Nuclear War between Russia and US

Russia would be hard pressed to claim any sort of victory in a major nuclear exchange. I don't think there is any way you can claim that every major city, every major port, naval base, major airbase, army concentration, or important military of political facility would not be hit very hard. Even deep underground facilities can be "dug out" with repeated and coordinated strikes.
As far as the concept of "first strike" goes, in the use as a counterforce tactic, please refer to this website.
www.gwu.edu...
As you will see, the US has adhered to a policy of "launch on warning" since the 1970s, which negates any purpose a first strike could accomplish, while only exposing the US population to massive radiation to the extent that the US might be inclined to consider it in effect a "counter-value" attack, and then respond in kind. Indeed, even the Russians today might not be capable of a "launch on warning" since the disintigration of the Soviet Union.
www.russianforces.org...
As such, they MUST have more survivable mobile land based missiles than the US just to stay equal in war fighting ability. The US can launch on warning and Russia can't.
As to raw numbers, yes Russia has more total, but in strategic warheads the US has a lead. Most of the numerical advantage Russia has in total warheads includes many that are inactive, and/or are tactical in range. Here is a data base that has numbers most agree are accurate.
www.thebulletin.org...

Have you ever consider the fact that you might never see it coming until its to late. I dont think this will give any chance to respond .



FBI Director Admits Russians May Have Secret Weapons in US
NewsMax.com
November 8, 1999

FBI Director Louis Freeh admitted that Russia may yet have stored weapons — including nuclear suitcase bombs — at secret locations around the U.S.
The stunning revelations appeared in yesterday’s editions of the New York Post. The paper quoted Congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) as having had a conversation with Freeh in the past two weeks.

Weldon said that Freeh "acknowledged the possibility that hidden weapons caches exist in the United States . . . .”

Weldon, a leading congressional expert on Russia and chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, said, "There is no doubt that the Soviets stored material in this country. The question is what and where.”

Congressional scrutiny has focused on dozens of nuclear suitcase bombs that have disappeared from Russian’s nuclear arsenal. According to Russian sources, including Russian General Alexander Lebed, Russia produced 132 nuclear suitcase bombs, each carrying 10 kilotons of explosive material. Only 48 remain in Russia’s inventory; the rest have disappeared.

The FBI has taken a nonchalant approach to locating the secret caches.

Congressional sources indicate that the FBI scoured the area around Brainerd, Minn. — one area Russian agents were believed to have forward-deployed weapons in the event of a war.

But Weldon said the Clinton administration is not interested in pressing the Yeltsin government for fear of destabilizing his shaky position vis-à-vis the country’s military leadership.

Concerns about the secret stockpiles have been fueled in recent years by revelations made by Russian defectors.

One KGB defector, Vasili Mitrokhin, provided information to British intelligence that secret weapons stockpiles are scattered throughout the U.S., including upstate New York, California, Texas, Montana and Minnesota.

Mitrokhin has also stated that such stockpiles were also made throughout Europe. Some Russian weapons caches have been located in Belgium and Switzerland.

Colonel Stanislav Lunev, the highest ranking military spy ever to defect from Russia, has testified that the Soviet military developed elaborate plans for the use of weapons during the outset of a war with the U.S.

Lunev said Russian military plans include the destruction of military bases, command and control centers, and the assassination of top U.S. leaders, including the president and members of Congress.

Lunev has also told members of Congress that suitcase nuclear devices may have already been forward-deployed into the U.S.

While the secret stockpiles appear to be remnants of the Cold War period, Lunev, a NewsMax.com columnist and author of Through the Eyes of the Enemy, has warned U.S. authorities that Soviet military strategy continues under the guise of Russian "democracy.”

Lunev has stated that Russian military leaders continue to see a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States as "inevitable.”

In recent years, the Russian government has continued to invest heavily in strategic weapons. Russia is currently mass producing the Topol-M intercontinental missile — a weapon more sophisticated than anything produced by the U.S. military.

