TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Russia plans new ICBMs, nuclear subs
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Nice information, occrider, too bad I didnt read it all but I get your point. Russia is not just defending against USA you know, there's also China, NATO (well, USA in it), and possibly some Arabic aggression. 700 warheads for a country like Russia is not enough, no no, especially when everyone else has at least 400. On the other hand, I will be very satisfied if Russia has 500 warheads that are ultra-fast, very powerful and ahead of any missile-defense systems by many years - that will make Russia safer. One warhead like that will make everyone afraid of messing with Russia.

You don't have 700 warheads. You have more than 3000 strategic nuclear warheads. That's more than enough to kill the world several times over considering you're dealing with megaton not kiliton yields. Look how much attention Iran and N. Korea are getting with primitive yield weapons with rudimentary delivery systems. I don't think you have much to worry about.

quote:

Right now Russia pays money for operating old missiles that are probably obsolete. So its much smarter to cut down the number of warheads, making the new ones much better than any alternative in the world - why have 2000 warheads that are mostly antiques when you can make 2-3 times less that cost less and have better effect.

They're not obsolete, they're most certainly operational. The argument to save money might make some sense, however, the justification for upgrading the nuclear arsenal isn't to save money but rather to retain nuclear parity. That doesn't quite make much sense given the circumstances of the situation. Russia's money would be better spent using it on aircraft carriers which can actually project military strength strategically and tactically without the unfortunate and unnecessary byproduct of a nuclear holocaust.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider They're not obsolete, they're most certainly operational. The argument to save money might make some sense, however, the justification for upgrading the nuclear arsenal isn't to save money but rather to retain nuclear parity. That doesn't quite make much sense given the circumstances of the situation. Russia's money would be better spent using it on aircraft carriers which can actually project military strength strategically and tactically without the unfortunate and unnecessary byproduct of a nuclear holocaust.

That's an awesome point, I guess the question is whether Russia has the capacity to build up the functional support infrastructure to support aircraft carrier groups, including support ships, defense ships, upgraded docking/refitting facilities and whether they should design a new type of aircraft carrier (an undertaking that might be beyond their reach now) or build older models.

I remember when they sold the Gorshkov carrier to India 2-3 years ago, I think they are left only with one carrier now.

No, not really an awesome point. Why? Its kinda like saying, well, 60,000 T-34's are still a great deterrent to lets say 10,000 German Tiger tanks? I hope you're seeing the analogy. Psychologically - newer defenses, faster and longer range missiles would do more success than claiming that my 40 year-old missiles can still kick your 2000's class any day. Though I am not saying that in today's world they cant inflict the damage, but its not impressive at all.

I am not saying that Russia should just throw in all its budget and build thousands of new missiles - Russia has enough "operational" ones right now, but Russia needs to build a couple hundred super-missiles using the latest technology and developments, as a psychological and strategical tool to reassert itself. Waving 2,000 rusting, 40-year-old missiles is not impressing anyone these days.

I agree mag but what I'd say is that it's not so much the actual tech of the current missles but maintaining a highly skilled development pool of people able to meet new challenges.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I agree mag but what I'd say is that it's not so much the actual tech of the current missles but maintaining a highly skilled development pool of people able to meet new challenges.

Good point, that too! Russia's braindrain hasn't ended ;-(

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium No, not really an awesome point. Why? Its kinda like saying, well, 60,000 T-34's are still a great deterrent to lets say 10,000 German Tiger tanks? I hope you're seeing the analogy. Psychologically - newer defenses, faster and longer range missiles would do more success than claiming that my 40 year-old missiles can still kick your 2000's class any day. Though I am not saying that in today's world they cant inflict the damage, but its not impressive at all. I am not saying that Russia should just throw in all its budget and build thousands of new missiles - Russia has enough "operational" ones right now, but Russia needs to build a couple hundred super-missiles using the latest technology and developments, as a psychological and strategical tool to reassert itself. Waving 2,000 rusting, 40-year-old missiles is not impressing anyone these days.

Are you even in the right thread?

1. Your analogy makes no sense.

2. I was referring specifically to aircraft carriers because as occrider mentioned, global projection of force is the most important aspect of the military.

3. Even if I was talking about missiles, why would you need faster and longer range missiles? Longer range for what? Even the the older missiles already have the range to hit any potential enemy and the speed is largely irrelevant since the average speed of an ICBM is 25,000 km/h which makes it travel its maximum range (roughly 10,000 km which is the same range that Topol-M has) in less than half hour.

4. Even the older nuclear missiles have MIRV systems and travel fast enough to make their interception difficult even if an ABM system existed and US nor anyone else isn't even close to building any kind of comprehensive ABM system.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Are you even in the right thread? 1. Your analogy makes no sense. 2. I was referring specifically to aircraft carriers because as occrider mentioned, global projection of force is the most important aspect of the military. 3. Even if I was talking about missiles, why would you need faster and longer range missiles? Longer range for what? Even the the older missiles already have the range to hit any potential enemy and the speed is largely irrelevant since the average speed of an ICBM is 25,000 km/h which makes it travel its maximum range (roughly 10,000 km which is the same range that Topol-M has) in less than half hour. 4. Even the older nuclear missiles have MIRV systems and travel fast enough to make their interception difficult even if an ABM system existed and US nor anyone else isn't even close to building any kind of comprehensive ABM system.

