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 tests the new Topol-M missile that can subdue USA's $50-billion missile shield

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.

- National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38)


That was back when Slick Willy was President.




posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
S2,

>>>
Did it ever occur to Putin or any of your military masterminds that your super-maneuverable missile's ability to evade out MD isn't really an issue??? While your missile is hurtling towrd us, we are not going to wait to see if our defenses take it out - we are going to throw the whole enchilada at you guys and leave Russia a charred and radioactive mess.... it's still a guarantee of Mutual Assured Destruction.
>>>

>>
The way i see it, Russia is only maintaining the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) status at present.

If Russia had not come up with this, it would be seriously disadvantaged by not being able to effectively hit back to the US if it was attacked by the latter, by its missile defence systems.

No offence, but I find your response as a bit of an over reaction.
>>

No offense but I find his response to be direct, on point and an illustration that there is NO MARGIN FOR SURVIVAL IN A NUCLEAR WAR. Therefore the clenched gauntlet must never loose it's grip upon the lightning bolts in it's fist.

Such a hardboiled attitude is what kept megalomaniacal morons like Kruschyev from thinking that we were too weak to 'really mean it'. Even as it allowed U.S. to bypass a complete bankruptcy of our own economic system trying to prepare for a war that could never, /should never/, be fought.

>>>
Oh, and by the way - anyone want to bet who Russia's first customer for this new missile will be??? Anyone???
>>>

This however is ignorant. Because our first duty is to prevent sales to those nations by issuing another Cuban Proclamation: "Any nuclear weapon which strikes the U.S. or any of it's Allies from North Korea or Iran will be considered to be an attack on this nation by the Peoples Republic Of China and will be met with a full strategic retaliatory response of the United States."

People play the War Game as a function of stockpiling weapons that they don't claim they will ever use. Unfortunately, the possession of those weapons seems to INCREASE the pressure to use them. As WWI and Vae Victis Vickers technology escalation prior to stands as best evidence of.

>>
Well there are some international non-proliferation treaties of which Russia (& the US) is a signatory of, which prevents it from exporting these missiles.
>>

That's not the point. Putin is not a general. He doesn't need to cheerlead for the military like some demented aluminum siding salesman. At least his predecessors, with notable exceptions had due regard for the gravity of what they did and refused to be 'limelighted' for developing the weapons they deemed necessary for their own defense.


ARGUMENT:
The only real assertion one can make here is that Russia is so technically backward and/or Klingonesque in their desire for Armageddon that they choose not to chase our development of defensive weapons when they can /try/ to outsly us on the cheap. This shows that:

1. They really fear we have done it and are close to making a defensive strategic posture (evaluate the attack level and respond with precision rather than massive retaliation) possible.

2. They have very little true desire to /protect/ their own people by following a course similar to our own while following a staged drawdown of the what, 12,000 weapons STILL IN EACH OF OUR ARSENALS!?

CONCLUSION:
Russians are barbarians. They have been overrun and brutalized so many times by so many people that all that remains is cloistered if not clannish sense of introvertive paranoia.

Kennedy had nukes in Turkey. Eisenhower had the option to /use/ Nukes over Hungary. With zero probability of U.S. destruction. Neither did nor threatened to until a Russian Tyrant put similar weapons into Cuba and then DID threaten to use them. Indeed gave over their keys to Cubans which is something we also /never/ did (even in Europe).

We would be well advised to remember this when dealing with our erstwhile 'new friends and partner nations'.

Because the real danger to U.S. security will come when FOBS/TAV vehicles put conventional warheads onto previously moated-safe CONUS soil. At that point, there will truly be noplace safe on the planet and nobody will know whether the attacks, while certainly deliberate, are 'strategic' (glowie in darkie) or 'conventional' (rip up /our/ industry and infrastructure).

And the alternative to a world-ending retaliatory strike will in fact be to attack the delivery platforms which travel at Mach 16 or better but bus 100 miniwarheads at 3,500 miles and then execute a 90` turn and 'reorbiting mechanic' to return home for reload.

