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.

 

Is Russia preparing for nuclear war?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
^^^ As they say, in the contest between warhead and armour, warhead always wins.

As for Yamantau, I've read as well that it can suppposedly take 5 hits in the same spot from nuclear weapons, funny thing they never mention the yield of such weapons. As weapons can range from sub kiloton to several megatons, the claim is too vague to take seriously.

Here's some interesting stats :

  • A 1MT surface burst will dig a crater 70m in depth
  • A 10MT surface burst will leave a crater to a depth of 152m


www.danshistory.com...

Of course that is only the crater it doesn't take into account the seismic shock transmitted deeper. Using a penetrating warhead couples the shockwave to the ground allowing a smaler yield to be used as most of it's power is transmitted into the ground and not the atmosphere.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by rogue1]




posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Its the classic offense vs defense evolution. You make a better bunker and somebody will make a better bunker buster

The older method too take out something like Yamantau would have been B53 9MT surface strikes as many as were needed.

These were pretty much phased out with the introduction of the B61-11's. You get much more "bang for your buck" using penetrating nuclear weapons. Even the 10-300kt figure might be fudged from the US. I dont see any reason why you cant make say a 9MT earth penetrating nuclear weapon.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Its pretty clear what weapon the US would use on Yamantau. It might also just be a coincidence that it was developed at just about the same time as the Yamantau was under construction.
The B61-11 Nuclear bunker buster yield 10KT--300KT


Well this bomb is in fact a gravity bomb and i am relatively sure the American air force is not going to attempt flying there any time soon. The latest modifcation was introduced around the same time the senate said some things about about Yamantau but i do not think it is related since the USSR/Russia have been building these types of complexes since the 60's.


A 10 KT warhead detonated 4 feet underground can produce a shockwave sufficient to crush a bunker buried under 100 meters of rock.


Well then it might have a problem penetrating quartz and a even larger problem penetrating 3000 feet of with sufficient shock waves to cause unexpected damage.


According to one recent account ["We Keep Building Nukes For All the Wrong Reasons", By Bruce G. Blair, The Washington Post Sunday, May
25, 2003; Page B01] "... the Yamantau and Kosvinsky mountains in the central and southern Urals ... were huge construction projects begun in
the late 1970s, when U.S. nuclear firepower took special aim at the Communist Party's leadership complex. Fearing a decapitating strike, the
Soviets sent tens of thousands of workers to these remote sites, where U.S. spy satellites spotted them still toiling away in the late 1990s.

Yamantau is expected to be operating soon. According to diagrams and notes given to me in the late 1990s by SAC senior officers, the Yamantau
command center is inside a rock quartz mountain, about 3,000 feet straight down from the summit
. It is a wartime relocation facility for the
top Russian political leadership. It is more a shelter than a command post, because the facility's communications links are relatively
fragile. As it turned out, the quartz interferes with radio signals broadcast from inside the mountain. Therefore the main communications
links are either cable or radio transmitters that broadcast from outside the center."

www.globalsecurity.org...



Exactly how far the B61-11 penetrates is classified they aint going to tell you but I assure you its deeper then 4 feet.


Well metal and even DU ( allegedly) can only go so deep. The stated capability is "several meters".


In theory a tactical missile might possibly penetrate to 100 feet. The B61-11 that would target Yamantau would be the 300KT ones not the tiny 10KT. 300KT! thats huge Hiroshima bomb was only about 12.5 to 15 Kt in size.


As far as i know this bomb only comes in the gravity type.


Yamantau was likely countered before construction of the complex was even finished. These new nuclear bunker busters in the US were likley a direct result of new Russian super bunkers.




(4) Reports indicate that Russia has been pursuing construction of a massive underground facility of unknown purpose at Yamantau Mountain
and the city of Mezhgorye (formerly the settlements of Beloretsk-15 and Beloretsk-16) that is designed to survive a nuclear war and appears
to exceed reasonable defense requirements.


(5) The Yamantau Mountain project does not appear to be consistent with the lowering of strategic threats, openness, and cooperation that is
the basis of the post-Cold War strategic partnership between the United States and Russia.

(6) Russia appears to have engaged in a campaign to deliberately conceal and mislead the United States about the purpose of the Yamantau

Mountain project, as shown by the following:

www.fas.org...


So am i am not so sure everyone is as confident as you are when it comes to being able to 'take out' these types of complexes.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Russia and China have been beating the drums of war for decades. Best trick there is, convince your desperate people that the evil Americans are coming to invade (and improve your standard of living too), and that we have to arm ourselves to the teeth to prevent it.

