The Submersible Nuclear Ramjet: Part Nuclear Bomber, Part Submarine (2018)(nationalinterest.org)
nationalinterest.org
The Submersible Nuclear Ramjet: Part Nuclear Bomber, Part Submarine (2018)
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-submersible-nuclear-ramjet-part-nuclear-bomber-part-submarine-and-moving-mach-4-37692
59 comments
Isn't it great to live in age of the new nuclear arms race? And all that was needed to get there was to accept the Boltonian percepts that international cooperation is unamerican and unpatriotic!
Steve Carell is already planning a sitcom based on the "Space Force". FWIW
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9612516/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9612516/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force
Nuclear Ramjet are also a pretty decent Quebecois psytrance band, not active recently as far as I can tell:
https://nuclearramjet.bandcamp.com/
https://nuclearramjet.bandcamp.com/
shkval was faster underwater:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
modern hydrofoils also arose in that era, also in russia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofoil
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
modern hydrofoils also arose in that era, also in russia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofoil
> shkval was faster underwater:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
There exists a German design of rocket torpedo from the 40s of the 20th century [1][2]. Looks to me it relies on supercavitation as well? The information plaque claims the launch speed of well over 900 km/h (launched from an airplane though).
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Bombotor...
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Bombotor...
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
There exists a German design of rocket torpedo from the 40s of the 20th century [1][2]. Looks to me it relies on supercavitation as well? The information plaque claims the launch speed of well over 900 km/h (launched from an airplane though).
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Bombotor...
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Bombotor...
i can't find any reference to it using supercavitation though the nose certainly suggests it. however, that nose can also serve to improve breaking the surface tension of the water upon entry.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/77/77403-0...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/german-bt-torpedo-b...
https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/weapons16.htm
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/77/77403-0...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/german-bt-torpedo-b...
https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/weapons16.htm
Till now I was wondering how the infinity range nuclear powered Russian missiles that Putin is developing is supposed to work. I know now. Can see the similarities. This also answers why USA hasn't come up with similar tech. It did. In the 60s. And didn't feel it needed it anymore.
>nationalinterest.org
The publisher of The National Interest is Dimitri K. Simes [1], who "went to Moscow and became a moderator of the political program Большая игра ("Big Game") on Channel One Russia, together with Vyacheslav Nikonov"[2].
Also: "While investigating Maria Butina for illegal foreign agent activities, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly explored her ties to Russian-American political expert and Center for the National Interest president Dimitri Simes"[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Interest
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitri_Simes
[3] https://meduza.io/en/news/2019/03/07/in-connection-with-mari...
The publisher of The National Interest is Dimitri K. Simes [1], who "went to Moscow and became a moderator of the political program Большая игра ("Big Game") on Channel One Russia, together with Vyacheslav Nikonov"[2].
Also: "While investigating Maria Butina for illegal foreign agent activities, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly explored her ties to Russian-American political expert and Center for the National Interest president Dimitri Simes"[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Interest
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitri_Simes
[3] https://meduza.io/en/news/2019/03/07/in-connection-with-mari...
I can read and understand the words you are wrote but I cannot discern a purpose behind writing them. Is it just random trivia?
Well, I meant this outlet is not impartial, and it is often cited in Russian state media when they write about "strong Russian superweapons":
"It is worth pointing out that it is not the first time the National Interest has been a crutch for Russian propaganda outlets. Indeed, the U.S. publication seems to run a story every week about some Russian superweapon that America must fear. The latest came just four days ago, and claimed a developmental weapons system, the S-500, will kill all U.S. fighter jets.
Almost all of these stories get regurgitated in the Russian press, and presented to the Russian people as conclusive evidence that Russia is the great military power the Kremlin claims to be."
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/04/14/dear-america-russi... (2017)
This article on the other hand is about American "ultimate Cold War terror weapon", so probably could contain bias in the other direction (I just skimmed it).
"It is worth pointing out that it is not the first time the National Interest has been a crutch for Russian propaganda outlets. Indeed, the U.S. publication seems to run a story every week about some Russian superweapon that America must fear. The latest came just four days ago, and claimed a developmental weapons system, the S-500, will kill all U.S. fighter jets.
