It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush : U.S. Would Back Isreal Attack on Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
bush backin isreal?Ok he might do that but afterward i wouldnt be surprised if declared war on Isreal for some stupid reason.




posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
www.vialls.com...


If Russia is arming Cuba and Venezuela with Onyx missiles like that article states the sh1t will hit the fan very soon and the consequences of what will follow are anyone's guess IMO.






On a side note...


Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Cuba and Venazailia















[edit on 19-2-2005 by transient]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Allies support allies. Why the U.S and Israel are allies isn't very clear, maybe its because if the average american knew why, the governments decision to support Israel wouldn't be very popular. In many cases there is a motivation for doing something and a benefit, usually only one is known to the public



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Irony,
The U.S. government has been supporting the nation of Israel since we recognized it as a nation. Thats oh, what, 50 years +? As such, please feel free at any time to explain to us "average" Americans why the government supports Israel. let us decide if it is an unpopular or popular choice, k?





seekerof



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
SiberianTiger, you have lost the argument on this subject and you need to retire, because you're living your life on opinions! You're nothing but a goof-ball and you're making me laugh, so stop it!
As I have already told you...you assholes bluffed in the account of this when Kennedy orderd those damn ships to turn around and not only turn around, but remove those nukes, and you did. What proof do you have tha we moved ours fully? We still had 'first-strike' capability in our arsenal of nuclear weapons surrounding your country. We had Britain, Israel, and many others. It;s M.A.D., Tiger. Mutual Assured Destruction. We were placing weapons near and around your territory so that when it comes to be a problem with you idiots causing a threat to the United States and the world, we were going to blow a hole in your country. We were not having that happen! Therefore, once again, you bluffed because you were afraid of what we were going to do to you if you had not turned those ships around and removed the weapons in Cuba.

Also, look at the facts, Tiger since you call yourself a smart individual... the weapons you placed in Cuba were mid-ranged ballistic missiles. (MRBM's). And they could only go a few hundred miles. Now, the only few places that you were most likely to hit would've been many of the souther states and the farthest you could've gone would be as far as Virginia, possibly our capital. But, you could not strike the entire U.S. Now, on our side, we had nuclear weapons set up that could range anywhere in-land on your country. Not just certain areas. Plus, we had nukes in more thyan one country. You just had Cuba, while we had Turkey and some others as well. Now in that case, we were more likely to strike you sooner than you were to strike us. Because is our arsenal, we had enough range to reach the tip of the USSR and all around it. Once you all would be done with launching from Cuba...we would still have ours near your region bombarding the USSR. And those were the only weapons you had closer to us, we had more closer to you. And before you all could launch your missiles in the air from your land, we would've already blown you off the map.

See in this situation, a person can show you better than they can tell you. And I have told you once too many that the USSR would lose in a nuclear strike. At that time the U.S. had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over. You had the capability to destroy the world two times over. We had more than you. Now since a person can show you better than they can tell you, I will suggest once again to call Mr. Putin up and ask him to show you a demonstration of how our apples will fall on your heads! If you live on that fantasy world and read articles written by people who give their opinions, then that won't take you anywhere. Stick to reality! Learn the rules of land warfare and the strategies. Not those little comic books that you read of Russia winning against the U.S. in a war! You'll make yourself look likea fool!



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BJonesLHS
You'll make yourself look likea fool!


The one who boasts the most about being able to kill and destroy the world is the biggest fool of all.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Total number of U.S. nukes at the hight of the cold war was 25000+ total number for Russia was 39,000 ss 18 HAS 6000+ range SS-21 /19 WERE ON rus SUBS , rUS HAD 500 SUBS 50 OF WHICH CARRIED ICBM's with a total of 120 Warheads on each sub, thats 6000 ICBM's thats 6000 U.S. bases and cities ON U.S. SOIL, go back and RElearn



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Irony,
The U.S. government has been supporting the nation of Israel since we recognized it as a nation. Thats oh, what, 50 years +? As such, please feel free at any time to explain to us "average" Americans why the government supports Israel. let us decide if it is an unpopular or popular choice, k?





seekerof


I'm not arguing the length of time we've been supporting them, and I fully support their existence as a state, but my question is simply and plainly, why?



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   
SS-18: Type: Inter-continental-range, silo-based, liquid-propellant, Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV)-capable ballistic missile
Launch weight, kg 217,000
Length of the missile in
the launching container, m 34.3
Launching container
diameter, m 3
Warhead 8 MIRV x 20 MT/10 MIRV x 500 KT
Range, km: 16000/11,000
Info by CDI:
Year Deployed: ~1975
Dimensions: 36.5 meters length, 3.0 meters diameter
Weight: 211,100 kilograms
Propulsion: Two stage liquid fuel plus PBV, cold launch
Throw-weight: 8,800 kilograms
Range: Mod 4 - 11,000 kilometers, Mod 5 - unknown, Mod 6 - unknown
Guidance: Computer-controlled inertial for booster and PBV
Circular Error Probable: 250 meters
Warhead: Mod 4 with 10 warheads, Mod 5 with 10 warheads, or Mod 6 with one warhead
Yield: Mod 4 - 500 kilotons each, Mod 5 - 750 kilotons each, Mod 6 - 20 megatons
Locations: Uzhur - 520, Aleysk - 300, Kartaly - 460, Dombaroskiy - 520
Number Deployed: 1680 missiles: SS-19:Year Deployed: 1982
Dimensions: 27 meters length, 2.5 meters diameter
Weight: 105,600 kilograms
Propulsion: Two-stage liquid fuel plus PBV, hot launch
Throw-weight: 4,950 kilograms
Range: 10,000 kilometers
Guidance: Inertial, with onboard digital computer, and PBV
Circular Error Probable: 300 meters
Warhead: Mod 3 has 6 MIRVs (under START II, assumed to be downloaded to Mod 2 with 1 warhead)
Yield: Mod 3 - 550 kilotons, Mod 2 - 5 megatons P.S. your "PEACE MAKER" only has 750 kilotone warheads