Alright then, Russia should stick to its rusting 40+ year old missiles that havent even been tested in ages (these old missiles). It would be funny when actually then try to launch and the button jams or something Only an idiot would expect such complicated systems to be in the same shape as 40-50 years ago. Plus include the amount of Russian funding since Soviet's demise to upkeep these. Pffft, yeah ...

As for aircraft crarriers, you're looking through it with American eyes. Russia doesnt need aircraft carriers, Russia has no plans for world domination. Carriers are much more expensive and need more maintenance also. Why would Russia go in Middle East with aircraft carriers? To do what - attack American bases? Or to attack its Muslim allies??? HAHAHAHA,,, get out of town! Russian planners are no idiots - they're doing the right thing preparing new line of strategic defensive system to protect Russia, including psychological advantage.

quote:

Alright then, Russia should stick to its rusting 40+ year old missiles that havent even been tested in ages (these old missiles). It would be funny when actually then try to launch and the button jams or something Only an idiot would expect such complicated systems to be in the same shape as 40-50 years ago. Plus include the amount of Russian funding since Soviet's demise to upkeep these. Pffft, yeah ...

Yes, they should spend billions of dollars for the remote possibility of a button jamming. Next time sound out to yourself the words you are typing so you can see how ridiculous it sounds.

Anyways, you didn't address why should Russia spend billions of dollars to obtain only minor advantages. The range remains the same, MIRV capacity remains pretty much the same, payload remains the same, speed remains largely the same, for a Topol-M the speed might be even slower since it flies in lower atmosphere.

However, Topol-M does have the advantage of being largely undetectable possibly giving some minor advantages in a First Strike scenario. However, that point is moot - whats the point of being undetectable if the travel time from launch to impact is 20 minutes or less and there is NO conceivable ABM system that can intercept it?

Nuclear strike capacity is aimed at deterring large nation-states while in reality, the past 60 years of Russian warfare has been with individual actors and guerilla forces.

quote:

As for aircraft crarriers, you're looking through it with American eyes. Russia doesnt need aircraft carriers, Russia has no plans for world domination. Carriers are much more expensive and need more maintenance also. Why would Russia go in Middle East with aircraft carriers? To do what - attack American bases? Or to attack its Muslim allies??? HAHAHAHA,,, get out of town! Russian planners are no idiots - they're doing the right thing preparing new line of strategic defensive system to protect Russia, including psychological advantage.

You're so shortsighted. Projection of force is EVERYTHING for a country that wants to maintain a rapidly deployable global military. It's not a matter of world domination, it's a matter of protecting one's interests around the world. Whether it's displaying a show of force to leverage diplomatic negotiations, whether its interdicting shipments or supplies to others to apply pressure to a state or employing the carrier group's military capacity. You don't gain that capability from a nuclear weapon because there's no degree of threat you can apply. It's either Comply or Total Annihilation. 1 or 0. Projection of force allows you to gradually pressure others by methods I listed above to attain your goals.

Man, if you were my general - I'd have you shot a long time ago like Stalin would have. Come to think of it, he was probably surrounded by guys like you and you blame him for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Yes, they should spend billions of dollars for the remote possibility of a button jamming. Next time sound out to yourself the words you are typing so you can see how ridiculous it sounds.

Jesus Christ, you cant read, can you? I was talking about the OLD systems. You think they run just as smooth and easy as 40 years ago, well you are dead wrong. They havent even been properly maintained for christ's sake. There's enough articles and photos of rusting Russian military equipment and closed missile factories laying around. They didnt pay the government workers on time in 1990s, and you expect they had enough money for upkeeping those massive machines? Pffft ....

quote:

Nuclear strike capacity is aimed at deterring large nation-states while in reality, the past 60 years of Russian warfare has been with individual actors and guerilla forces.

Havent you noticed that recently more and more countries have been developing nuclear weapons? Well, well, well .... then you expect Russia to cut back, especially when NATO and American military bases are creeping to its borders??? Who's the bigger threat to Russia right now - some small Chechen guerillas or massive NATO/US encroachment around Russia? NATO never stopped. They're isolating Russia, and in case of a conflict between NATO and Russia, Russia will be focked because NATO by then set up a massive system of bases and missile defenses around it. So why should then Russia build aircraft carriers and go halfway around the world for something out of their reach, out of their time, with nothing to achieve except loss of allies and support, be it increasing American sentiment or Arab anger.

quote:

You're so shortsighted. Projection of force is EVERYTHING for a country that wants to maintain a rapidly deployable global military. It's not a matter of world domination, it's a matter of protecting one's interests around the world. Whether it's displaying a show of force to leverage diplomatic negotiations, whether its interdicting shipments or supplies to others to apply pressure to a state or employing the carrier group's military capacity. You don't gain that capability from a nuclear weapon because there's no degree of threat you can apply. It's either Comply or Total Annihilation. 1 or 0. Projection of force allows you to gradually pressure others by methods I listed above to attain your goals.

