower also gives the desired effect.
Taking into account the fact that Russia always only defended from the aggressor, and the USA is the most insane aggressor, a good weapon for Russia is a security guarantee.

 

It's of absolutely no use tactically or strategically because it can't be used in an non-nuclear confrontation as it would be seen as a nuclear strike and the US would just launch their nukes and it won't make any difference if nuclear war does occur because there will be thousand of other missiles striking all over the planet. It's good for some propaganda.............and that's it.

 

And how would that work out when the US launches all their missiles at Russia. LOL If they Russians did use that it would be seen as a nuclear strike and then WW3 happens and the world ends. Its a monumental waste of money but good on them for wasting it.

 

Carriers are primarily needed by the aggressor. In order to have a foothold for bombing strikes.
The biggest and craziest aggressor is the United States. I think that the British Navy bought an aircraft carrier at the insistence of the madmen from Washington and the Pentagon.
I do not think that the British government spent huge amounts of money on meaningless objects in modern warfare, at a time when many Britons need economic assistance from the state.
Now the US is trying to get NATO members to increase military spending.
But I think that it is more important for Europeans (British, French, Germans, etc.) to build new plants and create new well-paid jobs. And also, I am sure that the first task for Europeans is to isolate tolerant idiots and deport all migrants. Hard deported. Because the greatest danger for the inhabitants of Europe is the hordes of savages.

 

Then you obviously don't have any idea just how effing stupid the British government is.

 

Perhaps you do not understand. 80% of the total industrial capacity is located in the coastal zones of the US .. The US Navy is also vulnerable. After the attack "Poseidon" and "Status 6" - the American fleet will cease to exist together with all their nuclear potential. Also 80% of the industrial potential will be destroyed. Together with the mines and launchers of American missiles. If you add to this, for example, the explosion of the Yellowstone volcano, which can be provoked by a nuclear charge, as well as a massive attack by "Satan", "Sarmat" and other means of coercion to peace ... I think, after that the US will become a peaceful country for many centuries.

 

I said it because they are nowhere near a coast. They would miss the nuclear torpedo.

 

Maybe. They are more interested in how to devour a competitor.

 

Lol. Wow. For a paid propaganda merchant, you have quite an imagination. That read like an old fan letter from "Penthouse".

"Dear Penthouse, I can't believe it happened to ME!"

 

The troll doesn’t know that all land-based ICBMs are very deep in the continent. Major air force stations are very far from the sea. Most of the Navy doesn’t just sit at the docs.
Nuclear blast under water is very limited because water and pressure cool the expanding gas, significantly downgrading the energy of the blast. Considering that the thinnest earth crust gets is about 10 miles at the deepest of the ocean, the weapon would end up just creating a giant splash - there is no way it will cause a significant earthquake and tsunami.

This troll keeps posting same thread every 2-3 weeks. It’s like an auto-post - same thing, same “discussion”.
I’m just glad Pootin spends all these money on these useless toys while signinficantly raising retirement age in Russia and raising taxes. Now, Russia is going to have a pension system that has the retirement age above average life expectancy. The individual who created this thread is going to pay life long taxes and there is a chance he will never take advantage of his contributions.
And the funniest of all - he celebrates his dear leaders decisions!

 

Not so, we bought two! I know - I couldn't believe it either. But then 'Those whom the gods wish to destroy . . . ', and all that?

 

The same is true about missile defense .. it is just an excuse to keep the cold war going to maintain the flow of loot into the pockets of the international fanciers who own the Defense contractors and the Banks. We were the ones that destabilized nuclear detente' which forced Russia to take counter measures .. and the game goes on.

I also disagree with your claim that a nuke used in a battle - outside of our respective homelands - would necessarily trigger full scale nuclear war against each other's homelands.

 

And using one of these weapons just guarantees that the US launches a full scale nuclear counter-value strike against Russia and ensures that the Russian people cease to exist.

 

We've also just bought 15 new subhunters to replace the Nimrods and expanded our detection arena right into the Arctic to counter Russian increased submarine activity..

Our sub hunting has never looked better.
This is a massive relief as our nuclear deterrent was ineffective without the ability to move unshadowed.

We have survived the gap in anti submarine coverage and we are also the only country in the world with any success in this sphere of operations.

