This comparison shows how Russia’s latest nuclear weapons dwarf America’s (and everyone else’s)

Speaking of which,



This guy reviews a new Lada. It doesn't seem to end well.

 

You are 100% right. Ukrainians, Poles, Lithuanians, Kazakhstan people, Chechen people, Georgian and others can certify that Russia is not an aggressor, and KGB was the most peace loving organisation in the world. Even the US president trust more an ex-KGB agent and US intelligence services.

 

Russia should spend money on schools, roads, etc.

 

Nope, Russia doesn’t need any of that. As long as they have an atom bomb, they are happy.
Why worry about such unimportant things? Pootin thinks that’s all they need. Who are you to question the midget-god?

 

newsflash

Russia has had a 50 Mt bomb since the early 60's. Big friggin deal they got some new ones.

The bigger the bomb has lost all meaning other than as a freudian exercise in declaring one's dick bigger than the other guys.

Something the russians have been trying to prove since they found out their extra large condoms were only mediums in America.

 

What Destroyed Illusions is neglecting to say here, is that the reason Russia has needed those multi-megaton warheads to be effective is because their delivery systems are as accurate as a blind dart-thrower on LSD, and as reliable as Trump's in-house fact checker...

 

Awwwwww... did I break him?

 

In Russia it’s about 6:30am now.
He’ll show up in an hour or two. He will probably post Pootin laughing video in response. That what he does when he runs out of arguments.

 

I wonder if @Destroyer of illusions takes this to work every day (if he can afford even that one).
I couldn’t believe it when this guy could push His finger into the hood. When I saw this I was like WTF? Then I showed it around and everyone just lol’d!

 

Its a waste of plutonium is what it is.

 

Back in the cold war days it was well known that Soviet yields were much larger than US nukes. However, it was explained that the US didn't need those large yields because our payloads were much more accurate. Soviet payloads made up for the lack of accuracy with higher yields. Also, I suspect the US mostly targets military assets, the higher yields of Russian payloads is more useful when targeting cities.

 

Both sides have more than enough nukes to hit multiple million person cities multiple times over.

 

Russia’s rollout of Sarmat speaks volumes - it looks like Russian leadership does not trust their ability to control solid fuel ICBMs (Topol), as those are very sensitive and require precision. Solid fuel ICBMs have one enormous strategic advantage - you can fire them at a push of a button. Russians, instead, chose to upgrade most of their ICBMs to Sarmat, which are using liquid-propellant. The advantage of liquid fuel ICBM is that it’s easy to stop the burn, so you don’t overshoot by thousands of miles or into deep space. The disadvantage - these ICBMs can’t sit fueled up, as the fuel would erode their components, which means the ICBM needs to be fueled up right before it goes, which can take hours.
What all of this means?
It means we can pretty much unload everything we got onto Russia before it gets a chance to even try to respond. By the time they got those Sarmats fueled there will be no more Moscow, Kremlin, or even russia.

@Destroyer of illusions - what do YOU think about it?

 

Certainly powerful. This American fleet is not capable of anything. Russian - one "Status 6" can wipe out half of the US territory.

 

Does not work. Not "at least", no way.

 

Soon you on personal experience make sure that means 50 megatons. And even 100 megatons, which has a "Status 6", located near the American coast.
Look at the "Hour of the Doom". We have very little left before the outbreak of nuclear war.
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/ This is their official website. Two minutes to go.

 

But the result is guaranteed.

 

Not only this. Enough to destroy the planet several times.

