It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia unveils plans for "invincible" ICBM

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
In reality, its true, we could annihilate them, and they wouldn't have a chance to defend themselves...


And they could annihilate us too, and have had that option for decades.

Luckily this is not a relevant issue because our leaders are collectively not quite insane enough to actually destroy the world like this.




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
In reality, its true, we could annihilate them, and they wouldn't have a chance to defend themselves...


And they could annihilate us too, and have had that option for decades.

Luckily this is not a relevant issue because our leaders are collectively not quite insane enough to actually destroy the world like this.


we could shoot down their nukes easily then they could shoot ours down.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Hasn't anyone noticed by now, that the Soviets are big dreamers? Gosh I can remember MANY years ago them stating that if the US builds a missle defense, so will they. Well, I guess that didn't work out. So of to the next big plan in the sky.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
In reality, its true, we could annihilate them, and they wouldn't have a chance to defend themselves...


And they could annihilate us too, and have had that option for decades.

Luckily this is not a relevant issue because our leaders are collectively not quite insane enough to actually destroy the world like this.


No, ours are not, but the Russians, well it wont take much to cause them to go into an insane moment of panic, and well, __it happens... Right?

Their systems are incapable of inflicting much damage on the US, but they could initiate their own annihilation.




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
No, ours are not, but the Russians, well it wont take much to cause them to go into an insane moment of panic, and well, __it happens... Right?


I'm not buying it. Russia isn't the country who has invaded a handful of Middle Eastern countries and is still pressuring and threatening to invade anymore, foreign political ramifications be damned. Russia's leadership by comparison seems much more rational. It sounds like you just haven't turned the Fox News off yet. That's why this country is insane.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Fox news?


If you only knew where I get my information and news.

I'm okay with your assessment, and perspective, as long as you are.

It makes no difference, actions will speak louder than words here... So we'll just have to wait and see.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Missiles interceptors in Ukraine would piss off Russia A LOT... A HELL LOT.


I do not believe Ukraine is seriously considering placing any ABM installation on its territory. More than half of its population would be very seriously opposed to it. This dialogue with US and Romania is more political than anything, and Ukraine never hinted that it is actually planning to host any US military assets. Also don't forget that Ukraine recently extended the lease for the Russian naval base in Sevastopol for a significant period of time. They are not going to have both Russia and US military assets in the same country, that would cause too many complications.

Yuschenko and his nationalist band are out of politics for good too. The current leadership is much better predisposed towards Russia.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
Hasn't anyone noticed by now, that the Soviets are big dreamers? Gosh I can remember MANY years ago them stating that if the US builds a missle defense, so will they. Well, I guess that didn't work out. So of to the next big plan in the sky.


There was an ABM Treaty that the US and Soviets signed to. It restricted both countries to only having one major anti-ballistic missile perimeter, because ABM systems are designed as offensive weapons because they provide you with a better first strike capability while downplaying your opponent's retaliation. If I recall correctly, the Soviets built one around Moscow and the US built one around an ICBM facility in North Dakota.

Then under Bush, the US dropped out of the ABM treaty with plans to build missile shields all over the place (starting around Canada, but we rejected it). Now the US already has such installations in countries like Poland, claiming "defensive" measures to anyone foolish enough to believe them.

Russia still has a relatively effective missile shield around Moscow, armed with S-400s and soon S-500s. However, I don't see them placing missile shields right beside the US, or anywhere else for that matter, for the sake of "defensive measures".



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



I'm not buying it.


Most people react that way when receiving the plate of reality they ordered.


Russia isn't the country who has invaded a handful of Middle Eastern countries and is still pressuring and threatening to invade anymore, foreign political ramifications be damned.


Georgia.

Oh - Not really sure if you'd consider them "middle east" or not... but Russia has been pressuring a number of its former states to recompile some kind of union.


Russia's leadership by comparison seems much more rational.


I wouldn't say they are more or less rational. The problem is that Russia's sense of pride can be their own worst enemy. The U.S. doesn't fear an attack by Russia. Our military would simply mop the floor with any Russian offensive (though we would not have the same advantage going on the offensive). Nuclear or otherwise. What we fear is their lack of ability to secure their nuclear facilities, materials, and weapons. Not just from terrorists - but from radical groups within their own country, as well as former soviet states that have splintered off and may or may not be in possession of ICBMs.

