Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
^^^ Ahem, your informtaion does not support your arguments. Your vaunted v-1000 missile only had one test, why is that ? and why was it retired just a few short years later.
Whqat were the parameters of the test ? you hvae posted no information about that. Quite frankly there is bugger all information about the test and there weren't multiple tests.
I find your logic flawed as well, claiming the SA-5 is more capable because some sources state it is a refined version of the V-1000, yet the SA-5 has failed with tests against even short range ballistic targets
So once again you provide no proof and waffle on with BS, kinda sad really.

BTW, there is only one unit of S-200's left and I doubt they are nuclear armed




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
they both lose, you can't win a nuclear war



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
^^^ Ahem, your informtaion does not support your arguments. Your vaunted v-1000 missile only had one test, why is that ? and why was it retired just a few short years later.


Wrong again, but then you rarely manage much else. It was retired because it was a known ABM and they were just trying to fool lazy investigators like yourself.

Here is the V-100's (SA-5 Griffon's) test record.

www.astronautix.com...

So they had plenty of misfires and other problems before they managed the intercept.


DIA code: SA-5 (later reused for the SA-5 Gammon)

warfare.ru...


So why did they chose to reuse the code? Was it really that unrelated even if sources agree that the SA-5 Gammon is nothing but a highly refined version of the SA-5 Griffon( V-1000)? I ask again; How far will you go to deny the blatantly obvious?


What were the parameters of the test ? you hvae posted no information about that. Quite frankly there is bugger all information about the test and there weren't multiple tests.


Well take a look and decide for yourself. Funny how western observers could track the trajectory and could immediately tell it was designed for BM defense and not just for Sam's.


immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to
have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While
technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the
least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the SA-5�s trajectory would be just the ticket for shooting down
incoming ballistic missiles which themselves travel above the atmosphere. Taking this into account, the SA-5 had to be an ABM weapon. But
with the ABM treaty almost in hand, this fact was ignored and the treaty went into effect. The treaty remains in effect, limiting development
of a U.S. ABM system. Meanwhile, Russian dual-purpose (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) missile systems like the SA-5 continue to exist.

www.thenewamerican.com...



I guess a guy who invented the neutron bomb is too damn stupid to understand the physics involved in this situation. So how far will you go?


I find your logic flawed as well, claiming the SA-5 is more capable because some sources state it is a refined version of the V-1000, yet the SA-5 has failed with tests against even short range ballistic targets So once again you provide no proof and waffle on with BS, kinda sad really.



That is one source against all the one's i have used and listed. I am sorry but even know in retrospect we can see what the SA-5 could clearly have done in a ABM capability and i have shown you what they thought even the SA-2 could manage. You base your entire argument( shallow as it is) on this one source while attacking me for citing obscure sources?


BTW, there is only one unit of S-200's left and I doubt they are nuclear armed


They are still in service in many countries but no longer in Russia. I think the last one's were retired in 2001.

Stellar

[edit on 12-2-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hankyone
they both lose, you can't win a nuclear war


You can win a nuclear war just as you can any other war. It's just a question of meeting your objectives and what sort of damage/casualties your willing to accept to reach it.

I would appreciate it if you cared to read some of my post that will explain how i ( and the US defense establishment) arrived at the above mentioned conclusion.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Watch the old cold war film 'Wargames', the moral of the story answers your question - nobody wins.

Very good film, a must see!


[edit on 12/2/06 by eternally_damaged]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Here is the V-100's (SA-5 Griffon's) test record.

www.astronautix.com...

So they had plenty of misfires and other problems before they managed the intercept.


Ahem, the V-1000 missile is not part of the SA-5 missile system, it is completely different.


Maximum target speed 4300 kph. One missile per launch vehicle. Western sources mixed this missile up with the Dal system, later code-named Gammon, with lateral boosters. Vega/Dubna code names used as well.

www.astronautix.com...



From page 11
That is interception of a IRB missile travelling at nearly 11 000 Km/h, and the Sa-5 was a highly refined version of that missile, back in 1961 with a conventional warhead. In large part the Sa-5 are deployed with nuclear warheads they so your arguments are based on shear fantasy and denial of established facts.


So I'm curious if the S-200 system is an improved version of the V-1000 missile why can it only intercept a target at half the speed the V-1000 can - 4,500 km/h as opposed to 11,000km/h ?



DIA code: SA-5 (later reused for the SA-5 Gammon)

warfare.ru...


So why did they chose to reuse the code? Was it really that unrelated even if sources agree that the SA-5 Gammon is nothing but a highly refined version of the SA-5 Griffon( V-1000)? I ask again; How far will you go to deny the blatantly obvious?


