Nuclear War between Russia and US

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
There is a post with the presupposition that the US is superior in Nuclear technology than Russia and that no one wins a Nuclear war.

I have a feeling this individual neither has been a soldier in the US AF Strategic Forces nor in the Russian Strategic Forces, nor does he deal with Policy matters concerning Nuclear War.

Thus, because of that thread being 11 pages long, I feel a new thread must be developed with the presupposition that Nuclear war can be won, and it would be won by Russia.

The stereotype that no one can win a Nuclear war is false. The stereotype that the US arsenal is more survivable or better is also false.

At the present the US has deployed approximately 932 warheads in 500 Minuteman III (Single payload) and 432 SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles). (Dye, 295)

That means 500 Warheads to strike hardend targets (because of guidance systems needing accurate initial coordinates, an SLBM cannot be used against hardend facilities but can be used against airports, cities and etc.).

In total the US has about 11,766 warheads as of 1990 but by 2003 if accurately declared, has reduced their warheads to 3,500.

Russia has an undisclosed number of warheads but it is around 12,000. Russia has 549 Missiles deployed in various ICBM missile systems totalling a number of 1,959 declared warheads (in MIRVS: Multiple Re-entry Vehicles). And a total of 192 SLB Missiles with 672 warheads.

A total of 2631 deployed warheads. Russian Strategic Rocket Forces

There is already a numbers advantage to the Russians but their MIRVs does cause parity some-what.

There are 93 hardened Nuclear Facilities in Russia. Some ICMB locations

These facilities are far and spread-out; USA facilities are close together, mostly in Whyoming and Montana. USA facilities

Russian forces are also mostly mobile, the mobile rocket launchers can be anywhere in Siberia and have accurate enough Global Positioning Data from Russian Satelites to hit American ICBMs.

Thus Russia has more survivability and better first-strike capabilities than the US.

Nuclear Winter is a fake scenario invented in 1980s by medical doctors who were laughed off the stage by Nuclear Scientists; but Hollywood loved the idea and thus the American public has become believers of this superstition.

Russia believes in Nuclear war they would lose 20 million people, which is no more than they lost in WW2 thus it is acceptable.

Russia also has various Missile Defenses and has a significant civilian shelter that is an on-going program in Moscow even today.

Moscow can protect nearly its entire citizenry from Nuclear attack (about 5 million people) and feed them for a year (which is more than enough time to begin decontamination).

Thus in short, Nuclear war is winnable by Russia...not explained is the reason that the USA has fallen short of its Nuclear Weapons Program but we can talk about that policy later.

Source

Dye, Thomas R., 2002; Understanding Public Policy Tenth Edition: Prentice Hall

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Stratrf_Rus]




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The US has had a much better nuclear first strike abilitly then Russia for years thanks to the B-2 and stealth Cruise missiles. Options Russia lacks at this time.

But even that is a moot point thanks to the nuclear armed subs in both Navies. You could take out every land based nuke weapon on both sides and the hidden subs would have more then enough power to decimate either country.

Moscow's civilian shelters are a joke mainly made up of the subways. The would easily be destroyed with earth pentrating nukes. Even Russias most secure underground base Yamantau Mountain complex is not invincible to nuclear weapons. Though they are addmitted "weapon sinks" and would require multiply nuclear strikes to destroy.

Nuclear Winter is quite real just ask the Dinosaurs oh wait you cant because of Nuclear winter caused by a asteroid. Whats debatable is if the ombined nuclear arsenals in the US and USSR at its height were enough to cause this effect.



[edit on 24-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The US has had a much better nuclear first strike abilitly then Russia for years thanks to the B-2 and stealth Cruise missiles. Options Russia lacks at this time.

But even that is a moot point thanks to the nuclear armed subs in both Navies. You could take out every land based nuke weapon on both sides and the hidden subs would have more then enough power to decimate either country.

Moscow's civilian shelters are a joke mainly made up of the subways. The would easily be destroyed with earth pentrating nukes. Even Russias most secure underground base Yamantau Mountain complex is not invincible to nuclear weapons. Though they are addmitted "weapon sinks" and would require multiply nuclear strikes to destroy.

Nuclear Winter is quite real just ask the Dinosaurs oh wait you cant because of Nuclear winter caused by a asteroid. Whats debatable is if the ombined nuclear arsenals in the US and USSR at its height were enough to cause this effect.



