The prophecy is more than seeing into the future. For the prophecy sees without the element of time. For the prophecy sees things as they were, as they are, and as they always shall be.
The tangible prospect of defeat in Ukraine has increased the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons in the conflict, a former British general said.
Moscow would probably use a 10-kilotonne warhead set on an Iskander missile, he said, creating a massive fireball incinerating people and buildings within 150 metres of ground zero, while causing third-degree burns within a 1.6-kilometre radius.
Kyiv’s forces recent gains, especially around the Russian-held city of Kherson, have raised the possibility of Russia facing “catastrophic success for Ukraine”, Sir Richard wrote in The Times, but if “Putin senses strategic defeat, he is likely to employ tactical nuclear weapons”.
A nuclear attack would “break an enormous taboo”, being the first use of the weapons since the US dropped two atom bombs on Japan in 1945, but it was not “inconceivable to Russians if the ends justify it in their eyes”. The Hiroshima blast stemmed from a 15-kilotonne bomb that killed 146,000 people.
The potential for a “catastrophic miscalculation” by Moscow could come as early as spring next year if its forces were being pushed out of Ukraine, said the former head of Britain’s Joint Forces Command.
The retired officer’s warning comes after concerns raised by western officials, who told The National late last month that “Russia had definitively lost the initiative” and faced with defeat had “other tools available which it could choose to employ which would escalate the situation”.
“It comes down to how threatened the Russian state feels,” Sir Richard said. “The more threatened or cornered it becomes, the more likely it will be to reach for essentially the types of tools [nuclear weapons] that you’re talking about.”
President Vladimir Putin oversees the test of a new Russian hypersonic missile system called Avangard, which can carry nuclear and conventional warheads, in Moscow. Reuters
Sir Richard wrote that Russian doctrine was to use small nuclear weapons “to impose unacceptable damage on an opponent as a means of coercion”, particularly when “the existence of the state is in question”.
To avoid the nuclear radiation from a ground detonation, it would likely be an air blast from 700 metres that fired over a town such as Kramatorsk would create a fatal radiation dose to anyone within 1km.
A warhead could also be dropped on a Ukrainian brigade of up to 5,000 personnel, causing mass casualties.
While a nuclear strike would “create great sense of peril around the world”, a smaller device would “not physically touch areas beyond the borders of Ukraine”, Sir Richard said.
“These weapons exist for just the sort of circumstances the war in Ukraine may lead to, so nobody should claim total surprise if they are used.”
Were such a devastating assault to materialise, defence alliance Nato might escalate efforts to remove Mr Putin from power.
While it was unlikely to lead to all-out nuclear Armageddon between the great powers, Sir Richard warned it could lead to countries such as India and Pakistan becoming more willing to use nuclear weapons on each other.
12:58, Thu, Aug 4, 2022 | UPDATED: 13:03, Thu, Aug 4, 2022
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time.
The Kremlin warned that it could use the lethal weapons “if western countries try to test our resolve”. Russian diplomat Alexander Trofimov listed two “hypothetical scenarios” which could trigger a nuclear response. Speaking at the nuclear non-proliferation conference on Tuesday, Mr Trofimov denied that Russia has threatened to use its nuclear arsenal against Ukraine.
He said this is “utterly unfounded, detached from reality and unacceptable”.
However, he said Russia could use nuclear weapons “in response to weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapons attack that threatened the existence of the Russian state”.
He added: “None of these two hypothetical scenarios is relevant to the situation in Ukraine”.
August 4, 2022: Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe that China has the capability to launch nuclear weapons that could reach the United States. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that just 9% think they do not, and 26% are not sure.
However, the survey also found that 59% think it is likely that, if China launched such an attack, U.S. defense systems could stop those weapons. Twenty-three percent (23%) say that is not likely, and 19% are not sure.
Methodology The survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen on July 19-21, 2022. Fieldwork for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc. Certain quotas were applied, and the sample was lightly weighted by geography, gender, age, race, education, internet usage, and political party to reasonably reflect the nation’s population of registered voters. Other variables were reviewed to ensure that the final sample is representative of that population.
The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 2.8 percentage points.