As you can see below, the code was reused because the S-50 Dal system had been cancelled and it used the 5V11/V-400 missile not the V-1000.



SA-5 Griffon La-400 (5V11) S-50 Dal
SA-5 Gammon 5V21 (V-860), 5V28 (V-880) S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna

The designation SA-5 for the "Dal" system was dropped, after "Dal" had been cancelled.

www.designation-systems.net...


And some information on the cancelled S-50 Dal


Trials of this long range surface-to-air missile were conducted in 1960-1963 but the project was cancelled after the system failed to down a single target. V-200 missiles were installed in the Dal installations built around Leningrad for the failed missile. In a bit of disinformation, the V-400 was paraded in Moscow, and US intelligence, thinking it was operational, applied the SA-5 designation. The SA-5 code was transferred to the V-200 after the La-400 was cancelled

www.astronautix.com...




What were the parameters of the test ? you hvae posted no information about that. Quite frankly there is bugger all information about the test and there weren't multiple tests.


Well take a look and decide for yourself. Funny how western observers could track the trajectory and could immediately tell it was designed for BM defense and not just for Sam's.


Well that still doesn't tell me what the parameters of the test were, ie. how realistic was the test.



immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to
have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While
technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the
least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft.


Interesting,mmost long range anti-aircraft missiles have a trajectory the same as the S-200, such as the AIM-54 Phoenix. Travelling high in the atmosphere reduces drag and extends the range of a missile, not to mention increases the range if an active radar seeker is used. I wouldn't say it's the least effiecient trajectory at all.


I guess a guy who invented the neutron bomb is too damn stupid to understand the physics involved in this situation. So how far will you go?


Your point being what ?



That is one source against all the one's i have used and listed. I am sorry but even know in retrospect we can see what the SA-5 could clearly have done in a ABM capability and i have shown you what they thought even the SA-2 could manage. You base your entire argument( shallow as it is) on this one source while attacking me for citing obscure sources?


The SA-2/S-75 has absolutely no ABM performance, you haven't proved anywhere that it has. Even the Soviets don't claim it can knock down a missile. Just look at Vietnam, it had a poor kill ratio even aginst lumbering B-52 bombers. Also it's maximum range is only 30km, hardly an performance envelope condusive to shooting down ballistic missiles.


When the B-52's flew directly over areas defended by S-75's during the Linebacker campaign of 1972-1973, they suffered losses of 3% per sortie. It was said that this was only achieved due to the Strategic Air Command's insistence on flying the same course night after night. Even in the face of jamming, the North Vietnamese could fire the S-75's, fused for altitude, into B-52 bomber formations with some success. It was also claimed that 2,000 S-75's were expended to achieve these 15 kills.
www.astronautix.com...




[edit on 12-2-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Who would win?
Answer: The cockroach, as I have said before :"Man those guys are living it up"



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Ahem, the V-1000 missile is not part of the SA-5 missile system, it is completely different.


It is a highly modified version of it. Well done on stating the obvious fact that it is not the same since it is better!


It was the first Russian ABM which was tested at the Sary Shagan test range in Kazahstan. Although this was just an experimental model it was deployed in a
number of launch sites until the development of the ABM-1. The SA-5 Griffon was also the precursor of the SA-5 Gammon SAM which was developed later.

warfare.ru...


So if it was so different why would the DIA/CIA give the ABM missile name to a SAM missile name even if they decided to call the OBVIOUS ABM missile system the V-1000 a SAM system? The CIA maintained that they were somehow all Sam's ( despite all the evidence) and the DIA fought bitterly to gain recognition for the fact that their at best dual use and at worse just ABM missiles that could be used against planes and cruise missiles. Even the CIA who denied that they were ABMs stated that the SA-5 Gammon had a marginal ABM capability. Your all alone in your claims that the SA-5 Gammon had NO ABM capability.


So I'm curious if the S-200 system is an improved version of the V-1000 missile why can it only intercept a target at half the speed the V-1000 can - 4,500 km/h as opposed to 11,000km/h ?


Well the Russian were obviously not interested in helping to change the Cia's mind so why would they dispute such stupid claims by western sources? The DIA fought tooth and nail ( and some senators, and at least 2 US defense sect's, and one chief of Air force intelligence) to bring about the understanding that the Soviet Union were preparing to fight and win a nuclear war and that they were doing their best to deny proper strategic warhead allocation by introducing the ABM uncertainty.


As you can see below, the code was reused because the S-50 Dal system had been cancelled and it used the 5V11/V-400 missile not the V-1000.


