"Poseidon" Nuclear-armed Underwater Drone

Having such a doomsday weapon is a deterrence in itself, helping to prevent a doomsday from arriving.
In 1945, an atomic bomb + a B-29 was such a doomsday weapon that was used on Japan twice to scare & dissuade Stalin from taking Hokkaido & Northern Honshu. Then came the Cuban Missile Crisis that removed US BMs from Turkey.
The MAD doctrine kept USSR & USA from directly fighting each other.
The USA will never have a complete monopoly on any weapon- Germany, Japan, NK, Soviet & Modern Russia + China proved it many times.
I hope, that humanity will shape up to overcome its aggressiveness & avoid self-destruction.

Having such a doomsday weapon is a deterrence in itself, helping to prevent a doomsday from arriving.

Well there are pretty much two solid reasons to have a doomsday device... one is because you are insane and actually want to destroy the world, and the other is because you are up against insane people who want to destroy you.

The point is that these two perspectives are actually opposite, one is a Bond villain type who is angry with everything and wants the world to end for everyone... they want to destroy the world. The other doesn't want the world to end but also wants to remain safe from all enemies... some very powerful, so they actually don't want the world to end but are prepared to end it to stay safe personally.

In 1945, an atomic bomb + a B-29 was such a doomsday weapon

I disagree... it was an awesomely powerful weapon, but delivery and production meant it really was not practical for use against the Soviets... they would have had the numbers to shoot down any US bombers trying to deliver it... and even if one got through the Soviets had lost many cities already in that war... if the Soviet forces were attacked by the west it would probably keep steam rollering to the English channel, so any nuke attacks will be in western europe.

that was used on Japan twice to scare & dissuade Stalin from taking Hokkaido & Northern Honshu.

Stalin knew about the bomb and wasn't interested in taking any more territory than had already been agreed upon... it was intended to impress stalin with their new powerful weapon, but it was only a matter of time before he got access to the same power.

The MAD doctrine kept USSR & USA from directly fighting each other.

Officially... in actual fact Soviet and US pilots fought in Korea and Vietnam and other places too... not to mention all the recon aircraft the Soviets had to shoot down during the cold war.

I hope, that humanity will shape up to overcome its aggressiveness & avoid self-destruction.

Totally ironic that the only doctrine that can guarantee to keep us all safe is literally called MAD... sadly that says it all really.

I disagree... it was an awesomely powerful weapon, but delivery and production meant it really was not practical for use against the Soviets... they would have had the numbers to shoot down any US bombers trying to deliver it...

There were big gaps in their AD & B-29/36/47/52s could fly low to cross into USSR airspace from the Arctic Ocean. That's why they developed the long range Tu-128 & MiG-25/31 interceptors.

Stalin knew about the bomb and wasn't interested in taking any more territory than had already been agreed upon...

Those 2 detonations convinced him not to grab N. Japan- he didn't know how many A-bombs the US had.

Officially... in actual fact Soviet and US pilots fought in Korea and Vietnam and other places too...

in Korea, the Soviet pilots were in Chinese uniforms; in Vietnam, there was no need for them- enough locals were trained by then but the Soviet PVO units were deployed there.
Pilots & sailors on subs engaging each other isn't the same as ground troops exchanging fire in Europe or Asia.

There were big gaps in their AD & B-29/36/47/52s could fly low to cross into USSR airspace from the Arctic Ocean. That's why they developed the long range Tu-128 & MiG-25/31 interceptors.

The B-29 simply didn't have the range to go anywhere at low altitude... when they bombed Germany they had to stop off in Russia and be refuelled to fly back.

Those interceptors were developed to counter much later much more capable platforms with much smaller lighter and compact nuclear weapons.

Those 2 detonations convinced him not to grab N. Japan- he didn't know how many A-bombs the US had.

He had detailed reports on the US nuclear weapons programme, and knew how few they actually had. The US president was surprised at how unsurprised Stalin was regarding nuclear weapons.

The weapon design information greatly speeded up the Soviet bomb development programme.

n Korea, the Soviet pilots were in Chinese uniforms; in Vietnam, there was no need for them- enough locals were trained by then but the Soviet PVO units were deployed there.
Pilots & sailors on subs engaging each other isn't the same as ground troops exchanging fire in Europe or Asia.

Significant numbers of American pilots "got lost" and accidently flew into restricted airspace over the Soviet Union, and their reward was to get shot down on several occasions... Powers was the most public example of a CIA pilot flying a spy plane, but most were recon aircraft which were in fact converted obsolete bombers... and quite a few were shot down. WIth sub incursions into Soviet waters they were less lethal... I seem to remember the memoirs of a US sub captain who managed to get into a Soviet area during a Soviet exercise... he was detected and chased down and just when he was expecting depth charges and time in a jail he received a message from the commander of the Soviet exercise to thank him for the realistic practise but to not come back.

