Russia announces new nuclear arms race in response to hostile US moves

Russia announces new nuclear arms race in response to hostile US moves

www.theinsider.org

Putin goes live on TV phone-in to escalate nuclear war of words

· President tells of new generation of weapons
· 'Grandiose' plan to combat US missile shield

President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that Russia was developing a new generation of nuclear weapons as part of a "big, grandiose" plan to boost the country's defences against the US.

Speaking during his annual live question-and-answer session, Mr Putin said Russia was upgrading its nuclear arsenal, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and strategic bombers. It was also developing "completely new strategic [nuclear] complexes", he said.

"Our plans are not simply considerable, but huge. At the same time they are absolutely realistic. I have no doubts we will accomplish them," Mr Putin said, during a three-hour phone-in programme shown across Russia on state-run TV.

Mr Putin said Russia would defend itself if the US goes ahead with its plan to install elements of its missile shield in central Europe. "I can assure you that such steps are being prepared and we will take them," he said.
His comments follow unsuccessful talks last week with the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates. Mr Putin began their meeting in Moscow by signalling that Russia might dump the intermediate-range nuclear missiles treaty.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Now maybe this is just normal political babble, (though I don't think so) but Putin has put some heavy words out there and I think the world, as a whole, should be concerned.

I guess whether or not the U.S. missile shied is installed in Europe will depend on the outcome of the next election.

It's not looking pretty.



www.theinsider.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

I doubt the next U.S. election will have much impact on the foreign policy of the U.S. After all the U.S. foreign policy has changed very little since Truman, and has remained steady regardless of who is at the helm. Most U.S. politicians (at least the candidates) differ primarily on domestic issues and maybe current wars like Iraq. The long-term global policy is not really impacted to a great deal.

I think Russia's upcoming election will be the decisive factor. It is known that Medvedev will win, but it is not known what his intentions are. For now it looks like both Russia and U.S. are somehow profiting from this escalating conflict of words. I would not be surprised if most of this is staged for the benefit of both governments.

reply to post by maloy


From: www.cbc.ca...
According to this article in late 2007, Medevev's intentions are as follows;

[Ext/] "What is so dear for us today?" he asked when announcing his candidacy. "Stability, improvement of the quality of life and the hope for durable and steady development. Education, health care, housing construction — we have managed to overcome the stagnation of the 1990s in these most important spheres of our life."

But, he went on, "even more has to be done: We need to sharply decrease poverty, to create a modern health-care system and education, to solve the most complicated housing problems, to achieve new living standards in rural areas."

While the presidential heir-apparent has revealed little about specific plans, he has expressed a commitment to continue with the priorities that Putin has set over the past eight years. That is a course, he said in his candidacy speech "which prevented the collapse of our economy and of the social sphere in our country, the course which prevented civil war, the course which is being conducted by President Putin."[/ext]


Ultimately, whatever Putin wants, Medevev will see to make happen. Putin will remain in charge and Medevev will be a puppet. IMHO

Not sure what happened here - I saved it in my draft section and it ended up being posted. When I tried to go in and edit I wasn't allowed access to the forum. Any Mod out there that can give me some advice? Thank you!

Originally posted by maloy
I think Russia's upcoming election will be the decisive factor. It is known that Medvedev will win, but it is not known what his intentions are. For now it looks like both Russia and U.S. are somehow profiting from this escalating conflict of words. I would not be surprised if most of this is staged for the benefit of both governments.

Benefiting is an understatement.

Bush Budget Has $585 Billion for Defense in 2009

Now I dont want to sound as though I am gloating, but this is an arms race Russia cannot afford to play. (It couldnt the first time either, and it was much more capable than it is now)

more senseless agression, great job mr. bush way to screw up our country even more
was this your plan along? lie to americans then destroy global reputations?

Putin made those statements in oct 2007... interesting but hardly "news"

not 1-liner

[edit on 14/2/08 by flice]

reply to post by West Coast


you obviously don't realize that Russians don't need to spend as much as US , and still produce equal if not superior weapons to counter. There is a saying in Russia, that US spend billions of dollars for these defense missiles and we will develop for 1/3 price of what Americans spend , something that will counter it".
So it is out of question West Coast.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Odessit]

Originally posted by Odessit
you obviously don't realize that Russians don't need to spend as much as US , and still produce equal if not superior weapons to counter. There is a saying in Russia, that US spend billions of dollars for these defense missiles and we will develop for 1/3 price of what Americans spend , something that will counter it".
So it is out of question West Coast.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Odessit]

Thats pure, biased speculation on your part at best. The US military spends 73.2 billion dollars on Research and development alone, which is more then all of russias military spending, the US also has many of the worlds best and brightest minds. Need I continue?