[edit on 24-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]


I mean Russia has a better first strike capability in the sense of success, not weather or not you'll achieve territorial penetration.

You still need to destroy the target.

Moscow's civilian shelters are not a joke you merely haven't seen their full extent, few have, but many US officials have complained about them because the US has forsaken that part of the treaty since they can't decide any city that is more important than the rest...

Nothing is impervious to anything, water erodes the mightiest mountains...

Even NORAD could be destroyed by enough Nukes.

And the Meteorite that hit the Earth about 65Ma had the power of something like 4 billion Nuclear bombs, so it's really rediculous to compare the two.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
i think that grown men arguing about something so stupid it would take 3 bushes to pull off any how:

if russia randomly attacked us we would be screwed (assuming they used their best stratigical targeting and the previously posted data is true) because: A. we would have a significantly decreased nuke and warhead stock pile and B. they would be able to fire a second strike right about the time of our first strike and virtually stop us.

also i think that a nuclear winter may not be possible but a large amount of nucler/atomic energy will cause serious waste and destruction which would make both countreis (although moreso the US) totally inhabitable and would kill tons of inocent people

--YOURS TRULY--

cooldude76



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Stupid argument, and yet, it has governed world politics for decades!



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The KT impact blocked out the son for years or decades after the event. Nobody ever suggested that a nuclear winter created through nulcear war would last that long. The KT impact is a extreme example but proves that nuclear winters can and do happen if enough material in injected into the air. There is alot of ways to put smoke and debris into the stratosphere other then a asteroid impact.

The nuclear winter theory had more to do with flammable targets such as cities buring, where large amounts of smoke,dust and soot would be injected into the Earth's stratosphere then total combined power of the nuclear explosives.

In 1991, the Mount Pinatubo volcano alone was able to lower the entire global surface temperature by about 1 degree

Plus the dinosaurs didnt have to worry about radiation from nuclear fallout,which could severely damage plant and animal life. Russia even had designs for a nuclear dirty bomb that could in theory kill most global surface life with radiation alone.

Your also not factoring in the massive amounts of Chemical and Bio weapons both sides would use in any such all out war. Both sides wouldnt hold back these weapons in the event of a nuclear war. The BIO weapons alone can be worst then all the nuclear bombs in the world.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
The Nuclear Winter theory required that every Nuclear Bomb was used evenly across the Earth's surface, there that already is a rediculous condition because who would Nuke the middle of the Sahara or other dirt clods?

Also, the amount of Atomics to be used are not enough, most are 300-750 KT and that's paltry compared to the experimental yields of 9MT by the US or 20-25MT by Russia. But those larger weapons are never used combatively, yet the report considered only those weapons.

Crater flats in the US saw literally thousands of Nuclear tests, and the entire area is still liveable (comparitively) and though even it was over many years, if you were to expell that much dirt into the atmosphere at once, it still would be the equivalent of a Mt. Pinatubo (which was huge).

Remember, Mt. St. Helens blew 5km^3 of dirt into the atmosphere...that's a huge volume of material...much larger than the combined volume of removed surface material at crater flats.

Mt. Mazama removed some 600km^3 of material, and the world still did not die...or freeze...or anything like that.

And finally, there's no evidence that the KT impact caused any extinction, as many species were going extinct before the impact, and many continued to go extinct long after the impact.

The idea of Nuclear Winter is as "bogus" as the idea of Rapture and Apocalypse by God.

The Universe has been around for 15 billion years, the world is not a fragile ball of porceline.

Humanity is not so great as to be able to destroy themselves, anymore than you could kill yourself by holding your breath.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
it's M.A.D.
Mutual Assured Destruction.
I can launch all my # before your # hits me.

We all die.

So don't do it.

-DT



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Derek Trance
it's M.A.D.
Mutual Assured Destruction.
I can launch all my # before your # hits me.

We all die.

So don't do it.

-DT


This has never been accepted at the actual Strategic Policy making level.

It's good for books and movies and stories, but in reality, the balance of power has always been "would we lose" never "we'd both lose".

The massive destruction of a nation does not mean that they lose...it means millions of millions die.

But the end-result is someone has the last Nuclear weapon ready to be fired...and the other one is empty...

