Kremlin says secret plans for nuclear torpedo should not have appeared on national news

[Recursion]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34797252

Oops.

The leak happened during a report on state-run Channel One about President Vladimir Putin meeting military chiefs in the city of Sochi.

One general was seen studying a diagram of the "devastating" torpedo system.

Launched by a submarine, it would create "wide areas of radioactive contamination", the document says.

The "oceanic multiple-target Status-6 system" is designed to "destroy important economic installations of the enemy in coastal areas and cause guaranteed devastating damage to the country's territory by creating wide areas of radioactive contamination, rendering them unusable for military, economic or other activity for a long time", the document says.

[Fred Sanders]

1. Like The Pentagon does not already have one.....and much worse than that. All that money has to

be spent every year.

The Sacred Cow of America is The Pentagon. But who is being milked?

[snooper2]

2. LOL, right on cue, nobody does anything wrong but US!

Did you read Maduro just gave every bus driver a 50% increase- trying to get those votes!

[elias49]

28. The US is where I live. And Fred lives.

It's about trying to make the US a better place than Russia or Venezuela. Don't you get it?

[snooper2]

45. The US is a better place to live than Russia and Venezuela x10 already FYI

[uhnope]

58. it's like an uncontrollable nervous twitch. they don't even seem to know they are doing it. nt

[GGJohn]

3. You're so predictable Fred.

You show up and lambast the US but never Russia.
Makes one go Hmmmmmmmmm, is Fred being paid by Putin to post this nonsense?

[FLPanhandle]

4. A nuclear torpedo is a stupid idea

So no, that is one thing the pentagon probably doesn't have.

[Fred Sanders]

8. You made me laugh because you forgot the sarcasm emoticon!

[Nitram]

22. Ha ha Fred, you are such a card!

-SARCASM-

[NuclearDem]

38. Too expensive to replace the mind controlled kamikaze mutant dolphins.

Oh shit, I've said too much.

[jpak]

49. except of the MK-45 nuclear torpedo...

n/t

[Adrahil]

60. The Mark 45 hasn't been in service for almost 40 years.....

and was intended for use against high speed, deep water attack and ballistic missile subs. It was NOT intedned to render coastal areas uninhabitable for long periods of time, or even for coastal attack at all.

Different animal.

[forsaken mortal]

55. Maybe not stupid

If the BBC article is correct, the torpedo has a 6,000 mile range and is more like a very fast small submarine than a torpedo. Such a beast could be harder to intercept because it's not appearing on anyone's radar screen the way an airborne missile would and is travelling a lot faster than subs normally do, so the weapons to intercept it might be primitive or non-existent. In any case, a torpedo net isn't going to be much use at containing a mushroom cloud.

This is probably just a propaganda stunt though. I don't think people are going to have top-secret plans laying on the desk when TV reporters come knocking.

[Rex]

6. Garble warble!

Easy now...don't talk about the Pentagon that way! Some here are in LO-VE.

I have to admit that a nuke torp sounds so stupid...how would anyone escape the blast radius? I bet the Kremlin DID mean for that info to be released...just to stir the pot.

[GGJohn]

11. You do realize that torps are designed to travel for miles before they detonate don't you?

A sub could launch a torp and be well out of the blast zone.

[Rex]

14. You do realize nukes have a high yield and a large blast radius don't you?

The effects would be worse under water, you did know that right?

[GGJohn]

16. Yes I do.

But modern torps are designed to travel for miles before detonating while the launching sub can go the opposite direction in a speedy manner to put even more miles between it and the torp.

[Rex]

17. Why would you need anything but a conventional payload on a torp?

I guess you could take out fleets at a time with just one sub, but still the Kremlin meant for this to be released. IMO.

[GGJohn]

21. You don't really need one

and I agree, this was released on purpose by the Kremlin.

[FLPanhandle]

18. Once guided missle technology matured, the idea of nuclear torpedos died

Missles are a far more effective delivery device for nukes.

In the 50's and early 60's militaries toyed with the idea of nuke torpedos and nuke artillary.

It's an incredibly stupid idea to put a nuke on torpedos.

[Rex]

19. Yeah...that's why they have ICBMs.

Hopefully we never see the day they use them.

[Nitram]

23. The Kremlin doesn't release military information by mistake.

It's clearly a direct threat. But they could be bluffing!

[Rex]

24. They will confirm they released the information, but deny it was on purpose.

So the spy game goes!

[Rex]

36. Why would you need a nuke to blow up a sub? That is the real point here.

You don't.

[NuclearDem]

37. Not really, but a nuclear torpedo aimed at the center of a carrier group

would sink half of that flotilla.

[Rex]

39. I see they retired the (nuke warhead) system in the 60s.

Now it is just a standard payload.

[HassleCat]

42. Because it's difficult to find a submarine

With a nuclear warhead, close I good enough.

[Rex]

53. LOL!

Okay you got me, that is a pretty good reason.

[Yorktown]

59. The USA, root of all evil..

[Octafish]

5. Gee. It sounds like a warning shot across somebody's bow.

Who could it be aimed at?



PS: If anyone wants to call me a commie lover or Putinista, go ahead. Unlike you, I'm a Democrat and believe in freedom of expression -- even for motherfuckers I don't agree with.

[Rex]

7. Aw come on Octa! Don't you want to pretend to be a simpleton like certain folks?

I agree, their black and white world is pathetic...but they have amused me over the years with their love affair for the DoD.

[Octafish]

10. We went to the moon in peace.

We're destroying the planet for profits.



What has changed, besides the coaching?

[Rex]

13. We've always destroyed the planet for profit, the problem now is that we can actually

destroy this fragile ecosystem in which we depend on for our existence! Such a radical change, without radical new ideas for conservation will leave us all dead on a barren planet. If we choose so, the earth can look like the moon in time.

