Russia long-range missile test a success

reply to post by Lethil


i found it, here u go :
www.cosmosmagazine.com...

its a very interesting article :p
its a bit oftopic, but ah well

regards

Im tired of hearing what Russia has and what the U.S has in terms of defense and offensive systems. People just dont get it. One someone makes a statement with no "source" its deemed invalid.

The point im making is, we ONLY know things that are published in print. What makes you think both sides dont have highly secret weaponry or defensive capabilities that overpower the current "published" systems by tenfold.

No country is going to disclose their best of the best.. because if they did it would just give their enemies the advantage, by knowing the BEST they got. There will always be developments in science and tech with relation to the military, that will be kept completely secret and underground until wartime.

If something does go down with Russia in the coming months, I am prepared to hear about some crazy new devices, planes, and technology that have so forth been in the shadows.

Bottom line is, yes matchups can be made with the current published technology that Russia and the U.S have, but in reality, thats just the face value. And yes some of us may have too much pride in our country (U.S), but since when is that a bad thing? Knowing all the secrets our gov't has kept from us, im sure they are keeping some pretty slick military / defense tech under our noses as well.

Originally posted by mrsdudara

I understand that countries test their missiles as a way to shake their fists at other countries, but, I think the capabilities of this missile they just tested just made everyone a bit too uncomfortable. Considering they waited until after Asia voiced their backing.....this seems more like a "game on" statement.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 28-8-2008 by mrsdudara]

What people don't realise is that the missle systems planned actually tie in to our nuclear system in the U.S... and will give the U.S first strike capability to Russia.. this seriously changes the balance of nuclear power...

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
Well at least they can melt enough Fanta cans down to build a rocket. Now just give them another 50 years and they will have a NAVY again

Can I offer some humor to go along with this?

Did you hear that the new russian navy will have all glass bottomed ships?


Why, you ask?


Why, of course, so that the russians can still see the old russian navy.

reply to post by thefreepatriot: What people don't realise is that the missle systems planned actually tie in to our nuclear system in the U.S... and will give the U.S first strike capability to Russia.. this seriously changes the balance of nuclear power...

Yes it most seriously does. But what you people seem incapable of understanding is this:

When you open up a third front in three different countries on three different continents, then the balance of power shifts against you.

The logistical war alone, will not bring America to its knees. It will be the endless rows of shiny aluminium, flag draped coffins awaiting collection a la Viet Nam style and the upsurge of the anti-war movement.

Adolf Hitler thought he was God and tried to fight a war on three fronts and look what happened to the Thousand Year Reich.

Unfortunately, George W Bush is no Adolf Hitler, otherwise he would learn from history's mistakes.

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Lethil

 

Size doesn't matter when nukes are involved. Theres enough nukes to hit Russia 10 times over. When the ashes are cleared and there is the possibility a few Russians alive, the Chinese will come in and help repopulate the country and call it New China.

You can't use a vast amount of nukes against Russian territory which is effectively parts of Europian territory too. In fact you can use only a limited amount and of special types of WMD because else the fallout is going to cover Europe all the way down to Africa.
Having that information in mind your strategic command has the only option of revising a plan that in a given scenario that nukes have to be envolved, they would force the Russian strategic plan to only nuke parts of the Northern Europe. In any scenario with a nuclear confrontation you have to effectively destroy parts of Europe to achieve anything and even these options would have very questionable outcomes.

I am pretty sure that Europe will "remember" your "help" in the aftermath. Would you want those too come come knocking at your door? Maybe you do.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by spacebot]

ROFLMAO sorry I just do not see it. You all quote these so called articles yet you post no links. Why???? As far as Russia goes the U.K. alone would whip there rears without any U.S. help.

Secondly Has anyone on here noticed how Germany with out flinching jumped right on Russia about there operations in Georgia? I'm thinking someone wants some pay back for a few years of splitting there country and erecting a wall.

Originally posted by Justice11
And then the retaliatory strike would literally wipe russia from the world map.

Very probably not.

Management Agency (FEMA), the Soviets have built at least 20,000
blast-resistant shelters to protect approximately 15 million people, or
roughly 10 percent of the people in cities of 25,000 or more. The FY 1981
Department of Defense Annual Report to the Congress noted that
"the Soviets will probably continue to emphasize the construction of
urban blast sheltering. If the current pace of construction is continued,
the number of people that can be sheltered will be roughly doubled in
1988." The Soviets apparently plan to evacuate and disperse the general
population to pre-assigned resettlement areas where they will be fed
and either provided with a fallout shelter or put to work building one.

According to Soviet civil defense SOVIET FATALITIES (SAY SOVIETS): "BETWEEN THREE
AND-FOUR PERCENT" manuals, this plan for the evacuation and dispersal of people is designed
to limit casualties in the event of a nuclear exchange to between three and four percent of the
population. Modest, feasible measures to protect machinery from nuclear effects greatly increase
both the probability of industrial survival and U .S. retaliatory force requirements . . .
[FEMA and the CIA] estimate that the Soviet Union, given time to implement
fully these civil defense measures, could limit casualties to around fifty million, about half of
which would be fatalities. This compares to the approximately 20 million Soviet fatalities suffered in
World War II . There is no significant U .S. civil defense effort, and the Soviets
recognize this. The potential impact of Soviet civil defense on our deterrent
could be devastating.

www.tfxib.com...

Soviet Union. The role civil defense plays in Soviet strategy is significant. Based on the view that nuclear war is a clear possibility and that civilization is protectable, the Soviets have implemented a massive and thoroughly integrated civil defense effort.22 Soviet leaders have shown interest in civil defense for many years, but they enhanced their efforts following the 23rd Party Congress in 1966. Despite SALT I agreements in 1972, the U.S.S.R. further intensified its civil defense program. CD currently ranks as a separate force organizationally equal to other Ministry of Defense Forces. The CD chief, General of the Army Altunin (four-star rank), is also Deputy Minister of Defense with three CD deputies of colonel-general (three star) rank serving under him. A Stanford Research Institute (SRI) study23 in 1974 stated that there were at least 35 to 40 active list Soviet army general officers holding posts in the Soviet CD system, which is intricately organized in the 15 constituent republics of the U.S.S.R. The SRI report mentioned a three-year CD military officer candidate school that might indicate the Soviet interest in a continuing civil defense program.

