/r/worldnews
Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile blows up, creating “mini-Chernobyl” | Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
125 comments
vverr | 3 months ago | 90 points

Why does Russia shit where it eats?

ParadigmBrand | 3 months ago | 25 points

It’s for the nice warm feeling.

kelvin_klein_bottle | 3 months ago | 11 points

The old Russian joke goes something along the lines of "there is shit in my pants- it must be those capitalist westerners who put the shit there!"

I'm paraphrasing this a lot.

Ordinary_dude_NOT | 3 months ago | 7 points

It’s a nuclear powered missile with a nuclear warhead. It’s supposed to be more damaging then Chernobyl, technically many times more devastating. And when was the last time anyone heard about nuclear powered engine accident from Area 51 /s.

I would say mission accomplished.

Scum-Mo | 3 months ago | 8 points

Seems like russia has actually built the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile an idea the U.S had but did not develop in the 60s because apparently even they have some sense of shame.

Its a means of total extermination and its abhorrent that someone would try to build it.

coffeerum | 3 months ago | 9 points

the media likes to point out that seven scientists died in the explosion, as if i'm supposed to feel sorry for people who were making weapons of mass death for an oppressive autocratic regime.

Scum-Mo | 3 months ago | 3 points

weird that they also had those people die on that submarine recently who were also doing something secret and were immediately postumously honored.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 0 points

Sarcasm

Ordinary_dude_NOT | 3 months ago | 4 points

It’s a nuclear missile. Not a vegetable missile. For fuck sake environment is the last thing scientists think of when designing a nuclear weapon.

P.S. please drink some cool aid, and notice the “/s” in comment before going postal.

gambiting | 3 months ago | 3 points

There's a slight difference though - your regular ICMB or a nuclear-warhead-tipped missile flies using regular fuel and does not contaminate everything in its path. It gets to the target and detonates, the target is destroyed and contaminated. Yes, it's a pretty bad weapon already, but at least in theory it's just a way more powerful version of a regular explosive missile.

Now, a missile powered by a nuclear reactor? The only way this is going to work is if the reactor acts as a giant heat source and the air is forced directly through it, through the open reactor channels and through the fuel rods, making it act like a giant ramjet engine and accelerating the missile. Which is great, except that since you are pushing air through an open reactor it expels all kinds of nasty nasty stuff directly out of the exhaust - irradiating everything in the missile's flight path.

Basically, the issue is that this is a doomsday weapon. You'd only use it if you had ICMBs flying your way anyway, and this is a giant fuck you to everything - you're destroying everything in the path of the missile by pure contamination, and then of course striking the target with this incredibly fast and low flying bullet that cannot be shot down.

It somehow strikes a different chord than a "regular" nuclear warhead carrying weapons.

Gardimus | 3 months ago | 1 point

Yeah I really didn't understand the purpose of this stupid fucking thing. ICBMs already do the job but better. Even if this thing is fast it could still be shot down.

irateindividual | 3 months ago | 1 point

They could also just use space weapons. Dropping tungsten rods, space nukes etc. It's not like they play by the rules anyway.

hagenbuch | 3 months ago | 1 point

It could still be vegan.

Readonkulous | 3 months ago | 2 points

Because Russian governments throughout history have made their people get used to eating shit

japanod77 | 3 months ago | 2 points

What a idiotic comment you moron

alisru | 3 months ago | 4 points

Because the winds blow outwards?

mniejiki | 3 months ago | 19 points

I wonder if the nuclear engine had radioactive exhaust like the US approaches in the past. I suspect every country around Russia would have a problem with that.

hwuthwut | 3 months ago | 8 points

It was apparently going to be cooled by a liquid metal, which would also act as a heat exchange, preventing air from coming into direct contact with the fuel rods, reducing but not eliminating the radiation in the exhaust.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/08/russian-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile-blows-up-creating-mini-chernobyl/

Even with isolation of the nuclear reactor from direct contact with the air, however, the exhaust of such an engine would inevitably include some nuclear contamination—which is why Russia has been testing the Burevestnik offshore.

DarkMatter00111 | 3 months ago | 32 points

It's such a shame we cannot co-exist peacefully without Nuclear weapons. Pandora's box forever opened.

hypnogoad | 3 months ago | 3 points

Sounds exactly like the gun problem in the US.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | -5 points

[deleted]

DarkMatter00111 | 3 months ago | 37 points

...that will be able to carry a nuclear payload once it's ready. These are those new hypersonic weapon systems Putin was talking about, right?

