Russia May Boost Nuclear Potential - Deputy Defense Minister

Russia May Boost Nuclear Potential - Deputy Defense Minister

en.rian.ru

Russia may have to boost its nuclear potential in future amid emerging nuclear proliferation threats, Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s deputy defense minister and a negotiator on the European missile shield, said on Monday.
“New challenges emerge, including missile and nuclear proliferation. Look at how unstable the situation in the Middle East is. That’s why Russia’s military doctrine envisages the use of nuclear weapons in specific cases. I do not rule out than under certain circumstances we will have to boost, not cut, our nuclear arsenal,” Antonov said in an interview with the Kommersant daily.
He named the U.S. missile shield in Europe as a main threat to Russia’s security.
"The situation is dismal in this area. The U.S. continues to boost is missile defense potential in Europe and other regions. The European segment of the U.S. missile defense demonstrates aspirations to shift the strategic balance of forces in Europe. After the Cold War, U.S. strategic weapons - and missile defense is a strategic weapon - are getting closer to Russia’s borders,” Antonov said.
He also confirmed that Russian and U.S. missile defense talks have reached deadlock as U.S. cooperation proposals are vague and Russia’s participation in the project “is not even up for discussion.”
The deputy defense minister reiterated that Russia may quit the Russian-U.S. treaty on strategic arms reduction, signed in 2010.
“This is one of possible variants of our retaliation measures. We have warned about it beforehand,” he said.

edit on 5-2-2012 by concernedcitizen519 because: (no reason given)

I can't say I blame them, especially on the U.S. missile shield issue. Russia is being encircled and they see it and will not sit idly by when the red line is crossed. Medvedev has already stated that if the shield's go up that they will take them down, if not successful covertly they will send their own missiles to take action. The radar stations have already been put on active alert for Christ's sake, how many more warnings do we need?

en.rian.ru
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by concernedcitizen519


About time Russia spends another $5B to add 1000 Topol-Ms to its arsenal. Each Topol with 10 warheads would mean Russia can target 10,000 locations. 1000 nuclear multi warhead Topols alone can therefore destroy a whole continent, let alone a country of any size.

Unless Russia is planning on blowing up Mars, Venus, Mercury, and Jupiter, why the hell would they need more nukes?
Maybe they want to blow up Uranus as well?

Stinkin Ruskies! Can't trust em!

Wolverines!

reply to post by concernedcitizen519


Russia has had a larger Nuclear weapons stockpile.
If they want to spend more money on more Nukes good for them



I mean, How many times can one vaporize an entire country with Nukes before they will surrender?

This doesn't make Russia any more feared nor respected IMO.


PEACE

reply to post by SLAYER69


As of July 2009, Russia's strategic arsenal reportedly shrunk to 2,723 warheads, including: 367 ICBMs with 1,248 warheads, 13 SSBNs with 591 warheads and 76 bombers with 884 warheads
en.wikipedia.org...


The United States currently maintains an arsenal of 5,113 warheads[2][3] and facilities for their construction and design, though many of the Cold War facilities have since been deactivated and are sites for environmental remediation.

en.wikipedia.org...

USA still has nuclear superiority.

reply to post by concernedcitizen519


It's a great tactic, Russia foments anti-American sentiment, helps anti-American countries such as Syria and Iran, and then uses this as an excuse to increase its' arms production. Brilliantly done.

That's easy to do.

Just get out of the treaties.

Start putting 20-30 even 40 warheads/missile.

That is cheap and safeguards you from a first strike.

