US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba

reply to post by DarthAmerica


Great debate, continue! Also, you would agree that from Russia point of view, they feel the US moves as a threat?

And do you think that if this development continues, the US authorities could think about winning a nuclear war and preemptively strike Russia to acquire world domination?

Just a thought... because the NWO want a third world war and the supremacy of the anglo-saxon elite over the world.

And for humanity sake I hope you're not a US general because people like you seems to think that nuclear war is winnable and that Russia wouldn't be able to counter attack in ANY WAY. Just a little joke.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Vitchilo]

People like him are deeply misguided , brain washed zombie of black propaganda who are unware of the reality and live a blind dream . Hell he is getting blasted by everybody on this thread, to much Bs at once , dont blame him for trying to defend himself providing more lame statements
If i had time to sit and prove a point here i would but i feel its pointless to rich anything .

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

Originally posted by DarthAmerica

We have systems that will intercept Topol-M as well. Again, I've more than shown this with FACTs. Our systems exist in reality. Russian countermeasures only exist in propaganda statements. This is why they are kicking and screaming over our Missile Defense plans. They know their only war time weapons of any significance are being threatened with becoming obsolete.

LOOOOOOOOOOL and with a statement like this you call me fanboy, Please spare your time here and go pull these propaganda bs to some kids on the street.

You ask for proof all the time . Have you been reading this post from its last pages or what? People have provided here enough proof here for the topic to be closed long ago but you still insist making yourself look like a joke. Respected members like Maloy and Stellar have provided more than enough evidence to prove a point , not only in this thread but in hundread more others topics and threads which is more than a pleasure to read.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

reply to post by DarthAmerica

I'll find four actually and that will increase to five in about 2 to 4 years...

I took a look at those articles you provided. Apart from coming from dodgy sources, NO WHERE is it mentioned specifically that the F-18/C, the F-22 and the F-35 will have the ability to take down hypersonic missiles.

Your sources vaguely mentioned in passing, "Cruise missile defence", and since they are non-military sources, this is hardly credible stuff.

I'm sorry but you'll have to do better than that.

Also, you made a strawman. I said "optimized for cruise missile defense" which I showed above. Not ballistic missile defense.

Hey Rambo, you might want to educate yourself on terminology there.

The term ABM refers to ANY missile which is designed to intercept other missiles:

a defensive missile designed to destroy an incoming enemy missile.

www-personal.arts.usyd.edu.au...

I didn't "make a strawman", you did, you just showed your general lack of knowledge about this topic.

However I assure you people would think you were kidding to reference Patriot MIssiles from 20 years ago. You do know that the issue was software related and its been patched to allow for dedicated BMD capability.

That article refers to the PAC-3 variant of the standard MIM-104.

This is taken from your PDF:

The PAC-3 missile is a totally new interceptor, featuring a Ka band active radar seeker, employing 'hit-to-kill' interception (in contrast to previous interceptors' method of exploding in the vicinity of the target, destroying it with shrapnel), and several other enhancements which dramatically increase its lethality against ballistic missiles. It has a substantially lower range of 15 km.

Updating it's software doesn't change it's terminal flight characteristics and to that end it still only has top speed of Mach 3, combined with an INCREDIBLY short range is going to give it absolutely no time to intercept Mach 4 or 6 Russian Kh missiles.

A Kh-22 will cover 15km in 5 or 6 seconds. A Patriot takes a minimum of 9 seconds from acquisition to time of flight to engage a target.
There's no way that thing is going to have a chance in hell of intercepting anything Mach 4 or above.

And the Patriot is a frontal interceptor so if the cruise missile changes course and moves out of it's radar cone, then it's got NO chance.

Against Iraqi Scuds and Soviet-era MRBM's, yeah maybe it has an excellent hit-to-kill ratio, but remember it was designed to take down theatre-ranged ballistic missiles.
NOT hypersonic cruise missiles.

