I’ve spoken to a handful of nuclear weapons and arms control analysts/experts and all pretty much agree that the Oreshnik, while a terrifying weapon, is actually a very positive development in regards to making nuclear weapons obsolete. Here’s why: prior to the successful deployment of the Oreshnik, there were only two weapon systems capable of bunker busting crucial enemy C3 nodes: thermobaric weapons, like the US MOAB fuel-air explosive bombs and the Russian Tosochka-2 and Tos-3 Drakon missiles. These weapons are useful for eliminating hardened C3 bunkers/nodes just behind the front lines but aren’t capable of striking hardened intermediate range targets. The only weapon capable of eliminating hardened C3 bunkers deep behind the lines are intermediate range city-busting nukes. Think a nuke that can take out Cheyenne Mt. or its Russian equivalent, or perhaps the NATO C3 bunker in Brussels.
Enter the Oreshnik.
The Oreshnik rarely carries an explosive load. It derives its destructive power from kinetics; physics; sir Isaac Newton’s laws at work. The Oreshnik moves so fast when it releases its MIRVed warheads that it is enveloped in plasma from friction with the air molecules.
Its warheads separate and move at such a stupendous speed that when they fall out of the sky it resembles a lighting strike. When they strike their target the speed and force is so immense they penetrate up to 150 meters. They leave no impact crater, but the reactive metal they are made of—a Russian state secret to be sure—for all intents and purposes becomes lava, shattering the bedrock, steel, liquifying concrete and discharges a shockwave that eviscerates everything within 300 meters or more.
After this cataclysmic ruination a molten material bubbles up through the point of entry, like a volcano bleeding liquids that were once solid. Such a scene was attested by onlookers in the Ukraine after a 2025 Oreshnik strike on a covert-NATO-Ukraine C3 bunker near Lviv.
It is the Oreshnik’s ability to accurately strike an intermediate range target—accurate to within 5 meters, +/- a small margin of error Mea culpa. The missile is accurate to within 100 meters. I regret the error.—that obviates the needs for city-busting nukes.
Why destroy an entire city to wreck a single C3 bunker when you can preserve the lives and assets of an entire city whilst destroying the C3 bunker with ease?
That’s not to say the Oreshnik is ushering in some new golden age of nuclear arms reduction.
That’s absurd.
But, it does eliminate a great deal of past risk.
And that’s not a bad thing, if you ask me.
Like & Subscribe
Yes! Excellent.
I have always exhorted, a chicken in every pot and a slew of Oreshniks in every arsenal. Sans that, or in addition to it as a failsafe, lace the water and food supply with Glyphosate. Convince an uncritically-thinking, hapless “citizenry” to elect Agent Orange so Agent Orange can give Bayer free license to poison the drug-addled population in perpetuity and thus destroy the enemy from within and therefore precluding ever having to use the Oreshniks.
Feral Finster
Since NATO is convinced that Russia doesn’t have the stones to use it on them, it doesn’t matter.
StewartM
It is the Oreshnik’s ability to accurately strike an intermediate range target—accurate to within 5 meters, +/- a small margin of error—that obviates the needs for city-busting nukes.
Are we really sure about such accuracy claims?
Remember, we’re talking about weapons systems that have really never been tested in realistic conditions, over ranges where the gravity map of the earth is different than the actual route the weapons would take. Yeah, we can achieve high accuracy with space missions, but that’s only because we can make frequent course corrections in the course of the flight. Those corrections aren’t possible with a missile in wartime as the signals would be jammed.
The whole history of weapons systems is one of overclaiming accuracy and precision (Norden bombsights dropping bombs on pickle barrels from 25,000 ft up (real dispersion rates are in the tenths of miles), air-to-air missiles achieving 99 % accuracy in test conditions and 8 % in real combat, and so forth. Trust me, the vendors and backers of these systems have every motivation in the world to paint as rosy a picture of their effectiveness as possible.
With nuclear weapons, we always assumed that the Soviets were doing the same thing as we were–trying to destroy hardened silos instead of doing the much easier things of destroying population and industrial centers. The Reagan “Star Wars” initiative was based on this premise, and was about making nuclear war somewhat more ‘friendly’ than MAD would have it. I’m more of an ‘educated layman’ rather than a professional, but I’ve never seen any evidence that the Soviets were doing likewise.
elkern
I strongly agree. Oreshnik is a *military* weapon, designed to destroy a specific target with relatively little collateral damage. Nukes are a strategic terror weapon, designed to influence a country’s political & military choices by threatening gory death for millions (and widespread economic damage).
Of course, there will be strategic down sides to the development and proliferation of such weapons, including unexpected and counter-intuitive aspects. I know better than to imagine that I have the brains or experience to predict those, but there is an aspect relevant to the current Iran war.
Essentially, it’s just another reason that Israel’s primary aim goes far beyond preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons. The only way to guarantee that Iran never gets weapons like Oreshnik is to wreck the entire (economic, technical, political, and social) infrastructure of the State…
Feral Finster
@elkern:
The goal of The War On Iran wver always only was to turn Iran into a failed state. This is why any talk of negotiations is foolish.