Almost all of these stories get regurgitated in the Russian press, and presented to the Russian people as conclusive evidence that Russia is the great military power the Kremlin claims to be."
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/04/14/dear-america-russi... (2017)
This article on the other hand is about American "ultimate Cold War terror weapon", so probably could contain bias in the other direction (I just skimmed it).
> This article on the other hand is about American "ultimate Cold War terror weapon", so probably could contain bias in the other direction (I just skimmed it).
That is kind of the thing though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto), it is historical and maybe you can say highlighting this bit of history is done with some ulterior motive - but even if it was I am actually not that concerned about that. If knowing some historic fact changes someone's mind on some issue - not sure why it should be hidden from them - seems kind of nefarious to care even.
If the article itself was deceptive in some way then it would be a problem but then it would be better to just point out the deception.
That is kind of the thing though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto), it is historical and maybe you can say highlighting this bit of history is done with some ulterior motive - but even if it was I am actually not that concerned about that. If knowing some historic fact changes someone's mind on some issue - not sure why it should be hidden from them - seems kind of nefarious to care even.
If the article itself was deceptive in some way then it would be a problem but then it would be better to just point out the deception.
And you wonder why the USSR was so angry and suspicious?
They had their own wonder-weapons, some of which (barely) entered service, like the Ekranoplan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan
I believe it has been discussed on HN several times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan
I believe it has been discussed on HN several times.
Ekranoplan ... wonder-weapon ... ehhh ... I mean the thing technically worked but I would not quite call it a wonder weapon. It may look quite outlandish but if it was such a great idea we would see more of them.
I kind of assumed that the expression “wonder weapon” implied air quotes. AFAIK, the term is a calque of “Wunderwaffe,” and dates back to WWII. Most of the wonder weapons didn’t work, or were rushed into production without adequate engineering or testing, and proved to be disappointments.
Thus, I have always associated the term with something that is developed in the hope of changing everything, but ultimately serves only for propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe
Thus, I have always associated the term with something that is developed in the hope of changing everything, but ultimately serves only for propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe
That was not powered by a fission ramjet. It was by no means the sort of doomsday weapon that TFA describes.
The Russians are currently testing this sort of nuclear propelled missile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident
Not good. But predictable, given the current situation.
Putin has quite the grudge, it seems.
Putin has quite the grudge, it seems.
Isn't it a predicable consequence of MADD, rather than specifically due to any grudges that Putin might have?
As I understand it, the goal of MADD is to prevent a preemptive first strike by having an effective second-strike method?.
Eg, supercavitating nuclear torpedoes are not useful in a preemptive first strike as they can only take out port cities and spread fallout downwind.
But they are an effective second strike weapon as they are impossible to intercept, so make it harder for the US decide to attack.
As I understand it, the goal of MADD is to prevent a preemptive first strike by having an effective second-strike method?.
Eg, supercavitating nuclear torpedoes are not useful in a preemptive first strike as they can only take out port cities and spread fallout downwind.
But they are an effective second strike weapon as they are impossible to intercept, so make it harder for the US decide to attack.
I'm sort of joking about Putin. But he is rather an archetype of Russian nationalism, no?
For maybe a couple decades, it seemed possible that the Cold War was over. But I guess that was an illusion.
For maybe a couple decades, it seemed possible that the Cold War was over. But I guess that was an illusion.
It doesn't help that we (the US) continued to improve our weapons systems - both offensive and defensive - as if the Cold War were still going on.
Which is sort of my point.
I couldn't tell from what you wrote what you regarded as the source of the illusion.
Since you earlier pointed to Putin's grudges, I thought you meant that Russia's new weapons development programs (post-2000) broke the illusion.
Since you earlier pointed to Putin's grudges, I thought you meant that Russia's new weapons development programs (post-2000) broke the illusion.
Sorry to be unclear.
When the USSR collapsed, the US could have been gracious. Although there was some show of that, overall the US was aggressive, vindictive and disrespectful toward Russia. From what I've read, Yeltsin took it very hard, and drank himself to death.
And then his protégé Putin came to power. Whose family had died during the siege of Leningrad, and who had watched his mentor drink himself to death.
