Is the Poseidon currently the most destructive weapon on the planet?

Is the Poseidon currently the most destructive weapon on the planet?

>Underwater unmanned cobalt nuke, with potential 200 megaton yield
>Can be left in the ocean at depths lower than submarines, waiting to be activated
>Low speeds make it nearly undetectable, but with a max speed of 100 kn
>Detonation will cause a massive radioactive tsunami capable of destroying essentially any coastal city, leaving it inhabitable

Attached: nuke.jpg (399x500, 25K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/JyECrGp-Sw8?t=247
dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/4-Rad_Exp_Rpts/36_The_Effects_of_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

you had me at radioactive tsunami

more like russian science fiction am i rite?

Tsunamis travel far faster than alpha particles in water, summer child

Make it manned just to be sure there's extra death

what if it was just a whale

>>Detonation will cause a massive radioactive tsunami capable of destroying essentially any coastal city, leaving it inhabitable

Attached: 1559990980856.png (497x576, 212K)

No, because it doesn’t exist

>Poseidon
Pluto is better

Attached: plutonium better than neptunium.jpg (1491x757, 159K)

This is '50-60's technology. Welcome to 2019.

Attached: 151107-N-ZZ999-001_-_SLBM_being_launched_from_USS_Kentucky.jpg (2888x1884, 1.24M)

COME ON AND SLAM

Oh god, i forgot that was a thing

I've been under the impression that a few feet of water is actually great for insulating against radiation. Does this thing surface from "below submarine" depths before detonating?

AND WELCOME TO THE SCRAM

Attached: Tory-IIC Nuclear RamJet.jpg (302x230, 17K)

>Nuke launching nuclear Scramjet is low tech 60s trash!
>Now check out my submarine!

Attached: Turtle_model_at_the_Royal_navy_submarine_museum.jpg (2703x3582, 1.44M)

Not a nuclear weapon expert or even physicists or oceanographer but I believe the idea is to use the salted warhead to create a large amount of radioactive grains of sand and ocean plant material. Ocean water is full of particles, and other material that would become irritated and flung into the air from the mushroom cloud. Also looking at it this way, 3.5% of that water would be salt ready to be contaminated. It might even leave more radioactive particles than the same weapon air bursting above the target. I guess the benefit to the attacker is the fine particles would find water to be attached to quickly and fall back to earth near the target. Effectively localizing fallout in a radioactive rain.

Anyways IIRC from way back during fukishima reactor incident water in the cooling pools and reactor is treated with boron and kept inside parameters much like a homeowner would keep their swimming pool withing certain ph and chemical levels to stop algae growth & keep it safe to swim in. .

You might want to look up the difference between the meanings of inhabitable and uninhabitable. Because right now, you’re describing some kind of Star Trek Genesis bullshit that makes cities liveable.

I came to mention this, I need an answer.

My theory is that the radioactivity is not the punchline, really an almost unwanted side affect at this point so the insulation of the water is of no consequence.

>contaminated water floods a city, making it neither great nor terrible

Start with LA please

You need roughly 2.5m of water between you and spent fuel rods for the radiation you experience to get back to environmental background levels. Of course, the water itself can be radioactive, but realistically the physical damage of a tsunami is going to do a lot more than the radio logical damage. This is especially true on the East Coast of the United States, where more stable geological conditions means large cities and ports are not generally protected against such events.

Directed energy nuclear device.

Attached: howitzer.jpg (342x400, 55K)

What are those horizontal streaks going across the plume? Usually you see those but they are horizontal next to the explosion.

Tried to build a nuclear reactor to power a bomber of doom, ends up building the future of all electrical generation instead.

Attached: HTRE-3.jpg (772x954, 167K)

>Alpha particles
>Not gamma

Attached: 1561262162810.jpg (565x542, 58K)

>Detonation will cause a massive radioactive tsunami capable of destroying essentially any coastal city, leaving it inhabitable
Sounds like a viable method of fixing all of our coastal cities that are currently uninhabitable.