The B-29 simply didn't have the range to go anywhere at low altitude... when they bombed Germany they had to stop off in Russia and be refuelled to fly back.

They weren't used in Europe at all during the war, but the the B-17 were all withdrawn from the Pacific to bomb the Germans & Italians, & they had a refueling & rearming base at Poltava.
The B-29s Superfortresses could get low just before penetration, but even if detected at their high altitudes the Soviet AF didn't have capable fighters to intercept them for a few years.

He had detailed reports on the US nuclear weapons programme, and knew how few they actually had.

In a ny case, Stalin didn't want to fight USA on 2 fronts over N. Japan- by then, he had all of Korea & the Kurils. The US was ready to enlist German POWs against the USSR if need be.

Significant numbers of American pilots "got lost" and accidently flew into restricted airspace over the Soviet Union, and their reward was to get shot down on several occasions...

those exceptions prove the rule: the Cold War mostly stayed cold with occasional incidents & flare ups. The USS Halibut was also used on spy missions several times in Soviet waters, & it got a way with it. There was also competition to get 1st to the N. Pole & sail around the World underwater, besides a race to the Moon.
Today, Russia & US r still avoiding direct conflict- they use proxies & mercenaries so their active duty service members don't kill each other.

The B-29s Stratofortresses could get low just before penetration, but even if detected at their high altitudes the Soviet AF didn't have capable fighters to intercept them for a few years.

First of all they didn't have any bombs left to carry at that point so even if you are right it does not matter.

Second there was a vast Soviet Army sitting in the middle of Europe... I am sure even the weakest excuse to continue to the English coast would be all that was needed.

Even a MiG-3 would paste a B-29 most of the time, and their later fighters were not designed for high altitude operations, but they had quite a few aircraft that could have done the job... even if it came down to ramming the American bombers.

In a ny case, Stalin didn't want to fight USA on 2 fronts over N. Japan- by then, he had all of Korea & the Kurils

Funny, how the west first claims evil stalin wants to invade Japan and only the brave and handsome Americans stopped it by murdering half a million people with two nuclear bombs... but then when analysed and you realise Stalin clearly had no intention of breaking his agreement with the US to join the war so that the US wasn't left fighting the Japs on their own, Stalin is still the evil bad guy and the Americans the good guys.

American paranoia led to them assuming Stalin would do what they would do and they murdered hundreds of thousands of people to try to send a strong message to Stalin. I am sure they did... these guys are fucking crazy.

Stalin got back all the territory Russia had lost over the years including the kuriles... note they didn't occupy Korea or China or Manchuria, like the US occupied South Korea and Japan and Germany... but again Russia is the bad guy... ...getting boring.

those exceptions prove the rule: the Cold War mostly stayed cold with occasional incidents & flare ups.

That is just stupid... that is like saying Adolf Hitler was a peace loving leader... all those countries he invaded were self defence or necessary and therefore these exceptions proved the rule... no they don't.

The Cold War was a period of two sides actively using proxies to damage or take land or resources from the other... there was nothing cold about it.

The USS Halibut was also used on spy missions several times in Soviet waters, & it got a way with it.

Yeah, those aggressive commies who wanted to dominate the world... don't hear about Soviet bomber crews or recon crews shot down entering US airspace or Soviet ships in US waters...

Today, Russia & US r still avoiding direct conflict- they use proxies & mercenaries so their active duty service members don't kill each other.

Yes, of course... I wonder if that 5 billion dollars the US spent to overthrow the legitimate government in the Ukraine included the funds to pay the Georgian snipers to murder police and innocent civilians.... or was that extra?

Funny, how the west first claims evil stalin wants to invade Japan and only the brave and handsome Americans stopped it by murdering half a million people with two nuclear bombs...

No, it is being officially claimed in their history books that the 2 A-bombs forced Japan to capitulate, not that it was done to scare Stalin or that Japan was going to capitulate anyway.

Second there was a vast Soviet Army sitting in the middle of Europe... note they didn't occupy Korea or China or Manchuria, like the US occupied South Korea and Japan and Germany...

They did occupy E. Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania & NK before installing their cronies there.
In 1956 & 1968, Hungary & Czechoslovakia were invaded as per Brezhnev Doctrine. Mongolia later hosted Soviet Army tank divisions as a deterrent to Maoist China.
Ideology aside, everything was done to protect mother Russia.

Arrow wrote:Poseidon will be probably canceled

https://www.militarynews.ru/Story.asp?rid=1&nid=523048&lang=RU

They just finished the sub that will carry it. They have no choice other than go ahead with the program.

