Can the Satin 2 missile hit Paris in 200 seconds? – Editing

The war between Ukraine and RussiaIssue

A graph broadcast by Russian state television claims that the French capital can be hit in 200 seconds with the last generation of nuclear warheads. This number is wrong, and Devil 2 is still in the testing phase.

The series was broadcast on the Russian state television Rossiya-1 in the last days of April. Guests, deputies of the Russian parliament and columnists praised Moscow’s striking capabilities against potential enemies and supporters of Ukraine. A graph is placed on the board: we can see the orange tracks on the background of a European map with the capitals of NATO members as points of influence.

Alexey Zhuravlev, elected to the Duma, is especially strong. According to subtitles verification It is promoting the use of the latest generation of missiles called “Sarmat” and some press headlines have dubbed it “Satan 2”. In the face of this proposal, presenter Olga Skapicheva specified how long it would take for this supposed ballistic missile to reach European capitals from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad (included in northern Poland): The flight to Berlin takes 106 seconds. From Kaliningrad to Paris – 200 [secondes]. If you’re interested in London – 202 seconds.”

A montage of this sequence has been broadcast on Twitter By journalist Julia Davis of the US tabloid Daily Beast, accompanied by an English translation CheckNews Also confirmed. This video was widely shared, and was picked up by French media such as BFM TV, CNews or Sud Ouest with more or less distance (this last article is no longer available, and was conspicuously deleted between 2 and 3 May). The clip also caused a reaction from many Russian and Ukrainian channels on the Telegram platform.

This assertion that a Sarmat missile could hit Paris in 200 seconds is wrong for several reasons. First, the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile is still in development – the first test launch took place on April 20 – and therefore has not yet been put into service. Moreover, this test is not directly related to the Ukrainian conflict, since the development of this new system has been in progress for several years. The statements of Russian officials at the end of 2021, reported by the Moscow news agency Interfax, already indicated the future tests of the Sarmat rig, with the stated goal, the first operational regiment by the end of 2022.

Even before this test, Sarmat missiles attracted media attention at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine. Several press headlines have waved the danger of this new armament, such as West of FranceAnd RTL (“This advanced missile is by far the largest ICBM ever built”), Or even CNews, which appeared on the second day of the war in Ukraine”All about satin 2, the Russian missile is capable of overrunning a country like FranceSome netizens even speculated about the deployment of Sarmat missiles during the early days of the war, but like CheckNews Explained in a previous article, it was just a movement of the RS-24 Yars (another ICBM, operational) missile launchers in anticipation of the May 9 parade.

Benjamin Graves, political scientist and author of the Red Samovar blog specializing in the Russian army and arsenal, decried the speed of Rossiya 1 and the delusions that Sarmat generated In several tweets. It indicates not only that the latter is still in the testing phase, but also “There are no silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles [intercontinental ballistic missile, soit les missiles intercontinentaux en français, ndlr] In Kaliningrad: the publication of Sarmat was strictly prohibited.

The calculations given by the Kremlin chain are therefore made for a missile in the development stage, and from a pocket where there is no launch silo. But even without taking these factors into account, the 200-second number to reach Paris remains wrong, as Benjamin Graves explains to CheckNews: “The values ​​indicated by Rossiya-1 are nonsense (and I am still polite). They divided the distance by the maximum speed … in a straight line from the ICBM. It is c * n and is not based on anything credible, since the missile An ICBM does not fly in a straight line, this is the task of a cruise missile. […] If it can give you a first clue, it would take about six minutes to put the nuclear charges (autonomous warheads) of an ICBM into a ballistic flight profile [la trajectoire parabolique suivie par ce type de missile, ndlr] Before allowing them to begin their descent towards the area to be hit. “

This fictional character described by Moscow State Television is not isolated, and is part of the Kremlin’s warlike rhetoric on nuclear dangers. On another channel, Margarita Simonyan, a Kremlin advocate who heads several Russian media outlets such as Russia Today and Sputnik, points out that in the face of defeat, it is likely That in the end it will all end with a nuclear strike […]. Even if it seems awful to me. On the other hand, I realize that – well, that’s how it is. We will go to heaven! They will simply die.

The country can hit Paris without any problem in launching an ICBM

In another broadcast, on May 1, the star of state media in the Kremlin Dmitry Kiselev very calmly watched the Sarmat shot in the UK: “Russia is a very big country, while England is very small and it would take one Sarmat missile to completely destroy it.. All are decorated with computer-generated images of the British Isles being erased from the map.

Indeed, even without the deployment of the Sarmat missile, Russia has a diverse and perfectly functioning nuclear arsenal. The country can hit Paris without any problem with ICBM fire from its territory, from a submarine or even from an airplane. how long ? It’s hard to say a lot of scenarios vary depending on the projectile used and the shooting area. But this repeated rhetoric by Russia about these new missiles, promoted as much faster and more destructive (when the current nuclear arsenal is already enough to destroy the planet several times), makes it possible to avoid the fact that the target countries also have nuclear weapons. (of the United Kingdom and France), and that a strike on these NATO members would necessarily trigger a response from the United States.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.