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 May Boost Nuclear Potential - Deputy Defense Minister

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519


I can't say I blame them, especially on the U.S. missile shield issue. Russia is being encircled and they see it and will not sit idly by when the red line is crossed


So russia is "encircled" by devices which don't kill people, so they have to make many more weapons to kill people.

The USA has not developed any offensive nuclear system since the mid 1980's, but Russia has continued to do so. Modern Russian warheads can't be stopped by the fairly wimpy interceptors, there is lots of classified decoy technology. Even USA's 1960's-1970's warheads probably would get through the interceptors---it's limited to North Korea or Saddam-Hussein level threats.

Obviously the USA is the bad one here according to 3/4s of ATS. I don't get it.

As far as being "Encircled" by NATO---the Russians need to look at themselves.

Just why is it that Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, etc were so eager to join NATO and EU? On their own accord, and without 500,000 occupying US troops (in contrast to USSR say in 1948). Notice that say Netherlands---or anybody else---wasn't particularly keen on joining the Warsaw Pact after 1991. Now why is that?

After 1991, the nations "subjected" to US and USSR's dominance put in their own vote as to which they preferred. Joe Stalin lost in landslide.

It is telling that some Russian conspiracists believe that these other nations don't actually have the ability to make an independent choice on their own. A bit of projection perhaps?


edit on 11-2-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


The US ABM system can kill Russian ICBMs in a boost phase and thus neutralize the deterrence that they have against any nuclear attack on them. That is the main worry of Moscow.

Regarding encirclement, in 1989 before German reunification both East and West decided that NATO will not expand beyond Germany and not even petrol flights will take place east of Berlin. West renegged on both of them under the premise that new states were way toooooooooo eager to join NATO so they had to relent. This is backing off from agreements and that has happened because Russia got weak. Also, the central european nations which are part of NATO now have this commie mentality that if they are in western group, then they can get lot more aid and alms for free. Learning from the USSR experience of having to feed and cloth the extended Eastern European family of nations, now Russia is not interested in making any effort to rule over other nations and such. Most Russia might do is make a union with Belarus and that too with much request from Minsk.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by mbkennel
 


The US ABM system can kill Russian ICBMs in a boost phase and thus neutralize the deterrence that they have against any nuclear attack on them. That is the main worry of Moscow.

Regarding encirclement, in 1989 before German reunification both East and West decided that NATO will not expand beyond Germany and not even petrol flights will take place east of Berlin. West renegged on both of them under the premise that new states were way toooooooooo eager to join NATO so they had to relent. This is backing off from agreements and that has happened because Russia got weak. Also, the central european nations which are part of NATO now have this commie mentality that if they are in western group, then they can get lot more aid and alms for free. Learning from the USSR experience of having to feed and cloth the extended Eastern European family of nations, now Russia is not interested in making any effort to rule over other nations and such. Most Russia might do is make a union with Belarus and that too with much request from Minsk.

Vic...I agree with alot of your post....but make no mistake...the current state of affairs between Russia nd the U.S is all PUTIN PROPAGANDA. The U.S. does not view Russia as an enemy or even a Major Threat. All this talk about U.S./Russian War planning issues is all been crafted by Putin. Putin had the chance to be the Good Guy and expand U.S./Russian relations into a New Era of trust and cooperation...but PUTIN...Old KGB...wanted to stay in power and to do this...he needed a BAD GUY to focus his curruption and take over of Multi-Billion Dollar companies by his teams of old KGB operatives in a method of consolidating his power as well as creating an ENEMY where there no longer was one.
Putin as well as the new Russian Intell. servises KNEW...that you can't make money on Military Contracts that do not exist...so Putin started in with the ...NATO has plans to encircle Russia...even as the U.S. Nuclear Teams were still in the Former CCCP destroying their majority of Nuclear Weapons by Russian request! Russian Military readiness is a Bad Joke and the U.S. has ACTUALLY ASKED RUSSIA to do something about it as their security is too lax! But Russia is in no condition Militarily or otherwise to start a war with ANYONE...least of all the United States...and as far as their complaints of U.S. Advanced ABM capabilities as well as EXTREME FEAR of the Free Electron Laser...THEY COULD HAVE BEEN A PARTNER WITH THE U.S....but they screwed up and now in a few short years...it will not matter how many Nukes or ICBMS Russia builds...this is the end times of the Nuclear Warhead ICBM ERA. Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


The US does not view Russia as a threat? Where do you get your facts from?