Russia also continues to invest billions in building large underground bunkers for use during a nuclear conflict. Last month, the Yelstin government announced plans to increase military spending by 50 percent in next year's budget.

Touche' Russian Boy, nice post. I have also wondered about this, but from what I have read these small "suitecase nukes" are maintenance intensive, require constant electrical power in storage, and the tritium triggers expire in any useful reliability after about 6-10 years. Also, the US has efforts to counter any movement of such weapons within the US as well as into the US. The end result would be the same. If part of a coordinated attack, it would be obvious, and even a 100 suitecase nuke suprise would only end in a "launch on warning" when confirmed as part of a coordinated attack, and Russia would cease to exist (along with the US). The nuclear options decision making and control aspects of the US command structure is hardened and diffused enough to be invulnerable to something like 10 kilotons in a suitcase nuke, or ten. Cheyenne Mountain, and Mount Weather, and Strat-com's facilities are meant to be able to take many megatons on target before they are decapataed, and even then if any "looking glass" command posts are airborne with any warning, there would still be people who could coordinate a response. I only hope we can tell the difference between Russian attack, and a terrorist attack before we launch a major response, for your sake.




[edit on 31-3-2006 by Sandman11]

Originally posted by Russian soldier
Second, both countries have a nuclear defense system, however,

Not as far as we know they do not. Russian only admits ( well in official terms) to having those 100 odd interceptors around Moscow while the US does not admit to having any of any types. Both countries do however have Duel use Sam/ABM missiles that would be effective depending on more factors than i will mention here. The Russian system is however rather massive and with the large tracking radars and Sat's they might kill a great many American warheads.

Russia has a new missile that can break ANY nuclear defense system. The missile is called Topol-M. Google/images the word Topol-M to find out more about it. Anyway, this missile makes Russia the only country that can break a nuclear defense, so there's another advantage for Russia.

Well that's what they claim openly and what makes me wonder if it really does all that. I have read some reports of testing where the warhead could be observed to do all that but i am still wondering. :0 Either way i really wonder why they need such a missile and especially so if it's going to be Silo based for now.

Third Russia definetly has more nukes then US, and has broken several nuke disarmament treaties.

They do and they broke ALL treaties i have ever bothered to look at it.

deep under the polar ice caps in giant Typhoon subs.

Well the Russians say they have retired all six but if you have anything indicating otherwise i would love to see it.

However, I don't believe the Us and Russia will fight anytime soon unless a dictator takes over, and against other countries, Russia and US avoid using nukes.

We can all hope there will be no nuclear exchanges but i hardly think dictators or not will make the difference.

Stellar

Mod edit: fixed "broken" quote-tag

[edit on 2006/3/31 by Hellmutt]

Russia hardly has a nuclear arsenal compared to that of the U.S. most of the bombs that russia supposedly had were empty tubes placed to trick the Americans into thinking that Russia was more powerful then it was.

No contest America could scorch all of Russia with bombs before they could say pass me the Vodka.

I wonder if Kachina is also a word in Russian, and if so, what does it mean..

The russians would of course first do an enormous single atmospheric EMP attack over the central USA, and then launch half of everything they have, while the USA is down. Blue star.

The most cost-effective way of designing shelters is actually dual-usage, like subways, as the guy who started this thread said. North Korea has buildt subways that are 100 meters under ground. These are the official nuclear bomb shelters for the NK population.

On a side note, suspiciously many asian countries have designed new cities in the middle of nowhere, and moved/planned moving of their capitals to the same locations. Seoul, South Korea has been moved. And some country like Burma/something, has moved its capital into the middle of the jungle. And it has been HARDENED and totally militarized! all of these sit on top of newly constructed MASSIVE nuclear shelters for the entire populations... I'm worried at least. And Bush is giving more nukes to India... well, setting up some more strife for the coming decades are we?

[edit on 31/3/2006 by Aztecatl]

Originally posted by The_Doctor
Russia hardly has a nuclear arsenal compared to that of the U.S. most of the bombs that russia supposedly had were empty tubes placed to trick the Americans into thinking that Russia was more powerful then it was.