None of this supersonic cruise missile nonsense is new. NONE OF IT. My goodness you guys are very opinionated to misunderstand so much...

Your point being what?

Because the Russian Kh series of cruise missiles were developed in the 1960's they must truly worthless now?

I guess that's why America still fields the AH-1 Cobra or the M-1 Abrams, which were both developed in the 1970's against the far newer Russian T-90
s and Ka-50's?

Age has nothing to do with the equation.
America still has no way of intercepting those missiles reliably hence why Russia keeps them in service.

Just like how the M-1 tank or AH-1 Cobra are still incredibly effective MBT's and gunships, hence why they're kept in service.

Proven track record is what counts. Not age.

If anything this should give you an indication of what Russia is working on now..
If they had the capability to produce Mach 6 cruise missiles with ranges far surpassing anything the US has in the 1960's, you can bet the stuff they're going to deploy in the future will really give American air defence systems a run for their money.

OMG...I cannot believe you posted this. You are comparing a short range battlefield missile with an ICBM? BIG DIFFERENCE.

Calm yourself. I was trying to make a point about how US missile technology trails Russian tech.

The Iskander is a perfectly valid comparison to a longer range, Russian ICBM because it's about the same size and uses the same guidance methods. Not only that but it can carry a Nuclear warhead also.

And it far surpasses the accuracy of ANY of it's American counterparts.

BTW, Tridents II D-5 can get 10 meter accuracy just to let you know and were going to be the platform for conventional ballistic missiles because of their accuracy.

No they don't.

You can look up virtually every military site and they all list a lowest possible CEP of 120m:
www.globalsecurity.org...

Just to let you know it would take fewer than 200 SSBN warheads to kill over 1/3 of the Russian population in a counter value strike effectively ending Russia as a coherent entity.

?
How does 1/3 of the population killed end their sovereignty as a nation?

As long Russia's President is still alive and his military chain of command operable they can authorise a counter-strike...
Hence the threat is far from neutralised.

What you think Putin would drop to his knees and start babbling like a baby if one-third of the population dies in a Nuclear attack?... lol

Besides, I take it you've never heard of the Dead Hand network?

Communications between the Russian leadership and their assets such as radar stations, missile silos and command centres, are continuously monitored.
In the event of nuclear explosions and an unexplained communications failure (like a decapitation strike), relatively junior officers are authorised to release their weapons without higher approval.

Even if the leadership gets taken out they can still respond in kind: www.nti.org...

Based on what? What qualifications do you have to assert that?

Sheesh, you really need to cut out this "Holier than thou" attitude...
Where's your high horse? Where's your credentials?

Why should anyone take you at face value?

I've disproven all of your previous questions with links to support each. Official links BTW with data.

No you haven't. You've challenged them and then I've disproven YOUR arguments with my own.

So you have official DOD or USM links... big friggin' whoop, that doesn't make them any more credible because they're just as likely to distort facts and figures to make themselves seem more potent.

Look, I don't want to get confrontational, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Right and I'm talking to former, retired Missile Weapons Officer "DarthAmerica" for the USS Ohio ballistic missile submarine...

I forgot.

Get of this high horse you've perched yourself upon and stop acting like your arguments have the final say. They've got more holes than Swiss cheese.

[edit on 5/8/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

the most accurate ICBM the USA possess is the minuteman III with a CEP of 90m , 90M is NOT accurate enough to ensure a hard target kill of an SS-19 super hardened silo - the US knew in the 1980`s they would need to use 2 warheads per silo to ensure a kill , much as the russian have allready been doing , although in there case it was accuracy vs fire power , russian bombs are usually bigger to compensate for the higher cep;

but the US is in a similar position , and several `boomers` are tasked with purely engaging russian icbm fields.

reply to post by DarthAmerica

Look, you are sadly misinformed. You do not have the engineering background or military experience to call anything I post "BS". Your own words would make you a laughing stock in professional circles. But I'll offer an explanation so as to dispel this inaccurate information of yours.