>Directed energy nuclear device.
Tell me more, because I'm imagining a fucking laserbeam of death.

Lets mine all the uranium on earth and make a 150 teraton device.

youtu.be/JyECrGp-Sw8?t=247

Its more like a plasma cloud of fuck you.

So you're telling me space beam weapons could possibly maybe exist

Attached: 6Ru5WJR.png (1920x1080, 996K)

Well the ensuing projectile is only traveling around 1000-10000 km/s per second, but they would look quite a bit like sci-fi beam weapons.

Um fren, the energy of the earthquake that caused the Fukushima earthquake released the equivalent of 67 gigatons aka 1340 Tsar Bombas worth of energy. Are we talking an actual tsunami or a kiddie wave pool here

That caused the *fukushima tsunami

>fucking laserbeam of death.
2 meter wide beam of tungsten plasma going at upwards of .15C. Anything hit is just gone. The project was called Cassaba-Howitzer if you want to dig a bit yourself, but it's one of those deals where as soon as it became apparent it might work all further research was heavily classified. Use in atmosphere would be relatively short range due to bloom, but it's a strong contender for the best space-to-space payload ever designed.

>Use in atmosphere would be relatively short range due to bloom

Would be an interesting candidate for a bunker buster if anything. Even at sea level I can't imagine the bloom would diffuse the energy enough to prevent it from punching deep into the earth.

This is why we need to explore other planets.
There needs to be a testground for absurd scifi fuck you weapons.

That would be such a brilliant idea, an enormous under water nuclear mine capable of destroying a coastal city. You wouldn't have to worry about delivering it to the target in a wartime scenario. A submarine clandestinely places it long in advance. When TSHTF some guy in whatever the modern equivalent of Cheyenne Mountain is simply presses a button and "BOOM" strategic initiative achieved. The enemy suffers massive preemptive losses instantly.

Attached: WarGames-19832-1024x576.jpg (1024x576, 116K)

By short range I still mean a couple miles. Still good enough reach to detonate well outside of CAWS range. It's just it looks pitiable when you can make shots measured in AU instead of miles once it's in a vacuum.

I think the range depends on how "focused" the beam is.

Yes and no. Focus only matters to a point, there is nothing you can do to prevent the atmosphere from sapping energy and dispersing the shot as it travels. As far as focus goes, that brings up the funny point that the Casaba-Howitzer design came directly from project Orion's propellant charges. Someone realized you could you could point it's drive warheads the other way around and tighten the focus until you had a nuclear EFP.

Not really.

Water is really, really, heavy and to move enough of it to devastate the shoreline requires energy that not even a nuclear bomb can adequately provide. It would be much more effective if this jumped out of the water and high into the sky like a bouncing Betty mine in an airburst.

>200mt
>Tsunami
>Irradiate that much fucking water

Dumbass

project marauder everyone.

Attached: i hhave no clue what bete this is.jpg (338x446, 19K)

As opposed to nuking 200MT warhead in the air and leaving coastal city intact?

Well, there you go then; it's fucking stupid and pointless.

I recall there was also something about using mirrors or some shit to focus x-ray radiation from a nuclear blast in space into a beam. Not sure where that went, but it's another "what can we do with nukes in space" thing.

project excalibur

>Years of boasting by Chinks and Vodkaniggers
>War breaks out
>Bugs think they have the upper hand
>Suddenly plasma doughnuts start showing up and vaporizing literally everything
>mfw

Attached: 1517721583561.jpg (187x269, 8K)

>project excalibur
Damn, I didn't realize it got as far as it did; really thought it as just one of those paper designs.
Also Brilliant Pebbles sounds cool as hell too. Probably the most practical application of anything close to rods from god.

Fucking loved that game. Wish I could get it again. I forgot what it was even called... Descent Freespace? Help a nigga out.