No contest America could scorch all of Russia with bombs before they could say pass me the Vodka.

Please elaborate. What sources lead you to believe this?

A russian who found a russian missile silo with the pop-off cap, like american minute-man silos, deep in the russian forest, posted pictures of it on the internet, but now the pictures are gone, along with the story and the man.

This was 3 months ago.



all major players/countries are buying gold and strategic minerals/metals right now. Just like they would before a nuclear war. IT MUST REALLY SUCK TO BE ONE OF THE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THEIR GOLD RESERVES IN THE NATIONAL RESERVE BANK IN THE USA, HEHEHE, because they'll NEVER see THAT gold again.

[edit on 31/3/2006 by Aztecatl]





Also, the russians can put nukes into orbit, safer than the americans can, because they use liquid fuel rockets instead of the solid fuel rockets/boosters the americans use. A nuke can stay in orbit for years, maybe indefinitely, and can be re-entered at will, appearing as debris falling, untill it is too late. Great for EMP's prior to strikes too.

[edit on 31/3/2006 by Aztecatl]


If the americans decide to go into Iran, the russians are gonna do a first strike on the USA, because a nuclear war practically on the russian border, would kill millions from radiation alone. Plus, Russia wants Iranian oil too ofcourse. USA can play for a little while longer, before it's bed time.

[edit on 31/3/2006 by Aztecatl]

[edit on 31/3/2006 by Aztecatl]

Here's an article you might find interesting. It's titled "USA capable of wiping out Russia’s nuclear capacity in single strike". Here's some highlights ----

link:

english.pravda.ru...

From Foreign affairs Journal (quoted from Pravda):

"For the first time in the last 50 years the USA is on the verge of attaining ultimate domination with regard to nuclear weapons. This means that Russia is no longer able to keep up with the United States. If a conflict were to break out, the USA would be able to quickly and with impunity attack Russian territory, and Russia would have no means to mount a response."

1."Its authors calculated that in comparison with the USSR, the amount of strategic bombers at Russia’s disposal has fallen by 39%, intercontinental ballistic missiles by 58% and the number of submarines with ballistic missiles by 80%. “However the true scale of the collapse of the Russian arsenal is much greater than can be judged from these figures,”

2. "Russian radar is now incapable of detecting the launch of American missiles from submarines located in some regions of the Pacific Ocean. Russian anti-air defense systems might not manage to intercept B-2 stealth bombers in time, which could easily mean that they are able to inflict a strike with impunity on Russian nuclear forces"

3. "It will probably soon be possible for the USA to destroy the strategic nuclear potential of Russia and China with a single strike,” says the article."

"It is obvious that Russian strategic nuclear forces are experiencing difficult times. Modernization is being carried out, but at a very slow rate."

From Center for International Security IMEMO RAN:

4. "in the next 10-15 years Russia will have to improve the ground-based component of its nuclear forces – for example, its ground-based radar system and warning system for a missile attack. If it does not do that, then many systems will go out of date, nuclear parity will be lost, and the USA will gain a definite advantage."

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Fresh Pizza]

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Fresh Pizza]

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Fresh Pizza]

Originally posted by Sandman11
Russia would be hard pressed to claim any sort of victory in a major nuclear exchange.

What would you consider victory and what do you imagine the Russians would at this time?

I don't think there is any way you can claim that every major city, every major port, naval base, major airbase, army concentration, or important military of political facility would not be hit very hard.

I have repeatedly explained why i think most if not nearly all might very well stay intact and you have done nothing to address my sources or claims thus far. All you have done is repeat the same old line never bothering with the sources that forms my opinions.

Even deep underground facilities can be "dug out" with repeated and coordinated strikes.

No they can not as current warheads just lacks the penetrating capacity to get to deeply buried targets. Yamantau and the like are just too deep to be affected by nuclear strikes it would seem.

