|
Some Nuclear Heavy Lifting
|
View this Thread in Original format
| star-traveller |
| quote: | Some Nuclear Heavy Lifting
// Asymmetric Response to America Successfully Tested
Yesterday the Russian military announced the first successful test of the new RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile with multiple independently-targetable detachable warheads. The addition of this missile to Russia's arsenal could put the country back on an equal strategic footing with the United States, which is slated to have no fewer than 2,200 nuclear warheads in its arsenal by 2012. Moscow claims that the maneuverable warheads on the RS-24 will be capable of confounding the American missile defense system.
Representatives of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) announced yesterday that the test-stage warhead on the new RS-24 ICBM with independently-targetable multiple reentry vehicles had successfully obliterated the designated target area at the Kura weapons range in Kamchatka. "The launch of the prototype of [Russia's] new RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile took place at 14:20 Moscow time from the Plesetsk launch pad with a mobile launch apparatus that was specially reconfigured for the test," said the press service of the RVSN.
The Russian military announced its intention to begin production of ground-based ICBMs carrying multiple warheads, developed on the basis of the single-warhead Topol-M missile, after the withdrawal of the US from the ABM treaty in 2002 prompted Russia to reject the START II treaty. The agreement, which was signed in 1993, obliged both countries to eventually reduce their deployed strategic nuclear arsenals to 3,500 warheads and to destroy all ground-based ICBMs with multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). This worked in favor of the US: the basis of the Russian nuclear shield was made up of ground-based missiles with six and ten warheads (the RS-18B and RS-20B/V, respectively).
In order to maintain its equal strategic footing with the US, Russia needed to sharply increase production of single-warhead ground-based Topol-M missiles while also accelerating work on the construction of new submarines and the creation of a new submarine-based missile (SLBM). However, neither of these goals were realized: from 1998 onwards, fewer than ten Topol-M ICBMs were added to the arsenal every year, not a single new submarine was built, and the new submarine-based Bulava missile has been plagued with misfortune (four out of five tests of Bulava SLBMs have ended in failure).
In 2002, Vladimir Putin and George Bush signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT, better known as the Moscow Treaty). The new treaty obliges the US and Russia to reduce the number of warheads deployed in their arsenals to 1,700-2,200, but, unlike START II, it sets no restrictions on the structure of each side's nuclear forces. This has allowed Russia to return to the development and production of missiles with MIRVs and to quickly and cheaply compensate for the removal of the RS-18B and RS-20B/V from the arsenal (the majority of these ageing rockets will be obsolete by 2010).
There were both legal and technical limitations on the addition of warheads to the Topol-M missile. First of all, the START I treaty, which is in force until December 2009, bans increases in the number of warheads on existing rockets (though not the development of new ones). Secondly, the throw-weight of a Topol-M missile (1.2 tons) is clearly insufficient for the rocket to be equipped with multiple warheads and individual navigation systems (the RS-18B, which carried six warheads, had a throw-weight of up to 4.35 tons, while the RS-20B/V, which could carry ten, had a throw-weight of around 8.5 tons).
Thus, Russia's best option was to create a modernized version of its ICBMs by thoroughly overhauling the Topol-M design to increase its payload capacity. Two successful tests of a new triple warhead took place in 2005-2006, but it was tested not on the new rockets but on the decommissioned Topol missile and the K65M-P missile, which was created in the 1970s especially for the testing of warheads. Now, however, the Russian armed forces have announced the successful test launch of a new rocket, which has been christened the RS-24.
In April of last year Yury Solomonov, the director and chief designer at the Moscow Thermal Engineering Institute (home of the Topol-M, RS-24, and Bulava rockets), promised that Russia will have no fewer than 2,000 nuclear warheads by 2011. Ivan Safranchuk, the head of the Moscow office of the World Security Institute, believes that "the adoption of the RS-24 will improve the situation in the Russian nuclear forces": "If Russia can produce around 20 rockets a year, by 2015 around 2,000 warheads will be deployed," he said.
Along with gaining equal ground with Washington, Moscow is counting on its new rockets to ensure that a Russian attack could successfully penetrate the US missile defense system, no matter how complex it becomes. Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov declared yesterday that the RS-24 missile "is able to overcome any existing or, possibly, future missile defense system." Mr. Safranchuk of the WSI believes that the successful test of the RS-24 "can be regarded as one of the elements of the asymmetric response promised by Vladimir Putin after the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002." |
Some Nuclear Heavy Lifting |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| Yeah this sends me chills down my spine. It seems out relationship with Russia is pretty bad at the moment. |
|
|
| Purple |
| I don't think US has good relations with anyone at the moment other than Israel. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
I don't think US has good relations with anyone at the moment other than Israel. |
How convenient of you to forget India. |
|
|
| Alex |
And the UK.