The only winners in that game are the commie elites and generals who laugh all the way to the bank... then there is Lil Kim the biggest #@*% of them all.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


Well this bomb is in fact a gravity bomb and i am relatively sure the American air force is not going to attempt flying there any time soon. The latest modifcation was introduced around the same time the senate said some things about about Yamantau but i do not think it is related since the USSR/Russia have been building these types of complexes since the 60's.



Im not saying the US does or dosen't have missile Bunker busters. But lets just say they dont let the public in on half of what they really have and they would be very possible to build. If you think they are releasing any accurate numbers concerning how deep they go your in for a surprize..

But even the gravity bomb could strike Yamantau with the B-2, this would likely happen after a initial nuclear strike inwhich Russian air defense would be in ruin and the even B-52 could enter russian airspace and take out Yamantau with nuclear bunker busters. Your vastly underestimating the power of a 300KT warhead going off 30ft underground above a bunker.

Russia was not building these type of complexes in the 60s they were building the same ones that the US was at the time designed when nuclear missile CEPs were crap most of the 60s era bunker could never take a direct surface nuclear strike.

Yamantau is really part of a huge Russian effort to upgrade their old 60s era bunkers which have been obsolete for a long time. About 200 of them including Yamantau had recieved significant upgrades starting in the 90s which turned them into these "super bunkers". About the same time the US developed these nuclear bunker busters



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Its the classic offense vs defense evolution. You make a better bunker and somebody will make a better bunker buster


Well no it really is not. Nuclear weapons can only do so much and if the opposition is willing to dig deep enough ( they are clearly not worried about the resources required for this enterprise) your not going to get them out with a nuke.


The older method too take out something like Yamantau would have been B53 9MT surface strikes as many as were needed.


"As many as were needed?" You do realise that the US only has a certain about of warheads and that there is still the rest of Russia with it's 10 - 12000 dual use Sam/ABM missiles to contend with? That every major city has in fact got a fuhrer bunker of sorts for party and high ranking civilians? Every nuke you exploded underground is one less for air burst and you just do far far less damage with ground burst weapons.


These were pretty much phased out with the introduction of the B61-11's. You get much more "bang for your buck" using penetrating nuclear weapons. Even the 10-300kt figure might be fudged from the US. I dont see any reason why you cant make say a 9MT earth penetrating nuclear weapon.


Because it's expensive and you need a delivery method which can get it that far. For that megatonnage you will have to be using a single warhead on your ICBM meaing far less overall damage to the enemy.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Its the classic offense vs defense evolution. You make a better bunker and somebody will make a better bunker buster


Well no it really is not. Nuclear weapons can only do so much and if the opposition is willing to dig deep enough ( they are clearly not worried about the resources required for this enterprise) your not going to get them out with a nuke.



You say if the opposition is willing to dig deep enough the same is true for the other side being willing to use enough nukes. With enough nukes you could dig down miles if you wanted too. Not that you ever would have too

You dont even have to "get them out" see they have to be able to get to the surface and that means exits lead to the surface. If you bury the exits under hundreds of tons of rubble their isnt even any need to get them out they will all die in time.

They will be some expensive tombs though



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


Because it's expensive and you need a delivery method which can get it that far. For that megatonnage you will have to be using a single warhead on your ICBM meaing far less overall damage to the enemy.

Stellar


This is also just wrong since the B53 was never to be carried on a ICBM so your argument is moot.

Its true the military cares about overall damage but they make exception when it comes to targets like Yamantau.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Im not saying the US does or dosen't have missile Bunker busters. But lets just say they dont let the public in on half of what they really have and they would be very possible to build.


Well if you want to speculate i have no problem with it. Just wanted to correct you on that point thought.


If you think they are releasing any accurate numbers concerning how deep they go your in for a surprize..


Well i have my own thoughs on what both American and Russian weapons can do so your preaching to the choir.



But even the gravity bomb could strike Yamantau with the B-2, this would likely happen after a initial nuclear strike inwhich Russian air defense would be in ruin and the even B-52 could enter russian airspace and take out Yamantau with nuclear bunker busters.


10-12000 Russian stratefic air defense missiles ( excluding regular army equipment and the Russian air force) says that will not happen very soon and might take weeks or months to manage at which point one side would have won the nuclear exchange. If the Yamantau complex is purely meant to help make Russian counterforce efforts coordination it will have served it's purpose long before B-52's have any chance of getting there.


Your vastly underestimating the power of a 300KT warhead going off 30ft underground above a bunker.


