PDA

View Full Version : Russia Boasts Weapon to Battle Star Wars



Navid
03-29-2004, 06:53 PM
My question is in the article it states that it could be a hypersonic cruise missile.. well the question is can a hypersonic cruise missile be a replacement for ballastic missiles.. i think cruise missiles although very usefull have there limites.. any oponions on this?

ps: to that albanaina piece of ****.. DONT POST IN THIS THREAD i dont want it locked.. i dont give a crap about ur thoughts about russia or serbia or ksovo.. STAY OUT YOU TERRORIST..

Russia Boasts Weapon to Battle Star WarsBy VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
.c The Associated Press

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia has designed a ``revolutionary'' weapon that would make the prospective U.S. missile defense useless, Russian news agencies reported Monday, quoting a senior Defense Ministry official.

The official, who was not identified by name, said tests conducted during last month's military maneuvers would dramatically change the philosophy behind development of Russia's nuclear forces, the Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies reported.

If deployed, the new weapon would take the value of any U.S. missile shield to ``zero,'' the news agencies quoted the official as saying.

The official said the new weapon would be inexpensive, providing an ``asymmetric answer'' to U.S. missile defenses, which are proving extremely costly to develope.

Russia, meanwhile, also has continued research in prospective missile defenses and has an edge in some areas compared to other nations, the official said.

The statement reported Monday was in line with claims by President Vladimir Putin's that experiments performed during last month's maneuvers proved that Russia could soon build strategic weapons that could puncture any missile-defense system.

At the time, Col-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, explained that the military tested a ``hypersonic flying vehicle'' that was able to maneuver between space and the earth's atmosphere.

Military analysts said that the mysterious new weapons could be a maneuverable ballistic missile warhead or a hypersonic cruise missile.

While Putin said the development of such new weapons wasn't aimed against the United States, most observers viewed the move as Moscow's retaliation to the U.S. missile defense plans.

After years of vociferous protests, Russia reacted calmly when Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 in order to develop of a nationwide missile shield. But U.S.-Russian relations have soured again lately, and Moscow has complained about Washington's plans to build new low-yield nuclear weapons.



03/29/04 09:19 EST


Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

DPGLAW
03-29-2004, 07:36 PM
I think that their new weapon is probably just a plan to throw rocks at America.....they probably wouldn't get stopped by our missle shield. Somehow I can't fathom Russia having the ability to defeat out military systems.....

George W. Bush
03-29-2004, 07:38 PM
ps: to that albanaina piece of ****.. DONT POST IN THIS THREAD i dont want it locked.. i dont give a crap about ur thoughts about russia or serbia or ksovo.. STAY OUT YOU TERRORIST..

Are you 12 years old?

MaDuce
03-29-2004, 07:44 PM
http://www.thouck.com/uf/gallery/russia.jpg

Nizark
03-29-2004, 08:49 PM
soooo Russia can build a hypersonic missile to get through a non existant missile defense, but they can't launch a simple missile from a sub when putin is watching towards a test range?

George W. Bush
03-29-2004, 08:52 PM
How can Russia afford this?

RomanS
03-29-2004, 08:55 PM
Vodka and Chebureki sales are boosting the economy

Rilence
03-29-2004, 08:58 PM
:roll:

Yard Ape
03-29-2004, 09:24 PM
The official said the new weapon would be inexpensive, providing an "asymmetric answer'' to U.S. missile defenses, which are proving extremely costly to develope.
Military analysts said that the mysterious new weapons could be a maneuverable ballistic missile warhead or a hypersonic cruise missile. These descriptions do not seem to agree.

Kenshin
03-29-2004, 09:27 PM
Mysterious weapon BS. If this is true then where is it? Has there been a media coverage of the test? This is just too much vodka.

StukaJr
03-29-2004, 09:58 PM
Well, when you have a BS non-existent weapon system like "Star Wars" why would you need a real weapon system to combat it? rofl

Minjin
03-29-2004, 10:26 PM
How can Russia afford this?