Strategic Defenses at that point will make a helluva lot more sense than they do now. While Russian soapbox saber rattling will always be loudmouthed braggadocio of a frustrated bully.


KPl.


ExD

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Topol-M missile is called new because of it's frequent upgrades, such us, reflective coating, emp defence, multiple warheads, increased maneuverability and so on. I would not comment so called conclusions of some members, because I just don't want cast pearls before swine.

If you want peace, prepare for war. There is no friends in politics, there are national interests. I would like to wish to some members on this forum to keep in mind that. Nuclear war doesn't start because of new missiles, it starts when someone thinks that his country could win in it. I wish I do not hear childish comments how Russia will be turned to nuclear wasteland, because in this case US will be in the same position.

[edit on 4/11/05 by ExD]



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
"And why would the U.S even have a reason to nuke Russia"

Or vice versa?


Countermeasures will always produce counter-countermeasures, this is just another example.
The ABL only works on boost phase, and so wouold have to be relatively close to the launch site - easy to arrrange in the case of, say Syria, a bit harder with Russia.
This will keep plenty of Russian rocket scientists in work, persuade their bosses that they are doing a good job and help maintain prestige for the motherland. And create jobs in the US for the counter-counter-counter-measures guys. Win win win...



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

The ABL only works on boost phase, and so wouold have to be relatively close to the launch site - easy to arrrange in the case of, say Syria, a bit harder with Russia.


Why would we even try to do that? The Missile Defense Shied was never intended to protect us against Russia or any other major nuclear power, but to protect us against countries like North Korea or Iran. Russia still has an effective deterrent with 10K+ nukes. There is no need for this missile, or for all the hype that they are creating.

Also, a laser travels at the speed of light, pretty hard to out run that, especially when you’re on boost stage.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

Kennedy had nukes in Turkey. Eisenhower had the option to /use/ Nukes over Hungary. With zero probability of U.S. destruction.


Ahem, ever since 1945 the US has the option to use nukes whenever and where ever. I fail to see what your point is
The USSR also had more than a few nuclear wepons by the mid 1950's. I wouldn't say thre was zero chance of retaliation.



Neither did nor threatened to until a Russian Tyrant put similar weapons into Cuba and then DID threaten to use them. Indeed gave over their keys to Cubans which is something we also /never/ did (even in Europe).


He did threaten to use them, when ? Also the Cubans never had control of the nuclear warheads, the Soviets did, at all times.
The Soviets also had about 10 FROG missiles for use against a possible US invasion. The Soviet generals had the authority to use these short range missiles in case of invasion. They did not have any authority to launch any of the IRBM's though.

In Europe the US had/has a dual key arrangement with their host countries. The US controls the warheads and the host country controls the delivery system. Therefore any use of these warheads would be agreed to by both parties.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley


Countermeasures will always produce counter-countermeasures, this is just another example.
The ABL only works on boost phase, and so wouold have to be relatively close to the launch site - easy to arrrange in the case of, say Syria, a bit harder with Russia.


The point is that teh ABL could be considered ' old' technology. Research on the much more compact and powerful solid state lasers is rapidly progressing. In 10 years time it is feasable that a laser can be mounted on a satellite with enough power to take out hardened MIRV's and if you wish to step through the loking glass; they could cause significant damage to ground targets.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
That’s no news at all.

After we threw the ABM treaty and START 2 out the window, strategically there is no other choice for Russia but to go back to MIRVs and push A-135/S500 grid. So far the half-baked “missile defense” fleecing scheme is only good in its intended role, pumping money out of taxpayers pockets. It’s hard to believe that people still believe that crap after Regan’s BS Star Wars fantasy.

“Russia seriously needs to face the fact that they lost the Cold War, and stop trying to make new weapons systems designed to specifically harm America.”

“they need to face the realities of the 21st century and worry more about their large neighbour to the south.”

Comments made by truly misguided individuals. Tom Clancy and FOX news spawns that type of nonsense. I recommend reality, especially considering our world wide offensive posture and aggressive expansion into Eastern Europe. Since 1998 Russia tried to negotiate START2. After Bush repeatedly pissed all over the treaty Putin answered with Topol-M and ABM mods to S300 extending to S500. As a historical record, Bush administration pro-actively re-ignited the arms race. Look it up.

