Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
ape

posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
haha, russian fairy tales of having aircraft to match the f-22 what's next? the russians will somehow take over the US economically and militarily? the raptor is the gem of the USAF and the public doesn't even know its full capabilities so I doubt the russians would.


nothing russia has will ever match the f-22 unless they put pure dedication into the aircraft as the US has done.




posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
haha, russian fairy tales of having aircraft to match the f-22 what's next? the russians will somehow take over the US economically and militarily? the raptor is the gem of the USAF and the public doesn't even know its full capabilities so I doubt the russians would.


nothing russia has will ever match the f-22 unless they put pure dedication into the aircraft as the US has done.


I suppose electricity is Magic and Medicine is Witch Craft and machines are bad voodoo.

Im tired of idiots coming in here thinking they know technology eiter put-up or shut-up.


ape

posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
yeah ok, the last time russia tried to keep up with the US their economy collasped, of course that wasn't the sole reason but point is if they want to keep up with the US they have to invest, invest, invest.

oh and calling me an idiot wont prove your point, it only infact makes you out as one.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I would recommend, again, you all take some time out to research the computer-hardware, the software, and radar-capabilities of the F-22. These, more than anything, are its 'heads-up' on the ocmpetition.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
I would recommend, again, you all take some time out to research the computer-hardware, the software, and radar-capabilities of the F-22. These, more than anything, are its 'heads-up' on the ocmpetition.


I addressed this fairly, I wouldn't presume that the computer systems are equal but this has minimal control over capability.

More on topic would be the discussion of Nuclear technology, the space systems that go with it and the Nuclear postures.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
you see the public not knowing it's full capabilities doesn't have anything to do with the russians knowing about it, you see that's why countries have INTELLIGENCE agencies, they're not exactly looking for what's in the press you know.... so don't ever think an experienced country in Intelligence would come to know less than the public, that's just fools talk...


ape

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
thats not even the point I was trying to make, if we cant even get a leak within our own government what in the hell makes you think russian intelligence is going to infiltrate the f-22 program? thats just pure insanity.

that would be giving the russians to much cred, they dont know a damn thing thats top secret about the f-22 u can bet on that.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
The russian penetration in foreign intelligence gathering agencies is second to none..
They probably know more about the F-22 than anybody else except for the Americans.
Whether they're going to put that knowledge to use or are already in the the process of doing so needs to be found out by american intellgence agencies..


ape

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
that is what you call an assumption, there is no proof the russians infiltrated the f-22 program, although I have yet to see evidence that they didn't but I doubt it.

even if they did they would not be able to produce it, maybe 1 or 2 thats about it and they would prolly be cheap knock off's and I doubt they would leave the hangar.

much like that other russian bird everyone gloats about on here.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Ape, brings up the most important detail that we must always consider in this world of conspiracy. Fact, where unless Daedalus3 is part of the Russian deep penetration spy pipeline, i find no need to believe him. While he does have a good point, where the USA concentrates to much on the engenering and manufacturing of goods, while other countries watch on. yes, the USA does take counter measures, but they could be doing so much more. So yes, there is a Chance that Russia would know, but there are no facts to prove it, no truth in your statement, which would radify it as a statement, or opionion and just that

[edit on 16-12-2006 by boywhowaits]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
you people should spend more time reading than argueing with each other.

NOT A SINGLE PERSON has even commented on the link i provided at the bottom of page 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it is actually about the OP`s topic and relevant...get a grip guys.

snoopyuk



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by boywhowaits
Fact, where unless Daedalus3 is part of the Russian deep penetration spy pipeline, i find no need to believe him.


And if that were infact the case, you wouldn't find me posting my opinions as such in this or any other forum.



So yes, there is a Chance that Russia would know, but there are no facts to prove it, no truth in your statement, which would radify it as a statement, or opionion and just that

An opinion it was from the very beginning. But not a blind one. It wold serve as a good exercise to just check up on how deep the Russians/Soviets have been able to penetrate in the past before being exposed.

Irrespective of whether people gloat about Russian planes or not, the fact remains that they're good, not in the class of the F-22,F-35 and maybe Typhoon , but as good as or better than any 4th gen a/c the west has to offer.

snoopyuk,
I read your link at that time itself but it just reiterated what I'd said before: The survivability of the Russian land nuclear forces is high due to its mobility. It always has been.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
As I said, the 1990s was a different time for the Russians. They were convalescing from the breakup of the USSR.Much has changed in the last 4-5 years..


