[djohnson]

Story

What is the rationale behind this? Do they think they are still at war with the US?

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported.

Speaking at a meeting of the Armed Forces' leadership, Putin reportedly said that Russia is researching and successfully testing new nuclear missile systems.

"I am sure that ... they will be put in service within the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have," Putin was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Putin reportedly said: "International terrorism is one of the major threats for Russia. We understand as soon as we ignore such components of our defense as a nuclear and missile shield, other threats may occur."

No details were immediately available, but Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said earlier this month that Russia expected to test-fire a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile this year and that production of the new weapon could be commissioned in 2005.

News reports have also said Russia is believed to be developing a next-generation heavy nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of 4.4 tons, compared with the Topol-M's 1.32-ton combat payload.

Topol-Ms have been deployed in silos since 1998. The missiles have a range of about 6,000 miles and reportedly can maneuver in ways that are difficult to detect.

Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless. Details were not given, but military analysts said the claimed new weapon could be a hypersonic cruise missile or maneuverable ballistic missile warheads.

[badidea]

Originally posted by djohnson:
What is the rationale behind this? Do they think they are still at war with the US?

Nah, I think they are for indoor use!

[Mithras]

Umm, we're developing a new ballistic missile defense system? And they feel compelled to keep up, by developing new missiles that can defeat said system? Yay arms race!

[Zimphire]

It doesn't look like they are doing it because of the US.

But the terrorist threats.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It doesn't look like they are doing it because of the US.

But the terrorist threats.

Yep. That 4.4 tons nuclear warheads should take care of those terrorists for good.

[slow moe]

Well, Allah did recently give the kind gentle bearded old goat herder permission to use nukes against the West.

[Jim Paradise]

As long as the US continues to work on its nuclear program (one way or another), any country should feel free to work on their nuclear weapons programs. ...and I have always been horrified by the thought of nuclear war. I'd rather Russia went in the other direction by discontinuing its programs alongside its disarmament of nuclear weapons, but that's probably never going to happen.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Yep. That 4.4 tons nuclear warheads should take care of those terrorists for good.

Putin reportedly said: "International terrorism is one of the major threats for Russia. We understand as soon as we ignore such components of our defense as a nuclear and missile shield, other threats may occur."

[TETENAL]

Zimphire, very carefully read the quote you posted. Especially think about the second sentence for some time and figure out what it means.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

"Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless."

[PB2K]

Putins new toys :

http://www.deepangel.com/html/the_squall.html

[voodoo]

Originally posted by PB2K:
Putins new toys :

http://www.deepangel.com/html/the_squall.html

W O W

500km/h underwater. I'm impressed. Guided too.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

quote:

Putin reportedly said: "International terrorism is one of the major threats for Russia. We understand as soon as we ignore such components of our defense as a nuclear and missile shield, other threats may occur."

As TETENAL notes, that's called self-ownage: citing a quotation that in fact undermines the position you hold. Nice!

[villalobos]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Zimphire, very carefully read the quote you posted. Especially think about the second sentence for some time and figure out what it means.

LOL. I was thinking the same thing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Zimphire, very carefully read the quote you posted. Especially think about the second sentence for some time and figure out what it means.

TETENAL the world is worried about terrorists getting NUKES. That is what that is about.

Russia isn't worrying about the US attacking it. That is absurd.

You guys crack me up.

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
"Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless."

Yes oh SWF, that is called bragging.

Russia and the US aren't in the middle of a Cold War.

This isn't the 80s. There is no threat on either side.

The US isn't worrying Russia. Terrorists are.

Esp since recent events in the area.

[Hash]

what is Russia?

[Joshua]

This has more to do with Putin scoring political points at home than any broader military strategy.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Hash:
what is Russia?

What?

[Spliffdaddy]

If you have any idea of the quality of Russian army surplus goods - then you won't be afraid of Russian-made weapons.

Junk. With a capital J.

They were still using nixie tube numerical displays (vacuum tubes) in 1998 - a decade after the rest of the planet had moved to LED technology (and $2 pocket calculators). Even their nixie tubes are junk...and they had almost 40 years to refine them. 40 years after they stole the idea, that is.

There's a good reason you won't find many Russian-made goods for sale outside of Russia. Nobody needs low-quality archaic technology.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
If you have any idea of the quality of Russian army surplus goods - then you won't be afraid of Russian-made weapons.

Junk. With a capital J.

