>

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