Russia unveils plans for "invincible" ICBM

Russia unveils plans for "invincible" ICBM

rt.com

In a thinly-disguised message to NATO, which remains uncommitted to the idea of co-operating with Russia in a European missile defense system, the commander of Russian Strategic Rocket Forces (RSVN) said its ICBMs will soon be “invincible”.

According to the commander of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces (RSVN), Lt. Gen. Sergey Karakayev, Russia's RS-24 new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) will be capable of defeating any possible missile defense system within the next 15-20 years.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So it's been awhile since I heard anything about these missile defense systems the US and NATO wish to pursue building in eastern Europe. However, the issue seems far from over. While there isn't a rush on either side to resolve the issue, it appears Russia has been working on a plan B.

This type of "1 upmanship" I assume will continue, which is kind of a scary thing, it's what the Cold-War was really about imo, putting the whole planet dangerously close to peril. It doesn't take a genius to know why the US wants these missile defense installations built, or to know why Russia wants an invincible ICBM.

It goes to show that the cold-war, while deemed to be over, still has an effect on the world we live in today.

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

Their nuclear missiles is the only thing Russia has that would keep NATO/China from invading in the future.

Russia's conventional forces are a joke... and will be for the foreseeable future.

And Russia's ``invincible`` ICBMs are not so if they were subject to a nuclear first strike.

Yeah, without their nuclear depot, everybody would even more laugh about them as it's already the case. Russia hasn't been important in the last 20 years but they still act like the big bad bully from High School
I doubt they could develop anything with their tiny military budget - even the UK has a bigger military budget today.

Besides, after such an announcement, we can be sure, that the USA already are trying to develope a counter-weapon.

I suspect that "invincible" is something of an exaggeration, but it's not exactly a threat if the world would have to go totally tits-up before they were fired and once they did that, it wouldn't really matter to Russia whether they were intercepted or not.

1. Missiles launched
2. Missiles hit
3. Brief celebration
4. White light
5. Dead

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Russia's conventional forces are a joke... and will be for the foreseeable future.

I don't know much abot their conventional forces, but when Hitler tried to invade, the Russian weather seemed to help their defense.

And Russia's ``invincible`` ICBMs are not so if they were subject to a nuclear first strike.

I was trying to figure out what makes these missiles so "invulnerable", and apparently a large part of it is, they are mobile. So they could be moved between the time the first strike missiles were launched and the time they hit, which is a certain degree of invulnerability.

As far as I know most ICBMs aren't all that vulnerable once they are launched, since we found it's far harder to intercept them than we had imagined, especially with so many multiple reentry warheads, some of them dummies, etc etc.

I'm not sure why NATO is so reluctant to include Russia, however this kind of posturing by Russia probably doesn't do a whole lot to make them more trustworthy in the eyes of NATO.

why is the united states instigating conflict. if the u.s. managed to build a system that was 100% effective against all nuclear weapons, it would make russias arsenal effectively useless.

the united states will then be able to impose it's will without any deterrent. it would bully the world and essentially become the ruler of the planet.

that's dangerous because if another george bush gets elected, he'll send his freedom brigade to conquer anyone who doesn't give them what they want.

russia will never allow it. a missile shield is like armor on a tank. no-one considers a tank a defensive weapon.

plus, it's pointless, no missile defense system can stop a nuclear cruise missile flying 100ft of the deck at mach 3 launched from a russian underwater 30 miles off the coast of new york.

I would say that they are a bit late on this one.....

Like come on , you don't think the US has had stealth ICBM's for a while now ?

Also , one can't say that there rockets won't be detected unless they know what toys the other side has first .

Russia could have or is presently working on the same or similar type of "Hypersonic ICBM" that the US has or is now working on.

The info on the project is a bit sketchy at best.

So who knows.
Although I'll agree with Vitchilo that Russian conventional military hardware/equipment seems to be less than advertised whenever it has come up against Western military hardware I'd however highly recommend caution when questioning Russia's ability to defend herself conventionally.

That mistake has been made twice in history with disastrous consequences.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Their nuclear missiles is the only thing Russia has that would keep NATO/China from invading in the future.

That, and land area 5,000 miles in length - enough to swallow up the largest armies in the world and make them disappear without a trace.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Russia's conventional forces are a joke... and will be for the foreseeable future.