As far as the concept of "first strike" goes, in the use as a counterforce tactic, please refer to this website.
www.gwu.edu...

First strike does not 'go out the window' as it will still catch a great many American submarines in port and Strategic bombers on their airfields. First strike is something you do when you want to force the enemies hand and the idea is to get him to launch most if not all of his strategic land based forces for fear of losing them to your strike. If your nuclear strike force on land is mobile you can keep reserves and endlessly reload your launchers. You just have not thought about this at all and it shows.

As you will see, the US has adhered to a policy of "launch on warning" since the 1970s, which negates any purpose a first strike could accomplish, while only exposing the US population to massive radiation to the extent that the US might be inclined to consider it in effect a "counter-value" attack, and then respond in kind.

It does not as i explained above. First strike without the enemy having any advance warning is always going to be very dangerous if the enemies forces are stuck in silo's or in submarines that can not be reloaded ever again. The Russian strategy is designed to not only win the first nuclear exchange but to keep on sending over warheads till America simply surrenders having lost all capacity to respond in kind. That is why everything the Russians built since the 70's can be reloaded if it survives and survive is exactly what their 360 odd road mobile ICBM's will do to keep on firing. The American air force could not even prevent SH from firing Scuds till the very last day despite having total air superiority. Russian mobile ICBM's are just not going to be found and destroyed and they will go on fighting as long as Missiles can be supplied to them.

Indeed, even the Russians today might not be capable of a "launch on warning" since the disintigration of the Soviet Union.
www.russianforces.org...

I have warned you repeatedly against warning this source as it's a Moscow based agency trying to convince America that the Russians can not fight a nuclear war. They are almost all Moscow trained and their clearly not telling the truth when it comes to Russian force levels of capacities. Please go look at the authors and wonder why they all work for the 'Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies' working out of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT).

You did not address why their information is at odds with so many other sources and if you really believe that the Russians will keep on deploying hundreds of new and upgraded nuclear weapons without having a capacity for accurate early warning you are not thinking very clearly imo.

As such, they MUST have more survivable mobile land based missiles than the US just to stay equal in war fighting ability. The US can launch on warning and Russia can't.

Is it not more logical as a ploy to convince the American tax payer to help pay for Russian EW or stand the risk of dying? Why can the Russians not construct new EW radars instead of deploying a dozen or more new mobile ICBM's per year? It's simply illogical to argue that the Russians are deploying expensive road mobile ICBM's since their early warning radars and sat's do not 'work' even if they keep using it as a ploy to seem less threatening while they intimidate the American government into making concessions.

Fact is the Russians will not have to launch on warning to win, it seems, since half their land forces are mobile and simply wont be found soon or at all.
The funny thing about all of this is that many radars that work perfectly well are called ' space tracking radars' by treaty agreement and are thus just not counted when considering Russian EW capacity. It's when a nation will take the word of it's enemy that it wont use a dual use system in one capacity ( they said so after all ) that you really need to start asking why your leaders are lying to you so blatantly.

As to raw numbers, yes Russia has more total, but in strategic warheads the US has a lead.

If we go by common official numbers( that seems to be HIGHLY speculative at best) Russian has twice the number of land based warheads that America has currently deployed on active ICBMs. 300 odd of those Russian warheads are however on mobile missiles that can shoot and scoot and keep firing as long as their supplied while American silo's is perfectly useless after firing even if Russian warheads never hit them. The Russians will then proceed to reload their silo's ( if any survived) and return fire with whatever survived of those and all off the likely surviving mobile one's.

The US then has about three times the number of warheads based on SLBM's that the Russians have with both sides being able to hit each other from port if the right people are always on board. I am not sure that American subs can fire from mooring but i will assume as much considering what a oversight that would constitute with current long range missiles.