I really do not have to and will depend on the Russians to not construct something so expensive that is so vulnerable to such small warheads. Expecting the enemy to act stupidly is not something i do .


Russia was not building these type of complexes in the 60s they were building the same ones that the US was at the time designed when nuclear missile CEPs were crap most of the 60s era bunker could never take a direct surface nuclear strike.


Well you are in fact not very well informed on this score then. American complexes have never been anywhere near as well fortified as Russians one's. While you can argue that American bunkers it the 60's could not take direct hits i do not think you should assume the same was true for Russian complexes which were frequently upgraded as weapons got more accurate and efficient in general.


Yamantau is really part of a huge Russian effort to upgrade their old 60s era bunkers which have been obsolete for a long time.


You must know something i do not as nothing i have read suggest anything like that. Russia has never had a lapse in upgrading their civil defenses and have been at it constantly since just after the second world war.


About 200 of them including Yamantau had recieved significant upgrades starting in the 90s which turned them into these "super bunkers". About the same time the US developed these nuclear bunker busters


Well they have many thousands of these bunkers many of which were clearly not in need of upgrading. Yamantau is not being 'upgraded' as such and is clearly just a ongoing long term project.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You say if the opposition is willing to dig deep enough the same is true for the other side being willing to use enough nukes.


Nuclear warheads can be intercepted. Constructing nuclear warheads and delivering them thousands of miles away is not low tech where digging deep holes is VERY low tech by comparison.


With enough nukes you could dig down miles if you wanted too. Not that you ever would have too


Well yes you could very likely dig as deep as you wanted to but that will take time to do which is all these complexes is designed to do. The Russians play for time and it's always worked for them in the past.


You dont even have to "get them out" see they have to be able to get to the surface and that means exits lead to the surface.


They will likely have the equipment to dig themselves out when their food runs out after a few years.


If you bury the exits under hundreds of tons of rubble their isnt even any need to get them out they will all die in time.
They will be some expensive tombs though


I just get the idea that your trying very hard to negate the value of these bunkers when prominent scientist and defense officials see real threats in them. Are you really so sure it's all OK?

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
This is also just wrong since the B53 was never to be carried on a ICBM so your argument is moot.

Its true the military cares about overall damage but they make exception when it comes to targets like Yamantau.


Well no but the point is that if you want to do deep penetration with a warhead it is very different in structure to fortify. For that megatonnage and weight your not going to fit more many, if more than one, warheads on a ICBM. The ammount of ICBM's is limited by treaty and spending a few single warhead missiles on such targets is not very efficient.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


You must know something i do not as nothing i have read suggest anything like that. Russia has never had a lapse in upgrading their civil defenses and have been at it constantly since just after the second world war.


Well they have many thousands of these bunkers many of which were clearly not in need of upgrading. Yamantau is not being 'upgraded' as such and is clearly just a ongoing long term project.

Stellar


Well then you most not have read up on Yamantau that much then have you




The work at the Yamantau complex is only part of Russia's current efforts to modernize and reinforce some 200 deep underground command posts, nuclear warhead repositories and clandestine missile sites


www.worldnetdaily.com...




Well yes you could very likely dig as deep as you wanted to but that will take time to do which is all these complexes is designed to do


How is that you know what Yamantau is designed to do when the US inteligence community wont even say they know what it designed to do. Most Russian officals dont even know what goes on there.




They will likely have the equipment to dig themselves out when their food runs out after a few years.


dig themsleves out
yeah from hundereds of tons of radioactive rubble. Not likely when you consider all air vents would also likely be severed as well. Unless your suggesting they would have years worth of air aswell



The ammount of ICBM's is limited by treaty and spending a few single warhead missiles on such targets is not very efficient.


The Start treaty is trying to get rid of MIRVed ICBMs and have only ICBMs carrying a single-warhead allowed.

Perhaps you should read up on it

www.fas.org...

Oh and they will only have 3,500 thats not enough to spare on such a important target
Im sure Russia will forget about using some of theirs on NORAD too


[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Beloretsk is a city built in 1762 (well founded then) so where is all this crud about "massive underground city built to house workers for Yamantau" coming from?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Russia has been making shelters for everything, nukes blizzards you name it, I myself think that it will probably be a Russian NORAD.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Well then you most not have read up on Yamantau that much then have you


More than you.

And there is a reason you do not seem me quoting worldnetdaily. Fact is they have many thousands more bunkers and worldnetdaily is incorrect if they call what is happening at Yamantua a "upgrade".


How is that you know what Yamantau is designed to do when the US inteligence community wont even say they know what it designed to do. Most Russian officals dont even know what goes on there.


