Russia To Acquire New 'Exclusive' Nukes, Putin.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Didnt world leaders sign a treaty that said there would be no more WMD researched and produced? Or am I confused on my treaties

The NPT has been broke so many times its pretty much a novelty now. Countries like N Korea,Iran, Pakistan signed it stating they would not develop nuclear weapons.

It looks like a nice idea on paper though

the real story here is not "nuclear" (every nuclear missle is the same, basically, there is not NEW nuclear weapon). The real story is the delivery system. I suspect that it a high speed mach 3+ cruise missle with multiple warheads. At the least, it is a weapons capable of countering US Anti-ballistic missle technology. Russia sees the US as a threat in that they could eventually attack Russia with impunity.

I seen to remember though, that we were offering the technology to the Russians, though. I guess they don't trust us, though.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Didnt world leaders sign a treaty that said there would be no more WMD researched and produced? Or am I confused on my treaties

The NPT has been broke so many times its pretty much a novelty now. Countries like N Korea,Iran, Pakistan signed it stating they would not develop nuclear weapons.

It looks like a nice idea on paper though

Pakistan signed the NPT??!! I didn't know that!!
Because India was against it from the very beginning, i thought to keep up the ante Paksitan would follow suit and refrain from signing...

Why are you all whining so much about us getting new missile tech??? It is normal for you to create a missile shield, and the F-22 and it's isn't for us to get new missile tech to counter the threat.

Why do you need the F-22? Not to fight the old Iraqi MiG's, where very few of them are in flyable conditions... Not to fight North Korean MiG-15/17/19, not the Su-25 of course... A few F-15's would destroy the whole N. Korean AF. Even if you were going to attack Iran, you don't need it to counter the threat of not even 80% mission capable F-14's F-4's F-5's, Su-22/24/25, MiG-23/29, or J-6, J-7.... But you might need it to try and penetrate the Russian airspace without being shot down immediately.

Why do you need the missile defence shield? And the Star Wars tech? Well for a few ballistic missiles N. Korea might launch against the USA, a simple Air Defence system would be enough, but not for Russian ICBM's.

So, don't tell me US isn't developping tech to attack Russia, and then defend itself from our response. And all of this is done under the excuse of the war on terrorism... You are not here to judge whether Putin is pathetic to say he needs the missiles to fight the terrorists, and that Bush is right when he says he attacked Iraq because of terrorism... Russia isn't the one taking oil from a country under the excuse of war on terrorism, USA is.

Originally posted by khruschev
Why are you all whining so much about us getting new missile tech??? It is normal for you to create a missile shield, and the F-22 and it's isn't for us to get new missile tech to counter the threat.

Why do you need the F-22?
Why do you need the missile defence shield? And the Star Wars tech?

This is the point missed by most. We learned this back in the 60s and 70s.You build a bigger bomb, so does the other side. Back then a ABM system was proposed using dual layered short and long range ABMs . The system was scrapped when it was shown that kill chance per reentry vehicle was atbest 25% and at the end of the day the other side just had to increase his number of warheads by 25% to regain the balance.

Just a waste of money in the long run. So all this ABMdefence shield/starwars crap is just hugh money making exercise for military companies.

If the USA hadn't ignored the ABM treaty none of this would be happening.More than ever Russian has a right and an obligation to protect its self. There are many lonnie neohawks in DC that would like nothing better than to renew hostilities against Russia.

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Pakistan signed the NPT??!! I didn't know that!!
Because India was against it from the very beginning, i thought to keep up the ante Paksitan would follow suit and refrain from signing...

You might be right the only countries I can remember off hand not signing it were Cuba and Israel but thats not all. Im sure both Iran and N Korea have signed though.

Originally posted by superdude
Great, just what we need. New nuclear missile technology. Now here's a question, if they really do come up with this "new" technology, what are the chances of the terrorists buying one?