The Soviets spend the equivalent of more than $1 billion annually (the CIA in Soviet Civil Defense estimates approximately $2 billion) on their CD program and have conducted some tests of their city evacuation plans. Although the extent of these tests is not fully known, they concentrate efforts on protecting political and military leaders, industrial managers, and skilled workers. Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard sees the CD organization under Altunin as "...a kind of shadow government charged with responsibility for administering the country under the extreme stresses of nuclear war and its immediate aftermath."24

The potential lifesaving effectiveness of the Soviet CD program is not a matter of unanimous agreement. However, several studies estimate casualty rates as low as two to three percent of the Soviet population in the event of nuclear war.25

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

In contrast to the U.S.'s desultory interest in civil defense, the Soviet Union is well advanced on a thoroughgoing program to protect its people against nuclear attack. The Soviet government has built shelters by the thousands and organized elaborate training programs, reported the Rand Corp.'s Leon Gouré, leading U.S. authority on Soviet civil defense, at a civil defense conference last week at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The Soviet civil defense effort is expanding steadily on a compulsory basis. "Once the Soviet government makes a decision of this sort," said Gouré, "it does not have to ask for public support or popular approval." Under directives from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, all units right down to collective farms and apartment houses are required to organize so-called volunteer self-defense groups consisting of 48 trained fire fighters, shelter attendants and first-aid workers for every 500 residents. A claimed 22 million Soviet citizens—10% of the whole population-serve in these formations. Since 1955, these units have carried through three compulsory training courses for all citizens. This winter, says Gouré, the Soviet Union is giving every urban citizen between the ages of 16 and 55 an 18-hour course in how to protect himself against nuclear attack and how to behave in shelters. "Soviet shelter facilities," says Gouré, "are the most extensive anywhere." They range from concrete installations in every factory to the root cellar under every peasant hut.

www.time.com...

America would survive.Russia would not.

America may or may not survive depending on how many direct energy weapon defenses it has deployed in secret; the same is true for the Russians but they have also deployed a nation wide ABM system:

However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...

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...

Since they have a missile that can elude the anti-missile system,the batteries on poland are a non-issue so Russia can stick a sock in it.

That's true but since most of the world are not aware of the Russian defenses this once again makes the US actions seem blatantly belligerent thus helping the Russians to gain even more allies than they already have.

Stellar

Originally posted by deltaboy
Size doesn't matter when nukes are involved.

It absolutely does as fallout effects will obviously be even more limited than they will be in smaller country. The amount of crops you can poison and water you can render dangerous is vastly increased in a smaller nation.

Theres enough nukes to hit Russia 10 times over.

Only according to the popular propaganda that would have nations completely disarmed... There isn't enough nukes in the US arsenal to effectively counter mobile Russian ICBM launchers, military infrastructure, silo's and do so with sufficient warheads to ensure that Russian ABM defenses don't blunt attacks in some region. Basically the US is being systematically disarmed as it reduces warheads while the Russian federation grows stronger by virtue of it's , now legal, ABM defenses growing proportionately more effective.

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...

Critics of the ABM treaty argue that the
treaty is no longer binding because the Soviet
Union no longer exists and because the
Soviets were, and the Russians continue to be,
in violation of the treaty. They contend that
the Russians have more than the one ABM
system permitted by the treaty.

Joseph Arminio, chairman of the National Coalition
for Defense, states:
Not only did the U.S.S.R., unlike the
U.S., deploy the one missile defense
permitted by the treaty, ringing
Moscow with the 100 interceptors
sanctioned by law. It also littered
about Soviet territory with another
10,000 to 12,000 interceptors, and 18
battle-management radars. Together
the Moscow defense and the vast
homeland defense formed an interlocking
system—nearly all of it illicit.10

The “10,000 to 12,000 interceptors” to which
Arminio refers are SA-5, SA-10, and SA-12
anti-aircraft missiles that some ABM treaty
opponents argue have an anti-ballistic missile
capability.1

www.cato.org...

The worse thing is that the Chinese are fast deploying this same system which at present represents about 1/4 of the Russian S-300 potential ( 160 TEL's) albeit with far lesser national early warning and tracking/coordination assets. Basically the Russians consider the Chinese to be such good allies that they are selling them them the means to protect themselves against nuclear weaponry fired by any country.

When the ashes are cleared and there is the possibility a few Russians alive, the Chinese will come in and help repopulate the country and call it New China.

It looks to me that the Russians have for the most part dictated terms to the Chinese leadership based on the understanding that they can ward of American aggression and will cooperated in China's economic prosperity as China is in the Russian economic revival. I would not count on China as a aggressive NATO partner and Chinese neutrality is probably the best that can be hoped for.

Stellar

Originally posted by EDWOOD
thebulletin.metapress.com...

If you look at the above document, this test was already planned - at least 11 test launches are expected in 2008.

Russia needs to conduct tests of the Topol-M as this will probably be its only ICBM after 2018-2020. All the SS25s are being dismantled.

Well they are being slowly reduced as they reach the end of their useful service life. Since they started to deploy them in the mid 80's the last SS-25's will be in service till as late as 2020 given proper service life extensions and maintenance.

The SS18s have been reduced from 308 to 75 with the number possibly going down to just 40 by the end of 2008.

The missile in question was described as the RS-20V (R-36M2) Voyevoda, which has been in service for some 16 years, and which will remain in service for another ten or 15 years. It is known as the SS-18 or as “Satan” in the West. Of the two versions or “modifications” of SS-18s currently deployed, this was probably the SS-18 Mod 4. Russia reportedly has about 40-50 of these missiles currently in service.
Russia is expected to test one more missile in 2004, the Topol-M, this Friday, December 24.

Speaking to journalists, Russian Strategic Missile Troops commander Col.-Gen. Nikolay Solovtsov said that the service life of Russian ICBMs would be extended an additional 10-15 years, for a total of 25-30 years, reports ITAR TASS.
Though Solovtsov did not specify which missiles were being extended, he was likely referring to SS-18 and SS-19s. He attributed the extension of the missile’s usability to “good maintenance.” Equally relevant, however, is the cash-strapped nature of the advanced Topol-M (SS-27) missile deployment, which continues to proceed but is currently behind schedule in producing replacing older ICBMs.

www.missilethreat.com...