At that point, Cold War II was ~unavoidable.
When the USSR collapsed, the US could have been gracious. Although there was some show of that, overall the US was aggressive, vindictive and disrespectful toward Russia. From what I've read, Yeltsin took it very hard, and drank himself to death.
And then his protégé Putin came to power. Whose family had died during the siege of Leningrad, and who had watched his mentor drink himself to death.
At that point, Cold War II was ~unavoidable.
If you want to understand Putin and Russia start with this ARTE documentary from 2005: [0]. Continue with [1] (three parts).
[0]: https://youtu.be/oLNKqbwec0s
[1]: https://youtu.be/ZLPxyDlQfBc
[0]: https://youtu.be/oLNKqbwec0s
[1]: https://youtu.be/ZLPxyDlQfBc
That's all later stuff.
And who made those videos? I don't see any organizational affiliation. So I suspect propaganda, of one sort or another.
And who made those videos? I don't see any organizational affiliation. So I suspect propaganda, of one sort or another.
The first one starts "Hello. Welcome to Human Edge. I'm Ian Brown."
Human Edge is a Canadian television series - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Edge
Ian Brown is a Canadian journalist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Brown_(journalist)
Human Edge is a Canadian television series - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Edge
Ian Brown is a Canadian journalist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Brown_(journalist)
>And who made those videos?
ARTE (Franco-German public broadcaster) [0] and the BBC [1]. Back when they weren’t fighting Cold War II.
[0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182322/
[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811050/
ARTE (Franco-German public broadcaster) [0] and the BBC [1]. Back when they weren’t fighting Cold War II.
[0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182322/
[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811050/
The USSR was angry and suspicious because it was a brutal communist regime that relied on purging dissidents and killing millions to stay in power.
I don't deny that it ended up that way.
But it's important to consider how external forces drove its development in that direction.
I do think that it could have turned out very differently.
Edit: What plumednom said, seriously.
It's true that they initially sided with Germany, but that was largely driven by the hate from other countries. And indeed, it was stupid to trust Hitler and his crazy crew. But it's undeniable that the Allies would not have won without their help. And the cost was immense. Far more than anyone born in the US can imagine. Consider even Leningrad.
And by the way, Putin lost his family in the sack of Leningrad.
But it's important to consider how external forces drove its development in that direction.
I do think that it could have turned out very differently.
Edit: What plumednom said, seriously.
It's true that they initially sided with Germany, but that was largely driven by the hate from other countries. And indeed, it was stupid to trust Hitler and his crazy crew. But it's undeniable that the Allies would not have won without their help. And the cost was immense. Far more than anyone born in the US can imagine. Consider even Leningrad.
And by the way, Putin lost his family in the sack of Leningrad.
Stalin and people like him seems to be a general failure mode of socialist states.
While the revolution in general has a good reason to start it tends to go to the Robespierre style horror show, which in French republic case was ended as it was well, a republic. But it doesn’t seem to end when the form of new government is a dictatorship (dictatorship of the proletariat is just a dictatorship).
While the revolution in general has a good reason to start it tends to go to the Robespierre style horror show, which in French republic case was ended as it was well, a republic. But it doesn’t seem to end when the form of new government is a dictatorship (dictatorship of the proletariat is just a dictatorship).
Well, I think strongman rule is just the general failure mode of more advanced forms of government, I mean, it's either a single strongman or complete splintering into several states. there is nowhere further down to go.
Of more advanced forms of government or... all forms? I suppose societies that have always been strongman-governed aren't slipping into strongman government as a failure mode, but still.
It depends where you start.
If you start with feudalism (Russia), the Confucian equivalent (China) or post-colonial ~slavery (most everywhere else) then sure.
But if you start with industrialized states with decent education, you can end up with Scandinavia.
If you start with feudalism (Russia), the Confucian equivalent (China) or post-colonial ~slavery (most everywhere else) then sure.
But if you start with industrialized states with decent education, you can end up with Scandinavia.