Since its most likely a new type of ICBM or cruise missile theres not really a chance of Terrorist buying one. These things dont fit into a backpack or anything they are quite big, ifs its a ICBM those things need huge silos your not sneaking one of those anywhere.

all i have to say, how long before the world blows itself out of its measly little existance, now all they need is a particle disintegration beam that sets off a chain reaction that dosen't stom until it cant find an atom in a 3 inch radius of the last fringes of the explosion....yeah i know, i'm ranting....

I really think this was just Putin flexing some of Russia's muscle. Saying to the world dont forget about Russia we are still a military force to be reckoned with.

All this talk of Iran and N Korea making their first bombs Russia was making their first bombs like half a century ago.

You know what? Good for Putin. I think he's tired of bowing down (bending over) for the U.S. Bush says hes going to nail every country that supports, harbors, or supplies terrorists. He seems to be on some sort of mission. Whats going to stop him from pointing a finger at Putin someday?

Then theres the missile defence program. Well, maybe because of this, Putin decided he'd better give the U.S. a reason to have such a program, that its only realistic purpose is to stop missiles from Russia and Asia (Chinese space program? HA). So, why not make a weapon that can defeat the missile shield. Who says a nuke has to be on a missile? Who says it has to be the biggest one yet? (which the Russians already have).

Bush ordered the development of small, conventional nukes, during the Afghanistan conflict. Something that could actually be used. Did you all forget this? There was a call, basically to the public, to forward ideas for new weapons. Why have these big bejeezus bombs that you can never use? Lets go Starship Troopers style, shoulder fired nuclear weapons. Sounds good to Bush, so why should Putin sit back and watch?

As long as the U.S. has hostile intentions in other countries, and remains a Super Power, I hope the Russians are there to say "Wait a minute, not so fast" No one else can do it (without taking away from the public domain) like the Russians can. The left needs a right. You can't have all the power, there has to be a counter balance. Or who knows, Americans might just take over the world.

Sure, democracy for all, thats all fine and good, but some people DON'T WANT IT. Yes, even non-political, non-militant people, people that don't run business or governments for profits that scalp the average joe. But, its the Americans job to stuff it down the throat of every single country in the world (that has a money making/trading potential). Don't get me wrong, I like democracy, but not everyone else does.

PSSTEEL:

Wake up. We are in a new era of nuclear proliferation. The ABM treaty was not 'ingored' so we could build a defense against thousands of russian nuclear warheads. The treaty was shelved so that this country could defend against rogue nations (see IRAN, KOREA) that might be able to lob several missiles at us in the future (thanks bill clinton for allowing GPS tech to get to china then onward to korea then iran). Unlike the Reagan strategy, our ballistic missile defense will NOT keep us safe from russia's gazzilions of warheads EVER.



[edit on 20-11-2004 by darth ruin]

TORUS:

Check history. When has the United States EVER conquered a country and made it a colony? Answer: NEVER. Your fears of the U.S. (under Bush) becoming a new Third Reich is in line with the ultra left.
Can the world survive with only one TRUE Super Power? Sure. Do you see us mobilizing for a world take-over? We don't even have enough troops to properly secure Iraq! Now let's look at the nuclear issue. We all know that major nuclear war will resulst in destruction of us and them. You say it's good for russia to flex it's nuclear muscle to balance us. Let me OPINE. As an engineer that is associated with Ballistic Missile Defense, I can say that what we are installing will NEVER be able to counter the thousands of russian nukes that exist in both land and sea based platforms. What we are building will hopefully stop a few missile launches from either N. Korea or Iran.
Russia doesn't even need to bother with building more. Geez, France could probably overwhelm our meager defense.
I would argue that Russia is the one that is escalating here. Do the russians really need to build newer weapons when they can already overwhelm our defenses?

One other question. What is a 'conventional' nuke?

DR

Originally posted by darth ruin
The treaty was shelved so that this country could defend against rogue nations (see IRAN, KOREA) that might be able to lob several missiles at us in the future (thanks bill clinton for allowing GPS tech to get to china then onward to korea then iran).

[edit on 20-11-2004 by darth ruin]

Wake up darth ruin, the cold war is over and no ABM system is needed. The only way those iranian and Korean nukes would ever be lobbed at the USA would be if the USA attacked those countries. So don't go there and you will have the best ABM sheild of all!