Russia would never admit to having such difficulty - it's seen as a sign of weakness both internally and, they feel, externally.


It sounds like you just haven't turned the Fox News off yet. That's why this country is insane.


Never had much of a need for sanity. It's over rated. All that really needs to be understood is that different people have different ways of living and, generally, want to be allowed to live that way without being bothered. Any time two people want to do two mutually exclusive things in the same time and place - there will be conflict and someone is going to, very likely, go home unsatisfied (or dead).

Nothing is done without some kind of rational application of logic on some level. The decision to kill a million people can be completely and totally logical. What many would consider to be insane - but that's merely a matter of irrelevant perspective influence. "Insane" decisions are merely those decisions made with the goal of accomplishing objectives exclusive of your own, or lacking consideration for factors you consider imperative (for example - you want something to be done about a reckless driver; another person pulls out a Javelin missile system and destroys the offending driver and vehicle - you both wanted the reckless driving to stop, but you would have considered the well-being of the driver and the flow of traffic - something this other person didn't consider worth the effort, and is thus labeled "insane.")



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

I'm not buying it.


Most people react that way when receiving the plate of reality they ordered.


Russia's leaders flipping out, panicking at nothing and launching nukes at everyone is "reality," sure. Is Star Trek a true story where you come from too? See, we can both come up with clever stupidity.



Oh - Not really sure if you'd consider them "middle east" or not... but Russia has been pressuring a number of its former states to recompile some kind of union.


That's pretty different than outright invading them with a military force, let alone invading several sovereign nations with a military force. And none of those countries were ever even part of the US.



Russia's leadership by comparison seems much more rational.


I wouldn't say they are more or less rational.


What was that about a dish of reality you were just saying earlier, about someone earlier saying they were going to flip out and try to nuke everybody?


The problem is that Russia's sense of pride can be their own worst enemy.


Very different than here in America.



The U.S. doesn't fear an attack by Russia.


Russia has not even been threatening to attack the US. That's more of something the US itself does, to foreign countries like Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq....


Our military would simply mop the floor with any Russian offensive (though we would not have the same advantage going on the offensive). Nuclear or otherwise.


Again, this clearly demonstrates that Americans don't have a pride issue at all.


No, I know you can prove all that with math and physics and being an insider of both the US and Russian militaries and black ops projects all that. Not even the slightest bit of arrogance in your reasoning.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Russia's leaders flipping out, panicking at nothing and launching nukes at everyone is "reality," sure. Is Star Trek a true story where you come from too? See, we can both come up with clever stupidity.


This would be much more of a profound statement if it had any relevance to the conversation.

As I mentioned before - the idea a large military power would use strategic nuclear weapons is silly.


That's pretty different than outright invading them with a military force,


... What -else- can you call blitzkrieg strategies on populated regions not within one's own territory?

"It's not an invasion if you yell 'Yakov Smirnov!'"

It's also not rape if you yell surprise, you know?


let alone invading several sovereign nations with a military force.


That Russia had also invaded. Not to mention these countries were being used to support goals that included the killing of American people and destruction of civilian infrastructure.

We also invaded them. We didn't nuke them off the face of the planet - which was certainly within our capability.


And none of those countries were ever even part of the US.


That somehow gives Russia the right to invade a people that have stated they want to be their own independent power?

If you're going to bring out the moral argument - you've got to use the same metrics for everyone.



What was that about a dish of reality you were just saying earlier, about someone earlier saying they were going to flip out and try to nuke everybody?


I think you misinterpreted the statement. I said that I wouldn't say [Russia] are more or less rational [than the U.S.]. I thought the bracketed information was rather apparent when I originally said that - but perhaps I was mistaken.

Or I have misinterpreted your comment.


Very different than here in America.


Exactly my point. If you were Russian - a comment like that against your own country would be considered akin to a racial slur.


Russia has not even been threatening to attack the US. That's more of something the US itself does, to foreign countries like Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq....


When has the U.S. threatened these countries?

I recall a number of the countries on that list promising to turn America into proverbial lakes of fire, making the streets of America run with blood, etc.