SS-24 "Scalpel" Totalnumber ~460 Type: Inter-continental-range, rail-mobile and silo-based, solid-propellant, Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV)-capable ballistic missile
Year: 1987
Guidance: Computer-controlled inertial through flight, including PBV
Range (miles): 6200
Weight (lbs): 230950
Lenght (ft): 78.1
Diameter (ft): 7.9
Warhead: nuclear 10 x 550 ktons
Locations: Bershet, Kostroma, Krasnoyarsk, Tatishchevo
Number Deployed: 36 missiles
Primary Contractor: Nadiradze Design Bureau

SS-25 "Sickle" Total number: ~318


Missile: ballistic, solid-propellant,three-stage, in the launching
container
Launch weight, tons 45
Length of the missile in the launching container, m 22.3
Launching container diameter, m 2
Launcher mounted on cross-country 7-axle chassis
Mobile command posts,
support facilities : mounted on cross-country
4-axle chassis with unified
vans
Guidance: Presumed inertial with onboard digital computers
Circular Error Probable: Estimated 200 meters
Warhead: Single warhead
Yield: 750 kilotons
Locations: Irkutsk - 36, Kansk - 46, Novosibirsk - 45, Yoshkar-Ola - 36, Nizhniy Tagil - 45, Yur'ya - 45, Teykovo - 36, Vypolzpvp - 9, Barnaul - 36, Drovyanaya - 18
Number Deployed: 360 missiles


SS-27 "Topol-M"
Year Deployed: 1997
Dimensions: 21 meters length, 1.86 meters height
Weight: 47,200 kilograms
Propulsion: 3 stage, solid propellant
Throw-weight: 1,000-1,200 kilograms
Range: 10,500 kilometers
Guidance: Presumed inertial with onboard digital computers
Circular Error Probable: Unknown
Warhead: Unknown
Yield: Unknown
Locations: Unknown
Number Deployed: 24
SO my friend our missiles THEN and NOW can and WILL reach ANY U.S. city Military base ANYWHERE


[edit on 20-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 20-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Siberiantiger what is so hard to understand? In a nuclear war between the US and Russia nobody wins and we all lose. If it happens everbody dies.


I bet that all Russians's missiles would be intercepted end destroyed before they enter the US air space. I am not sure if Russia has the technology to stop our missiles!



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Come on guys Siberian Tiger is awesome! you should lay off him he's only a patriotic Russian who sees things from another perspective. I personally find his view of things quite refreshing and a reminder to us all that there are differing opinions out there.

A lot of this flaming happens because the American's don't show Russia the respect they deserve, for instance with the use of language in regards to the berlin wall (Reagan Commanded!) and Cuba (JFK Ordered!) is disrespectful because you make it sound like Krushschev and Gorbachev took direct orders from JFK and Reagan, which is not true as the USSR was its own sovereign state and the ultimate decision laid in the politburo's hands. You only create animosity by making the Russian bear look like it was the US presidents bitch.

If you give a little respect, you get a little respect.

Siberian Tiger, keep at it friend, do not be discouraged by those who mock you and your couintry.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WisdomMaster

Originally posted by mwm1331
Siberiantiger what is so hard to understand? In a nuclear war between the US and Russia nobody wins and we all lose. If it happens everbody dies.


I bet that all Russians's missiles would be intercepted end destroyed before they enter the US air space. I am not sure if Russia has the technology to stop our missiles!



Well there's one clear difference in the US and Russian ABM strategy, is that the Russians don't need high technology or highly accurate missiles for they use nuclear tipped ABM's, which wipe out any nukes and decoy's within around a 30km range.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WisdomMaster

Originally posted by mwm1331
Siberiantiger what is so hard to understand? In a nuclear war between the US and Russia nobody wins and we all lose. If it happens everbody dies.


I bet that all Russians's missiles would be intercepted end destroyed before they enter the US air space. I am not sure if Russia has the technology to stop our missiles!




too bad you dont have anything to destroy them with and even if you had its impossible to destroy them all even if one hits your #ed mr wisdom



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Sweat, you seem to be the most foolish for believeing a fool. Tiger, you still make yourself look like a fool. Where the hell you get that informaton from, your reader's digest? Or is it your imagination? One of them is just makign you look totally stupid! Who in the hell would tell all of the nukes that the U.S. had during the cold war? Moat likely what you heard was an estimate, not the total number of nukes. And my statement telling you that the United States had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over and Russia had enough to destroyt the wordl two times over is justified! You all weren't worth of # back in the old days. You bluffed. If you all call yourself stronger than the American people during that era, why did you bluff when Kennedy orderd your ships to turn around and removed the weapons in Cuba. Why were you so damn scared. If you're trying to make Russia look so damn good, then tell me what other step would you all have taken other than do what we told you to do? You all would've gotten your asses blown out of the damn water and sent to hell. Along with your Soviet friends back on the motherland. And that's what we were going to do with you big jerks if you all had not removed those nukes. Why don't you wake up and smell the damn audit. You all lost the cold war! So what is your damn point in this conversation, because you're confusing me with what all you are talking about. Russia never could and still cannot beat the U.S. in a war because you all don't even know how to walk on two feet. First of all, if you know damn well that you're not strong enough to fight your own people (Chechens), what the hell would make you think that you can fight the Americans? If you lost a war to a small ass country like Afghanistan, what makes you think you can win against America? The chances are second to none, Tiger!

Before you continue to make yourself look like a fool even more, I'd better show you this website so you won't embarass yourself in front of the world. This shows you the number of ICBM'S, SLBM's, and IRBM's that the USA and USSR had. As you can see, the U.S. has twice as more as you did during that time. Not only did they have more, but the U.S. always had the cabaility of producing nuclear weapons faster than you all can and that still remains today. If we needed to produce more, we have the ability to do so and the speed. But this website tells you all that happened. The U.S. suspended the blockade and it was in a matter of request, not force. We forced you to move those weapons in Cuba. You didn't force us to do a damn thing. It was a request. We didn't have to do anyhting! And if you still refused, we would've gone ahead and blown you scums off the map. And the U.S. never bluffed during this cold war. You did!

