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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
This is why the US has only exploded a 9MT yield bomb and Russia has exploded a 25MT yield bomb.


LOL, you're joking right. The US has exploded a 15 MT weapon and the RUssians a 50MT+ weapon. THe greater power of teh Rusian test has nothing to do with technology, rather they just built a bigger Teller/Ulam radiation implosion device.

As for deployed nuclear weapons, the US did deploy a 25MT weapon ( the Mk-41 ), the same power as Russia's largets deployed weapon.




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Just so. The US is scheduled for a fall. Just as Germany had to fall for a united Europe to form, the US must fall for a united world to form. Bush is playing Hitlers role in the modern stage-play. If you can't see it all being set up, you're just not looking.

come on now the usa isnt gonna fall for a pretty long time



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
You said that the US deployed this Mk yet they've never done any such thing nor does globalsecurity.org say so which is a better source so far than your "The Bulletin".



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You said that the US deployed this Mk yet they've never done any such thing nor does globalsecurity.org say so which is a better source so far than your "The Bulletin".


I don't know if your stupid or just can't read



The Mk/B-41 was the highest yield nuclear weapon ever deployed by the US. It was also the only three-stage thermonuclear weapon ever developed by the US, and it achieved the highest yield-to-weight ratio of any US weapon design. The B-41 was deployed in a a "dirty" version (the Y1, with a U-238 encased tertiary stage) and a "clean" version (the Y2, with a lead encased tertiary stage).

www.globalsecurity.org...



Early production of the Mk-41 Mod 0 bomb began in September 1960; by June 1962, approximately 500 units had been manufactured. These weapons were retired between November 1963 and July 1976 as the more-versatile Mk-53 replaced them in the stockpile.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...


Please do some reading before you post, as you are constantly wrong and I'm not learning anything from you by constantly correcting your bad information.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   
You don't even know what you write do you...

I specifically told you that the US has never deployed such a large yield Nuke...and I was right...



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You don't even know what you write do you...

I specifically told you that the US has never deployed such a large yield Nuke...and I was right...


You must be stupid, I have already posted 2 sources in black and white. Obviously you can't read


How exactly are you right ? ONce again you provide no proof whatsoever, even globalsecurity.org, a site you cited completely disagrees with you.

I've heard of denial before, but this is just laughable.

Even more evidence these weapons were deployed.


During a B-52 airborne alert mission structural failure of the right wing resulted in two weapons separating from the aircraft during aircraft breakup at 2,000--10,000 feet altitude. One bomb parachute deployed and the weapon received little impact damage. The other bomb fell free and broke apart upon impact. No explosion occurred. Five of the eight crew members survived. A portion of one weapon, containing uranium, could not be recovered despite excavation in the waterlogged farmland to a depth of 50 feet. The Air Force subsequently purchased an easement requiring permission for anyone to dig there. There is no detectablex radiation and no hazard in the area. CDI: This report does not adequately convey the potential seriousness of the accident. The two weapons were 24 megaton nuclear bombs. Combined, they had the equivalent explosive power of 3,700 Hiroshima bombs.

www.milnet.com...


[edit on 16-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You don't even know what you write do you...

I specifically told you that the US has never deployed such a large yield Nuke...and I was right...


You must be stupid, I have already posted 2 sources in black and white. Obviously you can't read


How exactly are you right ? ONce again you provide no proof whatsoever, even globalsecurity.org, a site you cited completely disagrees with you.

I've heard of denial before, but this is just laughable.

Even more evidence these weapons were deployed.


During a B-52 airborne alert mission structural failure of the right wing resulted in two weapons separating from the aircraft during aircraft breakup at 2,000--10,000 feet altitude. One bomb parachute deployed and the weapon received little impact damage. The other bomb fell free and broke apart upon impact. No explosion occurred. Five of the eight crew members survived. A portion of one weapon, containing uranium, could not be recovered despite excavation in the waterlogged farmland to a depth of 50 feet. The Air Force subsequently purchased an easement requiring permission for anyone to dig there. There is no detectablex radiation and no hazard in the area. CDI: This report does not adequately convey the potential seriousness of the accident. The two weapons were 24 megaton nuclear bombs. Combined, they had the equivalent explosive power of 3,700 Hiroshima bombs.

www.milnet.com...


