Russia: That is only what we WANTED you to think, comrade!!!

[Ma Deuce]

The USSR never had a strike back policy regarding nukes. Their policy was to strike first, if they thought they could win. Fortunately, they never thought they could.

Building your nuclear arselenal around a "strike first" policy is all fine and dandy, unless the other guy decides to strike first: Then your strategic nuclear forces are in deep shit...

[Ory'hara]

The USSR never had a strike back policy regarding nukes. Their policy was to strike first, if they thought they could win. Fortunately, they never thought they could.

Building your nuclear arselenal around a "strike first" policy is all fine and dandy, unless the other guy decides to strike first: Then your strategic nuclear forces are in deep shit...

And the U.S. never would strike first, so it's a moot point.

[Kuroneko]

Building your nuclear arselenal around a "strike first" policy is all fine and dandy, unless the other guy decides to strike first: Then your strategic nuclear forces are in deep shit...

And the U.S. never would strike first, so it's a moot point.

With people like General LeMay pushing just for such a first strike, and CIA Director Dulles, who made it a policy to threaten the USSR with nuclear retaliation for even non-nuclear operations, Eisenhower selected targets for a possible first strike. Moreover, the Burris memorandum (under Kennedy) shows that the massive nuclear buildup was at least in part due to studies on the effectiveness of a first-strike against the USSR. They certainly already had a numerical advantage. Short story of this is that this action was explored under Eisenhower (and pushed for by some members of the military), and due to the Cuban missile crisis, it was actually planned for under Kennedy. If Cuba was resolved any more high-strungly, it is not at all inconceivable that the US would have acted upon this 'window of opportunity', particularly if the USSR could have been linked to the Kennedy assassination more concretely than it was.

[Howedar]

The USSR was no more likely (in retrospect I'd say often less likely) to preemptively nuke the US than the US was to nuke the Soviet Union.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Don't know why they relied so heavily on liquid-fueled birds, considering how long they take to prep for launch. Sure, you can build 'em bigger, but what good is that if they get vaporized before they're even fueled, meanwhile their solid-fueled cousins have already been launched and may have even hit their targets?

IIRC, the Russians use mostly "storable liquid propellants", like UDMH. They are highly dangerous if they leak, but AFAIK they could remain fueled for extended periods.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I'm sorry but when did you need a new type of nuclear missile to nuke a terrorist shithole.

When do you need to build F-22s and JSFs to handle a terrorist threat?

In the long-term, sooner or later they'd have to replace the old rockets or they won't have a deterrent. In any case, the new missiles would probably be cheaper to maintain than their aging predecessors. Maybe they'd even save money on the back end, while having superior capability, which allows them to put a bit more on counter-terrorism.

[Vympel]

*does a happy gjig*

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem.

I actually posted news about this in the HAB sometime either early this year or late last year. I also posited it as an Molodets (SS-24) successor. Looks like the future Russian ICBM force will be made of up the new Topol-Ms (SS-27- 6-10 entering service per year, with the exception of I think one year, since 1998)- being both silo and mobile launcher based, and these new heavy ones. I doubt they'll have a rail-mobile option like the Molodets, though.

[Vympel]

Didn't the SS-27/Topol M-3 just come out? Assuming that these are the same missile of course.

The first Topol-M regiment entered service back in 1998- by my count, they have about 40-60 missiles in service, judging from the yearly reports of new regiments (6-10 missiles) coming on line. They're not the same, though, this new one won't be in service until at least 2010.

Don't know why they relied so heavily on liquid-fueled birds, considering how long they take to prep for launch. Sure, you can build 'em bigger, but what good is that if they get vaporized before they're even fueled, meanwhile their solid-fueled cousins have already been launched and may have even hit their targets?

Solid-fuel is harder, apparently. The Makeyev design bureau, which was developing the replacement for the SS-N-20 STURGEON on the Typhoon SSBNs (and an SLBM for the new Borey SSBNs) lost the job when their solid-propellant design kept exploding. The missile replacement project got handed over to the Moscow thermal insitute of something or other, who did the Topol-M (which is solid-fuelled).