Note: Neither Scott Rasmussen, ScottRasmussen.com, nor RMG Research, Inc. have any affiliation with Rasmussen Reports. While Scott Rasmussen founded that firm, he left nearly a decade ago and has had no involvement since that time.
Scott Rasmussen is founder and president of the Rasmussen Media Group. He is a political analyst, author, public speaker, independent public opinion pollster and columnist for Creators Syndicate. Read Scott Rasmussen’s Reports
12:58, Thu, Aug 4, 2022 | UPDATED: 13:03, Thu, Aug 4, 2022
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time.
The Kremlin warned that it could use the lethal weapons “if western countries try to test our resolve”. Russian diplomat Alexander Trofimov listed two “hypothetical scenarios” which could trigger a nuclear response. Speaking at the nuclear non-proliferation conference on Tuesday, Mr Trofimov denied that Russia has threatened to use its nuclear arsenal against Ukraine.
He said this is “utterly unfounded, detached from reality and unacceptable”.
However, he said Russia could use nuclear weapons “in response to weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapons attack that threatened the existence of the Russian state”.
He added: “None of these two hypothetical scenarios is relevant to the situation in Ukraine”.
A Russian sailor prepares for Navy Day in Kronstadt Navy base, outside St.Petersburg, Russia, … [+] COPYRIGHT 2020 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
With No U.S. Pushback, China Follows Russia, Eying New Nihilistic Weaponry
I evaluate national security threats and propose solutions.Follow
Aug 3, 2022,08:54am EDT
As the Biden Administration prepares to roll out an abruptly revised and more Russia-focused national security strategy within the next few weeks, it is no secret that the process of formulating America’s national security strategy is broken. America’s strategic challenges are multi-faceted, the formative process is bureaucratically painful, and, by the time America’s grand new national defense strategy is finally ready to be implemented, it is either overtaken by events or a whole new team is settling into the White House.
It is a corrosive exercise. As one administration after another produces National Security Strategies full of little more than watered-down, overly-broad proclamations about protecting the “American people, the homeland and the American way of life,” talented national security operators are opting out of the entire process, leaving it to folks who enjoy nothing more than long DC meetings and slapping backs during mid-meeting coffee klatches. But the failure to produce a durable, long-term national security strategy is trickling down to other components within the national security space. Rather than build to a defined strategy, the U.S. Navy and others take refuge in a “warfighter” ethos, focusing on building a grab-bag of tactics with no defined goal or end-state.
At the top, America’s leisurely path towards an underwhelming and watered-down strategic “document” does America no good. This failure to quickly generate bold, responsive and longer-term strategies leads to strategic paralysis and has real national security consequences.
The world moves quickly. Rivals quickly identify and focus in on America’s policy gaps, knowing that America’s ponderous national security processes won’t respond.
Few push back on Vladimir Putin’s strategic nihilism AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
Al-Wasil speaking at the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on Wednesday.
Saudi Gazette report
NEW YORK — Saudi Arabia’s new Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Wasil said that Iran’s practices increase the risks of nuclear proliferation.
Al-Wasil was speaking at the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on Wednesday.
He said that freeing the Middle East from nuclear weapons is a collective responsibility.
“Transparency is necessary for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Iran’s lack of transparency with the International Atomic Energy Agency violates the UN Charter.”
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres addresses the 2022 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons at the United Nations in New York City on August 1, 2022
United Nations – UN head Antonio Guterres warned Monday that a misunderstanding could spark nuclear destruction as the United States, Britain and France urged Russia to stop “its dangerous nuclear rhetoric and behaviour.”
Citing Russia’s war with Ukraine and tensions on the Korean peninsula and in the Middle East, Guterres said he feared that crises “with nuclear undertones” could escalate.
“Today, humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation,” Guterres told the 10th review conference of the NPT, an international treaty that came into force in 1970 to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
“We have been extraordinarily lucky so far. But luck is not a strategy. Nor is it a shield from geopolitical tensions boiling over into nuclear conflict,” he added, calling on nations to “put humanity on a new path towards a world free of nuclear weapons.”
The meeting, held at the UN’s headquarters in New York, has been postponed several times since 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It will run until August 26.