Not the newest of news but there isn't much reason to suspect that Mod 4's wont serve up to 2015-20 given proper funding as indicated here:

The agreement was coordinated during a visit by the Ukrainian defense minister to Moscow in 2006 and established that Ukraine would assist Russia in maintaining systems that have been on combat duty for the past 15 years for a further 10-15 years.

With this agreement in force, Russia will not need to decommission the existing missiles and manufacture more new Topol-M systems, which would increase the defense budget by $3-4 billion.

Along with this agreement the Russian president signed a bill to cancel an agreement with Ukraine on an early warning missile and space monitoring system, which was also passed by the State Duma on January 25 and approved by the Federation Council on January 30.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The SS19 are nearly obscelent.

No more so than the Minutemen which are, as you know, quite a bit older. The SS-19 force will be kept in service depending on how fast the deployments of the Topol M's proceeds.

At the moment Russia has 54 Topol-M missiles carrying the same amount of warheads - Although the new RS24 set to be deployed next year is said to have MIRVS. What this means is a HUGE decrease in warhead numbers in the next few years.

The current Topol-M ICBMs are 22.7 m (74.47 ft) in length and have a diameter of 1.95 m (6.4 ft). The mass at launch is 47,200 kg (104,000 lb). This figure includes its 1000 ~ 1200 kilogram payload. It carries a single warhead with a 550 kT yield, but could be modified to carry up to six warheads. Part of the Russian launchers will be upgraded starting in 2007 [1]. Its range is estimated to be 11,000 km (6,900 mi). It has three solid rocket stages with inertial, autonomous flight control.

The development began in the late 1980s, and the missile was redesigned in 1992. The first flight test took place on December 20, 1994, and first deployment occurred in December of 1997 in modified SS-19 silos. First silo-based regiment was declared operational in 1998, followed by three others in 1999, 2000, and 2003.

The Topol-M may be deployed either inside a reinforced missile silo or from a self-propelled mobile launcher, capable of moving through roadless terrain, and launching a missile from any point along its route.

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see the single warhead Topol-M can readily be modified to carry six 500 Kt warheads thus replacing the SS-19's in both warheads deployed and range. I doubt there will be a huge decrease now that the SS-18's service lives have been extended and one must take into account that the SS-18's can , or have been, carrying 20 500 Kt warheads.

Missiles of the R-36M/SS-18 family have never been deployed with more than ten warheads. But given their large throw-weight (8.8 tonnes as specified in START), they have the capacity to carry considerably more than that. Among the projects that the Soviet Union considered in the mid-1970s was that of a 15A17 missile—a follow-on to the R-36MUTTH (15A18).[1] The missile would have had an even greater throw-weight—9.5 tonnes—and would be able to carry a very large number of warheads. Five different versions of the missile were considered. Three of these versions would carry regular warheads – 38x 250 kt yield, 24x 500 kt yield, or 15-17x 1 Mt yield. Two modifications were supposed to carry guided warheads (“upravlyaemaya golovnaya chast”) – 28x 250 kt or 19x 500 kt.[2] However, none of these upgraded models were ever developed.

The operational deployment of the R36M/SS-18 consisted of the R-36MUTTH, which carried ten 500 kt warheads, and its follow-on, the R-36M2 (15A18M), which carried ten 800 kt warheads (Single-warhead versions with either 8.3 Mt or 20 Mt warhead also existed at some point). To partially circumvent the treaty, the missile, utilizing the capacity unused due to 10 warhead limitation, was equipped with 40 heavy decoys.[3] These decoys would appear as warheads to any defensive system, making each missile as hard to intercept as 50 single-warhead, rendering potential ABM systems ineffective.

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

From over 1600 warheads on ICBMS to what? A few hundred?! Even if Russia invests more money in its arsenal its warheads will fall below those stipulated in the SORT treaty.

It will probably be acknowledged by the west and claimed by the Russian government to be around 1500 unless the US dismantles more weapons or chooses to rearm it's current arsenal with it's maximum potential warhead loadings. Either way the ICBM force that will likely to admitted to in the coming decade will have the capacity to change to higher warhead loadings on the order of 2000 warheads without arousing much if any suspicion.

I would not worry about this test. Russia's Nuclear arsenal longterm is falling apart.. However this is when they could be at their most dangerous...

Thew relatively newly deployed Topal can carry 6 warheads and the Sineva can/will be MIRVed to carry ten..... In addition to the service live extensions of the silo forces i don't see how that can be construed as 'falling apart'.

Originally posted by EDWOOD
I think what Russia is worried about is the fact that their Nuclear arsenal is shrinking year-on-year. Theres nothing they can do about it.

Their Nuclear arsenal is shrinking but not faster than their ABM potential is increasing. If the US national security state can be pressed in further disarmament the Russians will benefit most.

The amount of warheads that are being dismantled and are now past their service lives will not be replaced in anywhere near the same numbers in the future.

There are less then 60 new SS27s with hundreds of warheads to be dismantled in the next few years.

There are less than 60 Topol M's which the Russian government admits to. We really don't in fact know how many are being constructed here there or elsewhere in locations such as the yamantua mountains. I have no problem if you wish to presume that there are in fact only sixty Topol's ( it's after all probably sufficient) but to go as far as to suggest that the Russians will allow their ICBM forces to fall apart while they are deploying new SAM batteries by the dozen ( export value around 150 million USD per battery) is in my opinion unwarranted and somewhat illogical when the Russian federation maintains a large KNOWN nuclear/plutonium manufacturing infrastructure.

So the reduction in warheads coupled with the increase in the effectiveness of the West's ABM capabilities is obviously making 'the bear' nervous.

As you may or may not have noticed from my previous post the acknowledged Russian ABM system is far larger than similar operational or proposed western US or western systems. The countries with the best known ABM defenses are respectively the Russian federation and the China. Interestingly it is the exact decline of the US nuclear arsenal that is fast increasing the potential of the Russian national ABM system to blunt all but a concerted 'launch everything you have' NATO nuclear attack.

However, I can't see how they can stop their nuclear arsenal falling below 1,500 warheads by 2018-2020..

I can and as per my descriptions/links you should be able to agree with the sources. Either way 1500 warheads in the 500/750 Kt range is always going to be a powerful deterrent power when the US public remains so completely unprepared and apparently undefended.

Stellar

reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR


...and so Fanta Rocket that the US needs the Russia rocket to get to the international space station. I think that the US government should be ashamed for this. Who is gaining the space war? Nevertheless, do not worry about Russia, China will be over the US in 15 years, or less is MCcain is in office.

