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.

 

Russian Nuclear Submarine Fires Ballistic Missile

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The Russians have successfully fired a ballistic missile from a submarine. The missile which is unique in its capabilities hit its target.

Click the picture (below) for the full article...



From Xinhuanet: Russian nuclear submarine fires ballistic missile

A nuclear submarine of the Russian Pacific Fleet successfully fired a ballistic missile from the Sea of Okhotsk at 12:25 Moscow time (0725 GMT) on Tuesday, Itar-Tass news agency said.

A Defense Ministry official was quoted as saying that the missile was launched from the submerged submarine in the direction of the Chizh testing ground on Novaya Zemlya.

The warhead of this intercontinental ballistic missile developed at the Moscow institute of thermal engineering is unique in its capability to change course and altitude in order to effectively overcome successive anti-missile defense lines.

The intercontinental ballistic missile launched on Tuesday has hit the training target.

The "Bulava" is expected to arm promising new-generation submarines, as well as the Typhoon-type submarines (project 941).


UPDATE: Two ballistic missiles were fired. See last post.

[edit on 2004/11/5 by Hellmutt]




posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Interesting, no doubt in responce to the US. Missile shield that is near operational status. But the funny thing is, they have enuf missiles to overwhelm the system at any rate.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Sure, they might have enough missles to get many through our defences, but wouldn't it be best to get them *all* through? Why waste your money when you can put it all to use. I wonder what if anything the US might do to counter their actions.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Home Consumption..they want to show the folks at home they can (or at least the image they can).

Everybody should realise the shield wasnt meant to defeat the Russians or the like with massed missiles.

Its for the nutjob dictatorships that you never know about it who might decide to lob one or two.

Might sound like a big waste of money....unless it turns out to be your city it defends.........and the several million who live there.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Sorry to tell you but the USA missle system is not fully tested. Also I personally think it was made for poliyical reasons. (Missle System)

Out,
Russian



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The missile shield was originally designed to counter Russian missiles, so naturally Russia will make something to counter the US missile defence system. It was first thought of in the days of Ronald Reagan, when the Cold War was near its height. I don't know about political, at the time everybody was simply afraid of Soviet ICBM's.

Since subs can get their missiles much closer to their targets than any bomber or silo can, it dramatically shortens the amount of time for anybody to react. Currently I don't think that the missile shield could counter a missile launched of the coast of say California or Virginia. Of course it's not like Russia would have any reason in this time and day to launch anything at the US, and vice versa. Russia may simply be telling the western world that they're still a capable power who hasn't been reduced to nothing.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Found another source. They didnt fire one, but two ballistic missiles. One was launched from a nuclear submarine.


From Daily Times: Russia test-launches ballistic missiles

The Russian military successfully test-fired two ballistic missiles Tuesday, firing one from a nuclear submarine in the Pacific Ocean and another from the northwestern Plesetsk cosmodrome, officials said. The RS-12M Topol missile fired from the space launching area in Plesetsk hit a designated target on the Kamchatka Peninsula in the Russian Far East, about 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) east of Moscow, Russias Strategic Missile Forces said in a statement released to the media. The statement said the launch was part of an effort to test the possible extension of the service life of the Soviet-built ballistic missiles.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The Russians test their weapons for two basic reasons, first to demonstrate that their technologies are not defecient and secondly, to remind the Americans of their mortality.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
And in about two hours from now (19:46 GMT) they will launch Cosmos 1 with a ballistic missile fired from a russian submarine.

ATS: Two Space Vehicles To Be Launched From Submarine



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Since subs can get their missiles much closer to their targets than any bomber or silo can, it dramatically shortens the amount of time for anybody to react. Currently I don't think that the missile shield could counter a missile launched of the coast of say California or Virginia.


There is also no chance for russian sub to go near the US coast untracked.


To the misille - it may work against rocket interceptors, but what if the kinetic energy intercaptors are only a coverup and lasers/energy weapons will be deployed ...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
That satellite they're launching is a civvy one built by a group out in California.