Bwahahahaha ... Russia has LOTS of problems within C.I.S., and you expect Russia to start preparing for a "global military"? Come on, man! Russia is rebuilding to protect its interests around itself first, maybe in 20-30 years when NATO decides to dismantle bases and the former Soviet republics will come back to Russian sphere of influence, THEN Russia will go global. Until then its a dumb, ill-conceived strategy with absolutely nothing to gain or achieve other than looking cool. Plus there's the internal issues, like rebuilding infrastructure, military, prestige, economy, standards of life, etc.

The last thing Russia wants right now is to get mixed up in some Middle Eastern conflict.

quote:

Man, if you were my general - I'd have you shot a long time ago like Stalin would have. Come to think of it, he was probably surrounded by guys like you and you blame him for it.

You're so obsessed with Stalin. Yes, you probably idolize other dictators as well, too.

You are an idiot - Stalin was surrounded by idiots who did everything that was told them, cause he had already eliminated everyone who would question him. Stalin the almighty. Your attempts at mocking me are dumb and lack logic.

quote:

Jesus Christ, you cant read, can you? I was talking about the OLD systems. You think they run just as smooth and easy as 40 years ago, well you are dead wrong. They havent even been properly maintained for christ's sake. There's enough articles and photos of rusting Russian military equipment and closed missile factories laying around. They didnt pay the government workers on time in 1990s, and you expect they had enough money for upkeeping those massive machines? Pffft ....

This is very simple, unless you can prove to me that building new Topol-M missiles is cheaper than maintaining the older ones then you do not have an argument. The advantages of Topol-M are negligible in every area except stealth and detection which is a moot point since there are no ABM systems.

So prove it to me.

quote:

Havent you noticed that recently more and more countries have been developing nuclear weapons? Well, well, well .... then you expect Russia to cut back, especially when NATO and American military bases are creeping to its borders??? Who's the bigger threat to Russia right now - some small Chechen guerillas or massive NATO/US encroachment around Russia? NATO never stopped. They're isolating Russia, and in case of a conflict between NATO and Russia, Russia will be focked because NATO by then set up a massive system of bases and missile defenses around it. So why should then Russia build aircraft carriers and go halfway around the world for something out of their reach, out of their time, with nothing to achieve except loss of allies and support, be it increasing American sentiment or Arab anger.

IT ALREADY HAS ENOUGH FUNCTIONING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. BUILDING ANY MORE IS REDUNDANT AND POINTLESS..

Can I make this any clearer? It has enough missiles to provide a terminal threat to any state in the world, what it doesn't have however is a naval presence which is important.

You're like some 15 year old kid whose solution for every problem in the world is "NUCLEAR BOMB NUCLEAR BOMB!!!" Af if it was the only solution ever needed.

Tell me, why does India need an aircraft carrier?

quote:

Bwahahahaha ... Russia has LOTS of problems within C.I.S., and you expect Russia to start preparing for a "global military"? Come on, man! Russia is rebuilding to protect its interests around itself first, maybe in 20-30 years when NATO decides to dismantle bases and the former Soviet republics will come back to Russian sphere of influence, THEN Russia will go global. Until then its a dumb, ill-conceived strategy with absolutely nothing to gain or achieve other than looking cool. Plus there's the internal issues, like rebuilding infrastructure, military, prestige, economy, standards of life, etc. The last thing Russia wants right now is to get mixed up in some Middle Eastern conflict.

Tripe. What is the point of this? Russia might never solve the problems in CIS states. The problems in CIS states are not directly correlated to development of a military, nor should it be. They are separate issues and Russian military doctrine does not need to be built around solving one issue. Missiles are only good for one thing: deterrence. Whether it is Topol-M or the older missiles it doesnt matter, the aim achieved is the same. So why waste money on that when other aspects of the military that have been atrophying for decades can be bolstered to provide a much more robust and multi-faceted military.

quote:

You're so obsessed with Stalin. Yes, you probably idolize other dictators as well, too. You are an idiot - Stalin was surrounded by idiots who did everything that was told them, cause he had already eliminated everyone who would question him. Stalin the almighty. Your attempts at mocking me are dumb and lack logic.

Ah, insults. The best way of knowing when your opponent has lost an argument. And before you reply, no I won't meet you out back to settle this like "men" either.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne This is very simple, unless you can prove to me that building new Topol-M missiles is cheaper than maintaining the older ones then you do not have an argument. The advantages of Topol-M are negligible in every area except stealth and detection which is a moot point since there are no ABM systems. So prove it to me. IT ALREADY HAS ENOUGH FUNCTIONING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. BUILDING ANY MORE IS REDUNDANT AND POINTLESS..