While all that were going on they still had a superior nuclear arsenal to say nothing of their conventional forces. One should not believe that all that strength can just disappear in the few years the western media told us it did.

The fantasy that a superpower can lose it's conventional strength ( nuclear weapons included) overnight or in a few years is shear fantasy and what one should investigate is who paid off so many people to tell so many lies for so long.

Interestingly Russian conventional forces are STILL probably superior even after all this time; something you won't often hear in the media.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I will try to find it for you, here are some other resources.


Thanks but your efforts seem to bring rather one sided ( and basically incorrect) information to light.

quoting from your source....



Rodionov's warning may have been, in part, a maneuver to muster political support for greater defense spending. But recent reports by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency confirm that Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces have indeed fallen on hard times.



]State Department spokesman James Rubin told a news conference that it would be difficult to assess the current situation over Russia's missile defense system because of its classified nature. "...Nevertheless, it's fair to say that we are concerned about the potential deterioration of Russia's ballistic missile attack warning capabilities without referencing any specific systems,..." Rubin said.
Yadernaya Bezopasnost magazine

Major General Vladimir Dvorkin, the Head of the 4-th Central Research Institute of the Defense Ministry gave some comments on the Post's publication in an interview to the Russian NTV (a TV company). However, he refused to talk about the current status of the Russian EW system. "...I am unable to speak or confirm how many hours we can or can not watch, because this matter is a state secret. Regardless of what I'll say, if these figures are good or not - I'll have to give my next interview being in jail somewhere in Siberia..." (NTV News, 22:00, February 10, 1999)

www.armscontrol.ru...


So basically the American intelligence organizations are just guessing and one wonders then where the media gets their information from.



Local utility managers have repeatedly shut off the power to various nuclear weapons installations after the military authorities there failed to pay their electric bills. Worse yet, the equipment that controls nuclear weapons frequently malfunctions, and critical electronic devices and computers sometimes switch to a combat mode for no apparent reason.



Its most visible guard against a calamity is the Center for Year 2000 Strategic Stability at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. There, beginning Dec. 30, Russian and American officers will sit side by side at computer screens 24-hours a day. Their job: Monitor data from U.S. Space Command sensors, primarily long-range radars and satellites that detect the heat of a rocket blastoff.

"We really do not worry about Russia, missiles going off, or early-warning systems getting false reports or anything like that," said Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre. "We're confident that will not be the case."

Added Peter Verga, a Pentagon policy-maker, "If an early warning radar in Russia fails, we think it would be because the power went out, which is a local time-zone problem, and not because there's a fundamental problem within the system."

The department, which has spent $3.6 billion on year-2000 compliance, has invested $10 million in Russian weapons computers to ensure they don't misread the date rollover to 2000. Technicians also ridded the Moscow-Washington "hot line" of any potential bugs and installed backup telephone connections.

At Peterson, a missile launch anywhere in the world will be picked up by Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites and then tracked by radars.

cndyorks.gn.apc.org...


The Russian early warning and ABM defenses are just too extensive to become subject to a single point failure as would be caused by electric failure of one radar or another.




The Russian early warning network constructed by the former Soviet Union to
detect a ballistic missile attack is perhaps the most neglected component
of the strategic posture. Many ground radars no longer operate or routinely
suffer power outages and other afflictions; only three of its nine modern
radars (large phased-array radars) are working at all. Three have been
deactivated or never completed, and three are inoperable or barely
functional. Seven out of ten older, less capable Hen House radars sit
outside Russia in former Soviet republics, and some of them may be shut
down for political reasons.



However, we can be fairly confident that Yeltsin's football showed that Russia was not under attack and that the Russian early-warning system was functioning perfectly. In addition to the string of radars surrounding the border of the former Soviet Union, Russia had inherited a complete fleet of early-warning satellites that, even by 1995, still maintained continuous 24-hour coverage of the U.S. continental missile fields. In the early 1990s Russia had still managed to launch replacement satellites for its early-warning system as the previous ones died out -- thereby retaining continuous coverage. Because of those satellites, Yeltsin's display must have shown that no massive attack was lurking just below the horizon.

www.pbs.org...