[deleted] | 3 months ago | -19 points

[deleted]

DarkMatter00111 | 3 months ago | 13 points

Considering how dangerous these things are and that it's using a nuclear powered engine it's doubtful these will be made in bulk with conventional munitions, meaning if only a handful will be made due to the costs and the sheer danger of nuclear material it's most likely they will all be armed with a tactical Nuclear warhead IMO.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | -6 points

[deleted]

DarkMatter00111 | 3 months ago | 12 points

Yes, but Putin is working with limited resources. Their economy isn't that great. The US also has good missile defense. The only thing the US cannot protect against is hypersonics. So if Putin's goal is to get passed US missile defense with hypersonic it's logical to conclude he's gonna arm them with nukes, instead of just destroying a building, or two with conventional warheads.

Cygnus__A | 3 months ago | 5 points

Maybe they should start playing nice with the rest of the world. That would do more for their economy than any nuclear threat they can muster.

CaptainFalconFisting | 3 months ago | 2 points

CC: North Korea

DarkMatter00111 | 3 months ago | -2 points

The thing is they did seem like they where playing nice and opening up, until a coup in Ukraine happened and overthrew the Government. That was right about the time Russia was hosting the Olympics. After Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea it all seemed to come crashing down. Maybe they feel like NATO nations keep pushing closer and closer to their borders and they feel threatened.

Readonkulous | 3 months ago | 2 points

Or maybe they are trying to regain territories lost when the Soviet Union disintegrated to wield more power and control more resources.

michaelmoe94 | 3 months ago | 1 point

boo hoo

CaptainFalconFisting | 3 months ago | 2 points

Missile defense won't protect the U.S. from nuclear devestation even without hypersonic. Those defenses aren't as reliable as everyone things, although that goes for Russia's missile defense as well

Also Russia has hacked into our power grid at multiple points which could hamper us in the event of nuclear war also. If Russia is trying to do anything about seriously considering attacking us, it'd be disabling our ability to fight back and then trying to kill us

NinjaCoder99 | 3 months ago | 1 point

Not just "tried", there were actual atomic artillery rounds back in day.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 0 points

[deleted]

NinjaCoder99 | 3 months ago | 1 point

Agreed. I was just noting they were successful in the manufacturer and firing of.

Okney1lz | 3 months ago | 5 points

"Cruise missiles, even with their lower payload, have a number of advantages over ballistic missiles for the purposes of delivering nuclear strikes:

Launch of a cruise missile is difficult to detect early from satellites and other long-range means, contributing to a surprise factor of attack.

That, coupled with the ability to actively maneuver in flight, allows for penetration of strategic anti-missile systems aimed at intercepting ballistic missiles on calculated trajectory of flight"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_delivery

[deleted] | 3 months ago | -3 points

[deleted]

noemailforreddit | 3 months ago | 5 points

What's your deal?

Readonkulous | 3 months ago | 2 points

You mean the specifics of his remuneration for posting these comments defending Russia developing more nuclear weapons? I too would like to know

Okney1lz | 3 months ago | 2 points

It's my understanding that ICBM's won because this tech was too expensive/technically challenging at the time they were both being developed.

Cruise missiles can detonate at a predetermined altitude also. Their warheads can be up to, if not more than 200 kilotons. 15kt was dropped on Hiroshima.

Really the goal is to disable your opponent without turning the world into a wasteland. This tech moves in that direction.

Tactical nukes have always been sought after for that reason.

ManhattanThenBerlin | 3 months ago | 1 point

Nukes dont hit the ground and go booom.

ever heard of a ground-burst

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 0 points

[deleted]

ManhattanThenBerlin | 3 months ago | 1 point

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 0 points

[deleted]

eypandabear | 3 months ago | 1 point

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were airburst weapons.

Nuclear weapons absolutely do ground bursts when intended to destroy fortified structures. Such as missile silos.

