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.

 

Official announcement of Strategic Nuclear Arms race.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces announced plans to deploy next generation ICBM.

RSNFs PR Colonel Aleksander Vovk announced plans to develop an entirely new generation ICBM with in a decade in case of further “undesirable development of international situation”.

Colonel Vovk did not specify which type of ICBM will be in development, but analysts are speculating that it could be the recently tested RS-24 with its 6 separating warheads, or an entirely new generation of a heavy class ICBM.

RS-24 is a development of the currently deployed Topol-M with near future upgrade to 3 MIRV warheads, an official decision which was announced as a response to the US Missile Defense system in Europe.

To sum it all up, we push European Missile Defense and in response Russians scramble to MIRV up their Topol-Ms, then test an advanced RS-24 version and announce the development of entirely new generation of heavy ICBMs.

If at this point somebody still thinks that “Missile Defense” system in Europe is a good idea and will not provoke another arms race, think again, because it’s already happening.

As it stands our consumer, financial and commercial economy is bottoming out, the mortgage meltdown literally plays into the hands of the Chinese that now basically own American property and are synthetically holding up the dollar all while Russian economy is bursting from natural resources revenues.

I for one do not much trust in the “Missile Defense” system, and I sure as heck do not look forward to a new ICBM arms race.

We all played that game once, survived it through sheer luck, and I have to seriously doubt that we all will be that lucky again because the house always wins.




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Some how I agree with you. It does look like another arms race. You also did not talk about Iran. They to are unofficially looking for nuclear weapons or supposedly looking for weapons. they however came to be using it for peaceful purposes



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Iskander, for once I agree with you!!

Deployment of missile defense systems seriously upsets the balance of nuclear detente. It "theoretically" neutralises the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD is the only reason we havn't had world war 3.
Nobody could possibly win, everybody would lose, this system and I choose my words carefully by saying "theoretically" gives America and the West in general a first strike option.

Whether that option would ever be exercised is completely irrelevant. The threat is there and the Russians are acting accordingly to try and restore the balance. Obviously the only effective solution they've come up with is overload the defense system with numbers.

Once again the Russians will be made out as the warmongers in the media by increasing there ICBM capability/numbers.

Personally I think the deployment of the system is nothing short of stupid, the possibility of this system protecting an entire continent from thousands of incoming warheads each one with the ability to take out a city is ludicrous.

This system will not affect the outcome of countries slinging rockets at each although it will make the possibility of it actually happening much more likely. God help us all.

The scary thing is in my humble opinion nuclear war is inevitable, some idiots gonna let one go one day and all hells gonna break lose in retaliation. Although I dont think we have to worry about russians shooting at us, I'm much more concerned about the proliferation/development of these weapons in the middle east. These blokes are no doubt crazy enough to risk there own annihilation just to kill some westerners.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Tonka
 



Iskander, for once I agree with you!!


There’s always something to agree upon, finding it is where all the work is!


Deployment of missile defense systems seriously upsets the balance of nuclear detente. It "theoretically" neutralises the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD is the only reason we havn't had world war 3.
Nobody could possibly win, everybody would lose, this system and I choose my words carefully by saying "theoretically" gives America and the West in general a first strike option.


Exactly. I remember Russians developing OKA and then freezing the program do to mutual agreements, only to re-open the project under “Iskander” because we were the ones that ignored the agreement in the first place.


Whether that option would ever be exercised is completely irrelevant. The threat is there and the Russians are acting accordingly to try and restore the balance. Obviously the only effective solution they've come up with is overload the defense system with numbers.


Yep, and they are MIRVing up as we speak. The big difference is that these days they have HYPERSONIC maneuvering MIRVS, which fly “swarming” evasive patters designed to avoid next gen solid state defenses, and not just orbital or near atmosphere hit-to-kill kinetic vehicles.


Once again the Russians will be made out as the warmongers in the media by increasing there ICBM capability/numbers.


They already tried that, but since the Chinese own all those defaulted “sub-prime” mortgages and import 90% of their military from Russia, such anti-Russian propaganda went away real quick.


Personally I think the deployment of the system is nothing short of stupid, the possibility of this system protecting an entire continent from thousands of incoming warheads each one with the ability to take out a city is ludicrous.


When I explain this simple concept to people that don’t think for them selves and simply accept what is told to them, I give them the following analogy.

When it just starts to rain, you can try your best to dodge every rain drop, but soon you’ll be wet head to toe, and if you got an umbrella, it won’t help you if the rain is just an opening for a hurricane.


This system will not affect the outcome of countries slinging rockets at each although it will make the possibility of it actually happening much more likely. God help us all.

