US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba

You got a browser issue where its double posting?If not please stop posting the same junk over and over.You wasting space for no reason.

Originally posted by crusadors
Bombers in Cuba???? Like we wouldnt shoot them down before they got off the airstip! If we have the technology to shoot down orbiting satellites from the sea, we can hit an antiquated bomber 30 miles away.

Stationary satellites are one thing, supersonic bombers are another. Russian bombers fly faster than F-16s. They are hardly antiquated. Good luck shooting them down.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
It pisses them off because they know and we know that 6,000 of 6,050 Russian Nukes are useless because Haarp and a dozen other American projects revolve around the use of everything from Microwaves to Electromagnetics to knock out Icbms and a full shield is already in place.

Um, yeah. Whatever. en.wikipedia.org...

How about low flying missiles like the Sunburn then? What's HAARP gonna do?

reply to post by mopusvindictus

It pisses them off because they know and we know that 6,000 of 6,050 Russian Nukes are useless because Haarp and a dozen other American projects revolve around the use of everything from Microwaves to Electromagnetics to knock out Icbms and a full shield is already in place.

Where do you pull this crap from? Besides your ass obviously...

The HAARP Array in Alaska currently generates 3.6MW of energy. That's nowhere near enough to make a dent in a missile's electrical systems or throw it off course.

A thunderstorm generates 20 times that much, and missiles can still fly right through them without being affected.

America ain't the only one experimenting with meteorological weapons pal: english.pravda.ru...

HAARP is years away from becoming a reliable, practical offensive weapon, and the Russians are right behind you with developing these weapons.

So what the missile shield really represents is check mate, because if we can knock out their shielded missiles too... they have nothing

The missile shield is a latch ditch effort, it's the final bastion of defence in a Nuclear War not the first line.
That falls upon America's first and counter strike capabilities with it's silos and subs.

The Americans are fully aware that the new Russian ICBM's can play dodgeball with their missile shields and win:
www.military.com...

6000 or 50, not much matter in Nuclear war... 50 Missiles with multiple warheads would ruin all of Nato, including the US

Exactly so what's your point? Your just shooting yourself in the foot.

Even IF the Missile Shield say knocks out 50% of a Russian first strike which is a stretch by any standard that other 50% is enough to still decimate half the planet.

Your forgetting that the mainstay of Russia's nuclear arsenal, the R36's, the R-29's and the new Topol's all carry anything from 5 to 10 warheads..

So in a first strike consisting of say 300 missiles, America manages to take out 150 of them, that's still 150 left with a combined total of over 1000 warheads.
It makes the missile shields capabilities highly irrelevant because the Russians will swarm the skies with hundreds of missiles, and there's no conceivable way the US would be able to touch even half of them.

Citing some sources for your far-fetched theories would work wonders to improving your credibility. Just a thought


Also I take it you've never heard of Fractional Orbital Bombardment System the Russians developed with their R-36 missiles.
These things can circumvent the ABM Shield by heading off in the opposite direction (West) and then entering orbit around the Earth, getting into a prime position to attack the US from the South (which NORAD is not oriented towards) and then unleashing all hell:

Western estimates were that the orbital missile carried a one- to three-megaton warhead. Once placed into low-Earth orbit, the ICBM possessed unlimited range and the ability to approach the US from any direction, avoiding US northern-looking detection radars. This type of approach would give little or no warning that a warhead was inbound. The reentry vehicle came down in less than one revolution, hence the "fractional" orbit.

www.globalsecurity.org...


[edit on 29/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


Godfather, my apologies to you for the attacks and way i behaved with you on the weaponry thread 'Russia had laser cannons before USA'

I went a bit overboard , and lost my temper , have been having a bad time due to some reasons , i will not disclose ,

so my sincere apologies ,

any ways , could you rate my post on this thread :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

do please star it , if you feel its good and appriopate ...

Interesting find for all those still concerned with this topic:

www.defense-update.com...

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by alienstar

 

So America is the only country that can have deterrent capabilities against first strikes?

Russia is not allowed that luxury?

Quit acting like a self-appointed military analyst and be rational.

Sometimes the best defence is a good OFFENCE.