The balance of forces are made up off 2000 US ALCM/gravity bombs ( unlikely imo to reach their targets considering the SA-10 capacity to target bombers/cruise missiles) and 800 similar Russian weapons that would only have to get close enough to launch their missiles to likely get them on target.
The Patriot defense system had great trouble dealing with scuds after all while the S-10 shot down all 5 scud targets on testing ranges in the early 90's. The Russians currently deploys ( sources not sure) 'at least 8500 SA- 10' type weapons in various incarnations.

Most of the numerical advantage Russia has in total warheads includes many that are inactive, and/or are tactical in range.

In terms of ICBM/SLBM warheads the Russians have a few hundred less than America and taking into account the numbers given by your source ( which they admit is speculative for both America and Russia) Russia actually has less strategic weapons.

Here is a data base that has numbers most agree are accurate.
www.thebulletin.org...

Well i used that source for these estimates but you should probably have mentioned that the source considers these numbers rather speculative with little good hard data really being available ( especially for the Russian side) according to them.

I could argue however start arguing that the Backfire could easily reach the American mainland with ALCM's but since the CIA and others have decided that they can not be refueled ( hAhhahahaha) we should just ignore that then. We are working with questionable numbers at best and considering Russian cheating on EVERY treaty and agreement for decades we should really be suspicious when claims are made that they could not 'afford' to keep warheads active due to ' high cost' when we can observe them deploying new missiles and digging large holes in mountains. That being said the American government could be lying trough it's teeth as well with my basic premise being that Russian weapons systems are just more survivable and dangerous as such even if they deploy fewer of them.

Stellar

[edit on 1-4-2006 by StellarX]

the thing is russia can just use ebola-pox in a missile and drop a few mirv`s onto CONUS and biobomb the country and kill everything.


the us does`nt have a reply (other than nukes) to that - they killed of the bio weapons programme 40 years ago

Originally posted by The_Doctor
Russia hardly has a nuclear arsenal compared to that of the U.S. most of the bombs that russia supposedly had were empty tubes placed to trick the Americans into thinking that Russia was more powerful then it was.

Well i guess considering Russian trickery and general deception tactics this is possible but i would at least like to see what author's work you have been reading so i can look at his information and claims. The Russians always claimed that they would eventually 'disarm' but in fact just move the missiles to hidden empty silo's for suprise attacks later so finding empty silo's only means that they did exactly as they claimed they would.

No contest America could scorch all of Russia with bombs before they could say pass me the Vodka.

Well this is hardly a joke and if that is why your here i suggest you move over to BTS and have some good clean 'fun' with the rest.

Stellar

Stellar, all you do is keep repeating your points, some good, some flawed, and I really don't care what you think of my opinions. I don't think you even read my outside links, you just answer with rhetoric.
Don't kill the messenger, I don't make this stuff up. I just spread it like wildfire!

Here is another link to answer your massive questions you posted for me;

www.foreignaffairs.org...

Originally posted by Harlequin
the thing is russia can just use ebola-pox in a missile and drop a few mirv`s onto CONUS and biobomb the country and kill everything.

So how long can they afford to wait for everyone to die after dropping bio-bombs on America? Why would they want to risk killing a large percentage of Americans anyways? Soviet strategic doctrine have never reflected that urge and if they were to poison/ infect people it would be small scale and intended as blackmail and not mass extermination imo.

the us does`nt have a reply (other than nukes) to that - they killed of the bio weapons programme 40 years ago

We do not know if the US program were really stopped and we are just taking their word for it. I suspect that even if the official programs are 'strictly counter bio-terrorism' they in fact still have the capacity to act offensively if they cared to with their probably hidden stockpiles and labs. It is just far easier to hide such programs compared to trying to beat the Russians at the nuclear war fighting game.

Stellar

Originally posted by Sandman11
Stellar, all you do is keep repeating your points, some good, some flawed, and I really don't care what you think of my opinions.

Well i really do not mind your personal opinions either as long as your willing to have them exposed as lies when posting on this forum. I admit that there might be any number of flaws in my argument but it really is impossible for to discover them if you do not point them out with decent source material.

I don't think you even read my outside links, you just answer with rhetoric.

