10 Russian ICBM tests this year

In early 2004, Russian Colonel-General Nikolay Solovtsov, commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Troops announced that it would test a total of 10 ICBMs in the coming year. Russia now plans to do the same in 2005, reports Interfax.

Solovtsov said at a news conference today that, “In compliance with our combat training plans, we are going to launch 10 strategic missiles in 2005, which is almost the same number we launched this year.”

According to public reports tracked , Russia has in fact conducted a total of some thirteen launches to date this year. They were as follows:

November 2: SS-25, SS-18
September 8: SS-N-23, SS-N-18
August 11: SS-19
June 29: SS-N-23, SS-18
April 20: SS-27
March 17: SS-N-23 (2 missiles)
February 12: SS-19 (2 missiles), SS-27
Excluding SLBM launches, there were a total of eight land-based ICBM tests this year. An additional test of the land-based Topol-M, and possibly another “heavy missile,” has been reportedly scheduled for sometime during December, but it is unclear if this will still take place.

Besides these ICBM/SLBM tests, there were at least three launches of the short-range but nuclear capable SS-21 “Tochka” in 2004: on April 2, June 3, and August 3


2004's 10 tests

hmmm....scary stuff indeed.

Well isnt generally Russian rocket forces the main military organization that get most of the fundings, why give up the thing your best at, building bigger and better nukes.

WTF is wrong with this russians?

ten missile tests?
are they crazy?
wait a minute.
dont answer that.
ofcourse they are.

only a crazy, inseane man would build this bomb,
and then test it:

Name:Tzar Bomba;
Job:The state killer...50 mega-tonnes;
Date:October 30, 1961;
Site:Novaya Zemlya;
Detonation:Airburst; Yield 50Mgt;
Type:Fission/Fusion;

now that is even more scary!

Originally posted by Souljah
WTF is wrong with this russians?

ten missile tests?
are they crazy?
wait a minute.
dont answer that.
ofcourse they are.

only a crazy, inseane man would build this bomb,
and then test it:

They don't actually have live warheads - just the missile. You can't just trust that a complex weapon system will last forever without occasional tests.

lets just hope they're all successful

Originally posted by drfunk
lets just hope they're all successful

Lets hope they all fail....I still wanna live.....but then....lets hope the are all sucessful so they don't build nastier missles...

If recent history means anything, these tests will be miserable failures...

You have to test these things every once in awhile or their is no telling if they will work if they are ever needed. Computer simulations are great and everything but cant compare to the real world test.

If you have ICBMs and dont ever test them I wouldnt put much money on them working right no matter what the computers say.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
If recent history means anything, these tests will be miserable failures...

Like I said Russia has ariund 1.5 times the nukes as the US,and the average nuke is 1.4 times stronger,so even if half failed it would still be plenty to destroy the earth 2 times over.

Here is the US Test schedule/results (just for the Minuteman III) over the past few years. The one failure (italic) was later found to be caused by not programming the missile that it was being launched from California - it was still trying to do a polar route from ND to the pacific - and was self destructed. All other tests have been succesfull.

The test launches themselves are quite a sight, if the fog isn't too bad (they are typically in the middle of the night on California's central coast - very foggy).

2000

Jan 19, 2000 Vandenberg LF03 1600 USAF AFMC ICBM Success Target
Jan 27, 2000 Vandenberg SLF - USAF AFMC Satellite Success Sat
May 24, 2000 Vandenberg LF09 1300 USAF 576FTS ICBM Failure Test
May 28, 2000 Vandenberg LF06 1300 USAF AFMC ICBM Success Target
Jun 09, 2000 Vandenberg LF10 1300 USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Jul 08, 2000 Vandenberg LF03 1300 USAF AFMC ICBM Success Target
Jul 19, 2000 Vandenberg SLF - USAF AFMC Satellite Success Sat
Sep 28, 2000 Vandenberg LF09 1300 USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Sep 28, 2000 Vandenberg LF04 1300 USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test/Target

2001

Feb 07, 2001 Vandenberg LF10 1300 USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Jul 15, 2001 Vandenberg LF03 1600 USAF AFMC ICBM Success Target
Nov 07, 2001 Vandenberg LF04 1300 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Dec 04, 2001 Vandenberg LF06 1600 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Target

2002

Mar 16, 2002 Vandenberg - 1600 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Target
Apr 08, 2002 Vandenberg - 1300 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Jun 07, 2002 Vandenberg - 1300 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Jul 17, 2002 Vandenberg - 1300 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Sep 20, 2002 Vandenberg - 1300 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Oct 15, 2002 Vandenberg - 1600 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Target
Dec 11, 2002 Vandenberg - 1600 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Target

2003

Jun 11, 2003 Vandenberg - 1300 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Aug 06, 2003 Vandenberg LF26 1300 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test
Sep 10, 2003 Vandenberg - 1300 ? USAF AFSPC ICBM Success Op Test

A more complete list can be found here : www.geocities.com...

Like I said Russia has ariund 1.5 times the nukes as the US,and the average nuke is 1.4 times stronger,so even if half failed it would still be plenty to destroy the earth 2 times over.

