TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Russia plans new ICBMs, nuclear subs
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
Russia plans new ICBMs, nuclear subs
Russia Rebuilds!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207...sia_new_weapons
quote:
MOSCOW - Russia's defense minister on Wednesday laid out an ambitious plan for building new intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly aircraft carriers, and set the goal of exceeding the Soviet army in combat readiness.
Sergei Ivanov's statements appeared aimed at raising his profile at home ahead of the 2008 election in which he is widely seen as a potential contender to succeed President Vladimir Putin. But they also seemed to reflect a growing chill in Russian-U.S. relations and the Kremlin's concern about U.S. missile defense plans.
Ivanov told parliament the military would get 17 new ballistic missiles this year � a drastic increase over the average of four deployed annually in recent years. The purchases are part of a weapons modernization program for 2007-2015 worth about $190 billion.
The plan envisages the deployment of 34 new silo-based Topol-M missiles and control units, as well as an additional 50 such missiles mounted on mobile launchers by 2015; Russia so far has deployed more than 40 silo-based Topol-Ms.
Putin and other officials have described the Topol-M as a bulwark of Russia's nuclear might for years to come, and said it can penetrate any prospective missile defenses. Last week, Putin dismissed U.S. claims that missile defense sites Washington hopes to establish in Poland and the Czech Republic were intended to counter threats from Iran, and said Russia would respond by developing more efficient weapons systems.
In 2002, Putin and President Bush signed a treaty obliging both sides to cut their strategic nuclear weapons by about two-thirds by 2012, down to 1,700 to 2,200 missiles. But Russian-U.S. ties have since worsened steadily over disagreements on Iraq and other global crises, and U.S. concerns about an increasingly authoritarian streak in Russia's domestic policy.
"The Russian leadership believes that a nuclear parity with the United States is vitally important because it allows it to conduct an equal dialogue on other issues," said an independent military analyst, Alexander Golts.
A rising tide of oil revenues has enabled Russia to boost defense spending following a squeeze on the military in the 1990s. "The question now is whether the industries are capable of producing what the military needs," Ivanov said.
Analysts warn that building any sizable numbers of new weapons would pose a daunting challenge to the defense plants that received virtually no government orders for a decade following the 1991 Soviet collapse.
"Links to subcontractors have been broken, and the defense plants now need to rebuild them to produce weapons," Golts said.
Alexander Pikayev, a senior analyst at the Moscow-based Institute for World Economy and International Relations, said the military had failed to set the right priorities for weapons procurement in the past.
Russia's defense budget, which stood at $8.1 billion in 2001, nearly quadrupled to $31 billion this year, Ivanov said. While this year's military spending is Russia's largest since the 1991 Soviet collapse, it is still about 20 times less than the U.S. defense budget.
Ivanov said the military now has enough money to intensify combat training.
"Combat readiness of the army and the navy is currently the highest in the post-Soviet history," he said, adding the task now is to "exceed Soviet-era levels."
Ivanov said the military now has about 1.13 million servicemen, compared with 1.34 million in 2001. By 2015, the military plans to have about 1 million servicemen as Russia continues to reduce its bloated armed forces. "We can't go below that," he said.
The Kremlin has rejected liberals' calls to abolish the draft, saying Russia needs a large number of conscripts to protect its huge territory.
Ivanov said the weapons modernization program would allow the military to replace 45 percent of existing arsenals with modern weapons systems by 2015.
As part of the plan, the navy will commission 31 new ships, including eight nuclear submarines carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles, Ivanov said.
He played down recent failed launches of the Bulava missile being developed to equip these submarines. The Bulava, developed by the same design bureau that built the Topol-M, failed in three consecutive launches late last year.
"If we already had commissioned this missile and had failures, that would have been a nightmare," Ivanov said, adding that launch failures were "within the norm" in the testing phase.
He also said the government would decide in 2009-2010 whether to start the construction of a new shipyard for building aircraft carriers. Russia now only has one Soviet-built medium-sized aircraft carrier capable of carrying about 30 jets and helicopters.
Asides from the aircraft carriers looks like a waste of money to me ...
You must be kidding me.
When the US is building their anti-ballistic missle system all around the world, all Russia needs right now are very smart mobile ICBM and nuclear submarines with ICBM capability.
We should just Nuke all of Asia and say Fock em.
Nuke em from Orbit! Thats the only way to be sure....
LMAO!
Where will you buy your next pair of jeans, dumbass?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by star-traveller LMAO! Where will you buy your next pair of jeans, dumbass? |
That's good. I support illegal immigrants too.