[Vympel]

In all seriousness, though, this is to be expected- for over 10 years Russia's strategic forces have been treading water, spending increasing amounts of money on increasingly hard to maintain equipment because they couldn't afford new ones- now they can- ref: continued Topol-M deployment, R&D of this new missile, the completion of the hull of the second new Borey SSBN, Aleksandr Nevsky, etc. You can't wait for all your missiles to stop working before you start laying the ground work for new ones to come in and fill the gap. One of the good things Bush and Putin did is the SORT agreement, which reduceds warheads on each side to IIRC 1,700-2,200 each by 2012 (it's not that detailed, it's just how many you have to have, or less, by then). There'll never be as many ICBMs as there used to be, even with these new ones- the warheads count for everything- strategic bombers (Tu-95MSMs, Tu-160s), SSBNs (Delta IIIs, Delta IVs, Typhoons, Borey) and the ICBMs.

[Mr Bean]

These people can barely keep their economy off the ground and they're developing new nucelar missiles and weapons to counter terrorism?!

Replace 'These people" with the United States and replace "nuclear missle" with bunker buster and you have an eerily accurate description of America.

Geee comparing Nuclear missles to delay action conventional weapons and comparing our economey to Russias at the same time

So you'd prefer us to be without the option to kill soft targets(3rd World Country Leaders, Storage facilities) at a cost of well under any nuclear devoplment program

Not to mention as pointed out above your comparing being able to do a brand new things(Destroy any bunker complex yet constructed with only conventional weapons were as before the US Army prevered tatical nuclear wepaons to do the job)

To being able to once agian produce ICBM's(Which as pointed out above they no longer have access to the facility to do it with anymore)
And ICBM's don't last forever, twenty years from now if they had not done this they might well be facing the fact they had alot of nukes, just nothing to put them on

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Geee comparing Nuclear missles to delay action conventional weapons and comparing our economey to Russias at the same time

I think he's talking about those low-yield nuclear variety of bunker busters IIRC the US had been looking into.

[Stofsk]

Geee comparing Nuclear missles to delay action conventional weapons and comparing our economey to Russias at the same time

I think he's talking about those low-yield nuclear variety of bunker busters IIRC the US had been looking into.

Wouldn't such weapons be counted as a ground burst nuke? And if so, wouldn't that ALSO mean fallout would be extensive? I just want to be sure here.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Geee comparing Nuclear missles to delay action conventional weapons and comparing our economey to Russias at the same time

I think he's talking about those low-yield nuclear variety of bunker busters IIRC the US had been looking into.

Wouldn't such weapons be counted as a ground burst nuke? And if so, wouldn't that ALSO mean fallout would be extensive? I just want to be sure here.

Not sure how the US would rationalize it, but I do distinctly remember the studies into nuclear bunker busters. They've already had conventional bunker busters since before 1991.

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7198-1.cfm

[weemadando]

How are bigger, badder nuclear missiles helping them fight terrorism...

In pretty much the same manner that a missile-defense system helps protect the USA against terrorism.

Except the Russians are far more likely to actually nuke Chechnya and any number of other shitholes than the US is of actually getting an ABM system to a working standard.

[Chardok]

I heard on NPR today That Putin didn't actually "Say" It is a new nuclear missile, or even that it is a nuclear anything, but it is a weapon unlike any ever seen before, which, IIRC, is very closely mirroring what truman said about the nuclear bomb back in the '40s.

I guess what I'm indirectly saying is that I am of the mind that it's not a nuclear bomb, but perhaps something....more....destructive? Like (keep in mind I do not have a scientific background so keep the OMFGZ CHARDOK, YUO ARE TEH S700p1D!11!1oneoneone to a minimum, Mmm kay?) a M/AM bomb?

*ducks*

[Stofsk]

Nah Chardok. The Russians have developed the HAPPY Bomb. It explodes and showers everyone in the blast radius with happy particles, and thus they put down their weapons and start embracing each other.

At which point, Russia spetsnaz come in and decapitate everyone. That'll end wars real quick...

[Shroom Man 777]

Impossible. AM is really expensive and its really a big leap, y'know, from building massive particle accelerators to produce tiny shit-bits of AM to building an arsenal of M/AM missiles with technology nobody has and with an economy composed of dogshit.

[Gandalf]

Impossible. AM is really expensive and its really a big leap, y'know, from building massive particle accelerators to produce tiny shit-bits of AM to building an arsenal of M/AM missiles with technology nobody has and with an economy composed of dogshit.

Plus how would one go about storing it?

[Col. Crackpot]

Impossible. AM is really expensive and its really a big leap, y'know, from building massive particle accelerators to produce tiny shit-bits of AM to building an arsenal of M/AM missiles with technology nobody has and with an economy composed of dogshit.

