Eve here. Some of the speculation about Russia’s new Oreshnik missiles has been debunked by subsequent news reports and unusually forthcoming comments from Vladimir Putin.
Western commentators have tried to minimize the weapon’s efficacy by saying it contained no explosives or, worse, that it was a futile weapon. This is a serious misunderstanding. Our respected commentators figured out how Oreshnik works early on. From the comments:
boxer red legs >In blast calculations, the distance from the explosive is divided by the square or cube of the explosive weight to get a scaled distance.
Damages include:
1. Direct impact of projectiles
2. Shock waves from projectile impacts (and air pressure at 3+ km/s arrival velocities) propagating through any material that is not in a vacuum.
3. Vibration due to impact.
Multiply by each warhead and use their respective distances to calculate the cumulative effect of shock/vibration damage from impact.No explosives required. Energy = 0.5*mass*(velocity^2). The damage is intense and resembles a hammer blow rather than an explosion.
What I was trying to say (too hastily) is that if we assume that this is a purely kinetic warhead, i.e. a block of dense material, then there is no need for that much heat shielding since there are no sensitive elements to protect the inside of the warhead. There are no sensors and no control surfaces.
The impact energy of 80 kg of tungsten striking at Mach 10 is the same regardless of surface conditions or the heat of the projectile, as long as most of the mass reaches the target.
As has already been widely speculated, Putin said Oreshnik “has nuclear capability.” However, considering the possibilities given above, there seems to be no reason to carry conventional explosives, since raw kinetic force + extra overheat damage gives it a much bigger punch.
Author: Rob Urie, author of Zen Economics, artist and musician Journal of the Militant Pope on Substack
Russia’s reaction to the US ATACMS launch short The long-range missile, aimed at targets inside Russia, was to turn Ukraine’s large-scale military factories into fine dust using a new weapon that Russian President Vladimir Putin claims is currently in production.
Reports suggest that Russian weapons are non-nuclear, but very few are conventional. According to Ted Postol, the missile fired toward Ukraine reportedly traveled at speeds of up to Mach 10. The missile appeared to overheat due to the long glide at low altitude that occurred after it re-entered the atmosphere. And they combined heat and kinetic energy, achieving their goal of causing nuclear-scale destruction without nuclear technology.
Gilbert Doctorow suggests that the new Russian weapon is a smaller version of the existing liquid-fueled ICBM that Russia first unveiled in 2018. A non-nuclear ICBM can hit any city in the world, moves so fast that it cannot be stopped, and can destroy a swath of land with a single missile. size of uk.
The version launched in Ukraine has a solid-fuel rocket, making it more stable than the liquid-fueled version, according to Doctorow.
As if to demonstrate America’s intellectual decline, the New York Times reported that Russia’s new weapon could be equipped with a nuclear warhead. The reason this is almost incomprehensibly stupid is that weapons cause non-nuclear destruction on a nuclear scale. Equipping a nuclear warhead does not make a weapon less effective, but rather makes it a less effective weapon.
The reason this confusion is problematic is because the Times is a mouthpiece for the CIA and the Department of Defense. If these sources actually understand this little about Russian weapons, it means that the United States is incapable of understanding what Russia is making.
Due to the hypersonic speed of the weapon, it is impossible to stop using the technology as it currently exists. Given this and the weapon’s destructive power, the Russians could destroy any city within range of the weapon once it was launched, with no way for the intended target or its allies to stop it.
But, as Doctorow said, the bigger threat is ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). If one of these ICBMs were to hit Philadelphia, America’s ‘Eastern Corridor’ – New York and Washington – would also fall. If this were to happen, America as a country would no longer exist.
Some experts in Europe seem confused about who is launching the ATACMS missiles at Russia. Some commentators with different knowledge claimed that it was Ukraine that launched the missile. This appears to stem from the Biden administration’s framing that Ukraine was authorized to launch missiles when only the United States could launch missiles for technical and security reasons.