[Octafish]

33. That's a great point.

And the poor people in the USA will have it better than most cough 99-percent of the people in the world blah blah blah.

[Fred Sanders]

9. Half a trillion dollars a year, year after year, has to be spent...so there is the result....America

has the World surrounded!

[Octafish]

12. I'm spitting mad.

This nation could save the planet. Instead it works to destroy the place.

Oh well, the rich will survive -- which is what Trickle Down is ultimately about: Economic Darwinism.

Have you reserved a place on the Life Boat, Fred Sanders?

Just kidding. Invitation only for those who can afford to participate in such offers.

[Rex]

15. Just wait til 10 people own 75% of the worlds wealth.

Somethings got to give.

[Octafish]

34. They will negotiate a peace treaty.

Goldman Sachs and UBS will guarantee it.

[RKP5637]

44. Human beings are pathetic creatures. On this one little spinning ball of dirt in

an endless universe, and humans waste time, money and resources trying to annihilate each other. What a waste!!! How utterly stupid and backward. PS: All countries...

[Nitram]

20. Octafish, have you ever wondered...

...why countries who border on Russia might want to have a U.S. base in their territory? Could it have anything to do with Putin's intention to restore Russia hegemony in eastern Europe? As most clearly evidenced by the annexation of Crimea?

[Octafish]

31. I'd rather they were democracies.

Like the one we used to have here.



Love Field, Nov. 22, 1963: Secret Service agent reacts upon being ordered OFF the President's limo.

[Nitram]

46. Is it your contention that every one of those countries...

Last edited Thu Nov 12, 2015, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

...with a US base on your map is not a democracy? Is it your contention that all the ones that aren't democracies were democracies under the USSR? Is it your contention that the USSR was a democracy? Is it your contention that Russia is a democracy? I'm not really sure what point you are making about democracy.

[NuclearDem]

47. He doesn't have a point. He just needed an excuse to post JFK conspiracy nonsense again.

Central and Eastern European countries that joined NATO after the fall of the USSR did so because their first freely-elected governments in half a century promised their people they would.

But to some, it's doing democracy wrong if they don't vote for what we've decided is best for them.

[FLPanhandle]

25. Probably because folks remember Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania, Crimea, Ukraine...

If I bordered Russia, I'd want some extra muscle too.

[NuclearDem]

30. In certain people's reality, Holodomor, Priboi, the Purges, the Winter War, and Katin never happened

[NuclearDem]

26. NATO has bases in Qatar, Kazakhstan, and Egypt?

You might want to tell Qatar, Kazakhstan, Egypt, and NATO that. Russia too, since Kazakhstan is part of the CIS's military command.

[Octafish]

32. Who knows? Lots of stuff is classified over my head.

What's classified over your head, NuclearDem? Here's Camp Snoopy, Qatar:



Doesn't sound like a democracy when people vote for peace and get seven more years of war, does it?

[NuclearDem]

35. That's Al-Udeid Air Base, which is a Qatari base, part of which is leased to ISAF and the MNF.

That doesn't even remotely make it a NATO base.

But what would I know? I was only deployed there a few times.

[Octafish]

41. You're giving away state secrets.

You said USA doesn't have any bases there.

[NuclearDem]

43. This information is freely available on Wikipedia and the 379th AEW's website.

Hardly state secrets that Qatar leases part of its base to the coalition.

Still doesn't make it a US or NATO base.

[Octafish]

48. Right, NuclearDem. Qatar is with Russia.

When Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani visits the White House on February 24, President Obama will have to contend with a Qatari diplomatic scorecard that has significant marks on both sides of the ledger. Given its historically awkward relations with neighboring Saudi Arabia and its shared ownership with Iran of the world's largest offshore natural gas field, Qatar looks to the United States as its main security guarantor. That has suited the U.S. military, which has used the giant al-Udeid Air Base outside Doha for operations over Iraq and Afghanistan. But Qatar, with a population of around two million, of which only some 10 percent are citizens, has an often quirky tendency to demonstrate its independence. Past sins include parading Stinger missiles illegally acquired from Afghanistan mujahedin, allowing its Aljazeera satellite television channel to broadcast inflammatory and false reports that led to American deaths, and financing terrorism.

-- Simon Henderson

SOURCE: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/uneven-diplomacy-the-u.s.-qatar-relationship

Conservative and Authoritarian.

[NuclearDem]

50. Qatar is not a member of NATO.

Neither is Kazakhstan, which your map seems to suggest is host to a NATO base. In fact, Kazakhstan is part of a military alliance with Russia and many other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Having a NATO base there would be the equivalent of having a Soviet Army base in the UK during the 1970s.

[Octafish]

52. No kidding. You know who wants to be in NATO? Ukraine.

I almost feel sorry them, all them NAZIs and commies together. Like here, except we've got capital, thank Switzerland and UBS.

[NuclearDem]

54. Why on earth would Ukraine want to join NATO?

What did Russia ever do to them?

[Rex]

40. 7 more years? When have we ever NOT been in some kind of 'conflict'?

Got to keep the fat cats happy. Military contracts must keep flowing like a river.

[Octafish]

51. The warmongers have destroyed Democracy.

[Xolodno]

27. Makes sense.

If you want to take out a fleet, harbor, etc. In a limited "nuclear war". Attach it to a drone sub and boom, wipe out an entire naval group. Pretty obvious for which nation that's designed for.

[EX500rider]

56. The really bad part no one has brought up is this is a dirty torpedo..

.....WAY dirty, designed with cobalt lining to make it EXTRA dirty radioactivity-wise.

[hifiguy]

57. Obviously the incompetencs of spooks and the military

is pretty universal. D'oh!!!