I didnt say it would be cheaper, I dont have the figures. But why maintain old systems that are not cheap either, and only G-d knows if they work? New systems provide psychological and technological improvement, just like buying a new house - new things are generally not cheaper. Recent tests of new Russian missiles have been quite impressive, though not very smooth (Bulava).


Stealth and detection - well, you're forgetting that Americans have a very sophisticated system of early-warning satellites, so no Russian missile can avoid that right now. Plus current missiles dont have a rapid response system, i.e. to change direction, missile spliting into several fragments/decoys, better chips for protection from electromagnetic shocks, heat absortion - Soviet missiles of 1960s are not advanced in those fields. US military is attempting its Star Wars development - so far, limited success - BUT, what if tomorrow, next week, next month Americans finally succeed? What are you going to say then? You are forgetting to note than US anti-missile development did successfully shoot down a small number of missiles, which is a progress than nothing at all (though a huge waste of money IMO). You expect Russians just to sit there and be sure that American won't succeed? You REALLY think this missile-defense system is impossible? Well, I dont think so ;-)

What would Russia do then, huh?

quote:

Can I make this any clearer? It has enough missiles to provide a terminal threat to any state in the world, what it doesn't have however is a naval presence which is important.

Yes, thats why as part of the military rebuilding, new advanced submarines will be added, as stated in the article. Much better than aircraft carrier, which can be seen with a naked eye. A missile-packed sub is a much bigger menace than let's say a very visible aircraft carrier (which will need many more ships, anti-aircraft system, etc. to protect itself).

quote:

You're like some 15 year old kid whose solution for every problem in the world is "NUCLEAR BOMB NUCLEAR BOMB!!!" Af if it was the only solution ever needed.

Nuclear weapons are not solutions, I already stated it on some other thread in PDD, they're a problem. The thing is, this is a different topic, and quite frankly disarmament is highly unlikely, impossible right now.

quote:

Tell me, why does India need an aircraft carrier?

I recall that Russia sold them one ;-) But I am certain that since India is bordered by its nemesis, Pakistan, having a carrier is a very strategic tool for possible conflict with Pakistan, especially when they're bordering each other.

If you're hinting at Russia building one, where will they place it? Near St. Petersburg? Near Sochi? Near Vladivostok? Pffft ... to defend against who, sharks? Russia is surrounded by open water, even 4 aircraft carriers will not be enough to defend itself, and USA will not allow Russian aircraft carriers close to its shores ;-) A single Russian aircraft carrier, thousands of kilometres away from its own shores, is very vulnerable. In case of India, its perfect between the distance is minimal.

Americans have their aircraft carriers stationed in Middle East, and not for cheap. Where would Russia station hers? At Iranian shore, to be in firing range of a possible American/Iranian conflict?

quote:

What is the point of this? Russia might never solve the problems in CIS states. The problems in CIS states are not directly correlated to development of a military, nor should it be. They are separate issues and Russian military doctrine does not need to be built around solving one issue. Missiles are only good for one thing: deterrence. Whether it is Topol-M or the older missiles it doesnt matter, the aim achieved is the same. So why waste money on that when other aspects of the military that have been atrophying for decades can be bolstered to provide a much more robust and multi-faceted military.

Yeah, your analogy is similar to American just letting Mexico become communist or anti-American ;-) BWAHAHAHA .... yeah, very feasible. And you think Russia is content at countries like Georgia who are pushing it into a war, using provocations obviously influenced by Americans (Americans give large financial and military contributions to Georgia). NATO plans to build bases there, too. Yeah, lets ignore that. Lets see how Americans will ignore Russians building bases on Cuba again, LMAO!

quote:

Ah, insults. The best way of knowing when your opponent has lost an argument. And before you reply, no I won't meet you out back to settle this like "men" either.

You're the one who's insulting me with that Stalin crap in the first place. I am not going to be a pussy and sit there. It was an obvious mock from your direction, since you really didnt even think how little sense it made.[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium [COLOR=FF7F50] No, not really an awesome point. Why? Its kinda like saying, well, 60,000 T-34's are still a great deterrent to lets say 10,000 German Tiger tanks? I hope you're seeing the analogy.

Hmmm I do see the analogy however I don't think it's the analogy you really want to use to bolster your point. For one, the T-34 was considered the best tank of the entire war when you consider the combination of mobility, the armor penetration of its gun, its sloped armor design, and most importantly cost effectiveness. The Tiger was overengineered and overcostly given its supposed purpose as the primary offensive battle tank for the Germans. What ended up happening was that the Soviets were able to produce 60,000 T-34s ALONE (not mentioning other tanks) compared to a mere 1,500 Tigers. The Tiger became a glorified defensive tank destroyer with kill ratios that were hardly better than the lesser Panther tanks.

