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.

 

Another Cold War? Nuclear arms race

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   
As we know Russia is stepping into the playing feild with it's nucear arsenals. They are fabricated nukes that no-one has and no-one will have. It's been told that they will have these by December. They've said that they will not let the USA go unchallenged with our missile defense and that our missile defense will not deter these missiles.

Now I don't believe Russia has plans by any means to attack the USA and are back in the arms race for pure defense only. At some point their technolgy will be present to others around the world. This means that USA have spent billions of dollars on a missile defense program that will not work. Our defense only consisted of 10 missiles for a limited attack scenario as it was.

Does Russian have the monetary stack to get back into the arms race a long period of time? What will the USA develop next to stay ahead of the race?




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The great thing is the US is already well ahead of Russia because of the economic difficulties they have had since the cold war. Although I welcome a cold war because we could certainly use a good reason to update and build up our military again. Since people won't be getting killed by it I don't think it will cause much harm.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
ever watched black adder goes forth?
in the last episode
"good byeeee"
it exsplains why the cold war does not work. although set in ww1 it exsplains the stupidness of the war and some stupid things now.
"....two armies of equaly oposing sides acting as the others detterant...."

"....there was one tiny problem though...."

"what was that sir?"

"it was bollocks"



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   
"The nukes that no one has and no one will have" is just rethoric. In fact they have problems with fielding of Topol misilles and Putin was just boosting morale.

Antimisille shield is not against Russia, but against smaller countries (10-20 ICBMs) like North Korea, Pakistan or Iran.

BTW remeber that antimisille defense are not only misille interceptors. For example the ABL program is also financed from it's budget.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Well the idea with military stuff is generally if you put into it enough $$$ and research time, eventually you can get whatever you want. That's what happened during the Cold War, so many advances were made that before weren't even thought possible.

So I think although a missile defense right now is unlikely, the idea I guess is, while not to pour all you've got into one, keep the budget going cuz eventually you will probably get somewhere and when you do you will have something no one else has.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Very interesting.

First of all, I'd just like to congratulate Putin. Although I'm sure it has nothing to do with the Missile Defense Shield the US is developing, he has hundreds or maybe thousands of missiles he could toss at the US if he wanted to. Missle Defense is useless against Russia.

Now, as for Russia being to broke to do anything... who's running something like a multi-trillion dollar debt? Something is floating the US, and its not the Government, they're broke. Russia is broke to, but not as bad, and they basically openly do business in black market trade and in organized crime. Big bucks. The US? They trade with China for Wal-Mart stock.

Putin is probably building smaller, more 'useful' nukes, for everyday use. I'd say 'conventional', but that word confuses some people. I'd probably be putting effort into developing nuclear devices that are man-portable and deployable. Not something so huge as to decimate a city or state, maybe just a few city blocks, or even just a few buildings on a specific block.

No, I'm not crazy about nuclear weapons, but you know they are very effective at getting a point across. If weapons like this were to be developed, it would eliminate any chance of mass mobilizations for any military force moving against the defending force with these weapons in their arsenal. You couldn't launch a massive attack, or even safely sail a carrier battle group, without risking loseing it all in one shot.

A pat on the back to Putin, keep putin out the nukes. Besides, I love the slap in the face to Dubya



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Nukes would be a lot safer if they could make a bomb that did the same damage without the radiation. You detonate a modern nuke anywhere and you put tons of radiation into the atmosphere which messes things up bad.

Then you know, if Beijing or New York City got bombed or whatever, at least half the East coast of each country doesn't end up dying off with it.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Isnt those new Russian nukes almost armed with 4 time more capacity to carry, faster and other variation has manouvarable movements. Russia isnt in problems at all, its growing fast and has military infrastucture ready to keep its development rolling, as some mentioned Russia trades almoust every party members, not maybe nukes but arms. I see Russia is going to for goverment run energy politics and energy is today one of the best selling while China grows for example and oil price stayes up. So it gives nice income to arms development.
Nukes seems logical choise for Russia while their population isnt really growing, some analyst says its going down cause not enough imigrants or child births. Also landmass is so huge its hard to defend from surrounding countrys as China.

I think US misisle shield use is to just keep "Rogue" states at bay, while Russia isnt really its target. Japan is also part of missile shield project and they run same goal as US to not be blackmailed by rogue states who might threat with nukes.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
Nukes would be a lot safer if they could make a bomb that did the same damage without the radiation. You detonate a modern nuke anywhere and you put tons of radiation into the atmosphere which messes things up bad.

Then you know, if Beijing or New York City got bombed or whatever, at least half the East coast of each country doesn't end up dying off with it.


Thats like the ban against hollow point ammunition in war by the geneva conventions because of the massive wounds they cause.
Oh brother is that stupid.







 
0

log in

join