Russia loses mock-war against self.

Yes, but if you notice, the article states that the Soviets had mutiple options beginning in the late 60s other than a blanket response. This was due mainly to the fact that Soviet technology became much better. With the accuracy of their missiles they could plan on taking out pinpoint targets, rather than a saturation of both military targets and civil targets. It was during the 70s that they began to explore the idea of the surprise first strike.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Soviets have always had one major disadvantage compared to the United States, the CEP was horrid compared to that of American MIRV's. On average Soviet missiles carried more explosive power then any American counterpart. For instance the huge, phallic looking SS-18 Satan which scared the US. I always found the assertion of "targeted" strikes by ICBM's to be the most idiotic assertion of them all. For instance near where I live there was a HUGE air base in the centre of the city, if a nuke attacked that base, I wouldn't die? Obviously I would. Now this rings more true, the new SS-27 of the Russian nuclear forces carries a HUGE warhead (because MIRV's were banned) most certainly would destroy a city and the "target". I think we can all agree it's better to have those nukes in the ground then on the ground.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree. I was always horrified by talk of 'winnable' nuclear wars.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fallout dangers of modern weapons are overrated. Bear in mind that the hypocenters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were habitable 8 hours out of a 24 hour day, with no protection, two days after the bursts. Within one week residual radiation levels were so small that 24/7 habitation was possible without any protective measures at all.

And single stage fission devices are the dirtiest weapons ever employed. Modern weapons are much, much cleaner and more efficient.

Be leery of data presented by a site named "banthebomb.org" as objective, scientific fact. They've got no bones about their slanted position.

Just a minor nitpick: It is quite easy to predict an ICBM's point of impact(s) very early into its flight, at about the point that it begins to tip over. Ballistic weapons have no means of guidance other than controlling engine burn times and squirting a few thrusters during the first 1/3 of the flight (save for MARV systems, which never left the conceptual stage). Here's an analog: When you see a basketball player take a 3 point shot, you can make a good guess whether or not it's going to get within the general area of the net very early on because you can watch its trajectory. Since nothing can influence its flight once it leaves the shooter's hands, you can extrapolate where it's going too.

I have personal, professional experience with enough of the American SIOP to say that our ICBMs did not target cities. The Soviet nuclear deterrent did place an emphatic priority on ICBMs and a marginal one on SLBMs and bombers, however. But a city is a large, vulnerable, and static target with no precedence to when it should be struck. Ergo, it is a good target for a strategic bomber. Using an ICBM, which can be launched quickly and reach its destination within an hour, is a gargantuan waste of a weapon. The figures I have experience with never indicated that Soviet ICBMs ever targeted American cities. Bear in mind that the Pershing IIs and SS-21s stationed in Europe were IRBMs, and while they often targeted cities, it was because of troop and armor concentrations garrisoned within them, and not because they were cities themselves. If the military units had been stationed in the countryside I'm willing to bet they'd have been targeted there.

Generally agree with you here. Still have an issue with your predictions of environmental impact, but I'll only waste time with that if anybody's curious to lend their attention.

And then there's nico with the strawman again, but that's nothing new, really. Sometimes I wish his parents would revoke his internet privileges until he does his english homework.

 

And then there's nico with the strawman again, but that's nothing new, really. Sometimes I wish his parents would revoke his internet privileges until he does his english homework.

Oh you poor thing, you have to resort to the biggest trolling measure of them all. You see what I find ever so interesting is that you are the only who voices this "concern". If what I write is SO horrid, then how are you able, and others to answer to my posts? All I see from you stokes is the improper use of fallacies, (strawman, quickly concluding that is the only one you really know) and trolling constantly. Then you try to pass yourself off as a "serious" poster but every time you can you ad hom attack me, or other posters. Your neurosis has already been diagnosed now it's a matter of time for you to recognize it.

 

"winnable" nuclear war? what constitutes a win ? last one to get anihilated wins or something lol.
And every country had failiures durings its training exercises , thats what they are there for... To have failiures and fix em. I m speaking in general not against anyone here. But Russia will beging to rebuild its military and transfer it to US style one where troops get paid and arent conscripted.

 

hot hot update action: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...s,0,5173243.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes is anyone even surprised by these developments? I would be surprised if ppl weren't expecting these failed launches. But what Stokes does not show you is the Russians successfully launching her ultra-modern SS-27 Topol-M ICBM's that would put American ICBM's to shame, or the successful development of Maneuverable warheads that can easily beat any American NMD shield. Of course there are going to be bads, but to be a serious poster due try to be a objective one?

 

Thou speakest a language with which I am un-familiar.

A serious poster would at least make the effort to mind his/her grammer, spelling and syntax. That is if he/she wanted anyone to take his/her efforts seriously.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Considering the proven accuracy and reliability of the currently deployed U.S. ICBM's, how exactly would another missile "put them to shame"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Russia is has as bad of economic problems as America and it still spends more on its military. This is a waste of time since there are no "enemies" that they have at this time.