Take a look at this website: www.coldwar.hu... I know my damn knowledge. You need to re-think yours and get the real story. Because you're living off those damn opinions and the 'what-should've- happened' stories instead of what really happened. Read the history books, not your thoughts and imaginations! You're living in fantasy, Tiger. Travel to realism!



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellraiser

too bad you dont have anything to destroy them with and even if you had its impossible to destroy them all even if one hits your #ed mr wisdom


People that say things are impossible are often proven wrong. People said heavier then air flight was impossible, people said going to the moon was impossible. People said going to the bottom of the ocean was impossible.

You would really be suprised with what we have. The US only tells people about what they want you to know about. The US has a black budget almost the size of Russia's whole military budget. And its likely much higher then that as we dont really spend $800 bucks on a hammer. That money goes into projects the public never hear about.

If only one hit us we wouldnt be 'dorked' we would lose one city and its a big country, Japan a tiny country lost 2 cities and they are still around.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
YO BJONESLHS!! You don't know anything you say about U.S.A. Having more nukes than Russia : U.S. nuclear forces, 2005



By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen
January/February 2005 pp. 73-75 (vol. 61, no. 01) © 2005 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

e estimate that as of January 2005 there are approximately 5,300 operational nuclear warheads in the U.S. stockpile, including 4,530 strategic warheads and 780 non-strategic warheads. Almost 5,000 additional warheads have been retained in the "responsive reserve force" or are in an inactive status with their tritium removed.

In June 2004, the Energy Department announced that "almost half" of the warheads in the current stockpile would be retired by 2012 and eventually dismantled. We estimate that the current total stockpile of 10,350 will be reduced to about 6,000 by 2012.

The Pentagon continues to implement its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and adjust the deployment of U.S. nuclear forces to meet shifting nuclear targeting requirements. The United States has formally changed the name of its strategic nuclear war plan. Known throughout the Cold War as the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), it is now known as Operations Plan (OPLAN) 8044. The last war plan to use the old designation was the March 2003 SIOP-03 (revision 3).

Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The Defense Department reduced the ICBM force by 17 missiles in 2004 as part of the second phase of the MX/Peacekeeper's ongoing retirement. The last 10 MX missiles started 2005 on alert, but they will all be withdrawn by October 1. One MX was test-launched on July 21, 2004 from Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) in California.

The 2001 NPR calls for MX silos to be retained rather than destroyed, as was required in the now-defunct START II treaty. The United States will keep MX missiles for possible use as space-launch vehicles, as target vehicles, or for redeployment. The 550 W87 warheads from the 50 retired MXs will be temporarily stored until 2006, when a portion of them will begin to replace the W62 warheads on Minuteman III ICBMs. The Pentagon has scheduled the W62 for retirement in 2009. We estimate that 200 W87 warheads will be used on Minuteman IIIs, with the balance placed in the responsive force of reserve warheads. Some W87s may be used to arm Trident II D5 missiles in the future.

A February 2004 Defense Science Board study recommended converting 50 MXs to a conventional role and relocating them to Vandenberg AFB and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. "These weapons would give the United States a 30-minute response capability for strategic strike worldwide," the report stated.

Each of the 500 Minuteman III ICBMs currently deployed carries either a single warhead or two or three multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). Three hundred carry the higher-yield W78 warhead and the more accurate Mk-12A reentry vehicle. With START II's ban on MIRVs now a dead letter, earlier plans to download all Minuteman missiles to a single-warhead configuration may be revised. As many as 700 to 800 warheads could be assigned to the 500-Minuteman force.

Minuteman modernization continues under an ambitious $6 billion, six-part program intended to improve the missile's accuracy and reliability and extend its service life beyond 2020. The air force successfully flight-tested unarmed Minuteman IIIs on three occasions in 2004: June 23, July 23, and September 16. The air force plans to begin deployment of a Minuteman replacement in 2018.

Submarines. The United States has 336 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) on 14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The missiles are armed with some 2,016 warheads, about 48 percent of U.S. operational strategic weapons. The U.S. Navy reduced its SSBN force by one in 2004, bringing the force to the level decided upon in the 1994 NPR. The navy has extended the service life of the subs from 30 to 44 years; the oldest sub is scheduled to retire in 2029, when a new SSBN will be introduced.

It was previously thought that the navy would split the 14-boat SSBN force evenly between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, but recent shifts in planning position a larger force in the Pacific. Three SSBNs were transferred to Bangor, Washington, in 2002 and 2004 to compensate for the four older SSBNs that are being converted to cruise missile submarines. In September 2004, the navy announced that two more submarines, the Maine and the Louisiana, will leave Kings Bay, Georgia, in October 2005 for Bangor, temporarily reducing the Atlantic SSBN force to just five boats, the lowest number since the first SSBNs were initially deployed from the East Coast in 1961. Between 1966 and 1985, more than 30 SSBNs operated in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. The new, nine-strong Pacific force, the largest since 1979, reflects increased nuclear targeting requirements against China and possibly North Korea.

The navy planned to upgrade four Pacific-based SSBNs equipped with Trident I C4 SLBMs to carry the longer-range and more accurate Trident II D5s. The upgrades of the Alaska and Nevada are complete; the Henry M. Jackson and Alabama are expected to follow in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

The navy is converting four older SSBNs to non-nuclear operations as delivery platforms for Tomahawk cruise missiles and special operation forces. The Ohio began conversion at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in 2002 and will begin operating from Bangor in 2005. The Florida is undergoing conversion at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and will be based at Kings Bay in 2006. The Michigan and Georgia off-loaded their Trident I missiles in October 2004 and began conversion at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, respectively. After their conversion is complete in 2007, the Michigan will be based at Bangor and the Georgia at Kings Bay.

