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.

 

Satan Ballistic Missile

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
You have to be crazy guys, Peacekeeper more advanced?

What does more advanced mean? In ICBm, the only thing you care about is how much damage it will do in the very end.

And there was never a missile built on this planet, which does same amount as SS-18.

Not only SS-18 carries 10 750 kt warheads, it also carries decoys, including heavy decoys. Remove them, it will be rather more than 10 750 kt warheads.

I like how people are talking about things being advanced, without any knowledge whatsoever about the purpose of the vehicle.




posted on May, 27 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Username: Iblis


Says the guy assuming that if you remove the decoys, you can magically put in ten more MIRV's.
If you knew anything about ICBM design, you'd know that's apples and oranges.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Username: Iblis


Says the guy assuming that if you remove the decoys, you can magically put in ten more MIRV's.
If you knew anything about ICBM design, you'd know that's apples and oranges.


I beg for you to differ since it was FIRST desinged to have 50 MIRV`s.

After some fake treaty`s, that number had to be reduced to 10.

The goal off the Satan missile was to nuclear carpet bomb huge cities.

The most advanced is the Topol M MIRV mod AKA RS-24.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
In-correct, and still nonsensical.

It was designed to carry fifty warheads, and it does.
Ten MIRV's, fourty decoys.

So the point remains apples and oranges.

Furthermore, much as I love my country, and admittedly I have little information to go from. [On the Russian side] While I believe the MX missile superior to the Satan, I can see, if Russia's claims were true.
["Long diatribe about how _that's_ certainly a historical truth."]
And given that, coming almost two decades after MX, it would only be logical, I can see how the Topol-M has superiority.
[Even if Glosnass is, for now, inferior.]




top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join