The point is that the Ukrainians did not fire ATACMS missiles at Russia, the Americans did. The Biden administration is trying to control the process without taking responsibility for the outcome by pretending that the decision to launch additional missiles lies with Zelensky and Ukraine.
The Biden administration appears to be assuming that the rest of the world is equally gullible and ignorant of basic facts. The Russians know who launched the missiles. The current level of confusion among the belligerents is on the US and European sides.
With apologies for using this phrase, the new weapons give Russia an ‘extension advantage’. That means Russia will emerge victorious over its adversaries as the parties expand due to the lethality and speed of new weapons.
With the military cupboard empty, the only escalating response the United States has left is nuclear weapons. Almost any use of nuclear weapons will begin, despite claims to the contrary from the Biden White House, President-elect Trump’s administration and U.S. defense agencies. series of events It will end humanity.
The Biden administration fired a second ATACMS missile toward Russia after new Russian weapons landed in Ukraine. This is because the U.S. military has publicly suggested that the United States deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine and stated that the United States is prepared to win a nuclear war.
The Russians have already stated that due to Ukraine’s proximity to Russia, Russia will not accept the deployment of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. According to retired U.S. Col. Doug MacGregor, U.S. do Nuclear weapons could be placed in Ukraine. According to MacGregor, that’s pretty much all the United States has left.
The incoming Trump administration will likely face a blustery belligerence, with Trump’s deputy national security adviser Sebastion Gorka and national security adviser Mike Walz displaying a crude belligerence coupled with almost complete ignorance of basic facts and certainties, while Biden & Co. It looks much dumber and more dangerous than . A truly, deeply, unworkable idea will change the course of history. Note: This is also an apt description of Biden and his brain trust. And they got us into the current mess.
Gorka, for example, is pushing the Trump campaign’s foolishness in threatening to pour weapons into Ukraine until Putin demands a ceasefire. One problem with this idea is that Ukraine has no military. When the floods come, there will be no one left to use American weapons. Another problem is that, according to the soldiers mentioned above, the U.S. military’s cupboards are empty, meaning the weapons needed to flood Ukraine would have to be produced first.
This led to Trump’s Ukraine plan being proposed in three- to five-year terms.
An additional, poorly thought-out point in this plan is that Biden’s entire logic for bringing Russians into Ukraine is to ‘bleed Russia’. The idea, as reported in the American media, was that Russia would waste blood and treasure in Ukraine to the extent that the United States could organize a colored revolution, remove President Putin, and then plunder Russia’s resources. While this makes Biden and his compatriots industrial-scale scumbags, it also reveals their deep ignorance of how far Russia and China have advanced since such a move was feasible.
The irony of Trump’s plan, if such a dangerous thing can be ironic, is that it will ‘bleed’ America. 1) The United States currently lacks the weapons to back up Trump’s threats. 2) The lead times and costs to produce the weapons Trump threatens to field are enormous. 3) The ‘plan’ reads like American nonsense and ranting. Because that is what it is.
The most striking thing about what Americans do and say is that they do not seem to understand the position in which America and the world find themselves. If the Americans are able to counter or stop Russia’s hypersonic weapons, their threats may seem rude, crude, and unnecessarily belligerent, but they’re not entirely crazy.
If Trump imagines that the Ukraine war will end with the 3Bs: belligerence, bullshit and bluff, this seems like a weak plan. Trump’s secondary problem is that his planned war against Israel across the entire Middle East depends on first ending the US war in Ukraine.
This could be read as an opportunity for the United States to march only in the Middle East and not repeat Hitler’s march to Europe, but a more likely outcome would be that being stranded in Stalingrad (Ukraine) would be the final blow. Justice might be served if the consequences were limited to the politicians who created this mess. But that’s not how the West works. They’ll be in the bunker when the rest of us are sent beyond. Thank you, Joe Biden.
Much of the technical information in these notes comes from public interviews with Ted Postol, Gilbert Doctorow, Scott Ritter, and Douglas MacGregor.
