Russian Military Expert: 'We Are Quietly Seeding The U.S. Shoreline With Nuclear Mole

[Ryan Ruck]

On its face, this sounds a little far fetched but, MEMRI is a pretty good source.

Maybe just a case of them simply reporting goings on in foreign media? Then again... Related?

I'm going to go with "grain of salt"...

Russian Military Expert: 'We Are Quietly Seeding The U.S. Shoreline With Nuclear Mole Missiles'

March 8, 2017

On February 28, Russian military expert Viktor Baranetz, a retired colonel and former defense ministry spokesman, published an article in the Russian tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda titled "Trump-Pump-Pump And Our Big Bang." In the article, Baranetz asserted that Russia has asymmetrical responses to the increase in the U.S. military budget. According to Baranetz, Russia is "quietly 'seeding' the U.S. shoreline with nuclear 'mole' missiles" that "dig themselves in and 'sleep' until they are given the command" to detonate.

However, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed these claims. In response to a journalist's question on Baranetz's article, Peskov said: "This sounds strange, to say the least, and so I would suggest that you not take newspaper reports like this seriously."[1]

Following are excerpts from Baranetz's article:[2]


Viktor Baranetz (Source: Oxpaha.ru)

"Our Asymmetrical Response Is Nuclear Warheads"

"The U.S. is the permanent 'world champion' in the size of its military budget – almost $600 billion, which is 10 times more than Russias. Even if we add together the military budgets of the top ten countries in the world, they would not reach the American budget! Now it turns out that even that is not enough for Donald Trump. He intends to increase defense expenditure by $54 billion. This money would be enough to maintain five Polish armies. Or 10 Ukrainian ones.

"The American public is already grumbling at Trump, who prefers guns to butter. But cunning Trump understands what his trump card is: He is 'buying' the support of the army, as well as of military industry corporations. Former Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Army Yuri Baluyevsky is certain that 'the idea to increase defense expenditure was presented to Trump by the U.S. military, who argue a lot about the power of the Russian army, realizing this is an opportunity to get new money.' But how will Moscow react to the growing military budget of the U.S.? Baluyevsky answers: 'Russia will not compete with the U.S. in defense expenditure. We are in a different weight class. For us, the main question is how to ensure Russia's defense at a lower cost. I am sure that we have already found asymmetrical responses. I don't see a big problem here.'

"What are these mysterious 'asymmetrical responses' that our politicians and generals speak about so often? Maybe it's a myth or a pretty turn of phrase? No! Our asymmetrical response is nuclear warheads that can modify their course and height so that no computer can calculate their trajectory. Or, for example, the Americans are deploying their tanks, airplanes and special forces battalions along the Russian border. And we are quietly 'seeding' the U.S. shoreline with nuclear 'mole' missiles (they dig themselves in and 'sleep' until they are given the command)[...]

"Oh, it seems I've said too much. I should hold my tongue.

"In short, we have something to provide an 'asymmetrical' (and cheaper) response to the Americans. But if Trump has money to burn, let him spend it on weapons that the U.S. may never even need. And they say Trump is a good businessman..."

[1] Ria.ru, March 1, 2017.

[2] Kp.ru, February 28, 2017.

[Malsua]

Nukes can't be packaged up and put away like a #10 can from Mountain House.

They have a shelf life before they need maintenance. I don't know what that time period is, but it's remarkably short.

It would be quite possible to have shipping containers with nukes dumped into ocean and anchored. When the time comes, gas is pumped into balloons, bringing it to the surface where the nuke blasts off.

All of this is doable. That said, 2 years after you put this thing on the continental shelf, it ain't going to work. If you put it down in the depths, it's going to get crushed. On the shelf it's subject to currents and fishermen who will find it.

This system would work in the short term, but in the long term it is not feasible.

[Ryan Ruck]

Yep, one of the reasons I thought the concept sounded far fetched but in relation to those nuke UAV submersibles, a little less so.

It's the tritium of fusion bombs which has a relatively short half life and needs periodic replacement (I don't recall specifics off the top of my head) as well as on board batteries that need to remain charged.

One other thing to consider though are the other rumors that have persisted through the years of the Russians having atomic demolition munitions cached here in the US so, perhaps they've got a method to prolong "shelf life". If they're fission only weapons, thet wouldn't necessarily have tritium that needed maintained, only the decay pf the physics package.