[edit on 6/21/2005 by Wiley_Wonka]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
How deep that baby can launch it from, is another story



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Well, they´ve launched the Cosmos 1. It is riding on a modified ICBM. The problem is, they say they don´t know where it is. It could be flying around just about anywhere.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
And on the flipside....
Russian Military Rocket Crashes After Launch

As for this successful submarine launch, was Putin present for this launch or was he anticipating another submarine launch failure, like the last one?







seekerof



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And on the flipside....
Russian Military Rocket Crashes After Launch

As for this successful submarine launch, was Putin present for this launch or was he anticipating another submarine launch failure, like the last one?


seekerof

Ahhh, I just noticed your post here after I updated my other thread. They don´t have much luck with their rockets lately, do they?


Originally posted by Hellmutt in this post
Yesterday they had another failure with another rocket.


ITAR-TASS: Booster rocket Molniya-1 failed to deploy military satellite into orbit owing to a breakdown

21.06.2005


The booster rocket Molniya-1 has failed to deploy a military satellite into a designated orbit owing to a breakdown, a Russian Defence Ministry official has told Itar-Tass.

The rocket's liftoff was normal, with the launch complex functioning irreproachably. After the 6th minute of the rocket's flight, the third-stage engine went off under abnormal conditions.


RIA Novosti: Molniya rocket crash will not cancel solar sail launch -- Defense Ministry

The failure of a Molniya carrier rocket launched from Russia's Plisetsk Space Center on Tuesday to orbit a military satellite will not delay the launch from a Russian submarine of a unique spacecraft, Kosmos-1, which is equipped with a "solar sail".

An attempt to launch a similar spacecraft from a submarine in the Barents Sea in summer 2001 ended in failure, as was the case with a previous attempt in the spring of the same year.

MosNews: Russian Space Rocket Crashes in Siberia, Satellite Fails to Reach Orbit



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
If true Yah-Who to Russia, finding newer ways to kill Humans in the Mass.

When will this aggressive stuff start fading? Not Just Russia but the US too?
Will it take, as one of Edgar Cayce's readings - they will not allow the world to destroy itself. ?? ie: these UFOs will intervene - I hope, to shut down any Nuc launches from any Country.

What does it take to secure peace in our world and for all our Children and theirs?

Dallas



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
One Russian sub full of Ballistic missiles heading out to sea = one US Attack sub on it tail keeping a close eye.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
One Russian sub full of Ballistic missiles heading out to sea = one US Attack sub on it tail keeping a close eye.


the russian sub would never venture out into international waters. they can launch their missile comfortably in their own ports



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

the russian sub would never venture out into international waters. they can launch their missile comfortably in their own ports


The whole point of having a ballistic missile submarine is to surprise the enemy and hit them at very close ranges with the missiles. If your going to launch them from port then your wasting you time putting them on the subs, might as well just launch them like regular ICBM’s.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyFox2
Sure, they might have enough missles to get many through our defences, but wouldn't it be best to get them *all* through? Why waste your money when you can put it all to use. I wonder what if anything the US might do to counter their actions.


Actually the reason you want penetration without saturation is so that you can launch a limited strike and not force the enemy into making good on Mutually Assured Destruction. The Russians are trying to preserve the credibility of their deterrent by keeping the "single nuke theory" (thats my name for it) alive. The "single nuke theory" essentially stipulates that if you answer a conventional transgression with a limited nuclear strike, the enemy would have no alternative but to step back from the table and call it a day, because the alternative is total destruction.

Example: America invades Iran in defiance of a Russian-Iranian defense agreement. American and Russian troops clash and the American forces are on the brink of routing Russian forces in Iran. Russia launches a single nuclear weapon at a purely military target and vows greater retaliation if America strikes back. America calls their bluff and launches a single strike of their own- both sides back away before things get out of hand.

But what if Russia's single nuke was shot down- they are out of options then- full attack or accept defeat. Russia needs penetration of American defenses or they can never be sure of their ability to stand up to America.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by The Vagabond]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join