>

Really?
moran  is defined as:
a member of the warrior group of the Masai people of East Africa, which comprises the younger unmarried males.
Rather insulting to Masai warriors isn’t it?
The primitive thought process behind russian threats and what they think inspires terror is what I find most interesting. >

It's interesting that they seem to think that if they come up with some creative way to attack the western world that they'd just say, "Oh shoot! We have the MAD doctrine for bombs and missiles but nothing for a radio active tsunami. Oh well!" and throw their hands up in the air and do nothing about it. >

Russia seems to be using the "James Bond Villain" method of international diplomacy. >

Their next plan will be to use a weather changing machine that is, in essence, a sophisticated heat beam which they call a "laser." Using these "lasers," they will punch a hole in the protective layer around the Earth, which scientists call the "Ozone Layer." Slowly but surely, ultraviolet rays will pour in, increasing the risk of skin cancer. That is unless the world pays them a hefty ransom. >

One billion dollars! >

I'm stealing the MOON! >

I can't wait for russia to make a claim that they are going to steal the Internet! >

How many tubes do they need to steal to break the interweb? >

I wonder how useful they will be against a country you are having a land based conflict with >

It would be very handy if they were at war with Atlantis. >

Atlantiens: lol we are already underwear >

Right, they are not worried by lots of water coming there way. >

No no, they are underwear. They can't find what it's under. >

Wouldn’t that be underwhat? >

That must be what the article was referring to when it says:

it has the potential to trigger radioactive ocean swells that would render coastal areas inhabitable. >

Ooh I can live there now? >

Let's go catch some sick waves, dewd. >

Waves that make you sick. >

I'm so gnarly the radiation makes itself sick. >

Every day, Russia sounds more and more  like North Korea. >

I mean, Putin at this point looks like a Bond villain. Let’s call a spade a spade. >

Don't insult Bond Villains. >

I don't know...they never succeed right? It's usually they hatch a plan, but only the first 30% of it goes off (usually while killing hordes of innocent people), then they're scrambling to fix all the shit that the good guys are fucking up before everything blows up in their face.
Seems pretty on point. >

Only because Bond has plot armor, that cheating bastard! >

The West also has plot armor. It’s called capitalism and the US being the world leader in military R&D >

Honestly these threats are becoming so frequent who’s paying attention anymore? >

The Russian people are the intended audience. It's propaganda designed to inspire nationalism and faith in Putin, not fear in the West. >

Russia has claimed this so many times.
Russia: “we have torpedoes capable of causing a nuclear tsunami” 
NATO: “yeah we know, you told us, know what we’ve got? Not telling you…moron” >

They also evidently don’t understand how waves work either. A nuclear blast underwater wouldn’t create a tsunami unless detonated at ~200ft of depth at most 2km from shore. You would also need sufficient water below as well. The US has tested extensively what happens if you detonate nuclear devices at various depths. Put simply, the required conditions to actually pull this off are such that it rules out using this against the vast majority of potential targets.
Also a fun fact, if you detonate below ~600m, there is no trace at the surface, because the immense pressure of the water prevents expansion. This is regardless of how big your bomb is. >

I’m imagining that scene from finding Nemo when the one pelican thinks the other one farts and flies off disgusted lol >

Actually, below 600m you wouldn’t even get any bubbles. The water would just get very hot and radioactive for a while. So you’d just cook whatever was there. >

No I got that after reading your comment, which btw thanks for the detailed explanation cause i don’t know anything about how that stuff works. Really showcases the delusional statements by the Russians. 
Idk why tho but my brain still made that connection and gave me a nice chuckle. >

Up next: Russia threatens the US with a weather machine and a freeze ray. >

I played enough Red Alert to know those are Allied tech.
Wake me when they start threatening Tesla Tanks. >

I can't wait til we start sending Tanyas to Ukraine in the next aid deal. >

Just fill up a tank full of Tanyas. Maybe throw in some Tesla troopers and then a bunch of Prizm tanks. You could do some massive damage with a bunch of those prizm tanks charging each other up. >

Nah, Mirage tanks. They are just walking by and blam! >

Yes! Mirage tanks! I had forgotten the name. Oh the shame lol >

Honestly if they are Russian they will probably somehow miss the ocean >

They attempted to test this new weapon back in November
Attempted
Can't miss if you fail to fire it >

Russia has already told us about these torpedoes and threatened the uk with them in the first few months of the invasion of Ukrain,  but during a test launch, these failed to launch so just another demonstration of russian reliability >