SA-5 Griffon La-400 (5V11) S-50 Dal
SA-5 Gammon 5V21 (V-860), 5V28 (V-880) S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna

The designation SA-5 for the "Dal" system was dropped, after "Dal" had been cancelled.
www.designation-systems.net...


This was before the V-1000 were even being tested and the obviously used the name for the V-1000 as well and then later again for the 5V28 (V-880)
which was based on the V-1000 which did intercept many IRBM missiles. Facts are facts and even thought the CIA did it's best to muck up US intelligence the DIA never lost sight of the ball.


The V-1000 ABM was first seen in the public in 1963 when it was paraded on the Red Square and was retired from active service in the following year from yet undefined reasons, but It should be noted that the 5V28 "Volga" missile from the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) SAM system, which was also developed by Grushin's OKB, is considered to be a highly modified version of it.

warfare.ru...


Much as they messed up the intelligence picture back then even the CIA understood damn well that the Russians true aim was to have a effective ABM shield while claiming it was just a SAM system. These days that is not in doubt however much you try deny it and fighting it just proves that you would rather believe your cold war sources over modern article's that have in the main a better view of it all. Stanislav Lunev ( defected back in middle late 90's and was the highest ranking KGB officer ever to do so) says they have had a working ABM system for decades but i guess that is just disinformation again?


Well that still doesn't tell me what the parameters of the test were, ie. how realistic was the test.


I have given you sources and if they don't help you look for your own. I have shown you that the US defense intelligence agencies all agreed that the SA-5 Gammon had at least a marginal ABM capability. Maybe they were all wrong thought and you know better?


. Travelling high in the atmosphere reduces drag and extends the range of a missile, not to mention increases the range if an active radar seeker is used. I wouldn't say it's the least effiecient trajectory at all.


High in the atmosphere is good enough when the article states high above the atmosphere? How far will you go? Do you not realise that there is a huge difference?


Your point being what ?


You claim superior sources and knowledge and then wrongly argue that this missile does nothing unexpected ( for a sam at least)when he expressly states that it does?


The SA-2/S-75 has absolutely no ABM performance, you haven't proved anywhere that it has. Even the Soviets don't claim it can knock down a missile.


Why would the Soviets claims that it could? I did not try to prove it and simply showed you that some prominent American organizations proved that the SA-2 could probably be modified to be used in such a capacity and that it was within Soviet technological understanding to do so.


It is not my purpose here to deal at length with the technicalities of SAM upgrade, but these analytical results shed light on some important considerations. Any ABM capability that might be ascribed to the SA-2 system was highly qualified and conditional. But those who
took the possibility seriously noted that some capability could indeed be shown to exist. Those who denigrated the possibility emphasized
that such capabilities were "technical" or "theoretical" and not "real," though no means for giving meaning to those characterizations ever emerged. It was also pointed out that no country would rely upon a defense which depended upon the attacker's behaving in a certain way which
made him peculiarly vulnerable; on the other hand, it was noted that the approaching strategic arms limitations negotiations might freeze the offense so that

www.cia.gov...



precisely such a situation might occur. Discussions about the possibilities of changing reentry angles or burst heights quickly showed that it could be accomplished only with great difficulty.

The report we prepared was not enthusiastically received. In several parts of the Agency and elsewhere in the community, we were charged with
having added fuel to a destructive fire by not rejecting out of hand a palpably ridiculous suggestion. Within the defense technology
community, we were ridiculed as delicate flowers unwilling to go the whole way in addressing the possibilities of upgrading SAMs. Throughout
the rest of the debate-through the SALT considerations and the preparation of NIE 11-3-71-CIA's defensive weapons systems analysts
alternately defended the possibilities of SAM upgrade or argued against its likelihood depending upon the particular protagonist being encountered.

www.cia.gov...


Please read the few pages ( or the entire article as i did if your serious about this) around this to understand the context. They probably had the capability even with the SA-2 and even the CIA admitted the SA-5 would have some capacity. Your attacking me but your in fact attacking the entire US intelligence establishment while i am just attacking parts of it. What seems more fair in your mind?


Just look at Vietnam, it had a poor kill ratio even aginst lumbering B-52 bombers. Also it's maximum range is only 30km, hardly an performance envelope condusive to shooting down ballistic missiles.


Without proper tracking facilities ( and the Soviets never exported anywhere near their best as Ho chi minh said) these missiles could obviously not perform anywhere near their full capacity and the Soviet Union had extensive tracking and early warning facilities to guide these missiles to targets.

