Russian Nuclear Explosion

Gatling

Last weekend reports came out of Russia of a small explosion at a military storage facility 2 people were killed ,
Several days later we get reports of a nuclear radiation spike in the area, it was claimed it was down to the initial fire at the storage facility ,
Now we have at least 5 nuclear scientists killed in a weapons test and a village being prepared to be evacuated by russian military forces for something that apparently didn't happen ,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/13/russian-villagers-set-for-mini-evacuation-from-fatal-nuclear-blast-area


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/russian-nuclear-engineers-buried-skyfall-nuclear-blast-190813025930755.html


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russian-village-near-nuclear-fueled-missile-explosion-to-be-briefly-evacuated/2019/08/13/c5eb04d0-bdc6-11e9-a5c6-1e74f7ec4a93_story.html


https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/13/what-we-know-about-russias-mysterious-rocket-explosion-so-far-a66817

Kivaro

You know, I was thinking about that explosion for a couple of days after the event. The video of the explosion was extremely dramatic, and I thought to myself that there's something else going on here besides an ammo dump explosion.

Yikes.

expectationlost

Kivaro wrote: »

You know, I was thinking about that explosion for a couple of days after the event. The video of the explosion was extremely dramatic, and I thought to myself that there's something else going on here besides an ammo dump explosion.

Yikes.

that was an entirely different incident

SEPT 23 1989

A lot more than 2 died looking at those videos

The mushroom cloud would be a concern

odyssey06

Is that true from Trump that US has working version of this type of nuclear powered cruise missile???

Gatling

Kivaro wrote: »

You know, I was thinking about that explosion for a couple of days after the event. The video of the explosion was extremely dramatic, and I thought to myself that there's something else going on here besides an ammo dump explosion.

Yikes.

The worrying part is there have been multiple unexplained nuclear radiation spikes from unknown sources over Europe over 10+ years , which would suggest secret weapons test which if they have been testing nuclear weapons would be in breach of several international treaties (open to correction)

Victor

Gatling wrote: »

The worrying part is there have been multiple unexplained nuclear radiation spikes from unknown sources over Europe over 10+ years , which would suggest secret weapons test which if they have been testing nuclear weapons would be in breach of several international treaties (open to correction)

I think material breeches are unlikely, as all the nuclear powers watch each other.

Underground nuclear explosions are readily detectable with seismometers. Atmospheric explosions are readily detectable with other sensors.

It seems that the USA has been carrying out sub-critical detonations, i.e. ones where only the high explosives detonate and there is no nuclear explosion. There are accusation that Russia has been carrying out such detonations where the nuclear explosion has the equivalent force of 100kg of TNT (by contrast Hiroshima was the equivalent of 15,000,000 kg of TNT). Otherwise, only North Korea has conducted tests in recent years.

That is not to say that handling accidents haven't occurred.

Ten of Swords

The ammunition dump fire happened in a place called Achinsk which is about 4,500km away from Nyonoksa where the rocket engine exploded

Supposedly there are forest fires in the area, it is heavily wooded, and an old artillery shell detonated destroying a truck and starting a fire that caused more shells to explode.

Gatling

odyssey06 wrote: »

Is that true from Trump that US has working version of this type of nuclear powered cruise missile???

Nuclear powered or nuclear warhead equipped

khalessi

Chernobyl 2???

Overheal

Gatling wrote: »

Nuclear powered or nuclear warhead equipped

Like, nuclear power from what I’ve heard. No idea how that works in theory as a propulsion medium

Varik

Could be an old RTG, you get some scary pictures of the state of the old ones.


If something exploded it could have made the equivalent of a small dirty bomb.

4068ac1elhodqr

khalessi wrote: »

Chernobyl 2???

Very unlikely, with the sheer amount of modern detection tools, someone, somewhere would have picked up elevate readings, as happened in Sweden or somewhere random after that (with less advanced tech).

One thing is for sure, you don't want to poke the bear too much. Yes they've got morality issues but with constant upgrades and everything goings towards hypersonics, a return to some global stone age within a handful of minutes is as close as ever.

Eric Cartman

khalessi wrote: »

Chernobyl 2???

Nuclear Boogaloo

expectationlost

Gatling wrote: »

Nuclear powered or nuclear warhead equipped

both

ZiabR

But Russia have already come out and said that they were testing a Nuclear Engine and that "Accidents Happen".

Russia's state nuclear agency, Rosatom, said a nuclear-powered engine was being tested.

Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49339895

Snow Garden

Gatling wrote: »

Nuclear powered or nuclear warhead equipped

Nucular, it's pronounced nucular

InTheShadows

The world is dancing with the devil when it comes to nuclear power or weapons. Sooner or later we'll all pay the price.

smurfjed

Gatling wrote: »

Nuclear powered or nuclear warhead equipped

What would you achieve by having it nuclear powered? Its not as if range is an issue?

55Percent

smurfjed wrote: »

What would you achieve by having it nuclear powered? Its not as if range is an issue?

Maybe the weight of the missile itself is reduced versus using rocket fuel?

