Russian nuclear accident kills seven weapons scientists - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-13-2019, 06:08 PM   #1
ed17331
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 21
My Ride: 2002 BMW 325i Sedan
Russian nuclear accident kills seven weapons scientists

Anyone concerned about this?

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...ad-right-73146

Russia Has a Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile. Yes, You Read That Right.

Oops! Something kind of exploded!

News Flash: Russian Missile explodes and spreads radiation at Nyonoska Missile test site near Severodvinsk

New SSC-X-8 or 9 nuclear cruise missile weapon called "Skyfall" is designed to evade US missile defense systems and fly anywhere in the world.

Anyone worried about these flying nuclear reactors spewing radiation whereever they go (with capability to drop nuclear bombs anywhere in the world)?

The US abandoned batshjt crazy ideas like this in 1964, but apparently Putin has not.

Last edited by ed17331; 08-13-2019 at 06:09 PM.
ed17331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 06:58 PM   #2
Hobohunter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: East Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 293
My Ride: Mustang GT
Year: 2016
Transmission: Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed17331 View Post
Anyone concerned about this?

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...ad-right-73146

Russia Has a Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile. Yes, You Read That Right.

Oops! Something kind of exploded!

News Flash: Russian Missile explodes and spreads radiation at Nyonoska Missile test site near Severodvinsk

New SSC-X-8 or 9 nuclear cruise missile weapon called "Skyfall" is designed to evade US missile defense systems and fly anywhere in the world.

Anyone worried about these flying nuclear reactors spewing radiation whereever they go (with capability to drop nuclear bombs anywhere in the world)?

The US abandoned batshjt crazy ideas like this in 1964, but apparently Putin has not.
It's not really any more concerning than the absolute number of strategic nuclear weapons in our and their arsenals already. I'm pretty sure we far surpassed MAD decades ago, it's hard to get more dead than already super dead.

And if you're concerned about the radiation these nuclear powered missiles leave in their wake you should take a gander at our Air Force's attempt at a nuclear powered strategic bomber in the sixties or so.
Hobohunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 07:09 PM   #3
ed17331
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 21
My Ride: 2002 BMW 325i Sedan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobohunter View Post
It's not really any more concerning than the absolute number of strategic nuclear weapons in our and their arsenals already. I'm pretty sure we far surpassed MAD decades ago, it's hard to get more dead than already super dead.



And if you're concerned about the radiation these nuclear powered missiles leave in their wake you should take a gander at our Air Force's attempt at a nuclear powered strategic bomber in the sixties or so.


But thatís exactly the point, donít you see, we gave up the idea of a nuclear powered strategic bomber in the sixties (because itís a bad idea), but fifty years later, Putin wants flying nuclear reactors with unlimited range that spew radiation wherever they go and stay aloft for months at a time (while also carrying nuclear weapons).

We both have nuclear powered submarines, but they are designed not to spew radiation into the environment.
ed17331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 07:15 PM   #4
bgsmith
Registered User
 
bgsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hingham, MA
Posts: 1,164
My Ride: No longer an e46
Russia is just riding the coattails of the popularity of Chernobyl on HBO.
__________________
bgsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 07:47 PM   #5
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Every good show needs a sequel
__________________
ďThe left does not win its battles in debate. It doesnít have to. In the twenty-first century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media. Narrative is everything,Ē - Andrew Breitbart
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 08:01 PM   #6
Hobohunter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: East Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 293
My Ride: Mustang GT
Year: 2016
Transmission: Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed17331 View Post
But thatís exactly the point, donít you see, we gave up the idea of a nuclear powered strategic bomber in the sixties (because itís a bad idea), but fifty years later, Putin wants flying nuclear reactors with unlimited range that spew radiation wherever they go and stay aloft for months at a time (while also carrying nuclear weapons).

We both have nuclear powered submarines, but they are designed not to spew radiation into the environment.
Yep, not saying it's a good idea. But if they get used, the affects of the warhead will wipe any concern we have for the radioactivity they spew out into the environment. If they get used and fail to detonate, we'll still not give a **** about the radioactivity their reactor propulsion emits as a butt-ton of other nukes will be criss-crossing the sky already.