That has been the goal of Nuclear Parity, if we all have the same amount of warheads and ICBMs and technology, then no one is left with one extra missile...but we never achieved Parity, the goal of parity was a diplomatic front for a more complex event.

Russia has long since past parity with the US, but the question is, is Russia willing to lose so much to win global domination?

A Nuclear war would be a set-back, but it would not be the end.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
your kidding right?

All of russia's nuke arsinal is sent at the US.
The US responds in kind.

And you think whatever piece of # is left of either country is a win senario?

that's why neither does it.

-DT



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Yes, everythings survivable and everything, but you do understand that as soon as the nukes flew, NORAD would pick it up. The US would launch at every single nuke it had. So youre wrong, everyone would die.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The Nuclear Winter theory required that every Nuclear Bomb was used evenly across the Earth's surface, there that already is a rediculous condition because who would Nuke the middle of the Sahara or other dirt clods?


No the nuclear winter theory was about massive amounts of combustable material ie (cites) going up in flames as result of being nuked. Thinking is that would put enough material into the air to cause a nuclear winter type event. It had nothing to do with nuking deserts in Africa.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Also, the amount of Atomics to be used are not enough, most are 300-750 KT and that's paltry compared to the experimental yields of 9MT by the US or 20-25MT by Russia. But those larger weapons are never used combatively, yet the report considered only those weapons.


9MT and 20MT are not experimental yeilds the largest nuke is currently in the US arsenal is the 9MT Mk/B-53. Russia still has 20MT nukes in its arsenal. You right though there has been a shift to smaller nuclear weapons in the hundreds of KT range but a single missile will contain 8-12 of those that can hit different target very far apart causing more damage on a whole then a large single nuke.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Crater flats in the US saw literally thousands of Nuclear tests, and the entire area is still liveable (comparitively) and though even it was over many years, if you were to expell that much dirt into the atmosphere at once, it still would be the equivalent of a Mt. Pinatubo (which was huge).


Crater flats has not seen thousands of nuclear test. All the nuclear powers combined have only tested about 2000 nuclear warheads to date combined, spread over many decades alot of which were underground. These test also didnt set massive cities ablaze either most in the US were conducted in deserts or underground were there aint much to burn.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
And finally, there's no evidence that the KT impact caused any extinction, as many species were going extinct before the impact, and many continued to go extinct long after the impact.


LOL you got to be kidding we have a crater from a massive impact at pretty much the exact time most of the dinosaurs died off. They also found a larger impact that fits the timescale for the larger "Great dying" extinction, which killed off a even higher percent of earths life.

We have these massive extinctions in the blink of a eye in earths history and find proof of massive impacts at just about the same time. 1 + 1 = 2


Your right though the the world is not a fragile ball of porceline but living creatures such as humans are. 99% of all life that has ever lived on earth is now extinct. The vast vast majority of life that ever lived on earth is now dead without the help of created WMDs.

You also still have not even factored in the Chemical and Bio weapons Russia and the US have into your equation. You think they would save them in the event of a nuclear war?

Just using the weaponized version of smallpox could kill off more people then the nukes in countries Russia or the US never aimed at.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The Nuclear Winter theory required that every Nuclear Bomb was used evenly across the Earth's surface, there that already is a rediculous condition because who would Nuke the middle of the Sahara or other dirt clods?


No the nuclear winter theory was about massive amounts of combustable material ie (cites) going up in flames as result of being nuked. Thinking is that would put enough material into the air to cause a nuclear winter type event. It had nothing to do with nuking deserts in Africa.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Also, the amount of Atomics to be used are not enough, most are 300-750 KT and that's paltry compared to the experimental yields of 9MT by the US or 20-25MT by Russia. But those larger weapons are never used combatively, yet the report considered only those weapons.


9MT and 20MT are not experimental yeilds the largest nuke is currently in the US arsenal is the 9MT Mk/B-53. Russia still has 20MT nukes in its arsenal. You right though there has been a shift to smaller nuclear weapons in the hundreds of KT range but a single missile will contain 8-12 of those that can hit different target very far apart causing more damage on a whole then a large single nuke.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Crater flats in the US saw literally thousands of Nuclear tests, and the entire area is still liveable (comparitively) and though even it was over many years, if you were to expell that much dirt into the atmosphere at once, it still would be the equivalent of a Mt. Pinatubo (which was huge).