No, I know you can prove all that with math and physics and being an insider of both the US and Russian militaries and black ops projects all that. Not even the slightest bit of arrogance in your reasoning.


Oh, I'm an arrogant prick - and rightfully so. I learn in real-time what takes the average person weeks of repetition. Few people have a memory as complete and accurate as mine coupled with the spontaneous recall abilities.

What it boils down to is this - Russia's military is horribly underfunded. Most of their funding goes to maintaining their nuclear arsenal because it is one of the few cost-effective means of deterrence available to them. Their overland border is massive. The infrastructure necessary to mobilize armies to defend such borders is hideously expensive.

Further - even if they were back in the "glory days" of the USSR, an offensive effort into Europe would be met with catastrophic failure. NATO weaponry has consistently out-performed Soviet weaponry in the vast majority of engagement scenarios. Further - NATO routinely conducts (and conducted) joint exercises that exceed any comparable Russian efforts in frequency and operations.

Neither the Russian or NATO arsenal were really designed with the goal of an invasion. Each were designed, mostly, for the purpose of repelling an invasion. This should not be confused with offensive capabilities against military units, however. From a tactical standpoint, it's always better to the one putting pressure on the opponents and controlling the flow of battle than it is to merely be reacting to it. In this respect - both sides payed a lot of attention to first-strike tactical capability. However - from a strategic standpoint, neither the USSR or NATO had an arsenal geared for invasion.

Which really sets the tone for the entire idea of a war between the two powers. Russia's direct military expansion really ended at the Korean war. While they did fund proxy wars (as did the U.S.) - the two nations were simply competing for territorial influence rather than working up to a "proper" invasion. When a country was having trouble deciding whether or not it wanted to be communist or capitalist - you would find NATO and the USSR both backing their favored horse.

To flip it around - an invasion of the USSR by NATO would have gone similarly awry. Russia's sheer land mass and lack of acquirable infrastructure to support and continue an invasion would have hindered a NATO invasion considerably. Reliable air defense against Soviet strike aircraft and bombers (designed to function within the more harsh environments present in Russian territory) would have been difficult to provide - particularly against high-altitude bombers and low-level supersonic bombers - as interceptors would be working off of a limited combat radius with virtually no time to respond to threats.

Though Russia is at a considerable disadvantage - having an absolutely massive amount of land mass to protect with ground forces (and air space over it) while also being presented with a considerable naval threat all along a very large shore line. By comparison - Europe has a much smaller over-land border and effective naval picketing can considerably shrink the shore line they need to protect. The only air space they really need to protect is right along the land border with Russia, also. The U.S. may as well be on its own planet when considering conventional war. About the only realistic threats involve naval threats - and the U.S. has uncontested naval dominance - even going back to the Cold War.

Which is really why neither would push the other too hard. It had nothing to do with MAD and everything to do with the complete lack of need. An invasion attempt - even without nuclear war - would have ended up disastrous for the attacker with almost no real benefits to be gained from attacking. Russia, if they wanted some kind of resource in Europe, may as well just nuke the place if they want access to it, as partisan fighters and resistance forces would be slashing their productivity by orders of magnitude. NATO also had little to gain from attacking Russia. Even if the mother-of-all oil reserves were found in Siberia and gold concentrations beyond the likes ever seen before, one would pretty well have to nuke the Russians off the face of the planet before they'd be able to really exploit those resources without continually being interrupted by militants.

But you certainly don't want to look like you're easy pickings.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Here's my take on all this,

Why would anyone want to attempt to take on Russia using conventional forces in an invasion type scenario?
For the same reason most wars are started, Resources...specifically, oil and gas.The US is not interested in taking on Russia for this, lots of reasons stated above about how difficult it would be, far easier to take on the smaller, easier middle East targets one by one.

Russia should be far more concerned with China.

China do not have the power to project forces overseas to places like the Middle East, especially since they would be stepping on the US's toes risking a big bloody nose for both sides. In a twist of fate it would actually be easier for them to take on Russia, they share a land border, and a lot of the oil and Gas fields in Russia are actually nearer Beijing than Moscow, so the large area of Russia would actually hamper the Russians more.

Add to this the fact that China has overwhelming manpower it could send over the border.