The fiscal 2005 Defense Authorization Bill, Section 104, requires the defense secretary to conduct a study, due in spring 2005, on whether the current practice of using two alternating crews for ballistic missile submarine patrols should be continued, modified, or terminated.

The navy is modernizing the Mk-4/W76 reentry vehicle and replacing the weapon's air-burst fuze with a new ground-burst fuze. The first production unit of the new weapon, designated the Mk-4A/W76-1, is scheduled for delivery in September 2007. About 40 percent of the navy's future stockpile of Mk-4/W76 reentry vehicles (approximately 800) will be converted by 2012. The new fuze will enhance the weapon's lethality and broaden the potential targets that can be attacked by subs equipped with the Mk-4A/W76-1.

In 2004 the navy began the Enhanced Effectiveness (E2) Reentry Body program to create "a near-term capability to steer an SLBM warhead to Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)-like accuracy" (within about 10 meters), according to the Pentagon. The program will expand the potential targets that can be attacked with W76 warheads. Officials are considering both nuclear and conventional warheads for the program. A full-scale test flight of the new capability using a Mk-4/W76 reentry vehicle is scheduled for early fiscal 2007.

The navy bought five more Trident II D5 missiles in the fiscal 2005 defense bill, bringing the total to 413. Officials extended D5 production through 2013 and increased the total number to be purchased from 390 to 540, at an additional cost of $12.2 billion. The total cost of the program now stands at $37.5 billion, or $69 million per missile. To make the D5 operational through 2042 (the end of the extended service life of the newest Ohio-class SSBN), existing missiles will be upgraded to a new variant called the D5LE. In 2003, Congress budgeted $416 million to modernize the D5. Of the 540 D5s, 336 will arm 14 SSBNs (including two sets for two SSBNs that will be in overhaul at any given time), with the balance available for flight tests.

The navy is in the early stages of planning to develop a Submarine-Launched Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM). Officials invited industry proposals in August 2003, and this year the navy plans to conduct two full-scale static test-firings of an "affordable, high performance SLIRBM" prototype rocket engine. The missile is intended to carry both nuclear and conventional payloads.

The navy plans to resume SLBM flight-testing in the Pacific in 2005, when the Pacific Missile Range is scheduled to resume operations. The last SLBM test-launch in the Pacific was in July 1993. The navy flight-tested three Tridents in 2003 but none in 2004.

Bombers. The United States has two types of long-range bombers for nuclear missions: the B-2A Spirit and the B-52H Stratofortress. Neither is maintained on day-to-day alert, and both also have conventional missions. The B-52s can deliver cruise missiles, gravity bombs, or a combination of both; B-2s carry only bombs.

The air force has decided to speed up the search for a bomber replacement. Officials are studying various interim and long-range options, including unmanned systems, updated bombers, and possibly an F/A-22 Raptor derivative.

In 2003 the air force completed the B-2's "Block 30" upgrade, a five-year modernization effort that enables the aircraft to carry a mix of B61 and B83 nuclear bombs as well as various conventional weapons. A Nuclear Surety Inspection was conducted at Whiteman AFB, Missouri, in December 2003. B-2s are scheduled to undergo an upgrade that will allow crews to make mission and targeting changes en route.

The advanced cruise missile (ACM) and air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) are undergoing service life-extension programs to prolong their service through 2030. The air force calls the ACM a "critical weapon" that is essential to Air Combat Command and Stratcom targeting commitments. Five contracts worth nearly $10 million were awarded to Boeing and Raytheon in 2003 for ACM maintenance. The air force is studying options for a next-generation cruise missile.

Non-strategic nuclear weapons. The United States has approximately 780 operational non-strategic nuclear weapons: 580 B61 gravity bombs of three modifications, and 200 nuclear Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAM/Ns). Another 100 Tomahawk warheads are kept in reserve or are inactive. The 2001 NPR did not address non-strategic nuclear weapons.

Of the 580 operational B61 bombs, 480 are deployed at eight bases in six European countries for delivery by U.S. and NATO aircraft (see "U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe, 1954-2004," November/ December 2004 Bulletin). The other 100 operational bombs are assigned to the squadrons of two U.S.-based fighter wings capable of quickly deploying anywhere in the world. The 334th, 335th, and 336th squadrons of the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina, operate dual-use F-15E aircraft. The 522nd, 523rd, and 524th squadrons of the 27th Fighter Wing at Cannon AFB, New Mexico, operate dual-use F-16 aircraft. The air force maintains an additional 435 B61-3,-4, and-10 bombs in reserve, which are likely stored at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, and Nellis AFB, Nevada. Most or all of these bombs are earmarked for retirement and dismantlement in the coming years as a result of Energy's June 2004 decision to retire nearly half of the arsenal.

Under current air force planning, a portion of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) force will have a nuclear capability beginning in 2012. The JSF completed its initial nuclear certification requirements plan in 2004.

Nuclear warheads. To ensure the reliability of nuclear weapons beyond their original design lives, most of the warheads in the enduring stockpile are scheduled to undergo life-extension programs over the next decade. The first of these programs began in 1994 and was for the W87; the first warhead was produced in 1999, and the program was completed in 2004. The cost of the W87 program, which will extend the life of the warheads 30 years, was initially estimated at $440 million, but by 2000 the program's cost had ballooned to $747 million, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

The B61-7/-11, W76, W78, W80, B83, and W88 warheads will also undergo life-extension programs, some of which are substantial enough to change a warhead's modification designation. The W76 will become the W76-1, and the W80-0 and W80-1 will become the W80-2 and W80-3, respectively. The first production units of the W80-2 and B61-7/-11 are scheduled for delivery in 2006; the W76-1 in 2007-2008, and the W80-3 around 2008. The B61-7/-11 life-extension program involves refurbishing the secondary.

The Energy Department's weapon laboratories began a study of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) in 2003 after Congress repealed a 1994 ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. The study is scheduled for completion by 2006.