The scary thing is in my humble opinion nuclear war is inevitable, some idiots gonna let one go one day and all hells gonna break lose in retaliation. Although I dont think we have to worry about russians shooting at us, I'm much more concerned about the proliferation/development of these weapons in the middle east. These blokes are no doubt crazy enough to risk there own annihilation just to kill some westerners.


I agree with you completely, and I’m not surprised that not even a hint of this fundamental shift was mentioned on any of the mass media outlets.

It’s simply all quiet out there when the Russians openly announced their arms trace response and how quick they were to take on the challenge.

Just as with my previous posts on entire Russian Navy moving to St. Petersburg, that EVERY single fleet commander has been changed, and that includes Nuclear Strategic Submarine forces, nothing of this was reported by mass media.

We are literally witnessing a REALL arms race and escalating hostilities, all while absolutely nothing is being told to the masses.

This is absolutely unprecedented considering that we live in the information age, and that it’s apparently much easier to control information this way.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tonka
reply to post by iskander
 




Deployment of missile defense systems seriously upsets the balance of nuclear detente. It "theoretically" neutralises the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD is the only reason we havn't had world war 3.
Nobody could possibly win, everybody would lose, this system and I choose my words carefully by saying "theoretically" gives America and the West in general a first strike option.









Scince the 70's the west has NEVER had a "First Strike" advantage, and if you say so, please show the proof


[edit on 16-12-2007 by Lambo Rider]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Lambo Rider
 


Yeah, never?

That's why we have the capability to independently launch over 5000 nuclear warheads (with D5 Trident II SLBM) from 18 Ohio Class Boomers (total fleet conversion target date to be in late 2008).

Last I checked the Soviet Union's SSBN's are rusting away in shipyards with only a few out in service. Funding is hard to come by for them because they're so expensive to make and maintain. But as far as I'm concerned, the west, primarily the United States does have the First Strike advantage, or at least a response advantage to a first strike. That's based on the submarine fleet alone, there are far more factors to bring into this as well...

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Hmmm interesting read everyone. Thank you for your posts. I didn’t know Russia’s response would have been so quick. Is its response necessary though since the missile defense system from my readings is not capable of deterring large swarms of ICBM’s? I thought this was US’s response to Russia’s suspicion it was aimed at them rather then Iran or N. Korea?

As previously mentioned this news is not out in the general media so I guess this new Cold War is not really cold but maybe luke warm?

Thanks again for the info.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ShatteredSkies
 


Does it really matter?
If Russia just has the ability to detonate 100-200 warheads on CONUS, then that's irreversible damage all the same.
And even if they have a measly 10-15% success rate, then thats good enough.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider

Scince the 70's the west has NEVER had a "First Strike" advantage, and if you say so, please show the proof



I never stated the U.S used to have a first strike advantage I stated that with the introduction of the ballistic missile defense system they "theoretically" now do have a first strike option. Going from memory it was either the 70's or early 80's that congress signed into law that U.S. strategic forces could not be used in a pre-emptive first strike under any circumstances but this is really just a piece of paper, it can be torn up willy nilly. I only stated it was a theoretical first strike advantage, Im not saying the U.S. would use that option but theoretically it does now exist.

Before the introduction of the ballistic missile defense system a first strike option is neutralized by the MAD theory in that any country that launches nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike would in turn be wiped out by the targetted countrys nuclear weapons. An inthinkable proposition, this ensures that while nuclear weapons exist, the threat of MAD prevents them from being used, hence a strategic balance. This is why SSBN's exist, they are considered a strategic reserve. Theoretically invulnerable to a first strike and therefore a guarantee that any country so equipped will have the ability to retaliate. Once again this provides a measure of balance and enforces the principles of MAD.

With the introduction of a ballistic missile defence system. America "theoretically" has the ability to launch her missiles at any country she so chooses and be able to defend itself from the targetted countries strategic reserve, this upsets the current balance that exists.
Thereby providing America with a first strike option.

The possibility of America launching a first strike is obviously unthinkable and ludicrous in your eyes and mine, but there are countries out there that consider America an enemy and wouldnt put it past them to do it.

The easiest way to make my point I spose would be to reverse the situation.
What if Russia or China had developed this system (regardless of whether it works or not) would you sleep soundly at night knowing they could nuke you with no consequence to themselves?

Russia is not gearing up for a nuclear war in any sense of the word no matter what some westerners might think, there just trying to restore the balance that existed. That balance is the only thing that stops humankind from wiping itself out.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tonka

The possibility of America launching a first strike is obviously unthinkable and ludicrous in your eyes and mine, but there are countries out there that consider America an enemy and wouldnt put it past them to do it.