Crater flats has not seen thousands of nuclear test. All the nuclear powers combined have only tested about 2000 nuclear warheads to date combined, spread over many decades alot of which were underground. These test also didnt set massive cities ablaze either most in the US were conducted in deserts or underground were there aint much to burn.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
And finally, there's no evidence that the KT impact caused any extinction, as many species were going extinct before the impact, and many continued to go extinct long after the impact.


LOL you got to be kidding we have a crater from a massive impact at pretty much the exact time most of the dinosaurs died off. They also found a larger impact that fits the timescale for the larger "Great dying" extinction, which killed off a even higher percent of earths life.

We have these massive extinctions in the blink of a eye in earths history and find proof of massive impacts at just about the same time. 1 + 1 = 2


Your right though the the world is not a fragile ball of porceline but living creatures such as humans are. 99% of all life that has ever lived on earth is now extinct. The vast vast majority of life that ever lived on earth is now dead without the help of created WMDs.

You also still have not even factored in the Chemical and Bio weapons Russia and the US have into your equation. You think they would save them in the event of a nuclear war?

Just using the weaponized version of smallpox could kill off more people then the nukes in countries Russia or the US never aimed at.


First off - there is no weaponized version of smallpox.

The Nuclear Winter Theory does have to do with Nuking deserts in Africa, try reading it sometime. There have been only 2 published journals on Nuclear Winter both of which are not accredited. Everything else is "hypothetical scenarios" written by writers, or science fiction authors, or movie script writers. If you call them scientifically accredible then you shouldn't be posting here.

And I am sorry, it was only 815 tests at Crater Flats NTS Nevada. Oh well...I guess that changes everything I was stating!


LOL you got to be kidding we have a crater from a massive impact at pretty much the exact time most of the dinosaurs died off. They also found a larger impact that fits the timescale for the larger "Great dying" extinction, which killed off a even higher percent of earths life.


This is just rediculous.

First...no they didn't discover a meteorite impact for the "great dying" as you call it...we who actually know what we're talking about like to call it the Late Permian Extinction.

Guess what, Chesapeak Bay, USA is a crater too...it's actually a little larger than the crater during the KT boundary. (Chesapeak Bay was determined to be a crater when drilling in the 1970s resulted in finding pulverised breccia - which only occurs in a meteorite impact site or another extremely traumatic event. Later testing resulted in it being a meteoric impact site).

Guess what...it happend only 30-25Ma and there was no gargantuan extinction.

Obviously (since Dinosaurs lived for far more than a thousand years past the impact, probably millions) a 4 million MT explosion has no significant impact on the Earth's global climate.

So why would 3,000 Nuclear bombs totalling less than 3,000 MT?


We have these massive extinctions in the blink of a eye in earths history and find proof of massive impacts at just about the same time. 1 + 1 = 2


Awefully sure of yourself.

First, the KT extinction was only 50% of the life, it occurred over a time of about 10 million years and it thus had nothing to do with a meteorite impact even though there indeed was a metorite impact at the KT boundary. (Stratigraphically it's a layer of irridium).

Second, the Permian extinction has no connection to a meteorite, it's thought to be caused by Mantle Pluming (do you know what that is?) and it also occurred over a few million years.

The idea of mass extinctions being instantaneous and devestating is rediculous...a mass extinction is more like a forest becoming a desert for a few million years then becoming a forest of completely different plants.

PS: Because Russia doesn't have it's Biologics and Chemical weapons ready to launch on anything that is long enough ranged, they would not be used in a Nuclear exchange.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Stratrf_Rus]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

First off - there is no weaponized version of smallpox.



Are you kidding? Russia weaponized smallpox decades ago. The full extent of the Soviet bioweapons program in the 1970s and 80s, focused on smallpox.

Read "Biohazard" or "Demon in the Freezer" they are both great books on the subject. If your not into books do a internet search weaponized small pox has been known about for years.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

This is just rediculous.

First...no they didn't discover a meteorite impact for the "great dying" as you call it...we who actually know what we're talking about like to call it the Late Permian Extinction.

Second, the Permian extinction has no connection to a meteorite, it's thought to be caused by Mantle Pluming (do you know what that is?) and it also occurred over a few million years.