I would not say they are a joke. Who are you comparing them to? They can be highly effective in localized conflicts, like the 2008 war with Georgia over South Ossetia. Nobody truly knows their effectiveness in a larger nation-wide war, but Russia still retains a some top-notch equipment. Perhaps Russia can't stage large attacks or fight a large scale conflict away from its borders like the US can, but a conventional war within or near Russia will not go over easy for anyone.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
And Russia's ``invincible`` ICBMs are not so if they were subject to a nuclear first strike.

Well, the RS-24 will be deployed in both highly reinforced underground silo's, and mobile platforms. The Russian silo's can withstand direct hits by megaton-range ICBMs, while the mobile platforms can quickly be redeployed to different locations. Both have comparatively high survivability.

I don't know how "invincible" these missiles will be, or how they compare to the missile defense systems currently in development in the West, but they will include a lot of newest countermeasures that had previously been banned by START. I think that Russia always continued research and development of banned countermeasures and advanced MIRV systems despite START - they just never deployed them on active missiles - until now.



And this development should really not come as a surprise to anyone, especially US and NATO. Russia has always stated that this would happen if the US withdraws from the ABM treaty and places ABM installations in Eastern Europe. Judging by its actions, the US is apparantly content with this. Plus ICBM's become obsolete, so development of new ones must continue in every country that possesses them.

Originally posted by Soshh
I suspect that "invincible" is something of an exaggeration, but it's not exactly a threat if the world would have to go totally tits-up before they were fired and once they did that, it wouldn't really matter to Russia whether they were intercepted or not.

1. Missiles launched
2. Missiles hit
3. Brief celebration
4. White light
5. Dead

It matters a lot if they are intercepted. The strategic importance of having nuclear weapons, and the tactical balance is significantly undermined in the case when mutually assured destruction ceases to apply to one side. If the US knew that they can intercept the majority of Russian missiles, then they be more inclined to stage a first strike knowing that their survivability chances are higher than Russia's.

Tens or perhaps even a hundred successful precision strikes in one part of the world will not necessarily cause the world as we know it to end. There is no concensus on what the impact on the Earth's atmosphere and environment would be. Additionally, the newest nuclear weapons are cleaner than the warheads that were continuously tested in 50's and 60's.

Because everyone in the U.S. is just dying to push the "button" to nuke Russia - and the only reason we haven't yet, is because we are afraid of being nuked in return.

It's posturing on the part of Russia. There's still a large sense of national pride that dwarf's the often-cited (and despised) national pride Americans have. While they may have some fancy new toys - they will be unable to deploy them in effective numbers to really change the picture of strategic nuclear war.

The focus also seems to be to deter preemptive strikes aimed at destroying key nuclear assets. A mobile ICBM force is much more difficult to eliminate using cruise missiles, conventional strikes, and special operations teams. While the ABM 'shield' is a key issue of controversy - there's not much that -can- be done to make a warhead immune to interception (that was the whole benefit of the ICBM over strategic bombers - the re-entry speeds made them virtually impossible to intercept).

So, it would seem to me that the entire point is to make its nuclear arsenal almost impossible to shut-down in preparation for a non-nuclear assault. We often forget that part of MAD is not just to prevent other nuclear attacks - but conventional combat as well. If the U.S. can Rods-From-God your silos into smouldering craters (since fixed positions can be much more easily identified and reliably engaged) - or any other method that effectively destroys/disables these fixed silos.... then they can send in the wall of Abrams MBTs to steam-roll conventional forces and capitalize on air superiority.

That said - I honestly don't understand why we need to apply the good-guy-bad-guy polarization to it all. Russia ain't the only other country out there with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. We're really not even concerned about Russia-propper using nuclear weapons (though rogue forces or captured weapons from the Russians, we do worry about - we're not too confident in their ability to keep their stuff secure - not because of competence, but because of lack of funding but being too proud to admit it).

What it boils down to is each country is taking a look at the threats out there and taking measures to protect their interests from them. The U.S. and Europe don't relish the idea of drug lords in South America getting a hold of ballistic missiles (they -already- build their own variety of mechanized armor), or extremists in the middle-east getting a hold of them and decide launching them is a good idea.

Russia doesn't like the idea of their nuclear arsenal being rendered inert (though it's not exactly clear what they are trying to protect their ballistic missile forces from... interception in flight or destruction pre-launch).