Also, put back the ``DEAD HAND`` on... (and make sure the US government knows it)

But the problem with increasing warheads per missile is that it makes the first strike a tempting option.

reply to post by Vitchilo


I heard "Perimeter" was still in place, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by concernedcitizen519

 

About time Russia spends another $5B to add 1000 Topol-Ms to its arsenal. Each Topol with 10 warheads would mean Russia can target 10,000 locations. 1000 nuclear multi warhead Topols alone can therefore destroy a whole continent, let alone a country of any size.

edit on 5-2-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

Yet I am sure America, who is trying to reduce the amount of nukes in the world is the bad guy. Good for Russian for needing more weapons to destroy entire continents? Sick world you live in my friend.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


blah blah. Russia is being surrounded by NATO so like what do you expect? Western NGO's meddle in elections. USA has laws against foreign interference in elections. We are making Russia paranoid.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Not only that Russia should place 1000 P-800-Onyx missile with atleast 10 kiloton nuclear warhead and also 500 Kh-55s which has long range of 3000Km also with nuke warhead...............all of these covertly in Cuba.

These would come real handy if US ABM system acts up against Russia in Europe.

reply to post by victor7


superplague or ebolapox warheads on the subsonic kh-55 will do pretty well. And I am certain that they are being deploying.These could be launched from Freight containers from Container ships.

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003


No wonder the commander of strategic rocket forces said that Russia can destroy US in 30 minutes. Vladimir Zhirnovsky said that Russia has capability of making continents disappear like a rock thrown into a pond.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by victor7

 

superplague or ebolapox warheads on the subsonic kh-55 will do pretty well. And I am certain that they are being deploying.These could be launched from Freight containers from Container ships.

Biological weapons are crap in a real war scenario.

But the USSR DID have a covert biological weapon program for decades and they were outed when one of their top scientist defected. (his family had suffered enough during WW2 and Stalin, he didn't want to use his knowledge for war, so when his bosses asked him to test bio-weapons on animals, that was the ``I can't take this anymore I defect`` thing)

reply to post by concernedcitizen519

Yeah it's definitely working, but it's not ``on``. They only put it on in time of crisis or when tensions are high.

And from all I have read on the subject (2 big books about it), most people (like 99.9%) in the US government never heard of it until very recently when it was made operational in 1986. I'm pretty sure if you were to ask Obama or maybe even Panetta about it right now, they wouldn't know what it is.

"may" boost arms?

I thought this was one of, if not the main, reasons why Russia was "protecting" Iran in the first place? To acquire more materials for more nukes?

The media world didn't know this??

It's so obvious to US Defense ministers that Russia admits it out loud, finally.
All the while hoping that it can use the Middle East as an excuse for their behavior that's been caught.

reply to post by Vitchilo


crap , you should check the official mortality time for superplague 4-8 hours(I believe its much lower like 1-2 hours).Fatality rate is 90-95% in first 8 hours . I don't know about the chimeras like ebolapox but they will be much worse.

That means that an entire continent could have extinction level event in 3-4 days. Just pray they don't use the chimera viruses and superplague type weapons. What USA is doing has already led Russia to unofficially alter its policy with relation to biological weapons.They have started deployment as a first strike weapon

Let them spend money on nukes. Nukes are the least of our worries. There other things out there , which have a 100 fold effect that nukes will have with little to no residue of the attack. Bam your dead , wtf just happened.

Environmental friendly doomsday.

Nukes are old school it seems as of late.

See there? That's just outright wrong. Russia is OK with Bio-weapons?

Pffht.

At least the US follows "war rules" set up by the United Nations and plays fair... no nukes, no germ warfare, etc...
Hell, we won't destroy anyone's homes or even damage their cities...

Now we might send over a few radiation missiles, but they aren't nukes? there's no no big boom to blow up or catch fire to anything. They're simply missiles that work by spreading, through multipliers, the nuclear fuel we're finished with. Everyone asks the US to share nuclear tech with them anyways. Technically, we're just giving them what they want, right...?

No rules broken, AND we'd be doing others a favor.
Killing them with kindness, even. Everyone wins!

reply to post by SoulVisions


You want to kill the enemy as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Bio-weapons are not for killing a countries military. It is for killing its population.

Most of the Russian government are on par with Iran's sick and twisted behavior.