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.
Originally posted by DaFunk13
If given the choice between living in a bunker for the remainder of my worldly existence, or just being incinerated in this nightmare, I choose the latter.
I pity anyone who feels different.
Originally posted by DaFunk13
How is Chernobyl looking nowadays? They build Slavic-Disney there yet?
I never said it was utter, irrepairable destruction. It will not be ok in a few weeks either though.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
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
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.
seems even with the change they are still regulating each ICBM to a few and single warhead payloads
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.
Originally posted by StellarX
The US made them for a reason a long time ago and have been upgrading them with time. Nothing special and still no way for those weapons to get to that mountain past Russian air defense and S2A missiles.
Well known situation if you care to do some research. In case of a first strike all American missile boats in the area could coordinate but i wonder if they have more than 2 on patrol to launch against China at any given time.
Originally posted by StellarX
Nuclear 'bunkers busters' have been around for a very long time and you should check out the history of the bomb you suggested before saying anything more. Lets just say your knowledge will have to run like hell to catch up to your bias.
I included 5 or 6 links so that people may compare the information and arrive at a conclusion. You posted one if i remember correctly? Do you really believe this comment of yours was in any way fair?
The US made them for a reason a long time ago and have been upgrading them with time
Well known situation if you care to do some research. In case of a first strike all American missile boats in the area could coordinate but i wonder if they have more than 2 on patrol to launch against China at any given time.
The Russians have had their officials tour that particular facility( NORAD and for that matter many others) and well know how to take it out.
This is a illogical argument of the worse kinda. Because Apple's are not Oranges we should never eat Lemons? We are not even sure Yamantua is a control center for ( or has anything to do) with nuclear weapons.
i am speculating that it has at least some part of it allocated to help fight and win a nuclear war
Once again your making assumptions
Originally posted by DaFunk13
My intention wasn't to be cleaver, but yea...I'm pretty damned cleaver.
So lemme get this straight here...A nuke just makes a big bang and then after a couple weeks we can come out of our holes and evryting irie?
Show me a credible link that says when the nuclear effects dissapate.
Originally posted by rogue1
Well the US doesn't need to deliver gravity bombs, they can deliver much higher yield penetrating warheads using the Minuteman III and Trident D-5 missiles. A Trident W-88 warheads has also been tested in 2005 using a 3-axis flap guidance system, which turns the RV into a Maneuverable RV.
Just as the Russians claim to have an ABM defeating warhead on their SS-27, the US can deploy the same type of warheads on their missiles, negating any so called Russian ABM missiles.
The US has 9 Ohio SSBN's in the Pacific ocean. Standard operating procedure for teh USN is to keep 2/3 of boats at sea.
That would make the total boats on patrol in the Pacific, 6 - 3 times more than you assume.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
LOL you know I was talking about the nuclear (earth penetrating weapons) and I know my history on them thats what nuclear bunker busters are, a project which began 1989
So check your bais I would love to see info on these nuclear (earth penetrating warheads) around for a very long time
My link was merely to allow people to arrive at a conclusion aswell.
Dont attack links and then in the very next post link to just as if not more questionable sources.
Or are we only to believe what is found on your linked sites?
This shows such a poor understanding of how US nuclear missile subs operate its not even worth my time.
"Well known situation" little known fantasy more like it
A Russian general gets the nickel tour of NORAD and now Russia knows all its secrets. If you believe that its sad really sad.
These people saw barely more then the History channel crews that did shows on NORAD got to see. These events are publicity stunts .
If you think Top secret information vital to base security was revealed on these tours I bet you think the USSR knew everything that was going on at the Pentagon when Khruschev visited the Pentagon too
And lets remember your the only one that suggested what Yamantua is for
heres a little reminder of what you said
My arguement has nothing to do with whats going on in Yamantau I said if the Soviets thought their bunkers where invincible they wouldn't create fail safes that could launch nukes even if all command was taken out.
Did I even mention Yamantua in there anywhere? I dont see it in that statement.
You can yap on about " Russian love of redundancy " but if their command centers were really invincible even the USSR wouldnt waste the money on such a radical and perhaps dangerous systems there would be no need because their bunkers are "invincible" its contray to the very word invincible .
thats all your post are on Yamantua, US nuclear subs and NORAD.
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
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.
Originally posted by StellarX
Well they have 14 overall with 1 or 2 in long term refit and ideally two thirds of the rest at sea at any given time. Of these not all will be in firing range on any given time so while 5 or 6 might be possible it certainly is ideal.
Since i am quote used to seeing those readiness numbers fuged i am sure when i go look i will find that there are normally 2-3 on station in the pacific.
Stellar
Of these not all will be in firing range on any given time
2-3 on station in the pacific.
Well known situation if you care to do some research. In case of a first strike all American missile boats in the area could coordinate but i wonder if they have more than 2 on patrol to launch against China at any given time.
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by rogue1
Well the US doesn't need to deliver gravity bombs, they can deliver much higher yield penetrating warheads using the Minuteman III and Trident D-5 missiles. A Trident W-88 warheads has also been tested in 2005 using a 3-axis flap guidance system, which turns the RV into a Maneuverable RV.
It will not matter much against high yield nuclear blasts in the path of the RV.
Just as the Russians claim to have an ABM defeating warhead on their SS-27, the US can deploy the same type of warheads on their missiles, negating any so called Russian ABM missiles.