A missile shield, a bomber squadron... what's the difference?

Both of the two responses cripple a nation's chance to successfully launch a first strike.

The Missile Shield knocks out ICBM's in transit, the bomber patrols take out silos/bases where the US nukes originated from.

It's the same thing in principle. Please see that, because about 20 different people have told you this and you just ignored them.

What absolute rubbish this post is. There are vast differences between those bombers and the missile shield. The implications of that missile shield go far beyond anything those bombers are capable of. Moreover, those bombers would survive more than a few minutes in a shooting war if they were operated out of Cuba.

The only similarity between the missile defense system and these bombers, is that both would be based on territory considered sacrosanct and the opponent. In that context it would appear to be similar. The difference is the Russian system is not really credible as an offensive weapon system in this case nor is it survivable. Not to mention the potential for backfire is extremely high.

-DA

Originally posted by DarthAmerica



The implications of that missile shield go far beyond anything those bombers are capable of. Moreover, those bombers would survive more than a few minutes in a shooting war if they were operated out of Cuba.

The only similarity between the missile defense system and these bombers, is that both would be based on territory considered sacrosanct and the opponent. In that context it would appear to be similar. The difference is the Russian system is not really credible as an offensive weapon system in this case nor is it survivable. Not to mention the potential for backfire is extremely high.

-DA

All they need is a few minutes to launch a cruize missile it does not matter if they get shot down afterwards , job done. Either side has an equal credibility of destroying each other and the rest of the world if they deside so, heck they will be left enough missile for WWIV

[edit on 30-7-2008 by Russian Boy]

reply to post by Russian Boy


Sorry there would never been a WW3.First launch from even a single missile would result in a retaliatory by many missiles.Either way u can't win a nuclear war.So what your nukes have a bigger payload and would strike outside a city.Ours are more accurate with a smaller payload making sure it hits its target.Either way nobody wins.

reply to post by alienstar

So what your nukes have a bigger payload and would strike outside a city.Ours are more accurate with a smaller payload making sure it hits its target.

Yeah maybe in 1961.

Nowadays there's little difference. American and Russian ICBM's are both guided by triple redundant guidance systems comprised of satellites, global positioning and radio waves...

Some missiles, like the Russian Iskander-E can hit to within a 20 metre radius of a target.
In Nuclear Warfare that makes absolutely no difference.

Trust me accuracy is far from being an issue these days.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Some missiles, like the Russian Iskander-E can hit to within a 20 metre radius of a target.
In Nuclear Warfare that makes absolutely no difference.

Trust me accuracy is far from being an issue these days.

I've always wondered why they work to get a nuke within 20 meters of the target? Heck, a mile would be just fine!

Neither country is innocent in this current climate and both are guilty of ratcheting up the rhetoric. For sure there is more to this than is being released to the media.

I'm no military expert, but what are the capabilities of this misslie shield and radar? Can it neutralise Russians deterant? Does the techonology proposed excede that of the Russians? IF not, then i can't see why Russia would seem too bothered other than exploiting the US' current weakness in world opinion to further vilify the americans for its own gain...

My argument however is, why cant these 2 countries work together, this would surely be of more benefit to all those concerned. The cold war is finished, different ideologies now exist in Russia, closer to that of the US. The same goes for the UK who arguably have worse relations with the Russians than the US. Lets extend our hand to befriend our Russian friends, working together we can achieve and will serve the best interests of both parties and its people...

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


actually it `funny` really that in 2008 , we have thw opposite of 30 years ago - the USA has to aim 2 warheads per russian icbm silo to hard kill it - as 1 of even the accurate is not guarenteed to hard kill the silo , since russia have been developing `super hard` silo`s for along time now.

reply to post by jerico65

I've always wondered why they work to get a nuke within 20 meters of the target? Heck, a mile would be just fine!

For a city, sure.

For a silo? Hell the guys inside probably wouldn't feel a thing if the Nuke was a mile off.

reply to post by Harlequin


That's nothing to do with accuracy, simply to do with how reinforced Silos have become.

Especially underground installations. Apparently Russia's huge Yamantau complex can resist 10 direct hits from Nuclear weapons and still survive intact:
www.globalsecurity.org...

