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.

___________________
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

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.

___________________
Retro ...

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.

___________________
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

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.

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

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 ;-(

___________________
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

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.

___________________
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

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.

___________________
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

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]

___________________
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