This is Freespace 2 I think the mission is "their finest hour" If you are willing to play, don't forget to grab Open Source Project. It massively improves graphics

>am i rite
Not really. Concept itself does not have anything that Russians didn't test earlier. Except maybe control system. Big ass nuke - they know how to build it. Submarine for extra depths - they know how to build it. Supercavitation - they already had that tech. Small and powerful reactor for the drone - Russians had technology to build a liquid metal cooled reactor which will be a perfect fit for that machine.

What about slowing down the projectile to just a couple hundred times the speed of sound by increasing the mass?

>radioactive tsunami
Only country it would be useful against is the USA, and perhaps Denmark

Same thing but they probably wanted to measure the shockwave which in this case was coming from below

You're thinking too hard, user. What you're saying doesn't make any sense at all.

Calls team: "Guys, take this fucker out, he knows."

>unmanned cobalt nuke
>unmanned

Fuck you, I prefer my nuclear weapons manned.

China's population is concentrated along their coastline also, plus all the ports upon which their economy depends.

Wreck those and you don't even have to bother with nuking the Three Gorges Dam, though for the sake of thoroughness...

does anyone have the screencap of the russian funny cannon?

This?

Attached: cannon.jpg (1280x928, 559K)

>FreeSpace 2

Attached: 567567.jpg (600x537, 34K)

Freespace 2 my man, one of my favorites as well.
Look up the freespace open project, you can replay freespace 1 and 2 with much more modern graphics for free.
Best spacesim ever made.

no, the one that shoots space

Gamma rays (the worst kind of radiation that a bomb puts out) can be blocked by:
1" of lead
1' of reinforced concrete
3' of packed earth (e.g., sandbags)
8' of water

However, that's not what OP is talking about. Look up "Crossroads Baker". You should recognize the picture when you see it; it's one of the most famous nuclear tests ever. It also taught us that the worst place that you could set off a bomb, in terms of contamination, is in a shallow body of water (such as a harbor). The fireball vaporizes a bunch of water, carves a hole in the sea floor, impregnates a lot of the resulting debris with various radioactive molecules, and then throws them into the air--but, unlike an airburst, or even a groundburst, those radioactive bits, because they're mixed in with water droplets, almost immediately fall back down, painting anything they touch with the radioactive debris.

An airburst does not produce fallout as long as the fireball does not touch the ground (the radioactive bits rise into the stratosphere and disperse to such a low concentration that nobody gets hurt). A deep-water burst (like a depth charge) does not produce fallout for largely the same reason (it produces plenty of radioactive seawater, but ocean currents disperse it to such a low concentration, yadda yadda). Ground bursts cause fallout. Shallow water bursts cause intense, localized fallout.

So, yeah. A UUV that uses GPS/INS to steer into a harbor, and then nukes it, is a seriously bad thing. It's also grounds for massive retaliation, which the Russian leadership, at least, would not enjoy.

Russia is the heroin and aids capital of the world and this is what they spend their money on. Maybe Russia NEEDS communism, whoever is managing their budget should be executed

There is some dumb shit in this thread.

>earthquakes that cause tsunamis are 1000 gigaton strong.

They are completely different to this for many reasons.
Firstly they form far out to sea in deep water and can travel for thousands of kilometres.
This weapon would explode inside of your shallow harbor, it wouldn't need to move nearly as much water.

Secondly a huge amount of that energy isn't transfered into the water but instead into the rock, infact only specific types of earthquakes called megathrust earthquakes create large shifts of elevation in the seabed that lead to tsunamis. (Pic related).

>water blocks radiation

Yes, but the aim of this kind of weapon isn't to create neutron flux or X-rays like a tac nuke.
The aim is to create Fallout, that's what a Cobalt salted bomb is designed to do.

The idea, i'm guessing, is to make economicly vital ports unusable for a long time.

>This weapon would be bad because it would create massive escalation if it was used.