Arrow wrote: blablabla

https://www.militarynews.ru/Story.asp?rid=1&nid=523048&lang=RU

Just an expert opinion

Russia may freeze development of Poseidon to conclude new START treaty: military expert
12/05/2019 7:00:00
Geneva. 5th of December. INTERFAX - Russia may freeze the development of weapons with a nuclear propulsion system if it is needed to conclude a new strategic offensive arms treaty, retired Major General Vladimir Dvorkin, former head of the 4th Central Research Institute of the Russian Defense Ministry, told Interfax.
There will be no Poseidons and Petrels in the coming years. And if they do not fit into the framework of the treaty, then I do not exclude that Russia may compromise and freeze work on these types of weapons so that it would be possible to conclude a treaty, "said Dvorkin, answering the question of whether adoption could armament of these complexes will prevent the conclusion of a new treaty on strategic offensive arms.

Isos wrote:

Arrow wrote:Poseidon will be probably canceled

https://www.militarynews.ru/Story.asp?rid=1&nid=523048&lang=RU

They just finished the sub that will carry it. They have no choice other than go ahead with the program.

Yeap. Arrow been wrong on everything anyway.

There's no point in having a moratorium on Poseidon because of a new START Treaty, because unless both sides have an analogous system it wouldn't work. The guy is probably suffering from early affects of Senility and Alzheimer's Disease.

Arrow wrote:Poseidon will be probably canceled

https://www.militarynews.ru/Story.asp?rid=1&nid=523048&lang=RU

We can always count on your contrarian troll nature showing thru....

If Russia manages to conclude new strategic arms reduction treaties, and more critically a new ABM treaty with the US; which it has been campaigning for years - then of course the Poseidon will be cancelled. As well as the Burestvennik and some other plans

But Russia has funded and gone ahead with these programs precisely because the US isn't interested in such.

If the US changes its mind, then the option is always there. That's really the whole point of these programs, not only to give Russia a guarantee of nuclear parity for the future, but also to put pressure on Washington.

flamming_python wrote:If Russia manages to conclude new strategic arms reduction treaties, and more critically a new ABM treaty with the US; which it has been campaigning for years - then of course the Poseidon will be cancelled. As well as the Burestvennik and some other plans

But Russia has funded and gone ahead with these programs precisely because the US isn't interested in such.

If the US changes its mind, then the option is always there. That's really the whole point of these programs, not only to give Russia a guarantee of nuclear parity for the future, but also to put pressure on Washington.

No they wouldn't. You can't bargain if you have nothing to offer on the bargaining table, unless they have analogous programs they could bargain with. The ABM treaty moratorium was nothing more than a cover for their INF Treaty violations, that was main reason for the protest, if it was simply a missile interceptor issue than the RU Mod would have nothing to complain about considering how abysmal US SAM development has become, especially when you consider PAC-3 has overall characteristics inferior to the ancient (2 decades older) S-300PS complex, despite having the advantage of more modern digital electronics.

"If the US changes its mind" lmao and "then the option is always there", that's highly amusing, especially when considering the decision for NATO to expand eastwards, the decision to leave the ABM and INF Treaty spans 5 markedly different presidential administrations, which suggests that these decisions would have been the same regardless which person or party was in power. Even the Obama administration set the climate to make the INF Treaty moratorium possible. Just look at the facts: Obama, despite being radically different from Trump, pushed a trillion dollar nuclear weapons modernization program, set the Russophobic climate to make relations impossible, accused Russia of INF Treaty violations, while simultaneously advocating 'renewed' relations with Cuba (which couldn't be coincidental). No amount of diplomacy will make a tigers' carnivore diet become a herbivore one...and I'm surprised were even still discussing the matter.

Stll problem with "democracy" countries is that while the present administration can for instance approve deal with country "x" administration which is to come 4 years from that

moment might cancel it without a blink. By such ways democracy justifies lack of consistency which is why a deal with them is impossible as in a bit wider period of time officials

act like madman where whomever wishes to do what they like at the moment does it and than they call it adherence to a democratic principle where insanity is more appropriate

term.

Especially when they are acting from the position of fear or in case where they are acting from the position of strength guided by greed their acting becomes unbalanced and changes

more quickly in time as of unbalanced person.

From the position of countries that adhere to traditions and truths based on win win deals no matter the circumstances ever changing behavior as it suits wishes of any given moment

seems as they are constantly telling lies about everything in the world which when you than look at it they are. They hide their inability to think properly behind the curtain of

what "cattle" as they call it (their own people) perceive it as good (like democracy, compassion, forgiveness, kindness etc) and from that position on jell and scream and do nasty

things on others while retaining immunity from the same judgment back.

There is no dignity in changing opinion whenever suits a situation for the benefit of only yourself. Thats the way of a liar and its low life.