Guterres said the conference was “a chance to strengthen” the treaty and “make it fit for the worrying world around us.
“Almost 13,000 nuclear weapons are now being held in arsenals around the world. All this at a time when the risks of proliferation are growing and guardrails to prevent escalation are weakening,” Guterres added.
In January, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France — had pledged to prevent the further dissemination of nuclear weapons.
On Monday, America, Britain and France reaffirmed their commitment in a joint statement, saying a “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
The three also took aim at Russia, urging Moscow to respect its international commitments under the NPT.
The statement came as US President Joe Biden called on Russia and China to enter nuclear arms control talks.
The US leader reiterated in a statement that his administration is ready to “expeditiously negotiate” a replacement to New START, the treaty capping intercontinental nuclear forces in the United States and Russia, which is set to expire in 2026.
The NPT, which the signatories review every five years, aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote complete disarmament and promote cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
At the last review conference in 2015, the parties were unable to reach agreement on substantive issues.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday there could be no winners in a nuclear war and no such war should ever be started.
Putin made the comment in a letter to participants of a conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), more than five months into his war on Ukraine.
“We proceed from the fact that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed, and we stand for equal and indivisible security for all members of the world community,” he said.
International concern about the risk of a nuclear confrontation has heightened since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24. In a speech at the time, Putin pointedly referred to Russia’s nuclear arsenal and warned outside powers against any attempt to interfere.
Iran Is Trying to Play the Saudis Against the US. It Won’t Work.
With US President Joe Biden having departed the Middle East, the region’s two prime antagonists are thinking about just getting along. Iran and Saudi Arabia, having completed five rounds of talks in Iraq over the past year, both said last week they were moving toward higher-level negotiations on reconciliation. Paradoxically, this budding rapprochement between friend and foe offers important opportunities for Washington.
After severing diplomatic ties following a January 2016 mob attack on the Saudi Embassy in Tehran, the Riyadh government hoped sanctions on Iran by President Donald Trump’s administration might produce a change in Iranian conduct. Instead, Iran became more aggressive than ever, culminating with a devastating missile strike on Saudi Aramco facilities in September 2019.
The Trump administration, usually bellicose toward Iran, turned a blind eye, noting that no Americans had been killed. That proved a final straw for the Saudis. They were already upset that the Barack Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran ignored two main concerns — Iran’s drone and missile arsenal, and its network of armed gangs in Arab countries including Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.
Story continues below advertisement
The Saudis concluded that Washington was no longer reliable, and that if they wanted their top security issues involving Tehran to be on the negotiating table, they were going to put them there by themselves. After the 2020 US election, that realization dovetailed with the Biden administration’s encouragement of diplomacy over the use of force in the region.
The formal reconciliation talks began in April 2021 at the Baghdad airport; Iraq constituting something approximating neutral ground. Initially, little progress was made. The Saudis focused on getting Iran to pressure its Houthi clients in Yemen to agree to a cease-fire and eventual peace settlement in a war that has turned into a quagmire for Riyadh. The Iranians wanted only to discuss restoring diplomatic relations.
But after the fifth round earlier this year, and amid the growing sense that Iran was stubbornly blocking Biden’s effort to revive the nuclear deal, there was a minor, but real, breakthrough. Responding to Iranian prodding, the Houthis finally agreed to a truce, which has lasted more than two months and allowed significant humanitarian relief into the beleaguered country.
Story continues below advertisement
The Saudis’ securing and maintaining the cease-fire in the bloody conflict pleased the White House and Congress. Riyadh also took the opportunity to finally rid itself of the obstreperous Yemeni president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, replacing him with a new Presidential Leadership Council.
Another round of talks, which seems imminent, will come at a pivotal moment in US relations with friends and foes in the Middle East. Biden’s visit was intended to repair strained US-Saudi relations. But perhaps more importantly, the president encouraged Saudi Arabia to join other Arab countries, and even Israel, in building a set of informal cooperative security arrangements. These would include air- and missile-defense systems to offset Iran’s increasingly powerful arsenal.
The eventual aim of such expanded collaboration is for the US military to reduce its Middle East footprint, doing less with more, because regional cooperation could prove more effective and sustainable than outside intervention.
