The role of geology in a Rus-US nuclear exchange

Talking about Yellowstone super volcano explosion:

1) Article of Sivkov from early this year was mentioning 2 possible asymmetric weapons to keep balance of fear. Tsunami torpedoes and super-volcano-triggering nukes.

Then you made fun of it BUT

1) recently tsunami torpedoes turned out to be real project...who knows maybe he´s got some insider info and next also can turn out to be reality.


2) explosion of super-volcano covers 2/3 till 3/4  of USA  in ash, mostly in agricultural Midwest. not to mention about direct destruction zone.  Temperature will drop 3-5 degrees Celsius but This not necessarily means Russians will starve. There are many wast hot-dry areas in Russia´s South or Kazakhstan/Mongolia with temp drop you got some agricultural lands.





BTW now all climatic fight stop increase by 2-3 degrees so +3-3 (max5) does not mean end of Russia
but end of USA for sure.



3) recent research suggests that such volcano is triggered externally (like meteor earthquake) so why not 20-50mt nuke?

AFAIK Caldera starts with usually with one place by rim, then all over rim there are series of explosions and then one big. Thus no need to take off all rocks just to trigger an earthquake.



4) with sulfur in the air and toxic ashes unlikely remote shelters for nuclear blasts help.



5) Last but not least this is not tactical nuke this is deterrence like "dead hand" system - if you attack Russia with desire to kill millions of Russians you more likely to die. Of course this one of weapons normal nukes and tsunami torpedoes will be additional anti NATO insurance.

As you can read teshub comments above its not possible. US tested tsunami creating weapons too in New Zealand. ( see my post on US-NZ thread ). Sounds more of a fantasy. I guess there are volacanoes in Russia too maybe in Kamchatka or Kuril.

max steel wrote:US tested tsunami creating weapons too in New Zealand. ( see my post on US-NZ thread ). Sounds more of a fantasy

Regardless on US results System 6 is reality now under development...I think the explanation is simple: Russia is much less prone to tsunami then US. For US and UK tsunamis can have catastrophic impact. In Russia Kaliningrad, Vladivostok and St Petersburg (if you make Baltic tsunami) can be affected.

and its cheap comparing to tens of nukes to bring same effect.

max steel wrote:As you can read teshub comments above its not possible. Sounds more of a fantasy. I guess there are volcanoes in Russia too maybe in Kamchatka or Kuril.

There are volcanoes but could not a super one and in distant locations for civilization centers unlike in USA. . Differences are measured in logarithmic scale. As for teshub I am not saying he did not provide with valid points but he expressed his opinion as "unlikely" and if that you need not to annihilate masses of population. Too humane approach in comparison with Us elites.

in fact there is game of annihilation. Destruction of EMP vs annihilation of 120mlns of Russians ? US would for for it immediately.

Why I am stubbornly supporting the idea of Yellowstone explosion ? Sivkov said about torpedoes in the same article as about Yellowstone.

Then after couple of months system 6 becomes reality...then ivkov mentioned something like ti would take 10years or so to develop it. I am pretty sure thi was not only cheap talking. Maybe such weapon is under development and sooner or later TV Zvezda shows they like did with System 6...