Energy has reestablished small-scale warhead pit production at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the lab produced its first certifiable W88 pit in 2003. Energy planned to produce at least five more W88 pits in 2004. One or more of these is scheduled to enter the war reserve stockpile in 2007. Los Alamos's goal is to be able to manufacture 10 W88 pits per year by 2007. Next on its list, the lab plans to begin producing W87 pits by 2010.

Energy wants a new Modern Pit Facility, capable of manufacturing 250-900 pits annually, built at a location yet to be determined, to begin pit production in 2018, with B61-7 and W87 pits to be made first.



Back to top ^





Nuclear Notebook is prepared by Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Inquiries should be directed to NRDC, 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C., 20005; 202-289-6868.

January/February 2005 pp. 73-75 (vol. 61, no. 01) © 2005 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

NOW Russia: Russian nuclear forces, 2005



By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen
March/April 2005 pp. 70-72 (vol. 61, no. 02) © 2005 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

here were several key quantitative and qualitative developments with regard to Russian nuclear forces during the past year. [1] Russia continued to reduce its nuclear forces, and officials were unusually candid in describing the likely composition of forces for the coming decade. We estimate that as of early 2005, Russia has approximately 7,200 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This includes about 3,800 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 400 from 2004 due to the withdrawal of approximately 60 ballistic missiles from operational service. Our estimate of operational non-strategic nuclear weapons remains unchanged from last year at 3,400.

At the end of the Cold War in 1991, the Soviet Union may have had as many as 35,000 nuclear weapons--though not all of them were fielded. Estimates of the dismantlement rate vary widely, from hundreds to 1,000-2,000 per year. We estimate that the total current arsenal of intact warheads is around 16,000. Of those, we consider some 7,200 active and operational; the balance occupy an indeterminate status. Some may be officially retired and awaiting disassembly; others may be in short- or long-term storage, categories similar to the U.S. categories "responsive force" and "inactive reserve."

Russian nuclear forces conducted 15 ballistic missile test launches in 2004, a significant increase from previous years. Two tests failed and a third was an ejection test with no engine ignition. Eight of the tests involved submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs); seven were of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Each test involved a single missile launch, except for the March 17 launch of two missiles from a Delta IV nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN).

Russian defense officials lifted the veil of nuclear secrecy slightly in late 2004 and announced what amounts to an abbreviated nuclear posture review. Their announcements suggested a plan for future strategic forces based on unilateral decisions and implementation of the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which set a limit of 2,200 operationally deployed strategic warheads for 2012. The officials described significant changes in the size and composition of the future ICBM force, lesser changes for the submarine force, and few changes to the bomber force. The table "Projected Strategic Warheads, 2005-2015" contains estimates of Russia's strategic forces based on several assumptions: that annual deployment of SS-27 ICBMs continues at about six single-warhead missiles per year; that Russia commissions two new third-generation strategic subs and maintains five operational Delta IIIs; and that Tu-160 Blackjack bomber production remains low.

Russia's new plan indicates it will reduce its emphasis on ICBMs, traditionally the backbone of its strategic forces, by withdrawing most of the multiple-warhead SS-18 and SS-19 missiles. This will decrease the number of ICBM warheads by nearly 70 percent, from 2,270 to roughly 750 during the next five years. By 2010, ICBMs and SLBMs will carry approximately the same number of warheads.

Throughout 2004 President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed the importance of Russia's nuclear weapons to its security. "We will continue . . . to build up the armed forces in general and its nuclear component," Putin reportedly told the military high command. With perhaps some exaggeration he said, "These are projects which do not exist elsewhere and which other nuclear states will not have in the next few years." [2]

Makhmut Gareyev, president of the Academy of Military Sciences, said in October 2004 that the long-term program involves "primarily qualitative improvements to the Russian nuclear arsenal and development of delivery vehicles capable of getting past phased arrays of antimissile defense systems." [3] The new chief of the general staff, Col. Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, spoke of a new maneuverable warhead that will be able to overcome "foreign [anti-ballistic missile] systems." Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said in late 2004 that Russia would be able to sustain qualitative nuclear parity with the United States. [4]

ICBMs. Russia currently deploys 585 operational ICBMs, 23 missiles fewer than a year ago. Significant changes are in store for the ICBM force. On December 10, 2004 the commander of strategic missile troops, Col. Gen. Nikolay Solovtsov, announced that by 2009 "all old-class liquid-propelled missiles" will be removed from combat service. [5] This appears to reverse Russian pledges made in 2002 and 2003 to extend the service life of the SS-18 to between 2010 and 2015 and to begin deploying "tens" of additional SS-19s with "hundreds of warheads" in 2010. The use of the term "old-class" may mean that some more recently produced missiles (about 50 SS-18s and 30 SS-19s) will be unaffected. [6]

Under the new plan, Russia will reduce the types of active ICBMs from five to two: the silo-based Topol-M (SS-27) and a mobile version of the Topol-M, which has not yet been deployed. According to Solovtsov, the goal is to have "several divisions" of Topol-Ms deployed. [7] If "several" means two divisions (each composed of 10-12 regiments of 10 missiles), this would require producing at least another 160 Topol-Ms to add to the present total of 40. The current production rate varies between three and nine missiles annually, or a new regiment about every two years. At this modest pace it will take until 2023, at the earliest, to field two divisions.

Deployment of the Topol-M began at Tatishchevo in 1997. Russia added 10 silo-based Topol-Ms (one regiment) in 2004, and a fifth regiment is scheduled for deployment in 2005. The mobile version will replace the road-mobile SS-25, and Russia expects to begin deployment in 2006.

Since the Topol-M carries a single warhead, a future force of two divisions, or 200 missiles, would dramatically reduce the total of ICBM warheads from the current level. Rumors suggest that the mobile Topol-M might carry between three and six warheads in the future. [8] The START I treaty prohibits increasing the number of warheads attributed to a specific ICBM type, but after the treaty expires in 2009, Russia would be free to put multiple warheads on the Topol-M. The Topol-M has a throw weight of 1.2 tons, similar to the U.S. Minuteman III, which can carry up to three warheads.