To recycle the analogy, the Topol-Ms are equivialent to building Tiger tanks. Russia is building weapons that they will never use for threats that do not exist. They're building Tigers to replace perfectly capable T-34s. You constantly refer to "40" year old weapons when (if you read my post) you would see that most Soviet ICBMs were developed in the 80's and 90's. What I didn't say in my post was that the US only has some 500 land based ICBMs of a single class ... the Minuteman IIIs. They entered service in 1970 so they are literally the closest to being "40" year old weapons. The current American ABM missiles are too costly to even TRY to counter the sheer number of Soviet weapons.

quote:

Psychologically - newer defenses, faster and longer range missiles would do more success than claiming that my 40 year-old missiles can still kick your 2000's class any day. Though I am not saying that in today's world they cant inflict the damage, but its not impressive at all. I am not saying that Russia should just throw in all its budget and build thousands of new missiles - Russia has enough "operational" ones right now, but Russia needs to build a couple hundred super-missiles using the latest technology and developments, as a psychological and strategical tool to reassert itself. Waving 2,000 rusting, 40-year-old missiles is not impressing anyone these days.

They can destroy the world several times over with a magnitude greater than any other country. Nope, not impressive at all. Russia should definitely build more ICBMs for the "psychological" effect ... not like other weapons such as aircraft carriers can do such a thing.

Last I checked, Russia had more tactical threats (i.e. Chechnya) than any encroaching strategic nuclear threats (i.e. the US??? NATO?????? ummm ok).

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne That's an awesome point, I guess the question is whether Russia has the capacity to build up the functional support infrastructure to support aircraft carrier groups, including support ships, defense ships, upgraded docking/refitting facilities and whether they should design a new type of aircraft carrier (an undertaking that might be beyond their reach now) or build older models. I remember when they sold the Gorshkov carrier to India 2-3 years ago, I think they are left only with one carrier now.

Because an aircraft carrier is an expense and completely useless toy. It's useless incase a war against the US/NATO and it's useless in any other way, because Russian's foreign policy is not a copy of the US one. Today Russia is not trying to project their power on anyone in a forcefull way (I mean by using their military superior). Their military budget is based on defense, it means having advanced enough power to stand against any enemy attack. Aircraft carrier has no place here.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider They can destroy the world several times over with a magnitude greater than any other country. Nope, not impressive at all. Russia should definitely build more ICBMs for the "psychological" effect ... not like other weapons such as aircraft carriers can do such a thing. ...

You didn't get a point. Russia should have let's say 10 ICBMs of so advanced class, that any other nation will need to spend next 10yrs to be able to intercept them. That is the thing this whole budget is about.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveler You didn't get a point. Russia should have let's say 10 ICBMs of so advanced class, that any other nation will need to spend next 10yrs to be able to intercept them. That is the thing this whole budget is about.

You missed his point, and your word on Russia only spending money on the military for defense purposes does not mean that is, in fact, the case. Russia's recent history of strongarming negotiations with its former sovet co-republics leads anyone who is objective to believe that a stronger strategic military footing will be used as a lever on weaker countries to forward Russia's motives in various economic and political negotiations.

You are spouting the same rhetoric people like Charles LeMay used in the 1950s in the U.S., people who were adamant that a full scale nuclear war could be won and should happen.

As occrider said, the missile defense shield is an expensive and difficult system to construct and maintain. Along with the fact that it has continually failed to prove in tests that it is even close to 50% effective at destroying an incoming vehicle, Russia has little to fear from it, nor does it give them a valid reason to 'upgrade' their already relatively advanced ICBM technology.

As to the aircraft carrier being a "worthless toy", that sounds a lot like the stuff said by many of the world's most respected naval commanders before Dec 7, 1941. By Dec. 8 of that year that fallacy had been disproven pretty handily by one maverick Japanese junior officer.

For Russia, who now has a very large interest in the security of their shipping interest with their entry into the world stage of energy production, the construction of naval forces would be the most effective way to protect their interests if defense was indeed their main goal.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel ... Russia's recent history of strongarming negotiations with its former sovet co-republics leads anyone who is objective to believe that a stronger strategic military footing will be used as a lever on weaker countries to forward Russia's motives in various economic and political negotiations. ...

That's something new. Now Russia is not only using its energy resources but also military superioty as a politic tool? It'd nice to look on recent examples.

quote:

... As occrider said, the missile defense shield is an expensive and difficult system to construct and maintain. Along with the fact that it has continually failed to prove in tests that it is even close to 50% effective at destroying an incoming vehicle, Russia has little to fear from it, nor does it give them a valid reason to 'upgrade' their already relatively advanced ICBM technology. ...

The US is funding a lot of money into development of that system. One day it'll posses a threat to Russia. Building new ICMB missles is not a weekly task, not even 1 yr task.

quote:

... As to the aircraft carrier being a "worthless toy", that sounds a lot like the stuff said by many of the world's most respected naval commanders before Dec 7, 1941. By Dec. 8 of that year that fallacy had been disproven pretty handily by one maverick Japanese junior officer. For Russia, who now has a very large interest in the security of their shipping interest with their entry into the world stage of energy production, the construction of naval forces would be the most effective way to protect their interests if defense was indeed their main goal. MrS

Yes, that's why they are funding construction of new nuclear submarines, which proved to be the best and most effective way to protect their interests on sea.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveler One day it'll posses a threat to Russia.

defense shield does not mean a threat to Russia.....

de�fense (dĭ-fĕns') pronunciation
n.