 

"Sarmat" is a rocket with liquid fuel. More about the powerplant is still unknown, except that its power-to-weight ratio has no equal in the world.
The unique energy-mass indices do not exhaust the advantages that "Sarmat" possesses. The launch vehicle is, of course, a very important element of the design, but no less important is the combat unit containing ten parts of individual guidance. And he is also unique. The fact is that each of the warheads combines the qualities of two different types of weapons: it behaves both as a winged one and as a hypersonic missile. Each of these species still had a clearly delineated range of tasks. Until now, cruise missiles with a flat trajectory could not fly fast.
The fact is that an ordinary cruise missile creeps toward the target at a relatively low speed. Using the relief of the terrain, hiding behind its irregularities, it has to be slow-moving so that the electronic "brain" has time to assess the obstacles and work out solutions for their flight. For example, the US Tomahawk is moving at the speed of an ordinary passenger liner (less than 900 km / h).
The Sarmat rocket blocks, after separation, maintains a flat trajectory of flight, but their speed approaches near hypersonic, which makes it impossible to intercept it.
All the advantages of the unique system of individual control of the combat blocks of the divided head end will be useless if the enemy can destroy the ICBMs before it enters the combat course. The Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile is flying fast, but its trajectory can at any moment come down from the usual predictable arc - the parabola. Additional shunting engines change altitude, direction, speed, and then the on-board computer determines new flight parameters for reaching the target. Such unpredictability is characteristic of other types of modern Russian carriers of nuclear charges. Therefore, it is impossible to bring down the Sarmat missile even at the initial stage of launch.
The most desirable situation for the aggressor, who intended to inflict unpunished massive nuclear strikes, seems to be that the enemy is deprived of the opportunity to respond already in the initial phase of the war. This means that launchers, submarines, aircraft and ground vehicles should be neutralized (destroyed) by the first volley. However, it's impossible for many years. The mines in which the "Sarmatians" are supposed to be deployed have a multilevel protection level both active (in the form of anti-missile systems and air defense) and passive (high level of security of fortifications). To guarantee the destruction of an underground launcher, it is required to inflict at least seven nuclear strikes on the operational deployment area, covered by effective missile defense equipment with high accuracy.

The only nuclear strike that can not be prevented is "Status 6" and its subsequent modifications, such as "Poseidon" and other more powerful ones. But only Russia, the only country in the world, possesses this weapon.

 

Now who's doing all the sabre-rattling?

 

These are all nice and useful specs, if, and only if, you get to use this missile before we take it down at the time of fueling, which can take hours.
Americans got rid of liquid propellant ICBMs in the 70s for exact same reason - they saw that the USSR could unload everything it got onto the US before it got an opportunity to shoot back.
A missile that uses solid propellant can sit in a silo for years and can be activated with a push of a button. There is one major problem with that kind of fuel - once it burns, there is no way to stop the burn. Methods of controlling the flight include ejection of remaining fuel, but that requires precise technology down to one tenth of a second, otherwise your missile will miss by hundreds or thousands of miles.
Russian Topols are supposed to be very able ICBMs, but for some reason all silo based Topols will be replaced with Russian Sarmats. The only logical explanation for Russia taking on an ICBM that puts it at a major strategic disadvantage is the fact that Russians themselves don’t think they can control the flight of Topols, which use solid fuel.

As I said - your 100MT bombs don’t matter if we unload everything we got on russia long before it gets a chance to fight back. Those weapons are only useful in Pootin giving your a false perception of being a superpower, neglecting the fact that your flagship ICBMs will take so long to fuel up, they are useless, because that site with the missile will experience air strikes or nuclear bombing before your techs finish preparing the missile.

 

1. Do not worry. Russian chemists are the best chemists in the world. Dmitry Mendeleev confirms. Therefore, new kinds of liquid fuel are better than solid fuel. Therefore, for Russian missiles, everything will be fine.

2. If for you the power does not matter, you can use spears and arrows, such as the Papuans in the jungle.

3. Several "Status 6" have long been on alert duty near the US coast. Let me remind you, the US military experts say that the explosion of one "Status 6" will destroy a huge area of the United States. Together with the American fleet and all nuclear missiles that will be in the zone of defeat. This I to the word that "size matters".
In addition, "Sarmat", this is only one of a set of nuclear weapons. I in your place would be more afraid of "Status 6". Firstly because they are already near the American coast. Therefore, it can cause destruction instantly and there is no way to prevent it. And in the second - 100 megatons, this is 100 megaton.

 

Now that is hilarious. yep an internet doomsday clock has foretold nuclear war soon.

I hope you have an umbrella to protect you from all the fallout.