As the SS-27 Topol-M is introduced, the number of SS-25 Topols continues to decline. Approximately 300 are deployed at nine locations. The solid-fueled missile seems unaffected by the plan to withdraw older liquid-fueled missiles from service by 2009, but the transition to an all-Topol-M force suggests that the SS-25 will be completely retired. Russia will withdraw the last 15 rail-based SS-24M1s, the division at Kostroma, this year.

The number of SS-19s continues to decline; 130 remain in service. The six-warhead missile was scheduled for elimination under START II, but after the treaty's demise in 2002, Putin declared that deployment of "tens" of additional SS-19s with "hundreds of warheads" would begin in 2010. Any new deployments are likely to include the approximately 30 SS-19s in storage. [9] Russia will likely retire the older versions of the SS-19 by 2009.

During the peak years from 1981 to 1992, Russia maintained more than 300 SS-18s. Now there are about 100, and Russia will withdraw about 50 in the next five years. With a service life extension program, the remaining newer variant of the SS-18, referred to as RS-20V, could last until 2016-2020. As part of that program, Russia successfully flight-tested a 16-year-old RS-20V from an operational silo on December 22, 2004. The launch occurred at the Dombarovsky missile base in Russia rather than at the Baikonur test range in Kazakhstan. Solovtsov has said that Dombarovsky will support five to seven launches a year.

Development of a new generation ICBM, possibly with liquid-fuel propellant, appears under way. According to several news reports, the new ICBM will possess a throw weight of 4.4 tons (similar to the SS-19) and be able to carry up to 10 warheads. [10]

SSBNs. The strategic submarine fleet continues to shrink from its high of 62. Today, 12 strategic subs--six Delta IVs and six Delta IIIs--are deployed with two of Russia's four fleets. Of the Delta IVs, the Verkhoturye, Yekaterinburg, and Novomoskovsk are active, and the Tula, Bryansko, and Karelia are undergoing overhauls. All six are with the Northern Fleet and based in Gadzhiyevo on the Kola Peninsula.

Of the Delta III submarines, the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Svyatoy Giorgiy Pobedonosets, Zelenograd, and Podolsk are based at Rybachi on the Kamchatka Peninsula; the Ryazan and Borisoglebsk are based at Gadzhiyevo. The military uses a seventh nonoperational Delta III, located at Rybachi, as a test platform. Though rumors suggest that Russia might retire the Delta III class during the next few years, to achieve the stated goal of 208 SLBMs in 2010 at least five must remain in service.

Two Borey-class SSBNs remain under construction and behind schedule at the Severodvinsk shipyard. Russia plans on commissioning the Yuri Dolgoruki in 2005, according to Ivanov, but it has not flight-tested the Bulava SLBM that it is to carry. The Borey might wait to enter service for several years until the missile is ready. The Borey will carry 12 Bulavas (possible designation SS-N-27), though it is unclear how many warheads the missile will carry.

The keel of the second boat, the Alexander Nevsky, was laid down at Severodvinsk in March 2004 with delivery scheduled for 2008. Russia plans on completing a third boat in 2012. The navy would like to build three more Borey SSBNs, but if construction continues at the current pace, the final sub would not be ready until 2026. The Russian Navy chief, Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov, told ITAR-TASS in May 2004 that the Russian Navy should have 12-15 operational SSBNs. The future fleet will likely be smaller.

The 25,000-ton Typhoon-class SSBN was decommissioned at the end of April 2004. The withdrawal also signals the retirement of the SS-N-20 SLBM, which carried 10 warheads. Russia modified one of the Typhoons, the Dmitri Donskoi, to be a test platform for the Bulava SLBM. The navy conducted December 2003 and September 2004 Bulava ejection tests (with no engine ignition) from the Dmitri Donskoi in the Barents Sea.

Strategic aviation. Russian strategic bombers include 78 aircraft of three types: 14 Tu-160 Blackjacks; 32 Tu-95 MS6 Bear-H6s; and 32 Tu-95 MS16 Bear-H16s. Bomber deployment and weapon systems remain essentially the same as last year (see "Russian Nuclear Forces, 2004," July/August 2004 Bulletin.)

Russia may deploy a nuclear variant of a new cruise missile (Kh-102), similar to the U.S. advanced cruise missile but with a prop engine, for the Blackjack and Bear bombers in 2005. Like the United States, Russia has begun to convert a portion of its air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) to non-nuclear versions (Kh-555s). In December 2004, a senior Russian Air Force official said that the first conventional ALCMs had been delivered.

Small-scale production of the Tu-160 Blackjack resumed in 2004 with two aircraft planned for delivery this year. [11] In early 2004 air force commander-in-chief Col. Gen. Vladimir Mikhailov announced plans to upgrade Tu-160 avionics and communications equipment and to modify the bomber to carry new types of missiles with conventional and nuclear warheads. [12] Russia's new defense plan envisions a force of 75 bombers in 2010. If Blackjack production continues after 2006, the bombers will likely replace Bears on a one-to-one basis. The development of conventional ALCMs seems to indicate that Russia envisions a more active bomber force.

Non-strategic weapons. We estimate that approximately 3,400 operational warheads comprise Russia's non-strategic arsenal for use by tactical aircraft, naval forces, and ballistic missile and air defense systems. Between 10,000 and 12,000 warheads might exist in reserve or retired status.

