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.

Pentagon Unaware What's to Develop in Russia

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?

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

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.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

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....

LOL awesome movie.

___________________
. . .. . .. . . . .. . .

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,

what pie? there's 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.

The ABS shield isn't designed to ward off a full scale nuclear strike so much as a limited exchange from a Rogue state. The US has a whopping 15 interceptor missiles as of February of 2007 and plans to develop ... wait for it ... 21 missiles by the end of 2007!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missil...and_initiatives

Since Russia has about 2000+ ICBMs (not even counting MIRV warheads or SLBMs) against 20-30 interceptor missiles, somehow I don't think this is money well spent.

Furthermore the cold war is over. The US going to war with Russia makes about as much sense as going to war with France or the UK and vice-versa. The world economy would collapse under such a disruption of major financial markets.

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!

___________________
Retro ...

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.

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 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.

You are not following the discussion. I was talking aboout how possible USA/Russia alliance is. It wont work, because USA would like to keep Russia within its borders, while itself control the rest of the world. Thats not a very beneficial alliance for Russia.

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!

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.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Last edited by Magnetonium on Feb-09-2007 at 01:04

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!

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

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.

Yes Russia should disarm itself ... that’s EXACTLY what I’m suggesting because I like to say things as obliquely as humanly possible

No, what I’m suggesting is that the US will not, nor will it likely ever, have the capability to set up an ABM shield that could possibly hope to defend against a full theater nuclear war. Let’s see as of 2006 … Russia’s strategic rocket forces have approximately 500+ operational missile systems totaling some 1800+ warheads:

R-36MUTTH (also known as RS-20B and SS-18) and R-36M2 (RS-20V, SS-18) missiles were developed by the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau (Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine). R-36MUTTH missiles were deployed in 1979-1983, R-36M2 -- in 1988-1992. The missiles were produced by the Yuzhnyy Machine-Building Plant (Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine). The missiles have two liquid-fuel stages and can carry 10 warheads. The Strategic Rocket Forces plans to keep all R-36M2 (about 40 missiles). With service lives extended to 25-30 years as planned, R-36M2 missiles could remain in service until about 2020. All R-36MUTTH missiles will be withdrawn from service by 2008.
-80 ICBMs, 800 warheads

UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) missiles were developed by the Machine-Building NPO (Reutov, Moscow oblast) and were deployed in 1979-1984. The missiles were produced by the M. V. Khrunichev Machine Building Plant (Moscow). The missile has two liquid-fuel stages and can carry 6 warheads. A number of missiles have been removed from service, but after a series of test launches service life of the missile was extended to at least 25 years, so some of them could be kept in service. In addition to this, Russia has purchased about 30 missiles from Ukraine, which, if deployed, could remain in service until about 2030.
-126 ICBMs, 756 warheads

Road-mobile Topol (SS-25) missile system was developed at the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology. The systems were deployed in 1985-1992. The missile has three solid-propellant stages and carries single warhead. The missiles were produced at the Votkinsk Machine-Building Plant. The currently deployed missiles are close to the end of their service lives and are being withdrawn from service.
-252 ICBMs, 252 warheads

Topol-M (SS-27) missile system has been developed at the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology in two versions -- silo-based and road-mobile. Deployment of the silo-based version began in 1997. The road-mobile version has completed flight tests in December 2004. The first mobile missiles began service in December 2006. The missile has three solid-propellant stages and is being developed as a single-warhead missile. Missiles are produced at the Votkinsk Machine-Building Plant.
-45 ICBMs, 45 warheads

Then you have SLBMs with 12 submarines capable of launching 636 warheads:

Submarines of the Project 667BDR (Delta III) class entered service in 1976-1982. The total of 14 ships of this class were built. These submarines carry the D-16R missile system with 16 R-29R (SS-N-18) missiles. Submarines of this class will be withdrawn from service in the next few years.
6 Submarines, 84 SLBMs, 252 warheads

Submarines of the Project 667BDRM (Delta IV) class entered service in 1985-1991. The total of 7 ships of this class were built, of which one (K-64 Vladimir) has been converted into a special-forces submarine. Submarines of this class carry the D-16RM missile system with 16 R-29RM (SS-N-23) missiles. The current plans call for keeping six 667BDRM submarines in service, so the submarines are undergoing overhaul during which they are equipped with new missiles. Launch tests of the new version of the R-29RM missile were completed in June 2004. Two submarines of this class - K-51 Verkhoturie, K-84 Ekaterinburg - have completed overhaul already.
6 submarines, 96 SLBMs, 384 warheads

Then you have nearly 80 strategic bombers capable of delivering nearly 900 nuclear cruise missiles:

The Tu-95MS (Bear H) strategic bomber was developed at the A. N. Tupolev Design Bureau. Serial production of the bomber continued from 1984 to 1991 at the aviation plant in Kuybyshev (currently Aviakor Aviation Plant, Samara). The bomber is equipped with turboprop engines. It can carry six Kh-55 cruise missiles in the bomb bay. The Tu-95MS16 version of the bomber can carry additional ten missiles under wings, but this significantly reduces bomber's range.
- 64 bombers, 704 cruise missiles

The Tu-160 (Blackjack) strategic bomber was developed at the A. N. Tupolev Design Bureau and produced at the aviation plant in Kazan (currently S. P. Gorbunov Kazan Aviation Production Association). The bomber can carry 12 Kh-55 cruise missiles in the bomb bay. During the modernization program that is currently underway Tu-160 bombers will be equipped to carry gravity bombs and non-nuclear cruise missiles.
-15 bombers, 180 cruise missiles


In total Russia has more than 700 operational (not obsolete) strategic delivery platforms carrying nearly 3500 re-entry vehicles, and you think 30 interceptors constitutes a legitimate concern despite it having absolutely no impact on MAD theory?

Even if the US were to develop such an awesome system that could deter all theater wide strategic nuclear weapons, it would be foolhardy to say the least, to try to destabilize a government that is in possession of not only 3000+ strategic nuclear weapons but also what is likely more than 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons as well. Why yes, it sounds like a FANTASTIC idea to attack Russia, and remove security and controls around all those tactical nuclear weapons!

The point is, is that the US ABS system will not be able to deter a theater wide nuclear strike. Nor will it likely ever be able to. Russia is in no weaker a position today than it was 20 years ago with its ability to destroy the world several times over. Russia investing so much in Topol-Ms because maybe 30 out of its 3500 nuclear weapons might be destroyed by an ABM system in a nuclear war is a waste of money. It would be like the US trying to spend billions trying to counter the Topol-Ms with an even better ABM system that succeeds in stopping any type of missile but there’s only enough to stop 50 or a 100 missiles.

http://thebulletin.metapress.com/co...78/fulltext.pdf

___________________
Retro ...

the us and russia need to combine forces if they are ever going to compete with china

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.