They are guarded in a top secret underwater facility by mermaids. >

Guarded by the Flagship of the Black Sea Fleet.  Russia's newest submarine- the Moscva. >

I have a little brown fat chicken that sings opera so loudly and so off-key that it shatters metal and brings rockets down from the sky. Just trust me on that one. >

That’s some full on Bond Villain shit right there. >

It's pretty silly too
"You have nukes that fall from space and obliterate cities, yes?"
"Yes"
"But now, instead of detonating it in the city, you can now detonate near a city and hit it with a radioactive wave?"
"Yes"
"Assuming it works perfectly, how is that different?"
"... It's wetter" >

They claimed this years ago when Putin showed off a video of them nuking Florida. >

They’d never do us such a favor. >

Radioactive..
Giant wave..
Boom boom..
Dude saying he has nukes? Did he think the world didn't know that? Wtf. Putin is drumpf levels of stupid.. >

If their nuclear arsenal has received the same upkeep as the rest of their military assets I'm skeptical of their nuclear program in general.  Simply having nuclear weapons is not the same as having a viable, functioning, and accurate delivery system.  It's still not a chance I would take, but the invasion of Ukraine has shown that their military is all bark and no bite. >

I for one suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle of "thousands of working bombs" and "no working bombs." They probably maintain a handful of bombs, probably for their subs and ICBMs, but leave the majority to rot or part out. >

I looked up some of the physics around their claims a while back, and the size of the tsunami is greatly exaggerated (I know, surprising, right?), Russia has made claims of a 500m wave of radioactive water devastating coastlines. Now, when the Indian Ocean tsunami came ashore in Indonesia (near the epicenter) it had waves of around 30-51m in height, and this was caused by an event measuring 0.8 gigatonnes of TNT. In comparison, the upper level warhead of this torpedo is said to be 100mt, which is big and if used in an airburst would absolutely level a major city (although when the Tsar Bomba was detonated at 50mt it sent most of its explosive energy upwards harmlessly into the sky rather than outwards, so whilst it's impressive in scale it's also incredibly inefficient), so to get near the level of energy to create a 30-51m in height you'd need to detonate 8 or more of these things. 
Furthermore, in order to get even a 30-50m tsunami it would have to detonate this thing no more than a few km from the shore, any further than that and the scale of the wave scales down to the point that beyond 20km you're looking at nothing bigger than a meter in height. 
In order to get that close to the shore to detonate it, you're going to have to avoid it being intercepted, Russia has made fantastic claims (again, what a shocker) about the speed of the thing, but I think we can take the idea of it traveling at 100kts as being complete rubbish, or if it does then it's going to be as quiet as a heavy metal band doing an epic drum solo, the Pentagon estimates that the maximum speed will be around 56 knots. They will be carried on board four specially made submarines of the Khabarovsk class, so all the NATO navies would need to do is follow these submarines at all times, and if they look like they're about to launch a Status-6 torpedo, sink them immediately. There are options, however, for the weapon to be dropped at sea in containers and then launched at a later date, although that would require a lot of things to work perfectly and recent events have shown us that Russian weaponry reliability is...sporadic at best.  
So, basically, unless you live right on a beach, and Russia suddenly displays a level of ability that it has spent nearly the last year demonstrating a lack of, then you're not likely to be in any danger from this weapon. 
In fact, given how many times they've irradiated themselves testing their other wunderwaffen, the Skyfall, the thing probably poses a greater threat to Russia than it does to NATO. >

The Indian Ocean event occurred 30 km underground, 160 km from the nearest shore, and yet its energy, even spread out over enormous territory still killed people in 14 countries.
If you look at the waves much closer to the nuclear explosions, where the effect is much more focused, then even a 26 kt shot was sufficient to produce a 274 m wave. (See the information on the effects of shot Baker.)
100 MT of energy corresponds to lifting 42 cubic kilometers of water to an altitude of 1 km. Of course, not all of the energy will go into the wave in practice, but a large weapon blown up close to the shore would still be devastating to the extreme -- much more so than an air burst, because moving water would have 30 times greater momentum for the same energy.
It is a more terrible weapon. But why should we even bother talking about these technical aspects? Militarily, everybody is already capable of destroying each other quite thoroughly with the existing weapons. The only point of Russian announcement is to stir up jingoism at home and fear abroad. Otherwise, this changes nothing. >