A lot of discuission has gone on in recent times about China V USA, when quite simply it is not in either sides interest to take each other on just yet, why not just carve the resources up each side can get to...

long story short, Russia needn't worry about the US....they should beware of China.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by uptheirons!
 


The U.S. needs to start holding some Saudi oil tycoons and prospectors at gunpoint, then - because we're not doing a very good job of plundering, if that's our goal.

Stability is also a resource. A dozen countries filled with hateful extremist groups that are funded by opium production (thereby making the suffering worse as what little farm land is available is often used for poppies rather than more useful things like food) and with theocratic oligarchies that endorse public executions (with no trial, mind you) ... is generally not a good thing to let sit to plot acts of terror. AQ had been responsible for a number of attacks against America, Russia, and Europe. You had the Marine barracks, the 91 WTC bombing, the Cole, and the infamous 9/11 WTC attacks - just naming the more popularly mentioned AQ operations.

Now, one could argue from a cost-effective standpoint of mounting actual invasions of another country to clear out what amounted to a large gang that held the majority of economic and political power in the nation and was actively plotting and undertaking militant attacks on our nation.... but people would quickly have lost confidence in the ability of America to defend itself had we not taken some kind of action - and the economic impact of that is unknown - but generally considered to be bad.

Though I do agree that China and Russia are setting themselves up for a squabble. This is very evident in recent weapon development programs like the PAK-FA. India and Russia have a strengthening relationship while China and India continue to push against each others' borders and China pushes for its own independent standing.

Ever read The Bear and The Dragon by Tom Clancy?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


This has to be one the most well written posts I've read in a while, applause.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
If, all the governments of the world, spent as much time and money on developing and implementing useful things for humanity like developing nanotechnology and full scale colonization of space, as they do on making weapons of war, we wouldn't have to worry about fighting over ever dwindling resources and land, there would be enough abundance for everyone. Peace be with you.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by themessengernevermatters
 


No crap. The problem now is that we have already dominated the planet and there needs to be an effective and unified global leadership before we progress. Unfortunately, the powers that be are the Western elite who wish to control the world through coercion instead of cooperation. There is only one solution to this problem, aside from total self-destruction that is.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
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 .


edit on 17-5-2011 by Max_TO because: (no reason given)


No, the Americans are a bit late on this. The Russian TOPOL MIRV travel at speeds beyond any other countries ICBM capabilities, flatter ballistic trajectory, final phase evasive maneuvers, laser proof, decoys and nuclear blast proof up to 500m. The Russian anti aircraft missile system S300 latest variant can take out ballistic warheads and even stealth targets S-400 . way ahead of current US systems.

Too many ill informed NATO cheerleader armchair generals on this site.

Like the Chinese DF-25, America caught with their pants down.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
If they build it big enough, fast enough, with enough on-baord decoy IRV's and they don't hold back and build boatloads of them, they are right, they would have "invincible" ICBM's! Will they use them? Can they afford them? Why don't they just build somehing like the X37B instead? Why not just build one big "Super-Bomb" that fries the entire planet and just get it over with? (Oh, wait, they already have that!)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
It's hilarious to read all the comments here posted by americans how they think Russian military forces are so obsolete. If you would just wake up and stop getting your facts only from western media-outlets where propaganda and pre-filtered news are all there is, when it comes to comparing nations.
If US would try to dominate the planet, Russia and other countries could build a very serious resistance.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by pekhe
 


I'm not making any assertions about how difficult Russia's convential forces would be to engage or defeat as Russians have already demonstrated they won't stop fighting you even if all they have for a weapon is a club with a big nail through it! What i do find pretty ludicrus is that a gnereal of any kind of forces would even think to make a statement about an ICBM system being "invincible". It is already acknowledged that using strategic nuclear weapons like ICBM's is just not "sane". Russia has admitted to that. The USA has admitted to that. And I'm pretty sure that's why they agreed to start getting rid of the damn things, slowly but surely once and for all! It's just STUPID to have strategic nuclear weapons, because ii just IS! To talk about building and invincible one is even less sane. If you want an invincible nuclear weapon, just build one big enough so that no matter where you light that puppy off on the face of the planet, it kills everyhting, everywhere, and be done with it! Plus, if you do that, yoiu don't have to spend any cash on building a delivery system!




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join