you are alrady a laughing stock for the BS you post , as you have provided no proof

Read above.

still awaiting proof for the BS you post, you are ranting like a fool

LOL you never took a statistics class. The SS-18 has a reliability of about 97%. It has a CEP of 220 meters which means that 50% of the time, it will hit within 220 meters of the point of aim. That doesn't take into account some other factors. That means a SS-18 in reality has a 46% chance using your numbers. You would have to target 5 warheads to get a 95% probability. There are only 75 operational SS-18s in the Russian arsenal. There are 450 LGM-30's in silos in the USA. Do the math. There arent that many ICBM warheads in the Russian arsenal to do that. The USAF silo based ICBM force is quite safe from counterforce attack.

lol, as usual you have not provided proof ,

by the way Pavel Podvig , himself stated that R-36M2 (SS-18 mod 6) has a SSKP of 93% against a minuteman silo , hes a reputed expert and go ask him your self

rove? How about you prove what you are saying. YOU HAVE NO PROOF of any of your claims besides random unofficial websites that are as inaccurate as you are claiming the USN is somehow lacking because they don't do research or have AGENDAS. Intercepting hypersonic missiles is not hard for AEGIS or Patriot. They are designed to do just that. How fast do you think reentry vehicles are moving? How fast do you think that satellite was moving when AEGIS shot it down?

inaccurate sites??? lol you have not EVEN PROVIDED A SHRED OF PROOF AND you argue , even Samuel Cohen stated that Aegis failed its tests , and yes satellite have a certain fixed trajectory , even Soviets intercepted satellites in 1968 and were first to do so

...Stop believing all the hype out there. This is nothing new. If you ask questions, I'll give you the real truth so long as its public domain information. But these assertions and wild claims you make need to stop.

Last July, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher also wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Sunburn missile being sold to China. Fisher, a former defense analyst for Rep. Chris Cox, R -Calif., now working for a Washington-based think-tank, says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn.

"The Raduga Moskit (Sunburn) anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy.

"The Moskit combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead."

There is evidence supporting Fisher's allegations that the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn. The only U.S. missile capable of duplicating the Sunburn's blistering low-level performance is the Allied Signal Vandal. Vandal target drones reportedly penetrated U.S. Navy Aegis air defenses during trials. The Vandal program has been canceled by the Clinton administration.

The move by the U.S. Navy to seek the Sunburn was first reported April 17 by Aviation Week & Space Technology in an article titled "Sunburned."


www.worldnetdaily.com...

The U.S. Navy depends on AEGIS missile defense systems to protect its fleets, but Cohen said AEGIS has failed all of its tests, and there is no proof that it could fend off a multi-missile strike against a fleet, let alone a country. Cohen said the U.S. Navy should put more resources into nuclear-powered submarines because of the difficulty any enemy might have in destroying them in a first strike
www.manuelsweb.com...

lol, as former US scientist and neutron bomb maker Samuel Cohen said Aegis is a failure

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.
www.rense.com...

aegis a proven failure in combat

OK, you asked for it...


In addition to the new fuze, an ‘‘accuracy adjunct’’ has been developed for the W76-
1/Mk4A, designed to give the weapon ‘‘GPS [Global Positioning System]-like accuracy.’’
Congress refused to fund the program out of concern that it could lead to more usable
nuclear weapons, but the navy has continued development anyway with funding
provided by Lockheed Martin. A full-scale flight test of the ‘‘three-axis flap system,’’ which
enables the reentry vehicles to make course adjustments during reentry, was test flown on
a D5 launched from the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) on March 1, 2005. A top navy official
involved in the test told the author: ‘‘I had GPS signal all the way down and could steer
it.’’
cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol14/142/142kristensen.pdf


When I tell you something, it's because I have either seen it or can prove it. Failing that I can support it with my own analysis.

the capability is yet to be proven of 10 meter accuracy .......