I read part of the article and then i realised that i addressed it 2 months ago when you brought it up then. You keep quoting them as if i did not explain why they are probably not to be trusted with such critical data. I also explained that many Russian radars are being called other names than what they can really do for the purpose of deceiving people who refuse to investigate the issue.

Don't kill the messenger, I don't make this stuff up. I just spread it like wildfire!

I do not try kill the messenger since i just address the points you raise to the best of my knowledge. If you are unhappy with my arguments just explain why and point out the flaws with source material to explain why. Quoting a Russian agency that has it's primary concern in disarming Russian opponents is hardly logical if your intent is unbiased.

Here is another link to answer your massive questions you posted for me;
www.foreignaffairs.org...

Interesting read i must admit. I do however have a problem with most all the claims made ( Russian Mobile ICBM's are all stuck in a few bases and not deployed?) since they do mostly contradict everything else we see happening. Russia is clearly bargaining on it's mobile ICBM's and they have been upgraded and modernized just like all their other nuclear weapons.

The author entirely left out the existence of the Russian national ABM defenses as if there has never been a debate about the topic. I find that when people so diligently avoid such open debates they normally have a bias far larger than i have.

If you want to make more specific claims from the article then i suggest you pick i few as i am kinda tired of doing ALL the work with your never addressing any of my points directly or at all.

Stellar

M.A.D. has always been the principle deterent in explaining why the nuclear powers haven't destroyed themselves and us. I often wondered if there was a different more problamatic reason that the first to strike would win and hence it hasn't happen yet and that was the deterent itself.
This morning I chanced upon a scratchy video clip of a Kiwi (New Zealand inhabitant) Pastor talking about our Sun being the trigger for an Atomic weapon and that the weapon could only be detonated when the Bomb was placed exactly inbetween the Sun and the Centre/Core of the earth at the destination at a precise time/date. Hence making the concept of all out nuclear annhilation impossible ?.
Initially I thought of this as pure bunk but then I recalled how Heisenberg had theorised that nuclear weapons were impossible due to an inordinate amount of enriched uranium and the energy required to detonate the material.
Has anyone here heard or read anything about this Sun-device-core principle in nuclear detonations? and if so give your opinion please.

Originally posted by Aztecatl
A russian who found a russian missile silo with the pop-off cap, like american minute-man silos, deep in the russian forest, posted pictures of it on the internet, but now the pictures are gone, along with the story and the man.

This was 3 months ago.

Any links to the pictures from perhaps another source? I would love to see.

Originally posted by Aztecatl
all major players/countries are buying gold and strategic minerals/metals right now. Just like they would before a nuclear war. IT MUST REALLY SUCK TO BE ONE OF THE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THEIR GOLD RESERVES IN THE NATIONAL RESERVE BANK IN THE USA, HEHEHE, because they'll NEVER see THAT gold again.

... the russians are gonna do a first strike on the USA, because a nuclear war practically on the russian border, would kill millions from radiation alone. Plus, Russia wants Iranian oil too ofcourse. USA can play for a little while longer, before it's bed time.

DAMN!!!!
Looks like I quit smoking for NOTHING!!!!!!

Originally posted by StellarX
We do not know if the US program were really stopped and we are just taking their word for it. I suspect that even if the official programs are 'strictly counter bio-terrorism' they in fact still have the capacity to act offensively if they cared to with their probably hidden stockpiles and labs. It is just far easier to hide such programs compared to trying to beat the Russians at the nuclear war fighting game.

Stellar

Well we do know the US program was stopped, alll there facilities were shut down in the 1960's. A bioweapons program IS NOT easy to hide. The Russians in the 90's even sent people over to inspect the old americans sites and others, gues what they found nothing. NOw, the Soviets were caught out with a massive program which rivalled their nuclear one, the signs were everywhere from unexplinaed Anthrax outbreaks to an island in the Aral Sea completely off limits. The Americans ent there inspectors to some of these places and it bacame apparent from the beginning that they were massive bioweapons complexes, despite Soviet denials. guess what the Americans were right and the Russians eventually acknowleged it.