The game is global geopolitics- the goal is to control the world. The leading player is the US that has its chips through the three main regions of Eurasia (Europe, Central Asia, Eastasia). US has been placing its chips on the spots where the USSR lost theirs.

However, contrary to the expectations of American strategy architects, Russia built itself up much more quickly than wanted. Russia remains a serious player in the region, hence why they have expanded into Iran and Syria after the US has dominated a lot of eastern Europe and countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The American strategy for Russia is containment. Why? Because Russia is a serious threat to the US. Why? Because controlling Eurasia is a requirement for controlling the world, and Russia happens to be the major player there (along with the EU and China).

So you can either continue crying about "Putin propaganda" or pick up any book written by Brzezinski. The grand American geopolitical strategy is about nations, and has little room for the leaders that temporarily control them.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


The US does not view Russia as a threat? Where do you get your facts from?

The game is global geopolitics- the goal is to control the world. The leading player is the US that has its chips through the three main regions of Eurasia (Europe, Central Asia, Eastasia). US has been placing its chips on the spots where the USSR lost theirs.

However, contrary to the expectations of American strategy architects, Russia built itself up much more quickly than wanted. Russia remains a serious player in the region, hence why they have expanded into Iran and Syria after the US has dominated a lot of eastern Europe and countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The American strategy for Russia is containment. Why? Because Russia is a serious threat to the US. Why? Because controlling Eurasia is a requirement for controlling the world, and Russia happens to be the major player there (along with the EU and China).

So you can either continue crying about "Putin propaganda" or pick up any book written by Brzezinski. The grand American geopolitical strategy is about nations, and has little room for the leaders that temporarily control them.

At one time the Soviet Union was considered a grave threat...Russia has gone way down on that list. As far as ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI....who served under the Carter Administraton...he seems to have taken credit for alot of dealings and policies with the Afghanistan/Soviet war which we supplied Stinger Missles to take down Russian Choppers as well as Camp David Accords and SALT II....he tends to overstate his roles in these areas as a Certain Texan was realy the Man who forced the CIA to supply weapons to Afghanistan through Pakistan...and the advice he gave Carter was suspect at best.
There has been a Major Fundemental Shift in Weapons Capability in favor of the U.S. Military...on going for the last few years. Certain breakthroughs have made Rusia and China much less of a threat and planning is on going. Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


The US does not view Russia as a threat? Where do you get your facts from?

The game is global geopolitics- the goal is to control the world. The leading player is the US that has its chips through the three main regions of Eurasia (Europe, Central Asia, Eastasia). US has been placing its chips on the spots where the USSR lost theirs.

However, contrary to the expectations of American strategy architects, Russia built itself up much more quickly than wanted. Russia remains a serious player in the region, hence why they have expanded into Iran and Syria after the US has dominated a lot of eastern Europe and countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The American strategy for Russia is containment. Why? Because Russia is a serious threat to the US. Why? Because controlling Eurasia is a requirement for controlling the world, and Russia happens to be the major player there (along with the EU and China).

So you can either continue crying about "Putin propaganda" or pick up any book written by Brzezinski. The grand American geopolitical strategy is about nations, and has little room for the leaders that temporarily control them.

At one time the Soviet Union was considered a grave threat...Russia has gone way down on that list. As far as ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI....who served under the Carter Administraton...he seems to have taken credit for alot of dealings and policies with the Afghanistan/Soviet war which we supplied Stinger Missles to take down Russian Choppers as well as Camp David Accords and SALT II....he tends to overstate his roles in these areas as a Certain Texan was realy the Man who forced the CIA to supply weapons to Afghanistan through Pakistan...and the advice he gave Carter was suspect at best.
There has been a Major Fundemental Shift in Weapons Capability in favor of the U.S. Military...on going for the last few years. Certain breakthroughs have made Rusia and China much less of a threat and planning is on going. Split Infinity


No offense, but you are lacking in your understand of who Brzezinski is. I reference him a lot because he is an architect of US foreign policy, as has been for decades. His influence fell away from the White House after the Clinton administration was replaced by Bush Jr. By this time, the neo-conservatives had taken full reigns with most of the Bush team made up of PNAC planners. They had no room for Brzezinski's strategy of soft power- Bush administration used hard force to take over US geopolitical interests.

