No my friend is not about think 2 or 10 times is just to think that if that thing is armed and in the air millions of people will die in the next 30 minutes and nobody can do nothing to stop it That is to think about
If the US used atomic bomb to end a war, Russia can also use its nuclear weapon to end a war even if no sides will win, does it even matter for Russia? I don't think so.
@@kdennis9115: Maybe Planet Earth wins. Planet Earth would be much better off without the billions of humans infesting it like a plague and making hundreds of other species extinct. Look at how the wildlife in Chernobyl thrived after all the humans left!
It's funny, in the US itself citizens have not had any rights or freedoms for a long time, maybe Americans should discover this fact before worrying about Russia?
To be clear:- Satan-2 is one of several new nuclear delivery systems Russia has developed with the aim of overcoming evolving U.S. missile defense capabilities. The silo-based weapon measures 3 meters in diameter, 35.5 meters long, and weighs 229 tons-making it the heaviest ICBM on the planet once it enters service. The liquid-fueled missile boosts in three stages, allowing it to accelerate to a peak velocity exceeding 20 times the speed of sound as it arcs towards targets up to 6,800 to 11,000 miles away depending on payload. A successful test in April 2022 saw an RS-28 traverse roughly 3700 miles in 20 minutes-equating to an average speed of Mach 14.5, or over three miles per second. The Satan-2’s “bus” can accommodate up to 10 tons of weapons including 10 to 16 separate nuclear warheads (known as Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles or MIRVs), which can spray out to accurately attack separate targets, multiplying the number threats a defense system has to overcome. A typical Russian heavy MIRV might have a yield equivalent to 750 kilotons, or 50 times more powerful than the Little Boy bomb dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.
то что взорвалась на испытаниях. это радует. значит придумали, что то новое к ракете и испытывают. можно вспомнить как ракета с пл чуть не угробила министра обороны англии
Poseidon can devastate a port - but not a whole country. Poseidon can create a tsunami - but only a very small one compared to the Tohuku tsunami that hit Japan in 2011.
It's fascinating how the US didn't learn, but still keep provoking Russia. Whenever they has done a move to threaten Russia, Russia has came out of the situation much stronger. The same will happen now with Ukraine. Ukraine project was created to weaken Russia, but they weakened themselves 🤣
@@GarWhittaker Более 50 стран прямо или косвенно воюют против России, а Россия даже 20% своих сил не задействовала Тут важно понимать главное - Россия освобождает своих адекватных людей и исконно русские города на Украине. Поэтому бои ведут вдали от крупны городов, и поэтому русский город Киев не испарился в считанные минуты. Города стран НАТО Россия своими не считает.
@@GarWhittaker Копируем хронологию и вспоминаем почему проект украина прекращает своё существование *Для тех, кто считает что в Украине НЕТ нацистов и фашистов! ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНО К ПРОСМОТРУ* *Артём Гришанов - Игрушки / Toys for Poroshenko / War in Ukraine (English subtitles)* Итог: *4 часа украинских кладбищ*
I Heard they want to use it on Ukraine just with regular warhead instead Nuclear, for testing, there is story for kinetic warheads also since it's very fast and falling from space....
Why use them when we have hypersonic missiles "Kinzhal" and missiles "Kalibr" with a range of 5,500 kilometers and the air defense of Ukraine is almost completely paralyzed?:) Don't believe the myths.
Wait, the warheads are impact detonated? Would there not be a larger blast radius if it was detonated at altitude? Also allowing for a larger EMP affected area?
Avangard is not standalone ICBM... It's a hypersonic glide vehicle mounted on an ICBM, like the RS-28. I am not sure if the RS-24 Yars can also be used to deliver the Avangard. Oh and don't forget the 2 Megaton nuclear payload the Avangard can carry (directly to Zelensky's front doorstep 😂😂)
They won't, because they don't even fly. Out of five test launch attempts, 4 were unsuccessful, during one of them, the rocket exploded in the mine, leaving behind a 62-meter in diameter crater
Yep that's the missile the West claimed exploded during launch, but I find it hard to trust Western narratives these days. Let's not forget, every country faces military accidents. Remember how the UK's nuke launching failed a few months ago? And the U.S. has had its share of mishaps too, like when their Minuteman III missile test failed
Castle bravo was intended to have a yield of 6 megatons, but turned out to be 15 megatons. Tsar bomba was intended to be 100 megatons, was downsized to 50 megatons and turned out to be 55 megatons.
The speed according to the documentation is 27000km/h, actually achieved during the test of 33000km/h. You can calculate the flight time to any point of the earth.
@@AlexanderSchreiber разрабатывалось всё русскими на Украине и не более.как только вы отвалились все технологии забрали и поэтому вы за 30 лет ничего сами не можете создать своего!
@@ayannasir6653 Жидкостные обеспечивают большую скорость истечения газов и соответственно бОльшие забрасываемый вес или дальность, но гораздо сложнее, дороже и капризнее, ракета больше по длине, большее время подготовки к пуску и трудность его отмены (фактически после отмены начавшейся предпусковой подготовки ракета не боеспособна). .Твердотопливные проще хранить в боеготовом состоянии, они требуют меньше времени на подготовку. Но у них нет возможности управления тягой двигателя - двигатель включается сразу на полную мощность и работает до полной выработки топлива.
@@ayannasir6653 Solid fuel is a lot simpler (_but_ you have to be able to correctly cast the large fuel blocks without _any_ bubbles or fissures, which is an art in itself), can be stored for a long time and is almost immediately ready. Once ignited, burns to completion at full power (no throttle control) - which for an ICBM is generally not an issue. Liquid fuel gives you more performance (== heavier throw weight), but is massively more complex, lots of moving parts (e.g. pumps) and plumbing. Cryogenic fuels are a non-starter (imaging expecting your enemy to give you a few hours warning before nuking you so you can fuel your ICBM ... right), so the standard storable liquid propellant is UDMH (Hydrazine) for fuel and N2O4 as oxidizer - fuel your missile and store it ready to launch for _some_ time. That fuel mix is hypergolic (ignites on contact), which is nice for reliability. Both components are very, very nasty to unprotected humans (as in: tries very hard to kill you and gives you cancer if you happen to survive). Also, small mistakes/faults resulting in fuel leaks are very likely to result in the missile exploding ... US tends to go for small, precisely applied munitions, Russia for maximum boom in the general direction of the target, hence different priorities.
В одной ракете примерно 50 Хиросим, а у России потенциал на 7000 ракет. И того Россия может устроить около 350 000 взрывов как в Хиросиме когда то сделала Америка 😎
"It can reach targets anywhere on earth" - provided it doesn't blow up in the silo (recently), doesn't rapidly disassemble in flight (all but one of the test flights where it actually got airborne save one so far). So far, that missile is more dangerous to the launch country than to whatever it's aimed at.
I hope it will not be used but in recent times according to the behavior of the Western leaders one should be very tolerant not to use it, At least in the smaller version.