1. The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
2. A means or method of defending or protecting.

just in case you were confused..

quote:

I didnt say it would be cheaper, I dont have the figures. But why maintain old systems that are not cheap either, and only G-d knows if they work? New systems provide psychological and technological improvement, just like buying a new house - new things are generally not cheaper. Recent tests of new Russian missiles have been quite impressive, though not very smooth (Bulava). Stealth and detection - well, you're forgetting that Americans have a very sophisticated system of early-warning satellites, so no Russian missile can avoid that right now. Plus current missiles dont have a rapid response system, i.e. to change direction, missile spliting into several fragments/decoys, better chips for protection from electromagnetic shocks, heat absortion - Soviet missiles of 1960s are not advanced in those fields. US military is attempting its Star Wars development - so far, limited success - BUT, what if tomorrow, next week, next month Americans finally succeed? What are you going to say then? You are forgetting to note than US anti-missile development did successfully shoot down a small number of missiles, which is a progress than nothing at all (though a huge waste of money IMO). You expect Russians just to sit there and be sure that American won't succeed? You REALLY think this missile-defense system is impossible? Well, I dont think so ;-) What would Russia do then, huh?

You can stop repeating that herring about missiles being from 1960's. They're not. The oldest ones are from early 1980's and a large portion of Russian nuclear arsenal is deployed on submarines where the missiles are even newer.

Early warning system don't mean much, it only means that you have a couple of extra minutes to retaliate to the First Strike. It does not prevent the First Strike since there no ABM systems to intercept incoming missiles.

Bottom line is that there is no functioning ABM system in the world, there won't be one for a long time due to sheer difficulty of shooting down an object moving at 7 km/ sec in three-dimensional space over a distance of several thousand kilometers. The tests that US did were infantile in their execution, missiles that they launched themselves, from a much closer proximity and the failure rate was still colossal.

quote:

Yes, thats why as part of the military rebuilding, new advanced submarines will be added, as stated in the article. Much better than aircraft carrier, which can be seen with a naked eye. A missile-packed sub is a much bigger menace than let's say a very visible aircraft carrier (which will need many more ships, anti-aircraft system, etc. to protect itself).

I keep telling you that there needs to be degrees of military threat that can be applied rather than giving the only option that is inherent with a nuclear weapon: Comply or Die. Nuclear missile submarines are the same as ICBM's. It's the same principle except that it's at sea. What Russia needs is a conventional force presence at sea. Not everything can be defended with nuclear weapons. By your logic, why have a military at all? Why have an air force, an army, tanks, APC's or even a standing army? Let's just load up on nuclear weapons, right?

quote:

Nuclear weapons are not solutions, I already stated it on some other thread in PDD, they're a problem. The thing is, this is a different topic, and quite frankly disarmament is highly unlikely, impossible right now.

Right... that's why you're advocating a spending more money on nuclear forces at the expense of forsaking the conventional military.

quote:

I recall that Russia sold them one ;-) But I am certain that since India is bordered by its nemesis, Pakistan, having a carrier is a very strategic tool for possible conflict with Pakistan, especially when they're bordering each other.

Why? They have nuclear weapons right? Why would India need an aircraft carrier? Any plane that can can attack Pakistan from the CV can also reach Pakistan from India. Once again, force projection around the world. India population makes it likely that in the future their imports will continue to grow, India needs a force projection tool to ensure that those imports continue to flow and wont become interrupted.

quote:

Yeah, your analogy is similar to American just letting Mexico become communist or anti-American ;-) BWAHAHAHA .... yeah, very feasible. And you think Russia is content at countries like Georgia who are pushing it into a war, using provocations obviously influenced by Americans (Americans give large financial and military contributions to Georgia). NATO plans to build bases there, too. Yeah, lets ignore that. Lets see how Americans will ignore Russians building bases on Cuba again, LMAO!

I didn't say ignore. I said that it might not be solve those problems. US was never able to solve the problem of Cuba regardless of the massive backing that Cuba received from USSR and everything else that had happened: Missile crisis, Bay of Pigs, embargo, etc.

Thus, it's not prudent to devise a military doctrine and chart a course for weapons development based on the issues arising in CIS states. Furthermore, CIS states will be dealt with conventional tactics should it ever come come to diplomatic breakdowns and trading blows, thus all the more reason to focus on conventional military rather than nuclear weapons.

You and Star-Traveller should really absorb what squirrel and occrider are trying to tell you.