It isn't supposed to be a first strike weapon, it would be terrible at that as it could take days to hit a target and you wouldn't be able to call it off (since you can't communicate very long distances underwater).
It's obviously a second strike weapon inteaded to be used in response to an enemy first strike.

Attached: Subsiding volcanoes.jpg (743x714, 75K)

>Be me, first day of college
>Unpacking in my dorm room
>Doors open, thot walks in starts talking to me
>She just randomly opens my dresser drawer for some reason and looks inside
>Maybe thought it'd be funny to joke about my underwear
>There's just a DVD labeled "Cumfart Tsunami" with a gaping butthole blowing out a load of cum
>She quickly shuts the drawer, keeps looking around my room pretending she didn't see
I'll never forget

S H I V A
T
A
R

With communism whoever was managing their budget was managing even more budget.

Attached: 2D53C5A6-5FE7-4449-8A53-DE89A6F5CC46.jpg (480x360, 23K)

Based

did you make her fart cum later on, tho?

No but her and her 2 friends said if I gave my guy friend a peck on the lips theyd all open their shower robes and flash us. Turned out they we're wearing lingerie under, they weren't naked :( I got tricked

Nuclear weapons don't efficiently produce tsunamis either. You'd get energy wasted in terms of heat, splitting water, a compression shockwave, unstopped radiation and so on. Yes, potentially you can create a decent localized tsunami, but you'd cause more damage by using most of the energy to cause damage instead of a small portion of it. That's why nuclear weapons explode at a certain altitude and 'rods of god' are fucking retarded.

Attached: 1080631C-C2DA-4A9F-B5BF-904A2F51D946.jpg (640x640, 118K)

The thing is that nukes create a fuckton of heat rather than mechanical forces. This heat will vaporize a large body of water, that steam will go straight up into the atmosphere, leaving a large void which will suck in any water that was displaced by the steam.
Nukes are terrible at creating waves, there has been countless of nuke tests done in water and there is no data that suggests that using a nuke to create a large wave is viable.

The russian nuke drone is just a piece of internal propaganda made to fool the russian population and anyone else in the same range of retardation.

Probably like dropping a big rock in a pond. Drowns anything near it but doesn't go very far.

Can we go to a super geologically active place and use a nuke to trigger an earthquake then let that make a tsunami?
Or we go and drill and blast the whole face of a super long cliff off into the ocean

>massive radioactive tsunami
Bikini Atoll was radioactive because it vaporized the reef and water and shot it into the atmosphere.

Attached: 1517877460005.jpg (680x1020, 121K)

ATTENTION --- PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

All you faggots are missing the point. Poseidon is not a superweapon intended to be some gamechanger. Its massively inferior to current ICBM in every way. Its only advantage is that it can't be shot down by ABM.
Russia is developing it ONLY because they are scared shitless that advancements in burger ABM might neuter their missiles.
Its not there to give russia any chance of victory. It's useless as first strike weapon. Its only role is to give russia at least some capability of retaliating in worst case scenario - if US finally developing effective ABM.

Tl;dr, its a stopgap patch, rather than some new quality. Its equivalent of englishman carrying a screwdriver because he cannot carry a proper gun

Attached: public-service-announcement-30981652.png (500x306, 49K)

Does the englishman has the license for that screwdriver tho?

Why not just make a super-Surcouf?
It’d be a lot less retarded.

A giant gun-submarine?
Why?

Why not?
It’s less retarded than Poseidon.
Probably would do more damage too

It's ridiculous that people don't understand how fucking heavy the ocean is and that causing an explosion in the ocean is not displacing water it evaporated.
Tsunamis are created by enormous amount of water being displaced by earthquakes, or in rare occasions, enormous landslides.

The thing is it wouldn't even move water so much as it would flash boil it and turn it steam instantly

>Not really.

Only an assface from Reddit starts any sentence this way and should never be paid attention to.