Indeed, on one hand I can understand slightly the why behind it, Russia knows that they cannot keep up with US ABM technology, and fear that at a point in the future their nuclear strategic arsenal will be rendered useless because of this. 
However, that point is probably not in Putins lifetime, because the cost effectiveness of ABM weaponry is still an issue, and they have hundreds of missiles, and the US doesn't have enough ABMs to shoot down all of them. So instead they put all their rubles in this timesink, which will probably be obsolete in few decades. 
Still, it wouldn't be the first time Russia has wasted time and money on extravagant systems that ultimately don't work. >

Nuclear torpedo is a failed nuclear payload delivery concept that was phased out in sixties by both USSR and USA on the grounds of it being failprone, easy to detect and intercept and  redundant in the face of perfecting ballistic missiles which can't be reliably intercepted to this day.
So if you fall for putin's nuclear fearmongering I have good news for you - you might be eligible for mental disability benefits. >

Yeah you know what is way more effective? The thousands of ICBMs they've had for decades.  But I guess it sounds new and scary to some people? >

The USA will see your radioactive tsunami torpedoes and raise you our Jewish space lasers. We call. >

So do we call or raise? >

To be fair, I never understood that betting process either >

Call if you’re sure, raise if you’re really really sure. >

No shit. Fucking Moses had them on the arc.
What, ypu thought in the 75ish years nukes have been around that nobody thought of that?
Any more cold War tech you're "keeping secret"? >

I have nuclear volcanoes. Try me. >

I'll see your nuclear volcanoes, and I'll raise you an anti nuclear mountain. We built it 55 years ago.
Or: it's pronounced submarine, putin, and they're not supposed to spew radioactive metal like that. >

Putin heard phrase "walk softly and carry a big stick" and decided to do the complete opposite. >

Talk loudly and bluff with a twig >

I have a dick that could level all of Moscow. >

I’ve seen nukes go off underwater. A radioactive tsunami, it did not make. >

And yet can’t put decent tires on their equipment so it doesn’t get stuck in a mud puddle or disintegrate on a highway >

Starting to sound a lot like North Korean threats. >

I read the article. 
I love and write science fiction. It is a sixty foot torp that can "silently" travel one hundred miles an hour and is undetectable.
It would love it if the author would make a comparison to real world items, like nothing in existence that is sixty feet long goes a hundred mph underwater. The fastest sub in history hits a little over 30, it is a Russian though and it can be heard miles away.
Cavaltations, which the Russians had to steal us tech to cut down on, has never been their strength. 
Modern torps don't hit the speeds they claim, much less something attached to another sub that is being observed 24/7 that is sixty feet long.
Good science fiction. >

Not possible >

Threatening doesn't win wars Vlad, off you go with your miserable life. >

They puttin Taco Bell franchises on their boats? >

I seem to recall this threat 5 or 6 months ago.  Recycling threats now, eh Put-Put? >

Does he mean a submarine that malfunctions and causes a tsunami as it explodes? >

surfs up dude >

It feels like Russia is just going to start threatening everyone with weapons out of Red Alert.
Next up, Tesla Troopers. >

Putin is so sad.
I wish someone would just give him some tea to drink or something. >

“We have obviously never tested them because you would have been able to detect that from space but we have been assured they are a real thing and not a way to scam money out of our military budget. Ohhh I hear it now, never mind” >

Yeah but no winter gear for your soldiers you third world nation pretending to be relevant fucks lol. >

Yes, yes, yes. The Ruzzian trolls on Quora have been touting this for months. The problem is that you don’t get extra energy to cause damage by detonating underwater. >

And a girlfriend in Canada. >

Um, underwater nuclear tests were a thing decades ago, and no, they did not cause catastrophic radioactive tsunamis. >

These Nimrods can’t even outfit their soldiers for the winter. Nothing they say is truthful >

How useful in a primarily land war >

It's a threat for the US, and the Americas in general >

Good thing I don’t live underwater. >

Good story bro, we have NATO >

This just in: Russia is now claiming Atlantis has a Nazi Problem after misunderstanding that they have running water. >

I produce an underwater radioactive tsunami the morning after I eat Taco Bell, who cares? >

"Russia claims"
That's where I stop. >

Yeah, and my farts can gas an entire continent.
Lying sack of shit. >

Can confirm your farts are why Antarctica is a frozen wasteland. >

You just solved global warming! >

It would be enoug just with a normal tsunami. The guys so stupid that feel the need to add "radioactive" >

Maybe it would help save the people on Gilligans Island. They could surf it off. >