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by Odessit
you obviously don't realize that Russians don't need to spend as much as US , and still produce equal if not superior weapons to counter. There is a saying in Russia, that US spend billions of dollars for these defense missiles and we will develop for 1/3 price of what Americans spend , something that will counter it".
So it is out of question West Coast.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Odessit]

Thats pure, biased speculation on your part at best. The US military spends 73.2 billion dollars on Research and development alone, which is more then all of russias military spending, the US also has many of the worlds best and brightest minds. Need I continue?

sorry but more like you are the one who's biased, it's been always like that, when US spends something over 10 billion on new defense missile, then Russia for example it takes 100 million to develop something that would make this defense obsolete, it is not biased opinion, my grandfather is in the Russian military at the research facility, so I would know more a bout it , than you would, sorry about that

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Odessit]

reply to post by Odessit

Could you please make an example of TWO of those famous "assymetric" responses that totally cancelled US project? Russia makes great weapons, so does US.
The money spent on project in US reflects (usualy ) it's quality.
The same everywhere in the world.
Ocasionally (once in ...) you can have a breakthrough
and achieve greater results than more funded side. Twice? Please provide examples.
Especially now these claims are somewhat weird because former Soviet sceintists work for both sides.
Also makes you wonder that with such wonderfull economy, Soviet Union lost in a cold war.



[edit on 14-2-2008 by ZeroKnowledge]

I don't want to be nuked. I don't want to be nuked. I don't want to be nuked. This is insane. Absolutely nuts. Why the hell are we doing this?

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Yeah, I'll give an example...what do you think the "missle defensive shield" is.....
Cold-war era nuclear inter-continental missiles have been countered by these systems (HAARP, also great for weather modification, contact with deep-sea subs, and more)

Russia took out the Challenger. The US was forced into accidentally taking down Columbia and we both have shot down satellites using these new emerging technologies. We are past nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and have moved on to stealth, anti-gravity propulsion, and light/sound/electromagnetic (directed-energy) technologies. Yes, I would have to agree with others, the US hasn't exactly been at the forefront of this shift. Hence, this is why we break all the treaties and won't sign new ones, we haven't had time to amuse ourselves with the new technology. So, sorry to burst your bubble (thinking USA #1) because we definetely are not the ones with the lowest budgets but greatest turnouts....

[edit on 14-2-2008 by percievedreality]

[edit on 14-2-2008 by percievedreality]

Originally posted by Odessit

sorry but more like you are the one who's biased, it's been always like that, when US spends something over 10 billion on new defense missile, then Russia for example it takes 100 million to develop something that would make this defense obsolete,

And yet you conveniently choose to not list any examples?

it is not biased opinion, my grandfather is in the Russian military at the research facility, so I would know more a bout it , than you would, sorry about that

Then you should be able to list examples and sources that supports your uncorroborated "claims".

PS. I'm waiting....


[edit on 14-2-2008 by West Coast]

reply to post by percievedreality


All "that" and those ruskies still lost the cold war?

Words cannot even describe how utterly ridiculous those claims are. A bunch of uncorroborated 'filth'.

Please, do me a favor and read the site motto, meantime, deny your own ignorance.




[edit on 14-2-2008 by West Coast]

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Yes, my bad for not listing examples earlier. Here is one, Iskander, was designed to overcome US missile defenses, the US gov feared it the most that even they created a treaty to ban this middle ranged missile.

www.globalsecurity.org...

SS-N-22 ‘Sunburn , is a carrier killer, and there is still no defense against it, and also there is nothing similar is made that comes close to it.

www.globalsecurity.org...

There wasn't much spend of these weapons, but they sure do put a threat to US which spend billions of dollars on their defenses and carriers.

wow a contest to see which country has the best killing technologies... these aren't good things and the sooner you understand that the better you and the human race will be.

blind nationalism

Originally posted by Odessit
Yes, my bad for not listing examples earlier. Here is one, Iskander, was designed to overcome US missile defenses,

Without knowing the full capabilities of US ABM defense systems..

the US gov feared it the most that even they created a treaty to ban this middle ranged missile.