 

Seems to me that exploding subway cars are a problem worth addressing. Don't you think?

 

I gave up on correcting him long ago. If he insists on debasing himself through the use of a tenuous grasp of the english language, far be it from me to stop him.

It wouldn't, and he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

The SS-27 is a smaller, second-generation ICBM that is being fielded by the CIS states as a supplementary measure to fill the void of older, larger, MIRVed missiles as they are taken offline IAW START II timelines. Early versions of the SS-27 are roughly analogous to the American LGM-30F Minuteman II, and the late models are equivalent to the LGM-30G Minuteman III. While the Minuteman III was originally fielded in the 1970s with a three warhead PBV, the 500 remaining in the US arsenal have since been downloaded to carry only one warhead. Conversely, the SS-27, being designed, specifically, to facilitate adherence to START II, has been a unitary (single warhead) airframe since conception.

What he probably means by "puts American ICBMs to shame" is the rumored MARV capability of the SS-27. MARV is an acronym for Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle - a RV that could corkscrew its way down through the atmosphere in its terminal phase, after seperation from the missile's post-boost vehicle. A MARV is, obviously, vastly more difficult to intercept in its terminal phase of descent, and thus would probably render terminal ABM systems inadequate.

Two points about this though. During test flights of the SS-27, no MARV capability was observed by the RC-135 COBRA BALL monitoring the test. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but until it's tested, it's not in the arsenal. The second point is that such a technology is useless to the Russians. The US NMD program is only designed to field an eventual 20 interceptors at Vandenberg AFB in California, and Fort Greeley in Alaska. There are already enough ICBMs in the Russian arsenal to overwhelm such a system many times over, even when it finally reaches full deployment. So it's a mystery why they even bother.

Working with what we know now, the SS-27 is roughly similar to a Minuteman III with a unitary payload. Considering that the Minuteman III was first fielded in 1970, 33 years ago, and the Russians are still scrambling to produce SS-27s to supplant decommissioning SS-18s, we can offer them a warm welcome to what, 33 years ago?

 

I gave up on correcting him long ago. If he insists on debasing himself through the use of a tenuous grasp of the english language, far be it from me to stop him.

This is where your world begins and ours stops. In reality you are the one who is looking so damn desperate to deface me that you are in this constant semantic battle against me. But you cannot show me what I am doing wrong! I mean you prove me and other correct when you state these idiotic comments about posters. You are INCAPABLE of letting go of the ad hom attack. Do tell me which is wrong me constantly proving your intellectual incapacity by showing your daily ad hom attacks against me? Or the unsupported assertion that I can't spell? You are looking desperate not me, and I've showed you whose your intellectual boss a great deal many times.

Conversely, the SS-27, being designed, specifically, to facilitate adherence to START II, has been a unitary (single warhead) airframe since conception.

Yes they have, and for a reason they wanted to follow START II guidelines. The Russians obviously felt it necessary to follow the law...

A MARV is, obviously, vastly more difficult to intercept in its terminal phase of descent, and thus would probably render terminal ABM systems inadequate.

Liking the understatement, a balloon on a TP2 would render the ABM system irrelevant.

During test flights of the SS-27, no MARV capability was observed by the RC-135 COBRA BALL monitoring the test.

I would love to see a link supporting this statement, also just because the Americans did not see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You don't know how the Russians were testing the MARV, thus this is deemed irrelevant.

That's not to say it doesn't exist, but until it's tested, it's not in the arsenal.

You assume that it has not been tested.

The second point is that such a technology is useless to the Russians.

But not to the Chinese, this is more of a phallic thing for the Russians more then anything else. But it does demonstrate that the US is not safe.

The US NMD program is only designed to field an eventual 20 interceptors at Vandenberg AFB in California, and Fort Greeley in Alaska.

Yes by October 2004, I don't think that is the eventual number of Interceptors.

Working with what we know now, the SS-27 is roughly similar to a Minuteman III with a unitary payload. Considering that the Minuteman III was first fielded in 1970, 33 years ago, and the Russians are still scrambling to produce SS-27s to supplant decommissioning SS-18s, we can offer them a warm welcome to what, 33 years ago?

Arrogance? Undeserved? I think so; the Russians had a different design philosophy. You should know this, I mean I am increasingly worried about your relevance. The Russian philosophy was to build it BIG, and to carry a lot of MIRVS. You should know this, the SS-18 scared the Americans to death, and there was a reason. The SS-18 could carry much more then any puny American ICBM. The SS-27 was a result of the lessening of tensions with the US and the aging of Soviet missiles. 33 years of SS-18, and modifications made the USSR stronger then 33 years of untold numbers of new missiles for the US which essentially served the same purpose. Who is the one who wasted the money is the real question.