Well like intelligence officials i am speculating that it has at least some part of it allocated to help fight and win a nuclear war. For them not to use some of that floor space in such a capacity is mindless especially considering the underground railways.


dig themsleves out
yeah from hundereds of tons of radioactive rubble. Not likely when you consider all air vents would also likely be severed as well. Unless your suggesting they would have years worth of air aswell


You have left the realm of discussion and are now just speculating on what suits you most. If you imagine the Russians are so abosolutely mindless that they would not think of how to make sure of ventilation in case of nuclear hits your just not serious about this topic. Years of air is no harder to manage than years of food or water anyway.


The Start treaty is trying to get rid of MIRVed ICBMs and have only ICBMs carrying a single-warhead allowed.

Perhaps you should read up on it


Perhaps i have ( as you should have) and know what i am talking about. Start II went belly up in 2002 as does all treaties that requires Russia to disarm.


Oh and they will only have 3,500 thats not enough to spare on such a important target
Im sure Russia will forget about using some of theirs on NORAD too


www.thebulletin.org...

American:

1,050 warheads on 500 Minuteman III ( various mods) launchers that are not mobile and can not be reloaded at all or very fast).

2016 warheads on 336 Trident I and II's ( various mods) launchers that are reloadable in port.

Now half those SLBM'S ( Trident) warheads will likely be destroyed in port and messages to launch might not reach some of the other boats thus making a nuclear response much harder than first strike.


www.thebulletin.org...
The Russians:

1000 warheads on 100 SS-18 launchers that are not mobile but can be reloaded due to cold launch technology( entire rocket is ejected from the silo to ingnite it's first stage about 20 meters from the surface thus doing very little damage to silo). Source do not agree on how fast( how many days or hours) this could in fact take place for the massive SS-18.

780 warheads on 130 SS-19 launchers that are not moblie but can be reloaded due to cold launch technology.

300 warheads on 300 SS-25 launchers that are road mobile and can be reloaded in less time than it took for a counterforce strike to arrive even if they could somehow be found ( Iraqi scuds were firing till the very last days).

40 warheads on 40 SS-27 launchers that are road mobile and can be reloaded in less time than it took a counterfoce strike to arrive.

SLBM's:

288 warheads on 96 SS-N-18 M lauchers that can be reloaded at sea in protected waters from ships designed for the purpose.

384 warheads on 96 SS-N-23 launchers that can be reloaded at sea same as above.

As i understand only half of these missile ( 6 out of 12 submarines) is on active service and the others might be destroyed in port if their caves do not stand up to American first strike.

Russian ICBM warhead sizes ( over 2000) are also almost twice the size of American warheads ( 1000) and the Russian one's will stay alive and keep moving and firing for as long as it took to win while American Silo's will be destroyed in not much time at all.

Now i do not particularly like this site but since they have likely put a bottem end on missiles deployed it's good enough for me. I have removed two missile types ( 1 American, 1 Russian ) that were withdrawn from service in late 2005 so as to reflect what i know at this stage.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Beloretsk is a city built in 1762 (well founded then) so where is all this crud about "massive underground city built to house workers for Yamantau" coming from?


Yamantau
SENSE OF CONGRESS ON NEED FOR RUSSIAN OPENNESS ON THE YAMANTAU MOUNTAIN PROJECT.
A Huge Anthill?
The Cold War with Russia is not over.
Moscow builds bunkers against nuclear attack
Assessing the International Response to the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator


Inform yourself and stop being a troll; it's getting old.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
and worldnetdaily is incorrect if they call what is happening at Yamantua a "upgrade".


Then what exactly is going on? Are you suggesting the USSR started work on Yamantau with weapons in mind that wouldnt exist for another 2 decades mainly nuclear bunker busters.

BTW classic how you attack my link and then link to "www.viewzone.com" for your information on the next post

The US didnt make nuclear bunker busters for no reason at the same time all this working was going on at Yamantau during the 90s



Now half those SLBM'S ( Trident) warheads will likely be destroyed in port and messages to launch might not reach some of the other boats thus making a nuclear response much harder than first strike
.

Now who has have left the realm of discussion and are now just speculating on what suits you most. The message to launch might not reach some boats



As for the start treaty is still dont see any limit on the missile just the warheads.




The ammount of ICBM's is limited by treaty and spending a few single warhead missiles on such targets is not very efficient.


seems even with the change they are still regulating each ICBM to a few and single warhead payloads

from your own quote


Minuteman III ICBMs currently deployed carries either a single warhead or two or three multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles


So your whole single warhead is not very efficient arguement because of the treaty is still lame


In the event of a nuclear war both Norad and Yamatau are likely going to be knocked out. Targets like this are of the highest priority for both sides. They would find ways to take them out and they wouldnt advertise them to the public.

