Putin unveils new Russian nuclear arsenal

Along with Sarmat and its potential South Pole trajectory a new miniaturized nuclear reactor cruise missile with no range limits. Two hypersonic weapons too, one deployed from space.

https://www.rt.com/news/420206-russia-s ... ons-putin/

More R&D $$$$ for DEWS.

No reaction from Trump so far to the video showing a MIRV swarm descending on Mar A Lago. Putin basically giving him the finger in front of a worldwide audience. Will he respond?

Nuclear brinkmanship

Reminds me of Project Pluto:

https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar ... 1435286216

Putin rides

Video of MiG-31 releasing a hypersonic missile.



https://www.rt.com/news/420947-russian- ... ile-tests/

The new weapon was unveiled on March 1 by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, with a range of other new arms, which include a nuclear-powered drone submarine, a combat laser system and even a nuclear-powered cruise missile of “unlimited range.”

The ‘Kinzhal’ missile has an effective range of 2,000km and can travel 10 times faster than the speed of sound. The munition is highly maneuverable and can reliably penetrate all the existing and even prospected air-defense systems, according to Russia’s President. The Kinzhal can be fitted with nuclear or conventional warheads.

Makes a nice target for a high energy laser

If they retire about 100 more MiG-31's they could afford to buy ten hypersonic missiles. That would be one for each remaining MiG-31...

Not sure what the recent re-obsession is with Nukes.

they're pretty much white elephants in today's world. You can't use them unless you're deliberately starting WW3.
I'm guessing these thing can also carry conventional warheads.

Not sure what the recent re-obsession is with Nukes. They're pretty much white elephants in today's world. You can't use them unless you're deliberately starting WW3. I'm guessing these thing can also carry conventional warheads.

There's a backhanded upside though. Yes, they can not be used as war-fighting weapons, and can only deter/prevent others using them on you (useful), but do 'force' Russia, China and NORKs etc., to invest in expensive and economically draining investments in nukes and their support. And thus divert $ away from competitive conventional weapon development and aquisitions, which they could actually use in war. Possessing nukes can not deter a conventional war, or help to win one (many examples exist), so they're no better off in practice having nukes or spending scarce capital in modernising them.

Soviet nuke and related systems production collapsed in 1986, they went broke and had to start borrowing money from Western banks (capitalists) and when their credit dried-up and further loans were refused in 1989, they just collapsed. All the nukes you could want ... and no national security. lol

So as long as their expense impedes their economic progress and capital investments, in air and space power, they're worth it - for us.

It's maybe a good thing Putin feels nukes will help him be the ru dictator, as he seems to have bled his airpower development budget to rebuild the useless nuke force and its systems, having not digested Soviet economic errors, of building ~39,000 nukes, or realised that he can't actually fight a war with any of them, or deter conventional operations against his own relatively diminished conventional forces. Nor can the NORKs, China. So nothing much has changed, except that the more money they spend on nukes, the relatively weaker they become in useable conventional capabilities.

So the logical thing to do is spend the minimum necessary on credible US, UK, French modernisation of a small nuke force, and pour money into conventional developments and procurements, instead.

That will keep the West stronger in useable capabilities for many decades, while we watch Russia bleed out their capital and economic energy, maintaining their unuseables.

Good on them.

Russian nukes are not for the West except as part of the general Russian bullying tactic but their conventional arms and gas supplies monopoly will suffice for that against Europe. Russian nukes are to deter its very populous Asian neighbors like China or Japan from ever resurrecting centuries old claims to Russian territory. There are no territorial disputes between Europe and Russia but they always want their influence to advance west like in the to them good old days of Soviet Union.

This hypersonic missile can be used conventionally so it will add to Russia's offensive long strike weaponry. We know nothing about its flight profile but if its terminal velocity is anywhere near Mach 10 it will take some stopping.

Russian nukes are not for the West except as part of the general Russian bullying tactic but their conventional arms and gas supplies monopoly will suffice for that against Europe. Russian nukes are to deter its very populous Asian neighbors like China or Japan from ever resurrecting centuries old claims to Russian territory. There are no territorial disputes between Europe and Russia but they always want their influence to advance west like in the to them good old days of Soviet Union.

This hypersonic missile can be used conventionally so it will add to Russia's offensive long strike weaponry. We know nothing about its flight profile but if its terminal velocity is anywhere near Mach 10 it will take some stopping.

Got any reliable sources for these political claims?

There are actually existing territorial disputes one of which has prevented Japan and Russia officially ending WWII between them. Nationalists in both China and Japan can go back centuries in their revisionist thinking to claim more. Russia's No 1 fear historically are the territorial designs other countries have on their land and with the experience of Napoleon and Hitler do you blame them. China might fancy its chances in a conventional war but not a nuclear one. Which is why it is generally a well behaved neighbor of Russia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Si ... _Agreement
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-So ... r_conflict
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11664434

There are actually existing territorial disputes one of which has prevented Japan and Russia officially ending WWII between them. Nationalists in both China and Japan can go back centuries in their revisionist thinking to claim more. Russia's No 1 fear historically are the territorial designs other countries have on their land and with the experience of Napoleon and Hitler do you blame them. China might fancy its chances in a conventional war but not a nuclear one. Which is why it is generally a well behaved neighbor of Russia.

<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Sino-Soviet_Border_Agreement</span>
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict</span>
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute</span>
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11664434</span>

If a war broke out between China and Russia, China would win the conventional war, but both sides would lose in a nuclear war. Overall China has a greater chance of victory in a war with Russia, Putin knows that if he were to use nukes against China, it would be the end of Russia as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBGsRmR ... e&index=16

Binkov's videos are entertaining but I would not consider them the last word on prospective battles as often crude assumptions are made on quality and quantity differences as well as respective strategies involved. Russian technology tends to be more modern but of course China has the concentrated manpower. Over the long term probably a very bloody conventional draw is likely like the Iraq/Iran conflict but the J-20 is a recent wild card at least in the air superiority arena.

Nuclear wise Russia has order of magnitude more missiles and could erase the majority of Chinese civilization in a very brutal first strike. In return it would really only have to worry about which of China's five nuclear missile submarines was at sea and available for retaliation and Moscow has an ABM system. Russia would take big hits here and there but it would not be totally destroyed like China.

If you like Binkov he did two F-35 vs Su-35 videos too. I believe he makes exaggerated claims of the effectiveness of Su-35 radar/missiles against F-35 and underestimates the effectiveness of F-35 radar/missiles against Su-35.