For that reason alone I dont think Russia will give up Poseidons as a ultimate weapon for just words in return from some liar.

Anyway being a continental country Russia can not be threatened with a similar weapon while US being an island in between Pacific and Atlantic ocean faces might of Poseidon

strength can not imagine to face a weapon with more devastating effect.

Poseidon will be probably canceled

It likely wont, but if it is stopped it will be kept as an alternative, and the US will have to make some serious concessions to get them to withdraw it... when Gorby signed off on the INF treaty it was because short range missiles were destabilising... their short flight time left little time to decide if it was real or a glitch.

In this case however Russia has got no sensible reason to give it up at all, so the US had better come up with some serious concessions... like no ABM system in Europe, and US nukes out of europe... hell... why not US troops out of europe...

Trump would probably love that option...

I can't see the New Start treaty continuing let alone being replaced with anything... the Americans have said they want the Chinese included, so the Russians will want French and British nukes and perhaps even Israeli nukes included.... and the French and Israelis will never agree... it is dead to start with.

Poseidon and Burevestnik will be counted as delivery vehicles, like ballistic missiles. That´s it.

If the west wants that weapons to be axed it will have to give something. Like giving up all sea-launched cruise missiles. Which means that all Ticonderogas and Burkes, mod. Ohios, Los Angeles and Virginias have to be dismantled.

@Arrow. Putin already strongly hinted it wont happen. He recently when asked said that US can discuss extending existing START treaty about only systems both of them have but not the ones Russia has and US does not.
He continued that if US wants to discuss about Russia offensive systems that US does not have it will first need to acquire them by means of paying for Russia ones or develope theirs and I suspect until they are developed US can pay for them in some form Garry has described above only

No Putin staring at the West is like Gorbachev. Will go for any concessions that will come up with the US to extend START. He will even cancel Burevestnik, Poseidon, Avangard to make a deal.

Dude... he is just trying to get them to the table to talk... the US is in a panic because they know they can't stop these new Russian weapons and they realise despite their stealth aircraft and their ABM systems and their sneaky global spy network that they are in the shit and they not only don't like it, they think the new Start treaty is limiting them because their obvious solution would be to make thousand of nukes to have "superior numbers" knowing Russia can't afford to match them... ie they want to spend their way out of the problem.... but that wont work because even if the US had 200 nuclear weapons for every one Russia had... so what? They all get used and everyone still dies... the main difference is that everything in Russia will be hit and everyone will die quickly while in the US some targets might have to die over a much longer period...

Putin made the offer to get the US to talk, but he never said what he will want in return... he might demand British and French and Israeli missiles be included if Chinese missiles have to be included, and he might demand US conventional and nuclear forces leave Europe like Soviet soldiers and nuclear forces left Europe in the 1990s, and of course that also means the ABM system in Europe would have to go too and if the ABM system in the US is dismantled or limited then they will happily give up all the measures they have built to counter them.

Just the same as he has said if the Ukraine drops its sanctions against Russia then Russia will drop its sanctions against the Ukraine... and the same with the EU and the same with the US... but they are too stupid to see a good deal when it bites them on the ass... so we don't need to worry about him ever having to give up anything...

Arrow wrote:No Putin staring at the West is like Gorbachev. Will go for any concessions that will come up with the US to extend START. He will even cancel Burevestnik, Poseidon, Avangard to make a deal.

He will, but not in return for nothing. That's what Gorbachev did and no-one will make the same mistake as him in Russia for a loooong time.

The fact is that Burevestik and Poseidon at least are not vital for Russian security. If getting rid of them guarantees Russian security by means of a new treaty, then great.

This is really a softer version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The point of sending missiles to Cuba was not to nuke the US, nor to put them there for the sake of it. It was to put pressure on the US to adopt a more reasonable position, or else consequences. It worked.

flamming_python wrote:

Arrow wrote:No Putin staring at the West is like Gorbachev. Will go for any concessions that will come up with the US to extend START. He will even cancel Burevestnik, Poseidon, Avangard to make a deal.

He will, but not in return for nothing. That's what Gorbachev did and no-one will make the same mistake as him in Russia for a loooong time.

The fact is that Burevestik and Poseidon at least are not vital for Russian security. If getting rid of them guarantees Russian security by means of a new treaty, then great.

This is really a softer version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The point of sending missiles to Cuba was not to nuke the US, nor to put them there for the sake of it. It was to put pressure on the US to adopt a more reasonable position, or else consequences. It worked.

The only interesting part in those two systems are the small nuk engines. In terms of civilian projects, they have a big, very big, potential.

In terms of military deterence, they are useless as long as Russia has toplos, Bulavas, Hypersonic gliders ....