Neither one of us really care to invade or "control" the other. Russia just wants to be Russia and the U.S. just wants to be the U.S. and not have stuff spontaneously exploding because of people in the middle east with nothing better to do but think of ways to make everyone else live as miserably as they do. Russia has even had their own run-ins with these same groups (and has a similar history with them).

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by Soshh
I suspect that "invincible" is something of an exaggeration, but it's not exactly a threat if the world would have to go totally tits-up before they were fired and once they did that, it wouldn't really matter to Russia whether they were intercepted or not.

1. Missiles launched
2. Missiles hit
3. Brief celebration
4. White light
5. Dead

It matters a lot if they are intercepted. The strategic importance of having nuclear weapons, and the tactical balance is significantly undermined in the case when mutually assured destruction ceases to apply to one side. If the US knew that they can intercept the majority of Russian missiles, then they be more inclined to stage a first strike knowing that their survivability chances are higher than Russia's.

You're right but in my opinion, MAD will never cease to apply to one side. Even a competent missile shield would not be able to net everything that it would receive following a first strike, because amongst other things the arms race should ensure that there's always something that it's not able to catch.

Given the stakes, no-one would want to bet that it would, that the other side hasn't got something up their sleeve or that they would in any way come off better when the nukes start flying and whatever else.

One would hope that the difference between absolute devastation and complete and utter annihilation is negligible in the minds of those who have the power to initiate that sort of thing, and that it's just best to keep your hand away from red button and talk it out like adults instead. We can only hope!

Seems like everyone's getting ready for the big one.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Russia could have or is presently working on the same or similar type of "Hypersonic ICBM" that the US has or is now working on.

The info on the project is a bit sketchy at best.

And yet you apparently know that they're working on the same thing as the US.

There is not a single thread about a foreign country getting one up on the US, whether military, economy, or whatever, that you're not there in a heartbeat acting like you know all about it. Remind me to join up with the Ruskies and Chinese when they get here, not like they'd need the help but I would lead them straight to Langley myself.

reply to post by maloy

That, and land area 5,000 miles in length - enough to swallow up the largest armies in the world and make them disappear without a trace.

Yeah, if Russia's army command is not stupid they will not fight any large scale war as a ``battlefield`` one...

They can be highly effective in localized conflicts, like the 2008 war with Georgia over South Ossetia.

They sure used greatly outdated tanks, so yeah. But in a battlefield/ww2 type war... let's say with NATO... Russia would get the boot.

The Russian silo's can withstand direct hits by megaton-range ICBMs

And that's why the US developed the 20 ton bunker buster.

while the mobile platforms can quickly be redeployed to different locations.

But still can be found... if you put enough drones/satellite/radar/low altitude space plane... But anyway, Russia still has nuclear submarines as a deterrent.

If the US knew that they can intercept the majority of Russian missiles, then they be more inclined to stage a first strike knowing that their survivability chances are higher than Russia's.

Yep...and factor in the ``acceptable losses``... and the last stage of the missile defense plan counting THOUSANDS of interceptors... and that is just on land and ships... it doesn't count all the anti-missile missiles they can install on F-15/F-16/F-22/F-35...

Anyone working to the destruction of MAD should stop whatever they are doing. Yes America should be able to continue missile defense technology... but shouldn't install interceptors near Russia or thousands of interceptors in the US. Because without MAD, nuclear war is more probable... and in the insane minds of leaders, very tempting.

Originally posted by maloy
Tens or perhaps even a hundred successful precision strikes in one part of the world will not necessarily cause the world as we know it to end. There is no concensus on what the impact on the Earth's atmosphere and environment would be. Additionally, the newest nuclear weapons are cleaner than the warheads that were continuously tested in 50's and 60's.

Thank goodness we have Eco friendly nukes. Nothing to worry about anymore.
Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
They sure used greatly outdated tanks, so yeah. But in a battlefield/ww2 type war... let's say with NATO... Russia would get the boot.

Results of an all-out conventional war like that would be very difficult to predict. There are too many factors in modern warfare. Yes, on paper NATO has a tactical and strategic advantage, better equipment, and more experience. And yet... no one knows what Russia is actually capable of, not even Russia. Any talk of a massive conflict like this is irrelevant however - because it is not going to take place, and if it does then what is "on paper" will cease to matter.

But yes, the nuclear arms have been, and will remain Russia's main strategic card from the military standpoint. It is the most advanced, and the most potent of all of Russia's military forces and branches. For the near future, they will focus first and foremost on continuing to develop and improve it, over any other military equipment.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
And that's why the US developed the 20 ton bunker buster.