As offensive capabilities advance so do defensive capabilities.

Originally posted by Russian Boy

Originally posted by DarthAmerica



The implications of that missile shield go far beyond anything those bombers are capable of. Moreover, those bombers would survive more than a few minutes in a shooting war if they were operated out of Cuba.

The only similarity between the missile defense system and these bombers, is that both would be based on territory considered sacrosanct and the opponent. In that context it would appear to be similar. The difference is the Russian system is not really credible as an offensive weapon system in this case nor is it survivable. Not to mention the potential for backfire is extremely high.

-DA

All they need is a few minutes to launch a cruize missile it does not matter if they get shot down afterwards , job done. Either side has an equal credibility of destroying each other and the rest of the world if they deside so, heck they will be left enough missile for WWIV

[edit on 30-7-2008 by Russian Boy]

Russian Boy,

Your statement is wildly mistaken. The job is not done after missile launch. The Russians would have to get the planes airborne and fire the missiles without detection otherwise there will be many dozens of fighters hunting the missiles as well as SAMs. The Russian bombers and their bases would be obliterated. And in all likelihood, Russia would be facing retaliatory strikes. The US is far more survivable and would be able to respond far out of proportion. It would be several simultaneous Hurricane Katrina sized disasters for the USA, the end of Russia as a nation for them.

-DA

reply to post by DarthAmerica


A few corrections:

ire the missiles without detection otherwise there will be many dozens of fighters hunting the missiles as well as SAMs.

Fighters don't hunt missiles, they hunt planes. They're too slow to chase after Mach 5 or 6 cruise missiles and have no way of taking them down.

SOME S2A Batteries and SAM's can hunt missiles, but even then their chances of success aren't too high when dealing with supersonic cruise missiles.

SAMs also figuratively speaking, don't "hunt", they simply "watch" and wait for a bogey to come into their radar nest so they can lock on and take him out and that all depends on the missile coming by their neck of the woods which it may or may not.

The focus is always on deterrence not kill probability. Hunting ICBM's and Nukes already in the air is a pointless exercise.

You want to stop them from being successfully launched in the first place and that means air superiority.

Even if you manage to take out 90% of the missiles, that remaining 10% is still enough to make Hiroshima look like a firecracker.

without detection otherwise there will be many dozens of fighters hunting the missiles as well as SAMs.

Detection doesn't equal compromise.
Just because a patrol of F-16's can see a Russian Kh-22P Nuclear cruise missile heading for a airfield doesn't mean they can do much about it. (Apart from ring home and say: "You guys have got some trouble headed your way.")

It travels at over Mach 4; there's no interceptors in the US arsenal that can travel that fast (that we know of), nor are there any anti-missile missiles that can take it out about from maybe a Patriot (Mach 3) but it would have be launched from a frontal intercept position and very early, which would probably be difficult.

Detection is one thing; that's easy. US Airborne warning radars will pick up missiles hundred's of miles before they enter US airspace.

But interception is not always possible.

The Russian bombers and their bases would be obliterated.

The bombers most probably would be, the bases? That depends on whether a counter strike is even authorised.

That's not always the means of response. Sometimes it's disproportionate and maybe the US would feel taking out a Russian city is an appropriate reaction to deter further attacks.

Or maybe they would go straight for balls the and try to take out Russian ground silos?

And in all likelihood, Russia would be facing retaliatory strikes.

Don't mean to be crude, but no sh*t.

Nobody isn't doubting that America would sit there and take missiles up the tailpipe without doing anything...

But as for response? That's anybody's guess.

The US is far more survivable and would be able to respond far out of proportion.

Don't be so sure.

A massive first strike consisting of 200 missiles (that's well over 1000 warheads) is enough to wipe out all of America's chances of successfully launching a complete retaliatory second strike that could cripple Russia.

Of course that depends on the element of surprise and that's hard to pull off these days with satellites watching every step the Russian army takes literally but nevertheless the Russians still easily possess the ability to wipe out most of America's nuclear offensive capabilities.

It's the submarines that would still possess second strike capability but obviously nowhere near the magnitude America's silos could deliver.