[edit on 16-3-2006 by rogue1]


You don't know the words you use obviously. Deployed means to have ready to launch at a target...testing a bomb and deploying a bomb are completely different things.

Stop looking like an ass.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Are you also an idiot?

Posting evidence that the US dropped 2 24MT nuclear bombs into a bog where one was lost completely and the other destroyed irrepairably...killing 3 crewmen in the process...

Is hardly evidence of a robust Nuclear Program.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

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 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.



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 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.


First of all a boomer never knows exactly where it is so it can't target anything smaller than a metropolis. It will only be within a few km accuracy.

Secondly the Russian BMD (ABM is the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty you twit so get it right) consists of Nuclear Warheads so they don't have to be terribly accurate.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Are you also an idiot?

Posting evidence that the US dropped 2 24MT nuclear bombs into a bog where one was lost completely and the other destroyed irrepairably...killing 3 crewmen in the process...

Is hardly evidence of a robust Nuclear Program.


Gawd, obviously the information completely flew over your head. Obviously I have proved you wrong about the Mk/B-41 US TN weapon, otherwise you would post some contrary information rather than change the subject completely. A typical tactic of idiots.
I posted that information as yet more evidence that the US deployed 20MT+ weapons. As the stated yields of the weapons were 24MT, they would have been B-41 weapons.
Your whole argument was that the US didn't deploy weapons of this size. Obviously they did, as not only my previous sources stated, ut the fact they were flying on beombers is indesputable.


It's obvious to anyone who reads the posts. Stop making a fool of yourself.

BTW. It is a testament to US safety standards that these weapons DID NOT go off, as they weren't armed. Take your arrogance elsewhere


[edit on 16-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   
shortmanx5, you are in the wrong.


Rogue1 has posted correct information from many sources, including GlobalSecurity.Org, which you said did not contain any information on this subject.

Where are your sources, anyway? - and don't give us the crap about 'working' with the weapons. I'm sick of that argument.


originally posted by Rogue1


The Mk/B-41 was the highest yield nuclear weapon ever deployed by the US. It was also the only three-stage thermonuclear weapon ever developed by the US, and it achieved the highest yield-to-weight ratio of any US weapon design. The B-41 was deployed in a a "dirty" version (the Y1, with a U-238 encased tertiary stage) and a "clean" version (the Y2, with a lead encased tertiary stage).

www.globalsecurity.org...




Here Rogue has given undeniable evidence that the Mk-41 was in fact deployed by the US of A; and from a very credible source.

He goes on to quote from two other, separate, external sources! Once again, I do not see any of your sources.


Shortmanx5, please do not waste your teachers time. While the rest of your year 8 class is learning, you're on a computer! Tut-tut.


edit: spellign

[edit on 16/3/2006 by watch_the_rocks]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
ok , this is the ATS equivilant of wrestling a muddy pig - but , i cannot let this one go :

QUOTE : "First of all a boomer never knows exactly where it is so it can't target anything smaller than a metropolis. It will only be within a few km accuracy."

submarines attempt to know EXACTLY where they are 24/7 - failure to do so leads to accidents like running into sub sea mountains , just ask the geenville


here are some external sources on submarine navigation systems

sub_nav

if a boomer is shallw enough to launch missiles , they are shallow enough to take GPS fixes

the accumulated errors of the INS and gyro compass are IRRELEVANT once they are at lauch position

does it not occur to you that unlike land based fixed silo weapons a sub has no idea where it will lauch from - this the missiles have to be programmed for the launch point and aim point , BEFORE launch

you have to kbnow where you are to it a BVR target , that is so dammed obvious , it beggars belief

come on its not rocket science - lol


next - and this is the huge flaw in you " logic " - the CEP of SLBM and silo based ICBM weapons is near identical

this is because it is dependant on the prescision of the missile - that is why older missiles had very large CEP figures - and modern missiles can hit the proverbial ` pickle barrel `

this is due to advances in missile guidance technology , NOT launch system navigation

here is the CEP for the W88 - as used on sub launched trident CEP=less_than_150M

here is the CEP for the "peacekeeper " one of the most advanced land based US wapons CEP=100M

now why is that - i assume the USAF know EXACTLY where thier silo farms are - lol , i dont mean to be so sarcastic , but you beg for it



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Wow that was a large post I cant respond to ever part right now but..