Many claims were made in Vietnam about Soviet missiles but the Sam's were still a rude shock at the start and they had to change their style entirely to deal with them. That they could after half a decade effectively deal with the SA-2 should be no surprise to anyone who thinks highly of the USAF.

Maybe if you were less biased about the USSR and it's equipment you could arrive at a better understanding?

Stellar



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Anyway, winning a nuclear war is a contradiction in terms.

As for the Russian ABM system, I don't really get all the fuss being made here about the SA-5 system. It is well known that both the A-35 and A-135 system components around Moscow are doing well and are quite operational, the Russians conducted yet another test last year at the Sary-Shagan range (which went - strangely enough - unnoticed by most western mass media). The Pill Box (Don 2P/M) targeting radar is very operational as well (people living near Pushkino can't watch TV and their PCs screens brake down because of interferences every time the Air Force decides to switch it on full power - and that's very fresh info).

When French Pres. Jaques Chirac visited Russia last year, he was shown some of the system components as a "gesture of good will and mutual trust". And when G.W. Bush, after denouncing the ABM treaty, proposed to his Russian counterpart to develop next-gen ABM defenses together, the answer was (literally) "we don't see why we should do again something that we've already mastered in the 70s".

I'm not saying that the Russians have a inherent talent for designing SAM and ABM systems that makes them so different from the US (God forbid), it's simply a result of the Soviet military posture and post-WWII reality: the US are effectively shielded from massive air-land attacks by 2 oceans, mainland air and space defense was never a priority, while the USSR faced scores of NATO squadrons and hundreds of potential missile launch vectors from any direction. What is more, crucial C3I structure of the Soviet Union was highly centralised and mostly located in big cities like Moscow (for different and sometimes purely historical reasons) - therefore they feared more than everything a decapitation-like strike on the Moscow Military District, which provides a reason enough for designing something like a missile shield round it. The US command structure was much more scattered, and the US posture relied more heavily on second strike capability at that time (that's why the original US ABM system was meant to defend missile silos rather than a city).

Nowadays, the Russians have a much more scattered C3I structure than before, but the posture hasn't changed much. The official doctrine is still that Russia has the right to launch its nukes first if it gets massively attacked (even if the attack is purely conventional).

Some weeks ago, V.Putin spoke again about "hypersonic vehicles" that are being put in service and that "are able to defend any MD, because no MD can predict their trajectory". Most (Russian) analysts tend to interpret that as a new warhead for the Topol-M ICBM, but some sources (including people living next to the target range in the Kamchatka peninsula) assure that last tests were fairly conventional (they conduct 4-5 test flights a year, and the re-entry pathes of the MIRVs are fairly visible to everyone living near the range - especially at night). As it is fair to assume that the Russians master some of the hypersonic tech since years (just google the terms "GELA" or "Kholod" in conjunction with "hypersonic"), it would pose a grave threat if the vehicle is something else than simply a warhead

Last year and January 06 also saw the first test flights of the new Bulava-3 solid-propelled SLBM (videos are all over the net).

PS: US ABL and SBL projects still are what they are: projects. And please remember that the first and only SBL demonstrator effectively put into orbit (albeit briefly - support engine and orientation failure, followed by descent Columbia-style) was the Skif-DM. An ABL platform based on the Il-76 airframe resumed flight tests last year. Just wonder where all the cash comes from



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
^^^ The Russian ABM systems only covers the Moscow area, big deal. I'd hardly call Moscow surviving and the rest of the cities being obliterated a victory. I doubt Moscow would survive anyway.

It is interesting that you say Russia accomplished this in the 70's when there newer missiles have no capability gainst ICBM's. Actually no missiles have any real capability against ICBM's.
Also, I'm curious - if the Russians have been so advanced for so long, why are they developing the S-400 system and the successor S-500 ( which is equivalent of the US NMD ) ?

PS. Just because Putin says so, doesn't mean it's truthful. We all know Putin is an ex-KGB general prone to misinformation.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
^^^ The Russian ABM systems only covers the Moscow area, big deal. I'd hardly call Moscow surviving and the rest of the cities being obliterated a victory. I doubt Moscow would survive anyway.[edit on 12-2-2006 by rogue1]


Never said anything else: my first sentence was "winning a nuclear war is a contradiction in terms". Of course Moscow will be obliterated in case of a massive strike. But as I've argued, the aim was to avoid a incapacitating limited strike on the city military command and infrastructure. Furthermore, a less official goal was to deter the Chinese.