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
Well at least they can melt enough Fanta cans down to build a rocket. Now just give them another 50 years and they will have a NAVY again

Aaah... a proud Texan I see... greetings.. from the rest of the civilized world..
We come in peace sirs.. really!

Originally posted by Force Fire
ROFLMAO sorry I just do not see it. You all quote these so called articles yet you post no links. Why???? As far as Russia goes the U.K. alone would whip there rears without any U.S. help.

Secondly Has anyone on here noticed how Germany with out flinching jumped right on Russia about there operations in Georgia? I'm thinking someone wants some pay back for a few years of splitting there country and erecting a wall.

Are you a Texan too sir? we come in peace I tell you dammit!!
Someone's got to tell USAID to redirect funds to educate some portion of its own country rather than wasting money on stuffing CIA operatives in various '3rd world developing' countries...


[edit on 5-9-2008 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
That's a myth, you can effectively repopulate in 10 or even less.

It's a few weeks if your very careful and not much longer if you don't want to be. Either way it's largely a question of food how much you can do shortly afterwards.

Not everywhere but fallout is particulate and it is always going to flow down to the lowest source... in a decade, particularly given a global nuclear winter in which everything freezes for a couple of years then rapidly melts as sunlight getting in but not out causes global warming...

The theory of nuclear winter were quickly disproved and fallout becomes 'safe' long before it may have had time to flown to a accumulation area downstream.

you'll have major floods... and 99.9% of the debris and fallout will be washed downstream and to the oceans where it will accumulate at the bottom
like all dust also you dealing with a half life... initially that fallouts radiation will be a couple of feet from a single particle... in leass than a month it will be a couple of inches, in las than a year .25 of a centimeter

There is very, very probably no truth to any of that and certainly not much in the way of evidence so if you want to keep claiming something similar please provide some sources.

Here are some of mine :

www.answers.com...

jimmyakin.typepad.com...

Among the key assumptions underlying the nuclear winter hypothesis is the uniform
distribution of the smoke cloud. An experiment in Britain studied the local atmospheric
effects of smoke. The smoke was generated on a dry, clear day, when washout was expected
to be minimal. The smoke injection caused temperature gradients, resulting in local air
circulations Clouds developed that would not otherwise have occurred. Such clouds would
tend to scavenge the smoke before it could diffuse into the continental-scale smoke pall
that is the starting point of nuclear winter calculations, (Note that the black rain at
HiroRhima was an example of this effect.)The experiment was reported by BW Gelding, et
al Importance of Local Mesoscale Factors in Any Assessment of Nuclear Winter," Nature
314:301, Jan. 23, 1986,

www.oism.org...

in ten years it will be harmful only if ingested, long settled to the ground and washed out...in fact given a week for the freeze to start, 90% of it will be under ice that first month
after it melts and washes off a good geiger counter will show you whats left and you can hose it away from your property and be largely okay...

Agreed:

figure 1.2 also illustrates the fact that at a typical location where a given amount of fallout from an explosion is deposited later than 1 hour after the explosion, the highest dose rate and the total dose received at that location are less than at a location where the same amount of fallout is deposited 1 hour after the explosion. The longer fallout particles have been airborne before reaching the ground, the less dangerous is their radiation.

Within two weeks after an attack the occupants of most shelters could safely stop using them, or could work outside the shelters for an increasing number of hours each day. Exceptions would be in areas of extremely heavy fallout such as might occur downwind from important targets attacked with many weapons, especially missile sites and very large cities. To know when to come out safely, occupants either would need a reliable fallout meter to measure the changing radiation dangers, or must receive information based on measurements made nearby with a reliable instrument.

www.oism.org...

Cancer rates will be high but it's not like it deters people from living in Hiroshima a few years after the bomb

Only a very small fraction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens who survived radiation doses some of which were nearly fatal have suffered serious delayed effects. The reader should realize that to do essential work after a massive nuclear attack, many survivors must be willing to receive much larger radiation doses than are normally permissible. Otherwise, too many workers would stay inside shelter too much of the time, and work that would be vital to national recovery could not be done. For example, if the great majority of truckers were so fearful of receiving even non-incapacitating radiation doses that they would refuse to transport food, additional millions would die from starvation alone.

The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences, A Thirty Year Study of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of abnormalities is no higher among children later conceived by parents who were exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the incidence of abnormalities among Japanese children born to un-exposed parents.

www.ki4u.com...

The human toll from the world’s worst civil nuclear accident has been hotly debated ever since the Ukrainian power station’s No. 4 reactor blew up on April 26, 1986, spewing radioactive dust across Europe.Now a top British scientist has evaluated the comparative risks and concluded that for those most affected by the disaster —- emergency workers and people living nearby —- the increased risk of premature death due to radiation is around 1 percent.

That is roughly the same as the risk of dying from diseases triggered by air pollution in a major city or the effects of inhaling other people’s tobacco smoke, said Jim Smith of Britain’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.Some people are also living in the area and surviving well into their 70s, he noted.
“Populations still living unofficially in the abandoned lands around Chernobyl may actually have a lower health risk from radiation than they would have if they were exposed to the air pollution health risk in a large city such as nearby Kiev,” Smith wrote in the journal BioMedCentral Public Health.

His study focused on long-term health risks to survivors who received high but non-lethal doses of radiation.
It excluded the cases of 134 firemen and helicopter pilots who suffered acute radiation sickness, leading to death in around 40 cases.

www.mosnews.com...

Both issues are "hot." Comparison of doses may influence the future foundations of radiation protection principles and regulations. The report's appendix on Chernobyl (115 pages and 558 references) is obviously politically incorrect: it denies the claims of a mass health disaster caused by radiation in the highly contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union.

At the global scale, as the report shows, the average natural radiation dose is 2.4 mSv per year, with a "typical range" reaching up to 10 mSv. However, in the Annex on natural radiation, UNSCEAR presents data indicating that this dose range in some geographical regions is many tens and hundreds times higher than the average natural global dose, or than the currently accepted annual dose limits for general population (1 mSv) and occupationally exposed people (20 mSv).

No adverse health effects related to radiation were ever observed among people exposed to such high natural doses. This strongly suggests that the current radiation standards are excessively, and unnecessarily, restrictive.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...

So basically the world wont end for those who have prepared themselves even the simplest of shelters and stock of food.