I wouldn't argue that. I'm just kind of sick of Stealth Spy and all of these posts playing-up the Russian technology so he can make India look better...

Originally posted by W4rl0rD


Like I said Russia has ariund 1.5 times the nukes as the US,and the average nuke is 1.4 times stronger,so even if half failed it would still be plenty to destroy the earth 2 times over.

Not even close. While Russia does have signifigantly larger yeild weapons than the US, they have about the same number of operational weapons.

At current levels, both countries combined could not even approach physically destroying even a moderate size country - let alone the world. If well placed, the damage would ovbviously be very bad - but not end of the world type stuff.

Think of it this way - the average US warhead is around 300 kt. This is about enough to destroy non-hardened targets in an area of about 15 square miles (depending on topography). We have somewhere around 3,000 operational warheads right now. This is 45,000 square miles, about the size of Ohio.

Russian warheads average a littile over a 1,000 kt - which only increases the blast radius by about 20-30% tops. Lets say 20 sq. miles per warhead, times 3000 warheads - about 60,000 sq miles - roughly the size of Georgia.

So even with both of these massive arsenals you can only really destroy a small portion of the US.

With nukes, the payload really isn't the main fear. It's the fallout. That many nukes going off would be devestating.

Originally posted by Starwars51


At current levels, both countries combined could not even approach physically destroying even a moderate size country - let alone the world. If well placed, the damage would ovbviously be very bad - but not end of the world type stuff.

Think of it this way - the average US warhead is around 300 kt. This is about enough to destroy non-hardened targets in an area of about 15 square miles (depending on topography). We have somewhere around 3,000 operational warheads right now. This is 45,000 square miles, about the size of Ohio.

I single US nuclear sub carries something like 195 warheads now pick any country no matter how big and wipe 195 of its biggest cites off the map. Not much of that country left and that was one sub. Then you have the Radiation that leaves the blast zone and goes where ever the wind carries it. This has been shown to kill more then the actual blast of the nuke.


When you factor in all of the nukes in the US & Russia arsenal you get nuclear winter which is " end of the world type stuff " The sun gets blocked out which means plants dont grow and the food chain falls apart. People that dont die of Radiation or the blast will starve in the nuclear winter.

Nuclear war is indeed end of the world stuff.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


When you factor in all of the nukes in the US & Russia arsenal you get nuclear winter which is " end of the world type stuff " The sun gets blocked out which means plants dont grow and the food chain falls apart. People that dont die of Radiation or the blast will starve in the nuclear winter.

Nuclear war is indeed end of the world stuff.

This has been covered many times before on ATS - but to summarize: The theories of nuclear winter were based on large numbers of 25 Megaton warheads targeted at major cities (places with lots of stuff to burn). Not only are there no 25 Megaton weapons in service, it is highly unlikely that they would be targeted primarily at cities or forested places. If the Russians were to attack the US for example - the (vast) majority of weapons would likely strike the Minuteman missile fields in Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Montona and North Dakota. If you have ever been to the areas where these fields are, you will realize that there is not that much to burn (other than grass and some wheat/corn).

Also, a single nuclear warhead - even of 300kt or more - is no where near enough to destroy a very large city. The greater LA area would probably require 10 or more, NY/Chicago around 5, etc. As far as radiation is concerned, there have been around 2,000 tests (about half underground) - many of the atmospheric tests had far greater yeilds than were ever consider for actual weapons. Somehow life on earth managed to continue virtually unaffected - why do you think that if the weapons around today were detonated the consequences would be drastically different?

Most people greatly overestimate the destructive power of nuclear weapons. It would not be a good day - but not the last day.

Originally posted by Starwars51

it is highly unlikely that they would be targeted primarily at cities or forested places. If the Russians were to attack the US for example - the (vast) majority of weapons would likely strike the Minuteman missile fields in Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Montona and North Dakota.

I have seen the maps of US targets and every major city is a target I can assure you. When you have thousands theres more then enough to go around. Fallout patterens also cover most of the US. They didnt call it M.A.D because they were going to take out the other sides silos.

A single typical modern 150-kiloton hydrogen bomb could cause somewhere between 736,000 and 8,660,000 deaths, depending on the population density of the target city.

I can tell you major cities are hit more then once, also Russia has a second wave of Bio weapons that come over after the nukes. When Russia dreamed up doomsday they didnt fall short. Nuclear war is all out you dont save your bio and chemical weapons.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

www.funnyjunk.com...

There. finally found the link

Russia has 39,000 THOUSAND Nukes U.S. has 25,000+ THOUSAND not 3000- 4000 the Mode 6 SS18 is a 20 Megatonn warhead

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Russia has 39,000 THOUSAND Nukes U.S. has 25,000+ THOUSAND not 3000- 4000 the Mode 6 SS18 is a 20 Megatonn warhead

Wrong. I posted several links to diverse sources supporting my numbers. If you refuse to post anything to support your opinoin you are violating ATS rules....

hmm? I never knew that is against the rules, but o.k. I'll dig up some info, bythe way I haven't forgot about thebbc report disturbed diliverer I'm still waiting from my new friends at Air Forces Monthly.com with help.