Originally posted by rogue1It is interesting that you say Russia accomplished this in the 70's when there newer missiles have no capability gainst ICBM's. Actually no missiles have any real capability against ICBM's.
Also, I'm curious - if the Russians have been so advanced for so long, why are they developing the S-400 system and the successor S-500 ( which is equivalent of the US NMD ) ?[edit on 12-2-2006 by rogue1]


First of all, I'm not saying this. They said it to Bush.
Second, what newer missiles? The existing ABM shield is operational and sufficient, as demonstrated above, and why would they need to further develop something that will never match pure and bloody MAD in terms of efficiency?
The S-500 is no more than a rumour, and whether it is, or not, the equivalent of the US NMD no one can judge. The assumption that NO missiles have any real capability against ICBM is wrong - but it will NEVER be enough to counter a nuclear strike, you're right here. The development of the S-300/400 systems have nothing to do with ABM systems:
1) Why shoot down anything from UAVs to ICBMs with an universal missile type??? can you imagine the costs? Each missile system has more or less specific advantages and missions, and it is designed to meet specific specifications.
2) S-300/400 systems are primarily meant for air defense, anything one could suppute about ABM capabilities notwithstanding. They are highly mobile (compared to other long-range SAMs like the Patriot) to ensure some kind of survavibility in a dense air superiority battle theatre, the missiles are fast and capable of high G manoeuvres for countering similar targets (but not fast enough for ICBM-type targets) and the C3I systems are jamming-resistant: everything that specifies them as primarily anti-aircraft (including cruise missiles) systems. ABM systems need completely different characteristics.



Originally posted by rogue1 PS. Just because Putin says so, doesn't mean it's truthful. We all know Putin is an ex-KGB general prone to misinformation.[edit on 12-2-2006 by rogue1]


Well, for starters, he never raised above the rank of KGB colonel. He was then (briefly) the head of the FSB (which is NOT the "successor of the KGB" as all the journalists put it but the Interior Security section of it). If you want a real KGB general, look for S. Ivanov (the Def. Minister).
And BTW, we all know that George Bush senior was a CIA Director, and that half of the present US administration was more or less involved in some dubious conclaves and think tanks... It doesn't make prone to misinformation, methinks (well, not more than anyone else).
Putin's job was to inform, and not to misinform, his masters (he was in the foreign intel section). And I can't imagine a man like him (if you can read Russian, I suggest you read some of his press conference briefings and his lengthy and detailed answers) blatantly lying like this in public. Besides, he's not speaking about it for the first time and he's not the only one to do so. I don't say that you can trust him all the time (nobody should trust a politician anyway) but as far as I remember he never was caught saying a blatant lie.




[edit on 12-2-2006 by RSM55]

[edit on 12-2-2006 by RSM55]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSM55
Anyway, winning a nuclear war is a contradiction in terms.


It really is not as i have explained. Why do you think that a nuclear war can not be won if winning in the classical sense is just reaching one's objectives? Remember the Japanese?


As for the Russian ABM system, I don't really get all the fuss being made here about the SA-5 system.


Then you really should do me a personal favour and read some of the thread before commenting on things you will obviously NOT understand.



"we don't see why we should do again something that we've already mastered in the 70s".


Kinda my point. All i am adding to what is understood about the basic Moscow ABm defenses is that it's not all they have.



I'm not saying that the Russians have a inherent talent for designing SAM and ABM systems that makes them so different from the US (God forbid), it's simply a result of the Soviet military posture and post-WWII reality: the US are effectively shielded from massive air-land attacks by 2 oceans, mainland air and space defense was never a priority,


Well no one with a brain will claim that the US could not have had the same system had politicians not put a stop to it...... The reality in the US was never different from that of the USSR but the USSR chose to try defend itself passively ( wich is what real defense is actually about) while the USA invested in a global police force instead.


while the USSR faced scores of NATO squadrons and hundreds of potential missile launch vectors from any direction.


And much the same was true for the USA considering Soviet ICBMs' and their very long range SLBM's and LRBM's to not even mention their own strategic bomber forces. It was political and certainly not because the US faced very different threats.


What is more, crucial C3I structure of the Soviet Union was highly centralised and mostly located in big cities like Moscow (for different and sometimes purely historical reasons) - therefore they feared more than everything a decapitation-like strike on the Moscow Military District, which provides a reason enough for designing something like a missile shield round it.


It was mainly because of the industrial strenght of the region ( and to save their own skins no doubt) but not because they did not have alternate command posts. It was just playing for time and making US targetting choices that much harder.


The US command structure was much more scattered, and the US posture relied more heavily on second strike capability at that time (that's why the original US ABM system was meant to defend missile silos rather than a city).