Two of the nine slots in Russia's constellation
of early warning satellites monitoring U.S. and Chinese ICBM fields are
empty, and Russia lacks satellite coverage of the oceans. So information
provided by these sensors is becoming increasingly unreliable.



According to Russian Space Forces Commander Colonel-General Vladimir Popovkin, there are approximately 60 Russian military satellites currently in orbit.[1] This represents a decrease of two-and-a-half fold since 1990.[1] However, there has been an increase in the percentage of satellites functioning within their normal service lives from 19% in 1999 to 40%.[1] Popovkin points to this as a qualitative change in Russia's military satellite fleet and notes that Russia is again testing new technologies.[1]

cns.miis.edu...



The two nations have explored waysof addressing the problem at least since last year, when another CBO study suggested giving Russia access to the U.S. early warning satellite system. Faced with considerable political pressure not to release such sensitive information to the Russians, Daschle asked the budget office to consider "nontraditional" alternatives.

Since then, according to the letter, the CBO has learned that Russia has built seven new early warning satellites, but "is unable or unwilling to devote the resources necessary to launch them."

The United States could buy Russian rockets -- which are less expensive than American rockets -- and launch six of the satellites for about $200 million, the CBO said.

The letter lists several arguments against the option, including the fact that if Russia were sufficiently worried about false alarms, it could cough up the money itself. In addition, the six satellites would not allow Russia to monitor launches around the globe, only in the United States.

www.fas.org...



Most Russian military payloads reaching the orbit would be identified only as Cosmos satellites with particular numbers. Any civilian satellites, whose purpose the government would not want to explain, would also receive Cosmos names. It was up to independent observers and historians around the world to struggle with a puzzle of secret space programs. They based their analysis on a combination of available official data and satellite tracking information.

The post-Soviet Russia adopted somewhat "westernized" approach to information policy on military space: the military launches are identified as such and receive traditional Cosmos names.

www.russianspaceweb.com...


So they can build satellites but they don't even bother launching them? The actions of someone who is worried about being attacked or thinking that current systems are not adequate?


While the lack of sensors certainly was one of the factors in the choice of
the configuration for the first-generation US-KS (Oko) system, other factors
seem to have played an equally important role. First of all, the system was
apparently not required to provide complete coverage of the Earth surface.
Instead, the system was expected to provide much more limited capability of
detecting ICBM launches from U.S. territory. Launches of sea-based missiles
were deliberately left outside of the system’s scope, since they alone did not
pose a serious threat to the Soviet strategic forces. The SLBM threat was not
considered significant enough to warrant the efforts required to provide reliable
detection of sea-based missile launches.

Then, practical considerations precluded the choice of geostationary satellites.
First, a geostationary satellite that would be able to monitor U.S. territory
would be out of sight of any ground control station located on the Soviet territory.
Unlike the United States, the Soviet Union either was unable to deploy
ground relay stations on the territories of its allies or was unwilling to do so
(or both). Finally, despite the fact that an HEO constellation required more
satellites than a geostationary earth-orbit (GEO) one, GEO satellites would
have been less cost-effective, since early Soviet early-warning satellites had
very short nominal lifetimes (about two years on average). Launching shortlived
satellites in geosynchronous orbit would have been more expensive than
placing them onto HEO orbits.

www.princeton.edu...


IMO the reason the high seas do not need to be watched very carefully is because the attacks will come from many directions thus making the attacks fragmented and relatively easy to counter with the thousands of dual purpose SAM/ABM air defense systems.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Continued..

6

Washington, D.C.): Today's Wall Street Journal features an extraordinarily timely column by the newspaper's highly respected Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Melanie Kirkpatrick. Thanks to Ms. Kirkpatrick, a dirty little secret is now in the public domain: Even as Russian President Vladimir Putin goes to great lengths to denounce President Bush's commitment to defend the American people against ballistic missile attack, railing about the threat thus posed to the sacrosanct 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and seeking to divide United States from its allies, Russia is maintaining a national missile defense of its own that is clearly inconsistent with the terms of the ABM Treaty.