And I'm intimately familiar with our nuclear powered naval vessels, I spent six years at the reactor controls of a couple of them. While they certainly can't be said to spew radioactivity, they do discharge a non-zero amount of it.
Hobohunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 08:07 PM   #7
Hobohunter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: East Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 293
My Ride: Mustang GT
Year: 2016
Transmission: Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgsmith View Post
Russia is just riding the coattails of the popularity of Chernobyl on HBO.
This would be Chernobyl light-light-light-light-light....

The reactor at Chernobyl had literal tons of fissile uranium surrounded by literal tons of highly activated graphite moderator that got released from a massive steam explosion. This missile had literal grams to maybe kilograms of fissile uranium in the propulsion unit surrounded by who knows what materials that can become activated (made radioactive).

There were thousands of acres of land around Chernobyl with elevated background radiation, with this missile there's probably a few thousand square feet.
Hobohunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 08:33 PM   #8
ed17331
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 21
My Ride: 2002 BMW 325i Sedan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobohunter View Post
Yep, not saying it's a good idea. But if they get used, the affects of the warhead will wipe any concern we have for the radioactivity they spew out into the environment. If they get used and fail to detonate, we'll still not give a **** about the radioactivity their reactor propulsion emits as a butt-ton of other nukes will be criss-crossing the sky already.



And I'm intimately familiar with our nuclear powered naval vessels, I spent six years at the reactor controls of a couple of them. While they certainly can't be said to spew radioactivity, they do discharge a non-zero amount of it.

So does an X-Ray machine in a hospital.

But back to the point...
I agree with you that discharging a nuclear weapon is far more concerning than any radiation emitted by the cruise missile reactor during flight. But they can launch these things and fly them around anywhere in the world spewing radiation into the atmosphere for months at a time WITHOUT activating the nuclear warhead payloads. In other words, these weapons cause serious environmental damage even if they are never used for Armageddon.

I think you are assuming they would never be LAUNCHED unless as part of a nuclear strike. Whereas I am assuming they could be launched as a deterrent whenever Russia feels particularly threatened or paranoid and fly around spewing radiation for weeks and months until the perceived crisis was over (without dropping nukes).

Even testing such a weapon delivery system (not the warhead) during and after development is environmentally problematic.
ed17331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 08:43 PM   #9
ed17331
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 21
My Ride: 2002 BMW 325i Sedan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobohunter View Post
This would be Chernobyl light-light-light-light-light....



The reactor at Chernobyl had literal tons of fissile uranium surrounded by literal tons of highly activated graphite moderator that got released from a massive steam explosion. This missile had literal grams to maybe kilograms of fissile uranium in the propulsion unit surrounded by who knows what materials that can become activated (made radioactive).



There were thousands of acres of land around Chernobyl with elevated background radiation, with this missile there's probably a few thousand square feet.


I think we all agree that this recent weapons test accident and radiation release at Severodvinsk is nowhere near the scale and danger of the Chernobyl disaster (although we have few details at this early point, and we know the Russians tend to downplay these things, ahem).

Iím sure mister smith was simply attempting to make a joke out of this event and a TV show he recently watched.
ed17331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 08:57 PM   #10
Hobohunter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: East Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 293
My Ride: Mustang GT
Year: 2016
Transmission: Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed17331 View Post
So does an X-Ray machine in a hospital.

But back to the point...
I agree with you that discharging a nuclear weapon is far more concerning than any radiation emitted by the cruise missile reactor during flight. But they can launch these things and fly them around anywhere in the world spewing radiation into the atmosphere for months at a time WITHOUT activating the nuclear warhead payloads. In other words, these weapons cause serious environmental damage even if they are never used for Armageddon.

I think you are assuming they would never be LAUNCHED unless as part of a nuclear strike. Whereas I am assuming they could be launched as a deterrent whenever Russia feels particularly threatened or paranoid and fly around spewing radiation for weeks and months until the perceived crisis was over (without dropping nukes).