Read some of Brzezinski's work and it will blow your mind. Reading about him as just working for Carter is far from the truth. He advised presidents constantly even until Clinton (in his book "Second Chance", he even casually talks about Clinton phoning him up for foreign policy advice when he was at the beach)- he had this advisory position through multiple administrations because he was a true architect for the American Empire, not just some temporary figurehead leader. His books, specifically "The Grand Chessboard", describe the US strategy for geopolitical hegemony in 1997. His strategy for Russia back then was containment of Russia proper while drawing in ex-Soviet states into pro-American sphere of influence. He did not view Russia as the significant power as it is today, but rather as a crippled nation.

And you can bet your ass that Brzezinski was behind CIA efforts in Afghanistan:



If you want more evidence, then here is a photo of Brzezinski showing Osama bin Laden (or CIA agent "Tim Osman" if that conspiracy rings true) how to use a machinegun:



As for your comment on weapons capability, I disagree. The US and Russia are on the same level of weapons capability, with specific factors ahead or behind for either power. The only difference is that Russia does not maintain such a large conventional military as the US does, but then again the Russian military does not consume nearly the same extreme amount of resources and money that hte US war machine does (which, quite frankly, is a good thing).

Russia does not need a military capable of striking a country on the other side of the world when they only need a military capable of fighting within Eurasia, which they have and proven to be capable (Georgia/Chechnya/Daegestan anyone?).

And Russia and China are less of a threat? The size and extent of your military means nothing in terms of the threat that Russia and China pose to the US- because the threat is geopolitics, not militarily. The US has been deploying its ABM shield in Europe not to challenge Russia militarily, but to cut off Russia's influence from spreading back into Europe.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

Getting the CIA to pay attention in Afghanistan was all Texas Senator Charlie Wilson...only after a few sucesses did anyone start paying attention.
As far as what you may or may not think about what the capabilities of the U.S. Military are...you would not have the information to make a call on that. Convetional weapons were not the only thing that they have been working on all these years. Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

Getting the CIA to pay attention in Afghanistan was all Texas Senator Charlie Wilson...only after a few sucesses did anyone start paying attention.
As far as what you may or may not think about what the capabilities of the U.S. Military are...you would not have the information to make a call on that. Convetional weapons were not the only thing that they have been working on all these years. Split Infinity


Carlie Wilson? You mean from the Hollywood movie?


Read a book called "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll if you want to learn the details about the CIA in Afghanistan.

And I don't have the information to comment on the US arsenal, eh? I guess we should all just shut up about it and not question anything about the US military because we are not important enough to know anything about it


I think you overestimate things. Anything that would be too "top secret" for us to know about, wouldn't be relevant in a real combat situation anyways. You would have to practically not even use it to keep it top secret, so what is the point in relying on "top secret" weapons as being your game changers?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
That's easy to do.

Just get out of the treaties.

Start putting 20-30 even 40 warheads/missile.

That is cheap and safeguards you from a first strike.

Also, put back the ``DEAD HAND`` on... (and make sure the US government knows it)

But the problem with increasing warheads per missile is that it makes the first strike a tempting option.
edit on 5-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


Have you lost your mind buddy? That dam Dead Hand computer almost killed everyone back in the early 90's and that's why they killed it.

10 warheads is the most that can be fit onto an ICBM unless you want to make a huge new missile that really don't make sense.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge

Originally posted by Vitchilo
That's easy to do.

Just get out of the treaties.

Start putting 20-30 even 40 warheads/missile.

That is cheap and safeguards you from a first strike.

Also, put back the ``DEAD HAND`` on... (and make sure the US government knows it)

But the problem with increasing warheads per missile is that it makes the first strike a tempting option.
edit on 5-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


Have you lost your mind buddy? That dam Dead Hand computer almost killed everyone back in the early 90's and that's why they killed it.