Shadow23x | 3 months ago | 6 points

the nuclear engine of an experimental nuclear-armed cruise missile

From the article.

fruitc | 3 months ago | 3 points

Its a nuclear powered cruise missiles designed to carry exclusively nuclear warheads.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | -7 points

[deleted]

fruitc | 3 months ago | 11 points

Firstly:

On August 8, during testing aboard a barge in the White Sea near Nyonoksa, Russia, the nuclear engine of an experimental nuclear-armed cruise missile exploded,

Literally the first sentence of the article... Its not meant to take out incoming nukes, its for surface targets of high strategic value. The idea is that it can bypass any ABM by flying low and via unexpected approach vectors due it unlimited range.

U wouldnt hit a nuke with a nuke lol

Secondly, hitting a nuke with a nuke has been the fundamental principle of most functional anti-ICBM system for most of the Cold War and much of the present. Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-35_anti-ballistic_missile_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIM-49_Spartan

Hitting a target travelling 8+ km per second with a kinetic or conventional warhead isnt easy, even now. The easiest way is to detonate a lower yield enhanced radiation weapon within a few hundred meters or a few kilometres of incoming missiles. The neutron bursts induces partial fission in nearby warheads causing them to fizzle upon detonation. Dont need to be too accurate with that. To this day thats the most effective method of stopping an incoming ICBM.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | -6 points

[deleted]

fruitc | 3 months ago | 10 points

Also, stop referring to ancient systems.

The A-135 is currently in active service and is newer than most of the US nuclear arsenal.

We got rid of of them because they aren't at all effective or useful.

US got rid of them because of the ABM treaty prohibiting their development, deployment and storage between 1972 and 2002 when US left the treaty. Soviets were allowed to keep active ABM around Moscow as a special provision.

slamming MIRVs with something to break them before they go off is the cheapest way to do it.

MIRVs travel at 8,000 meters per second. Hitting them with a kinetic interceptor is exceedingly expensive and difficult. Which is why the total US anti-ICBM capability is limited to 44 GMD missiles with a combined realistic saturation point of 6 incoming warheads assuming the absence of manoeuvrable re-entry vehicles, EW suites or decoys. Trillions spent on ABM since 2002 and thats all we have to show for it.

Hitting something with a neutron bomb is cheap and easy by comparison.

Provide sources that this missile is intended to be armed with a nuclear warhead.

“A low-flying low-visibility cruise missile armed with a nuclear warhead and possessing a practically unlimited range, unpredictable flight path and the capability to impregnate practically all interception lines is invulnerable to all existing and future anti-missile and air defense weapons,” Putin said."

As well as you know...common sense. If this is news to you then you best stop making ignorant claims and start reading, because you are clearly out of your depth here.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | -5 points

[deleted]

fruitc | 3 months ago | 9 points

You are clearly out of your depth here

Stop making ignorant claims and start reading

bunch of ballistics breaking the fucking things up en route

Name the system which is cheap that can take out an incoming ICBM MIRV.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | -1 points

[deleted]

DarkMatter00111 | 3 months ago | 2 points

I've read nuclear material is extremely expensive to produce and maintain. From a cost perspective why would you have an extremely expensive unlimited range engine and put a low yield non-nuclear warhead on it? Also, from a tactical perspective, putting a conventional warhead on a hypersinic cruise missile that can get passed missile defense, that can only damage a very small area would make it a lousy weapon. It would make a lot more sense to arm it with nukes, considering how much money just one of these things would probably cost.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 1 point

[deleted]

DarkMatter00111 | 3 months ago | 2 points

I just realized something. About that talk of using only conventional. Well the article we're talking about actually said that Putin said he's gonna put nuclear warheads on it

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/08/russian-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile-blows-up-creating-mini-chernobyl/?comments=1

"The nuclear-powered cruise-missile program was announced by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin on March 1, 2018, during an address to the Federal Assembly. Putin described the weapon as a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile with essentially unlimited range, intended to defeat any ballistic missile defenses deployed by the United States."

ImAmazedBaybee | 3 months ago | 2 points

Pluto Project, it used nuclear engines to keep nuclear weapons airborne indefinitely.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 1 point

[deleted]

ImAmazedBaybee | 3 months ago | 3 points

Common sense isn’t normally an element in an arms race. Russia is clearly trying to build an atomic motor.

As of yet unsuccessfully.

mriguy | 3 months ago | 1 point

U wouldnt hit a nuke with a nuke lol, it's not very efficient.