The US command structure was not more scattered as such since the Soviet Union had massive bunkers under each major city thus making sure that party officials would survive everywhere even if they may not have had the ability to control a nuclear exchange from each one. Fact is we really do not know how widespread the Soviet command structure was but we do know how redundant and widespread their radar and early warning systems were so why assume anything different for their nuclear warfighting command structure?


Nowadays, the Russians have a much more scattered C3I structure than before, but the posture hasn't changed much. The official doctrine is still that Russia has the right to launch its nukes first if it gets massively attacked (even if the attack is purely conventional).


They have stated that they would launch a nuclear first strike aswell if they perceived a coming attack on themselves.


PS: US ABL and SBL projects still are what they are: projects. And please remember that the first and only SBL demonstrator effectively put into orbit (albeit briefly - support engine and orientation failure, followed by descent Columbia-style) was the Skif-DM. An ABL platform based on the Il-76 airframe resumed flight tests last year. Just wonder where all the cash comes from


The Russians have always had to seperate economies but some uninformed types ( read 99% of people) assumes that because their civilian 'economy' went down the drain so did their military one wich is just not true. What they in fact did is simply to take their military spending and arms buildup completely underground where they know the West could never admit to to finding it. Even if their military economy was conventional they are rolling in the oil and energy money so they would be funding it out of those funds one presumes.

Anyways!

Stellar



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
You know, counterforce -vs- countervalue means nothing. If one side is at a signinificant disadvantage in counterforce exchange then the disadvantaged side could just declare that a "launch on warning" counterstrike would end on cities from the outset.


Which means what exactly if anything? The Soviet Union prepared for that by assuming the worse from the start and preparing defensive measures as they best could. If US politicians would have allowed it the USA might have had a even better system than the USSR.


Mutual suicide forced by the disadvantaged of the first attacked.


No one starts a nuclear war because they know they are falling behind as no one really wants to fight it unless forced. The only reason to fight it is if forced even if you have the advantage. A advantage is something you use for blackmail SHORT of war and actually testing that advantage in practice. How did the USSR manage to prevent the US administration to sign up to the ABM treaty in the first place even if the CIA new that the Russians had allready completed all the testing to build such a system on while the USA had not? I sense the advantage was allready with the USSR at the time and they used it in strategic " arms reduction" ( read disarming the USA further under threat of attack) talks to further increase their advantage.


The limits of reason can be reached wihout being a terrorist, and the casualties of a "counterforce" strike could be enough to justify the total release of all restraint up to extreme "countervalue"..


Casualties is meaningless if the opponent is ready to accept the number you can inflict. Wars are won by those who are willing to lose most to achieve victory. You really must get away from the idea that hundreds of millions dying makes a nuclear war impossible.


Now you are back to the "Dr. Strangelove" suicide scenario, or MAD. You still want to invade Western Europe?


Well the USSR could invade and win anyways imo but it's hardly required to win a nuclear war.


I can just about guarantee that 12,000 deliverable strategic warheads the US could deliver in 1986 would cause more than the Russians/Soviets ever experienced in casualties in all their history no matter how much they think they can prepare for it, and by several times.


As i have said again and again very few of those warheads would have probably made it to their targets as many in the US military and government have worried over the years. If you cared to read the material i provided you would have noticed but all you care for is your illusions of power i guess. You can prepare for a nuclear war as any other and it's all about how much your willing to invest in your survival. Because the US did not invest in it's own survival some ignorants then assumed it must be impossible even if it's the worse kind of logic you can indulge in.


You see, it isn't about fighting a nuclear war, it is about making any potential outcome too expensive to the instigator to ever seriously regard the idea of justifying one...


Try to define " too expensive" and tell me how it translates to Russian. What were the Vietnamese willing to pay for their independence? The Japanese? 'Too expensive' is a nonsense idea created by people who decided that limits can be imposed on strategic planning since that has worked so well in the past. " The enemy would NEVER do that," type of logic.


It reminds me of the cowboys around the saloon table, betting on a poker hand, raising, passing, and bluffing. Bottom line is until the cards are on the table you won't know who "wins" if that is even possible...


