Russia launches arms race with new intercontinental ballistic missile.

Originally posted by Violater1
I thought that our MIRV's were in Geo-stationary orbit around our targets. If the SHTF, they'll fall like a tonne of bricks from the sky. ETA to kill zone, less than 4 minutes.

That would mean all the targets were on the equator... and the mirv's would have to travel at 333540 mph

As it stands, the russias are working on the following..

R-36M (not R-36) which is the Satan, the older ICBM which will eventually be replaced.

New in construction...

RSM-56 Bulava - Still in testing - Submarine Launched

The NEW heavy ICBM is speculated to be the RSS 400 Kuryer which was not really stopped in the 1990's but carried on through the years, it may also carry the analogues of the US Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (X-41 HTV), it's also designed with satellite carrying capability.

reply to post by againuntodust

The Russian technology is inferior, as is the Chinese.

Yessireebob! Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin... them danged Russkies dont know squat about them thar space technologies! Them danged Chinese have only changed their society from feudal/agrarian to the world's most productive manufacturer, despite political ill-will from every developed nation except Russia, in the space of 1/2 a century. WTF do they know about technology?

We have the most money, the best everything, and the most of it

Perhaps you can explain how -3 + 2 = a positive number? You see, it comes down to that pesky figure that the USA has been releasing every year for decades called "The Trade Deficit". You know, that danged inconvenience of mathematics that the USA spends more on its imports than it earns from its exports: a lot more... every year.
Hmmm... Russia seem to be doing quite well out of selling gas to Europe & China are creaming it in selling manufactured goods to anyone with cash to pay, so much so that US Corps are falling over themselves to get out of the USA & invest in the far east. Whodathunkit?

and we won't even let anyone know about it, it's that good.

If you dont know that the least effective/profitable way to compete with another country is to actually fight them, read Sun Tzu (oops, a Chinese person... not that China could've possibly understood 1 of their own philosophers better than a Merkin, b/c with all that money y'all generate by spending more than you earn, it stands to reason that y'all get a much better education ). Then understand that deterance is only effective if its visible. I've no doubt that there are wild tech developments in places such as Area 51, but they aren't combat effective, b/c if they were, they'd be employed far more effectively as a disincentive to fight @all, ie by being known.

Hey, what do I know? I'm just a consarned BS doubter...

reply to post by princeofpeace

Indeed. Rods from god can take out a Russian silo before they can launch their nukes. Those are DU rods orbiting around the earth... which can be launched and when they land at a speed of 30-40-50k km/h, it should be quite an amazing sight.

And of course those weapons officially ``don't exist`` as they would violate a number of treaties.

Kinetic bombardment

reply to post by EricLintScD


Whats that Bob Dylan song called about putting yourself in somebody elses shoes? Anyway........

Surely it was NATO that started the new arms race by helping organise the demise of the USSR, then taking over the previous member states by making them part of the organisation. NATO took the piss after the end of the USSR. Instead of offering the hand of peace it made the Baltics states NATO members and sent 'advisers' to the borders of Russia. It tried the same with Ukraine recently, indeed NATO and the USA/British secret service helped out in all those coloured revolutions in the ex Warsaw Pact states and in the old USSR members too.

Imagine post 1991 if USA had broken up. Russia causes revolutions in Canada and Mexico then makes them members of the Warsaw Pact, then in the ex USA itself it makes a number of the states (say Texas, Florida, California) members too and sends them weapons and so called 'advisers' there.

Would the remnant remaining as the USA then develop some new kind of deterrence?

reply to post by EricLintScD


How exactly is it Russia that has started an arms race? What a crock of sh**!

Throughout the 1990's after the fall of the USSR, the Russians were dormant. Their military was in decay.
The United States on the other hand, which now had NO MAJOR ADVERSARY OR THREAT FROM ANY COUNTRY, continued it's military build up. It is continuing to this day.
We are seeing new and more advanced weapons fielded by the United States all the time, replacing obsolete equipment, ie modernization

What is going on in Russia is also a MODERNIZATION.
The Russian's have a more pressing need to modernize their armed forces. While they have a large military, and one that is capable of destroying everything in it's path with conventional weapons, a lot of their equipment is obsolete. More obsolete then the obsolete inventory of the USA.

That is why we are seeing the F22, the F35, the PAK-FA, the LCS ships, the new corvettes and frigates of the Russian navy as well as the Mistrals they are buying.