Russia lost the Cold War, when did that happen? You guys get CNN? I was under the impression that there was a revolution in 1991. Rings a bell?

“I was just wondering what it must be like over there trying to re-live the cold war with America? … While your missile is hurtling toward us, we are not going to wait to see if our defenses take it out - we are going to throw the whole enchilada at you guys and leave Russia a charred and radioactive mess.”

kozmo must be 14 or from Cleveland.

“Reads like nothing but further Russian exaggerated claims, especially those given by the state-sanctioned Pravda, in the endless game of chess with no checkmate.”

Jesus, what century is Seekerof living in? state-sanctioned Pravda? It is very likely that at night he’s still hunting commies in his basement and talks to his gun. Kinda like this: “Damn commies. I swear they are like cockroaches, scurrying everywhere, in my head sometimes, ya know, when I turn on the light up “there”.



ch1466, wow, “CONCLUSION: Russians are barbarians.”

Why do we get surprised when people burn the American flag and wish us death? But I guess it’s good for economy, ‘cause then we can go there, kill‘em, get their stuff and keep driving our big trucks.

“They have been overrun and brutalized so many times by so many people that all that remains is cloistered if not clannish sense of introvertive paranoia.”

Was that a Freudian slip of a personal nature or the good ‘ol “God bless America and screw all else” attitude? I have mixed feelings on that one. All I know is that since the Tatar Mongols, from whom by the way the Chinese build the Great Wall, Russians have never been conquered.

“Kennedy had nukes in Turkey. Eisenhower had the option to /use/ Nukes over Hungary. With zero probability of U.S. destruction. Neither did nor threatened to until a Russian Tyrant put similar weapons into Cuba and then DID threaten to use them.”

That’s funny. Our nukes in Turkey but we never “DID threaten to use them”, we just put them there for decoration. Eisenhower is the only human to burned people with nukes though, what a guy for not nuking Europe.

“Russian Tyrant put similar weapons into Cuba”

Would that be after Turkey and the Bay of Pigs? So our nukes in Turkey are good, and Russian nukes in Cuba are the work of an evil atheist commie tyrant? That’s even funnier. Kinda like my football teams quarterback is the light of all holly goodness, and the other teams quarterback is an evil spawn of the devil who should be killed to death until his dead.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

He did threaten to use them, when ? Also the Cubans never had control of the nuclear warheads, the Soviets did, at all times.
The Soviets also had about 10 FROG missiles for use against a possible US invasion. The Soviet generals had the authority to use these short range missiles in case of invasion. They did not have any authority to launch any of the IRBM's though.



Thats not really true, They had ship based Atomic weapons which were not under Russias control. Russian officials that were in power at the time even stated this.

Cuba could have used those "defensive" weapons without orders from Moscow and it could have easily sparked a nuclear war between the US and Russia with those ship based Atomic weapons.

Russia had control of the land based Atomic missile but they had screwed up with the ship based ones and those could have easily sparked off WW3 if Castro was crazy enough.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   


Thats not really true, They had ship based Atomic weapons which were not under Russias control. Russian officials that were in power at the time even stated this.

Cuba could have used those "defensive" weapons without orders from Moscow and it could have easily sparked a nuclear war between the US and Russia with those ship based Atomic weapons.

Russia had control of the land based Atomic missile but they had screwed up with the ship based ones and those could have easily sparked off WW3 if Castro was crazy enough.


Not really. Not at all in fact. A planned invasion of Cuba is what could have sparked a nuclear exchange.

The installation was not a secret. Other then the bay of pigs, politically it was a routine countermeasure to deployment of fifteen Jupiter IRBMs in Turkey on the Southern border of the U.S.S.R. A less then equivalent force of 20 R-12s was sent from Russia to Cuba to maintain the balance, along with 9 FROG tacts for coastal defense, which at the time was also a standard defensive measure.