You would probably have been able if you did as much research as i have.


Not even getting into the source of this information. This is all highly speculative with no facts to back it up.


If you have a problem with my sources please state why and provide at least some evidence for your objections. If you can not manage as much it will be assumed that your objecting due to personal bias and nothing more. It is not highly speculative considering these are real people who all held high stations in their various countries. Why did you quote only one source and leave out the rest? Is it the only that had a suspicious enough looking title? If you can not manage better i suggest you engage your peers in discussion on BTS and elsewhere.


small nuclear warheads for ABM systems becuase they cant match the accuracy of US systems.



V-1000:First Soviet anti-ballistic missile system. Development began in 1956 and the system was tested at Sary Shagan 1960 to 1961. It was clear that enormous development work was needed to achieve an operational anti-ballistic missile system. Therefore work began on the successor A-35 system, although the Americans were led to believe that an operational system was deployed around Moscow. The System A anti-ballistic missile equipped with the V-1000 rocket made the first intercept and destruction in the world using a conventional warhead of an intermediate range ballistic missile warhead coming in at 3 km/s on 4 May 1961.

www.astronautix.com...



The V-1000 ABM was first seen in the public in 1963 when it was paraded on the Red Square and was retired from active service in the following year from yet undefined reasons, but It should be noted that the 5V28 "Volga" missile from the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) SAM system, which was also developed by Grushin's OKB, is considered to be a highly modified version of it.

warfare.ru...


So it is in fact not true and if we go by history as it's declared the Russians were in first to do it with the US only managing the same feat in 1985. It is the basis for the claim that the US were about 25 years behind the USSR in the field of ABM defenses.


There is no evidence of that becuase that would be breaking a number of international treaties.


There is a great deal of evidence and no one here is going to take you seriously if you do not specify your objections to claims as i quoted them. The USSR broke every treaty almost before they signed them. US politicians wanted arms reductions in certain fields so they just refuses to act on Soviet cheating.


Both Russia and the US only have a set number of nukes and it they start using large numbers for ABM systems thats even less to use on your enemy.


The USSR has far more capacity to produce nuclear weapons material so there is no logical reason for objection. They in fact had as many as 30 000 declared weapons in 1990.


You could say Russia is pumping out thousands of nuclear weapons in secret to arm their ABM system but that would just be wild speculation on your part.


No i do not have to claim that as they were using thousands on their ABM and SAM weapons anyways and you would have to prove why they would suddenly stop unless they no longer had a need to produce them.


Just imagine what the US could do with its own nuclear tipped ABM systems which evidence suggest are far more accurate then anything that has come out of Russia.


You have not the slightest idea of the subject matter and your clearly just hoping i go away before anyone notices. I am not going away and your ignorance will not go unnoticed by anyone. The longer you keep this up the more apparent it will become.


The US has been spending billions on Anti-missile technology going far beyond nuclear tipped missiles working with lasers and other advanced systems they arent setting their on their thumbs.


And according to the DIA and many others the Soviet union could have deployed ground based ABM lasers in the late 80's if not earlier.The US has spent billions but numbers is meaningless if your politicians subvery and destroy scientific efforts to employ known facts.


This is just absurd. The UK, Germany, Australia and loads of others arent going to stand by and let Russia attack them. "Oh thats the price we pay for having a US bases"


It is not absurd. The UK,Germany, Australi and everyone else had their fair share of missiles assigned if they stepped out of line.