This "Russia is starting an arms race" because of a new type of missile that will replace old obsolete missiles, is scare mongering and sensationalism intended to create fear so they can justify spending more of your taxes on more weapons.

Every time the Russians(and now Chinese) build some new weapon, they are starting an arms race and pose a major threat, according to western media.
Every time our side builds some new weapon, it's to counter the threat.

I'm sure it's a similar story on their side to with their media.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I understand what you're saying. there is even a chance you may be correct. I don't believe your position though. The reason I don't, is because America spends more on their military budget than all of their state spending combined (health, education, infrastructure) combined. They spend more on their military than all countries in the world combined, China and Russia included. There are black budgets where billions of dollars of spending cannot be accounted for. There are trillions of dollars unaccounted for at the Pentagon. Our technology is commonly sold to China and Russia as "secrets", but I have a feeling we're just passing down the old stuff and keeping the new stuff to ourselves. For the "selling of secrets" reason alone, I can see justification of keeping military technology secret. I can not prove any of this but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The media has been harping on about Russia and China's military power for a long time, there are articles that go back to 2000 saying the same thing they're saying now. Journalists don't know the score, only our top military commanders know the score.

absence of evidence is evidence of absence until proven otherwise, in the mean time its just speculation, nothing factual.

Well they had to build something to counter THAAD, AEGIS, Arrow, Airborne Laser, Rods from God, Directed Energy weapons platforms in space, scramjet rockets, B2, X-37b, our nuclear propulsion space craft, plus all the black budget stuff we haven't even heard of yet.

We refused to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention and eliminate our chemical weapon stockpile.

The Russians better be building a whole lot more than a new missile. Our Defense Budget is more than every country on Earth combined.

I wouldn't be surprised if we had Starships (Project Orion). How's Russia going to compete with that?

Our blue/green lasers can now scan the ocean floors and see everything in it. We know exactly where they are in the world. Imagine if we had a weapon to beam neutrino's to their nuclear warhead and sped up the nuclear materials radioactive decay from millions of years to...5 minutes? The energy released would be astounding.

That's likely what we're working on now. We'd use their own nuclear warheads and zap them with neutrino beams to annihilate them without us needing to fire 1 rocket. Imagine using that weapon on people. 18 years old to 100 years old in 2 seconds..from rapid aging...increase decay process.

We'd control time itself.

Originally posted by zyrna539
I would hesitate to call Obama peaceful. He did decide to continue the pointless bloodsheds that are Aghanistan and Iraq. He hasn't made any move to fulfill his election campaign promis of removing the troops from Irag. Given that, he isn't as bad as Bush.

I can never understand how Americans can keep saying with a straight face that the war in Afghanistan is "pointless". Either they are utterly daft or they have been sleeping these last 10 years! Anybody remember 9/11 ? Sure the terrorists were Saudi's but the terrorist leaders were in Afghanistan supported by the Taliban.

The American public today is so dense that even our rightful acts of aggression against one of our biggest tragedies is being called "pointless". The American populace has become soft and craven and is too scared to accept major casualties or fight the good fight. Imagine if we had to fight the Korean War or World War 2 today ? Most of the American public will be whining about the casualties and calling these war's "pointless" as well!

Every time America has cut and run, we have left behind a colossal problem. The same thing is going to happen in Afghanistan after US troops pack up and leave!

reply to post by againuntodust


Hey genius, who says a large military budget = the most efficient military? Why do you think US military spending is so high? Because the military industrial corporations lobby the crap out of the US government and basically squeeze them out of funds.

US weapons are designed to make corporations money. Russian weapons are designed out of strategic/tactical necessity. Russia doesn't need to spend an insane amount of money on its military to be effective, especially when they already have combat-hardened troops that do just fine with the weapons that they already have.

By the way, modern Russian weapons are among the world's best. Want some examples? Look up BM-30 Smerch, SS-26 Iskander, RPO-A Shmel, AN-94, GM-94, etc etc. The difference between Russians and Americans is that the Russians still use their effective weaponry that already has a modern replacement deployed. The Americans don't, because they don't want their public to see them using so called "obsolete" weapons.

My point here is that in a real tactical engagement, it's not hard to expect what American troops will be armed with, but you'll have a hard time figuring out what the Russians will be coming at you with. It's called diversity.

Russians still deploy with RPG-7V too, despite the fact that it's over 50 years old and there's dozens of superior models deployed also. Why? Because it does its job.