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.

 

Russia to reduce ICMB armoury to just 300 by 2010

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   


By 2010 Russia's ICBM force is expected to have shrunk to 10 missile divisions with about 300 missiles.

At present, the missile group of the Strategic Missile Force consists of 496 silo-based ballistic missiles: 86 RS-20; 100 RS-18 (SS-19 'Stiletto'); 270 RS-12M Topol (SS-25 'Sickle'); and 40 RS-12M2 Topol-M (SS-27), said the newspaper.

By 2010 it is expected to shrink to 40 RS-20; 50 RS-18; 144 RS-12M Topol; and 64 RS-12M2 Topol-M, plus a mobile force of 40 RS-12M2 Topol-M missiles.

Source



I dont know why they are doing this...Russia seriously needs all the ICBM's it can make for deterrence. America is soaring ahead and russia is behind in conventional weapons due to the lack of funding despite the high tech-level.

I can see that they intend to have a lean-mean ICBM force, but IMO greater numbers help in maintaining a formidable deterrance to an impending american attack.

With all the american developments in anti-ballistic missile tech....greater number of ICBM's with MIRV is vital to have a good strike probability.

It is dishartening to see that these steps towards disarment is not reciprocated by the united states. While russia continues to disarm, america continues to enhance its stockpiles.

Clearly, both hand must clap together to make the world a safer place. But america's high-headedness is seriosly jeprodising world peace.




posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   
it's a smart move imo. Russia modernizes and reduces it's ICBM armoury making things more affordable and still providing a credible detterence. 300 well kept missiles is enough to screw america over pretty bad.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
if you think about it the russians probaly have 900+ warheads on those missiles



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
300 well kept missiles is enough to screw america over pretty bad.


I hope so.

Here's something more :



The Russian Rocket Forces reportedly tested a new missile warhead, which, in President Putin's words, were capable "hitting targets at an intercontinental depth," "with a hypersonic speed, high precision and the opportunity of deep manoeuvre in terms of height and course". It was heralded as Russia's response to the U.S. missile defense and the Russian military proudly claimed that the new warhead can penetrate any missile defense system.

Details of the test have never been officially (or otherwise) disclosed, but it is belived that the new weapon in question was a maneuverable warhead for the SS-19/UR-100NUTTH missile (although some reports say it was a SS-25/Topol missile warhead).

Russia's menuverable, hypersonic, missile defence beating warhead



Hopefully it works



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
i heard it got disentegrated in mid flight



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I dont think Russia has a choice stealth spy, it just cannot afford to keep pace with the US. Its useless whining about the advancements America is making because there is nothing u can do to stop it and Russia would be doing exactly the same if it was strong enough.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
If this is true than it's clear that Russia withdrew from the nuclear arms race. The 300 ICBMs seems quite large number, but this makes Russia very vulnerable. Remeber that ICBMs were the critical part of russian nuclaer strategy. Their balistic subs are worse than american so they canot rely on them. And their bombers would never made it to the US coast, at best they could take Alaska. Of course 300ICBMs would be enough if they strike first - the projected misille defense could not work properly against so many ICBMs. But what happens if America strikes first? They can take all ICBM silos just through sneak attack with their B-2 bombers (the whole fleet can carry app 350 large nukes). The russians balistic subs will be hit quickly too so they will have only limited nuclar power.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Gee people,

Did you perhaps think that possibly the Russians and Americans are no longer planning a MAD war against each other? Both sides are maintaining and transforming their arsenal to provide the minimal needed deterrance, with flexibility and capability to strike an emerging target or regional state.

300 ICBM's would not be enough for a retaliatory strike against the US - but it would be enough against pretty much any other country (China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, France, etc.).



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
300 ICMBs with how many warheads each? If I am reading FASA correctly, each missile carries up to eight warheads. Each warhead can be assumed 2b at least 50kt, which is five-times Hiroshima.

2400 warheads launched against what opponent? The US? How many cities in the US with what populations?

Ground burst or airburst?

Frankly, I think this an excellent trend and any move toward nuclear disarmament is a brave move which will pay dividends. If the soviets really want to pursue peace, however, they must go further. They must agree to only 300 warheads. Assuming these warheads are not ICBM mounted, they still represent a threat to the stability of the US and for that of the world. The Soviets would then still be a nuclear player because they'd be able to inavlidate the winner of any nuclear exchange. They could not be struck without those 300 warheads going off.

There was a Soviet General, I believe, who testified before congress about the so-called "briefcase nuke". He said it was more the size of a golf bag and that it weighed as much as a refrigerator, requiring two men to carry it. Has anyone else read this? I need to find the link.