That is just fantasy. Those Russian attacks on those countries would make the full force of NATO and a bunch of others come down on Russia.


I have noticed that you indulge in fantasy very frequently here but why assume the same is true for me? Your mirror imaging is what is leading you to the conclusion that i must be as ignorant of the topic matter as you are. It is not so and i will continue to back all my claims even if you never even bother.


Then we are getting into a Russia vs the world scenario


It would not be Russia 'vs' the world as most of the world were just looking for a oppertunity to escape American imperial oppression anyways.


The Soviets have never trusted China with good reason they dont keep buffer zones between them for nothing.


They have long since came to agreements on their border regions ( and lately settled all the disputes) and have moved massive formations of troops away from these regions in the last decade.


China is a waking hungry dragon growing ever more resource hungry and a half dead bear of Russia after nuclear war wouldnt stop it.


China does not imo stand much of a chance against Russia considering the weapons employed on either side. Thdy have been actively working together for near two decades and your just making this up as you go.


You talk of "Russia's mobile ICBM forces " countering any Chinese invasion
you could have no clue if they would even have a single nuclear weapon left after this full scale nuclear war with the West.


Iraqi scuds were still firing after every and all American efforts ( total and extreme air superiority did not seem to help- something that will never happen over Russia) during the first gulf war and i most point out that Russia is abit larger than Iraq. Your ignorance is vast and makes your claims uninformed and hopelessly biased.


Unless your factoring in the pure speculation of thousands of hiden nuclear weapons.


I do not have to but thanks for once again speculating about my motives instead of addressing my sources as a serious discussion partner would have by now.


China and India both have their own nuclear arsenals to counter anything Russia would have left and they could lose hundreds of millions and still have more people then Russia.


And you call what i have said so far speculation? I really suggest you check up on where India buys 75% of their military equipment. Then check where they stand politically. The term "BRIC" might help you.


China could muster a land army of 200 million and swarm across Russia like a plague locus.


Well if they did decide to go to war and were willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of lives trying they might have managed something. I for one think they would have failed badly but war is rather unpredictable.


But your scenario is fun


Fun? I am rather serious about Russian and Chinese preparations and so would you be if you cared to inform yourself.


Heres the jist of what your suggesting-------------------------------------------
Russia can fight a nuclear war with the US and suffer nearly no damage and retain its it's strategic forces and industrial power.


I suggested that they could keep their vital civilian and military infrastructure functioning in case of war with the US. How much damage they would suffer depends on very many factors that i have speculated about but can never truly be certain about. War is too damn unpredictable for certainties but what i can tell you for a fact is that Russia is vastly better prepared than the US to fight or defend from such strategic nuclear attacks.


It can also take on NATO as well and possibly ever other country that host a US base. While still retaining its strategic forces and industrial power
and heres the kicker


Well NATO had very few warheads and missiles compared to what the USSR prepared to face from the west. Just because the USSR nukes strategic American air bases does NOT mean those countries targetted will risk declaring war and suffering more of the same. Look at your history sir.


Its can also handle both India and China convential and nuclear forces as well after all these events
Well darn Russia is just amazing they might as well take over the world right now.


Russia would not have to handle either of these counties and your premise is as mostly always entirely false. Attacking strawmen is clearly something you love.

Russia settled with China and India ( and many others including France) a long time ago there would not be any risk from those unless Russia suffered serious defeats against NATO.

Why would any country want to take of the world phyisically or fight a war just because they could probably win in the end? Why risk so much when you can gain what you want only using your strategic strenght for the purpose of blackmail? It works as events have shown so far.

I can as always back each and every claim i made here with more sources than you can shack a great multitude of sticks at so unless your willing to cite the reasons for your claims so far your wasting my time and not contributing a damn thing to the discussion.

I really suggest you go play with your peers as your clearly not interested in mustering a serious defense of your claims.

Stellar

[edit on 16-3-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Gawd, what ridiculous rhetoric. If anything the DIA was controlled by it's " Wallstreet masters " as the DIA were the ones vastly overinflating the Soviet threat, which would benefit the military-industrial complex.