Story continues below advertisement
Not everything is going smoothly. There are already signs that the Houthis may break the uneasy truce in Yemen. Iran will play a central role in whether that happens, because it uses such militias to increase or relieve pressure on its adversaries, adjusting violence like turning a spigot.
It’s also clear that Tehran hopes to use the reconciliation talks with Riyadh to drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia. The idea is to make the Saudis choose between either rebuilding close cooperation with Washington or achieving rapprochement with Iran and extraction from the Yemen war.
It’s a crude trap. Washington can outflank Tehran by strengthening security commitments to Saudi Arabia, while making it clear it expects greater Saudi cooperation on energy production and pricing, keeping Russia and China at arm’s length, and being open to greater regional security coordination. The Gulf Arab countries still have major doubts about US commitment and reliability, but they understand there’s no practical alternative to American support.
Story continues below advertisement
Iranian media are playing up Saudi Arabia’s supposed enthusiasm for wide-ranging reconciliation, but in fact the Saudis remain highly skeptical. The US and Saudi Arabia can give the Iranians a set of clear choices: They can have relations restored with the Saudis, a renewed nuclear agreement with Washington, and respect for legitimate security concerns — but only on reasonable terms, starting with curbing violence by their regional proxies.
The partnership between Washington and Riyadh may not be as strong as it once was, but it’s clearly on the mend. And it’s certainly still strong enough to be able to show Iran that it can’t score cheap victories by trying to divide them.
A senior Biden administration official reportedly thinks resuscitating the tattered nuclear agreement with Iran would be “highly unlikely” in the near future.
According to a report Wednesday by the Axios news site, White House National Security Council Middle East coordinator Brett McGurk believes Iran wants the U.S. “to add something to the pot” to help advocates of the deal the Islamic Republic’s internal debate with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but “we are not going to do that.”
But he argued the deal carries very significant benefits. “If the deal is rejected, we risk a dangerous nuclear crisis, set against the prospect of increased isolation for Iran and its people,” Borrell wrote. “It is our joint responsibility to conclude the deal.”
Talks in Vienna to revive the deal have been at an impasse for months. The Biden administration blames the Trump administration‘s decision to withdraw from the deal in 2018 for the current crisis, claiming the accord had been “working” even though Tehran was in clear violation of its terms prior to that.
Amid pressure from Israel, the U.S. last month said it would not concede to Iran’s demand to remove the IRGC from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, effectively torpedoing the negotiations.
McGurk said the Biden administration will continue to employ sanctions and diplomatic isolation against Iran, “but not needlessly escalate the situation.” It would only use military action as a last resort, he said.
In an op-ed in the Financial Times, Borrell said after more than a year of talks to revive the deal, the sides have reached “the best possible deal that I, as facilitator of the negotiations, see as feasible.”
The Iran deal “remains politically polarizing in Washington as the midterm elections approach,” Borrell said, and added that it “may not have addressed all U.S. concerns with respect to Iran.”
He added that the non-deal alternative was “dangerous.”
“If the deal is rejected, we risk a dangerous nuclear crisis, set against the prospect of increased isolation for Iran and its people,” Borrell wrote. “It is our joint responsibility to conclude the deal.”
White House Middle East coordinator Brett McGurk told a group of think tank experts last week it’s “highly unlikely” that the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran will be revived in the near future, according to three U.S. sources who were on the call.
Why it matters: The shrinking likelihood that the deadlock in the nuclear talks will be broken increases the pressure on the Biden administration to formulate a Plan B.
Behind the scenes: McGurk said on the briefing call that the reason there is no nuclear deal is that the Iranians are unable to make a decision, according to the three sources.
McGurk said his theory is that Iran wants the U.S. “to add something to the pot” to help those who want a deal in the internal debate with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but “we are not going to do that.”
With a deal highly unlikely in the near future, McGurk said the Biden administration intends to use sanctions and diplomatic isolation against Iran, “but not needlessly escalate the situation,” and use force only as a last resort, according to the three sources.
He said the divergence of views with Israel isn’t about the issue of a possible military strike, but about whether the U.S. should still try to revive the 2015 nuclear deal or shift to pushing for a “longer and stronger” deal.