This revelation demands several responses: 1) President Bush should task his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board or some other independent blue-ribbon group to perform an immediate and rigorous assessment of former Defense Intelligence Officer William Lee's work on the Soviet/Russian NMD system and the classified official analyses that have, to date, minimized its strategic capabilities and significance. 2) Present the findings of such a study to the American people and U.S. allies. And 3) end the official U.S. practice inherited by Mr. Bush of allowing the United States to be the only nation whose missile defense programs are encumbered by the outdated and increasingly dangerous ABM Treaty, thereby clearing the way for deployment as soon as possible of effective anti-missile protection for this country, as well as Russia.

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org...


7

Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire's illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.

Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.

Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation "S-400" ("Triumph") SAM/ABM designed not only to end the "absolute superiority" of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia's illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia's commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty.

www.security-policy.org...


8

Mr. Lee's analysis is complex. To vastly simplify, he says he has evidence that Russia's surface-to-air interceptor missiles carry nuclear warheads and therefore are capable of bringing down long-range ballistic missiles, not just aircraft and shorter-range missiles, which is their stated purpose. Russia has 8,000 of these missiles scattered around the country, and Mr. Lee says he has found numerous Russian sources that describe how successive generations of SAMs were in fact designed with the express intention of shooting down ballistic missiles, which is illegal under the treaty.

www.opinionjournal.com...


That's just to give you a idea and i can post rather large volumes of technical information to back up these claims if you do not want to take the word of the agencies/people involved. In fact this IMO proves that no nuclear attack by the USA on Russia today is strategically viable considering the basic existence of thousands of interceptors making warhead allocation a almost impossible task.


The aging command system and communications networks that support nuclear
operations, including launch on warning, are also crumbling. These networks
are typically five or more years past due for overhaul and modernization;
some components are ten or more years past their design life. Their
performance is degrading, raising the question whether they will fail safe
or deadly. Even the famous nuclear suitcases that receive early warning
information and accompany the President, Defense Minister, and Chief of the
General Staff, are falling into disrepair.
Source: www.fas.org...



Most of this sources mainly deal with an accidental launch.

In 1995, the Strategic Rocket Forces in Russia went on alert because of a norwegian scientific rocket that Russia had been informed about, yet the radar operators were never told.


Actually that 'scientific' rocket used the first ( or both stages, i don't recall) of a old IRBM so if the Russians did not go on alert we should have been worried or if your American not worried...The fact that it managed to pick up the launch so quickly and that the right officials were informed as trained shows that the system worked as advertised. The Russians NEVER got close to launching a nuclear return strike as their strategic defenses are as good as invulnerable to a single nuclear missile. Moscow's admitted ABM defenses alone could very probably blunt the attack of multiple OHIO class submarines.


The world came within 2 minutes of a nuclear war. Scary stuff.


Well i hope you can reevaluate what you have linked us to so far based on the information i had on hand from previous discussions on this topic. I can make more specific arguments but i would rather wait till you show that you have invested more time in doing some in depth research.

Conclusions: For reasons unknown the West has pretend ( based on absolutely no substantive information) for almost two decades now that a very real threat simply does not pose a threat. What you and others should do is establish why this is so.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
haha, russian fairy tales of having aircraft to match the f-22 what's next? the russians will somehow take over the US economically and militarily?


Well i guess so, yes? Economically speaking the Russian federation is a model state'federation compared to the trouble the US economy is currently in. Back in the day recovery from such overwhelming debt may have been possible but without a viable, not to mention competitive, industrial base ( which now resides in SEA) such times are well and truly over imo.


the raptor is the gem of the USAF and the public doesn't even know its full capabilities so I doubt the russians would.


The Russians have a long history of managing to get informers in all the right places so while i have no specific evidence i am open to the idea that they might know more about the F-22 than is probably good for US national security, what little remains anyways, and considering their air defenses this is probably a very very bad thing.


nothing russia has will ever match the f-22 unless they put pure dedication into the aircraft as the US has done.


Why do you have to build airplanes that do the same as the enemy when you have already basically countered it by deploying direct energy weapons? Sorry but between the threat of old fashioned air defense missiles , RF weaponry and direct energy weapons it's probably no longer a good idea to invest in anything that you can not afford to lose by the dozen on any given day in true world war two style...