[edit on 5-8-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 5-8-2008 by manson_322]

Godfather
Russian Boy
Manson,


Look, I do this for a living. I've been involved for longer than I care to remember in various military matters, war and I have the technical background on the civilian side to support it as well. Everything I told you is true. EVERYTHING. Go to any serious military forum and you will see what professionals think. I'm a member of most of them.

Strategypage
F-16 net
Defense Talk
Defense tech
Stratfor

...and a few others. I don't want to get confrontational with you. If you guys want to believe wild a$$ claims from websites and what you misinterpret in the media, go right ahead. However, if you wish to understand ANYTHING military related, ask me. Ask a single question at a time and I'll be more than happy to discuss with you until a mutual understanding is reached. Again, humble yourselves, think about who you are talking with, accept that you may not know something as well as you thing you do. And take advantage of expert advice and it will greatly enhance your understanding of these things. If for whatever reasons, you are too proud to admit you don't know, you think you know better than me or you just plain don't like the way I post you can't get anything from talking with me. Then lets just agree to disagree and move on. I already know the answers to these questions and I'm completely familiar with the discussion topic. If I can share that, great. If not, then no sweat off my back. So the choice is yours.

Just know that the Russians would be foolish to put nuclear bombers in Cuba

Those Bombers would not be survivable

The US Nuclear Forces are far superior to what Russia has left as a system

The USN is more than ready to deal with any kind of missile in service today or any that might be coming soon. Hypersonic missiles are nothing new to the USN



Good Luck and remember, we don't have to agree, but I do this for real so consider that before you casually blow off what I say because it doesn't fit what you read on Globalsecurity or some other Open Source Website. I've got a far better view of things.


[edit on 5-8-2008 by DarthAmerica]

Ok i think i will stop here , and will be just overwatching dont want to get confrontational either, by the way feel sorry if i spoken to you rude DarthAmerica, just a moment of heat thats it , no hard feelings. Everything out there needs proof untill they be used .

America has spent 5 years trying to subdue a third world nation that was beaten had 10 yrs of sanctions and disarmed by weapons inspections .

they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

every war was a loss

now the American draftee army is different and ww3 is a different scenario

but even there we are talking about 8/10ths of the population vanishing

are Americans that stupid to start it
you better believe it
their economy is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
and the NWO calls for the destruction of AMerica CHina and Russia
SO I believe the NEOCONS and the YES men generals will do it.

Russia and China will be more than formidable
America can not beat those countries so they will have partners
Bush is a mad man with a legacy of failure
he will attack IRAN with an air war
that will probably be the spark

reply to post by DarthAmerica


the American military cant even stop 3 commercial jets flown by clowns from the middle east .
so the story goes

bunglers in the first degree

[edit on 5-8-2008 by solo1]

Originally posted by solo1
America has spent 5 years trying to subdue a third world nation that was beaten had 10 yrs of sanctions and disarmed by weapons inspections .

they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

every war was a loss

now the American draftee army is different and ww3 is a different scenario

but even there we are talking about 8/10ths of the population vanishing

are Americans that stupid to start it
you better believe it
their economy is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
and the NWO calls for the destruction of AMerica CHina and Russia
SO I believe the NEOCONS and the YES men generals will do it.

Russia and China will be more than formidable
America can not beat those countries so they will have partners
Bush is a mad man with a legacy of failure
he will attack IRAN with an air war
that will probably be the spark

Well you sure seem set on the destruction of the US Silo, i pity you, i really do.

Comparing policing Iraq, with a scenario of WW3 has many flaws. Whether you can swallow it or not, America has the greatest logistical, techonological and experienced forces in the world.

