Russia Revives the 'Nuke Train

blueodessey

Well-known member
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/russia-revives-the-nuke-train/

[h=1]Russia Revives the 'Nuke Train'[/h] November 23, 2016


Taking an old school approach to modern warfare, the Russian military has developed a train that is designed to launch nuclear missiles.

Dubbed the 'Barguzin,' the project is a throwback to a similar weapons-delivery system created by the Soviet Union during the Cold War when they had 12 such 'nuke trains' at their disposal.

In an indication of growing geopolitical tensions, the Russian military decided last year to revive the missile-launching system after it had been scrapped about a decade ago.
According to the Russian military, tests of the Barguin's capability were sufficient enough to advance the project with the goal of adding the new 'nuke trains' to the country's arsenal by the end of the decade.

It is believed that the Barguzin will be capable of carrying up to six nuclear missiles that are equipped with four warheads each.
The decision to bring back the 'nuke train' no doubt raises concerns in eastern European countries who may find themselves targeted or threatened by the system.
Hopefully their fears will turn out to be unfounded and the Barguzin's ultimate claim to fame will simply be as a must-have replica for toy train collectors.

Source: Indepedent
 
We had the Peacekeeper, but it was never fully mobile roaming around the Country ... it was more of a Popular Mechanics dream, gone prototype, more of a sci-fi threat to counter the Cuban missile crisis offensive aggression, aimed at taking over the US.

Honestly what do they really need to protect, as they have very little natural resources that any other Country would want to take over by force ... Unless they are afraid that someone wants to steal all their snow.

There is no legitimate purpose of reinstating these nuke trains, other than a deliberate act of offensive escalation, as it is purely not for any protection purposes.
 
Last edited:
Honestly what do they really need to protect, as they have very little natural resources that any other Country would want to take over by force ...

They have some of the planets biggest reserves of oil & gas, two of the products that the U.S. would give their right arm to control.
 
Oh ... Do you really, REALLY, think anyone would dare invade them ?

Their nukes are strictly for attacking breakoff Countries, and for annihilation, and domination ... NOT for defense !

We would not send "Little Green Men", in unmarked uniforms, in to take them over ... However visa versa ... They do, do it, to outlying Countries !
 
Didn't see any nukes used in Ukraine, they haven't used any in Syria, in fact, the only country to use nukes against a civilian population is ............... U.S.A.
 
Some countries may see it fit to operate similar things, but somewhere like the US likely wouldn't see these placed into service I would guess. We do have a number of silos that would likely have much better range than a rail-based launcher, but the range of the payloads on the train aren't public knowledge it seems. Then again, our government can and has forced our military to take on things they don't need/want. I recall hearing the military had tested a new fighter plane that was very expensive to manufacture and they didn't want to use it (they had more than sufficient aircraft anyways, the new version didn't have anything truly new to bring to the table), but the US Government decided to force them to buy & build 'em. Don't remember the model or anything, not my interest.

If any other countries were to operate 'Nuke Trains', they would be in countries around Russia most likely, including European countries and some Asian countries at Russia's border. I can't imagine a 'Nuke Train' has a lot of range to it, and since Russia is the only one running these, it'd be more likely to use them around Russia. Perhaps. Then again, I'm not an expert on nuclear weapons, much less nukes launched from trains! No specifications other than estimated capacity really, so who really knows?
Another major factor in deciding who uses them is how costly they are to build, maintain, and run... none of which is known now.

Cheers,
SM
 
I thought this was going to be about the nuclear powered trainset. I remember reading somewhere that they where building the frame for an actual prototype set up. the pros of it would be that it could cruise the trans-Siberian system non stop and in case's of emergency it could take over as a power plant for small towns along the line. seemed like an interesting idea revival at least, considering the 50's projects where not at all practical (and have lots of issue's in the US because there are lots of people along the lines) but haven't seen any info for it since.
 
I think we should retaliate by having an animated, working, Peacekeeper in Trainz

http://www.americanmilitaryforum.co...izing-plans-for-road-and-rail-based-icbm.203/

peacekeeper_rail_garrison_car_-_dayton_-_kingsley_-_12-29-08-jpg.281
 
You hit the nails on the head so to speak BLACKWATCH! When someone else has the nerve to be independent of you-know-who, tut, tut!
 