The Scandinavian countries started from a fundamentally different premise. They're not based on a socialist principle--i.e. that property should be owned in common with the government controlling its use. They're dedicated market economies that evolved a strong social safety net. But their governments don't presuppose the right to control property and production. They impose taxes, which propertied interests can push back on. (And do--Sweden for example has abandoned its wealth tax, and its corporate taxes are competitive with those in the U.S. or U.K.)
See: https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/25/socialism-didnt-work-in...
> Sweden stood as the world’s fourth wealthiest country nearly five decades ago. Its taxes were lower than most western countries, including the United States. The economy was deregulated, and public spending was hardly above 10 percent gross domestic product (GDP).
> The 30-year experiment “was a brief interlude of failure,” Norberg said. To reform and save its economy, Sweden reverted back to its capitalist structure. It reduced public spending by a third, demolished taxes on property and inheritance, and reduced taxes in other areas. Defined benefits were cut and only defined contributions were permitted.
See: https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/25/socialism-didnt-work-in...
> Sweden stood as the world’s fourth wealthiest country nearly five decades ago. Its taxes were lower than most western countries, including the United States. The economy was deregulated, and public spending was hardly above 10 percent gross domestic product (GDP).
> The 30-year experiment “was a brief interlude of failure,” Norberg said. To reform and save its economy, Sweden reverted back to its capitalist structure. It reduced public spending by a third, demolished taxes on property and inheritance, and reduced taxes in other areas. Defined benefits were cut and only defined contributions were permitted.
> The Scandinavian countries started from a fundamentally different premise. They're not based on a socialist principle--i.e. that property should be owned in common with the government controlling its use.
This cannot be emphasized enough. It’s social democracy, not socialism as in USSR. It’s as different from socialism as national socialism is.
Our regulations on private sector are aimed at keeping the markets free, thus efficient. Free doesn’t mean free from regulation, but free from natural monopolies etc.
One of the best examples is our mobile/internet regulation. There are no local monopolies and competition works quite well.
So while we do have a big public sector the private sector that actually pays for all of this has to be really efficient.
This cannot be emphasized enough. It’s social democracy, not socialism as in USSR. It’s as different from socialism as national socialism is.
Our regulations on private sector are aimed at keeping the markets free, thus efficient. Free doesn’t mean free from regulation, but free from natural monopolies etc.
One of the best examples is our mobile/internet regulation. There are no local monopolies and competition works quite well.
So while we do have a big public sector the private sector that actually pays for all of this has to be really efficient.
None of the Scandinavian countries had a violent revolution. They were never Communist. They're all still constitutional monarchies!
This is the kind of mistake that lazily equating communism with social-democrat governments leads you to make.
This is the kind of mistake that lazily equating communism with social-democrat governments leads you to make.
Or you can start as France which also was feudalism and end up in a republic. With Napoleon as a speedbump.
The difference is the aims of those rebellions.
Seeing as all the communist rebellions have resulted in hellholes kinda supports this.
I live in Finland so not scandinavia, but none of us nordic countries formed our system via rebellion.
The difference is the aims of those rebellions.
Seeing as all the communist rebellions have resulted in hellholes kinda supports this.
I live in Finland so not scandinavia, but none of us nordic countries formed our system via rebellion.
The USSR had many challenges, especially WWI and WWII happening soon after founding. But pretty much every socialist experiment has ended in dictatorship. We just watched it happen before our eyes in Bolivia. It's worth considering that it may be a problem endemic to socialism.
Private property rights are the bulwark of a free society. You can have all the other individual rights you want, but those are just paper rights unless there are people with private resources to stand up to the government. Once you decide that the government has the right to allocate society's labor and capital as it sees fit, it naturally leads to the government controlling everything.
Private property rights are the bulwark of a free society. You can have all the other individual rights you want, but those are just paper rights unless there are people with private resources to stand up to the government. Once you decide that the government has the right to allocate society's labor and capital as it sees fit, it naturally leads to the government controlling everything.
The reason for that alliance was the Soviets needed time to build their army for the expected war with Germany following the Munich agreement and the Germans needed Soviet oil. I don’t think either side trusted each other ever.
"external forces drove its development"
The worst of Stalin's purges were well before WW2 - I don't think you can blame external forces, certainly not ones active at that time, for Stalin's vicious paranoia.