The White House declined to comment.
State of play: The most recent round of indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran a month ago in Qatar ended with no progress and no date set for another round.
During his trip to the Middle East, President Biden said the U.S. wouldn’t “wait forever” for Iran to respond to its proposal to revive the deal.
U.S. officials are concerned the nuclear deal is close to becoming irrelevant, as Iran has taken steps to advance its nuclear program and limit the work of UN inspectors.
What they’re saying: EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, who is leading the mediation efforts between the U.S. and Iran, said in a Financial Times op-ed on Tuesday that after 15 months of negotiations he concluded that “the space for additional significant compromises has been exhausted.”
Borrell wrote that he has put on the table a draft agreement that addresses, in detail, the lifting of sanctions by the U.S. as well as the nuclear steps that Iran must take.
“This text represents the best possible deal… decisions need to be taken now… if the deal is rejected, we risk a dangerous nuclear crisis,” Borrell wrote.
On Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian spoke with Borrell on the phone and told him that if the United States takes a realistic step towards finding a solution and reaching an agreement, a good deal will be available to all parties, the Iranian foreign ministry said in a statement.
Abdollahian told Borrell that Iran welcomes the continuation of the path of diplomacy and negotiations. “America always states that it wants an agreement, so this approach should be seen in the text of the agreement and in practice,” he said.
Borrell told his Iranian counterpart that he is ready to facilitate and accelerate this process through communication and consultation with all parties.
What’s next: U.S. Iran envoy Rob Malley and other Biden administration officials will give a classified briefing to the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday about the negotiations and the status of the Iranian nuclear program.
Iran will keep the UN nuclear watchdog’s cameras turned off until a 2015 nuclear deal is restored, the head of the country’s Atomic Energy Organization said on Monday, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported.
Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency it had removed IAEA equipment, including 27 cameras installed under the 2015 pact with world powers, after the agency passed a resolution criticizing Tehran in June. “We will not turn on the IAEA cameras until the other side returns to the nuclear deal,” Iranian nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami said.
The 2015 nuclear pact imposed curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities in return for the lifting of international sanctions. Then-president Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the deal in 2018, reimposing tough economic sanctions on Tehran.
Iran’s ruling clerics responded by breaching the pact’s nuclear restrictions. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani on Monday accused IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi of having “unprofessional, unfair and unconstructive views” on Tehran’s nuclear program.
He also added that Tehran hopes a return to the nuclear deal can be reached soon should the United States show goodwill. “Iran is committed to talks and will continue until a good and sustainable deal is reached,” Kanaani said at his weekly news conference. Iran’s nuclear program is “galloping ahead” and the IAEA has very limited visibility on what is happening, Grossi told Spain’s El Pais newspaper in an interview published on Friday.
Western powers warn Iran is getting closer to being able to sprint toward making a nuclear bomb. Iran denies wanting to. Indirect talks between Iran and the United States on reviving the 2015 deal have been stalled since March. French President Emmanuel Macron expressed his disappointment to his Iranian counterpart Ebrahim Raisi at the lack of progress over talks, the Elysee Palace said on Saturday. The Biden administration has made clear it has no plan to drop the IRGC from the list, a step that would have limited practical effect but which would anger many US lawmakers.—AN
CHINA has unveiled plans for fearsome nuclear drone torpedoes that would be able to fire swarms of devastating torpedoes across the entire Pacific Ocean.
Beijing scientists claim the new torpedo could be mass-produced, allowing it to be fired from virtually any warship or submarine.
China has unveiled designs for its new nuclear drone torpedoesCredit: GettyIt is similar to the Russian Poseidon uncrewed nuclear droneCredit: Twitter
However, China claims that, unlike Russia’s model, their torpedo will be easier to produce, and can be placed into a standard torpedo tube, rather than needing a custom-designed tube.
Researchers in Beijing say they have completed the design for its small, low-cost nuclear reactor which would be able to unleash a swarm of torpedoes across the Pacific Ocean in around a week.
Each torpedo would use a throwaway nuclear reactor to keep it at its cruising speed of over 30 knots (35mph) for 200 hours before dumping it on the seafloor.