If the soviets thought their bunkers were invincible they would never have created the DEADHAND system codenamed 'Perimeter' that allows them to retaliate with a nuclear strike even if a nuclear first strike destroyed or incapacitated the Soviet leadership nuclear decapitation.

If the US thought NORAD was invincible they wouldn't put a secondary command in the air 24/7

From the back up systems each put in place its clear they knew their bunkers were and are not invincible

They only invincible bunkers are the ones if any either side does not know the other has and NORAD and Yamatau arent those.


[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well then it might have a problem penetrating quartz and a even larger problem penetrating 3000 feet of with sufficient shock waves to cause unexpected damage.


Hmm, what do you think they would do, drop a weapon on the summit of the mountain lol. If it came to nuclear war, then the US would be able to crack it, no doubt. Same with Cheyenne mountain if the Russians attacked it.

Not to mention of course US ICBM's and SLBM's can be fited with penetrating warheads. They can penetrate more rock and have an even larger yield than the B-61's maximum.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well no it really is not. Nuclear weapons can only do so much and if the opposition is willing to dig deep enough ( they are clearly not worried about the resources required for this enterprise) your not going to get them out with a nuke.


LOL, If they used 10 moderate yield nucler weapons, Yamantau is toast. Even you said that it couldn't take 5 direct hits




"As many as were needed?" You do realise that the US only has a certain about of warheads and that there is still the rest of Russia with it's 10 - 12000 dual use Sam/ABM missiles to contend with? That every major city has in fact got a fuhrer bunker of sorts for party and high ranking civilians? Every nuke you exploded underground is one less for air burst and you just do far far less damage with ground burst weapons.


LOL, 12 000 now, before in your other threads it was 10 000. Come on this has already been disproved in other threads
PLease provide an accurate source as to teh number of Russian SAM systems deployed today. We both know they can't shoot down ICBM's or SLBM's and that the majority of these missilkes are obsolete, not to mention you base your assumptions on overinflated DIA reposts fromt eh early 1980's. Hell you even claim that the SA-2 ( crap 1st generation SAM ) can shoot down long range ballistic missiles.

Also, who cares if the politruks of a city are protected, what do they have to come out to ? The city would be flattened the majority of its inhabitants dead - only someone with a warped mind would see that as some sort of victory



Well you are in fact not very well informed on this score then. American complexes have never been anywhere near as well fortified as Russians one's. While you can argue that American bunkers it the 60's could not take direct hits i do not think you should assume the same was true for Russian complexes which were frequently upgraded as weapons got more accurate and efficient in general.


Upgraded how ? They can't make them deeper, they've already been dug
Use some common sense, LOL.


Well yes you could very likely dig as deep as you wanted to but that will take time to do which is all these complexes is designed to do. The Russians play for time and it's always worked for them in the past.


The Russians have traded space for time, in comventioanl wars where they have been invaded. This has absolutely no relevance to a nuclear war. The statement makes no sense in the context you are using it in.


Well they have many thousands of these bunkers many of which were clearly not in need of upgrading. Yamantau is not being 'upgraded' as such and is clearly just a ongoing long term project.


Oh yeah riiiiight
When did you learn of this after you spoke to Putin ? How the hell would you know ?
Another throw away comment, gotta love them.


I really do not have to and will depend on the Russians to not construct something so expensive that is so vulnerable to such small warheads. Expecting the enemy to act stupidly is not something i do .


LMAO, but of course you expect the Americans to act ' stupid '. They know Yamantau is there and they will know how to destroy it if the time came. They have almost 50 years of nuclear testing, over 1000 tests - atmospheric, surfce and below ground - they know what nuclear weapons can do in a huge number of scenarios.
To say something is invulnerable is naive, especially whne you base your assumptions on Yamantau on information which at best is a good guess and worst complete misinformation.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Hands down Russia is far more prepared for Nuclear War.

The US no longer has MIRVs though they have the missile systems to load as such; they do not do so.

Russia has more deployed warheads at the present and has more hardened facilities that are further apart. All the US's facilities are now located in Whyoming and Montana region and are no where near the number of Russian hardened facilities (which are approximately 98).

It takes 2 nuclear warheads with a successful direct hit to destroy each silo and there are hundreds of silos through-out Russia.

Russia can support 5 million people in their underground projects around Moscow.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join