China will be able to settle it...

The Russians will still be around to stop them and the Chinese seem to be taking it over rather peacefully as is.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
And the missile that can beat the defense system is a joke...
it's one of Many defense systems we have in place

I agree but i would like to see what your using as source for the claim...

Our first thing was screwing them over on the Missile reduction treaty, we droped the numbers of nukes from like 26,000 to around 10,000 BUT the ones we have we upgraded to include heavier warheads, smart guidance technology and bunker busting capacity

Both sides have had such capabilities since the mid 70's. There is no surprise here and the arms reductions favors the side with the most acknowledged ABM defenses which is as far as the data goes Russia:

However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...

Continued

Most of our ICBMs are designed now to penetrate and actually are capable of destroying Russian Nukes in silo so they can't be launched

The same is true for Russian missiles and American silo's and has been true since the 70's for some types of ICBM warheads on either side.

Second, contrary to the NIEs, the intelligence evidence indicated that the Politburo had approved engineering development of MIRV systems emphasizing counterforce rather than population targeting. The MIRVed successor to the SS-9 (eventually designated "SS-18") would open the "window of vulnerability" of MM silos (at 300 psi) by 1975, so that few MM could be expected to survive a Soviet attack by 1980. By the same token, allocating most of their ICBMs to counterforce attacks would reduce the number of warheads targeted on U.S. urban areas, hence NIKE-X defenses (and fall out shelters) would reduce U.S. population fatalities to far less than McNamara's "assured destruction" minimum of some 50 million, even against an all out Soviet attack.

Ironically, the Soviet force forecast that McNamara rejected in 1966 proved to be conservative, without the stimulation of U.S. national ABM. Flight testing of MIRVed Soviet ICBMs began in 1972- 73 followed by deployment in 1975-76. All three of these new ICBMS, not just the SS-18, were designed for damage limiting, counierforce strikes, and by 1980 constituted some 90 percent of the total Soviet ICBM arsenal. Too support its nuclear war fighting, damage limiting strategy the Politburo funded a larger and more formidable strategic nuclear arsenal than McNamara thought he would provoke by approving U.S. ABM defenses.

The counterforce arsenal that the Soviets actually deployed in 1975-80 was only 10-20 percent larger than my 1966 forecast. The "window of vulnerability" of U.S. land based strategic missiles opened on schedule, and became one of the major issues in U.S. strategic debates in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Furthermore, the total ICBM/SLBM warhead arsenal the Soviets negotiated and deployed under SALT was not significantly different than the 1966 forecast against which even McNamara admitted NIKE-X would be cost- effective.

www.fas.org...

Current Systems and Force Levels. The operational Soviet ICBM force is made up of 1,398 silo launchers. Some 818 of these launchers have been rebuilt since 1972. Nearly half of these silos are new versions of the original designs and have been reconstructed or modified in the past 5 years. All of these 818 silos have been hardened, better to withstand attack by currently operational US ICBMs, and house the world's most modern deployed ICBMs - the SS-17 Mod 3 (150 silos), the SS-18 Mod 4 (308) and the SS-19 Mod 3 (360). Deployment of these ICBMs began only 5 years ago. The SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs are at least as accurate and possibly more accurate and carry more Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) than the MINUTEMAN III, the most modern operational US ICBM. The SS-18 Mod 4 carries 10 MIRVs, and the SS-19 Mod 3 carries six whereas the MINUTEMAN III carries only three. The SS-18 Mod 4 was specifically designed to attack and destroy ICBM silos and other hardened targets in the United States. Each of its 10 warheads has more than 20 times the destructive power of the nuclear devices developed during World War II. The force of SS-18 Mod 4s currently deployed has the capability to destroy more than 80 percent of the US ICBM silo launchers using two nuclear warheads against each US silo.

www.fas.org...

And the US had similar capabilities early on which is why the Russians deployed mobile ICBM's as fast as they could.

But meanwhile, the United States steadily improved its “counterforce” capabilities—those nuclear weapons most effective at targeting an enemy’s nuclear arsenal. Even as it reduced the number of weapons in its nuclear arsenal, the U.S. made its remaining weapons more lethal and accurate. The result today is a global nuclear imbalance unseen in 50 years.
Nukes

The nuclear primacy argumenty is entirely fallacious in both it's presumptions as as well as in much of the information employed to create them.

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.wsichina.org...

articles about China but the point is clear
#2 our first Missile defense is Hydrogen Warheads specifically designed to blow an EMP surge, Sub launched these Missiles would target the atmosphere high above Russia as their Missiles were sub orbital, the resulting emp would fry their circuts and make both the detonation timers and guidance systems fail

The Russian systems are acknowledged to be as redundantly hardened as the American one's and EMP effects will not prevent either side from being able to launch their ICBM and SLBm arsenals. The effects or EMP weaponry are simply far too well known.

Russia did a few years back design and test shielded missiles but could have at best currently deployed 20-30 of them and it is those 20-30 misiles that the actual intercept systems are designed to targetthis is why Russia Fears the missile shield, because it knows in a single volley it would loose 99% of it's missiles to this tactic

Where did you get this idea from? Do you really believe that EMP effects can interrupt ICBM's from reaching their targets? You don't think they were tested to withstand such effects?

and if they just tested a missile that can evade a missile shield ... how many do they have deployed offering both those features atm... ZERO

They have SSBN/SLBM's and have had hundreds of rail and road mobile ICBMs for decades. There was no way to effectively blanket the USSR or the worlds oceans with sufficient exploding warheads to prevent a Russians from having the majority of their second strike weaponry hit the the US. The USSR also prepared to fight a extended nuclear war with all silo's employing cold launch technologies so as to enable them to be reloaded if they were not destroyed by American strikes. Buried and extensively hardened factories would have continued to produce missiles and the war would have one on for until one side lost the capability to build additional strategic weapons.

counter measures
This system was actually invented in the 60's but "not deployed" in forward fashion because of the ABM

Well both countries deployed these types of weapons from the 60's onwards so at the least the USSR had the capbility to blanket the skies over population centers with multiple small yield warhead explosions to attempt either the destruction or misdirection of American warheads. The US could have deployed a similar system had it chosen to do so.