Buy since they were not overinflating the threat ( despite your CIA claims to the contrary) to any large extent , if at all, what are you claiming. The CIA were undermining DIA and other efforts to openly state what massive threat the USSR had become and it is only for us to discover what the motive was. Was Wall Street trying to undermine American strength in the world and if so who were their allies and what was the larger game plan? Don't let your ignorance and bias get in the way of following the trail wherever it seems to be leading. All control of economic matters is in the end about CONTROL and it's lunacy to hoard meaningless printed money as your economic logic would dictate.


You really need a lesson in economics.


Economics is about power and power is not a function of the ammount of money or resources alone but also of who and what you can control with it. If money/resources do not buy you control it is meaningless.



In 1981, and then from 1983 through 1990, the Department of Defense issued annually a lavishly illustrated publication titled Soviet Military Power. It presented an ominous picture of a massive Soviet military buildup, without adequate indication of countervailing American and NATO military forces or programs.


Which was largely accurate ( and far far more so than CIA estimates of the Soviet strategic buildup.


Although based on national intelligence (plus uncoordinated Defense Department analysis), the data were selected and embellished to magnify the impression of a threat and to rally support for the US military buildup.


A blatent lie if one looks at my last post and how the CIA lied repeatedly in just those few instances you suggested i work with.


DIA prepared Soviet Military Power, with informal consultation with CIA (and other) analysts, but the series was not coordinated nor was it an intelligence product; it was a Department of Defense public information publication.


And still it was more accurate than anything the CIA came up with to reflect Soviet strategic moves and weapon deployment.


By 1982, the strategic research analysts at CIA had discovered a disturbing trend in the annual NIEs estimating Soviet strategic capabilities: the aforementioned consistent overestimation of strategic forces modernization and enhancement of capabilities since the mid-1970s

www.cia.gov...


Just plain lies as reading my previous post would have indicated to any interested party.


LOL, pointless attacks ? the Team B data was ovinflated by a large margin.


It was not and please address my previous post which deals with your ( and the CIA's) ludicrous lies and misinformation.


Is it a pointless attack, because it disputes your information
SAD. It is widely known that Team were skewing their results, only people who stick they're head in teh sand don't see that.


IT is a pointless attack because the CIA knew they were covering up the Soviet build-up so that America might lose clout in the world thus opening it up to socialism and communism and all the bounty that brings to big business. The only person who are sticking his head in the sand here is you as your willingly becoming party to lying about why Russia is currently in the dominant position it is in. You are lying about the history that made it possible just to cover your own ignorance on the topic.


The Team B estimate was what spurred the DIA to produce it's works of fiction entitled Soviet Military Power.


IT really is not but since all you do is lie, and lie some more, what is one more lie from your side.

The DIA estimates are NOT the basis of my arguments ( or the basis for current Russian strenght) so why on gods earth do you keep harping about it? Is your position so weak that you must bargain on the ignorance of others to maintain your perilous position?

Address my claims with counter claims ( If your going to use the CIA at least defend their claims when it's clear they never bothered) and do not for a moment imagine i will let you get away with your deliberate obfuscation anymore than i did the last ten times you attempted it.

Stellar

[edit on 16-3-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So it is in fact not true and if we go by history as it's declared the Russians were in first to do it with the US only managing the same feat in 1985. It is the basis for the claim that the US were about 25 years behind the USSR in the field of ABM defenses.


Hmm


The Nike Zeus B was a completely new missile, which shared only the guidance method and first stage booster with the Nike Zeus A. Because it was designed to intercept its targets in space, it did not need large manoeuvering fins. Instead the missile featured a special third stage with small control jets to manoeuver in space. The first three-stage flight of a Nike Zeus B occurred in September 1961. In July 1962, a Nike Zeus B succeeded in intercepting an Atlas ICBM nose cone. By the end of 1963, more than a dozen reentry vehicles had been successfully intercepted. Source [1] says that the designation XLIM-49B was allocated to the Nike Zeus B in 1963. However, as said above, it is also very possible (even likely!) that Nike Zeus B was actually the XLIM-49A.