Anyway, i don't know why all this talk of world war 3 seems so likely to many people, America, Russia and China, share a mutually beneficial relationship, both ideologically and economically. Despite the propaganda,media scare-mongering and penis posing by some politicians, they know full well that military conflict will end in loss on all sides. Common sense prevails and we should instead be attitudinizing on mending bridges with our partners. The world is big enough for us all.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by theblunttruth]

go read the pnac and you will learn why
America in your words and beliefs may have the best
but in reality how did those three commercial jetliners slip through the net
of sophistication .
I believe the NWO has to get rid of America Russia and China and a war is coming to do just that.
Russia has already said there will be no uni-polar world
a direct challenge to Complete spectrum dominance .
I can't say for certain it will come about, diplomacy can prevail and things can change .

but you wont win an argument assuming American can win a ww3 scenario
it's not even debatable
the faster you get rid of no legacy bush the better he is a madman

Originally posted by solo1
America has spent 5 years trying to subdue a third world nation that was beaten had 10 yrs of sanctions and disarmed by weapons inspections .

they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

every war was a loss

now the American draftee army is different and ww3 is a different scenario

but even there we are talking about 8/10ths of the population vanishing

are Americans that stupid to start it
you better believe it
their economy is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
and the NWO calls for the destruction of AMerica CHina and Russia
SO I believe the NEOCONS and the YES men generals will do it.

Russia and China will be more than formidable
America can not beat those countries so they will have partners
Bush is a mad man with a legacy of failure
he will attack IRAN with an air war
that will probably be the spark

American Draftee?

Americans Stupid?

Every war a loss?

Dude, you are trolling. You post as if you haven't got out of the second grade seriously. I understand if you don't agree with American foreign policy but why don't you try to articulate that rather than throwing vomitous insults you can't back up. People are over here dying for your benefit. Dying so that you don't become a Dhimmi. Dying so you can afford to buy energy. Dying to keep you safe in your homeland. So if you must disagree, perhaps you could do so with a little more class and intelligence because right now you read like a very unintelligent person.

For me I'll die to defend your right to free speech. But I wont force myself to read nonsense. So, if you choose to respond with a bit of decency and intelligence. I'll be more than happy to consider what you have to say even if we don't agree. However what I wont do is read you disrespect my country and fallen comrades. So if you continue, the next time I read something from you like whats quoted above, I'll be clicking the ignore button.

Regards



[edit on 5-8-2008 by DarthAmerica]

reply to post by solo1


Your post warrants not a response. However, i feel compelled to ignore my better judgement in order to serve the purpose of debate.

Your are basing your military assesment of a nation on 9/11 and the current policing of Iraq?!?! Are you serious?

9/11 - those "commercial planes" got through because they attacked in the guise of a domestic commercial flight(s), it was not expected. The US has since reviewed the whole of its security protocols to ensure that such doesnt happen again. They didnt anticipate it and sure i'm sure some blunders in intelligence etc were partially responsible. Regardless it is not an act to gauge military might on.

Seriously, i really have no beef with you, but you've gotta become more objective and expand your views and knowledge. I have no problem with opposing views or opinions, but when they are so short sighted and with such abhorration and disrespect you kind of lose your argument and people will do nothing but ignore you. Im one step closer to hitting that ignore tab... I welcome opposition with substance not blind hatred..

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Ok i think i will stop here , and will be just overwatching dont want to get confrontational either, by the way feel sorry if i spoken to you rude DarthAmerica, just a moment of heat thats it , no hard feelings. Everything out there needs proof untill they be used .

No worries brother. I'll try to do as much as I can to back up what I say or answer any of your questions. Take care and debate away!

reply to post by DarthAmerica


Look to be frank I wouldn't care if you worked for NASA and designed rocket engines...
Your attitude is still the same as a ten year old boy's, and to that end your no more credible than anyone else here.

Because every damn point you made just defied simple common sense and general knowledge about the topic.

We're NOT talking about incredibly hard to understand concepts and military jargon here...

Anybody can look this stuff up for themselves and then come a to a logical conclusion about the probability of System X intercepting Missile Y.