When you turn water to steam it's volume increases 1600 times.

Also this weapon is intended to travel inside harbors, it's not supposed to be used as a deep subsurface weapon far out to sea, it's well known that explosions can't produce intercontinental waves like tsunamis without truly apocalyptic yields, as everyone in this thread feels the need to repeat ad absurdium.
It is rather a surface blast intended to maximise fallout, which makes sense considering that it is supposedly a salted bomb.

Yes if a device of the same yield was used in an airblast the blast pressure wave damage would be far greater, however, immediate damage is not the intent of this weapon and the delivery system (which is the limiting factor, as the main purpose of this weapon system is to skirt BMD) doesn't suit an air blast.
Ultimately ports can be rebuilt and re-used, quickly even. Harbours are large and durable human or natural structures, a blastwave does little to them, extreme residual radiation is much harder to deal with in the long term.

Ultimately it probably would create a large wave, however it would be much more like a tall storm surge than a multi kilometer wide tsunami wave, it simply doesn't have the sheer energy of a Tsunami wave, this is ultimately tertiary to the blast and fallout effects such a large yeild, salted surface blast bomb would have.

>underwater detonations cause tsunami

Literally impossible.

Wow you're stupid as fucking shit lmfao. Ever seen a nuke go off? Theres quite a bit of mechanical force there. So much so they compare it to MILLIONS of tons of TNT. Also, when things heat rapidly they expand and create kinetic force. That steam doesn't just go "puff" into the atmosphere you magnificent fucking moron.

200 Megatones is 1.96133x10^12 newtons. Even hip shot math with rounded numbers on the side of your argument and the benefit of 100% conversion in your favor it dosen't add up. Water is a massive, dense liquid that takes a lot of force to move around. Not to mention you're fighting pressure at those depths too.

You can't bullshit physics my friend, no matter how much your Vatnik fee-fees tell you you can.

Basically this, with the added note that it's fictional. Russia has no money to develop or build them.

Put it in the same bucket as the Space Mig.

A design with a less concentrated beam was also going to be the fuel for Project Orion. A nuclear earth to space vehicle that could lift a 100 tons to orbit with minimal radiation left over since it was all pointed up into space.

Google gave me this pretty thing (1977)
dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/4-Rad_Exp_Rpts/36_The_Effects_of_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf
While talking about Baker explosion.
>The disturbance created by the underwater burst caused a series of waves to move outward from the center of the explosion across the surface of Bikini lagoon. At 11 seconds after the detonation, the first wave had a maximum height of 94 feet and was about 1,000 feet from surface zero. This moved outward at high speed and was followed by a series of other waves. At 22,000 feet from surface zero, the ninth wave in the series was the highest with a height of 6 feet.
>. In the first place, some energy of the primary shock wave in the water is transmitted across the water-air interface. This air shock remains attached to the water shock as it spreads out from the brust point. Second, if the scaled depth of burst, i.e., the actual depth of burst in feet divided by the cube root of the weapon yield W in kilotons, is less than about 35 feet/kilotons^1’3, the bubble vents directly into the atmosphere during its first expansion phase, thereby causing an air shock.

And paragraph 6.119 are some formulas that allow to calculate waves that are predicted to be created, but I am too much of a brainlet to solve them. Help

project orion is so fucking cool. i wish we could pull the trigger on this. fuck rockets

You are mixing units of energy with force.

Do you have any idea the kind of force an earthquake creates, let alone the time scale and directional force it imparts? You cannot get them from a nuclear detonation that lasts nowhere near as long and expends its energy in every direction.

>It is rather a surface blast intended to maximise fallout, which makes sense considering that it is supposedly a salted bomb.

Which is retarded as it limits such a device not only to countervalue targets, but further limits them to specific harbors that require prevailing winds to carry the fallout for its maximum effect.

'rods of god' are retarded for other reasons, mostly related to orbital mechanics