It would be several simultaneous Hurricane Katrina sized disasters for the USA, the end of Russia as a nation for them.

You take a look a map recently?

Russia's got big wide gaps between it's major urban areas and not to mention it's silos and most important military installations are located in very remote areas.

America is far more centralised. Look at the New York Metropolitan area for example, a 10 Megaton blast right over NYC would render most of the state a no-go zone for decades to come.

Not to mention, Russia has a huge fleet of mobile strategic missile forces in addition to their silos which the US lacks.
The ones that look like this:

They're highly mobile, can be easily hidden and are very advanced. Easily having the range and accuracy to hit all of the continental US.
Even if the silos were neutralised, these could pose a great danger to American cities and aren't so easy to find.

Besides if Russia ever seriously considered a first strike, they know full well their chances of success depend on them being able to take out all of the American ground-based silos.

So I doubt they'd sneak one missile into the US and then call it a day. That's a stupid scenario to begin with.

Originally posted by jetxnet
The Russian's would be very dumb to Nuke or threaten a Nuclear assault on the US.

Unless they are confident that they can win? Something like the Bush invasion of Iraq?

They know full-well our Nuclear Subs would be on stand-by to turn the Continent into glass.

What did the poor Europeans do to deserve that and wouldn't the fact that the Russians have for decades deployed a variety of active and passive ABM defenses at this point make a significant impact? Do you want to guess what they spent money on in the 90's when they pretended to have non? Right...

However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...

And there are a good many more if your interested to prove the point.

Russia is trying to put pressure on the US in fear that the US is going to attack Iran. The US won't have to as Israel will probably do that anyway.

Israel doesn't have the means to stage a airial war against Iran without help. The US might attack Iran but that will in my opinion probably only happen if oil prices fall back to the 30-50 dollar range with the Iraq issue being closed. There is no way the US can attack Iran from the air without expecting retaliation on the ground. Since the majority of both the active and reserve units of the US army have been stuck in the mess of Iraq for five years now there just isn't enough spare capacity to start a war with Iran you will have no way of finishing without having your rear horribly exposed in many other corners of the world.

The Star Wars missle defense is what killed the Russian economy trying to keep up that. The result was the break-up of Russia.

Well it's ironic that you would bring it up given how it's the existence of a Russian 'star wars' defense system that forced Reagan and others to attempt to catch up! How that would bankrupt the USSR i don't know and neither did any of the US intelligence agencies when they were caught as completely by surprise by the 'collapse' as anyone else. It couldn't have been predicted because it didn't stem from any obvious causes!

Good thing China hasn't started throwing their weight around yet by moving into Eastern Russia for Oil and mineral resources. Russia will be looking to the US for support.

The Russians holds the whip and the Chinese got a lesson in 'diplomacy' , Russian style, back in 1976 when they were made to pay for choosing to provide the US with support bases for strikes on the USSR.

Stellar

[edit on 2-8-2008 by StellarX]

"We OWN the world" Noam Chomsky
NPR then had a discussion -- it was like being at the Harvard faculty club -- serious people, educated, no grammatical errors, who know what they're talking about, usually polite.
The discussion was about the so-called missile defense system that the U.S. is trying to place in Czechoslovakia and Poland -- and the Russian reaction. The main issue was, "What is going on with the Russians? Why are they acting so hostile and irrational? Are they trying to start a new Cold War? There is something wrong with those guys. Can we calm them down and make them less paranoid?"
The main specialist they called in, I think from the Pentagon or somewhere, pointed out, accurately, that a missile defense system is essentially a first-strike weapon. That is well known by strategic analysts on all sides. If you think about it for a minute, it's obvious why. A missile defense system is never going to stop a first strike, but it could, in principle, if it ever worked, stop a retaliatory strike.
If you attack some country with a first strike, and practically wipe it out, if you have a missile defense system, and prevent them from retaliating, then you would be protected, or partially protected. If a country has a functioning missile defense system it will have more options for carrying out a first strike. Okay, obvious, and not a secret. It's known to every strategic analyst. I can explain it to my grandchildren in two minutes and they understand it. So on NPR it is agreed that a missile defense system is a first-strike weapon.
But then comes the second part of the discussion. Well, say the pundits, the Russians should not be worried about this. For one thing because it's not enough of a system to stop their retaliation, so therefore it's not yet a first-strike weapon against them. Then they said it is kind of irrelevant anyway because it is directed against Iran, not against Russia. Okay, that was the end of the discussion.
So, point one, missile defense is a first-strike weapon; second, it's directed against Iran. Now, you can carry out a small exercise in logic. Does anything follow from those two assumptions? Yes, what follows is it's a first-strike weapon against Iran. Since the U.S. owns the world what could be wrong with having a first-strike weapon against Iran. So the conclusion is not mentioned. It is not necessary. It follows from the fact that we own the world.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