During an October 2004 Moscow visit, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker accused Russia of not fully honoring its 1991 pledge to reduce its tactical nuclear force. The Russian Foreign Ministry responded by recounting its May 2004 announcement: "More than 50 percent of the total nuclear ammunition for sea-based tactical missiles and naval aviation, anti-aircraft missiles, and nuclear aviation bombs has been liquidated." The ministry added, "The reduction of tactical nuclear weapons is continuing." [13] Officials had previously committed to the elimination of "nuclear weapons of the army" by 2004. [14]

Russia conducted a series of exercises in August in the Murmansk region to practice safely protecting nuclear weapons in storage facilities and during transport by road and rail. Participants in the "Avariya [Accident] 2004" exercises included specialists from the 12th Main Directorate, which oversees Russia's nuclear arsenal, officials from relevant federal ministries, and units from the Moscow and Leningrad military districts. Russia also invited some 50 representatives from 18 NATO member states to observe. Russia accepted an invitation to send six observers from the 12th Main Directorate to a U.S. nuclear weapons security exercise in Wyoming scheduled for April 2005.



1. Essential references for following Russian strategic nuclear forces are the web site maintained by Pavel Podvig, www.russianforces.org and the book Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, Pavel Podvig, ed.

2. Reuters, "Putin Says Russia Working on New Nuclear Systems," November 17, 2004; ITAR-TASS, "Russia's Strategic Troops Chief Appears to Contradict Putin on New Missiles," December 15, 2004.

3. "Russia Looks to Beat Missile Defense, Official Says," Global Security Newswire, October 28, 2004.

4. "Russia Will be Able to Sustain its Nuclear Parity with U.S.--Defense Minister Ivanov," Novosti, December 24, 2004.

5. "Russian Missile Commander Promises Great Future To [sic] Topol-M," Novosti, December 10, 2004.

6. Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Concluding Remarks by President Vladimir Putin at a Meeting with Russian Armed Forces Commanders, Moscow, October 2, 2003," Daily News Bulletin, October 3, 2003. According to a report in Izvestia, this concerns 30 missiles. Dmitriy Litovkin, "We'll Get All of Them from Capetown to Beijing," Izvestia, October 21, 2003.

7. Novosti, December 10, 2004.

8. "Russia Test-Fires Ballistic Missile," New York Times, December 24, 2004; "Russia Deploys Strategic Nuclear Missiles," New York Times, December 22, 2003; "Russia Deploys New Missile Batch," CNN, December 22, 2003.

9. Daily News Bulletin, October 3, 2003. According to a report in Izvestia, this concerns 30 missiles. Dmitriy Litovkin, "We'll Get All of Them from Capetown to Beijing," Izvestia, October 21, 2003.

10. CNN, December 22, 2003; "Russia to Continue Developing Strategic Nuclear Forces," chinaview.com (Xinhuanet), December 23, 2003.

11. "Russia Set to Upgrade its Nuclear and Conventional Weapons: Ivanov," Novosti, December 10, 2004.

12. "Russia Air Force Modernization and Flight Safety Plans," Krasnaya Zvezda, January 16, 2004.

13. Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Alexander Yakovenko, the Spokesman of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Answers a Russian Media Question at Press Conference at RIA Novosti Concerning Russia's Initiatives for Reducing Tactical Nuclear Weapons," October 7, 2004.

14. Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Statement of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the First Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference under Article VI of the Treaty," New York, April 11, 2002; Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, "Statement by H. E. Anatoly Antonov, Ambassador-at-Large, Head of Delegation of the Russia Federation, at the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," April 27, 2004.



Back to top ^





Nuclear Notebook is prepared by Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Inquiries should be directed to NRDC, 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C., 20005; 202-289-6868.

March/April 2005 pp. 70-72 (vol. 61, no. 02) © 2005 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists



[edit on 22-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
SiberianTiger,

After a certain number of nukes the earth's surface is destroyed an uninhabitable, here's more info on our current arsenal:



The budget is busted; American soldiers need more armor; they're running out of supplies. Yet the Department of Energy is spending an astonishing $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year, and President Bush is requesting $6.8 billion more for next year and a total of $30 billion over the following four years. This does not include his much-cherished missile-defense program, by the way. This is simply for the maintenance, modernization, development, and production of nuclear bombs and warheads.

Measured in "real dollars" (that is, adjusting for inflation), this year's spending on nuclear activities is equal to what Ronald Reagan spent at the height of the U.S.-Soviet standoff. It exceeds by over 50 percent the average annual sum ($4.2 billion) that the United States spent—again, in real dollars—throughout the four and a half decades of the Cold War.

There is no nuclear arms race going on now. The world no longer offers many suitable nuclear targets. President Bush is trying to persuade other nations—especially "rogue regimes"—to forgo their nuclear ambitions. Yet he is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories as if the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War still raged.

These are the findings of a virtually unnoticed report written by weapons analyst Christopher Paine, based on data from official budget documents, and released earlier this month by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The report raises anew a question that always springs to mind after a close look at the U.S. military budget: What the hell is going on here? Specifically: Do we really need to be spending this kind of money on nuclear weapons? What role do nuclear weapons play in 21st-century military policy? How many weapons do we need, to deter what sort of attack or to hit what sorts of targets, with what level of confidence, for what strategic and tactical purposes?

These are questions that haven't been seriously addressed in this country for 30 years. It may be time for a new look.

Ten years ago, spending on nuclear activities amounted to $3.4 billion, half of today's sum. In President Clinton's last budget, it totaled $5.2 billion, still one-third less than this year's. (All figures are adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2004 dollars.) Have new threats emerged that can be handled only by a vast expansion or improvement of the U.S. nuclear arsenal? Has our nuclear stockpile deteriorated by a startling degree? There's no evidence that either is the case.

Yet Paine quotes a statement from the National Nuclear Security Administration—the quasi-independent agency of the Energy Department that's in charge of the atomic stockpile—declaring, as its goal, "to revitalize the nuclear weapons manufacturing infrastructure." Its guidance on this point is the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review of December 2001, which stated that U.S. strategic nuclear forces must provide "a range of options" not merely to deter but "to defeat any aggressor."