Victor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik

smurfjed wrote: »

What would you achieve by having it nuclear powered? Its not as if range is an issue?

While ICBMs* have the range to hit pretty much anywhere, they are very obvious when launched and can be detected by optical sensors and radar. You can also somewhat predict where and when they are going to hit and their warheads must land in approximately the same place.

A cruise missile has a lower launch signature, can go in any direction, take any route and is harder to detect with radar. Having unlimited range means it can exaggerate the route.


* SLBMs are similar, but generally don't need the same range, as they can be maneuvered closer to the target before launch.

Overheal wrote: »

Like, nuclear power from what I’ve heard. No idea how that works in theory as a propulsion medium

Instead of jet fuel, it uses a small nuclear reactor to heat the intake air.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Is that true from Trump that US has working version of this type of nuclear powered cruise missile???

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

https://twitter.com/NuclearAnthro/status/1161387280746991616

TheChizler

smurfjed wrote: »

What would you achieve by having it nuclear powered? Its not as if range is an issue?

If you heat propellant in a reactor rather than chemically you can get a higher exhaust gas temperature which means more propulsion for the same amount of fuel.

McMurphy

InTheShadows wrote: »

The world is dancing with the devil when it comes to nuclear power or weapons. Sooner or later we'll all pay the price.

Pretty much this.

Snow Garden

InTheShadows wrote: »

The world is dancing with the devil when it comes to nuclear power or weapons. Sooner or later we'll all pay the price.

Try living in the 1970s or 1980s!

skooterblue2

Snow Garden wrote: »

Try living in the 1970s or 1980s!

You should be more worried about Vaccinations and what food you are eating.

MarquisDeSad

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Snow Garden wrote: »

Try living in the 1970s or 1980s!

You should be more worried about Vaccinations and what food you are eating.

You should be worried what mush your brain is digesting.

storker

khalessi wrote: »

Chernobyl 2???

There is no graphite on the ground and shame on you for even suggesting such a thing, comrade.

InTheShadows

Snow Garden wrote: »

Try living in the 1970s or 1980s!

Eh I'm 56 I did.

We are in a much much more dangerous place now btw.

PopePalpatine

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nuclear Boogaloo

It's disgraceful, really.

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

Like, nuclear power from what I’ve heard. No idea how that works in theory as a propulsion medium

Is this the Russki version of the US Project pluto/SLAM?

If memory serves the US had planned to build a nuclear powered high speed missile that ejects warheads much more difficult to intercept than warheads on a ballistic trajectory.

The US version also theoretically pumped out large amounts of ionising radiation as a potential area denial weapon too.

Nasty piece of work, nuclear powered Ramjet with the ability to circle the globe multiple time.

Gatling

banie01 wrote: »

Is this the Russki version of the US Project pluto/SLAM?

Completely different set up ,slam was never a viable option more of Doomsday device ,

I believe the Russians are working on a enclosed nuclear cruise missile rather than something that belches nuclear radiation as it fly's along,

Russian military and nuclear systems are not exactly a recipe for a happy ending ,
Between Chernobyl , several nuclear submarines currently leaking radiation on ocean floors due to accidents you would think they would step back and say we can't actually do this safely ,
I'd say there is a lot more to this situation than Moscow will ever admit to .

banie01

Gatling wrote: »

Completely different set up ,slam was never a viable option more of Doomsday device ,

I believe the Russians are working on a enclosed nuclear cruise missile rather than something that belches nuclear radiation as it fly's along,

Thanks Gat.

Something more akin to the engine proposals that the US trialled on the NB36 then?
Just in a 21st century form.
Using a small reactor to superheat fuel and increase reactive thrust?

More of a rhetorical really, I'm off to Jane's and a few more sites to research

Franz Von Peppercorn II

InTheShadows wrote: »

Eh I'm 56 I did.

We are in a much much more dangerous place now btw.

We’re not but only because the Cold War was very dangerous.

Victor

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

We’re not but only because the Cold War was very dangerous.

The risk of war between the major powers is considered higher now. However, the number of nuclear weapons that are readily available for use is much lower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#/media/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

Snow Garden

InTheShadows wrote: »

Eh I'm 56 I did.

We are in a much much more dangerous place now btw.

Not at all, how could you even think that? Totally different world

Overheal

Snow Garden wrote: »

Not at all, how could you even think that? Totally different world

Check the doomsday clock.

Gatling

Victor wrote: »

The risk of war between the major powers is considered higher now. However, the number of nuclear weapons that are readily available for use is much lower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#/media/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

I'd say it's the opposite based of both sides only gave up the nukes they officially claimed they actually had ,

Medium range missles which they got rid of Russia claimed they only had 600 odd but many put the figures in the several thousand stock piled across the country and America likely did the same ,

It's pretty obvious that both countries didn't stop development in nuclear weapons

GooglePlus

Snow Garden wrote: »

Not at all, how could you even think that? Totally different world

The world is much more unstable now.

