|
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
That article is ballony. 12 SUBS??? That globalsecurity.org article alone crashes that point - most of Russian subs are rusting away. And the ones that do patrol, these can ill-afford to be armed with real nuclear missiles due to various problems, like that of Kursk ... |
Yet the Federation of American Scientists (of which globalsecurity.org originated from) puts the number of Russia's nuclear sea-based forces at 20, carrying a total of 1744 warheads, altho 1000 of those are based on Russia's Typhoon class submarines which are on their last legs. However, Russia is currently building a new breed of nuclear submarine, the Yuri Dolgoruki, complete with new missiles as well
http://armscontrol.ru/start/rsf_now.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFS_Yury_Dolgoruky
| quote: | | Russian missiles dont have to take scenic route over Turkey. Lover Boy explained it in detail for me already as to who what and why these interceptors are being developed for. Russia has no interest in sending initial attack on USA or NATO and its allies. So far it seems vice versa, culminating in American announcement of developing weapons in space. |
Of course Russian missiles wouldn't be fired over Turkey to reach America! It's called sarcasm! They would be fired over the Arctic, nowhere near Turkey (the complete opposite direction in fact)
| quote: | | 7,200 nuclear warheads mean nothing if they're just sitting locked away in warehouses. Because thats what most of them are - up until recently Russian military was so cash-strapped they couldn't even afford to do regular maintenance on them. When accidents, failures and problems in the Russian military will stop being an everyday media event in Russia, then I'll believe that their strategic forces are actually in full force and protecting the country ready to send a retaliatory blow in case of an attack. |
All you've done so far is say that all (or most) of Russia's nuclear arsenal is not operational. That's not true and you've provided no evidence to back up your claims. You seem to have plucked that information out of your arse to back up your opinions but I've provided links to information saying 7,200 warheads are operational (that does not mean "rusting in a shed" that means primed and ready to go). If you don't like that source, here's the FAS (globalsecurity.org) giving a figure of 5,569 OPERATIONAL warheads (and 14,000 in stockpile, or as you might say, "rusting in a shed"). You need to stop making these claims right now because I have provided conclusive sources, links and evidence that your claims are false
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nukestatus.html
|