2 occrider:
| quote: |
| United States Delivered Key Radar to Russia�s Borders The key component of the U.S. Ground-Base Midcourse Defense Program, Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX), has been delivered to Russia�s borders. The new base of the facility is the Aleutian Islands. SBX Radar was expected in the Aleutian Islands far back ten months ago, but some defects were revealed during the delivery and the facility was sent to Hawaii for repair. The key aim of stationing the radar in the Alaska area is tracking the launch of missiles in hostile states, first of all in North Korea. SBX will be first tested in a month, tracking the missiles launched from the U.S. base in California. Two more tests have been slated for April and May. The United States is willing to station its missile defense sites in Poland, to the west of Russia�s border. Although official Washington says the purpose to attain is to protect its European allies from Iran, Moscow suspects the anti-Russian root cause of the project. Russia�s Defense Ministry and Foreign Ministry have continuously urged the United States to refuse deploying interceptors near the borders of the country and of Belarus. |
Americans themselves are starting up a new arms race. Its obvious they're building bases, possibly to attack Russia, pressure her. Not like Stalin in early 1941 who thought that German strategic arms buildup on Soviet borders was not an act of preparing aggression, especially that Nazu Germany was allies with USSR. Missile, Nato bases are not for the best intentions, they're AGAINST Russia, not for building peace in the region, especially when Russia is not only not invading these lands, but they're cutting these former CIS states from its umbrical cord to finally let them live on their own, giving them true independence and at the same time losing its own influence and leverage because of that ;-) Sounds like like act of aggression from Russia 
I miss the cold war...... seriously, I do. At least we knew who and what our enemy was doing. There was a method to the cold war madness.
Actually what would be wonderful if Russia and America became bed fellows and worked together.....
Could you imagine what two kick ass countries could do together??
its nice to dream...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX I miss the cold war...... seriously, I do. At least we knew who and what our enemy was doing. There was a method to the cold war madness. Actually what would be wonderful if Russia and America became bed fellows and worked together..... Could you imagine what two kick ass countries could do together?? its nice to dream... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium That would be nice ... except Americans would not share the world control with Russia - they'll limit Russia's influence to her CIS circle, while themselves control everything else. And Russia sees American advance towards Russian borders. |
The problem is that on each side there will be an assholes who will try to get a dominance over each other. You cannot get insuraed against that to happen.
The future generations don't matter here. People are not doing politics, they just live their life and get brainwashed each day more more.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by star-traveller The problem is that on each side there will be an assholes who will try to get a dominance over each other. You cannot get insuraed against that to happen. The future generations don't matter here. People are not doing politics, they just live their life and get brainwashed each day more more. |
With the guys like that one in the present White House administration, the possibility of the Cold War seems very very high.
| quote: |
| Pentagon Unaware What's to Develop in Russia U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates apparently thinks his country should be armed for a big war. "We don't know what's going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere," Gates said, specifying the United States needs both special troops to fight terrorists and ground troops capable of fighting big regular armies. Robert Gates made the respective statement February 7, when addressing the House Armed Services Committee. On that day, the legislators focused on the U.S. military budget for 2008. Gates backed up the draft, which steps up the strength of the ground troops and the Marine Corps. The actions are expected to improve the rapid reaction ability of the forces, should some new threats emerge. Contrary to North Korea and Iran, Pentagon chiefs have never mentioned either Russia or China amid the potential enemies since the time of the cold war. |
My point is very simple - right now USA is the dominant power. Russia, if ally of USA, would want an equal share of the pie, which Americans will never accept while they have the advantage. They'll give a small share of the pie to Russia which it will not accept. And I am not being anti-American here, this is common sense.
Lets say you have 500 dollars and your partner has 100 on a project together. Would you give him 50/50 share of the project control?
Well the fiqures looks funny I mean the whole defence budget (the new quadrupled one) is $30ish Billion (less than half the UKs) and now they are talking about a $120 billion project to upgrade weapons or $20 billion a year 2/3rds the whole current budget... if every year the same was spent that would mean this year they would need to nearly double the budget.... dunno just seems fishy.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX We should just Nuke all of Asia and say Fock em. Nuke em from Orbit! Thats the only way to be sure.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium right now USA is the dominant power. Russia, if ally of USA, would want an equal share of the pie, |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by star-traveller You must be kidding me. When the US is building their anti-ballistic missle system all around the world, all Russia needs right now are very smart mobile ICBM and nuclear submarines with ICBM capability. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dervish Well the fiqures looks funny I mean the whole defence budget (the new quadrupled one) is $30ish Billion (less than half the UKs) and now they are talking about a $120 billion project to upgrade weapons or $20 billion a year 2/3rds the whole current budget... if every year the same was spent that would mean this year they would need to nearly double the budget.... dunno just seems fishy. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo exactly. it doesn't add up at all with Magnatorium's logic Magnatorium waxes nostalgic when his mother country might spend $190 billion in hopes of returning to the fold, meanwhile we continue to account for half of ALL the defence spending in the entire world. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider But hey, whatever makes Russia feel safer at night ... but if you actually think the construction of more Topol-M ICMBs is actually going to change anything at all than I'm going to go giggle in the corner of the room. Oooo Russia just increased its ability to deliver mutually assured destruction by 10% ... take that! |
I don't like Russia. I don't like Putin.
But the last thing we need is for the US and Russia to go back at it (Not like it's ever stopped all-in-all).
Peace on Earth, please!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Ha, well well ... are you suggest that Russia should disarm itself? That would only make it more vulnerable against an aggression, especially from those who want to control her massive energy resources. Missile technology and missile defense technology has advanced. Russian nukes that have been sitting in silos for 40 years are nearly obsolete, and today's weak Star Wars system can probably shut them down (though not 100%). Russia's new strategic plan involves more mobile, smart, effective and maneuvrable fast missile that no shield can ever protect from. What if tomorrow United States develops a successful anti-missile technology? Well, then, Russia's fucked. USA can easily bomb them, divide between China, UK and others and never ever have a strong enemy in the east. Same with China. |
the us and russia need to combine forces if they are ever going to compete with china
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.
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.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.