15 Jupiter’s were able to deliver a combined force of 30 megatons, while 20 R-12s only 20.

The R-12s were not hidden of the ships, they were secured on decks and covered with tarps. I’m sure Russians had the technology to put them below deck if they wanted to hide them, and also provide full air and naval escort to the ships.

Marshall Biruyzov headed the rocket installation team. He along with Smirnitsky, a senior scientist from the rocket military institute NII-4, was on site in Cuba prior to the installation. In their memoirs they state that considering the installation plans none of the missiles were operational during the crisis, and that none of the missiles have been mated to their warheads.

The FROG’s were ready though, and local Soviet command was authorized to use them in case of US invasion.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander


The R-12s were not hidden of the ships, they were secured on decks and covered with tarps. I’m sure Russians had the technology to put them below deck if they wanted to hide them, and also provide full air and naval escort to the ships.

Marshall Biruyzov headed the rocket installation team. He along with Smirnitsky, a senior scientist from the rocket military institute NII-4, was on site in Cuba prior to the installation. In their memoirs they state that considering the installation plans none of the missiles were operational during the crisis, and that none of the missiles have been mated to their warheads.

The FROG’s were ready though, and local Soviet command was authorized to use them in case of US invasion.




Sheesh.... Im not talking about the SS4 and SS5. Im talking about the the many small nuclear weapons that they sneaked into Cuba at the time. There was about a 100 of these smaller nukes in addition to the more powerful strategic missiles. The US didnt even know about alot of them.

Like the Six 12-kiloton bombs for Il-28 bombers, with a range of 750 miles and based near the central Cuban city of Santa Clara or the FKR cruise missiles armed with 12-kiloton warheads.

Alot of these smalller weapons were not under direct control of Moscow. Khrushchev did not have full control of all of the smaller nuclear weapons. Never before had the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons outside their own country as far away as Cuba where they could not have the same kind of control.

To make it seem like Khrushchev had full control of all Cuban Nulcear weapons is a fallacy

www.cubanet.org...

Theres even some evidence some of the smaller tactical nukes stayed in Cuba after the 62 crisis

www.gwu.edu...



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Cubanet.org (aka CubaCenter.org) is a privately owned Florida based news agency which is subsidized by USAID.

I think you can put the rest together yourself, but just in case you won’t, here two paragraphs for the rest as an example of direct contradictory composition;

“At the height of the missile crisis, on Oct. 27, when the world seemed poised on the edge of nuclear holocaust, Castro had appeared to urge Moscow to launch a first-strike nuclear attack on America.

``If the imperialists invade Cuba,'' Castro wrote in a letter to Khrushchev, ``the danger that that aggressive policy poses for humanity is so great that following that event, the Soviet Union must never allow the circumstances in which the imperialists could launch the first nuclear strike.”

www.usaid.gov...

The gwu info is on the money, you just have to read it.

To “Theres even some evidence some of the smaller tactical nukes stayed in Cuba after the 62 crisis”

The wording is “and may even have been intended for Cuban custody.”, please note that “may” and “some” are the words of history. Documents are.

All the “Soviet sneaking” insinuations were a spin from Pearl Harbor syndrome.

Soviet documents clearly show that everything was documented, controlled and accounted for.

Here is an outtake from an archived source;