This new evidence reinforces longstanding concerns about systematic Soviet violations of the ABM Treaty. Battlefield management radars are
the long leadtime component of any ABM defense system and the Soviets seem to have gained a great deal of experience in this field since 1975 when they installed an ABM-X-3 radar in the Kamchatka impact area for their ICBM tests. Over the years, the Soviets have also been upgrading their surface-to-air (SAM) bomber defense systems--now presumed to perform an ABM role. Since the Carter Administration, the Soviets repeatedly have tested various types of SAM missiles in'a discernable ABM mode at altitudes above 100,000 feet and have deployed thousands of less capable SA-5 missiles around-Soviet cities. These illegal ABM activities and the development of an anti-tactical ballistic missle system clearly point to a Soviet decision to subvert the ABM Treaty shortly after signing it.

Refusals to acknowledge these Soviet treaty violations point to the perennial dilemma of what to do after detecting cheating. The Administra-. tion is doingitself and the country no favor by refusing to acknowledge the mounting evidence that the Soviets are developing a capability which seriously erodes strategic stability and will soon permit the Soviet Union to break out of the ABM Treaty. The Administration should document and publicize Soviet ABM activities and Treaty violations. It should accele- rate the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BDM) program. Unless Moscow can refute the evidence that its radar and weapons programs are not de- signed for an ABM role, the U.S. should abrogate the ABM Treaty.

www.heritage.org...

ex]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.

Continued quote and post

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...

as you all should know we have essentially discarded the ABM at this time
So 99% of Russian Nukes are Useless

There is more open source proof that 99% of American warheads are useless than there are for for 99% of Russian.

Add to this we have deployed Haarp which can use microwaves to have the same effect, except that it is capable of working over a much greater range with far less colateral damge to friendly nations and us warships at sea from EMP blasts which have no limits, further Haarp technology can be and surely has been implemented from innocuous looking antennas hundreds of miles apart which can not be identified or targeted given numbers and mean distance from one another, there could be one on the building your living in now and you'd never know it is anything other than a cell phone antenna

Sure and once again there is in my opinion more evidence that the Russians have weaponized and used such technologies then there is to prove the same for the USA.

1976: Chinese earthquake kills hundreds of thousands
Hundreds of thousands of people are feared dead following an 8.3 magnitude earthquake in China.

The quake has virtually destroyed the city of Tangshan, north-east of Beijing, and Western sources believe the death toll may be much higher than the official figure of 240,000. Some believe the figure is more like 750,000.

The force of the quake has been so strong that people are reported to have been thrown into the air after roads, bridges, railway stations, homes and factories were completely destroyed.
The quake has also knocked out power throughout the city, making rescue efforts difficult

news.bbc.co.uk...

The earthquake occurred directly under Tangshan at a depth of 8km (5 miles).
A magnitude 7.1 aftershock 15 hours later caused further destruction and killed many people trapped in collapsed buildings.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The night preceding the earthquake, July 27-28, many people reported seeing strange lights as well as loud sounds. The lights were seen in a multitude of hues. Some people saw flashes of light; others witnessed fireballs flying across the sky. Loud, roaring noises followed the lights and fireballs. Workers at the Tangshan airport described the noises as louder than that of an airplane.2

history1900s.about.com...

The Russian Woodpecker was a notorious Soviet signal that could be heard on the shortwave radio bands worldwide between July 1976 and December 1989. It sounded like a sharp, repetitive tapping noise, at 10 Hz, giving rise to the "Woodpecker" name. The random frequency hops disrupted legitimate broadcast, amateur radio, and utility transmissions and resulted in thousands of complaints by many countries worldwide.

en.wikipedia.org...

So basically July of 1976 proved to be a turning point of sorts in world affairs when the Russians finally told the Chinese that any further cooperation with the United States would involve similar devastation on a regular basis.

If you want to discuss exactly how this interferometry/direct energy weapons work feel free to check out a summary of information here:

www.frank.germano.com...

Or my additions/disagreements here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then for the handful of Missiles both shielded and capable of evasion, before hitting the continental US they will have to pass through, several layers of these as they approach our shores, Traditional combat jets launched as interceptors with air to air missiles, and:

You have taken a page from Bearden's book apparently.

Whatever we have in "testing" stateside that is available for use... which includes Lazer systems that are in working use (I have seen the new mexico tests light the sky as far away as san diego) and that was years ago

Sure and both the US and Russians have been having at each other's satellites since the mid 70's which is hardly surprising given the earlier references to interferometry and Dew's.

All Russia has is it's subs and we have ringed the heck out of both coasts with sonar and can tell when they approach and have a far superior Navy at this point and time... and coastal missile defense systems in place too

Russian SSBn's don't have to leave habor to attack the US with SLBM's.... What coastal missile defenses are we talking about and will those lasers be good enough to deal with all the dozens of heavy decoy's a SS-18 carries?

Russia has it's back up against the wall
"This is not 1969" was a very grave message, the Pentagon believes it can win an all out Nuclear confrontation with Russia with the loss of only a few cities at worst and they are for the MOMENT correct

Which does not perfectly explain why the Russian economy is going places while the US economy has been going to hell slowly ever since the mid 70's with it's east coast is suffering one devastating hurricane after another in recent times. If it's so powerful why can't it prevent the Russians from doing what they are?

The Poland shield is... for Europe we are already in position and Europe is partially shielded already via a haarp clone project in greenland
and I have said it before.

Never heard of it but why not, the Russians certainly seem to be doing what they want.

"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

China is the other end of the US Axis, there are 30 Million plus Chinese migrants in Siberia already
China has blatantly stated it wants a return to it's territories of the Middle Kingdom
I heard not that long ago a chinese General asked "when you refer to China as the middle Kingdom Which Dynasty do you see that being the Sung?" and he smiled and responded in English " No Post Sung Dynasty "
Wish I had the video of that...

So now the Chinese are allied with the US while being armed by Russia with their best air defense weapons and fighter aircraft? Would the Russian government really be that stupid? I really wished you had a video of that interview....

Continued

That was our deal, this is why we acknowledge a one china policy and let them handle Korea and are building 2 super highways to import tons of Chinese goods...
The Spy Plane that went down in China on April of 2001 was not an accident it was an offering by the Bush administration to the Dragon prior to 9-11

The US acknowledges the one China policy because it lacks the means to stop China from taking back Taiwan by force. The Chinese does not do so because they have time on their side while the Russians continue to keep American attention in Europe.