That's the besides the point.
What your doing is just throwing around all this technical crap that has nothing to do with anything and jumping to conclusions about US ABM's and interceptors without any hard proof.

It seems your long line of "defence work" has given you a real slant and bias in your views of Russian missile technology.
You just keep dodging any information people throw at you about them and blow them off as "fanboys".

You seem to have a real hard time facing the fact that a lot of Russian missile technology is far superior to their Western counterparts.
You don't even want to consider them as a potent threat. You just that prospect out completely.
Especially when it comes to cruise missiles, SAM's and MRBM/ICBM's.

Another thing.
Don't criticise globalsecurity.org and FAS as unreliable, they're not open source websites, they're all American-based and they're put together by defence contractors/analysts.

Your Government/USM references may sound authoritative and reputable to the on paper, but they're just as likely to distort facts and figures to make themselves seem more potent than they really are.
Especially some of those Pentagon reports you cited.
They're so full of ego and a self-boasting tone it's hard to take them seriously.

You need to stop with this "Holier than thou" attitude because it doesn't make you any more credible in anyone's perspective.

All that bragging just makes you far more stubborn and less open-minded when it comes to alternative sources of information; which are abundant on a conspiracy website like ATS.

You need to get used to the fact that people here are going to be by nature more sceptical and curious of anything you have to say. Ok?

You can argue that your a retired Missile Weapons officer/Rocket Scientist/former NAVY SEAL all you like and that you know your stuff.

But when you don't offer much convincing evidence to back yourself up your credentials are moot.
More so when you keep telling people they're clueless and throwing around your unprovable credentials, it's only going to make people less receptive to your opinions.

Since your new here, take that as a some general, friendly advice.
ATS is not a defence forum.

[edit on 5/8/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

Look to be frank I wouldn't care if you worked for NASA and designed rocket engines...

Pride comes before the fall...

Your attitude is still the same as a ten year old boy's, and to that end your no more credible than anyone else here.
Because every damn point you made just defied simple common sense and general knowledge about the topic.
We're NOT talking about incredibly hard to understand concepts and military jargon here...

Anybody can look this stuff up for themselves and then come a to a logical conclusion about the probability of System X intercepting Missile Y.

LOL yeah, go to the USN Fact file page and look up the speed of a Los Angeles Class SSN. Hey, sorry son, it takes years to understand this stuff. Also, not all the data necessary to make these assessments is public domain. So, again, if you want to think you are my equal on these subject matters, go right ahead. You will just end up wrong when we disagree on a technical matter. There is a reason why some of us are PROFESSIONALS. Think about that. Otherwise why not open a law office or medical practice. Heck, you seem to think specific training and education is not necessary for subject matter competency. You might as well get paid what you are worth and not wasting time with some old crusty vet!

That's the besides the point.
What your doing is just throwing around all this technical crap that has nothing to do with anything and jumping to conclusions about US ABM's and interceptors without any hard proof.

LOL all this technical crap? LOL is that your way of saying you don't understand? OK, just say so next time and I'll explain it to you.

It seems your long line of "defence work" has given you a real slant and bias in your views of Russian missile technology.
You just keep dodging any information people throw at you about them and blow them off as "fanboys".

I've studies Russian weapons, technology, culture and even language for over a decade. I don't have to dodge son.

You seem to have a real hard time facing the fact that a lot of Russian missile technology is far superior to their Western counterparts.
You don't even want to consider them as a potent threat. You just that prospect out completely. Especially when it comes to cruise missiles, SAM's and MRBM/ICBM's.

You dont know what you are talking about. But go on and believe what you want.

You need to stop with this "Holier than thou" attitude because it doesn't make you any more credible in anyone's perspective.

Whatever. Don't be jealous of me. Don't worry about my perception of myself. Just debate the subject matter. When you don't understand, which you don't obviously, ask.