“The first document, which is a report to Khrushchev from Defense Minister Marshal Rodion Malinovskii, makes plain that Khrushchev had asked his armed forces for a crash program to save Cuba. The US military might be preparing to move against Cuba in the next few days or weeks and as of September 5, the Soviet Union was in no position to save Castro. According to the schedule of deployments approved in July, the medium-range missiles would not be operational until mid-October, and the intermediate range missiles would not be ready until even later, at least the end of November. Since abandoning Cuba was not an option that Khrushchev would consider at that time, the Soviet leader reached for a dramatic stopgap measure. He needed weapons that were small enough that they could be rushed to Cuba in a matter of days, but powerful enough to stop a US amphibious landing. In 1962, only tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons could meet both criteria. With this in mind, Khrushchev asked his defense minister Rodion Malinovskii whether tactical nuclear weapons could be flown to Cuba immediately.
In this report, Malinovskii explained that the short-range Luna missiles, with their nuclear warheads, and the newest nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, the "R-11m" could go by plane.6 Although the operation was feasible, the Defense Ministry discouraged rushing the tactical weapons to Cuba by airplane. Either the generals did not share Khrushchev's anxiety or the risk of flying nuclear weapons was too great. In light of these concerns, the Ministry recommended to Khrushchev that one squadron of Il-28 light bombers, with six 8-12 kiloton nuclear bombs, be shipped in crates. The Soviet Defense Ministry also recommended sending an R-11m missile brigade and between two and three divisions of Luna missiles.7 In terms of the timing of these reinforcements, the Ministry suggested sending the missiles and the bombers in the first half of October. The warheads would go separately on board the ship Indigirka, which was already supposed to take 45 warheads for the medium range ballistic missiles, and would be leaving the Soviet Union on September 15.”

Full text here
www.wilsoncenter.org...

If you read the whole thing maybe your reading skill will increase by 2 points, no pun intended, just attention to detail.

Cheers.


[edit on 7-11-2005 by iskander]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
O your right thats a great site
From your own link




I explained that US intelligence analysts at the time had detected 100-115 crated cruise missiles in Cuba, but had failed to realize that only 32 were for the 4 Sopka naval coastal defense barriers (with 8 launchers, four missiles per launcher), and that the other 80—with nuclear warheads—were loading of five each for 16 FKR cruise missiles launchers in 2 ground support air force regiments. It is only since 1994 that we have had first the testimony of former Soviet officers and the archival documentation establishing the presence of the FKR with tactical nuclear warheads for that system.





Indeed, as I noted in that article, if US Intelligence had in 1962 correctly identified the presence of the two different cruise missile systems, and the presence of about 100 tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba (80 warheads for the FKR cruise missiles, 12 for Luna rockets, 6 IL-28 bombs, and possibly 4-6 naval mines),


Saying pretty much the same thing as in my link
The one you said to check my sources on.

Your skill in reading has increased 0 points

www.wilsoncenter.org... action=library.document&id=15617



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I'm not sure what the issue is here - is a country allowed to have nuclear weapons when it's under the threat of attack by a superior power?
Are countries allowed to develop improved delivery systems for their nuclear weapons, or to base them in other countries?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Oh, and by the way - anyone want to bet who Russia's first customer for this new missile will be??? Anyone???
>>>

This however is ignorant. Because our first duty is to prevent sales to those nations by issuing another Cuban Proclamation: "Any nuclear weapon which strikes the U.S. or any of it's Allies from North Korea or Iran will be considered to be an attack on this nation by the Peoples Republic Of China and will be met with a full strategic retaliatory response of the United States."KPl.


Let's simply begin with the fact that a missile does not necessarily have to be a "Nuclear" missile. Without the warhead it is simply another missile that violates NO treaty if exported. Secondly, Russia doesn't even need to sell the missile itslef, and they most probably won't. They most probably will, however, sell the technology that will allow another country to build the missile AND then cap it with their own warheads (Which they supposedly don't have - Iran). Finally, I find ignorance ONLY in your assumption that a nuclear strike from the NPRK or Iran would be immediately attributed to the PLA and that China would be met with a retalitory strike. The reason being that the NPRK is developing it's own nuclear weapons, not getting them from China AND Iran is receiving it's nuclear technology from Russia, not China.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
wembley, gets it. Good man wimbley, keep it up.

ShadowXIX, isn’t it amazing that two people can read the same words but one gets only half of the meaning? That usually happens when ones’ psyche is so set in the ideology that he is not incapable of admitting anything to him self. Those are the people that DO jump of the cliff just because their leader said so.

kozmo, - Keep looking for that enemy man. I hope you to find each other soon, because paranoia spreads faster then the flue.

here's a link actually, which shows how out of touch we are geo-politicly,

nuclearno.com...

here's a funny one - blogs.washingtonpost.com...

Have fun and ba-bye now.


[edit on 8-11-2005 by iskander]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join