I'm not so sure about that , Bush administration's post-9/11 invention, the "preemption" doctrine, which asserts a U.S. right to use military force unilaterally against countries that have neither attacked another state nor have any clear plan to do so kind of put the the idea of a US first strike 'unthinkable' to rest . Putin is right to build his nuclear arsenal, counter threats are the only thing the US understands. They'll only attack weak nations. Here he is again :




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Oh but it does matter.

I believe our Boomer fleet and the success of Strategic Air Command is the reason Russia has never launched a direct attack or first strike. You can't say "even if one gets through it's enough" because the harsh reality of things is that it's not, the whole point of a war is to be able to take what you fought for and if both sides are completely annihilated, well that just defeated the purpose didn't it?

No one wants to die in this world and and the boomers ensure that no one will have to, at least not by means of a nuclear exchange between super powers.

So god bless our submariners and the pilots who flew those SAC missions every day throughout SAC's existence.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ShatteredSkies
 



Last I checked the Soviet Union's SSBN's are rusting away in shipyards with only a few out in service. Funding is hard to come by for them because they're so expensive to make and maintain.


Check again. Soviet/Russian SSBN funding NEVER decreased through the 90s and only increased in the 2000s.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ShatteredSkies
 



I believe our Boomer fleet and the success of Strategic Air Command is the reason Russia has never launched a direct attack or first strike.


You are aware that SAC is an offensive strategy, right?

If you are my neighbor, and I sit on the roof of my house with a sniper rifle scoping your every move all while saying that I’m simply defending my self, I’m sure your gardening days would not be all that comfortable, especially knowing that I already shot a guy that through a rock at my window.

Theoretically speaking.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by ShatteredSkies
 



Last I checked the Soviet Union's SSBN's are rusting away in shipyards with only a few out in service. Funding is hard to come by for them because they're so expensive to make and maintain.


Check again. Soviet/Russian SSBN funding NEVER decreased through the 90s and only increased in the 2000s.


I'd also like to add to Iskanders answer in that russias SSBN fleet can fire there missiles while still tied to there peers and still have the range to hit America.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by ShatteredSkies


If you are my neighbor, and I sit on the roof of my house with a sniper rifle scoping your every move all while saying that I’m simply defending my self, I’m sure your gardening days would not be all that comfortable, especially knowing that I already shot a guy that through a rock at my window.

Theoretically speaking.


LMAO, love that analogy.



Edit: godamn quoteing

[edit on 18-12-2007 by Tonka]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Oh but it does matter.

I believe our Boomer fleet and the success of Strategic Air Command is the reason Russia has never launched a direct attack or first strike.
Shattered OUT...


This is not the case just the propoganda that governments have been feeding there citizens since the end of world war 2. Russia never intended or was ever prepared to launch a first strike.


"You your the problem," he blurted out at Admiral Carlisle A.H. Trost, now the chief of Naval Operations. Not only were U.S. subs still lurking off Soviet waters, but Akhromeyev was convinced that he could track all of his own subs by simply following the American P-3 Orion sub-hunters in the air. Trost simply tried to calm him down, saying that U.S. strategy was not intended to threaten anyone. But even as he faced Akhromeyev, Trost realised he was being given a look deep inside the soviet psyche, and what he saw was different from what he had long believed. It had once seemed so clear to him that soviet forces were designed for aggression. But now Trost could see how strongly Akhromeyev believed that he had only been part of an effort to defend his country, a country surrounded by enemies, by NATO ships, submarines and airborne sub-hunters.



Still, Parche had carried home confirmation of one more crucial fact that eased the pentagons worst fears: The Soviet Union was not preparing for a first strike. As one former intelligence official says of the tap data , both from this and other missions: "It conveyed a notion that, while preemptive war was an option, the Soviet forces were not designed to go for a first strike."


If you look through the propoganda and actually read back through the history of the cold war in detail you will soon see that there was only one country acting aggressively during the cold war and it wasnt Russia.

Comments from a certain president stating that the Soviet Union is the focus of evil in the modern world dont help either.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Then I fly blind as a bat because the history that I've read of the Cold War indicates differently. Propaganda? No, I wasn't alive to be fed the propaganda.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

If you look through the propoganda and actually read back through the history of the cold war in detail you will soon see that there was only one country acting aggressively during the cold war and it wasnt Russia.


I have to agree with that one, but Soviets did pretty much hold Western Europe hostage in order to regain its political footing after getting ripped off at the end of WWII. Mass formations on the borders kept NATO movements in check.


Then I fly blind as a bat because the history that I've read of the Cold War indicates differently. Propaganda? No, I wasn't alive to be fed the propaganda.


Name one US defensive system, not counting AMB which is actually an offensive strategy.

EVERYTHING in US tactics/strategy/arsenal is about power PROJECTION, it being the ability to bring war to other nations, thus by default assuming an aggressive posture.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join