The Permian extinction and the Great Dying are one in the same and yes I know what mantle pluming is. For one that thinks he is such a expert on the Great Dying you would think you would stay alittle more current on the topic.


A team led by Luann Becker of UC Santa Barbara published a paper in Science documenting evidence of a large impact crater in northwestern Australia at the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction


welcome to a few years ago caught up yet? How many smoking guns you need before you can make the connection? Perhaps you know better then the majority of paleontologist which except impacts like those of the KT impact to be the cause of the Dinosaurs extinction.

geology.about.com...

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
PS: Because Russia doesn't have it's Biologics and Chemical weapons ready to launch on anything that is long enough ranged, they would not be used in a Nuclear exchange.




This is pretty funny since Russia's plan for nuclear war always called for a second wave of bio and chemical missiles after a nuclear first strike. The russians where very calculated when they planned the US destruction.

Pretty much every long range missile in Russias arsenal can be fitted with a chemical or bio load. What did you think they make these deadly weapons and leave them in tanks and tubes?

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

First off - there is no weaponized version of smallpox.



Are you kidding? Russia weaponized smallpox decades ago. The full extent of the Soviet bioweapons program in the 1970s and 80s, focused on smallpox.

Read "Biohazard" or "Demon in the Freezer" they are both great books on the subject. If your not into books do a internet search weaponized small pox has been known about for years.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

This is just rediculous.

First...no they didn't discover a meteorite impact for the "great dying" as you call it...we who actually know what we're talking about like to call it the Late Permian Extinction.

Second, the Permian extinction has no connection to a meteorite, it's thought to be caused by Mantle Pluming (do you know what that is?) and it also occurred over a few million years.



The Permian extinction and the Great Dying are one in the same and yes I know what mantle pluming is. For one that thinks he is such a expert on the Great Dying you would think you would stay alittle more current on the topic.


A team led by Luann Becker of UC Santa Barbara published a paper in Science documenting evidence of a large impact crater in northwestern Australia at the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction


welcome to a few years ago caught up yet? How many smoking guns you need before you can make the connection? Perhaps you know better then the majority of paleontologist which except impacts like those of the KT impact to be the cause of the Dinosaurs extinction.

geology.about.com...

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
PS: Because Russia doesn't have it's Biologics and Chemical weapons ready to launch on anything that is long enough ranged, they would not be used in a Nuclear exchange.




This is pretty funny since Russia's plan for nuclear war always called for a second wave of bio and chemical missiles after a nuclear first strike. The russians where very calculated when they planned the US destruction.

Pretty much every long range missile in Russias arsenal can be fitted with a chemical or bio load. What did you think they make these deadly weapons and leave them in tanks and tubes?

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]


Russia has never declared that they have weaponized Small Pox, and no spy or any other informant who would have gotten close enough to such a project would have lived to tell the tale.

The authors of these books you suggested know no more about Small Pox in Russia than they do about Mt. Yanamau...or the locations of the other 8 declared Nuclear Cities that haven't been found (only 2 have been found of the total 10) which develop and research Nuclear weapons for the Russian government.

You think that one of the most destructive projects in the world and most illegal (development of biological weapons is against every treaty Russia has signed) would be "known"? No no...it's speculation.

I'm far more current on the topic of Permian Extinction than yourself...you read in some Discover magazine that they think they found a crater (they did like 3 months ago) but this is just science fluff.

There is no evidence connecting metoric impact and extinction, no published journals proving the find to be exactly what they were bragging it to be. Finding an event is no more finding the cause then coming to a burned-down house and finding a lighter...there are numerous possibilities. Recall the fact that the Chesapeak Bay, USA impact crater did not destroy any organisms into extinction.

The fact is, the Permian extinction is a mystery, and occurred over millions of years. So unless the world was bombarded repeatedly for that time, connecting meteorites to a finite level of destruction needed to cause extinctions just isn't going to work.


welcome to a few years ago caught up yet? How many smoking guns you need before you can make the connection? Perhaps you know better then the majority of paleontologist which except impacts like those of the KT impact to be the cause of the Dinosaurs extinction.


This is wrong, considering every Paleontologist I have met, and every Geologist I work with has laughed at the idea because they frequently find Dinosaur Bones above the KT boundary.

Unless Dinosaurs magically floated up the stratigraphic layers, they must have been alive even a million years after the KT impact. I don't care if you can find some "online source" (Find me a Published Journal please) that says the Dinosaurs were killed by a meteorite...fact is fact. Dinosaur fossiles are found after the KT impact.