10 warheads is the most that can be fit onto an ICBM unless you want to make a huge new missile that really don't make sense.

Just curious, but where/when did you hear that Dead Hand (or Perimeter) was killed? Not doubting you, I'd just like to see some articles stating so because the last one's I read say it's still active, although it's just turned off right now and only gets turned on during high tensions.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I do not think DEAD HAND is switched off. On the other hand it is being regularly upgraded.

Nukes are the only parity in the US Russia military equation. Conventionally Russia is in bad shape. When 20% of any military budget ends up somewhere else as a result of corruption, then what can you expect. This fact has been accepted even by Medvedev. Corruption is big problem in every sphere of Russian life.

Rail Gun and Free Electron Laser are two areas which will provide us with next generation weapons in the coming 3-5 years. Good news is Russia is not too far behind on research upon these topics.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

Getting the CIA to pay attention in Afghanistan was all Texas Senator Charlie Wilson...only after a few sucesses did anyone start paying attention.
As far as what you may or may not think about what the capabilities of the U.S. Military are...you would not have the information to make a call on that. Convetional weapons were not the only thing that they have been working on all these years. Split Infinity


Carlie Wilson? You mean from the Hollywood movie?


Read a book called "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll if you want to learn the details about the CIA in Afghanistan.

And I don't have the information to comment on the US arsenal, eh? I guess we should all just shut up about it and not question anything about the US military because we are not important enough to know anything about it


I think you overestimate things. Anything that would be too "top secret" for us to know about, wouldn't be relevant in a real combat situation anyways. You would have to practically not even use it to keep it top secret, so what is the point in relying on "top secret" weapons as being your game changers?

People who are movers and shakers are not allowed to write books anytime soon within the open window that certain things are placed into motion or sometimes if ever at all.

And no...you do not have enough information to make most of the comments and estimates you have made. This is not an attempt to belittle you...it is just a fact. You are right about some programs being so secret that they would only be used in a National Emergency...and even then they would be kept a secret.

I have no need to overestimate anything...the Pentagon and NSA have saw fit to leek info. as a way to drive policy in certain directions and I would have to say with a Great Amount of sucess. Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

Getting the CIA to pay attention in Afghanistan was all Texas Senator Charlie Wilson...only after a few sucesses did anyone start paying attention.
As far as what you may or may not think about what the capabilities of the U.S. Military are...you would not have the information to make a call on that. Convetional weapons were not the only thing that they have been working on all these years. Split Infinity


Carlie Wilson? You mean from the Hollywood movie?


Read a book called "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll if you want to learn the details about the CIA in Afghanistan.

And I don't have the information to comment on the US arsenal, eh? I guess we should all just shut up about it and not question anything about the US military because we are not important enough to know anything about it


I think you overestimate things. Anything that would be too "top secret" for us to know about, wouldn't be relevant in a real combat situation anyways. You would have to practically not even use it to keep it top secret, so what is the point in relying on "top secret" weapons as being your game changers?

People who are movers and shakers are not allowed to write books anytime soon within the open window that certain things are placed into motion or sometimes if ever at all.

And no...you do not have enough information to make most of the comments and estimates you have made. This is not an attempt to belittle you...it is just a fact. You are right about some programs being so secret that they would only be used in a National Emergency...and even then they would be kept a secret.

I have no need to overestimate anything...the Pentagon and NSA have saw fit to leek info. as a way to drive policy in certain directions and I would have to say with a Great Amount of sucess. Split Infinity


I'll say again, you overestimate things. All of the relevant answers are there if you bother to look- they aren't locked away in some secret vault. Training in the subject area, and knowing people with experience in the field, are also great assets to have.

I find your assumption that we are too inferior to know as being quite rediculous. If that were true, then we would live in some dystopian Orwellian way of life where 80% of the population are workers who are completely separated from government, and the 20% of the government is a pyramid structure where you only know so much the higher up you go. That isn't how it works in real life. You don't need to be President of the United States to know things that rank above the lowest-tier of knowledge about American programs.
edit on 13-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join