McMurphy

Victor wrote: »

The risk of war between the major powers is considered higher now. However, the number of nuclear weapons that are readily available for use is much lower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#/media/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Dr. Emmett Brown

riffmongous

Gatling wrote: »

Russian military and nuclear systems are not exactly a recipe for a happy ending ,
Between Chernobyl , several nuclear submarines currently leaking radiation on ocean floors due to accidents you would think they would step back and say we can't actually do this safely ,
I'd say there is a lot more to this situation than Moscow will ever admit to .

And there is much much more even than that, which has been covered up over the years.

But of course they are aware they can't do it very safely, they just don't care very much once nobody finds out.

Victor

Gatling wrote: »

I'd say it's the opposite based of both sides only gave up the nukes they officially claimed they actually had ,

Medium range missles which they got rid of Russia claimed they only had 600 odd but many put the figures in the several thousand stock piled across the country and America likely did the same ,

It's pretty obvious that both countries didn't stop development in nuclear weapons

Open Skies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies and other treaties that allow ground inspections prevent the worst shenanigans.

banie01

Snow Garden wrote: »

Not at all, how could you even think that? Totally different world

Far Far more dangerous IMHO
The rescinding of the arms control treaties is really driving a race to develop new and somewhat exotic hardware and delivery systems too IMO.

The Russians have restarted development on a suspended ColdWar nuclear warhead designed to initiate a Tsunami like wave against shore and littoral targets.

Their work with India on the Brahmos missile is very interesting too.

I do think that the Russians are starting to ababdon Soviet era "Quantity has a quality all of its own" thinking to pursue development of weapons capable of defeating US defences by technological means rather than swamping them.

The world is far more unstable now than it has been at any time since 1961 IMO.
Russia is resurgent and determined to be seen as a credible power.

China is waging, and winning an economic war with the US that will likely lead to them at least having a hegemony in Africa.

India is positioning itself quite strongly against China to at least retain some degree of Hegemony in the Indian Ocean and South East Pacific and SE Asia.
Its doing that whilst sabre rattling with Pakistan.

Then you have the North Koreans who will throw missile tests into the Sea of Japan to rattle the Japs and the US and keep pressure on the UN to deliver food.

Japan is building significant military capacity and is approaching a constitutional crisis due to the Navy's desire to base F35's on ship and a move away from a "self defence" role to a role based on forward defence and interdiction of expected Chinese Expansion.

The Australians are dtermined to ensure control of their Northern Approaches and of sea lanes in the South Pacific and South Indian Ocean and have recently ordered 12 subs to ensure a credible and survivable detterent and sea control threat, aimed mainly against China.
Thats on top of fairly significant aircraft and land equipment purchases.

There are more potential flashpoints at present in the world than at any time in my memory, and thats disregarding the usual basket cases of South America, North Africa and the Middle East.

There is significant military expansion underway by many countries that would previously have been considered 2nd tier and the likelihood is that there will be a flashpoint somewhere soon that escalates.

James Brown

Putin is running a cold war era dictator state. It's shameful that we treat him like he's not.

Snow Garden

Ah stop. I don't have Sky News or Twitter or Facebook or whatever else is filling you guys with so much fear. The world is safer than ever.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove

There has always been an obsession with annihilation. Many people think they are part of the final generation. It's part narcissism, part fear of the unknown.

Now stop being a bunch of Chicken Lickens and go out and pick some blackberries.

banie01

Snow Garden wrote: »

Ah stop. I don't have Sky News or Twitter or Facebook or whatever else is filling you guys with so much fear. The world is safer than ever.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove

There has always been an obsession with annihilation. Many people think they are part of the final generation. It's part narcissism, part fear of the unknown.

Now stop being a bunch of Chicken Lickens and go out and pick some blackberries.

What fear?
I'm certainly not fearful.
Theres nothing wrong with being aware of the geo-political realities facing the world.
Thats not fear mongering, its a SWOT analysis hobby

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Overheal wrote: »

Check the doomsday clock.

That’s just the doomsday clock’s opinion, man.

Surely the Cold War could have, and nearly did, go hot many times. Even the scuffle between Russia and the US in Syria wasn’t anywhere near a major conflagration.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Putin is running a cold war era dictator state. It's shameful that we treat him like he's not.

What would you exactly want? An all out war?

The US have plenty of sanctions on Russia.

Snow Garden

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What would you exactly want? An all out war?

gibgodsman

Awesome, I was looking forward to Season 2

InTheShadows

India and Pakistan have enough nukes to end human civilization, if you think we aren't in a much more dangerous place now than we where in the 70's, 80's or 90's you are off your rocker.

It's not a matter of if but when.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

InTheShadows wrote: »

India and Pakistan have enough nukes to end human civilization, if you think we aren't in a much more dangerous place now than we where in the 70's, 80's or 90's you are off your rocker.

It's not a matter of if but when.

Do they?

I read about 100-150 each. Regional destruction.

During the Cold War the US and the USSR has 65000 or so active nuclear missiles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country

The French and the British had some too. So did Pakistan and India. Reductions continue every few years.