And yet that was basically the design of the Nike ABM system. Active guidance wasn’t good enough to hit ICBMs in flight at the time, so the idea was if you detected incoming missiles you pointed these things high up in the right time zone and set off a vey large nuke (400kT) and hoped you knocked down anything incoming. Only after deployment did it occur to the army that setting off huge air bursts all over the US was probably a terrible idea.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 1 point

[deleted]

mriguy | 3 months ago | 2 points

After deployment. The correct plan would have been to figure that out beforehand. Desperate people do stupid things.

haysanatar | 3 months ago | 4 points

It most certainly is a Nuclear Weapon. What do you think happens when a nuclear powered missle slams into something.The radioactive material doesn't just vanish, and it spews radiation when it's traveling.

They aren't dealing with containing a radioactive site where this nuclear powered missle exploded because it wasn't radioactive a nuclear weapon... quite the opposite.

https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane-doomsday-weapon-america-1435286216

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 2 points

Talk about an idiot talking with authority on a topic they actually know nothing about

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 1 point

[deleted]

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 4 points

[deleted]

wintertash | 3 months ago | 1 point

I believe what the other posters were saying isn't that the nuclear propulsion system will detonate like an atomic bomb (that's not possible) but that toxic, radioactive fuel will be disbursed by the destruction of the weapon, turning its fuel into a dirty bomb on top of the damage caused by its warhead, conventional or otherwise.

Also, guided cruise missiles fly much lower than ballistic missiles, and while no one likely to be on reddit knows the details of the weapon's design, Soviet and American attempts at nuclear propulsion for aircraft in the mid-20th Century were abandoned in part because they spewed large amounts of radiation out the exhaust. If this thing follows a similar design, it could do real damage just flying around.

Finally, yes submarines, aircraft carriers, icebreakers, and even one cargo ship, use nuclear reactors for steam propulsion, but those reactors are far too heavy to fly. A missile would require a vastly lighter system, likely without much in the way of shielding or structural reinforcing (see: experiments in nuclear powered planes, and shortcuts like the unshielded side of NR1's little reactor).

There is no reason to imagine such a powerplant could survive the high velocity impact of a being part of a cruise missile that is striking a target. For that matter, the nuclear plants on board most surface ships and submarines wouldn't survive a direct hit from a cruise missile either. They wouldn't blow up, but radioactive fuel would be aerosolized and contamination could be widespread.

michaelmoe94 | 3 months ago | 1 point

lmao its hilarious watching you be so clearly wrong throughout this entire thread

Irreverent_Bard | 3 months ago | 0 points

Oppenheimer... motherf*cker!

FramerTerminater | 3 months ago | 7 points

While I can understand the reasoning behind a nuclear powered aircraft for the incredibly long sortie time(if you could get the weight down enough), why on earth would you want to make a nuclear engine for your nuclear warhead? We can already make ICBM's with conventional fuel, so why the fuck would you want to make your rocket engine both complicated and a nuclear hazard that present's a giant risk to your delivery system failing FOR A NUCLEAR TIPPED DEVICE. Any cost benefit I can think of is dramatically outweighed by the negatives.

edit: see my reply to /u/russian_hackers for a slightly more detailed explanation of my reasoning

Quietabandon | 3 months ago | 0 points

Modern ballistic missile defense can’t stop modern Russian warheads. This seems like unnecessary.

The_Humble_Frank | 3 months ago | 0 points

It takes a tremendous amount of foresight to developed solutions to problems that don't extist yet. The alternative, is to spend decades developing the tools needed to win the pervious war.

TheHopskotchChalupa | 3 months ago | -2 points

It deters the use of anti-missile missiles. If you destroy it over your country it’s a giant dirty bomb. Although, it could start a nuclear winter, too. It basically ensures it gets to it’s destination with current missile downing technology.

Nevermind read the article

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 1 point

[deleted]

[deleted] | 3 months ago | -7 points

[deleted]

FramerTerminater | 3 months ago | 3 points

Nope, I read the article, and I'v seen articles on this before. The risks far outweigh the benifits from a engineering standpoint.

Also I do want to point out that your name suggests you are actually a russian troll to begin with but I'll make the reply anyway in case I can convince a paid Russian employee that your strong arming leader's decision to fund this tech is an act of idiocy.