Russia, China challenge US with proposal to ban space weapons

Why are they trying to ban the weaponization of space from the US? Is it fear?

www.globalsecurity.org...

SS-N-22 ‘Sunburn , is a carrier killer, and there is still no defense against it, and also there is nothing similar is made that comes close to it.

www.globalsecurity.org...

There wasn't much spend of these weapons, but they sure do put a threat to US which spend billions of dollars on their defenses and carriers.

The US never followed the treaties, neither has Russia. In fact, Ronald Reagen says so in some of his memoirs.

Carriers are absolutely massive as well, They could potentially house the ABM laser variant that is currently on the 787 (which is actually old tech compared to some of the much newer laser variants). The US is also developing ABM technology that uses lasers as the back bone of their defense systems. The Sunburn is not faster then the speed of light. DARPA already as plans to put laser ABMs on the US navy.

The US also will have rail guns adorning her ships, such as the DD(X) destroyer. Being able to shoot a projectile at the speed of MACH 7+, along with kinetic strike platforms orbiting the earth, with the potential to take out said targets within minutes, at the speed of a meteorite.



DARPA video

Google Video Link

video.google.com...

The above video explains perfectly, why Russia and china want to ban the weaponization of space.

They simply, cannot compete.

Russia cannot counter any of the above tech the US is and will be implementing on its forces in the coming decade. Many think that the US forces of 2020 will make russia, along with the rest of the worlds militarys, obsolete.


As one US general put it in regards to the United States view of Russia. "Russia is not an Ally, nor is it considered a United States adversary."



[edit on 15-2-2008 by West Coast]

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by Odessit
Yes, my bad for not listing examples earlier. Here is one, Iskander, was designed to overcome US missile defenses,

Without knowing the full capabilities of US ABM defense systems..

the US gov feared it the most that even they created a treaty to ban this middle ranged missile.

Russia, China challenge US with proposal to ban space weapons

Why are they trying to ban the weaponization of space from the US? Is it fear?

www.globalsecurity.org...

SS-N-22 ‘Sunburn , is a carrier killer, and there is still no defense against it, and also there is nothing similar is made that comes close to it.

www.globalsecurity.org...

There wasn't much spend of these weapons, but they sure do put a threat to US which spend billions of dollars on their defenses and carriers.

The US never followed the treaties, neither has Russia. In fact, Ronald Reagen says so in some of his memoirs.

Carriers are absolutely massive as well, They could potentially house the ABM laser variant that is currently on the 787 (which is actually old tech compared to some of the much newer laser variants). The US is also developing ABM technology that uses lasers as the back bone of their defense systems. The Sunburn is not faster then the speed of light. DARPA already as plans to put laser ABMs on the US navy.

The US also will have rail guns adorning her ships, such as the DD(X) destroyer. Being able to shoot a projectile at the speed of MACH 7+, along with kinetic strike platforms orbiting the earth, with the potential to take out said targets within minutes, at the speed of a meteorite.



DARPA video

Google Video Link

video.google.com...

The above video explains perfectly, why Russia and china want to ban the weaponization of space.

They simply, cannot compete.

Russia cannot counter any of the above tech the US is and will be implementing on its forces in the coming decade. Many think that the US forces of 2020 will make russia, along with the rest of the worlds militarys, obsolete.


As one US general put it in regards to the United States view of Russia. "Russia is not an Ally, nor is it considered a United States adversary."



[edit on 15-2-2008 by West Coast]

That's exactly what I am talking about , US thinks that they can ignore every country and own the space by themselves? This will not happen, not in million years. What a nonsense, do you really think Russia cannot compete? yES it can, and still does. Us will never make russian military obsele, that is in your dreams, this is biased opinion without unsupported facts, it will take another 20 years for US to develop laser that will actually penetrate through the Topol-M.
Topol-M designed to survive a hit from any laser technology
en.wikipedia.org...
More like US abm system is obsolete for another 20 years.

en.rian.ru...

The missile, with a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 kms), is said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill by the use of terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys.

It is also shielded against radiation, electromagnetic pulse, nuclear blasts at distances more than 500 meters (1,650 feet) away, and is designed to survive a hit from any form of laser technology.


It won't be hard for Russians to knock out american satellites from space.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by Odessit]