Lead scientist Guo Jian from China’s Institute of Atomic Energy claimed in a paper published this month by the peer-reviewed Journal of Unmanned Undersea Systems that there is a key difference between their design and the Russian “Poseidon”.
“Thanks to its high flexibility and low cost, this unmanned underwater vehicle equipped with the nuclear power system can be used as a conventional force like an attack nuclear submarine, rather than as a nuclear missile.”
Russia’s Poseidon was touted as being capable of flattening an entire city or larger area using its two-megaton nuclear weapon – around 100 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
But Chinese researchers claim such a weapon would spark a nuclear war that would destroy the world, making it unlikely to ever be developed.
This unmanned underwater vehicle equipped with the nuclear power system can be used as a conventional force like an attack nuclear submarineGuo JianLead scientist
Instead, Guo says China’s weapon would be able to be used “in reconnaissance, tracking, attack and strategic strike”.
The low-cost reactor would produce more than 1.4 megawatts of heat from less than 8.8lbs (4kg) of low-concentration uranium fuel.
This would be enough energy to power the torpedo across the Pacific Ocean.
“When the manufacturing cost is low enough, even if the nuclear-powered device can only be used once, the overall cost will be low,” the researchers said.
“This, in turn, stimulates us to make the system simpler and smaller.”
According to the team, the rector could run for up to 400 hours while travelling some 10,000km, roughly the distance between Shanghai and San Francisco.
Putin’s massive Poseidon drone will carry a two-megaton nuclear weapon
It could be in regular operation this year
Putin said the weapon was designed so Russia could destroy enemy naval bases
If deployed underwater, it could cause a tsunami as big as 300ft
It will travel at speeds of 60-70 knots underwater in a specially built submarine
The weapon was unveiled by Vladimir Putin during his State of the Nation address on March 1, 2018
Experts have warned the damage could match Japan’s 2011 tsunami when 20,000 people died
As it travels across the ocean, the reactor would separate from the torpedo and sink to the bottom of the ocean, triggering a safety mechanism to kill the remaining chain reaction.
This, the scientists claim, would prevent any form of nuclear accident from being triggered by the torpedos.
“Even if the hull is broken, the interior is filled with water, and the whole body falls into the wet sand on the seabed, the reactor will not have a critical accident,” they added. “Safety is ensured.”
Last year, US diplomat Robert Wood claimed that China is looking at exotic nuclear delivery systems such as Russia’s Poseidon drone and Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, the Associated Press reported.
However, Asia Times reported that the weapon may never get beyond a prototype.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said that China is known for following the lead of the US and Russia and then leaving its designs unbuilt.
While a study last year by the Nautilus Institute found that the Poseidon drone may only have marginal military value despite its devastating capabilities.
Russia’s New Massive Sub Carries Poseidon Secret Weapon
Russia’s Navy has taken delivery of the world’s longest submarine.
The submarine, known as the Belgorod, is over 608 feet long. It was turned over to the Russian Navy earlier this month, CNN reported.
While its creator claims it is a research vessel, others say that it is a platform for espionage or even nuclear weapons.
The Belgorod’s design, according to experts, is a modified version of Russia’s Oscar II class guided-missile submarines, made longer in order to eventually accommodate equipment for intelligence gathering and the world’s first stealth torpedoes armed with nuclear weapons.
The Belgorod’s success in adding these abilities to the Russian Navy could potentially set the stage for Russian and U.S. submarines tracking and hunting each other, as they did during the Cold War.
The submarine is expected to carry the Poseidon nuclear-capable torpedoes. These are being designed to be launched from hundreds of miles and to travel along the ocean floor in order to sneak past coastal defenses.
“This nuclear ‘mega torpedo’ is unique in the history of the world. Poseidon is a completely new category of weapon. It will reshape naval planning in both Russia and the West, leading to new requirements and new counter-weapons,” according to American submarine expert H.I. Sutton.
Receive breaking news and original analysis – sent right to your inbox.