They were still using nixie tube numerical displays (vacuum tubes) in 1998 - a decade after the rest of the planet had moved to LED technology (and $2 pocket calculators). Even their nixie tubes are junk...and they had almost 40 years to refine them. 40 years after they stole the idea, that is.

There's a good reason you won't find many Russian-made goods for sale outside of Russia. Nobody needs low-quality archaic technology.

While this is all completely true, there are a few tidbits of Russian engineering that really do shine above the rest.

Examples being the Kalashnikov and the Hind...

[DBursey]

There's a good reason you won't find many Russian-made goods for sale outside of Russia. Nobody needs low-quality archaic technology.

Not when it comes to military hardware. Russian aviation technology, for example, has long given their airforce an edge over western fighter design. Ditto their ballistic missle technology, as well as the Russian Navy's advanced use of supercavitation technology in submarine warfare. How about the reliable Soyuz, which keeps the Int'l spacestation aloft while the Shuttle fleet is grounded?

Don't kid yourself. The Russians hold their own within their areas of expertise, and can legitimately boast a lead over the west in many fields of military and aerospace technologies.

[Zimphire]

The US has a habit of not bragging about what they have. How would you know?

[DBursey]

The US has a habit of not bragging about what they have.

A recently acquired habit I presume?

[Spliffdaddy]

Soyuz has a lower success rate (97%) than the Space Shuttle. And the Space Shuttle is reuseable. The Space Shuttle is the most reliable and cost-effective launch vehicle in the world. Its launch success rate--over 98 percent--is the highest of any vehicle currently flying.

Kalishnikov = mid-1940's

Hind Attack Helicopter = 1970

Submarine technology was very archaic until Toshiba (illegally) sold tooling to the Soviets that allowed quieter propellers to be fitted.

"Supercavitation" is not a new idea. And it won't change the balance of global power one whit.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by DBursey:
A recently acquired habit I presume?

Nope, been doing it for decades.

[slow moe]

Iran pursuing nuclear bomb

While some people (who are mostly obsessed with the Evangelical Right and comparing the 2004 election map with a 1850's slave vs. free States map) made a mockery of Bush correctly pointing out the Axis of Evil, here we have one of those countries pursuing nuclear weapons. Without the support of a country such as Iran, its almost impossible for AQ to get their hands on a nuke.

[itai195]

Yes, because AQ has absolutely no presence in Pakistan. BTW, can you write a post that doesn't insult people who disagree with you?

[Spliffdaddy]

Iran; next on the liberation list.

Dubya has a mandate to defeat terrorists.

He better live up to it.

[DBursey]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Soyuz has a lower success rate (97%) than the Space Shuttle. And the Space Shuttle is reuseable. The Space Shuttle is the most reliable and cost-effective launch vehicle in the world. Its launch success rate--over 98 percent--is the highest of any vehicle currently flying.

Tell that to its most recent occupants!

How many Soyuz have been lost? By what means is the International Space Station maintained?

The shuttle is in fact a '70's design long overdue for retirement. Its recent troubles have served to underscore its growing obsolescence.

Submarine technology was very archaic until Toshiba (illegally) sold tooling to the Soviets that allowed quieter propellers to be fitted.

I submit that your understanding of submarine technology is lifted from some googled web page. The west has spent the past 50 years trying to track Russian subs and to keep up with their technology.

"Supercavitation" is not a new idea. And it won't change the balance of global power one whit.

This thread deals not with new ideas or the balance of global power; the point of discussion at hand deals with practical technological applications thereof. Russian supercavitation technology is acknowledged by experts as being thus far in advance of comparable western systems.

[UNTeMac]

Anybody else wondering what the hell use nukes are against terrorists?

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Kalishnikov = mid-1940's

Hind Attack Helicopter = 1970

While you are correct with the dates, keep in mind that AKs are still in use all over the world. Most of them older than the people using them.

And regarding the Hind, most of them were shot down in Afganistan in the 80s by bin Laden with US-given SAMs. Well, put it this way, the AH-64 Apache pilots are trained by old timers in Hinds. Despite having been built decades prior the Apache, the Hind can still out run, out gun, and out carry the Apache.

Again, not arguing. Just bringing up for discussion.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Anybody else wondering what the hell use nukes are against terrorists?

I have because mutually assured destruction only works between countries.

Originally posted by itai195:
Yes, because AQ has absolutely no presence in Pakistan. BTW, can you write a post that doesn't insult people who disagree with you?

They also have a presence in Belgium, obviously, where a man with AQ links shot Theo van Gogh several times, stabbed him repeatedly, then slit his throat with a butcher knife, and left a note containing verses from the Qur�an on the body.