The world can only function in a balanced sence if the one remaining super power exercises that power responsibly. THis is not happening, thus we have a 'NEED' for an alternative superpower to emerge to counter American hegemony around the world. If you don't like that, then get ride of the freaks that have created the so called 'axis of evil' and are waging war against it.

[edit on 20-11-2004 by psteel]

[edit on 20-11-2004 by psteel]

PSSTEEL:
Believe me. If we attack first, those countries will NOT be able to retaliate with a nuke from a ballistic missile. But that is not my main point.

I would (and being somewhat involved in the development) rather see us HAVE the ability to defend ourselves if say N. korea decides to launch missiles that can hit our country.

By the way, are you a proponent of many little whacko countries actually having nukes that hit us?

Originally posted by psteel


The only way those iranian and Korean nukes would ever be lobbed at the USA would be if the USA attacked those countries. So don't go there and you will have the best ABM sheild of all!

You would be assumming Kim Jong-il is indeed a sane person. And when you hear and see evidence of things like him testings chemical and bio weapons on humans that could be in question. Also say if North Korea attacked South Korea if they played their nuclear wild card they could keep the US from helping out in such a battle.

Or if Iran attacked the new goverment of Iraq. The missile defense is created so that small rogue nations cant blackmail the US with the nukes they have.

Like was said before it is useless against Russia because of the sheer numbers of ICBMs.

PSSTEEL:

We did get rid of the freaks that created the AXIS of EVIL. Let me summarize:

IRAN: Carter created that mess. We voted him out of office. I'm not saying the Shah was a saint but the alternative is well documented.
N. Korea: Clinton created that mess. He believed those pious ones when they said that they would obide by the treaty they signed. Clinton is gone thanks to the U.S. Constitution.
IRAQ: 'nuf said.

Also, the hegemony that you claim exists on our part...can you state all the areas of our planet that this policy is being pursued?

I'll cop to IRAQ.

Care to take a stab at where else?

[edit on 20-11-2004 by darth ruin]

Originally posted by psteel

The world can only function in a balanced sence if the one remaining super power exercises that power responsibly.
[edit on 20-11-2004 by psteel]

Actually if you look at the history of the world most of the time there is no balance of power. One power often rose far beyond the other powers in the world. Greece, Rome, Egypt,Mongolia , Britain history is full of world powers not a balance of power.

Russia minister: New nuclear missile system is defensive

UNITED NATIONS (AP) � Russia's new nuclear missile system is purely defensive and part of the country's program to upgrade its military, Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday said the country is developing a new "state-of-the-art" nuclear missile system unlike any weapon held by other countries. He said it will be deployed "in the near future" but gave no details.

"It's a military issue, of course," Fedotov told The Associated Press on Friday when asked about the new missiles. "Any armed forces needs a kind of upgrading, so it's a natural process."

www.usatoday.com...

Sanc'.

Coneventional and Non-conventional. One could be used feasibly, without assuring world-wide catastrophel. The other would cause the..er.. vaporization of half the globe above water? What part 'conventional' don't you understand? It applies to a weapon you would use to decimate a few thousand people and structures in say... downtown New York, but not anywhere else. No fallout futher than Jersey. Get it?

As for Americans shoving their ideals down the throats of every person they come into contact with, by force if need be, you need to have your ass kicked good and hard for once, or atleast someone to scare you back into place. And as for nukes from N. Korea and Iran every coming to the US on the end of a ICBM? What have you been smoking? Unless China starts selling their "Space Program" to them, that will never happen. Maybe China should start developing nukes publically, then maybe sign some treaties with Russia and N. Korea, kinda like the old days. Then why not let India have a bigger piece of the pie, and Pakistan. Whoa, that be one big party wouldn't it.

"Check history. When has the United States EVER conquered a country and made it a colony?"

1) The country of US is founded on the very concept of colonization of native american's land

2)The US has taken land from Mexico: Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona

3) Guam, Hawaii were all colonized and made a part of the US

4) the Philipines was a US colony for a long time.