[edit on 21-5-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
if you think about it the russians probaly have 900+ warheads on those missiles


In April 2005 the Russian strategic forces included 830 strategic delivery platforms, which can carry up to 3494 nuclear warheads.

Strategic Rocket Forces have 560 operational missile systems

Russian strategic fleet includes 12 strategic missile submarines. Their missiles can carry 672 nuclear warheads.

Russian strategic aviation consists of 78 bombers that can carry up to 852 long-range cruise missiles.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
300 ICBM's would not be enough for a retaliatory strike against the US - but it would be enough against pretty much any other country (China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, France, etc.).


But what's the use ? None of those countries are potential agressors against Russia.

300 ICBM's might be sufficient to hit america but will not cause the distruction on the same scale that the americans will cause, with their greater numbers.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   


In Russia, the reports said, "the U.S.-led attack on Iraq, the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the expansion of NATO (including some countries of the former Soviet Union), the U.S. bases in former Soviet states on Russia's borders, and the uprisings against pro-Russian governments in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan have combined to re-ignite Cold War era suspicions, exacerbated by Russia's military weakness, that the United States is seeking to encircle and dominate Russia."


Source



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
i dont see how they will fund dismantling so many icbm's in such a short time.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
^^come on russia is not that poor.

And surely the US would be the first one to come forward to fund such an operation if russia are unable to.

IMO, instead of dismantling them, they should secretly sell it to North Korea or Iran or any other nation willing to buy them



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

IMO, instead of dismantling them, they should secretly sell it to North Korea or Iran or any other nation willing to buy them


Ummm....yeah sure that sounds like a really goo idea



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
If you squint your eyes and look closely....




posted on May, 22 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

But what's the use ? None of those countries are potential agressors against Russia.


You are way out of touch with reality, Russia is on FAR better terms with the US than Iran, North Korea, China or India. And these countries may actually have something to gain by attacking Russia, unlike the US....



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Stealth
I see you keep a good knowledge on developments in Russian Military industry.....That’s why its surprising to me that you don’t understand that Russia never reduces the number as she says Officially.....U can call it an Intelligent move to draw US money for Nuclear disarmament and use the same money to develop new arms(laden’s strategy to hit the US with her own planes)

But Russia wont be selling missiles to the countries u mentioned...coz those SMALL powers are more dangerous to Russia than the US....Both Russia and US officials know it for sure that they are not going to attack each other ..else none will exist

If you think that Russia has decreased her Nukes you are ignorant coz Russia officially has 5(unofficially more than 25) SECRET CITIES where no one has ever set foot ...and they are considered to be the most modern military cities according to experts .....U never know what's there in those cities....How many nukes...all is SCERET
(i don’t have time to find links about these secret cities just Google for "inside russia's secret mountains"

And this is a reminder to all who are happy to proclaim that Russia is economically weak...
ya we have been weak than we were during the Soviet times but far far better than the modern rising power i.e China

Russia has the second largest Military budget in this planet and is far ahead of China...and with the oil prices rising and continued GDP growth rate of 7% annually since 1998 Today's Russia is no more Economically weak as many ignorants think
Russia's GDP per capita is twice than that of China...so when u people call China an economic giant and India a Rising economy how do u call a country like Russia with twice GDP per capita than China(five times more than India) and continued GDP growth rates over 6% an economically weak country ? you people are too weak in Economics. .we Russians are not

And stealth here is a link by which you can possibly translate Russian web pages to English...let me know if it works
babelfish.altavista.com...



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Someone's watching too much propaganda movies. 25 most modern cities in the world which people have never set foot on?


Just for you to know, CIA's calculation of Russian PPP is $1.408 trillion (2004 est.)
www.cia.gov...

CIA's calculation of Chinese PPP is $7.262 trillion (2004 est.)
www.cia.gov...

Which means China's PPP is some 5 time MORE than Russia but Russia had much more of a head start than CHina although setbacks in the 90s did a lot.

CIA estimation of Chinese military spending is $67.49 billion (2004)
www.cia.gov...

Estimation of Russian military spending is around 50 billion
www.globalissues.org...

Which puts China ahead of Russia in military spending. The main part of the old Soviet Navy, Air force are getting mothballed because of the many years without proper upgrades and repairs and major cutbacks on maintenance.

Its not the cold war anymore, Russia won't be able to afford to maintain the 20000+ nukes USSR had in the cold war, most are already useless because of the major set backs of military spending in the 90s and plus, who's Russia gonna nuke? If it can't do with 3000, 20000 probably won't help either.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by COWlan]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
China may be ahead in all these economic numbers but is not even close to Russia's tech level.

It's a very deplorable to see Russia in its current woeful state when it deserves to be leading the world




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join