Didn't see any nukes used in Ukraine, they haven't used any in Syria, in fact, the only country to use nukes against a civilian population is ............... U.S.A.

You hit the nails on the head so to speak BLACKWATCH! When someone else has the nerve to be independent of you-know-who, tut, tut!

I presume that you are referring about the 2 retaliation airstrikes, on the violent expanding warring axis Country regime, that was quickly taking over the Pacific Countries, and had been warring on China for decades, hell bent on global conquest ... and the last straw was, after they struck Pearl Harbor in 1941 with a totally backdoor surprise attack, unprovoked premeditated act of war, using hundreds of Zeros ... after 4 years of horrific Pacific war, a decision was made on how to stop the axis unstoppable global conquest. Civilians were the collateral damage, as the 2 A bomb locations were carefully selected, and targeted steel plants, shipbuilding, and war time manufacturing plants. So don't get it twisted, misconstruing it, that wiping out civilians was the objective target, as this was not the case !

Had a single enemy destroyer or fleet been the optional intended target of the 2 atomic bombs, the 2 planes: "Enola Gay", and "Bockscar", probably would not have been able to spot such a small ship in the vast expanse of the huge Pacific, and the airstrike would have been detected, and intercepted by Zeros, and would have been shot down ...

Even if a small portion of the axis fleet, or a single aircraft carrier, had been selected as the target of a successful bombing operation ... it would have seemed to the enemy, like a puny M80 firecracker tied to a rock, dropped in the Pacific, making a gigantic geyser plume of water ... a laughable bombing mission, not deterring the enemy one bit

Yes I must admit that: Justifiable Genocide was a kind of a bit of an excessive overkill (so to speak) ... "But what goes around ... Comes around" ... and the 3 axis Countries that started the warring in the first place, with unprovoked premeditation of global conquest war ... and war is not a: "kinder and gentler thing" at all, to an invading enemy ... as the axis started the war in the first place !

I suppose that we should have instead, given them a precise warning beforehand, telling them the exact intended location, time, and date, that the airstrike would be taking place, dropping "Get The Heck Outa' Dodge" warning leaflets, so they could have evacuated to the surrounding hills and enjoyed the fabulous "Grand Finale Fireworks Show, of Shock and Awe" ... like what was fabulously displayed to Baghdadian's

War is not pretty !

So the: "nail was hit on the head" (so to speak), with our biggest GD sledgehammer possible (I agree it was not such of a subtle slap on the wrist, but was instead a gigantically huge: "Oh Damn" ... "You din't just" ... "Can of Spam in a sock, to the head" ... Oh ... "Smooth Move Ex-Lax" ... but moreover the harsh deadly message of: "surrender the global conquest, or face certain death and annihilation", was driven directly home to the homeland of the invaders.

And if the outcome had been different ... You and your family most definitely would not have survived the axis global conquest, and you would not have your own Country's flag flying over your own soil today ... and we all would be goosestepping and siege-hieing to a dictatorship world, and speaking a different language today, and eating Schnitzel, Sushi, Spaghetti, Caviar, and Cuban cuisine !

Let's not: "Git' things twisted sister" ... The US does not invade Countries, and steal their oil ... We buy it from them ... And we did not invade Hawaii ... we were welcomed there as an Allie, and the islanders so much loved our GI rations of Spam, that it is still a staple delicacy there, even today. Agreed ... we have had too many worldwide "police actions" in many Countries that are acting totally uncivilized, conquering their neighboring Countries ... Perhaps we should separate ourselves from the rest of the world ... and we should instead just solely defend our own homeland, and sit back complacently and watch the rest of the World go to pieces, being over run by little "pee on" dictators ? As Britain was once on the verge of total annihilation, had we not stepped in on WWII.

I fear that several Countries with noo-clee-ar' capabilities (not directly mentioned, but includes: "the one wit' da' guy wit' the goofy standing up hair doo") are very soon going to overstep their boundaries, and invade, and occupy large portions of the World ... and when Jerusalem falls ... all hell will break loose ... and all the missiles will be in flight !