In an anti submarine capacity our aircraft carrier can deploy AS helicopters.
It is fully equipped to respond to this kind of threat.



The Santa Fe was defeated by an AS helicopter of the type pictured above,
As far as i know it's the only submarine kill since WW2.





In the OP's scenario, our carrier can expect to be a very useful asset indeed.
World beating. It can deploy a proven submarine detecting and destroying capability anywhere in the world and no other military on earth can make that claim.

 

It is terribly clear that someone did not clearly think things through here. A nuclear tsunami would be far less effective and destroy far less that a direct strike. It would be terribly limited and undependable in its destruction, instantly recognized and give extended warning to whoever the intended target is....basically it is a fools weapon and I doubt Russia is dumb enough to make it.

 

Most nuclear countries have nuclear torpedoes.

It's a fleet killer.

1 torpedo = 1 fleet.

 

Everything I ever read about Status 6 makes very little sense. Russians claim its stealth and it can travel 100km/h, which is like 55MPh - how can you be stealth is you are cruising at highway speed under water? Imagine the power this device needs to move this fast and how much noise it makes. I doubt it can sneak anywhere undetected, as the OP claims.
Wikipedia states that the maximum depth is 1000m - if the goal of the device is to cause a tsunami by stressing and shifting earths crust then it seems to me 1000m is a major weakness because you need to go really deep to get to the thinnest crust.
After that, if you read about explosions underwater, including nuclear ones, you will see that water reduces the power of any bomb significantly - when a device explodes in atmosphere it’s destructive power is in the fire ball - rapidly expanding hot gas. As it expands, it produces a shock wave. In the water the fire ball is unsustainable - water breaks it and seeps inside, immediately cooling expanding gas. In addition to water causing huge resistance to the fire ball, if the goal is to cause an earthquake, then this fire ball should cause enough damage to at least 10km of oceanic crust - which is rocks saturated with water under huge pressure on the bottom of the ocean.
Judging from all of these facts one can conclude that even a 100mt nuke won’t be able to produce a fire ball at significant depth that would become large enough to shift earths crust. So, a tsunami can’t happen due to earthquake and can’t happen because the blast wont be able to displace enough water to cause major destructive waves - in Wikipedia its claimed that this device will produce 500 meter waves, which I just don’t see happening as the fire ball won’t be able to form.
Wikipedia also talks about possibility of using the nuke close to navy port and detonation in shallow water, which again, won’t cause a tsunami, the water will not produce much of resistance if the weapon is detonated at low depth, but at the same time a 1MT weapon detonated 1 mile above target will cause more damage than 100MT detonated in shallow water.

It seems to me that the weapon could be a fiction or bluff as there are many conflicting pieces of information that contradict each other, and many things that the weapon is supposed to do cannot be done due to basic laws of physics.
If the weapon exists and is real then the only real damage it can do is to act as a dirty bomb - bursting one underwater will create a huge radioactive water vapor cloud, which will spread throughout the globe shortening the lives of millions of people (even in Russia) by giving them cancers. Irradiated water will also kill a lot of marine animals as it’s carried by ocean currents.
In short, it seems to me there is no realistic description of this device, no stated true purpose of it, and no realistic explanation of why and when it would be used. One thing I can tell you for sure - it cannot cause major tsunami. The possibility of using the device against an aircraft carrier is the only realistic use of the weapon that I can see, and even then - accelerating an 8m x 2m device to a speed of 55MPh underwater is going to cause so much noise, the aircraft carrier group will see it coming a long time before it gets to blow.

But hey, let the Russians spend their rubles.

 

Water amplifies the power of any bomb significantly.

Consider, dynamite fishing.

Bullets effect are reduced by water, bombs are amplified.

A conventional torpedo does not impact the target. It explodes underneath it.
The water pressure does the rest.



An aircraft carrier group cannot hope to out run anything travelling at 55mph.
Let alone get out of nuclear blast range.

 

The British actually had a mad scientist during WW2 who suggested something similar using HE. It didn't work. His scale attempts got more and more desperate, and the amount of explosive he was using got bigger and bigger, till his funding was cut.
Turns out the US and New Zealand were working on something similar too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami_bomb