I haven't heard of 20 ton bunker busters in current US inventory. Also, even if there are they might not be enough to get the deepest Russian silos. You have to consider that these bombs can only be delivered by a bomber not an inter-continental missile, which means that a bomber would need to penetrate deep into Russian airspace. Even B-2's can likely be detected by the newest Russian radars and SAM systems.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
But still can be found... if you put enough drones/satellite/radar/low altitude space plane... But anyway, Russia still has nuclear submarines as a deterrent.

I doubt any drones or space planes can penetrate deep into Russian airspace for long. Air-defense has never been a weak point for Russian military. Satellites take some time to align with the needed area of the globe. The ground mobile platforms are considered to be among the most survivable nuclear weapon systems (as far the first strike goes). Plus, if a first strike is incoming, Russia would know about it at several minutes ahead of time thanks to their radars, and thats enough for the Topol-M's to launch their missiles.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
it doesn't count all the anti-missile missiles they can install on F-15/F-16/F-22/F-35....

I never heard of airplane-launched ICBM interceptor missiles. Radar guidance is the critical in intercepting ICBM's, and fighter jets cannot accomadate radars powerful enough.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Anyone working to the destruction of MAD should stop whatever they are doing.

Agreed. The only possible result of that, is that both sides will spend increasingly more money just to end up where they started - at status quo. And it is not just two sides anymore, as China won't patiently sit by either. This is also why having an ABM Treaty governing where the ABM installations can be positioned, is important to have in addition to the missile treaties.

I think Russia's rationale in developing these newest systems is at least partially a reaction to the US activity with regard to the ABM installations in Europe. Russia might have been more content with the ABM Treaty remaining in place, and it could replace its aging missiles with ones of the same design rather than develop completely new ones.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Their nuclear missiles is the only thing Russia has that would keep NATO/China from invading in the future.

Russia's conventional forces are a joke... and will be for the foreseeable future.

And Russia's ``invincible`` ICBMs are not so if they were subject to a nuclear first strike.

Why would china ever invade russia?
If anything it looks like they are in bed together...

reply to post by maloy


The whole concept of 'treaties' accompanying Mutually Assured Destruction policies is... silly.

"You can put ABM sites around Washington State."

"... But we really want to put them around places like Houston."

"Houston is too productive. If Houston can't be nuked, then your destruction cannot be mutually assured."

"So then why do you get to put ABM shields around Moscow?"

"What? You're allowed to put ABM shields around Washington D.C., too!"

"All we've got there are lawyers!"

"Good point. Okay - you can put ABM shielding around Chicago and let DC be a viable target."

"Are you kidding? There are entire districts within that city the police don't even dare to walk into. For God's sake - make sure you nuke that place!"

[A few years later.]

Russia: "We see you have equipped your ships with anti-ballistic missiles and have produced several mobile anti-ballistic missile platforms."

"What's the big deal? You have mobile nuclear missile launchers."

"But how do we know you are not secretly protecting Houston with those mobile ABM platforms?"

"Because... we signed the treaty... just like you did. By the way - why is it that the CIA has uncovered a number of programs you are working on to defeat our Anti-Ballistic Missile capabilities? That's prohibited in the treaty."

"You made mobile anti-ballistic missile launchers and we can no longer guarantee mutual destruction!"

"But those aren't disallowed in the treaty!"

"Neither are orbital-lasers! FIRE THE ION CANNON!"

I mean... really - treaties are simply silly. It's an attempt to turn a brutal and horrific fact of life into something that appears civil and respectable. War is war - at the end of the day, I want to make sure my family and loved ones are safe. We have the capability to develop and deploy ballistic missile countermeasures and interceptors. Do it. Russia can scream bloody murder - let them. Their feelings of military inadequacy are no reason for us to remain vulnerable to weapons that are becoming more prolific as time goes on.

Because we don't want to be sitting here, 2 years from now, with a new forum thread similar to the 9/11 thread with people arguing that there's no way Iran could develop a ballistic missile and nuke a European city, claiming it was a "false flag" operation (or that it was secretly allowed by "the government.")

And the coolest thing about it is that we don't have to go storm through another country to set up a measure of security against such a thing!

Hell - offer to sell the damned things to the Russians. Then, perhaps, we will all be able to be a bit more diplomatic, as we won't be so quick to reference a nuclear arsenal as though it's an Ace of Spades.