All that bragging just makes you far more stubborn and less open-minded when it comes to alternative sources of information; which are abundant on a conspiracy website like ATS. You need to get used to the fact that people here are going to be by nature more sceptical and curious of anything you have to say. Ok?

Get used to it? I get paid on twice a month regardless. I do this for fun, not as a popularity contest.

You can argue that your a retired Missile Weapons officer/Rocket Scientist/former NAVY SEAL all you like and that you know your stuff. But when you don't offer much convincing evidence to back yourself up your credentials are moot.

A brain scientist could show you how brain cancer works. Thats wouldnt mean you understood it would you?

More so when you keep telling people they're clueless and throwing around your unprovable credentials, it's only going to make people less receptive to your opinions.

Their choice. I can only show you the info, I can't make you understand.

Originally posted by alienstar
Sorry there would never been a WW3.First launch from even a single missile would result in a retaliatory by many missiles.

Who's taking part in this war? Would you start world war three over one missile? Where are your defenses?

Either way u can't win a nuclear war.

As per popular western mythology perhaps but not in reality. ALL wars, no matter the devastation, is quite 'winnable' which is as always entirely dependent on what the leaders of the inniating or defending side considers victory. The Russians lost tens of millions the last time round so they very much understand what victory might entail when proper preparations are not made.

So what your nukes have a bigger payload and would strike outside a city.

Both sides deployed ICBMs in the same time frame and both had the capability for counter value strikes as well as limited counter force ( strategic airfields/harbors etc) and while the US missiles were for the most part more accurate larger Russian yields mostly made up for their own shortcomings.

Ours are more accurate with a smaller payload making sure it hits its target.Either way nobody wins.

These days both sides have very accurate missiles with larger Russian yields far larger than required to make up for the slight deficiency in accuracy.

Presuming( which i don't, knowing what i do) that neither nations have large cache's of secret weapons that could significantly shift power to one side the combination of Russian ICBMs and ABM defenses results in a clear strategic edge for them. They have in my opinion had this superiority since the mid 70's and have not lost it since.

Stellar

PS: You would still look quite well informed if you were a bit more civil; you really can afford it so why not try it?

[edit on 5-8-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Presuming( which i don't, knowing what i do) that neither nations have large cache's of secret weapons that could significantly shift power to one side the combination of Russian ICBMs and ABM defenses results in a clear strategic edge for them. They have in my opinion had this superiority since the mid 70's and have not lost it since.

Stellar

PS: You would still look quite well informed if you were a bit more civil; you really can afford it so why not try it?

[edit on 5-8-2008 by StellarX]

Russian nuclear strategic edge? Not likely. It was their government that feel apart and whos system broke down. It's Russia who's maintenance and logistics system were compromised. Its the Russian security infrastructure that broke down in 1989-1990 that compromised their entire armed forces to western intelligence. Again, both sides certainly have hidden weapons and capabilities. But neither the Russian ABM system or their nuclear arsenal is the equal of what America has now. Not even close.

Originally posted by DarthAmerica
Russian nuclear strategic edge? Not likely.

We all have opinions,yes.

It was their government that feel apart and whos system broke down.

A government that falls apart does not, for instance, deploy a hundred road mobile ICBMs in the time when it's falling apart. What about the Russian system 'broke' down in such a way that it somehow lost the capacity to do what it could do five year earlier?

It's Russia who's maintenance and logistics system were compromised.

But did that happen in those areas of the armed forces where it mattered enough to compromise the strategic edge i happen to believe in?

Its the Russian security infrastructure that broke down in 1989-1990 that compromised their entire armed forces to western intelligence.

In what way? Who was fooling who when it came as a complete surprise to western intelligence/security?

Again, both sides certainly have hidden weapons and capabilities.

And a few not so hidden weapons and capabilities

But neither the Russian ABM system or their nuclear arsenal is the equal of what America has now. Not even close.

And if i time allows me i will disagree at some length.

Stellar