Posted on 09/03/2024 7:04:39 AM PDT by hardspunned
Previously, the Russian policy was a nuclear retaliatory response only. Lavrov just announced the policy of preemptive use of nukes if the threat to Russia warrants such an action.
The Russians are doing this across the board, both strategically and tactically. The Russians are rapidly completing new launch sites along the Uke border and just announced the moving of their nuke tactical command center to Crimea.
Someone in DC should be paying attention. Please, wake up the dementia patient and tell him this.
Corn Pop was a bad dude...
Perhaps, I’m a bit too alarmist. The administration is on top of this! We are moving along with updates to the U.S. nuclear policy that will make us all feel safe in our beds tonight.
“Biden Nuclear Security Official Called for ‘Queering Nuclear Weapons”
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-nuclear-security-official-called-queering-nuclear-weapons-1942872
“Under Trump, America’s nuclear weapons industry has boomed
President Trump’s administration quietly and steadily steered America’s nuclear weapons industry to its largest expansion since the end of the Cold War, increasing spending on such arms by billions of dollars with bipartisan congressional support.
Overall, the budget for making and maintaining nuclear warheads has risen more than 50% since Trump was elected in 2016, substantially outpacing the rates of increase for the defense budget and overall federal spending during his presidency before the pandemic.”
And phasers too.
Please, show me the results. What upgrades have been made at Malmstrom, command and control, etc.?
2020, C’mon, man. I can produce rosy articles about how Trump has closed the border and we’re safe from 2020. How about info that has relevance in Biden’s Brave New World, four years on?
I’d like to see the engineering specification. I can’t believe there can be a nuclear powered anything other than a power plant or a bomb or a Radioisotope Thermal Generator (RTG). A nuclear powered missle jist doesn’t make sense, so I want to know how the motor works.
Learning that Trump invested heavily in national defense made you angry?
Exactly. I surmise that the engine is never “off” as it would take minutes to spin up for a launch unlike a typical missile/rocket that goes when you press the button. What is the propulsion mechanism?
Why the unlimited range? Any target on earth is no more than 12K miles away unless you circle the planet once.
Google ‘Project Pluto’ to get a good idea of how it works. The US tried it in the late 50’s and found that it was a very, very bad idea.
See post # 10, please.
Panic
Tried to look at the site and it hit me with virus detected notice and is trying to lock up my computr..
Russia isn’t
Hey, we lived under this fear for decades years ago. Nothing new. My only concern is if we have a leader like Reagan to prevent our fears from ever being realized. I doubt it.
Just thinking this through.
1. Nuclear decay creates heat and radiation.
2. Nuclear reactors harness the heat to turn liquid water into steam.
3. The steam turns a turbine, connected to a generator to produce electricity.
4. The electricity powers a motor (for a propeller?) or perhaps an air-breathing turbine similar to a jet engine, or
5. The steam propels the cruise missile, or
6. The radiation is used as an ion drive,which are currently in a small-scale state of development for spacecraft (small acceleration in low-gravity environment, trading time for rate of acceleration to build velocity).
So either the Russkies:
1. Have a propeller-driven missile (slow-speed compared to jet engines); or
2. Have an air-breathing turbine driving the missile; or
3. Have a steam-driven missile (with a very finite range/time-of-flight due to fuel (water) capacity limits (which also limit payload); or
4. Have developed an ion drive suitable for high speeds in an Earth-gravity environment; or
5. This is all propaganda.
IIRC, American cruise missiles are typically driven by jet engines with a finite amount of fuel, hence a finite range/time-of-flight duration for a given payload. Relatively higher speeds compared to the first 4 scenarios above.
What am I missing? If anything, option 2 seems most likely to meet the long-distance + long-duration + reasonable payload + reasonable velocity combination.
If a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead is powered by nuclear propulsion worrying about the radiation of the engine itself is pointless. What the nuclear engine does is allow nearly unlimited range and distance. I suspect the radiation from the missile as it flies would make it impossible to hide though.
Plus, IT IS A BOMB! Ooh, ooh, it emits radiation! Give me a bloody break, yah TWOT!
One blew up during atest and killed some engineers. Ooh, ooh, that proves that nuklar is DANGEROUS! Geesush.
As to US efforts on nuclear propulsion, more BS. It was stopped ‘cause the anti-nuke arsholes simply hate what they cannot understand. The fuel pellets were ceramic. they would survive a crash from space with little to no damage. Plus, just wander about with a detector and keep count when you pick them up.
Stupid! I know.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Ignoring your childish knock on a mere fact based comment, the Russians have very competent engineers and there may be more to this technology than our stupid, censorious rulers will let us know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.