This is why China did not back Russia this week, this is why they put the sub base in the South Pacific,

How did China not back Russia? Do you want them to congratulate Russia and put ALL their cards on the table when the Russians are perfectly capable of looking after themselves?

This is why we want a war with Iran... and don't care that we are overextended, this is why we have bases in Khazakstan and Uzbekistan and they have a base now in Iran,

The main probably reason why the US is in Iraq is to ensure that the world energy prices stays under pressure thus creating a massive artificial demand for the US dollars the fed is 'printing' by the billions each day to fund pentagon and civilian expenditures . It doesn't matter how much the war costs as a 50 USD premium on oil sold in the international markets creates about a trillion dollars worth of demand for the greenback presuming 80 million barrels a day with 60 million being denominated in dollars. I am no economist and don't proclaim to know if it's quite a bit more or less than that but i know it's basically accurate om how it inflates the 'paper' demand.

The US national security state is doing what it can to stay in the 'fight' with Russia by creating the conditions by which it can continue to keep itself affloat economically. The Russians are allowing this to happen because higher energy prices allows them to build their economy and living standards while allowing them to maintain at least parity in other conventional and strategic arms if they are forced to fight a war against Europe as well. Basically the US is trying to spread bases all over the world so as to invite attacks on numerous countries in the event of a third world war hoping that such aggressive Russian actions might draw all these base hosting nations into the war on the American side.

This is why we hit Afghanastan first, because it opens the door to the midle east to China and this is why all the oil we took is going to them not us, this is what Georgia is being wrecked for.it's all forward deployment and softening the region up
For this:

The US hit Afghanistan because the drug trade happens to generate the type of clean profits you don't often see in wall street. It has the added bonus of seeming like a 'just' war ( home of OBL , what a laugh) to the citizens of the US and allows for the further encirclement of Iran and Iraq which in addition to Afghanistan controls in great part the energy flow from the middle east to the rest of the world. It's a central hub and very much the way the US intends to manipulate the European Union into fighting on the US side in the world war the neo con's ( and those who actually hold their strings) are still dreaming about.

I think that was enough counter speculation and , well mostly, facts for one day.

Stellar

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
And even if... that's all it's for having bunker busting Nuclear warheads enmass and the ability to locate precisely every single silo in Russia and those same missiles having pinpoint accuracy really takes a whole lot away from the point of my post?

Both sides have exceedingly accurate weapons both without GPS networks, which will not last much beyond a few seconds/minutes in a nuclear exchange, inertial navigation alone will ensure that many silo's will escape complete destruction even if multiple warheads are assigned to each and ABM defenses fails entirely.

and you know... those EMP Hydrogen warheads couldn't do the job even if I'm wrong and Haarp can't be amped up to do the same thing virtually... Russia can get off a single large Volley before we nail every damn silo they have right on the head huh?

The problem with all that is that the Russians have the exact same systems allowing each side to primitively strike either each other's ICBM's or to strike directly at known direct energy weapon sites. In fact neither side might in fact launch nuclear weapons as they might be relatively easily destroyed if the other side can hide or retain some of the weapons you have named.

and of course all those Anteenas everywhere, giant in the middle of Butt F nowhere across the us are just for cell phones... huh?

Yes, mostly, but a large number are in fact for military communication networks in times of war. If such systems can be used more directly as weapons i am not sure but i wont at all rule it out.

Someone would should tell sprint or at&t because I stand right near some of them and... I get no reception like my phoine is actually getting interfered with...

Well different cellhpone networks have different atenna's and they don't always share or hire out their infrastructure.

It wasn't a very specific analogy to a time when ABM limited things to MAD... naw it wasn't a direct statement about what i'm saying, they got nothing up their sleeve, 60 years since we developed the bomb and a Trillion going to a Black budget every 2 years or so...

You would appreciate this......

www.frank.germano.com...

I am sure we do not know the true potential of either sides latest generation of weapons of mass destruction and it might very well be that Nuclear weapons are in fact just 'for show'.

Yeah they failed, it's all a big bluff... 20 years since Starwars was embarked on a dn the tech i'm mentioning was developed and working in the 60's

Well the basics of integrated air defenses against ballistic missiles were very well understood by the mid 60's and the US could have had thousands of nuclear tipped or kinetic interceptors by the mid 70's long before the USSR built up sufficient ICBM's forces to even dream of confronting the US.

uhhuh... believe what you will, Pentagons filled with morons because you watch Americans on Springer and think that's who runs our Military... these guys are lost...clueless... Trillions spent and we got nuthin

Well if the pentagon is desperately trying to defend the United States from foreign threats they have certainly had sufficient resources to do so but if one looks at what they did for the conventional armed forces and strategic one's they are clearly trying to disarm the US instead of arming it. This might not be by choice ( the US lost the cold war etc) or it might simply be a way to rob the American public blind in a additional way.

Seeing them coming and having the ability to stop them are two entirely different things...
They probably can take some of our warheads via the same methods but read what I posted...

Yes, i completely agree with that.

A: all of our missiles, virtually ALL the ones we have have been upgraded for pinpoint targeting, theirs have not been,

For the most part by integrating GPS technologies which the Russians emulated long ago. The side that can best protect it's GPS/GLONASS assets will retain the ability to conduct very accurate counter force strikes while the other will have to allocate more warheads per silo/airbase to ensure the same destruction.

B: Most of our Missiles can ground penatrate before detonating and get into the silos there's have not that capacity

Only very small yield warheads require ground penetration capabilities to effectively destroy enemy silo's and it's relatively well know that the Russians have continued to harden their silo's after the US had stopped. I don't know how effective that is but it may enough if your ABM defenses can cause warheads to miss by larger margins. Either way i don't know that either side have a great superiority in this regard and ground penetrating nuclear warheads on ICBM's is a VERY tricky affair considering the extreme speeds involved.

C: It would take more than a decade IF they spent the kind of money we have been spending to do so and the technology doesn't mean they have the cash or the time

I would like to see how their nuclear weaponry is sufficiently inferior to require such expenditure to be effective against American silo's and strategic targets.