Both Russian and U.S. officials have stated that the torpedoes are able to carry warheads of multiple megatons, which could cause radioactive waves and make much of the target coastline uninhabitable for decades. Christopher A. Ford, then assistant secretary of state for international security and non-proliferation, said in November 2020 that the torpedoes are designed to “inundate U.S. coastal cities with radioactive tsunamis.” A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report earlier this year said that the Poseidons are meant as retaliatory weapons. The report added that the Belgorod can carry up to eight Poseidons.
According to Sutton, the Poseidon, expected to be 2 meters in diameter and more than 20 meters long, is “the largest torpedo ever developed,” saying that the Poseidon’s size is “30 times the size of a regular ‘heavyweight’ torpedo.”
The CRS said it does not expect the Poseidons to be deployed until 2027.
Sutton stated that the Belgorod would also probably operate as an intelligence gathering platform, saying that the submarine “will be crewed by the Russian Navy but operated under GUGI, the secretive Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research organization.” It will also carry midget submarines and submersibles in order to “conduct covert special missions.”
By Danyal Hussain For Daily Mail Australia 11:23 EDT 23 Jul 2022 , updated 20:27 EDT 23 Jul 2022
Chinese scientists have claimed to have developed long-range ‘disposable’ nuclear-powered torpedoes that could hit Australia in just a week.
The Communist superpower wants to use tiny ‘disposable’ nuclear reactors to propel its long-range torpedos, which would make the weapons smaller and harder to detect.
Under the plans, is proposing to gather a large fleet of low-cost ‘killer robots’ that can be carried by any military ship or submarine and placed into a standard torpedo tube.
China wants to use tiny ‘disposable’ nuclear reactors to propel its long-range torpedos, which would make the weapons smaller and harder to detect Beijing could use the weapon to ‘strike submarines as they leave a port in home waters that is difficult to reach by manned platforms’. It has been compared to Russia’s Poseidon nuclear-powered drone (pictured)
could use the weapon to ‘strike submarines as they leave a port in home waters that is difficult to reach by manned platforms’, according to the .
It would be able to drive a swarm of torpedoes across the Pacific Ocean in about a week, researchers have claimed.
Scientist completed a conceptual design for the weapons system in a paper published this month.
Scientist Guo Jian from the China Institute of Atomic Energy says China will build the weapon with ‘mature and simple technology that is easy to use and maintain, inexpensive and suitable for mass production.’
‘We need to think out of the box,’ he explained. ‘Thanks to its high flexibility and low cost, this unmanned underwater vehicle equipped with the nuclear power system can be used as a conventional force like an attack nuclear submarine, rather than as a nuclear missile.’
The scientist likened the weapon system to Vladimir Putin’s notorious Poseidon system.
Under the plans, China is proposing to gather a large fleet of low-cost ‘killer robots’ that can be carried by any military ship or submarine and placed into a standard torpedo tube British nuclear-powered attack submarine HMS Astute at HMAS Stirling Royal Australian Navy base in Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 29 October 2021. Britain is to send a fleet of nuclear submarines to the Pacific in a decisive move to thwart Chinese aggression in the region
Poseidon is a Russian nuclear weapon that is a blend of torpedo and drone.
Moscow claims it is unstoppable by current nuclear defences, and could be used to destroy coastal cities or blow up aircraft carriers and their battle groups.
The weapon is designed to trigger a tsunami off any coastal city with a nuclear warhead.
Now, Chinese researchers claim they can deliver their version of the weapon within 10 years.
They have also insisted it is not a ‘dirty bomb’ or a nuclear weapon in disguise.
The small reactor would be ‘ejected’ to the seabed shortly before the torpedo strikes its target – with an on-board battery pushing it to its target.
This would leave the radioactive material outside any blast radius.
Guo says the submarine’s high speed and endurance will also allow it to inspect distant waters and track potential targets.
Two Australian Collins class submarines (front) and the UK nuclear-powered attack submarine, HMS Astute (rear) are seen at HMAS Stirling Royal Australian Navy base in Perth The AUKUS deal was signed by the Morrison government and has the backing of Anthony Albanese (pictured)
The revelation comes as Britain prepares to send a fleet of nuclear submarines to the Pacific in a decisive move to thwart Chinese aggression in the region.
The dramatic decision could see UK subs based in Australia until 2040, operating within striking distance of .
