Russia tests new ICBM weapons system

Originally posted by Iblis
Before we blow our lid, perhaps it'd be healthy to know that Russia only uses the United State's missile shield as an excuse to develop so many weapons, and to withdraw from many of the most important treaties that exist between itself and Europe.

I can go along with ...

The missle shield:

a. Is not facing the correct direction; radar, specifically, to intercept Russian missiles. They know this.

And certainly not enough unless it will house direct energy weapons which may be the real reason for the Russian protests...

b. They have no defenses, and could easily be taken out with conventional means.

Which will require a invasion of a pre-emptive strike that the enemies world wide propaganda machine are likely to use against you?

c. Russia has known about these plans for a long while, though simply waited until development to make notice.

No doubts in my mind...

d. Russian Generals have acknowledged all of the above.

Which means someone told them to and not that it is in fact all true....

Sabre rattling is right.

Further:
Russia has, historically, had a terrible record of maintenance for its armed forces. This is fact.

Everyone says it's a fact but i don't really see why they do and they never seem to present much in the way of actual 'evidence'.

It is true in the nuclear and conventional field, and has been proven in nearly every war.

Where and when? I mean when did we have a nuclear war to check out how many Russian ICBMs did in fact launch and why not mention the fact that they could launch or try to launch only one third to deliver the same mega tonnage on the required American infrastructure? Even if half their strategic weaponry failed i am not sure it would have been a big enough failure to actually lose them such a war but since i never really see evidence i can not address or contradict with other data i wonder about those claims.

Which was, might we add, won only because of the opponent's failure to prepare for a long, drawn-out conflict in a place as relatively barren as Russia.

The Germans lost because Hitler misdirected the German army in August of 1941 thus preventing Germany from capturing Moscow and possible Leningrad long before the end of 41'. There were numerous reasons for the Russian defensive failures but then we know the British and French and everyone else also lost at the start so why assume this is evidence for anything but a obviously superior German armed forces in 1941?

And also, that Russia tends to survive,during and before World War II if we care to go back that far, by the grace of its partners, who fuel it the arms it needs.

The Russian war machine were by en large built up with foreign funds during the twenties and thirties but they almost lost the war anyways and did not later win it because of the allied supply effort even if such did prevent the war from drawing out deep into the decade with long range ballistic missiles and intercontinental bombers.

It was never a matter of them having 'quality' equipment, as they never did until modern-day.

And this last statement really is devoid of any and all factual content. Do you wish to tell us what 'quality' means in your mind or shall i assume that you are in fact using the dictionary definition? How have you arrived at this conclusion?

Stellar