This is absolutely correct. Russia already has enough nuclear weapons to overwhelm any ABM system that could be developed in the next 10-20 years. We all know they can initiate or defend against a nuclear attack with a second strike. Where they are lacking is if they are attacked by conventional forces, especially by a country not on the same continent as them. Not having aircraft carriers would hurt them then.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX This is absolutely correct. Russia already has enough nuclear weapons to overwhelm any ABM system that could be developed in the next 10-20 years. We all know they can initiate or defend against a nuclear attack with a second strike. Where they are lacking is if they are attacked by conventional forces, especially by a country not on the same continent as them. Not having aircraft carriers would hurt them then.

Jesus Christ. Here's a summary of my point. Lets say in a few years USA will succeed in building the missile shield - its not impossible task. Russia's missile then will be obsolete. Today's Russian missile are developed to change direction, split into multiple targets, fly at faster speeds. There you go. Russia should and will stop arms buildup if Americans will stop building Star Wars. And I disagree that even though Russia's politics are failing within C.I.S., they shouldn't give up, going to establish domination abroad will not achieve anything - parking an aircraft carrier across from Iraq is not cheap, plus you make enemies either with Americans or Arabs. Right now Russia has good relations with USA (ally on war on terror) and with Iran. Parking the EXPENSIVE aircraft carrier in the Gulf will make one of its friends (or both) enemies. Its just dumb politics!!!! Thats common sense. It all starts with your backyard. No need going around making future abroad if you cant make things work at home. IF RUSSIA CANT MAKE GOOD POLITICS WITH ITS NEIGHBOURS, WHY DO YOU THINK IT WILL MAKE SUCCESSFUL POLITICS ESLEWHERE???? HAHAHAHA ... make that statement just owned you all!!!!

quote:

Jesus Christ. Here's a summary of my point. Lets say in a few years USA will succeed in building the missile shield - its not impossible task. Russia's missile then will be obsolete. Today's Russian missile are developed to change direction, split into multiple targets, fly at faster speeds. There you go. Russia should and will stop arms buildup if Americans will stop building Star Wars.

First of all, the implications is that an ABM shield is imminent and it's coming soon. It's not, that technology is still a very long time away from being built and when it is built it needs to have virtually error free operation otherwise that's not much of a shield. That kind of consistent precision on such a scale is a huge undertaking. It's not a given that it will be built in a few years, it's not even worth hypothesizing something like that.

Furthermore, building those missiles doesnt take longer than a few months. Should America ever develop an ABM shield, missiles can be readily built to counter it. What is the point of building them now?

Quit being obtuse.

quote:

And I disagree that even though Russia's politics are failing within C.I.S., they shouldn't give up, going to establish domination abroad will not achieve anything - parking an aircraft carrier across from Iraq is not cheap, plus you make enemies either with Americans or Arabs. Right now Russia has good relations with USA (ally on war on terror) and with Iran. Parking the EXPENSIVE aircraft carrier in the Gulf will make one of its friends (or both) enemies. Its just dumb politics!!!! Thats common sense. It all starts with your backyard. No need going around making future abroad if you cant make things work at home. IF RUSSIA CANT MAKE GOOD POLITICS WITH ITS NEIGHBOURS, WHY DO YOU THINK IT WILL MAKE SUCCESSFUL POLITICS ESLEWHERE???? HAHAHAHA ... make that statement just owned you all!!!!

1. Why would Russia place its carrier group by Iraq? To what purpose?

2. Actually, the relations betwen US and Russia are very poor right now and have been for a while. But let's take your point of view, if relations between Russia and US are very good then why escalate nuclear armament with Americans? Your own logic is contradictory.

3. In regards to politics with CIS countries and elsewhere, believe it or not - not all countries are the same.

4. You're pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne First of all, the implications is that an ABM shield is imminent and it's coming soon. It's not, that technology is still a very long time away from being built and when it is built it needs to have virtually error free operation otherwise that's not much of a shield. That kind of consistent precision on such a scale is a huge undertaking. It's not a given that it will be built in a few years, it's not even worth hypothesizing something like that. Furthermore, building those missiles doesnt take longer than a few months. Should America ever develop an ABM shield, missiles can be readily built to counter it. What is the point of building them now? Quit being obtuse. 1. Why would Russia place its carrier group by Iraq? To what purpose? 2. Actually, the relations betwen US and Russia are very poor right now and have been for a while. But let's take your point of view, if relations between Russia and US are very good then why escalate nuclear armament with Americans? Your own logic is contradictory. 3. In regards to politics with CIS countries and elsewhere, believe it or not - not all countries are the same. 4. You're pathetic.

Its not contradictory. Ever since Russia collapsed United States always viewed that when Russia's weak the relations between the two are great. Since Russia rebuilt and got stronger, all of a sudden Americans consider Russia a threat. Its just how it is, nothing's going to change it. The only way Americans will not look bad at Russia is when its broken, weak, like in 1990s. So even European Union had issues with the States about Iraq - but they're still GREAT friends! Isnt that a contradiction???