BTW, it's not my fault the people who don't agree with me are obsessed with the Evangelical Right and with comparing a 150 year old map with this months election results. If by me pointing that out offends you, take it up with the Democrat leadership.

[Hash]

I mean, who the hell cares for Russia and what they are doing there (or pretending to be doing) in their dark cold winters? Just imagine polar bears with remote control carrying Ak 47 (latest Russian technology)

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Soyuz has a lower success rate (97%) than the Space Shuttle. And the Space Shuttle is reuseable. The Space Shuttle is the most reliable and cost-effective launch vehicle in the world. Its launch success rate--over 98 percent--is the highest of any vehicle currently flying.

With all due respect to NASA... the shuttle is a technological Spruce Goose.
- Reusable, but refurbishing costs made it MORE expensive then simply building new rockets. Also, the solid rocket boosters don't seem very reusable...
- Can't launch large payloads in to space.
- Sacrifices safe technologies for cheaper (less safe) alternatives.

The Space Shuttle is NOT the most cost-effective launch vehicle.

The funny thing is... the Russians thought that we were so smart... that they built one as well!! http://www.gizmohighway.com/history/buran.htm

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Hash:
I mean, who the hell cares for Russia and what they are doing there (or pretending to be doing) in their dark cold winters? Just imagine polar bears with remote control carrying Ak 47 (latest Russian technology)

Russia has a LONG tradition of doing MORE with LESS*

(*they also have a tradition of ignoring safety protocols)

[Spliffdaddy]

All sources seem to indicate thet the Space Shuttle is, indeed, the most cost-effective launch vehicle. As well as being .5% more successful than Soyuz missions.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other - but everyone else seems to agree on those 2 points.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The US isn't worrying Russia. Terrorists are.

Esp since recent events in the area.

Oddly, the very quote you posted indicates that THIS PARTICULAR THREAD TOPIC has NOTHING to do with terrorism, but with "other threats", be they what they may.

And while the US may currently not be the primary concern, you can bet your ass that Russia *is* concerned with what happens over the next decade or so, should America's head get even bigger than it already is. However, China and North Korea are probably the more unpredictable nuclear powers.

-s*

[Taliesin]

zimphire,

you got it all wrong here. Russia has in the past months and years repeatedly expressed its deep concerns, read downright fear of the US getting up its shield-system, which would destroy the balance of mutual destruction-potential.

Sure, many americans think: "What the hell is Russia worried about, the US would never nuke Russia!" But Russia thinks completely different, and has still the vivid memory of Japan's Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Russia's Chernobyl,and still sees the US as its biggest enemy.

Not only is Russia now working on establishing a missile-defense-system of its own, but is also working on nuclear capable missiles that can outtrick the US' shield-system.

Russia thinks this is the only possibility of guaranteeing the balance of mutual destruction, which is necessary for Russia to secure itself the opportunity of becoming again a superpower in the future.

Taliesin

[finboy]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Umm, we're developing a new ballistic missile defense system? And they feel compelled to keep up, by developing new missiles that can defeat said system? Yay arms race!

Or, maybe, we figured they'd continue to produce new missiles with or without our missile DEFENSE system.

Kinda hard to promulgate an arms race with DEFENSIVE programs.

[finboy]

Hey, I'd bet that the US is developing new missiles, too. And new nukes. Like, all the time.

At least I HOPE so.

Originally posted by CD Hanks:

Despite having been built decades prior the Apache, the Hind can still out run, out gun, and out carry the Apache.

Not the latest versions, necessarily. Depends on what works best.

The main diff. b/w Apache and Hind is the flight characteristics, which means that tactics must be different. A Hind can't be used with a pop-up-and-shoot technology very easily, because it derives so much of its lift from moving forward (yes, those wing stubs are there for a reason).

Soviet military tactics and technology had its bright spots, but the idea of swarm and envelope made a lot of that obsolete. Why develop better systems and tactics when you don't need it? Plus, their training doctrine was for sh*t. Not enough time in the saddle gets Johnny (or Ivan, in this case) killed.

I know that this has been discussed elsewhere here, mainly to deal with those folks who will never give the US credit for ANYTHING. Just thought I'd add some points.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Not only is Russia now working on establishing a missile-defense-system of its own, but is also working on nuclear capable missiles that can outtrick the US' shield-system.

Maybe the one they know about.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Maybe the one they know about.

Uh oh. You're going to have to use your tinfoil hat picture on yourself.