It's amazing how a country like Russia can have one of (if not THE) largest discrepancies in wealth amongst it's people (a few SUPER rich, vast majority quite poor) and yet they have the time and the money to build nukes just to say they're as good as Americans.
Surprise, no matter how you look at it, Russia needs to set it's priorities straight, I highly doubt they have been under any nuclear threat from the United States since the late 80s. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Or Canada...:rolleyes:
Purple, where do you get your ideas from sometimes? lol :p |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Or Canada...:rolleyes:
Purple, where do you get your ideas from sometimes? lol :p |
Him, Star Travler and so many others are filled with so much hate toward the US that it eats at them all the time..... evidence of thier posts speaks volumes to even the untrained eye.
I feel sorry for them....... :( |
|
|
| star-traveller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
And the UK.
It's amazing how a country like Russia can have one of (if not THE) largest discrepancies in wealth amongst it's people (a few SUPER rich, vast majority quite poor) and yet they have the time and the money to build nukes just to say they're as good as Americans.
Surprise, no matter how you look at it, Russia needs to set it's priorities straight, I highly doubt they have been under any nuclear threat from the United States since the late 80s. |
It's so silly of you to think in that way.
Imagine the whole thing as a big corporation. Government has money, it finances the companies which compete with each other for a contract. These companies attract people and pay them descent salary, not to mention very good benefits. A lot of other companies in different industries (metals, computing and etc) are subcontract for them.
Everybody are happy. It's called a free market. Just exactly as in the US. |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by star-traveller
It's so silly of you to think in that way.
Imagine the whole thing as a big corporation. Government has money, it finances the companies which compete with each other for a contract. These companies attract people and pay them descent salary, not to mention very good benefits. A lot of other companies in different industries (metals, computing and etc) are subcontract for them.
Everybody are happy. It's called a free market. Just exactly as in the US. |
LOL
It's silly of you to think like that! LOLOLOLOLOL
Your post further proves my point, are you telling me that by spending truckloads of money on highly advanced nuclear weapons that the Russian Gov. is REALLY boosting it's economy? Tell me, who are the people that build nukes? Factory workers? Farmers? Or highly educated top of the pay scale types?
Also, a country doesn't get rich by the Government funding everything, it didn't work during Communism and it doesn't work now.
And don't give me that that the US government funds all kinds of businesses, I know they do, but the fact is there are TONNES of businesses/corporations/small businesses yada yada that get started and operate independently of the Federal Government, and THAT's what stimulates the economy, not the Gov. giving hand outs to certain corporations even if they did have to compete.
Governments can't just print money and spend it willy nilly dude, otherwise there wouldn't be any poor countries, it all boils down to the economic stability and infrastructure of the cities/provinces/states/territories of the country and of the country itself.
Also: LOL at everyone in Russia being happy. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| If germany can build an army that could take over europe after having huge inflation and poverty, Russia can build a brand new nuclear arsenal. |
|
|
| star-traveller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
LOL
It's silly of you to think like that! LOLOLOLOLOL
Your post further proves my point, are you telling me that by spending truckloads of money on highly advanced nuclear weapons that the Russian Gov. is REALLY boosting it's economy? Tell me, who are the people that build nukes? Factory workers? Farmers? Or highly educated top of the pay scale types?
Also, a country doesn't get rich by the Government funding everything, it didn't work during Communism and it doesn't work now.
And don't give me that that the US government funds all kinds of businesses, I know they do, but the fact is there are TONNES of businesses/corporations/small businesses yada yada that get started and operate independently of the Federal Government, and THAT's what stimulates the economy, not the Gov. giving hand outs to certain corporations even if they did have to compete.
Governments can't just print money and spend it willy nilly dude, otherwise there wouldn't be any poor countries, it all boils down to the economic stability and infrastructure of the cities/provinces/states/territories of the country and of the country itself.
Also: LOL at everyone in Russia being happy. |
Think again about what is involved in constructing (from scratch) 1 nuclear missle.
Don't wanna bother to answer in detail.
ps.
For a Ph.D it's 100 times better to work on a nuclear missle than be a cab driver. |
|
|
| Alex |
You don't want to answer in detail because your only response was asking me how much it takes to build a nuclear missle.
I quite frankly have no idea how much it takes to build a Nuclear missle, what I do know is if the money is coming from the Government strictly (unless Russia is commercializing Nuclear weapons) then the economy is hardly being stimulated in such a way that a significant number of people will be thrown into the workforce and get the cycle going.
Also yes, someone with a Ph.D would indeed be better off working on something that requires their unique skills and knowledge, however it isn't the same as a Machinist or factory worker who in the development of strong economies accounted for a lot more profit/production etc. than the nuclear physicists. |
|
|
|
|