My point about a carrier was a mock example of placing carrier near Iraq. Well, where do you want to shove it? Up Americans' arse? There is no place out there for Russian aircraft carrier, Russia not only doesnt have any plans for domination, but its a move that will only ruin Russia's political support around the world. Nothing to gain, NOTHING. Issues are at home for Russia, very pressing issues. Only an idiot will ignore these, screw the funding, build aircraft carriers and ship them overseas for money drain. Aircraft carriers dont make countries stronger. Its the behind-the-scenes politics that do, quite frankly Russia can achieve more success and power abroad with proper political motivation than an aircraft carrier. Aircraft carrier will likely result in an arms buildup, thats all.

If USA builds a successful ABM shield, the chances of American attack before Russian missile employment are much greater. After all, USA has a pre-emptive strike policy.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Jesus Christ. Here's a summary of my point. Lets say in a few years USA will succeed in building the missile shield - its not impossible task. Russia's missile then will be obsolete. Today's Russian missile are developed to change direction, split into multiple targets, fly at faster speeds. There you go. Russia should and will stop arms buildup if Americans will stop building Star Wars.

This is flawed logic. America is not building Star Wars. We are building an ABM system that can 'maybe' down a missle or two from a country like Iran or North Korea. How many fucking ICBMs does Russia have? Thousands, and many are equiped with MIRVs. So how can our ABM system that cannot even reliably shoot down a single missile that we shot ourselves make Russia's thousands of ICBMs obsolete. It will always be easier to make an offensive weapon system than a defensive one.

Say we do build Star Wars with lasers in space and all of that fancy stuff. How many space based lasers is it going to take to defend against a massive attack by Russia involving in excess of 1000 missiles? How far away is that technology? Several decades at a minimum. And guess what, Russia has anti-satellite weapons now, which will become even more advanced over the next 10-20 years. If they wanted to launch they could certainly destroy a large part of any space based ABM sheild with those weapons.

Paranoia is getting the better of you. Our ABM system is simplistic and CLEARLY aimed at downing a single missile from a rogue state, not defending against a massive nuclear strike by MIRVed ICBMs. Russia has absolutely nothing to fear from it and has no reason to build any more advanced nukes.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium If USA builds a successful ABM shield, the chances of American attack before Russian missile employment are much greater. After all, USA has a pre-emptive strike policy.

This is a horribly oversimplified statement. The rationale for the U.S. to attack Russia is, uhh, what again? Because we have a pre-emptive policy? The threat that would garner pre-emptive strikes on Russia is, uhh, what again?

And furthermore, let's keep in mind that the pre-emptive policy, aka Bush Doctrine, carries only as far as the man and neocon thugs who created it. IOW, unless we hire another neocon twit in the White House in '08, this policy dies a wonderful death. Besides, the argument can be made that the policy is already dying a slow death as we speak with the threats towards Iran being kept in check by the Democratic majority in Congress (along with a healthy number of Republicans) and a media that's strangely and surprisingly starting to do their job of investigative journalism (of course there's still a number of media twits that parrot the White House talking points, but you can't win 'em all). And that also includes a majority public opinion that's turned decisively against such an asinine policy as well.

So taken as a whole, unless the world flips upside down and everyone drinks some Right Wing Noise Machine Kool-Aid, I don't think the argument of pre-emption is a valid one anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX This is flawed logic. America is not building Star Wars. We are building an ABM system that can 'maybe' down a missle or two from a country like Iran or North Korea. How many fucking ICBMs does Russia have? Thousands, and many are equiped with MIRVs. So how can our ABM system that cannot even reliably shoot down a single missile that we shot ourselves make Russia's thousands of ICBMs obsolete. It will always be easier to make an offensive weapon system than a defensive one. Say we do build Star Wars with lasers in space and all of that fancy stuff. How many space based lasers is it going to take to defend against a massive attack by Russia involving in excess of 1000 missiles? How far away is that technology? Several decades at a minimum. And guess what, Russia has anti-satellite weapons now, which will become even more advanced over the next 10-20 years. If they wanted to launch they could certainly destroy a large part of any space based ABM sheild with those weapons. Paranoia is getting the better of you. Our ABM system is simplistic and CLEARLY aimed at downing a single missile from a rogue state, not defending against a massive nuclear strike by MIRVed ICBMs. Russia has absolutely nothing to fear from it and has no reason to build any more advanced nukes.

HAHAHAHAHA .... MUHAHAHAHA ... Is that why USA and NATO are building ANTI-MISSILE systems in Alaska, Poland???? Where's the logic in that? How do you suppose a missile defense based in Alaska capable of protecting lets say Los Angeles, when in fact this base can see all East Russia easily. It will much smarter to build the base in Japan, Hawaii, Wake Island / Guam to better defend against Asian agression. BUT NOOOOO, USA wants missile bases in Poland (who gives a shit about Poland?) and in Alaska, clearly flanking Russia. No Iranian missiles will go across Polish territory - take out your map and draw a straight line from Iran to UK - no, no missile trajectory.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.