Plus how would one go about storing it?

or produce the required quantity without drawing attention.

[Ma Deuce]

And ICBM's don't last forever, twenty years from now if they had not done this they might well be facing the fact they had alot of nukes, just nothing to put them on

Speaking of which, the US is also looking into a new ICBM design to come into service when the Minuteman III's expire around 2020: The new missile is only a concept at the moment, but it's already been dubbed "Minuteman IV", and would likely be based on the existing Minuteman III design: Like the Topol-M, the new missile would probably be designed to penetrate modern ABM defences. However, given that the Minuteman IIIs are safe for another 15 years, and the US's primary deterrant is it's SSBNs anyway, there's no rush to actually design or develop the new missile...

[Prozac the Robert]

I heard on NPR today That Putin didn't actually "Say" It is a new nuclear missile, or even that it is a nuclear anything, but it is a weapon unlike any ever seen before, which, IIRC, is very closely mirroring what truman said about the nuclear bomb back in the '40s.

I guess what I'm indirectly saying is that I am of the mind that it's not a nuclear bomb, but perhaps something....more....destructive? Like (keep in mind I do not have a scientific background so keep the OMFGZ CHARDOK, YUO ARE TEH S700p1D!11!1oneoneone to a minimum, Mmm kay?) a M/AM bomb?

*ducks*

Hmm, you're probably wrong, but...

An exotic kind of nuclear explosive being developed by the US Department of Defense could blur the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The work has also raised fears that weapons based on this technology could trigger the next arms race.

The explosive works by stimulating the release of energy from the nuclei of certain elements but does not involve nuclear fission or fusion. The energy, emitted as gamma radiation, is thousands of times greater than that from conventional chemical explosives.

From a newscientist article from 2003.

...could be an outside possibility.

[Ory'hara]

An exotic kind of nuclear explosive being developed by the US Department of Defense could blur the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The work has also raised fears that weapons based on this technology could trigger the next arms race.

The explosive works by stimulating the release of energy from the nuclei of certain elements but does not involve nuclear fission or fusion. The energy, emitted as gamma radiation, is thousands of times greater than that from conventional chemical explosives.

From a newscientist article from 2003.

...could be an outside possibility.

I seem to recall hearing that there isn't actually that effect.

[Patrick Degan]

The new missile is only a concept at the moment, but it's already been dubbed "Minuteman IV", and would likely be based on the existing Minuteman III design: Like the Topol-M, the new missile would probably be designed to penetrate modern ABM defences.

Penetrating modern ABM defences?! But but but... that's supposed to be impossible —the First Church of NMD says so.

[phongn]

The US civilian plastics industry developed binders long ago that were found useful for solid fuel rockets. This gave the US a lead in developing easily-storable fuels for their ICBM force. The Soviets were not able to get such binders so soon and were forced to examine liquid fuels and how to safely store them for long-term use.

This probably had a great effect on other rocketry research. The US still uses solid-fuel motors extensively (the Space Shuttle's SRBs and strap-on boosters for various other launch vehicles, nevermind things like Minuteman and MX) whereas the Russians seemed to concentate greatly on liquid-fueled vehicles like Proton, etc.

As for the Minuteman force any details about a "Minuteman IV" and penetration aids it may carry are purely conjectural.

[phongn]

With people like General LeMay pushing just for such a first strike, and CIA Director Dulles, who made it a policy to threaten the USSR with nuclear retaliation for even non-nuclear operations, Eisenhower selected targets for a possible first strike. Moreover, the Burris memorandum (under Kennedy) shows that the massive nuclear buildup was at least in part due to studies on the effectiveness of a first-strike against the USSR. They certainly already had a numerical advantage. Short story of this is that this action was explored under Eisenhower (and pushed for by some members of the military), and due to the Cuban missile crisis, it was actually planned for under Kennedy. If Cuba was resolved any more high-strungly, it is not at all inconceivable that the US would have acted upon this 'window of opportunity', particularly if the USSR could have been linked to the Kennedy assassination more concretely than it was.

Well, nowadays with a greater equalization in nuclear forces and the absence of any defense a first strike becomes much less likely -- especially as ICBMs can be fired pretty quickly, IIRC.

Eisenhower had the luxury of a rather potent air-defense and planned missile defenses (as did Kennedy before ARADCOM's dismantlement, ABM's cancellation and before the rise of the ICBM) so he could more comfortably consider nuclear first strike without risking MAD (as an effect rather as policy).