What did you think they make these deadly weapons and leave them in tanks and tubes?


This is exactly what Russia does with their Bio and Chem weapons. These are placed on call for conventional uses, the entire Arsenal of ICBMs of Russia are deployed with Nuclear Weapons.

Unless you suggest that they will be refitted with biological weapons...which takes time...and I don't think you are suggesting this.

The several revisions in Russian Strategic Doctrine also doesn't mention BW or CW that I have seen perhaps you can cite your claim?

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Stratrf_Rus]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


Russia has never declared that they have weaponized Small Pox, and no spy or any other informant who would have gotten close enough to such a project would have lived to tell the tale.

The authors of these books you suggested know no more about Small Pox in Russia than they do about Mt. Yanamau...


Oh yes Im sure you know better then the authors of these books. Perhaps you know better then Ken Alibek (Kanatjan Alibekov), one of BIO weapon programs directors. He reveals the programs extent in the book BioHazard since he ran it. He clearly stated through the 1970s and 80s the progarm focused on smallpox. But Im sure you know better then him.

The USSR had the most advanced Bio weapons program in the world. When the US announced the were halting all work in the field the Soviets redoubled their effort.

I see your unaware or turn a blind eye to the horrors the Soviets created in their labs. Perhaps they where just sitting on their collective thumbs during those decades of Bio weapon work.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
If I was a Russian. I would worry about Crisis Between Ulkraine and Russia.

Not to mention, The Mafia And Putin seemed more concerned about regaining her Satellite "states". Then a Hypothetical War with a Country bogged down in Iraq.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


Russia has never declared that they have weaponized Small Pox, and no spy or any other informant who would have gotten close enough to such a project would have lived to tell the tale.

The authors of these books you suggested know no more about Small Pox in Russia than they do about Mt. Yanamau...


Oh yes Im sure you know better then the authors of these books. Perhaps you know better then Ken Alibek (Kanatjan Alibekov), one of BIO weapon programs directors. He reveals the programs extent in the book BioHazard since he ran it. He clearly stated through the 1970s and 80s the progarm focused on smallpox. But Im sure you know better then him.

The USSR had the most advanced Bio weapons program in the world. When the US announced the were halting all work in the field the Soviets redoubled their effort.

I see your unaware or turn a blind eye to the horrors the Soviets created in their labs. Perhaps they where just sitting on their collective thumbs during those decades of Bio weapon work.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]


No Bio Weapon has ever sat at the top of a Rocket.

Care to shed a tear? It is a very lame statement to be complaining about research (and I wouldn't trust an ex-Soviet Officer, Putin happens to be one) when it is a dog barring its teeth and little more.

Saddam proved that the US intelligence could be fooled, there's no telling that Russia really did do as Alibekov claims. What is certain is that Russia doesn't bother with a delivery system, which is reserved for Nuclear weapons and conventional weapons.

Russia could prepare to use them, but they are not on stand-by.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

No Bio Weapon has ever sat at the top of a Rocket.

Russia could prepare to use them, but they are not on stand-by.


What utter bunk just about every Ballistic Missile can be fitted with Chemical or Biological warhead even the SCUD can be fitted with one.

Should I believe Alibek which worked on the Soviet program and defected to the US countless experts in the field or you? This is a hard one


How do you think weaponized anthrax was to be delivered? By crop duster?
It was to be delivered by missile and you better believe they tested the delivery systems. But if they did I guess your wrong and Bio weapon have sat at the top of a rocket.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
interesting some of you think the US stopped its research into weaponized chem and bio? Nah, it went under ground the US didnt need to weaponize its bio program they had even more dark means of "relasing the genji from the bottle" and into populations.

Can it from a Chemcial Operations Specialist that in an all out DOOMSDAY event its not just humans that die but the plant life and animal life. The food become toxic and contaminated, even tinned food goodluck enjoying your spoils (litterly) of this idoitic and retarded topic.

If you want to think someone will win thats great but what do they win? Tocix wasted land a dead/dieing world with your chance of dieing of RAD, bio or chemical sickness? Nah I would rather die in the first wave cus winning this game dont make you the champion just the landlord of destruction and dead.

stupid threat





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join