Even testing such a weapon delivery system (not the warhead) during and after development is environmentally problematic.
X-ray machines emit radiation, the Russian cruise missile emits radioactive nuclei that then emit radiation each time they decay through a whole chain of unstable elements. The difference is that once you turn the x-ray machine off, the radiation stops. The radioactive nuclei will emit radiation until it's progressed through it's decay chain.

If the Russians launch their cruise missiles and let them tootle about in the sky until they decide to send them to targets and we'd not take action, I'd be beyond surprised. That's like the entire plot of the Cold War.
Hobohunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 09:11 PM   #11
ed17331
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 21
My Ride: 2002 BMW 325i Sedan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobohunter View Post
X-ray machines emit radiation, the Russian cruise missile emits radioactive nuclei that then emit radiation each time they decay through a whole chain of unstable elements. The difference is that once you turn the x-ray machine off, the radiation stops. The radioactive nuclei will emit radiation until it's progressed through it's decay chain.



If the Russians launch their cruise missiles and let them tootle about in the sky until they decide to send them to targets and we'd not take action, I'd be beyond surprised. That's like the entire plot of the Cold War.


Just so weíre clear, I was not comparing X-Ray machine radiation emissions with the Russian cruise missiles. It was a response to your comment that nuclear submarines emit low levels of radiation.

The other information you provided was interesting (and I respect your nuclear experience).
ed17331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 09:18 PM   #12
Hobohunter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: East Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 293
My Ride: Mustang GT
Year: 2016
Transmission: Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed17331 View Post
Just so weíre clear, I was not comparing X-Ray machine radiation emissions with the Russian cruise missiles. It was a response to your comment that nuclear submarines emit low levels of radiation.

The other information you provided was interesting (and I respect your nuclear experience).
I figured as much, and my point was not that our nuclear ships emit radiation, but that they on occasions discharge radioactivity to the environment. The radiation from the reactors is not strong enough to penetrate the hull of the ship with any great strength, and what little amount does make it out is attenuated very quickly by the sea water surrounding it. Both steel and water are fantastic radiation shields.
Hobohunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 09:55 PM   #13
ed17331
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 21
My Ride: 2002 BMW 325i Sedan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobohunter View Post
I figured as much, and my point was not that our nuclear ships emit radiation, but that they on occasions discharge radioactivity to the environment. The radiation from the reactors is not strong enough to penetrate the hull of the ship with any great strength, and what little amount does make it out is attenuated very quickly by the sea water surrounding it. Both steel and water are fantastic radiation shields.


So we agree that nuclear powered cruise missiles are much worse (environmentally speaking)?
ed17331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 07:13 AM   #14
Hobohunter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: East Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 293
My Ride: Mustang GT
Year: 2016
Transmission: Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed17331 View Post
So we agree that nuclear powered cruise missiles are much worse (environmentally speaking)?
Sure, they likely are. At the moment I doubt we know the size of the propulsion unit, and how it works. We tried in, I believe, the sixties and onward to make a nuclear powered rocket engine to replace chemical rockets for space flight.

It sounds like it's probably some sort of ram-jet so I would imagine it takes outside air and passes it through the reactor to heat it up and exhaust it out the back. That would irradiate the air and some of it would be radioactive until it decays. I think most of what's in air decays quickly and returns to normal air in a short time. But it's a Russian design so I would bet the fuel isn't well built and it'll spread fission products out the exhaust as well, and that's where you get the long, loooooong lasting radioactive elements.

Short answer, most likely it's much worse for the environment.
Hobohunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 08:36 AM   #15
bgsmith
Registered User
 
bgsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hingham, MA
Posts: 1,164
My Ride: No longer an e46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed17331 View Post
I think we all agree that this recent weapons test accident and radiation release at Severodvinsk is nowhere near the scale and danger of the Chernobyl disaster (although we have few details at this early point, and we know the Russians tend to downplay these things, ahem).

Iím sure mister smith was simply attempting to make a joke out of this event and a TV show he recently watched.
__________________
bgsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.