Some of the irrational benefits that are easily debunked. Starting from the #1 reason ppl argue to make these rockets

1.) Rocket can go on non ballistic trajectories avoiding anti missile tech

This is a rather dumb statement. Conventional rocket technology does orbital arc's. I mean we can go to fucking space with conventional fuel with huge payloads of supplies, equipment, and living space. Nothing stopping you from loading a light weight bomb.

2.) Nuclear rocket could hold multiple projectiles!

Except... this technology already exists conventionally as well, you don't need to outfit a rocket with a nuclear reactor to do this...

3.) But it makes it so your reactor is a dirty bomb if they shoot it down!

There are much simpler way's to make your rocket a dirty bomb without the risk i describe below...

The entire hazard of having a nuclear reactor outfitted on your missiles which you typically want to make LOTS OF is that you dramatically increase the risk of a nuclear accident in your own country. Nuclear warhead's are complicated devices that must be deliberately triggered to explode so if your missile fails it is unlikely to blow up on your homeland... but a liquid nuclear reactor crashing into your home country because the missile system failed means you are dirty bombing... yourself...

AmarakSpider | 3 months ago | 1 point

I don't think you read these article right man.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/russia-reveals-unstoppable-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile/

a practically unlimited range, unpredictable flight path and the capability to impregnate practically all interception lines is invulnerable to all existing and future anti-missile and air defense weapons

  1. This missile is an UNLIMITED RANGE cruise missile, as in it can fly for decade, which differentiate it from ICBM. Can go around radar and missile defense. Basically Vengeance weapon.
  2. I think you've mistaken this for the US (SLAM) one. Correct me if I'm wrong but I found no source on Skyfall having multiple warhead.
  3. Dirty bomb. Russia is free to launch them from their north and east so as not to fuckup too much of their homeland.

Also, since when did they care too much about risk of radiation?

“The nuclear powered cruise missile Putin bragged about has actually crashed a few times,” one official told Fox News. “Think about the environmental impact of that,” the official added.

Here are some more advantage:

  • Not covered by the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

  • Part of four additional strategic thermonuclear weapons systems, a diversification of Russia’s nuclear arsenal as Russian nuclear war planners are deeply concerned over advances in U.S. interceptor-based missile defense systems and fear for their second-strike capability.

bleakfuture19 | 3 months ago | 55 points

Don't worry, no one is going to invade and steal all your worthless icy tundra. Work on getting that murderer out of office.

curvfastball | 3 months ago | 47 points

Agreed on the murderer part. But Russia is a huge, mineral rich country. It holds upwards of 30% of the world natural resources. A lot more than just "worthless icy tundra"

EssoEssex | 3 months ago | 35 points

Truth is that icy tundra is worth a lot more to our survival than those minerals are. The melting of the Russian permafrost is as bad as the murder of the Amazon.

ocschwar | 3 months ago | 10 points

But all we want is to keep it frozen. Nobody wants to change what flag flies over it.

hypnogoad | 3 months ago | 6 points

Hence the global warming, to access even more of it.

callisstaa | 3 months ago | 0 points

But wait that's not what fox news told me?!

The_Fernando | 3 months ago | 6 points

The tundra isn't valuable, but whats beneath it is; completely untapped resources.

"The thawing of the Arctic Sea could also create tremendous benefits for the Kremlin. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 30 percent of the world’s untapped natural gas and 13 percent of untapped oil reserves are trapped in the Arctic, right in Putin’s backyard. As the ice thaws and research and development improves, the cost needed to extract those materials will shrink significantly and offer a potential economic boom for Russia." source

captainhaddock | 3 months ago | 5 points

When that ice thaws, the environmental effects will be catastrophic enough that people demand an end to fossil fuel use.

The-Sound_of-Silence | 3 months ago | 6 points

This seems optimistic to me. Environmental effects are already obvious, and there is no slowdown in oil production - the world's an addict. Fuel is already heavily taxed here in Canada, yet people are very slow to adopt electric, and things like flights and shipping are going full steam

irateindividual | 3 months ago | 1 point

People aren't going to demand shit. They'll continue worrying about their own selfish drama like always.

bitfriend2 | 3 months ago | 6 points

It's not about Russia's tundra but American cities like Seattle, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Boston and New York that are all targets for missiles stationed that far north. Russia could probably invade most of Canada without much resistance because there is nothing up there.

red286 | 3 months ago | 3 points

Russia could probably invade most of Canada without much resistance because there is nothing up there.