And if you can not plan with many unknowns in mind you should not be planning as your never going to get any other kind of planning.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   
The russian ABM system is not designed to completely protect moscow - it can`t;


why? well moscow is the THE biggest target and has more nuclear weapons (french , american , british and chinese) aimed at it than any other few square miles on the planet - something like 1000 warheads are aimed at it - the next biggest target are the icbm fields in CONUS



the abm system will just slow down teh first wave of warheds - nothing else , and to give members of the politbereu time to get to the deep shelters.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
The russian ABM system is not designed to completely protect moscow - it can`t;


If defenses were perfect we would have no wars anyways. Are you talking about the official one that they are by treaty allowed to have or about the ten odd thousand dual use ABM/SAM's all around Russia?


why? well moscow is the THE biggest target and has more nuclear weapons (french , american , british and chinese) aimed at it than any other few square miles on the planet - something like 1000 warheads are aimed at it - the next biggest target are the icbm fields in CONUS


Well clearly Russia's/Moscow's defenses is very good then if they plan to expend that many warheads on it. ICBM's are estimated to have a failure rate ( meaning wont launch/wont get anywhere near) of about 10 -20% anyways so doing that math should allow you to see that this is still total overkill if Moscow's defenses were not far more potent than is suggested by most.


the abm system will just slow down teh first wave of warheds - nothing else , and to give members of the politbereu time to get to the deep shelters.


Well you have to wonder why they would waste so many warheads on a city when the targets have allready boarded their underground railways to go to their command posts hundreds of miles away....

Stellar



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   

During the 1980s, the rationale for the United States undertaking the largest weapons buildup in history was detailed in a widely circulated Defense Department document titled Soviet Military Power. The report estimated that the Soviet Union commanded weaponry that exceeded the U.S. arsenal in every category.

It turns out many of those weapons never existed. Declassified CIA estimates of Soviet military power suggest the Defense Department's fears were caused by a phantom arsenal of nonexistent weapons.

In fact, the Soviets weren't even maintaining the weapons they did have. At a press conference late last year, Gen. Eugene Habiger, top commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, acknowledged that during the 1980s "the Russians weren't modernizing their forces as we were." As a result, "The service life of their systems is coming to an end."

www.popularmechanics.com...


Well, seems Stellar, that we can discount all of your DIA intelligence reports, as you can clearly see they were chasing phantoms.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
No one can win a nuclear war.
Russia has around 2000 nuclear intercontinetal weapons.
United states has a even more.
It's enugh to drop 1 nuke to level a whole city, think about 2000 or 10000 .
Nukes are far worse than they use to be much more powerful, hirosima was far lame compared to what is now.
Droping 2000 nukes means no life for xxxxx years, just in case any one survives, nothing grows water is not drinkable thigs dont grow, but i'm sure nothing would survive.
Some say I'll survive in a bunker, for how long?10 years 100 years?200 years? the efect of thoulsands of nukes would ensure nothing can live for a 500 years at least.
Hirosima still has high radiation levels and that was just 1 and weaker than what is now presented.
No one can win, personaly I think 500 nukes would wipe out any big country, let's hope no one pushes the button, it's cool to talk about it but we dont know the costs of it, you are all talking about it like they are conventional weapons. A nuclear strike can bust bunkers, if you drop a nuke directly on a bunker it will desitegrate it, it will leave a crater and it will make you think an asteroid struk there.




[edit on 5-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Well, seems Stellar, that we can discount all of your DIA intelligence reports, as you can clearly see they were chasing phantoms.


Discounting those reports in their entirety will only prove how irrational your willing to act. Unless your willing to bring specific counter claims to their stated facts you have no business quoting 10 lines from a popular mechanics magazine. If the CIA AND the DIA were so wrong about the SU are they still wrong since Russia is still very much superior to the USA in terms of conventional strategic nuclear weapons? When did they stop being wrong and what exactly were the claims they made in error?

If your serious such investigation will not present you with a problem. Till then my claims stand as they are based on various sources from very many sources.

You have every right to find the DIA and CIA questionable but that does not give you cart blance to dismiss ALL their claims.


"Doubt everything or believe everything: these are two equally convenient strategies. With either we dispense with the need for reflection."

— Henri Poincare


Stellar




Stellar

[edit on 5-3-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
If the CIA AND the DIA were so wrong about the SU are they still wrong since Russia is still very much superior to the USA in terms of conventional strategic nuclear weapons?


Hmm conventional strategic nuclear weapons, I'm not sure what you mean by this. You've contradicted yourself in the same sentence.




If your serious such investigation will not present you with a problem. Till then my claims stand as they are based on various sources from very many sources.


Ahem, 90% of your information is based on these DIA reports, you constsnatly quote them in your posts.

You should read the following article, detailing how the Soviet Military Power reports came about and how inaccurate they were.