But they have not deployed them have they? They also have no declared land based mobile missiles do they? You can cherry pick the things you can actually disagree with but i disagree with EVERYTHING you say as it's almost always incorrect in some obvious way. You don't even bother to check your facts before posting!
The US has 9 Ohio SSBN's in the Pacific ocean. Standard operating procedure for teh USN is to keep 2/3 of boats at sea.
That would make the total boats on patrol in the Pacific, 6 - 3 times more than you assume.
Well they have 14 overall with 1 or 2 in long term refit and ideally two thirds of the rest at sea at any given time. Of these not all will be in firing range on any given time so while 5 or 6 might be possible it certainly is ideal.
Since i am quote used to seeing those readiness numbers fuged i am sure when i go look i will find that there are normally 2-3 on station in the pacific.
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The US no longer has MIRVs though they have the missile systems to load as such; they do not do so.
I got the impression they still deploy their current Minuteman III"s with 2-3 warheads each? It's what my sources suggest so if you can clarify i would appreciate that.
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Russia has more deployed warheads at the present and has more hardened facilities that are further apart.
As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads.
www.thebulletin.org...
We estimate that as of early 2006, Russia has approximately 5,830 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This includes about 3,500 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 300 from last year's level due to the withdrawal of approximately 36 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from operational service. Our estimate of operational nonstrategic nuclear weapons is 2,330 warheads, more than a thousand warheads fewer than our previous estimate (see "Russian Nuclear Forces, 2005," March/April 2005 Bulletin) due to a recount of operational launch platforms and Russian statements about reductions.
www.thebulletin.org...
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
It takes 2 nuclear warheads with a successful direct hit to destroy each silo and there are hundreds of silos through-out Russia.
Do you have a specific link for that 5 million just in Moscow area? As i understood that was the number of party and high ranking civilian officlals which could find shelter under cities in that 30 odd minute first strike/retaliation timeframe.
Originally posted by DaFunk13
My intention wasn't to be cleaver, but yea...I'm pretty damned cleaver.
So lemme get this straight here...A nuke just makes a big bang and then after a couple weeks we can come out of our holes and evryting irie?
Show me a credible link that says when the nuclear effects dissapate.
Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The US no longer has MIRVs though they have the missile systems to load as such; they do not do so.
I got the impression they still deploy their current Minuteman III"s with 2-3 warheads each? It's what my sources suggest so if you can clarify i would appreciate that.
Hmmm, The Minuteman force has 800 warheads deployed on 500 missiles. The Trident missile on submarines are allowed ot carry 8, but carry 6 atm. Of course that can be easily changed.
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Russia has more deployed warheads at the present and has more hardened facilities that are further apart.
As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads.
www.thebulletin.org...
We estimate that as of early 2006, Russia has approximately 5,830 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This includes about 3,500 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 300 from last year's level due to the withdrawal of approximately 36 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from operational service. Our estimate of operational nonstrategic nuclear weapons is 2,330 warheads, more than a thousand warheads fewer than our previous estimate (see "Russian Nuclear Forces, 2005," March/April 2005 Bulletin) due to a recount of operational launch platforms and Russian statements about reductions.
www.thebulletin.org...
Hmmm, I suggest you check your facts before making obviously incorrect blanket statements.
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
It takes 2 nuclear warheads with a successful direct hit to destroy each silo and there are hundreds of silos through-out Russia.
Your point being what ? There are hundred of silos in the US as well and as I've shown the US has far more straegic warheads deployed than Russia has
BTW. It doesn't take 2 warheads to destroy one silo. They use 2 warheads fron different missiles as a form of redudndancy to endure that at least one warhead will make it to its target. It isn't because they need 2 warheads to hit the silo.
Do you have a specific link for that 5 million just in Moscow area? As i understood that was the number of party and high ranking civilian officlals which could find shelter under cities in that 30 odd minute first strike/retaliation timeframe.
Complete load of BS, talk about living in a dream
[edit on 9-3-2006 by rogue1]
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You tell me to check my facts but you use "thebulletin.org" as a source.
Try using at least "FAS.org" as a source; or some strategic policy journal which is peer-reviewed...or any numerous strategic weapons publications which tell you you are wrong.
Now take your trash information elsewhere.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project at the University of Chicago and were deeply concerned about the potential future use of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.
The founding mission of the Bulletin remains relevant today. For more than half a century, the Bulletin has existed to maintain worldwide awareness of the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1999 and 2000, 60 Minutes called it "the leading nuclear journal in the United States."
To convey the particular peril posed by nuclear weapons, the Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock in 1947. The hands of the clock first moved in response to changing world events in 1949, following the first Soviet nuclear test. The clock is now recognized as a universal symbol of the nuclear age.
The founding mission of the Bulletin remains relevant today. For more than half a century, the Bulletin has existed to maintain worldwide awareness of the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1999 and 2000, 60 Minutes called it "the leading nuclear journal in the United States."
To convey the particular peril posed by nuclear weapons, the Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock in 1947. The hands of the clock first moved in response to changing world events in 1949, following the first Soviet nuclear test. The clock is now recognized as a universal symbol of the nuclear age.
www.thebulletin.org...
Originally posted by JamesinOz
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both completely rebuilt and thriving cities within a decade of being destroyed.