Answer me this: "Who is it exactly, that Russia intent on "keeping out" by installing offensive (non-defensive) Nuke Trains ? When it is obvious that: No one in their right mind, actually "wants to get into", to invade their Country !

=========================

In conclusion: I have read up allot on WWII, (and I am planning on reading up more about the causes of WWI) ... I want to offer my apology for my insensitivity to casualties of all the wars that the US participated in ... It is totally disgusting ... the topic of War

It seems that the several worldwide monetary depressions, and the "Great Depression", were caused by a collapse of worldwide economics, where all Countries currency was virtually worthless, no jobs, no fuel, starvation ... and Countries were forced into conquering, other Countries, so as to survive ... No coal, no heating timber, no heat, no nothing ... The only survival alternative was to war other Countries, and survive on the reaps and pillaging of war.

The US carried out many many bombing raids (that thousands of B17, and B29, and other bombers, never returned to base, MIA/KIA), that had the only intent of: Incendiary bombing, and airburst (fuel air mixture) bombing with napalm and phosphorous, cluster bombing, ... etc ... with the only intent of causing the most massive casualties of civilians ... This does sicken me !

But war is, what it is ... don't start one, and you won't feel the pain and repercussions ... war is, reducing your enemies blood pressure to zero ... lets not have war
 
Last edited:
The only thing I worry about is terrorist getting their hands on one of those warheads and smuggling it into a large city somewhere and setting it off. I just hope the security on a mobile train with nukes is sufficient.

Jack
 
As Britain was once on the verge of total annihilation, had we not stepped in on WWII.

And you took you're soddin' time doing it, where were you ?
We were noton the verge of "total annihilation", we had the uboat menace under control when (contrary to the film) British forces captured the 'Enigma' machine, Hitler had also refused to let Doenitz have any more resources for his uboats, so he couldn't make up for the losses we were inflicting on them.
Germany never got across the channel, not in either world wars, we don't give in that easy.
 
... lets not have war

Agreed, and lets not forget the men and women who make the ultimate sacrifice from whatever country, in order to defeat tyrrany, past and present.

On topic: We have nuclear trains in Britain, transporting all the nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel to Sellafield - some of it is from other countries!

Rob.
 
As to nuclear weapons vs conventional weapons ... we were bombing the heck out of the axis cities from 1941 onward, but it was not having the mass effect of destruction and deaths, in order to stop them ... so a biggest and best mass casualty bomb was finally developed ... and after 2 were detonated in 1945, wiping out more than 220,000 axis civilians in a 2 day period of time, obliterating the major parts of 2 entire cities, it finally sunk in, and they surrendered ... Global conquest was just not worth it.

With a President that really wanted to stay out of the war, hoping that the axis would simply go away ... we did sit back and watch the rest of the world go to pot ... and that was the problem ... we did take our sweet ol' time entering the war ... only after Pearl Harbor was attacked, then we had no choice to go to war. And 4 years of brutal conventional warfare passed until the A bombs were finally detonated ... ending the war

From 1929 to 1941 the US Great Depression was devastating the US, (as were the entire Worlds individual Great Depressions) ... Nothing stimulates an economy more than war

I think we should retaliate by having an animated, working, Peacekeeper in Trainz

We all should have many of these handy

http://www.americanmilitaryforum.co...izing-plans-for-road-and-rail-based-icbm.203/

peacekeeper_rail_garrison_car_-_dayton_-_kingsley_-_12-29-08-jpg.281
 
Last edited:
Now is definitely not the time to give any such ideas to Trump. One Putin is bad enough. Best with ban the bomb trains.
 
One if the saddest and most ironic things I have ever read about WW2 was that as Japan was one of the very few countries to offer unrestricted sanctuary to people of Jewish decent which is unlike many if not most of the allies so war is not so black and white, as is quoted in the last episode of the series "the world at war" which for those that do not know chronicles WW2 and is definitely worth the watch" the story of war is always told from the side of the victor".
 
Back
Top