The worst of Stalin's purges were well before WW2 - I don't think you can blame external forces, certainly not ones active at that time, for Stalin's vicious paranoia.
The allies of WWI literally invaded Russian to intervene on the anti-Soviet side. I think that is the dictionary definition of an external force.
The purges came later. There was no external force driving those, only internal forces (specifically: Stalin's unquenchable thirst for power).
The foreign hate and intervention started long before Stalin.
> And by the way, Putin lost his family in the sack of Leningrad.
To be clear I think you mean the siege of Leningrad. Leningrad was never taken by the Nazis. I recommend 'The 900 Days' as an outstanding history of it.
To be clear I think you mean the siege of Leningrad. Leningrad was never taken by the Nazis. I recommend 'The 900 Days' as an outstanding history of it.
Yes, OK, siege.
But sack or not, 1.5-2.0 million died, and the area was devastated.
But sack or not, 1.5-2.0 million died, and the area was devastated.
> I don't deny that it ended up that way.
> But it's important to consider how external forces drove its development in that direction.
> I do think that it could have turned out very differently.
So imagine this was written in response to saying "Nazi Germany was angry and suspicious because it was a brutal fascist regime that relied on purging dissidents and killing millions to stay in power."
I think most people would have a bit of a bone to pick ... so ... I dont know - food for thought. I don't think we need to equivocate every time we condemn what the USSR was.
> But it's important to consider how external forces drove its development in that direction.
> I do think that it could have turned out very differently.
So imagine this was written in response to saying "Nazi Germany was angry and suspicious because it was a brutal fascist regime that relied on purging dissidents and killing millions to stay in power."
I think most people would have a bit of a bone to pick ... so ... I dont know - food for thought. I don't think we need to equivocate every time we condemn what the USSR was.
If France and Britain hadn't been such assholes after WWI, I doubt that the Nazis would ever have taken over.
The Nazis actually did a good job getting Germany functional again. That doesn't excuse in any way all the horrible stuff that they later did. But it does explain how they took over.
Watch "Triumph of the Will" sometime, from the perspective of people who had spent over a decade after WWI starving.
It's all just cycle of hate. Just how the abused grow up to be abusers. But on a hugely larger scale.
The Nazis actually did a good job getting Germany functional again. That doesn't excuse in any way all the horrible stuff that they later did. But it does explain how they took over.
Watch "Triumph of the Will" sometime, from the perspective of people who had spent over a decade after WWI starving.
It's all just cycle of hate. Just how the abused grow up to be abusers. But on a hugely larger scale.
> It's all just cycle of hate. Just how the abused grow up to be abusers. But on a hugely larger scale.
In my view the nature of Nazi Germany was fundamentally different from the nature of German Empire and I do not think that it's nature was an understandable response to the actions of Franz and Britain.
In my view the nature of Nazi Germany was fundamentally different from the nature of German Empire and I do not think that it's nature was an understandable response to the actions of Franz and Britain.
So what do you think explains the difference?
Ever heard of the october revolution? That was the starting point.
The starting point of what? Certainly not the internal instability of Russia. I hope nobody believes you can have a revolution without lots of internal strife preceding it. If you want a starting point for those troubles, you should probably take the shots in Sarajevo in 1914, and the world war that followed.
Look, it was a mess. At that point, Russia was still a feudal state.
And some say that Lenin was actually a German agent, directed to destabilize Russia, and keep it out of WWI.
And some say that Lenin was actually a German agent, directed to destabilize Russia, and keep it out of WWI.
Russia would have fallen over from the stress of the war regardless, but the Germans did help with the transport of Lenin and some friends. Interestingly, wikipedia also mentions some american investment bankers wanting greater market access (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution#American_su...).
That was the reason why the Germans agreed to allow him passage through Germany in the famous "sealed train", yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution
You can keep going back a long long way....
You can keep going back a long long way....
I have always thought that maybe the USSR was pissed off that they lost 20 million people to Hitler while winning World War 2 for us and were never told, "Thank you". You know, instead of thanking them we immediately labeled them enemies and poured all of our resources into rebuilding Germany .. against them.
Russians are trying to make modern small version of SLAM called 9M730 Burevestnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik