Why Putin’s ‘invincible’ nuclear-powered missile is more likely to become a disastrous ‘flying Chernobyl’
Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting a military exercise via video link. ALEXANDER KAZAKOV/SPUTNIK/KREMLIN/POOL/EPA/Shutterstock
Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s latest threats about deploying Moscow’s so-called “invincible” nuclear-powered cruise missile have drawn a sharp response from President Trump — along with a firm reminder of America’s unmatched nuclear capabilities.
Putin’s announcement that Russia is preparing to field the Burevestnik missile, which he claims can evade all missile defense systems, has been dismissed by experts as more bluster than breakthrough. Analysts say the weapon could be a dangerous liability for Russia itself — a potential “flying Chernobyl” — rather than the unstoppable superweapon the Kremlin portrays it to be.
George Barros of the Institute for the Study of War described Putin’s comments as “fear mongering” designed to rattle the West amid fears that the United States could supply Ukraine with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
“We saw Putin ostentatiously present the Burevestnik missile and the details of the test flight, but that presentation was not about the missile,” Barros said. “Its goal was to stoke fear and hesitation among Western nations supporting Ukraine. This is something Americans shouldn’t lose sleep over.”
Putin claimed that the nuclear-powered missile, known to NATO as “Skyfall,” flew for 15 hours and covered nearly 8,700 miles — theoretically enough range to strike major U.S. cities. Moscow has also boasted that it can travel between 528 and 800 miles per hour. But many defense analysts doubt the accuracy of those claims and question whether Russia has the technological capability to safely build such a system.
Unlike traditional nuclear-armed missiles, the Burevestnik is reportedly powered by a miniature nuclear reactor, allowing for extremely long flight durations. However, experts warn that this design would release dangerous radiation during flight and could cause catastrophic contamination if it crashed.
The United States briefly explored similar technology in the 1950s before abandoning the concept due to the enormous safety risks. Nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis of Middlebury College called the Russian weapon a “tiny flying Chernobyl,” referencing the 1986 disaster that blanketed Europe with radiation.
During a 2019 test at a naval base in the White Sea, one of the missiles exploded, killing five engineers and two soldiers. Radiation levels in the area reportedly spiked shortly afterward.
Lewis believes that despite Putin’s hype, the Burevestnik is a slow, subsonic missile that NATO aircraft could intercept. “The problem,” he warned, “is that Burevestnik represents another step toward an arms race that offers no victory for either side.”
Barros agreed, arguing that Putin’s nuclear posturing is largely symbolic. “Our assessment shows that the principle of mutually assured destruction still holds. Russia knows that any nuclear strike would trigger devastating retaliation,” he said. “Putin is shaking his nuclear rattle while his own envoys are in the U.S. trying to convince us to see Russia as a partner.”
President Trump, responding to Putin’s announcement, issued a clear and firm warning.
“They’re not playing games with us, and we’re not playing games with them either,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, noting that the United States has a nuclear submarine stationed “right off” Russia’s coast.
Barros called Trump’s response “the perfect answer” to Putin’s saber-rattling. “It reminded the Kremlin that America’s deterrent remains as strong as ever — and that intimidation won’t work,” he said.
About Post Author
