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

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-17 10:40am

Yes, Lenin lives!

CNN wrote:Russia Developing New Nuclear Missile

MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin 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.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-17 10:44am

These people can barely keep their economy off the ground and they're developing new nucelar missiles and weapons to counter terrorism?! I'm sorry but when did you need a new type of nuclear missile to nuke a terrorist shithole. Afraid Allah might lend a hand and knock your current missiles off course if you decide to let them fly?!

The more I hear from Putin the less I like this guy.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-17 10:49am

Tell the DoD to recall the Nuke Docs and get them back to work. Honeymoon's over.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-17 10:55am

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

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-11-17 11:02am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:How are bigger, badder nuclear missiles helping them fight terrorism...

It won't- anyone with half a brain realizes that its just flimsy propoganda being used to avoid creating even more tension with the USA.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-11-17 11:07am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:How are bigger, badder nuclear missiles helping them fight terrorism...

Have you not heard of the Shep Solution to terrorism?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-17 11:08am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote: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.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-11-17 11:10am

Darth Wong wrote:
Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote: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.

At least the North Korean missle/atomic program is a somewhat more plausible excuse for the missle-defense system.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-11-17 11:12am

Sir!

Yes, Captain?

We've located a terrorist tunnel network!

Very good, Captain. Show me on the map where this tunnel network is.

*Points at map*

Hmm....Afghanistan, eh?

Da!

Very well.

***************NEWS REPORT*******************

Russia warned it will launch a major offensive against a suspected Al-qeada tunnel network near Kabul, Afghanistan today.....

*************ONE WEEK LATER******************

It's been one week since Afghanistan was wiped off the face of the earth and the world still doesn't give a crap.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-11-17 11:13am

aerius wrote:
Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:How are bigger, badder nuclear missiles helping them fight terrorism...
Have you not heard of the Shep Solution to terrorism?

WooHoo! Let the secret back door meetings begin!

"We'll give you this much to help you economy if you have a nuke targeting accident here..."

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-11-17 11:17am

Sounds like they're trying to build a successor to the SS-24 (RT-23) ICBM (which is similar in size and design to the LGM-118 Peacekeeper), seeing that the warhead capacity is identical and payload weight is only slightly larger: The thing about the SS-24 is, Russia can't build any more of them, because virtually all the design and production facilities for the missile were located in the Ukraine and were dismantled after the fall of the USSR, so they're probably trying to come up with a new, similar design that they can produce themselves...

Not that I'm saying they actually need this new missile...

Trogdor · Post by **Trogdor** » 2004-11-17 12:19pm

Seems like a project started in the Cold War era that's coming to fruition far too later. Almost seems like they're still trying to come up with a way to thwart the non-existant Star Wars defense. As Mike pointed out, the US does this kind of shit, too, so I don't find it surprising.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-11-17 12:22pm

As far as terrorism is concerned, Putin also said that while terrorism is the greatest threat to national security, the nuclear threat shouldn't be forgotten. I can't really see where that threat comes from right now...

aten_vs_ra · Post by **aten_vs_ra** » 2004-11-17 12:23pm

Stravo wrote: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.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-11-17 12:29pm

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

The state of US economy (lousy as it is at the moment) is hardly comprable to that of Russia...

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-11-17 12:38pm

Ma Deuce wrote:Sounds like they're trying to build a successor to the SS-24 (RT-23) ICBM (which is similar in size and design to the LGM-118 Peacekeeper), seeing that the warhead capacity is identical and payload weight is only slightly larger: The thing about the SS-24 is, Russia can't build any more of them, because virtually all the design and production facilities for the missile were located in the Ukraine and were dismantled after the fall of the USSR, so they're probably trying to come up with a new, similar design that they can produce themselves...

Not that I'm saying they actually need this new missile...

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

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-11-17 01:19pm

Stravo wrote:These people can barely keep their economy off the ground and they're developing new nucelar missiles and weapons to counter terrorism?! I'm sorry but when did you need a new type of nuclear missile to nuke a terrorist shithole. Afraid Allah might lend a hand and knock your current missiles off course if you decide to let them fly?!

The more I hear from Putin the less I like this guy.

The best part of it all is that is that while this is all going on, the US is still paying them hundreds of millions of dollars so that they can destroy older but still completely serviceable nuclear missiles and warheads banned under START. Thanks you Clinton and Congress.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-17 01:21pm

You people are all forgetting the mystical angels which guard Mecca according to the Islamic faith. They need advanced new missiles in order to circumvent this ABMA system (Anti-Ballistic Missile Angels).

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-11-17 01:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:You people are all forgetting the mystical angels which guard Mecca according to the Islamic faith. They need advanced new missiles in order to circumvent this ABMA system (Anti-Ballistic Missile Angels).

Aka Entropy.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-11-17 01:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:You people are all forgetting the mystical angels which guard Mecca according to the Islamic faith. They need advanced new missiles in order to circumvent this ABMA system (Anti-Ballistic Missile Angels).

That's why the US and the Russians still have thousands of nuclear air launched cruise missiles and gravity bombs.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-11-17 01:25pm

I'm wondering how much money it will take to proliferate these new, harder to shoot down missiles, compared to how much the ABM shield is costing.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-11-17 02:32pm

Darth Wong wrote:You people are all forgetting the mystical angels which guard Mecca according to the Islamic faith. They need advanced new missiles in order to circumvent this ABMA system (Anti-Ballistic Missile Angels).

Shouldn't be laughing...but my body once again betrays me...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-17 02:39pm

And this is surprising how? Russia still has one shitload of crap left over from
the Soviet era, but most of it is hideously obsolete, and costs a shitload
to maintain. IIRC weren't most of their ICBMs liquid fuelled until recently?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-11-17 03:19pm

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

The Topol-M is a helluva lot smaller than either the SS-24 or this hypothetical future ICBM: The Topol-M has a launch weight of 47 tons and a payload weight of 1.3 tons, meanwhile the SS-24 has a launch weight of 105 tons and a payload weight of 4 tons...

MKSheppard wrote:IIRC weren't most of their ICBMs liquid fuelled until recently?

Yes, but they've had solid-fueled ICBMs almost as long as the Americans: Their first operational solid-fueled ICBM was the original RT-2 (SS-13 Savage), which entered service in the late '60s (earlier they built and tested a solid-fueled missile called the RT-1, but it never entered service), but liquid fueled ICBMs always comprised the bulk of their arsenal.

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?

Ory'hara · Post by **Ory'hara** » 2004-11-17 03:31pm

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.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

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

Re: Russia: That is only what we WANTED you to think, comrad