Russia' fearsome new Status-6 torpedo: America's nightmare

Post Reply New Topic

Nah. They're all just fat, alt-right, fedora wearing, unemployed neckbeards living with their parents and/or group homes on welfare with too much time on their hands. Might wanna think about getting a job(and a life while you're at it).

Oh dear. And you were doing so well! I was only 96% certain you were a troll!

I read the article and I am now terribly worried.

What this means is that the Russians can now use a sort of hypertorpedo to do exactly the same thing that they have been able to do with ICBMs and air and sea launched cruise missiles all my life.

How will I ever sleep again, knowing coastal cities can be nuked?

/sarcasm

Your mistake is to equate long range torpedoes with ICBMs and cruise missiles. The only real defense against torpedoes that current exists is to use decoys; which clearly won't work for a long range torpedo that uses inertial guidance. ICBMs and cruise missiles can be detected by radar from a distance of thousands of miles. And despite claims to the contrary, it is not impossible to intercept them, particularly during midcourse flight, using ABMs so long as the interceptor vehicles are faster than the ICBM. Radar however, does not penetrate seawater and sonar has much more limited range. Sound waves are compressional unlike EM waves, which are transverse. A long range torpedo has a much greater advantage when it comes to stealth than any kind of missile. And avoiding SOSUS is not as impossible as you'd be inclined to think.

Sounds like all the more reason to support the TrumPutin alliance! Think of it as an advanced shotgun wedding.

Actions, eh, versus words, eh. Okay... <observes the words of Bush, followed by observing his actions, then observing the «science» that they chose to use for explaining what happened on 9/11, and a whole host of other kinds of «manufactured» entertainment; observes the words of Obama, followed by observing his actions (and how he spent most of his time on a golf-course), then observing the «campaign-promises» in action of bringing the troops back as soon as possible (double-speak for : we need double or even triple the amount of men & women that Bush wanted in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libiya, and Sudan, etc), and a whole host of other «Putin vs Obama» entertainment; and similar with those Clintons> well, as for this Trump guy, Trump has been so super-entertaining that he might actually out-do the entertainment-value of all of the previous entertainers combined, but man, that Putin guy, I mean, Putin has entertainment-powers that are just out-of-this-world...

I don't make any such mistake.

When I first learned about nuclear weapons the Cold War was in full swing and almost went hot a number of times. There was no realistic ABM at all then and all the places I lived were targets for multiple large Soviet warheads. The only thing the US and NATO could do was promise to strike back with a devastating counterstrike -- unless we had been the ones to launch first, perhaps to counter Soviet armor in the Fulda gap. We nearly went to war multiple times in my youth, in what would have been full nuclear exchanges.
Now we have some weak ABM defenses that might counter a missile or two from a rogue state like North Korea or Iran, but none of our existing defenses has a realistic chance of doing much to stop a full Russian strike.

This device makes a useful counter to the weak ABM the US can now deploy but otherwise is just a different way of achieving the same thing that Russia has been able to do all my life.

Just as this thing is a counter to the ABM systems the US has deployed, the US will counter this with something new.

Both countries can still kill the other.

Nothing has changed.

You know Anton, I wasn't sure it was you at first, but you just can't help yourself with that kiddo stuff, gives you away every time. I see you've gotten smart enough to mask your IP, but not to mask your give away words and topics.

I am not big believer in missile defense. I say the best defense is a good offense. The real issue is Russia developing new offensive weapons while the US is attempting to build a feeble missile defense system. MAD has been the dominant regime during the first cold war, but that does not actually preclude the possibility of one side developing a first strike weapon that the other has no defense against at all and could cripple its retaliatory capacity.

Theoretically no, but this ain't it.

They can't find the Tridents at sea.


That is all.

This would most likely be used in Russia's 'Dead Hand' Nuclear doctrine. Still though, not a good idea to live in the most likely target cities if hostilities commence:

Portsmouth, NH
Groton Ct.
NY,NY
Norfolk, Va.
Jacksonville, Fl.
San Diego, Ca.
San Francisco, Ca.
Bellingham Wa.
Honolulu, Hi.

i sortof understand groton, CT, because it has a huge submarine base, plus NY and all those cities in the west, but why on earth would they choose portsmouth, NH as a target?

I have the same question regarding Bellingham WA being a target rather than Seattle or Bangor Naval Base or the base in Everett.

did a bit more reading, apparently there was an air force base located near portsmouth, which has been closed since 1988 and is now a national guard base, and it was a major hub of the Strategic Air Command, defunct since 1992, which operated reconnaissance aircraft and had control over land based strategic bombers, alongside being involved in nuclear strike forces.

the fact portsmouth is on dead hand's "list" is probably a holdover from those cold war years when it was more relevant, and those in charge of dead hand haven't bothered to change it.

The whole current the Russians are out to get us routine is a holdover from the Cold War era.

No, it's really not.

They aren't "out to get us" but they are out to weaken us. The story about how they have just been responding to Western aggression that has been circulating through rigth-wing/Bannon/RT through the last campaign season is utter rubbish.

You need only look at the number of tanks the US had in readiness in Central or Eastern European bases. NATO posed no threat to Russia when the Russian began to threaten the Baltic states and Ukraine. The story just doesn't add up.

The great sin of the US was not in threatening Russia but rather in ignoring it and not pretending to view it as a rival or equal.