No such evidence has ever been found, or are you saying in the face of everything you claim that the Soviets were completely inept in trying to conduct their secret program

You talk about facts etc all the time except you never seem to adhere to them. If a fact disputes what you say, then " oh well how do we really know ", incredibly weak resposnse

StellarX: *clap clap clap*


Bush is by the way developing some hypersonic "bunker penetrators" dubbed "rods from God", which will be satellite mounted, or moon-mounted, and fired straight down at 12000 feet per second, towards buried or hardened targets. They are some very heavy metal (Tungsten) spikes, about the size of missiles, 20 feet long and one foot diameter, with just enough propellant to enter the earths atmosphere and then accelerate and fall onto target. They need no explosives, as meteors can prove.

The americans are going to also tests a mach 12 FALCON bomber, which will fly at a lousy 100 000 feet :-) public tests are scheduled for this year.
Same tech as the NASA space plane/shuttle tested over australia just now.

The americans say it can outrun all anti-aircraft missiles... hmm, interesting then, that In my country there is a weapons factory that has already developed a hypersonic missile, that is being mass produced and sold internationally, and does a MINIMUM of mach 8.0.

Sandman11: WHAT PART OF THE WORD "GONE" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?




[edit on 2/4/2006 by Aztecatl]

Originally posted by rogue1
Well we do know the US program was stopped, alll there facilities were shut down in the 1960's. A bioweapons program IS NOT easy to hide.

But funding secret airplane development programs are easy to hide, right?

The Russians in the 90's even sent people over to inspect the old americans sites and others, gues what they found nothing.

And this proves what exactly? They get to pick some sites and nothing is going on there. Admittedly my point is that i am not sure and that i do not believe that any nation on the face of the earth ( that had one and can afford one) would give up bio-war programs entirely.

NOw, the Soviets were caught out with a massive program which rivalled their nuclear one,

Pffft. How can breeding germs rival the construction of thousands of nuclear warheads and platforms for them? It's this type of made up nonsense that leads me to believe you will say just about anything when you have made up your mind.

the signs were everywhere from unexplinaed Anthrax outbreaks to an island in the Aral Sea completely off limits.

And so they had a bio-war program employing tens of thousands of people.... They had tens of thousand working on particle beams and lasers as well. Yawn*

The Americans ent there inspectors to some of these places and it bacame apparent from the beginning that they were massive bioweapons complexes, despite Soviet denials. guess what the Americans were right and the Russians eventually acknowleged it.

And the Russians did not lie about anything else? Why would anyone have trusted them this time?

No such evidence has ever been found, or are you saying in the face of everything you claim that the Soviets were completely inept in trying to conduct their secret program

Secret program? You apparently have no idea what a secret program looks like if you think the USSR would want to keep secret something that EVERYONE who could manage were doing at the time. You keep secret programs that have no rival programs mabye but to try keep very secret something that everyone suspects/knows you MUST have somewhere is STUPID.

You talk about facts etc all the time except you never seem to adhere to them. If a fact disputes what you say, then " oh well how do we really know ", incredibly weak resposnse

I talk about facts and you never bother disputing them beside these weak pointless attempts. I suggested that there is still anti-bio war programs active in most countries and that under such programs ( where funds are available) it would be easy to do research into offensive programs as well if people cared to do so. It is incredibly naive to imagine that the US government would willing give up research into this area and i sometimes wonder why your even taking part in discussion on ATS if you will believe only what suits you at the time.

Now i can not say the US still has a active bio war program but i have also not done any research just yet. My question is why any government would give it up having shown that it is willing to use such materials on enemy forces in the past. If your willing to use it at least once you can forever in the future use it as another way to blackmail other nations.

Why would you make arguments contrary to what your logic should dictate to your based on past experience? Do you hate me so much that you will go with anything , however illogical, just to take a stab at maligning my credibility on the forum?

Stellar