A few corrections:

I appreciate the response but your corrections are inaccurate. The USAF has two fighters optimized for cruise missile defense and the USN has one. All three of these fighters can intercept Russian missiles. Not to mention USN ships and U.S. Army SAMs. Also, by hunt, I don't mean flying around "hoping" to find a cruise missile. Air avenues of approach are watched for inbounds. Also, the USA has been equipped to deal with supersonic cruise missiles for decades and it is nothing new except on the internet where the mere mention of the word supersonic before cruise missile makes people hyperventilate. This is going to be an intel fight and the Russians would be at a very huge tactical disadvantage.

With regard to a counter force strike on American silos, Russia does not have the capability period. The silos would be empty in addition to the fact that Russian missiles aren't accurate enough to reliably destroy them. The American arsenal on the other hand is much more accurate, reliable and has he ISR capability to go after the Russian critical nodes.

With regard to mobile missiles, and SSBNs. Just a single surviving SSBN is enough to retaliate on Russia. Just one is all it takes. After it's payload is delivered, the cost to the Russians would be unacceptable and their government would probably cease to function coherently right then and there.

And I don't have any illusions about going after mobile ICBMs. I agree that they are very hard to target BUT it is a capability that we do have. Would we get some of them, yes. All, no. Enough, I don't think so. Enough to have meaningful results, yes. We can expand on this if necessary.

Oh, and your assessment of the effects of nuclear weapons is not accurate. Increasing to 10 megatons is not really all that effective. Why do you think most weapons have yields in the low hundreds of kilotons? It's because we have found out that increasing yield is a poor way to increase the damage radius. Many small warheads is a more effective method compared to high yield if the intent is to damage a larger area.

Be careful not to get too enamored with Russian weapons. They are good, but not as good as is often suggested on the internet.

reply to post by DarthAmerica

Also, the USA has been equipped to deal with supersonic cruise missiles for decades and it is nothing new except on the internet where the mere mention of the word supersonic before cruise missile makes people hyperventilate. This is going to be an intel fight and the Russians would be at a very huge tactical disadvantage.

BS...

USA does not have any against hypersonic anti-ship missiles and barely has defences against supersonic ones with exception of ESSM/SM system, but these cannot fend off against a multi supersonic missile strike
in fact in 90's aegis system failed all its tests against the supersonic kh-31 missile , which is not even as capable as Moskit/Klub/Yakhonts ASCMs

heres what Mr.Samuel Cohen(neutron bomb inventor) has to say :

The U.S. Navy depends on AEGIS missile defense systems to protect its fleets, but Cohen said AEGIS has failed all of its tests, and there is no proof that it could fend off a multi-missile strike against a fleet, let alone a country. Cohen said the U.S. Navy should put more resources into nuclear-powered submarines because of the difficulty any enemy might have in destroying them in a first strike
www.manuelsweb.com...

In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Sunburn. Fisher reported that the Sunburn is capable of a dive speed of nearly 3000 miles an hour, helping it evade U.S. naval defenses.

"The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy.

"The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Sunburn, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution - not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750 lb. warhead."
archive.newsmax.com...

and on russian icbm accuracy, SS-18 mod 6 has a accuracy 220 meters , and RS-24 and topolm are sufficiently accurate, also the erstwhile SS-25 had a accurcy of 185 m

[edit on 3-8-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 3-8-2008 by manson_322]