In May 1963, a modified Nike Zeus B missile intercepted an orbiting satellite. From June 1963 until May 1966, a Nike Zeus B with a live nuclear warhead was always on alert at the Kwajalein launch complex for possible interception of Soviet satellites.

www.astronautix.com...


NOw that's an ABM missile, it can even take out satellites, in the early 60's as well



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

You really need a lesson in economics.


Economics is about power and power is not a function of the ammount of money or resources alone but also of who and what you can control with it. If money/resources do not buy you control it is meaningless.


Like I said, you need to educate yourself





Although based on national intelligence (plus uncoordinated Defense Department analysis), the data were selected and embellished to magnify the impression of a threat and to rally support for the US military buildup.


A blatent lie if one looks at my last post and how the CIA lied repeatedly in just those few instances you suggested i work with.


Hmmm, this is a modern day article written by the CIA, they have no reason to embellish anything.
Funny how, you think the CIA is full of it, whilst the sun shines out of the DIA a.. lol.
You haven't proven #e and you rantings are getting tedious and mundane

//sigh// Why don't you find some modern day accurate sources rather than relying on the very documents which were exaggerated and falsified.
Some of teh claims are complete bogus, such as the Soviet Union having a space battle statio by 1990 with a US style shuttle program etc. Just one of many examples.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Guys, it's really not hard to understand that Rogue1 is confused; look past the sources (which I've proved his strongest sources to be completely wrong and misleading in another thread).

For instance; Rogue1 stated that the US deployed a 24ish MT bomb...one of his sources detailed the history of this development.

It ended in a disaster as the plane fell apart and both test Nukes were lost.

The US never successfully deployed a bomb higher than 1MT yield; first of all there's no point...second of all the US has just not pursued it.

There's a big difference between Deployment and Development; Rogue1 is a child with a box of matches...he doesn't know what he's talking about and it's observable through-out his posts by the words he chooses to describe an event.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Guys, it's really not hard to understand that Rogue1 is confused; look past the sources (which I've proved his strongest sources to be completely wrong and misleading in another thread).


LOL, you haven't proved anything at all - what are you talking about
I haven't even used the Bulletin to prove you wrong here LMAO.
You can't even provide one source to anything you claim, I mean come on, I feel like I'm talking to a retard.



For instance; Rogue1 stated that the US deployed a 24ish MT bomb...one of his sources detailed the history of this development.

It ended in a disaster as the plane fell apart and both test Nukes were lost.


Gawd, you are stupid, the plane had an accident - it wasn't like it fell apart due to the bombs - are you a moron LMAO.



The US never successfully deployed a bomb higher than 1MT yield; first of all there's no point...second of all the US has just not pursued it.


Another completely wrong statement, I'm starting to wonder if you're doing this on purpose, no one could be as stupid as you make yourself out to be

The US had more than a few bombs of multi-megaton yield. Maybe pictures are easier for you to understand. In this graph high yield weapons are thos over 4.5MT.



U.S. nuclear warheads with yield over 4.5 megatons (table)

Actually read the whol site, you will learn a hell of alot nd stop wasting my time with BS.



There's a big difference between Deployment and Development; Rogue1 is a child with a box of matches...he doesn't know what he's talking about and it's observable through-out his posts by the words he chooses to describe an event.


You really are stupid, you either can't read or can't assimilate information
You obviously don't understand what deployed means


Why don't you look up what deployed means


[edit on 16-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Man, what an orgy of delusional paranoia. Medication and professional treatment is definitely in order.

Just take the print outs to your neighbourhood shrink and hope for the best.

Here are a few words from the sane side of the planet, clearly showing why Russians are building modernised bunkers. No great conspiracy or freaking mystery here.

www.aip.org...

www.washingtonpost.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.commondreams.org...

When Bush through out arms treaties that took decades to negotiate in order to juice up failing economy by handing out contracts to his buddies in the defense industry, it's called a instigated arms race.