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the head of the Armed Forces, will agree the arrangement at a naval conference in next week. Assigning submarines to patrol the South China Sea will be Britain’s most assertive move yet against .
According to reports in Australia, Royal Navy submarines would be based at on the country’s western coast and Australian submariners would be incorporated into British crews to improve their skills.
Basing the Royal Navy boats thousands of miles from UK shores is part of the AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom and United States) security alliance.
AUKUS was set up last year primarily to confront Chinese military expansionism in the Indo-Pacific.
Then defence minister Peter Dutton signed a formal agreement in November last year alongside the US and UK to allow the countries to share information on nuclear-powered vessels
Australia has become embroiled in a trade war and diplomatic stand-off with China.
The deepening of defence ties with the UK is likely to cause further outrage with the Communist regime, which is vehemently opposed to AUKUS.
The Royal Navy declined to say how many of its submarines could be relocated to Australia, as all operational details surrounding Britain’s sub-surface fleet are classified.
The ‘Pacific tilt’ was signalled last year as part of the MoD’s Integrated Review.
The review set the target for the UK to become ‘the European partner with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific’.
Why is Australia building nuclear-powered submarines?
Why nuclear submarines?
Nuclear submarines are powered by nuclear reactors which produce heat that creates high-pressured steam to spin turbines and power the boat’s propeller.
They can run for about 20 years before needing to refuel, meaning food supplies are the only limit on time at sea.
The boats are also very quiet, making it harder for enemies to detect them and can travel at top speed – about 40kmh – for longer than diesel-powered subs.
The first nuclear submarines were put to sea by the United States in the 1950s. They are now also in use by Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, and India.
A senior US defence official told reporters in Washington DC: ‘This will give Australia the capability for their submarines to basically deploy for a longer period, they’re quieter, they’re much more capable.
‘They will allow us to sustain and to improve deterrence across the Indo-Pacific.’
Zack Cooper, a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, said nuclear submarines would hugely boost Australia’s military capability.
‘They are going to be much, much more capable in the large, expansive ocean that is Australia has to deal with,’ he told the ABC.
Will Australia have nuclear weapons?
Scott Morrison made it clear that the nuclear-power submarines will not have nuclear missiles on board.
Australia has never produced nuclear weapons and signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1973 which prevents non-nuclear states which don’t already have them from developing nuclear weapons.
Mr Morrison also said the Australia has no plans to build nuclear power stations which are widely used around the world.
‘But let me be clear, Australia is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability,’ he said.
‘And we will continue to meet all our nuclear non-proliferation obligations.’
Are they safe?
The nuclear reactors are shielded from the rest of the submarine in a separate section to protect the crew from dangerous radiation.
The US has an excellent safety record with its nuclear-powered fleet although early Russian subs suffered a few accidents which caused 20 servicemen to die from radiation exposure between 1960 and 1985.
At the end of their 20-year lifetimes, the contaminated parts of nuclear reactors need to be disposed deep underground in special waste storage cells.
Anti-nuclear campaigners say any leaks of radioactive waste could lead to an environmental disaster.
Greens leader Adam Bandt called the submarines ‘floating Chernobyls’ in reference to the 1986 nuclear power plant explosion in the Soviet Union.
Why now?
Australia needs to replace its six ageing Collins-class submarines.
In 2016 it signed a deal with French Company Naval Group to build 12 diesel-electric attack subs – but the parties were in dispute over the amount of building that would be done in Australia.
That deal has now been torn up in favour of nuclear powered subs aided by the US and UK who will provide the technology to Australia.
The West is becoming increasingly concerned about the growing assertiveness of China in the Indo-Pacific region where it has made huge territorial claims in the South and East China seas, clashed with Indian troops and repeatedly flown planes over Taiwan.
Mr Morrison wants Australia to have serious defence capability to deter China from encroaching in the Pacific and long-range nuclear submarines are just the ticket.
China has vastly built up its military in the past few years and now possesses six Shang-class nuclear powered attack submarines, equipped with torpedoes and cruise missiles.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/MI5KEO6BFSTVAS4PUFNOEDVEQI.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/6VUPBYD5M3RODSL23435LZFWTY.jpg)