D: We are IN THEATER in the region and have cruise missiles on their borders or in the vicinity which can strike them even if they apply the same EMP philosophy as we have in place, it won't work nearly as well

Cruise missiles can and have been shot down ( hell the Serbs destroyed hundreds with second world war anti aircraft guns and low flying 1960's era aircraft) by even outdated weaponry so a modern integrated air defenses should in theory be able to significantly degrade such strikes with probably tens of thousands of conventional warheads being required to very seriously impact the military capabilities of Russia. Again the Serbs shot them down in droves and managed to keep their airfields active for weeks into the battle while retaining the usage of many bridges and other communication lanes.

and Our missiles have been upgraded and theirs have not been, they HAVE shielded missiles... but have replaced only a handful at best, Most of our missiles will sail right through an emp pulse...

I am not even sure how well you can protect a cruise missiles from such effects but if it's possible i am sure it's been done by both sides. ICBM's on all sides must have been hardened long ago as they are bound to encounter these effects.

and if I am wrong

Then WHY do they care about a missile shield in Poland that could knock out those 20-30 missiles?

Phew, nothing to worry about then!

Stellar

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
The Russian Laser system was a gigantic laser beam, every one that tries to prop Russia tauts that thing and it was Gigantic and could barely take out a tank and never deployed a system of them...

Sources please. There are rumours about mobile system deployed in Afghanistan but nothing concrete as far as i know.

Russia hasn't developed much of squat since the cold war ended, this is the largest technology gap there has ever been...

Right and how does that explain why Western Europeans have not invaded Russia for a fourth time in less than a hundred years?

and I'm not puting down Russia... we have no hope of invading and securing them on the ground
But we are legitimately entering checkmate in terms of the Nuclear game and They Know it

They do not seem to be acting that way and everything seems to be going their way in economic and geopolitical affairs. Energy prices rises, American debt increasing while it's army is completely occupied in two wars etc...

If it wasn't so, they wouldn't be moving troops on the ground to counter us or threatening Poland
Russia is very dangerous now but the threat isn't Nuclear

They moved troops because they knew that the US would soon be making a move in Georgia and countered it without allowing NATO to escalate it. Russia IS very dangerous , in terms of weapons deployed, but certainly a more stable and less overtly aggressive power than the US national security state. If the American people were not so good at mostly keeping the warmongers in their government in check the world would have been a whole lot worse off. As for their threats against Poland Poland is once again digging it's own grave by looking for support towards the west ( which in modern times has so far always used it as a tool and nothing more) instead of throwing it's lot in with Russia which might show a bit more mercy.

What they would do and just might do...to counter US, is actually storm into Ukraine and Poland and force the whole thing conventional where they will whop alot of arse and we won't use nukes on European soil

The Russian government well understand that it's armed forces wont fight aggressive wars without a very obvious and reasonable pretext and if the US denies it such by deciding against missile defenses in Poland the Russian government will be quite important in terms of getting it's armed forces moving.

Or smash us hard before we finsish things I'm not taking sides, but Russia fell 18 years behind us this last generation and we have spent trillions and Trillions of dollars in that time.

Russia will use nuclear weapons in a war with the United States and it wont really matter who's soil it's on if they hosted American bases or American armed personal. Russia have always to fight a nuclear war and they are most certainly not going to forgo all the advantages they have built up in that area. As for the falling eighteen years behind they were in my reading in many areas almost that far ahead so it's good that they gave NATO a chance to catch up...

Agression they have.
A brutal not politically corretc invasion oriented army they have.
A well trained and not very far behind airforce they have
A decent Navy by anyones standards but Americas they have

So what's the big problem then?

The ability to play a mean game of chess and the capacity to suprise us like they Just did in the most important aspect of war, strategy they have and by no means... is any of what I say, saying Russia hasn't figured this all out and could possibly turn the tables on us across the board and win if theres a war...
It's a Plan we have, noit a victory yet

Yes, i try to make it clear that they seem to have advantages which may not always result in victories or survival....

But, peope trying to compare the technolgy or the state of Russian missile and defensive systems compared to the Apocolyptic nightmare of machines we have...
there's just no comparisson They wouldn't care about a shield that can only harm a handful of missiles unless... I'm right and they know what we have backing our Cajones up.

Apocalyptic nightmare machines indeed. More pages from Tom Bearden's book perhaps and how did you miss the fact that he seems to think that the Russians instead of the US has them?

They don't react like this when our men are nearby "closing in" because they know they can whop us on the ground...

I doubt they are so sure about these days given their recent experiences and recent American 'demonstrations'. I don't wish to compare the Russian army with the Iraqi one but i think they got the distinct impression that both the Americans and Europeans can and will defend themselves making the whole affair quite bloody and winning without massive employment of nuclear weaponry by no means assured. I think the biggest and most basic headache for them , if they want to start aggressive wars, is how to drag the Russian population along who have proved time and time again ( like human beings elsewhere) that they would much rather stay home...

They care about this for a reason, we are perciptously close to ending MAD

MAD was always MAD and no one on policy making level ever believed in it. It was for civilian consumption ( not so in the Warsaw pact thought) and then only those who could normally be fooled by propaganda.

and why anyone doesn't get this and believes lol...the Bush administration when they deny that this is the case... is beyond me.
Putin is saying for years "This is a threat" Just ask yourselves why it's a threat and the answer is the only possible answer there is...

Well why would Putin or the Russian oligarchy want to let the US national security state catch up to them in strategic weaponry? Wouldn't you protest the overtly aggressive steps of of your enemy when you have managed to hide your own strength from the world's people? Shouldn't we rather ask why the US media have conspired to paint Russia as weak and the US as strong when that's not borne out in the data?

Our missile defenses are almost absolutely 100% complete, these are the last pieces not the first
and Russia and Putin are aware of this even if American and Europeans believe it's not the case
Russia has... a Fantastic spy system... Putin knows, we are close to end game

You mean the same missile defenses that were dismantled in the 60's are being erected now? Really? Well it would be a good thing, for American citizens, so that's why i sincerely doubt that the US national security state would do it.

Stellar

reply to post by mopusvindictus


Great post, Thanks. Many people should know that most if not all Chinas nuclear weapons are pointed at Russia and India still today. I remember in that show Jericho that the food and other aid was air dropped in by China and that was kind of telling, Scary but telling.

I have seen Bush and Clinton treat China very good and they have handed them many forms of classified equipment in the past. The last is the missile cones that was supposedly sent to Taiwan.
That had to scare Russia knowing that we are handing them advanced missile parts and that just shows that we are giving away our old stuff because what we have now is just that good.

My guess is that the UFOs are ours lol. Especially when our Generals laugh at the threats from Russia.