"To think we were all so sure we were going to have decades of world peace when the cold war ended!I think evil is just in the Russian government naturally,it is sort of inherent.No matter what happens or if they claim to be a democracy they will always be scum and now they have a new tool against world peace..Iran."

OrchidLunar, are you a racist biget or just plain stupid? I recon it's both, but there is always hope.

The notion that the collapse of the USSR was faked is unbelievably insane. People passed the same crap about the Third Rich for decades, calming that Hitler faked his own death as a plan to deploy his "wonder weapon". Good good some people are just hopeless backwards.

JamesinOz, you know nothing of Russian history. It is clear by your notion that Peter the Great was a dictator. Your whole post is swamp of ignorance, and I feel dirty from reading it.

JamesinOz is again verbalising out of his uninformed anus.

"Those lucky Europeans got their first taste of the Sino-Russian WW111 with the shock gas stoppages conducted by Russia earlier this winter."

The reference is obviously about the Russian refusal to supply Ukraine with free propane, and requiring Ukraine to pay market pricing for the product. Russia did not shut the gas off, but lowered the pressure to the levels Ukraine actually payed for. Ukraine syphoned the pipeline for years, selling it to EU "on the side", and when the "free lunch" was over, after they became the free democratic US wannabe, in order to keep their industrial sector running, they cut the gas to their population and limited European quota delivery, attempting to extort the private Russian energy company into signing the contract on their terms.

James Daniel, satellite "blinding" your referring to is called OSC (orbital seeding capsule). Original concept was developed in USSR, after Regan's comical bluff on "Star Wars". Maybe he though Russians didn't see the movie. Russians came up with an idea of "seeding" aluminum dust from capsules brought into orbit by Proton, effectively delivery over 44000 pounds of the stuff. I don't remember the coverage area of a single delivery, but in couple or runs they can blanket the orbit with aluminum "cloud", which wipes everything in it's path as soon as it reaches orbital velocity, prevents launches of additional missiles, effectively jams all comm, and also hangs in orbit for +/- 40 years before descending and burning up in the atmosphere.

Oh gee, should have known, Rouge is here. Not interested.

By Nakash

"I suggest people here read Russian folk tales and fairy tales. Do it. You will be amazed at how much blood, carnage and violence is present. It is a reflection of Russia's history in which periodically million died at a time due to tyrants, invasions, etc. Very interesting really."

What the hell was that? Violence and carnage in Russian folk tales? Anybody watched US TV lately, movies? You got to be kidding me. Oh it just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

ShadowXIX,

"Its the classic offense vs defense evolution. You make a better bunker and somebody will make a better bunker buster "

Look it up, it's EXACTLY the other way around. The sentence is backwards anyway.

offense-bunker / defense-bunker buster.

In other words,

offense - stepping away /defense- leaning in to deliver a punch. WTF.

denythestatusquo went totally Freudian.

"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. "

I can only hope it's another expression of sarcasm.

I remember StellarX, distinct delusional paranoid tendencies.

Simply put, some people are stuck in the cold war Russian bear will kill us all era, are just like people who are stuck in Elvis land and Disco. We can't help them, and should just leave them alone to live out their fantasy. Some guys will always think that wars are fought for something other then profit, and the guy that waves the biggest stick wins. Same guys also think that romancing a woman is saying something like "I'm gonna slip my beaf in your taco." It's just the way it is.

Stratrf_Rus,

Just quit Rouge1, I did, some time ago. Take my word for it, don't even try. I gave it a good kick, and ended up putting Rouge1 on the ignore list. It's no use. Sorry. He is fatally impenetrable. It will only aggravate you, like a dog that never learns and keeps running into a glass door. There is a moment of pity and concern there, but then it just gets annoying.

edit: spelling dang it.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by iskander]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
^^^ Hmm is it a full moon, the weirdo is back again. LOL at your post, your arrogance is matched only by your delusional stupidity, maybe that's why no one really bothers reading your posts.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join