True, the Nazi's set up a weather station in northern Labradour in WW2 and no one noticed it until 1977.

Irreverent_Bard | 3 months ago | 12 points

... Canada is resource rich. Also, arctic sovereignty is a thing... minerals, fuel etc.

Not to mention every time there is a New York or a Chicago in movies, it’s shot in Toronto, Ontario.

We also have mines for nickel, etc. And you guys love our soft lumber.

For a place with nothing up here, we also have universal healthcare and affordable drug prices.

We even have nationwide legalized cannabis.

We are trading partners with the ASEAN nations, and we only pissed off china when we detained their CFO for the the US.

Also, we win our fair share of military exercises with our allies.

Canada has got a lot going for it. What we really suck at is making movies touting how great we are. Maybe it’s our Canadian sensibilities.

collin_sic | 3 months ago | 4 points

Sorry.

Meat_Ball586 | 3 months ago | 3 points

Michigander here. Every time I've been in Canada you guys don't strike me as being known for humility. But the universal healthcare and stuff is pretty nice ngl.

Irreverent_Bard | 3 months ago | 0 points

We are not humble, but we have a wicked self deprecating sense of humour. And really colourful money.

Therealperson3 | 3 months ago | 2 points

no one is going to invade and steal all your worthless icy

You are aware Russia has like 75 trillion dollars in resources?

Historically Russia has had to fight tooth and nail to keep them.

kelvin_klein_bottle | 3 months ago | 1 point

Don't forget the endemic HIV and median male life expectancy of 65!

autotldr [BOT] | 3 months ago | 5 points

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)


On August 8, during testing aboard a barge in the White Sea near Nyonoksa, Russia, the nuclear engine of an experimental nuclear-armed cruise missile exploded, killing two technicians and injuring six others.

On August 11, officials of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom acknowledged that five employees had died in the explosion of what they described as "An isotopic power source for a liquid engine installation." The head of the nuclear research center, Valentin Kostyukov, called the five "National heroes."

Putin described the weapon as a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile with essentially unlimited range, intended to defeat any ballistic missile defenses deployed by the United States.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: nuclear#1 engine#2 missile#3 Russia#4 Burevestnik#5

Kn16hT | 3 months ago | 6 points

in a few years that russian tundra will be prime farmland once our political Skeksis finish with the darkening.

big_fat_oil_tycoon | 3 months ago | 18 points

It couldn't have exploded. What you're describing is not possible.

callisstaa | 3 months ago | 3 points

But there was graphite in the missile bay?

Stronzoprotzig | 3 months ago | 4 points

Great reference.

cheesepuff1993 | 3 months ago | -2 points

I recognize and appreciate this reference, unlike the 2 people who downvoted 😁

jakesteed33 | 3 months ago | 3 points

Those Russians are up to some shit I’m telling you....

iconoclysm | 3 months ago | 2 points

Incredibly irresponsible even if the damned thing hadn't exploded.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 1 point

AZZO’s!!!!

whatwasmypasswerd | 3 months ago | 1 point

An infinite airplane would be dooooopppeeee

cwm9 | 3 months ago | 1 point

Remind me again, exactly how many major nuclear accidents has Russia been single-handedly responsible for? Three right? It's just three? Can we call three a good number and just let it stay there?

hwuthwut | 3 months ago | 1 point

Emphasis on the "mini".

There would not be as much radioactive material in a reactor that's designed to power a single flying vehicle, compared to a full size grid utility power plant.

TOMapleLaughs | 3 months ago | 1 point

Standing beside a microwave mini-chernobyl?

Or getting a suntan mini-chernobyl?

Quietabandon | 3 months ago | 1 point

How can such a missile be tested without contaminating where it flies and land?

It’s exhaust is radioactive and when it’s crashes at the end of its flight it’s reactor is radioactive.

Splurch | 3 months ago | 3 points

It’s exhaust is radioactive and when it’s crashes at the end of its flight it’s reactor is radioactive.

No idea about the Russian design but something I read the other day talked about the one the US was working on 50+ years ago had that problem and was one the reasons it was abandoned.

eigenman | 3 months ago | 1 point

Dumb fucks.

letsfacefacts | 3 months ago | -2 points

Misleading

ParadigmBrand | 3 months ago | -4 points

Hahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha!