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.

 

Russia's new submarine launched ballastic missile fails.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man
they are definitely not feigning weaknesses.

the bulava is being rushed through .


Why do you say this?


no weakness is being feigned though it was very well feigned during soviet era, if you are talking about ABM defences like s-300, it is not power or numbers or tech which matters it is the recon,hen house radars are ABM battle managment radars ,


Agreed and i made that expressly clear in dozens of my previous posts...


and they are very old .


So is the house i live in....


but, yes civil defence is much better for LEADERSHIP ONLY


Not true as far as online source material goes. Most urban residents of the USSR had good evacuation routes ( by means of well laid out cities) or if that failed could hide in the ample shelter space beneath every factory and multi story residential building constructed after 1960.


,but the recon has deteriorated severely. there has been major change in russian doctrine...


I would like to see what reading material has brought you to this conclusion as i have shown in the past that the Russians have ample passive and active EW assets which would easily warn them of any large scale nuclear attack; limited attacks will be relatively easily blunted by their ABM defenses.


'''WRM: Nevertheless, it seems that your military forces are in such a state that modernization could fail, become too costly or even reach a state where modernization is strategically unintelligent.


I don't see how anyone who knows what equipment the Russian army operates can agree with this statement. It might serve well to fool a largely ignorant audience and is imo clearly aimed at such ...


IK: The current Russian army is going to be scrapped. We’ll dismantle tanks, aircrafts, navy and so on. Even our nuclear missiles are going to be scrapped. We are preparing for a huge rearmament. Not just another military reform, but building a new fighting force almost from scratch. We plan to finish it before 2010. It will not just be a Russian or Chinese force, .

www.worldthreats.com...


Not sure what to make of such a hopelessly vague and mostly crazy announcement. No country on Earth could rebuild what the Russian army now operates in five or even twenty years and i don't understand why it's even necessary considering the superiority in many instances of those systems over likely counterparts.


so you understand why bulava is being rushed.. russians are preparing for a major rearmament...


It's not being rushed and if something was being rushed it would not be this system as Russia already holds a clear and large strategic weapon advantage. They are in fact spending far more resources and efforts on their land mobile ICBMs as has been their habit for some decades now.

Stellar




posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
[edit on 11-11-2006 by vK_man]



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by vK_man




'''WRM: Nevertheless, it seems that your military forces are in such a state that modernization could fail, become too costly or even reach a state where modernization is strategically unintelligent.


I don't see how anyone who knows what equipment the Russian army operates can agree with this statement. It might serve well to fool a largely ignorant audience and is imo clearly aimed at such ...


IK: The current Russian army is going to be scrapped. We’ll dismantle tanks, aircrafts, navy and so on. Even our nuclear missiles are going to be scrapped. We are preparing for a huge rearmament. Not just another military reform, but building a new fighting force almost from scratch. We plan to finish it before 2010. It will not just be a Russian or Chinese force, .

www.worldthreats.com...


Not sure what to make of such a hopelessly vague and mostly crazy announcement. No country on Earth could rebuild what the Russian army now operates in five or even twenty years and i don't understand why it's even necessary considering the superiority in many instances of those systems over likely counterparts.

Stellar


Ivan krutov was a high level officer in former KGB and acc. to him russian missile forces are in ruins .....


and you are not a intelligience officer , who's dedicated to restoration of communism.... he has links within the GRU....

he's known on NBP websites and sovietempireforum



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by vK_man



,but the recon has deteriorated severely. there has been major change in russian doctrine...


I would like to see what reading material has brought you to this conclusion as i have shown in the past that the Russians have ample passive and active EW assets which would easily warn them of any large scale nuclear attack; limited attacks will be relatively easily blunted by their ABM defenses.


'''WRM: Nevertheless, it seems that your military forces are in such a state that modernization could fail, become too costly or even reach a state where modernization is strategically unintelligent.


I don't see how anyone who knows what equipment the Russian army operates can agree with this statement. It might serve well to fool a largely ignorant audience and is imo clearly aimed at such ...


IK: The current Russian army is going to be scrapped. We’ll dismantle tanks, aircrafts, navy and so on. Even our nuclear missiles are going to be scrapped. We are preparing for a huge rearmament. Not just another military reform, but building a new fighting force almost from scratch. We plan to finish it before 2010. It will not just be a Russian or Chinese force, .

www.worldthreats.com...


Not sure what to make of such a hopelessly vague and mostly crazy announcement. No country on Earth could rebuild what the Russian army now operates in five or even twenty years and i don't understand why it's even necessary considering the superiority in many instances of those systems over likely counterparts.



Stellar


they lost their nuclear advantage and Ivan krutov wass a high level offiecer in KGB

he knows things far better than you



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
[


I don't see how anyone who knows what equipment the Russian army operates can agree with this statement. It might serve well to fool a largely ignorant audience and is imo clearly aimed at such ...


IK: The current Russian army is going to be scrapped. We’ll dismantle tanks, aircrafts, navy and so on. Even our nuclear missiles are going to be scrapped. We are preparing for a huge rearmament. Not just another military reform, but building a new fighting force almost from scratch. We plan to finish it before 2010. It will not just be a Russian or Chinese force, .

www.worldthreats.com...


Not sure what to make of such a hopelessly vague and mostly crazy announcement. No country on Earth could rebuild what the Russian army now operates in five or even twenty years and i don't understand why it's even necessary considering the superiority in many instances of those systems over likely counterparts.





they lost their nuclear advantage and Ivan krutov wass a high level offiecer in KGB

he knows things far better than you

he arsenal of russia is past its life and so its conventional forces




[edit on 11-11-2006 by vK_man]



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Interesting that the new upcoming Russian Borei class SSBN is supposed to be equipped with the Bulava, not too reassuring if you ask me. And as another poster said this is being rushed and the naval arm of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal does not appear to be as sound as their land based one.

Link



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
You should ask around if you have trouble with posting as what your currently doing is not going to work in the long run.



Originally posted by vK_man
they lost their nuclear advantage and Ivan krutov wass a high level offiecer in KGB


So is there a chance for a list of what strategic weapons Russia operates today? He should have a list somewhere if his interested in others double checking his claims. Stanislav Lunev was the HIGHEST ranking intelligence officer to defect and his claims is quite different. Your opinion on that?


he knows things far better than you


I am quite sure that he does but is he telling us the truth or isn't he? Knowing the truth and telling it are widely different matters so do tell me more about the man as google ( which has been good to me in the past) is not being very helpful in this case...


and you are not a intelligience officer , who's dedicated to restoration of communism.... he has links within the GRU....


Communism was not something Russians wanted to start with and it was imposed on them by outside forces so anyone who is trying to restore such in Russia today should not speak up in intelligent conversation.


he's known on NBP websites and sovietempireforum


Well good for him; is he known anywhere else?I have been accused of being a communist lackey more times than i can count but in the future i could in all honesty say that i have never been to the soviet empire forum where a good many such people reside it seems.



they lost their nuclear advantage and Ivan krutov wass a high level offiecer in KGB


When did they lose it and why do so many western intelligence agencies still credit them with technically superior forces on paper while loudly proclaiming their backwardness and general weakness? Is he doing the same and if so who is he working for? I know many parties are lying but the pictured i formed after some time investigating the issue leads me to believe that estimations of Russia's strategic nuclear force decline has been greatly exaggerated with no mention of their RF weapons or national ABM defenses which would blunt or simply absorb a American nuclear strike.


he arsenal of russia is past its life and so its conventional forces


If he really made this claim his clearly not telling the truth.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

he arsenal of russia is past its life and so its conventional forces


If he really made this claim his clearly not telling the truth.

Stellar


When did they lose it and why do so many western intelligence agencies still credit them with technically superior forces on paper while loudly proclaiming their backwardness and general weakness? Is he doing the same and if so who is he working for


Stanislav ? Krutov is a scientist ... read the source i gave you... most russian nuclear arsenal is past its age its arsenal only 360 ss-19,40 ss-18 ,300 ss-25 and 45 ss-27 remain...
Unless there are nukes stored in yamantau mountain or other underground bases
www.thebulletin.org...



If he really made this claim his clearly not telling the truth.


he said in 2003 that CIA has plans for former soviet republics (deploy bases) and cruise missiles he has seen CIA demographic maps and crusie missile beacons...already CIA sponsered colour revolutions have took in ukraine,georgia and they could integrated into NATO (encircelment of russia)....

most conventional forces of russia are beyond service life except tanks(t-72 and t-80 ,artiillery and missiles

Krutov wants a sort of combat force which will make Russia invulnerable..

his website:
thefinalphase.boom.ru...



I know many parties are lying but the pictured i formed after some time investigating the issue leads me to believe that estimations of Russia's strategic nuclear force decline has been greatly exaggerated with no mention of their RF weapons or national ABM defenses which would blunt or simply absorb a American nuclear strike.


most nuclear warheads need maintainence unless they are pure fusion red mercury ones.. krutov calls it himoyad in russian..again read the source (his interview) i gave u
and there are rumors that to reduce costs russians are removeing nuclear warheads in SAM's and replacing it with virtual cathode oscillator warheads (can create powerful localised EMP fields..) .... officially they state that they are putting conventional warheads... and S-300 is mainly meant for destroying cruise missiles and medium range missiles ... Krutov thinks they have lost the capabilty to win a nuclear war after soviet collapse ...yes he is a maximalist who underestimates russian capability .... and I think you greatly overestimate it.. if it were USSR i would have believed that russia would defeat usa in nuclear war(because of civil defence)
.. but not now
a lot of analysts like nyquist seem to be CIA agents whipping up lies and propaganda

also auroras can carries 6 nukes and could destroy their remaining early warning radars which remain in service ... most radars are very old also trident d-5 can reach moscow and other northern regions in 8 minutes from norway... there would not enough time to determine or clarify that a nuclear strike is being launched

some info on virtual cathode ray oscillator:
www.spectrum.ieee.org...



Communism was not something Russians wanted to start with and it was imposed on them by outside forces so anyone who is trying to restore such in Russia today should not speak up in intelligent conversation


Today many russian people want a leader like zhukov or stalin and freedom of religion (not atheism forced)
see the economic conditons in many regions of russia is bad(towns and villages),though economy is growing
even orthodox Priests in russia think they need a hybrid system...

sorry i answered late their were some problems and i am mostly on pravda english forum
engforum.pravda.ru...

[edit on 25-11-2006 by vK_man]

[edit on 25-11-2006 by vK_man]

[edit on 25-11-2006 by vK_man]

[edit on 25-11-2006 by vK_man]

[edit on 25-11-2006 by vK_man]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man
]he arsenal of russia is past its life and so its conventional forces


The US arsenal ( land based at least) is far older and it's current deterrence rests entirely on about a fourteen systems ( Ohio class subs) which is IMO playing with fire. Why would anyone put their strategic security at risk in this way is quite beyond me.


Stanislav ?


Stanislav Lunev , and it's not hard to find material on him

www.newsmax.com...


Krutov is a scientist ... read the source i gave you... most russian nuclear arsenal is past its age


Like the Minutemen? If you want to talk about old ICBM's you should look at the current American force structure and possible discover how ironic it is that they withdrew the newer "Peacekeeper' from service while keeping the rest.... Both sides can and do maintain their nuclear forces but only one side is currently deploying road mobile systems that can be reloaded while being almost impossible to find.


its arsenal only 360 ss-19,40 ss-18 ,300 ss-25 and 45 ss-27 remain...
Unless there are nukes stored in yamantau mountain or other underground bases
www.thebulletin.org...


We don't know what's going on the the Yamantau mountains but we don't have to to see that current Russian strategic forces are ( according to western defense establishments figures anyways) superior on the whole not to mention that the USA do not operate a known ABM force while the Russians has thousands.


he said in 2003 that CIA has plans for former soviet republics (deploy bases) and cruise missiles he has seen CIA demographic maps and crusie missile beacons...already CIA sponsered colour revolutions have took in ukraine,georgia and they could integrated into NATO (encircelment of russia)....


And if you asked me that in 2003 i would have given you much the same response based entirely on my rather limited understanding of the world at the time; it hardly takes degrees on some kind of security to know the obvious...


most conventional forces of russia are beyond service life except tanks(t-72 and t-80 ,artiillery and missiles


No more beyond their services lives than what they will face on European battlefields so i fail to understand the logic involved? Everyone fights with equipment that is older than they like but this is some kind of unique problem in the Russian defense forces?


Krutov wants a sort of combat force which will make Russia invulnerable..

his website:
thefinalphase.boom.ru...


Did he really create that website? How old is he as that really does not seem to be the work of a mature well informed person? Where did he get the idea that one can construct a combat force that is somehow invulnerable? I am getting the distinct impression that your not quoting him very accurately or at all...


most nuclear warheads need maintainence unless they are pure fusion red mercury ones.. krutov calls it himoyad in russian.


Which is the same for all countries and the Russians have had rather more warheads overall for the last few decades; how many of those remain in storage or 'maintained' is not something i care to speculate about beyond quoting western defense sources which tend to be conservative in their estimates. I don't understand how it makes economic sense to build entirely new ICBM's but fail to upgrade and or maintain older weapons and only the corporate media can sell such obvious inconsistencies as truth.


.again read the source (his interview) i gave u
and there are rumors that to reduce costs russians are removeing nuclear warheads in SAM's and replacing it with virtual cathode oscillator warheads (can create powerful localised EMP fields..) .... officially they state that they are putting conventional warheads...


The USSR managed to intercept LRBM types with conventional explosive warheads back in 1961 so the nuclear warheads have always been at least partly redundant on weapons such as the S-200 and S-300; just gave that added margin of safety that the loss of tracking and targeting infrastructure might require. That being said a Sa-2 with proper targeting data and a nuclear warhead would have at least a marginal capability against the US ICBM force back in the 60's and 70's.


and S-300 is mainly meant for destroying cruise missiles and medium range missiles ...


Actually cruise missile defense at 150 -300 km ranges ( S-300 and S-200 ranges ) are very hard considering the tracking problems and they are normally countered by use of far cheaper and shorter range systems while the S-300 is reserved for strategic ABM defense or long range air defense and denial.


Krutov thinks they have lost the capabilty to win a nuclear war after soviet collapse ...


Based on the admitted strategic forces operated by either side at the time ( and now) i am not sure how he could reach that conclusion; it's certainly not what i have found.


yes he is a maximalist who underestimates russian capability .... and I think you greatly overestimate it..


Then his claims must stem from source material beyond my reach as what is in the public domain certainly indicates that Russia has the strategic edge...


if it were USSR i would have believed that russia would defeat usa in nuclear war(because of civil defence)
.. but not now


The USSR had active and passive defense in case of a nuclear war to say nothing of their active deterrence forces. The passive means are still there ( lending them a great advantage) while the active part is by no means inferior and in my opinion quite superior.


a lot of analysts like nyquist seem to be CIA agents whipping up lies and propaganda


The CIA have since the 1960's spent it's time lying about true Soviet capabilities and thus i wonder if the news max crowd works for the CIA considering how little we hear about the might the Russian federation has retained in the corporate media that normally helps spread CIA propaganda.


also auroras can carries 6 nukes and could destroy their remaining early warning radars which remain in service ...


I did not know any Aurora's were in fact in service but supposing that you could show that they were a legitimate threat how do you think they will reach their targets without being intercepted by the ground based plasma and laser and RF weapons Russia has been operating for some decades now? There are most certainly more evidence for those types of Russian weaponry than for the aurora type airplanes so lets consider those EW as rather survivable even against the fastest 'secret' airplanes the US may or may not operate. Also those radars used to provide centralized tracking and and EW as well as targeting allocation but now individual S-300 batteries have the processing power to do that task in relative isolation...


most radars are very old also trident d-5 can reach moscow and other northern regions in 8 minutes from norway... there would not enough time to determine or clarify that a nuclear strike is being launched


The closer the Ohio the flatter the Trident trajectory and the easier the targeting solution for Russian ABM defenses.


Today many russian people want a leader like zhukov or stalin and freedom of religion (not atheism forced)


Zhukov or Stalin? Where did you get that idea from or the one that there is not religious freedom in Russia?


see the economic conditons in many regions of russia is bad(towns and villages),though economy is growing
even orthodox Priests in russia think they need a hybrid system...


Trust the church to wish for the olden times.... Economic conditions are hard for the majority of the world's populations and it's hardly unique to Russia considering what that country has gone trough in the last century.... The international bankers are past experts when it comes to destroying economies all over the world and the Russian civilian economy was in no state to resist the type of reform the so called international reformers had in mind.


sorry i answered late their were some problems and i am mostly on pravda english forum
engforum.pravda.ru...


I have nothing against Pravda, I used to read the online English version daily for six months, but i am almost sure you could invest your time in a more constructive way?

Stellar

[edit on 2-12-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
test a failure? thats no good. now they'll learn from their mistakes.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by vK_man
]he arsenal of russia is past its life and so its conventional forces






We don't know what's going on the the Yamantau mountains but we don't have to to see that current Russian strategic forces are ( according to western defense establishments figures anyways) superior on the whole not to mention that the USA do not operate a known ABM force while the Russians has thousands.


he said in 2003 that CIA has plans for former soviet republics (deploy bases) and cruise missiles he has seen CIA demographic maps and crusie missile beacons...already CIA sponsered colour revolutions have took in ukraine,georgia and they could integrated into NATO (encircelment of russia)....




his website:
thefinalphase.boom.ru...









Like the Minutemen? If you want to talk about old ICBM's you should look at the current American force structure and possible discover how ironic it is that they withdrew the newer "Peacekeeper' from service while keeping the rest.... Both sides can and do maintain their nuclear forces but only one side is currently deploying road mobile systems that can be reloaded while being almost impossible to find.






yeah , minuteman is being heavily upgrading ,new propulsion and accuracy system... accuracy increased from 220 cep to 120 cep




Did he really create that website? How old is he as that really does not seem to be the work of a mature well informed person?


the diagrams and photos are enough ... not everyone divulges state secrets... like the AYAKS ..
read his articles on xakep , most of his articles are on cybernetics,technocracy and military weapons ... he has many articles on xakep(underground electronic underground electronic magazine, “Hacker”

www.xakep.ru
(tranaslate them )






Where did he get the idea that one can construct a combat force that is somehow invulnerable? I am getting the distinct impression that your not quoting him very accurately or at all...


simple ,acheive a successful first strike .. in fact krutov said in 2003 that they are going concentrate more on smaller subs with long range crusie missiles like kh-101 ,kh-102 etc... kh-102 with marabu stealth generator and also on sub -kt nukes meant to destroy strategic facilties..

these options would be cheaper and cruise missiles with marabu ...
unstoppable





superior on the whole not to mention that the USA do not operate a known ABM force while the Russians has thousands.


rather no russian recon sys are hoplessly outdated. and russians are dismantling the tactical nukes and ss-24 (which was a missile capable of low detection probablity as per analysis of krutov and a major technolgical breakthrough has been destroyed)

another interview of krutov:



One of them introduced himself as Colonel Krutov, Commander-in-Chief of RRA Detachments in Moscow and the Moscow Region, the two others, as Chief of Staff Colonel Ublyumkin and RRA Chief Expert Dr. Zaitsev. I asked them several questions and received exhaustive answers.

www.exile.ru...







Zhukov or Stalin? Where did you get that idea from or the one that there is not religious freedom in Russia?


well, during khrushchev and good part of stalin era
and read more on regions like north ossetia, and southern russia , not on cities , you will understand

[edit on 20-12-2006 by vK_man]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
There are still 3 other countries hostile to us that have nuclear weapons: Pakistan, NK and Iran. Musharraf, Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad don't care about international treaties.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man
yeah , minuteman is being heavily upgrading ,new propulsion and accuracy system... accuracy increased from 220 cep to 120 cep


Not sure how much you can still alter such a basically old system ( Nothing in the Russian strategic arsenal is that old) but i presume one can at least increase accuracy and fuel efficiency and thus increasing overall efficiency? I just do not think it's really cheap to do it this way ( Russia can still afford deploying entirely new strategic weapon systems with it's so called meager funds) but that probably does not matter when you have 500 000 000 000 to waste as efficiently as you can..



the diagrams and photos are enough ... not everyone divulges state secrets... like the AYAKS ..


I was referring to the layout and such things...


read his articles on xakep , most of his articles are on cybernetics,technocracy and military weapons ... he has many articles on xakep(underground electronic underground electronic magazine, “Hacker”


I can't read Russian and it's no use to me if his work is still mostly in Russian as i can not expect to defend my arguments on this forum with such hard to come by information...


www.xakep.ru
(tranaslate them )


Thanks anyways...


simple ,acheive a successful first strike .. in fact krutov said in 2003 that they are going concentrate more on smaller subs with long range crusie missiles like kh-101 ,kh-102 etc... kh-102


First strike by SLBM or such does not guarantee that the other side will not get most of it's missiles launched anyways so first strike in a nuclear war assumes that you destroy the enemies ability to make decisions inside the 10 minutes that even a SLBM would take to arrive... Stanislav Lunev had much to say, before the US congress so this is not mere idle speculation, about micro nukes being deployed all over the US ( to assassinate political figures and decision makers) so the first strike strategic weaponry were not the main issue imo.

Cruise missiles takes very long to arrive at leaves the enemy with very many options even if he just detects the launching platforms ( 3000 km range cruise missile at mach 2 is still more than a hours worth not counting the bombers dash in speed) that far out. Submarines are expensive and drains you in operation costs ( tens of millions per boat per year) while ICBM does not and Russia would have to design a entirely new range of submarines to deliver these cruise missiles close enough to the American coast to ensure relative prompt arrival. I don't believe all the propaganda about America's ASW capability ( by hunter sub or by Helli/frigate) being so great but that could certainly be creating a force that the US could possibly efficiently counter with current infrastructure...


with marabu stealth generator and also on sub -kt nukes meant to destroy strategic facilties..


I have no problem with plasma stealth technology but once again it's a active defense which hardly helps you respond to your own country being devastated? Russia has plenty of weaponry with which to devastate the USA but that it's their active and passive defenses that gives them a real strategic edge imo.


these options would be cheaper and cruise missiles with marabu ...
unstoppable


I don't believe in 'unstoppable' weaponry and i am sure that if Americans were aware of the threats they faced today they would insist that they be properly defended by PASSIVE means.


rather no russian recon sys are hoplessly outdated.


They are not recon systems and they have been effectively replaced by systems with more capabilities over the last decade. Remember that those large arrays were built back in the days when the processing power of individual batteries were not enough to deal with tracking and targeting but that have changed dramatically in the last two decades... All those remaining systems are still required to do is to warn of a massive American ICBM strike as a American strike from strategic bombers or Ohio's ( strikes would be fragmented with wrong types of warheads and yields) will not do much to deter Russia's capacity to wage and win the war.


and russians are dismantling the tactical nukes and ss-24 (which was a missile capable of low detection probablity as per analysis of krutov and a major technolgical breakthrough has been destroyed)
another interview of krutov:


There is no known American ABM system so no stealth is required for the SS-24 or any other ICBM or SLBM. They did not deploy more than 40 or so rail based SS-24's anyways and their loss does no impact Russia's strategic abilities. Remember that new Topol-m's have been introduced and that the SS-18/SS-19's/SS-25's could be kept in services for decades to come...

Once again Krutov seems to think that the USSR needs more firepower when it most certainly does not!



One of them introduced himself as Colonel Krutov, Commander-in-Chief of RRA Detachments in Moscow and the Moscow Region, the two others, as Chief of Staff Colonel Ublyumkin and RRA Chief Expert Dr. Zaitsev. I asked them several questions and received exhaustive answers.
www.exile.ru...


After reading that i am felt i have wasted my time actually treating Krutev as a informed party. You can do MUCH MUCH better than Krutov to defend what you have chosen to believe and i suggest you make no more mention of him in polite conversation. ( Ff anyone wants to read the last 10 paragraphs on that page you will understand my motivation)


well, during khrushchev and good part of stalin era
and read more on regions like north ossetia, and southern russia , not on cities , you will understand


The reason Southern Russian has such problems is mainly due to western funding ( then and now) of radical Islamic factions with which to destabilize these majority Islamic provinces of the former USSR. The USSR have had relative religious freedom ( certainly more than Israel, Turkey, much of the middle east ) since the late 70's as far as my knowledge goes. You can find some interesting statements by western religious leaders saying as much and if it was not for one rabidly anti soviet polish pope this would have been obvious long ago. Remember that even back during the second world war churches were opened again as Stalin new that these things would count in a extended war with Germany...

Stellar

[edit on 27-12-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Not sure how much you can still alter such a basically old system ( Nothing in the Russian strategic arsenal is that old) but i presume one can at least increase accuracy and fuel efficiency and thus increasing overall efficiency?


The upgraded Minuteman missile will have little in common with it's classical counterpart, virtually everything (that matters at least) it being upgraded and improved. Propulsion, guidance warheads, etc... Personally though I find this to be a dumb move on the part of our civilian leadership. We had the state of the art Peacekeeper ready to go into mass production with limited numbers already fielded but for reason I still have yet to fathom we decide to scrap it and waste more money on the LGM-30, which is not even a viable long term system past 2020.


Originally posted by StellarX
I just do not think it's really cheap to do it this way ( Russia can still afford deploying entirely new strategic weapon systems with it's so called meager funds) but that probably does not matter when you have 500 000 000 000 to waste as efficiently as you can..


I don’t think it's an issue of money but rather one of doctrine and priority. We still rely on the nuclear triad, air, land and sea, the LGM-30 is good enough and with our other two branches having excellent nuclear capability there is no urgency to replace the Minuteman. Not saying I agree with that mindset just saying that's how I view it. If we wanted to we could of produced the Peacekeeper or done a one missile fits all thing like you guys by developing a land based version of the Trident II.

[edit on 27-12-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The upgraded Minuteman missile will have little in common with it's classical counterpart, virtually everything (that matters at least) it being upgraded and improved.


I'm just of the opinion that somewhere in that thirty of forty year old frame something might go wrong when the time ever comes.... I have read those reports that suggest very little if anything of the old system remains but i am of the opinion that the Pentagon lies trough it's teeth and does not care all that much about the security Americans believe they have...


Propulsion, guidance warheads, etc... Personally though I find this to be a dumb move on the part of our civilian leadership. We had the state of the art Peacekeeper ready to go into mass production with limited numbers already fielded but for reason I still have yet to fathom we decide to scrap it and waste more money on the LGM-30, which is not even a viable long term system past 2020.


I think it's because it's called the "Peacekeeper" and had such a great capability to actually keep it... These things wont make any more sense than they currently do , in my opinion, until you start questioning if these things are really being done in America's interest...


I don’t think it's an issue of money but rather one of doctrine and priority. We still rely on the nuclear triad, air, land and sea, the LGM-30 is good enough and with our other two branches having excellent nuclear capability there is no urgency to replace the Minuteman.


Anything launched from the air becomes vulnerable to the massive and extensive Russian air defenses as well as to being caught on the ground by Russian ICBM's, LRBM's and SLBMs in that 20 - 30 minute window before the warheads arrive... The SLBM component may have the accurate but lacks the yield or concentrated firepower of a land based ICBM force with which to overwhelm Russian defenses or reach deeply buried or reinforced strategic positions. The SLBM also lacks the reload capacity as there will be no harbours to return to while the Russians reload their mobile ICBMs and whatever silo's remain.... The idea that the world ends after the first few hundred nuclear warheads explodes is a myth perpetuated by those who wanted to, and largely succeeded, American security.

You have in the past seen the data i have presented in defense of my belief that Russia today possesses a very capable and large national ABM system that would make any American nuclear response very problematic in terms of warhead allocation to ensure the destruction of key targets...


Not saying I agree with that mindset just saying that's how I view it. If we wanted to we could of produced the Peacekeeper or done a one missile fits all thing like you guys by developing a land based version of the Trident II.


IM NOT RUSSIAN( or British or in a country that operates ICBMs)! Spears and swords are also very reliable but if the enemy is spiteful and wears armor your in trouble as is in my opinion the case with their ABM defenses.
I have no doubt that the USA could properly defend itself as in the 1960's the military wanted the ABM defenses ( and proved how effective it could be) but the politicians decided against it thus ensuring the deaths of additional millions of American citizens in a nuclear exchange.

So whatever you choose to believe about what i have to say on these issues try keep in mind that i don't think Russia operates superior strategic forces as result of their own industrial action and technological progress but do so due the deliberate undermining of American security by it's so called leaders. This might be as result of blackmail of some sort but as far as i can tell it started when America still had far superior capabilities which where then systematically taken apart or left unexploited.

Can one explain the dollar devaluation of nearly 60% in the last five years in terms not connected to strategic vulnerability? This is the type of thing that happens to third world nations; not to countries with such vast potential or still very potent military capabilities...

Stellar



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   


The reason Southern Russian has such problems is mainly due to western funding ( then and now) of radical Islamic factions with which to destabilize these majority Islamic provinces of the former USSR. The )


please i am about the rapid respread of christianity and islam(good part) and not the bad one (radical factions), religion is daliy part of life in southern russia and yes north ossetia is predominantly orthodox christian..




After reading that i am felt i have wasted my time actually treating Krutev as a informed party


yeah a man who predicted that russia will begin armament by 2007 at great speed .... looking at the no. of priojects russia has and the speed increasing... i say krutov is right.... and krutov predicted the american rearmament ... he says these are war prepartions against russia


There is no relation. These projects are not connected and will be implemented in different situations. If we succeed in re-constructing Communism in Russia before American re-armament, we will use Yamantau Mountain. If not, Yamantau Mountain will still be in control of Russian Federation forces, and we will have to speed the process by launching the Sovietia project. You don’t understand a simple thing: Not all military preparation processes (Yamantau Mountain, Uragan Defense, etc) are under our control...It [Yamantau Mountain] is operational, but digging is continued and it will never stop. But it is only one of many underground cities we have.






There is no known American ABM system so no stealth is required for the SS-24 or any other ICBM or SLBM.


more than 40 around 90 , but only 23 had such capability the rest no..

what about launch on warning... a weapon like ss-24 could neutralize the amrerican ICBM threat in half hour to 17 minutes without even americans knowing that a nuclear strike has been launched .... made it a perfect counterforce weapon ..



They are not recon systems and they have been effectively replaced by systems with more capabilities over the last decade. Remember that those large arrays were built back in the days when the processing power of

recon sys and condition of nuke forces is bad...




I predicted the fall of the MAD system by 2001. And it has really fallen! By 2001, RUSSIA IS NO LONGER OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED AS A NUCLEAR POWER BY NATO. Why? Because Russia cannot retaliate. The RVSN (Russian nuclear missile army) is in ruins, the first warning system is destroyed (I have plans for a Russian warning system). Americans can destroy all the Russian nukes before they can even start—even without using US nukes, just with cruise missiles, placed in the ex-Soviet republics. Forget about the Cold War. Russia was never a military superpower. The Soviet Union was. Not Russia.
www.worldthreats.com...

and the greatest proof proving his prediction again was the article in foreign affairs 'nuclear primacy ' in 2006




Cruise missiles takes very long to arrive at leaves the enemy with very many options

depends ... what if first the main warning radars are taken out and communications destroyed ....


Fourth stage—precise strikes with Kh-101 missiles, armed with “Marabu” stealth generators in order to cripple the American air and missile defenses. This stage will be combined with an attack on US space systems. Without satellites, the American army is crippled. Bombs with GPS navigation are useless. Satellite communication is destroyed. Communication with nuclear submarines is destroyed. The only thing left is a demoralized, blinded and disorganized conventional force, which poses no threat.
www.worldthreats.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
We're not going to war with russia. Jeesh you ppl are paranoid dooms day sayers.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
But what fun it is to dream, eh?

Argumentative posters like Stellar love to paint contrary, imaginative pictures of Russian superiority and American decadence by quoting creatures like Noam Chomsky and citing endless sources to prove thier "case" but ignore fundamental weaknesses that plague Russian society and it's military in particular.

Here's a point often ignored: America tolerates and even offers a media stage to the Ramsey Clarkes, Cindy Sheehans and Cynthia McKinneys; Vladimir Putin has such people assassinated.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
But what fun it is to dream, eh?


No dreaming required but i can always indulge you and tell you what sort of weapons Russia deploys in more secretive fashion?


Argumentative posters like Stellar love to paint contrary, imaginative pictures of Russian superiority


Contrary to your ignorance of reality or just contrary to objective reality that may be discovered by some actual research? Do you want to dispute the information i have provided so far or are you happy to just disagree assuming that your credibility on this issue is widely recognized?


and American decadence by quoting creatures like Noam Chomsky


'Creatures' like Noam Chomsky rely on open source material from official sources and there is very little if any conjecture involved as is obvious when you have read a dozen or so books and many more articles....


and citing endless sources to prove thier "case" but ignore fundamental weaknesses that plague Russian society and it's military in particular.


There are plenty of people who can cite all the instances of so called American superiority but that hardly explains the rapid economic and strategic decline America has been undergoing for decades now. I am sorry if it seems that i am covering one part of the story but once again i mostly employ sources and intelligence from the American intelligence/defense establishment? Why not take up the issue with them if you don't believe them? If it's so easy to defend the notion of American superiority why has no one on this forum chosen or, as i like to assume during my periodic vainglorious moments, been able to defend that notion from primary source material? Is it my fault that the facade of American superiority can be so easily dashed by a few revelations , to the lay public any ways , well understood by American defense and intelligence specialist?


Here's a point often ignored: America tolerates and even offers a media stage to the Ramsey Clarkes, Cindy Sheehans and Cynthia McKinneys;


They most certainly do not offer platforms to dissidents if they can do anything to prevent it but some of these people are actually elected and they represent what Americans really want to talk about. Why is freedom of speech always something 'negotiable' when trying to demonize other countries but so rarely used in the home of the supposed free? I think you should first invest some time in coming up with nickname ( i can't take more than a few hours I'm sure?) that makes it more obvious that you have a well functioning brain and then even i may start supporting your efforts to make your ignorance widely known.


Vladimir Putin has such people assassinated.


Vladimir Putin and his KGB people are amateurs when it comes to assassination and sowing death and destruction far and wide and i can assure you that you will find worse things close to home. It may not be so readily obvious ( since i point out the bad position America is in some dull witted people may assume, for some insane reason, that i want it that way) but i think there is much about the American system that is worth saving and that a strong secure prosperous America might be less inclined to inflict chaos and destruction on the world than the current vulnerable and weak version are.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
But what fun it is to dream, eh?

Argumentative posters like Stellar love to paint contrary, imaginative pictures of Russian superiority and American decadence by quoting creatures like Noam Chomsky and citing endless sources to prove thier "case" but ignore fundamental weaknesses that plague Russian society and it's military in particular.

Here's a point often ignored: America tolerates and even offers a media stage to the Ramsey Clarkes, Cindy Sheehans and Cynthia McKinneys; Vladimir Putin has such people assassinated.


silly ignornace , stellar 's a good source particlularly on USSR's particle beam prog and ABM capablilty , though i think he overestimates russian strength.... currently he may not be right on russia's capablity but in the future with his vast knowledge .... who knows maybe he will be right in the future when russia either regains strnegth or it possibly begins the sovietia project

[edit on 29-12-2006 by vK_man]


There are plenty of people who can cite all the instances of so called American superiority but that hardly explains the rapid economic and strategic decline America has been undergoing for decades now.


stellar yes i agree that US economy is declining and currently is in bad shape , another war and USA is done economically...
i have tons of proof on this on this... if you ever want sources you could ask me..

[edit on 29-12-2006 by vK_man]

[edit on 29-12-2006 by vK_man]

[edit on 29-12-2006 by vK_man]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join