Realistically the only real target would be coastal bases and submarine bases. The tidal wave would do a fair bit of damage if it were as big as the ruzzians claim (which we know it isn't, but let's pretend), and then when it receded, it would paint the area in radioactive waste, making repair work and remanning the base incredibly dangerous until you scrub the material away. If it all worked as intended, it would be very affective against coastal facilities that you may want to eventually control, but want knocked out of commission for a prolonged period in the meantime >

Yeah, but I very much doubt that a nuclear bomb would even be able to cause a tsunami. You'd probably need one bigger than the Tsar bomba. Not sure what the payload of the Poseidon is, but if it exists, I don't think it'll be killing more than fish.
(Not a nuclear scientist or a whale biologist) >

What an idiot, Putin is. >

Literally the US, USSR, and NATO during the Cold War: "Put a nuke on it." 
Why should a nuclear torpedo come as any surprise? >

Surprise? It's not even remotely new
The Soviet Union widely deployed T5 nuclear torpedoes in 1958 and the U.S. deployed its Mark 45 torpedo in 1963 >

They also have lasers....in space...made by Jewish scientists...lmao >

I mean other than blowing up a nuke directly off the city (in which case - why not just actually just do it in the city) the answer is no - they dont. Waves don't work like that (the radioactivity would largely stay put - drifting with the current) and no bomb in the world has enough energy to create a sizable tsunami outside of the area it was detonated. >

Hm... probably not from the detonation as such, but what happens, when you fire one into a handily placed continental shelf, for example? Sure, you'd need a lot of geological data and I'm not sure that even exists, but wouldn't a hit in the right spot suffice to create a tsunami indirectly from the slide caused? Just for clarification, I highly doubt that would constitute a valid military tactic, more interested in the general mechanics here. >

So you have an underwater dirty bomb.   Is that supposed to be scarier somehow? >

And some how different than the  USSRs T5 nuclear torpedo from 1958 >

How will poisoning the sea benefit Russia again? >

Kill all those Nazi fish! Have to de nazify the ocean. >

Putin hitting the "cancer drugs" a lil hard lately. >

Nice, a solution to a problem that never existed.  Sounds like an accident, pushing to be marketable. >

Major war crime and Crime Against Nature. >

Okay.
And? >

This new weapons is much scarier
Imagine if, Instead of your city being nuked, they nuked near your city and it suffered a less devastating tsunami!
Sure it's more survivable. But it's WETTER. Scarier than the ICBMs that drop from space and turn flesh to ash, right?
Also plz ignore the Soviet T5 nuclear torpedo from 1958. This is new idea >

Russia claims alot of shit >

It’s interesting this weapon must be based on theory alone, because I don’t recall a radioactive tsunami anywhere in the world after a weapons test. I call bullshit on this one just like everything else that comes out of this cunt’s mouth. >

Waves do not transfer water over long distances, only currents do that.  The radio active water would just stay near the detonation until ocean currents moved it. >

And by end of the day it will fall back to background level. >

Can't wait for the "we have a secret moon-sized base that can destroy planets" threat. >

Great. Now, what about providing sewers to your population? >

So what. The rest of the world has nukes pointed at Putin’s face. >

The same Russia that has 80's tanks and equipment?? >

The only “tsunami” can happen, is Putin shitting his pants underwater! >

This is what happens 2-3 hours after I eat Golden Corral. Your torpedoes are not innovative. >

They can’t even feed their troops but they have a tsunami torpedo. Ok >

But do they have sharks with freakin laser beams attached to their heads?
Didn’t think so. >

I mean… neat but we’d still kill the fuck out of you with the ones that come in from space so I don’t see how this even matters. >

They once used the release of carfentanyl gas into a theatre with 800 hostages being held by Chechnyans I think it was, it worked at incapacitating everyone but also killed about 120 hostages, to unpredictable the way gas can be dispersed. They were all thrown into busses dead and the unconscious living ones. >

U/Swabia claims his penis causes fresh breath. >

Putin turning into George Santos... >

The title shoud go we only have them left. >

Absolutely not possible. Tsunamis aren’t cause merely by a release of energy. The major component of a tsunami (and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong) is the displacement of water. 
That volume travels away from the displacement, in order to reach an equilibrium, and as water depth shallows along the coastline, that relative volume gets pushed up into a very large wave/surge.
If you blow a quadrillion gallons of water up into the air with an explosion, it creates a vacancy of water, not a large displacement. Shockwaves will travel, sure, but the vast majority of that water will end up filling the temporary vacancy. The ripples, although they might be large, will not grow in magnitude or create a large surge when they reach land, as we see in tsunamis. Totally junk science. The fact that they pursued this objective at all speaks a lot to the people in charge and their scientific acumen… >

Yes, they sure have all the wunderwaffe. Just like their idols did. >

Y’all always saying this shit and can’t even feed your troops. >

Atomic torpedoes are as old as it gets when it comes to nuclear weapons. When the Cuban missile crisis happened in 1962 the island was defended by Russia subs with nuclear armed torpedoes. Russia didn’t have sub launched missile capability in 62 >

This isn’t new, I remember reading about Poseidon years ago.
It’s just a big nuke that goes off underwater. They can’t use it for the same reasons they can’t use regular nukes (MAD). >

Breaking News: Russia claims to have capabilities they do not have.
These dipshits can’t even maintain a damn truck for godsake >

Putin is an absolute moron who's still stuck in the Cold War. >

Anyone that knows anything about either how waves work or how radioactivity works has got to laugh at how stupid this posturing is.
Water does not travel with the wave, and one of the safest places for a radioactive material to be is underwater where the water itself shields it.
This threat is basically "We will bomb the ocean until you die! Well yes, it would be 10,000 times more effective to just bomb coastal areas directly, but it isn't as diabolical and menacing!" >

Underwater radioactive tsunami torpedoes? 
What is this, a video game? A James Bond movie? >

Man's just a straight up Bond villain now, huh? >

I guess Putin’s been farting in the bathtub again >

Remember this very old video with Zhirinovsky who threatened the US with their "scientists" saying they could alter Earth's gravitational field to flood the US with ocean water. Same thing. >

He just made that up >

If this is what they say then the opposite is true. >

Blah, blah, blah.  Stfu, old man. >

I am pretty sure the energy in a hidrogen bomb is not quite enough to cause a tsunami, so I am rather sceptical about the claim. I also don't get how they'd test such a weapon. >

Ok Vlad.....even if you do have it and it works (last intelligence estimates call it doubtful) you do realize that if you use it against NATO your country still gets turned into a parking lot right? >

Japan wants to ask some questions >

They STILL have nukes. And they're still thinking about using them.
Really only 2 countries in the world that threaten the rest of the world with nukes and I wouldn't want to live in either of them.
Like it's some type of consultation that while they may be the worst places on earth they do have really big bombs. Like really big. Omg so scary! >

There's going to be a resolution to this, anybody capable of maintaining the things is clever enough to fuck off. >

I proclaim my wiener the most powerful wiener in all the land capable of causing the tsunami of all tsunamis in my underwear. So powerful that even Russian anti tsunami underwear cannot control it. Long live my wiener! >

Old news. More threats, it's Thursday. The Kremlin has to get their threats out before the weekend... >

Russia says.. [some total bullshit] >

Oh ya...we have ummm...we have drones that seed the skies with acid rain. No no, sharks, ya tornadoes with sharks. >

Who gives a fuck have they nothing better to do than try to threaten everyone everyother week bore off. >

Russia - ‘we totally have like these mega death stars that explode and like a really cool bunch of robot pterodactyls fly out and they drop acid poo, which is also made of flames, it’s crazy you guys for real’ >

Huh, I always just sort of assumed any nuclear power could accomplish the same with a near-surface-underwater detonation. >

Send in 007. >

Russia claims a lot of things >

Oh yeah?! My dad has an attack helicopter that shoots sharknados! >

And I have a dragon 🐉 dracaris >

The ghost of Putin’s micropenis and North Korea are competing for least believable threats ever. We’re all winning. >

“…frickin sharks- with frickin laser beams on their frickin heads…” >

This man wants to kill us before he dies >

When I am in the bathtub and let out a huge fart, it can cause a tsunami under the water >

If I was 12 and still had an irrational fear of tsunamis (while living thousands of kms from the ocean) this would have absolutely terrified me lol
But actually wtf kind of threat is this… >

they said this a couple of years ago. no new sabre rattling here >

Just reading the title reminded me of a low budget disaster movie that I saw on YouTube.
The plot almost exactly described the title. 
Im getting some strong austin powers vibes reading some Reddit headlines. >

He seems to have forgotten the term “mutually assured destruction “ >

Do they also have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads? >

No, but they do have ill tempered sea bass... >

Nobody is listening Vlad, put down the bottle and go home! >

We aren’t fond of Florida anyway >

Didn't they present a shitty CGI of this when the war started where it showed the UK being swept away or something? >

Quote from Putin from this article -  “We will continue to develop the combat potential of the Armed Forces, make advanced models of weapons and equipment that will guard Russia’s security in the coming decades. This is a promising weapon.”
"make advanced models of weapons and equipment"
"advanced models"
"MODELS"
Just toys that he thinks will scare off the West and NATO... LOL >

Next they'll tell the world they can replicate the movie Moonfall ... >

I have a car capable of knocking over a wall by driving into it at 90 mph, but unlike Putin I understand “consequences.” >

They also claim they won fair elections in Ukraine. >

Okay we have nukes too Lmao >

Whoh Putin has one …. me too! Got tons of it at Costco. You see, I've got an exclusive membership card. And with that card, I get access to the whole place. I can buy large quantities of anything at discount prices.
What’s that you say Reddit ? “Can I get one ?!?!?” No, don't think so. But I can talk to someone, if you'd like. >

and it's going to use in what context ? >

Mate detonating a nuke underwater to create an earthquake effect is not exactly that bold a claim and it’s not like their counterparts couldn’t do the same.  Putin lost this war already he’s just hurting his own country at this point. >

Sure why not. I mean if you’re going to lie you may as well make it a really big lie >

Russia claims Putin has a brain.  Cowardly Lion and Tin Man confirm belief. >

Yes, we have CGI too >

Pretty sure they are referring to their aging nuclear submarines... kinda happens when they explode from lack of proper maintenance. >

Russia says a lot, and they deliver virtually nothing. Just a bunch of incompetent liars >

I've been working on an ICBM that plays the Brown Note at 300 decibels for thirty days straight, when it reaches its target.
This shit is gonna be epic.

Russia, probably >

Aw hey buddy. That's great. I bet you have all those great weapons in your Battletech DnD group. Putin are you DMing again? >

And why would you need that for ?
Why do we have wars in the first place if we could do something useful ? >

.....yet their troops lack adequate clothing, body armor, food and water. >

Didn't they say this a while back as a threat against the British Isles?
Also...they (Russia/USSR) has had supercavitation nuclear tipped capable torpedoes since the late 1970s in the form of the Shkval >

Of course, these "torpedoes" started out as SLBMs, but you know, underwater explosion is good too. >

As Bill Hicks would have said, I have four questions:
Yeah?
And?
So?
What? >

Oh, no.
In other news, what brand of peanut butter do you prefer? Specify creamy or crunchy. >

Crunchy >

More terrorism against food >

What's the next threat? Bomb that causes a zombie virus? >

They practiced the effectiveness of the weapons on Mothra and Godzilla with somewhat satisfying results. >

Is Putin the devil? >

Godzilla. This is how you get Godzilla. >

Becoming more like North Korea every day. >

Great. We already know that. And using it will get you noting but vaporized. There’s literally no upside for Russia in this situation they’ve stupidly gotten themselves into. The best thing they could do is just pull out of Ukraine with their tail between their legs and hope the world eventually forgets. Either that, or the Russian people need to send Putin and his allies the way of Tsar Nicholas. There are less and less positive paths forward for Russia with Putin in power. >

Same shit every year :) bohooo, ho home Valodia you are drunk >

I got a news alert just a few hours ago here in Hawaii about the coast guard “keeping an eye on” a Russian vessel nearby, then I see this 😳 >

That's not how waves work. >

They also trained their sharks that have LASERS ON THEIR HEADS! >

And how many of your submarines are shadowed by US/Nato subs at all times Vlad? >

Had a friend in school who defected from USSR. He talked about the Soviet Union having a strategy of detonating nukes by coastal areas to make Tsunami waves to destroy western countries because wealth and population densities were highest in the coasts. That was back in the late 90s and he had left USSR in the 80s. Nothing new here, same old tired worn out threats. He also repeatedly said “Russia is a shitty country”. >

Nuclear caused tsunami's have been a thing that'd been tested and attempted time and time again, but it never works and all the tests have determined that it is not feasible. Atop of that, water is a fantastic insulator against radiation, to make a tsunami that's radioactive, from the ocean, you'd need super nova levels of radiation, so russia claiming it has a torpedo that will vaporise the entire ocean would be more credible than them saying they can make radioactive tsunami's, in other words its not credible at all. >

But can their dad beat up my dad? That’s the real threat. >

Russia claims they have dirty nukes strapped to torpedoes, im surprised they admit that publicly >

They also got Sharks with Lasers on their heads >

Shoulda said they have sharks with laser beams attached to their head. >

Do they actually think....
Actually no they don't, do they? >

A basic understanding of water as an excellent radiation shield makes this such a sad sabre rattle... >

PUTIN is a MORAN !!!