The one aspect of this reorientation that's attracted some attention is the development of a "robust nuclear earth-penetrator" (RNEP)—a warhead that can burrow deep into the earth before exploding, in order to destroy underground bunkers. The U.S. Air Force currently has some non-nuclear earth-penetrators, but they can't burrow deeply enough or explode powerfully enough to destroy some known bunkers. There's a legitimate debate over whether we would need to destroy such bunkers or whether it would be good enough to disable them—a feat that the conventional bunker-busters could accomplish. There's a broader question still over whether an American president really would, or should, be the first to fire nuclear weapons in wartime, no matter how tempting the tactical advantage.

The point here, however, is that this new nuclear weapon is fast becoming a reality.

As chronicled in a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, when Bush started the RNEP program two years ago, it was labeled as strictly a research project. Its budget was a mere $6.1 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and $7.1 million for FY 04. Now, all of a sudden, the administration has posted a five-year plan for the program amounting, from FY 2005-09, to $485 million. The FY05 budget alone earmarks $27.5 million to begin "development ground tests" on "candidate weapon designs." This isn't research; it's a real weapon in the works.

Paine's report cites other startlers that have eluded all notice outside the cognoscenti. For instance, the Energy Department is building a massive $4 billion-$6 billion proton accelerator in order to produce more tritium, the heavy hydrogen isotope that boosts the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon. (Tritium is the hydrogen that makes a hydrogen bomb.) Tritium does decay; eventually, it will have to be refurbished to ensure that, say, a 100-kiloton bomb really explodes with 100 kilotons of force. But Paine calculates that the current U.S. stockpile doesn't require any new tritium until at least 2012. If the stockpile is reduced to the level required under the terms of the most recent strategic arms treaty, none is needed until 2022.

Similar questions are raised about the Energy Department's plans to spend billions on new plutonium pits, high-energy fusion lasers, and supercomputer systems.

There is some debate within the administration over such matters, but it's a peculiar debate. For instance, some Pentagon officials favor spending $2 billion over the next five years to do a complete makeover on the W-76 warhead inside the U.S. Navy's Trident I missile—giving it an option to explode on the surface, improving its accuracy so it could blow up a blast-hardened missile silo, and so forth. The Trident I is an old missile; it's scheduled to be warehoused in the next few years. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has advocated "modernizing" even the "reserve stockpile" of nukes. Opposing this view, many Energy Department officials want to spend less money on these "legacy" weapons and invest it instead on a new generation of smaller, more agile nukes.

The official inside debate, in other words, is whether to build new nuclear weapons that are more usable in modern warfare or whether to do that and make the old nuclear weapons more usable, too. A broader debate—over whether to go down this twisted road generally—has not yet begun

slate.msn.com...


I do not doubt Russia can destroy the US, anybody who does is wrong. But Russia would be destroyed also, no way around it. I fail to see why you seem to think that is so funny. Is it because you feel we don't take Russia seriously? If so, don't, there are two countries that can destroy earth as we know it, Russia is one of them.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
SiberiaTiger, I am done talking to you about this subject. You need help and you need to get it fast! The U.S. will only tell you what they want you to know about what we have. What in your right mind gives you the audacity to think that 'WE' as a nation would tell some shoe-clerks like you Russians what all we have? We will not do that for security reasons. Why the hell would we tell the world what we have? Once again I told you that we give a legitimate estimate and a number that we feel that we should tell you. You think you know so damn much, you don't even know how many damn nukes you have. Whjat makes you think you know how many we have? You are a fool following newspaper articles and websites that give you just a number of the number of nukes the U.S. has today. That's crap. That would not be in the hands of the public nor of the enemy! So what the hell in your right mind tells you that your calculations that you attempted to give us are accurate. You can't prove that!

Siberian, the damn novel that you copy and pasted off of the internet is not even worth while reading. Who the hell would sit at their computer and read an article thats filled with predictions and opinions? Only a fool like you would. So I offered you to read the website that I sent you and maybe you get an understanding of the cold war and why you Russian scums are crippled and paralized today! Did the United States break up? NO! Who bluffed during the Cuban Missile Crisis? RUSSIA! Who will get whiped out in a full scale nuclear attack? RUSSIA! So, SiberianTiger, do not live off of opinions. Go by reality. An eye for an eye! So don't let life past you by. Learn to read and comprehend the real history, not the history you learn off of which are opinions. I know a hell of a lot about the U.S. The reason is because I live in the U.S. Do you? What the hell do you know about the U.S? You know by what people tell you or what your opinion is telling you. I bet you don't even know the type of U.S. citizens who would have that type of information such as top secret information and all of that without looking it up on your little "Google.com". If you don't know that then what do you know about how many nuclear weapons we have? You sound extremely ignorant and you remind me of a confused attorney! Just stick to the facts, Tiger. Not the stories your family tells you!



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Total number of U.S. nukes at the hight of the cold war was 25000+ total number for Russia was 39,000 ss 18 HAS 6000+ range SS-21 /19 WERE ON rus SUBS , rUS HAD 500 SUBS 50 OF WHICH CARRIED ICBM's with a total of 120 Warheads on each sub, thats 6000 ICBM's thats 6000 U.S. bases and cities ON U.S. SOIL, go back and RElearn



And of all that you have quoted SiberianTiger, how much of that is left today? Russian's have subs getting scrapped left and right. Got subs that cannot even fire their missiles off. Air Force pilots getting less that 40 hours of flying time a year, but Russia got those nukes, eh? Heads-up, SiberianTiger, Russia does not have 39,000+ nukes anymore. You can continue to wish and live for the days of the Cold War, at your peril and delusion.

"Go back and relearn" works for all of us, including you, SiberianTiger. We are living in the world of today, not yesterday, not last year, not during the Russian glory days of the Cold War. As such, welcome to today's reality.


This mind be of interest to you, if not, it may be to others. It was posted in 2003.
Reality Check: Russian Defense Minister says....Russian Army Could Not Wage War





seekerof

[edit on 23-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
"Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened."

WHY DO THEY KEEP MENTIONING
-IRAN HAVING NUKES
-Isreals Security
-We will support them if her security is threatened



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join