Originally posted by ape
yeah ok, the last time russia tried to keep up with the US their economy collasped,


The REFORM of the former USSR had very little to do with their economic position as is widely admitted by US intelligence specialist. Nothing the US did in terms of spending money could at that point force the USSR into folding. Considering the overwhelming superiority the USSR have build up by that time they could simple afford the reforms they wanted to make for some years before.


of course that wasn't the sole reason but point is if they want to keep up with the US they have to invest, invest, invest.


They surpassed the US in strategic power around the late 70's as far as my research goes... Still spending time on the issue and the more i read the bleaker America's prospects seem from around that time onwards.


oh and calling me an idiot wont prove your point, it only infact makes you out as one.




Calling people names rarely resolves issues and i hope you will assume that i have studied this issue as well as you think i have studied the peak oil issue. It wont be easy but i have faith in you!

Stellar

[edit on 17-12-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Now this topic is picking-up I'd like to see someone engage a counter-argument to what Stellar points out, all are great examples that Russia (not restricted by public or global opinion) has managed to make a superior Nuclear infrastructure, probably not so tried and true or I feel they'd risk Nuclear war for global domination, but certainly strong enough that Russia feels its new direction is promissing.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
i think russian's are too far behind the U.S. as far as nuclear weaponry...


Well what i have seen indicates the exact opposite? Have you looked at the declared ( or at least American estimates of the Russian arsenal) force levels and if so why do you think that the nuclear weapons the US deploys are superior? Have you studied open source nuclear weapons specifications and if so why do you disagree with what you found there?


what many of you may not know is that the U.S. is specialized in nuclear testing... much of which is done in area 51...


So should i assume from this that you can not actually present any source material as to why you think what you do?


the russians may have very high tech nuclear weapons... like that ballistic missile... but that is nothign compared to the nuclear weapons that the U.S. contains which can be fit into briefcases and capable of unleasing megatons of explosives...


One can make a warhead relatively small, if the yield is not as important as the placement, but in terms of ICBMs you still need to get it there and if the yield it too small it's useless for counter force and thus only area weapons making them ineffective against countries that are prepared to continue fighting a nuclear war however many months or years it takes. Smuggling nuclear weapons into the USA have been taking place for decades before the 'fall' of the USSR according to the highest ranking KGB defector so i think the societies that will be most compromised are the relatively open western one's...


is it easier to launch a missile or just place a suitcase somewhere and blow it up... anyways, i KNOW that the russian's are not ahead of us as Nuclear technology goes... unless they have their own AREA 51


Now i am in my opinion very open minded when it comes to the goings on at the these secret test locations but i maintain that if you can not find a source ( no matter how strange the theory or the source page ) on the internet your probably out on a limb taking chances.



Originally posted by Luis51Tree
actually many nukes have been tested under american soil recently up until 1992 when they thought it was enough... and the bombs were too dirty... they even blew up a nuclear weapon beneath mississipi... over 50 nuclear explosions were tested under american soil... so they didn't stop during the 60's... it continued


Well all read about were how much trouble American weapon nuclear weapon design teams had designing newer warheads due to lack of proper testing ( After the CNTBT )of the various yields under different conditions. Once again i am sure you got the idea from somewhere so do tell!


Originally posted by Luis51Tree
yes but you can't be 100% sure that they haven't tested nuclear weapons underground, and i can't be 100% sure that they have but i have my sources and thats what i believe... not that its a fact


Well as i said if you believe it odds are you will find someone else on the Internet that does so go check it out and see if you can find us some links.

Stellar


[edit on 18-12-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Regarding the assertation made by the thread starter, Russia is in fact NOT breaking any international treaties by developing new ballistic missiles. In fact, as some of you may remember, in the wake of 9/11 it was the U.S that pulled out of the ABM treaty, leaving both herself and Russia to do as they will. What are new ICBM's going to do against cave dwelling terrorists?

archives.cnn.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Regarding the assertation made by the thread starter, Russia is in fact NOT breaking any international treaties by developing new ballistic missiles. In fact, as some of you may remember, in the wake of 9/11 it was the U.S that pulled out of the ABM treaty, leaving both herself and Russia to do as they will. What are new ICBM's going to do against cave dwelling terrorists?

archives.cnn.com...


Where does your crap come from? The Russians didnt care when we pulled from the ABM treaty because they already have a Ballistic Missile Defense that goes against the treaty.

The research of new ICBMs is against treaties and Russia is violating those treaties.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join