There is no deal that can be reached that will satisfy Israel, and if we have learned nothing else, it is that when faced with a setback, the neocons and Israelis just go to Plan B, Plan C, D, E and F, as necessary.
Mark Level
Brilliant guest post by SPK, as pretty much always.
I’m so old that sometimes I can’t recover data from 2 or more decades ago, what’s that smaller nuke the US used to brag that they’d deploy, it would kill everyone in an area that we wanted to take over, but very low radioactive content left? It supposedly wouldn’t flatten the buildings either, we’d get the real estate and buildings after exterminating the pesky locals. Never used, I’m pretty sure of that.
When you let a Genie like that out of a bottle, everybody else is gonna want to get that Genie too. Early in the forced Ukraine-Russia war, Zelensky was desperately begging for Wunder-Waffen, “Wonder Weapons” to kill all the Orcs (or fagggots is the other slang the Bandersists call Russians, not the Z-man however), but never got any. The Zionists using cluster bombs recently in Gaza, certainly a War Crime. Stupid Beau of the 5th Column (now retired, lost all his cred, he gave the podcast to his bossy wife for awhile, then she pulled the plug) noted the Ukrainians were begging for cluster bombs, he said he was fine with it even though he knew it’s a War Crime, he trusted the Neo-Nazis to use it judiciously. (Not his exact word, but his stupid opinion). I seem to recall he thought they could get white phosporous from the Zionist entity and supported that too.
Many have called the Oreshnik a Cluster Bomb because of all those smaller munitions it launches when it’s close to the target. I’m no expert in this field but think this is likely too, better-informed people here can correct me if I’m wrong.
Sean may know, or Stewart M whose knowledge is shared above, additionally Carborundum seems pretty informed about things like this.
The Oreshnik is an actual Wonder Weapon, obviously, actually changes the game. And I’m pretty confident from Sean’s account that the remnants after it hits can’t be salvaged for the Western Axis of Evil to reverse-engineer it lava and all. I bet Russia’s very circumspect as to its mechanics and won’t let anybody steal the plans and sell them to Evil Axis, US & we the baddies.
Listening to Brit Matt Kennard talking to the brilliant (but fusty) Chris Hedges, covering the Zionist Entity getting munitions thru Cyprus to exterminate the remaining Gazans, Lebanese, West Bank folks, etc.
Anyway I’ll close with a bit of housekeeping. LAS, I left you a comment belatedly on the Magen David thread about your PurityPonyPosturing absurd attack on Professor Mirandi, whose shoes you are not fit to shine.
It settles that bullshit completely, but feel free to snipe back at me if it’ll make you feel better.
Like & Subscribe
LAS, I left you a comment belatedly on the Magen David thread about your PurityPonyPosturing absurd attack on Professor Mirandi, whose shoes you are not fit to shine.
Attack? Too funny. You’ve lived a sheltered life if you consider that an attack. Of course, Mohr and Freisler considered Sophie’s leaflets an attack and it was off with her head so I guess it figures you think it was attack. Birds of a feather and all that jazz.
By the way, the girlfriend you incessantly inform us about, the one who is/was multi-orgasmic, what happened? Did she attack Putin and Russia as I allegedly attacked the Professor (and Marianne)? Did you finally determine she was a Banderist too like all the rest of us who have been banished from your rock island for failing to show to proper love and respect to Vladimir Putin?
Sean Paul Kelley
@StewartM: I am in error. The accuracy of the Oreshnik is to within 100 meters. I will correct the post. The mistake is mine. I regret the error.
Mark Level
Calling him someone who wasn’t on the side of the Gazans was beyond pathetic, everyone on this site except you knows that, & I have led anything BUT a sheltered life.
I referenced my multi-orgasmic sweetheart only once, btw, and only coz the topic was people who’d been molested or raped. We only persisted for 4 years due to entirely astrological reasons, scoff if you wish.
We had our sexual planets in exact conjunctions, a happy accident. We both had Venus in Virgo, the one bad placement in my overall exceptionally good chart, Jupiter in the Midheaven in Sagittarius leading to my extensive travels, 3 planets in Scorpio including Mars conjunct my gentle Sun in last degree of Libra, etc. We both had Mars in Scorpio.
Just lucky chemistry.
BUT I am a very Libra Libran, always somewhat optimistic, cheerful, glass half-full guy. She had Sun in Virgo, glass always half or all empty, everything was to be whined about, it’s too hot, it’s too cold, you don’t like my insane neighbor who nearly deliberately crashed the Van into a bridge abuttment when we were returning from Burning Man, etc. (Went in 1997, one time, the Sunday we broke camp Princess Di’s death was announced.) My sarcastic nickname for was Crabcake, she was fine with it, knew I was correct. I will not tell you the full nickname she gave me as your prying question is impudent (expect no less from you), I was known as the (adjective omitted) Werewolf as I am very hirsute, from the waist down I pretty much look like an ape.