But the Soviet colossus had feet of clay. In the mid-1980s, the intelligence community quietly halved their estimates of the accuracy of the most dangerous type of Soviet ICBMs, and with that, the window of vulnerability instantly disappeared. In the late 1980s, military authorities described Soviet military spending as consuming 15-17 percent of GNP without achieving military superiority. It became harder to believe in the efficient, inexorable drive for Soviet strategic dominance. Also in the 1990s, Mikhail Gorbachev spoke of the necessity of reform in the Soviet economy, agreed to a series of arms control proposals, then unilaterally declared military withdrawals from Afghanistan and Eastern Europe--unprecedented Soviet actions. Gorbachev's reforms were too little to ease Soviet economic difficulties, however, and the government collapsed.

In short, the burden of Soviet military spending, which was much greater than U.S. intelligence projected (and completely discounted by Team B) caused such dislocation in the Russian economy that it brought about the disintegration of the Soviet Union

www.thebulletin.org...



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm conventional strategic nuclear weapons, I'm not sure what you mean by this. You've contradicted yourself in the same sentence.


There are imo far more dangerous weapons than nuclear weapons so they have become the new conventional imo.


Ahem, 90% of your information is based on these DIA reports, you constsnatly quote them in your posts.


I quoted them a great deal but mostly repetivitle to drive home a few basic points which has not been disputed by other sources. Nowhere near 90% of my claims were ever based on DIA resources. Making up blatent lies to suit your agenda will get you moderated in no time at all. Try that again if you like.


You should read the following article, detailing how the Soviet Military Power reports came about and how inaccurate they were.


Vague claims bother me not when i make specific pointed arguments about weapons systems. If you are not willing to engage in proper debate do not bother me with your biased dismissive trolling.


But the Soviet colossus had feet of clay. In the mid-1980s, the intelligence community quietly halved their estimates of the accuracy of the most dangerous type of Soviet ICBMs, and with that, the window of vulnerability instantly disappeared.


Since the accuracy of Soviet strategic missiles were still enough to do damage to American naval and strategic airfields it hardly negates their effects. A CEP of 1000 yards just means the nuclear weapon has a 50% chance of landing within that radius from target. The other 50% could still be nearly anywhere on earth.


In the late 1980s, military authorities described Soviet military spending as consuming 15-17 percent of GNP without achieving military superiority. It became harder to believe in the efficient, inexorable drive for Soviet strategic dominance.


Trying to estimate what the USSR were spending were allways a fools game anyways since their cost structure and entire society were in so many ways different. Changing your estimates in a mostly guessing games hardly proves a damn thing. Political agenda's plays a far larger part than does math most of the time. Fact is the USSR were doing things that could almost never have been afforded in the West and trying to put a pirce tag in dollar value on such expenditure was just a exercise in stupidty.


Also in the 1990s, Mikhail Gorbachev spoke of the necessity of reform in the Soviet economy, agreed to a series of arms control proposals, then unilaterally declared military withdrawals from Afghanistan and Eastern Europe--unprecedented Soviet actions. Gorbachev's reforms were too little to ease Soviet economic difficulties, however, and the government collapsed.


He also said many other things:


This is the same Gorbachev, who made the following statement, which was printed by Pravda on December 11, 1984: “In the struggle for peace and social progress the Communist Party of the Soviet Union pursues a consistent policy of rallying the forces of the international communist and working-class movement in every possible way. We uphold the historical justness of the great ideas of Marxism-Leninism, and along with all the revolutionary and peace loving forces of mankind, stand for social progress, and peace and security for all nations. This is what should determine the resolute nature of our propaganda.”



Gorbachev said in November, 1987: “In our work and worries, we are motivated by those Leninist ideals and noble endeavors and goals which mobilized the workers of Russian seven decades ago to fight for the new and happy world of socialism. Perestroika (restructuring) is a continuation of the October Revolution.” He also said: “Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” On another occasion he said: “We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”



Gorbachev said: “We are not going to change Soviet power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles, but we acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen socialism.” In October, 1989, Gorbachev said: “The concept, the main idea, lies in the fact that we want to give a new lease on life to socialism through perestroika and to reveal the potential of the socialist system.” Also in 1989, he said: “Through perestroika we want to give Socialism a second wind. To achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society.” He said in December, 1989: “Today we have perestroika, the salvation of socialism, giving it a second breath, revealing everything good which is in the system.” He also said: “I am a Communist, a convinced Communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me, it is my main goal.” In June, 1990, he said: “I am now, just as I’ve always been, a convinced Communist. It’s useless to deny the enormous and unique contribution of Marx, Engels and Lenin to the history of social thought and to modern civilization as a whole.”



In short, the burden of Soviet military spending, which was much greater than U.S. intelligence projected (and completely discounted by Team B) caused such dislocation in the Russian economy that it brought about the disintegration of the Soviet Union


Great act was'nt it?

Stellar





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join