One bad turn deserves another, so here’s my questions for you, let’s see if you answer. Why do you nearly never mention your wife? Are you ashamed of her? One time only I recall you mentioned “going to the recycling center with her?” Who wears the pants in your relationship, I would bet her. Who makes more money? I’m actually a sex-positive person, have been from a young age, my parents were somewhat socially conservative but were pretty sex-positive too, so I guess I inherited that honestly. Did it trigger you that when I was younger I had a frequent and varied sex life, that someone (not you) was enjoying themselves? Poor thing!!
Prudes and bitter sex pests are a bore and pathetic. I cannot prove you are one, but going where you did in an ad hominem attack suggests you are. I’m not mad, though, you are like a flea to me, cause about the same amount of discomfort. Answer if you dare.
Carborundum
I don’t think I would view these types of weapons as particularly enhancing system stability. Having a conventional weapon with an attack profile basically indistinguishable from a strategic weapon, particularly one deployed in a small theatre like Europe can add a lot of risk. For this reason, the Russians gave advance warning that they were firing the weapon.
I’m deeply skeptical of the accounts of “lava” here. Yes, things moving at mach 10 terminal carry a lot of kinetic energy but when you work through the math, the amount of kinetic energy in the system is not at all out of whack with a very normal, work a day conventional chemical explosive munition, and these warheads are expensive to deliver.
mago
Reading this thread Randy Newman comes spontaneously to mind:
Let’s Drop the Big One Now
or, maybe Short People, or
You Can Take Your Clothes Off (but leave you hat on.)
Sheesh, hope we can all break on through to the other side while sidelining Major Kong.
Mark Level
Mago, my fave Randy Newman song is All Hat, No Cattle. You can take your clothes off a fine 2nd place.
Jorge
Russia advertised the Oreshnik because they wanted to make it very clear that they had leapfrogged the Americans in bunker-buster technology. The videos that leaked were like nothing so much as the Halo video game. Astounding stuff, and excellent propaganda.
StewartM
Sean Paul Kelly
The accuracy of the Oreshnik is to within 100 meters.
I think you still misunderstand my basic argument. Again, I am not an expert on such matters, only an informed lay person. Also, forgive me that some of my information may be dated (it’s hard to get up-to-date information anyways on military hardware).
The error estimate you give I highly suspect to be a Circular Error Probability (CEP):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable
Two things of note:
1) to say the ‘error is within 100 meters’ really means “50 % of the impacts will fall within a circle with a radius of 100 meters–i.e., a diameter of 200 meters. This also means that 43.7 % more will land within a circle with a diameter of 400 meters, and 6.1 % more will land within a circle with a diameter of 600 meters.
(There’s a similar metric for tank guns and artillery I’m more familiar with, but these use ellipses rather than circles)
2) This is a measure of precision, not a measure of accuracy. All the impacts can land far away from the actual target, they will just be this close to each other.
There are many reasons to assume that accuracy for ICBMs, at least, to destroy hardened targets is not feasible. Reasons include:
a) The earth’s gravity is not a constant, but varies from location to location. The USAF has been working on a gravity map of the planet for some time now, and if they’ve completed the task, they’re not going to tell me or you.
b) Then there’s weather: any missile re-entering the atmosphere will encounter air resistance and wind—a mere 30 mph wind can blow a missile some 400 meters off-target, and the winds in the jet stream run 100-250 mph.
All it takes is an error of 4.2 parts per million from whatever cause to throw the impact off 100 meters.
And there’s contact with rain or ice—at the very high re-entry speeds, collisions with these can actual damage to the missile. A 1972 test with a Mark 12 US missile ran into a tropical storm and the missile nearly disintegrated!
Yes, both the US and the Russians (and I suppose the Chinese too) have run tests. But the tests really aren’t realistic. For one thing, instead of in the intended direction (for the US during the Cold War, that was northwards) they were run from east to west, from California to the Southwest Pacific (the Russians held theirs internally, from west to east), over different gravitational fields and weather conditions. Secondly, unlike a mass missile strike done quickly without preparation, these tests better approximate NASA launches, with a single rocket being worked over and monitored by teams of engineers and technicians prior to launch. It’s easily a ‘best case possible’ testing scenario.
The whole wargaming scenario of nuclear war is very bizarre, with assumptions that no sane person would be willing to bet upon. Take the whole notion of targeting hardened missile silos and command bunkers—the assumption is “if we (or they) can destroy our hardened ICBM sites and command bunkers, that means that although they’ll still have weapons left that are capable of vaporizing all our population and industrial centers, they’ll not want to get into a Armageddon war like that so they’ll just give up.’ WOULD YOU BET UPON THAT RESPONSE? The very problem with nuclear weapons is that they’re like firearms, they’re intrinsically offensive weapons and the only way to defend yourself with them is to shoot first.
Finally, I have to also bring up the fact that in some military testing there has been outright cheating. In 1982, the USAF had to admit that the glowing results from it AMRAAM air-to-air missile against high-flying target drones (99 %+ hits) was because, “not wanting to bore anyone with technical details” they had placed a device in the target drones that was EMITTING SIGNALS THAT DREW THE MISSILE TO THE TARGET. That’s why such missiles achieved 99 % plus kills in trials, but only c. 7 – 8 % in actual combat. Needless to say, there’s a lot of money riding on military procurement.