The same way they afford all their military goodies...by not using their money to feed their citizens.

Russian Texan
03-29-2004, 10:33 PM
Actually it is more than a month old news.
The test happened during the same exercise when Northern fleet sub failed to launch ICBM but it did't make the "news" because it was a success.
The missile is capable of zig-zaging and evading whatever at Mach 6, it was mentioned that it will be fielded in 2008.
Obviously it is great achievement but Russia can do without it: SS18s and other missiles with MREVs and decoys are more than sufficient to penetrate any hypothetical "shield".
In my opinion tax money would be much better spend on "interceptor" body armor for GIs than on "mad science" project.
My understanding is that it is an old project that was resumed after US unilaterally abandoned ABM treaty.
The first weapons race had put a man in space, will see what happens now...

Russian Texan
03-29-2004, 10:48 PM
How can Russia afford this?
You are looking at it from a typical westerner point of view and that is where your downfall is.
Russian reserch and hardware cost a fraction of its western analogs. Besides, Russian scientists are known for finding cheap but not always elegant solutions to very expensive problems...


Also here is the "NewsFlash": Russia's economy is on the rise, last year I believe it was 8%.

It amazes me that people still think of Russia in terms of early ninenties, a lot has changed and changing everyday, I am even considering applying for a job there ;)

SeanAshi
03-29-2004, 10:56 PM
Americas secret weapon
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=krispy+kreme/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.riceepicurean.com/epic_dept/images/krispy_kreme.jpg

Midav
03-30-2004, 02:58 AM
The shield isn't designed to stop a massive ICBM attack in the first place, hence Russia, China and the like.

Not worried there if Russia designed something to stop the shield.

However, they start exporting the stuff, then we'll just have to make a better shield then.

Kingpin
03-30-2004, 03:05 AM
Americas secret weapon
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=krispy+kreme/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.riceepicurean.com/epic_dept/images/krispy_kreme.jpg

Sorry pal, all american food is a ****. :) I checked this :)

Mr Gently Benevolent
03-30-2004, 03:22 AM
I for one would not doubt for a minute the sophistication of Russia's weapons program, they do produce top of the line gear and do it fairly cheaply although with increasing privatisation in Russia this may not be possible for much longer. Remember Sputnik and the fuss that caused in the West, with Russia's 7% economic growth every year there could be more money to spend on military projects.

wholagun
03-30-2004, 04:01 AM
Man i wish we had Krispy Kream in more cities here in Canada. Tim Horton's coffee and Krispy Kream donuts are a deadly mix, together they are an amazing mix. I just wish there was more Krispy Kream donuts locations in Canada. :petting:

MCWARPIG
03-30-2004, 08:28 AM
Just to keep things in perspective.. again. Anyone here aware of how the powers tend to leak this kind of stuff to the media? I mean, back in the 80's Russia had undergroung missle silos thinking that we couldn't see them from space or spy planes. Later, a documentary on the underground water systems in the Amazon shows maps that were created by the aid of US government satelites. Satelites, that saw underground. Russia had to make their nukes mobile then.
Same with the "star wars" crap. If the Russians say they have technology that makes star wars obsolete, that Program has to justify itself to the public. If funding for it is threatened then it slows the program. So, even if the new Russian superfasthypermegaultramissle is bull5hit, it still can do damage to the US program.
Just a question anyone who thinks out there. If the public knows about a "star wars" program, isn't it safe to say that there is something a little more radical probably operating already? And, if this technology can target and kill cruise missles from space, think it can reach out and touch targets on the ground? Just a thought technology moves extremely fast right now, I wouldn't doubt if there are some really radical leaps in weapons and defense technology that we have not seen.

Fox2
03-30-2004, 08:46 AM
Now all I need is some sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads!


Headline next morning:

Russia announces it has deployed nuclear trout which is invulnerable to US laser beam sharks


This is what I am like without my morning coffee...

Lysander
03-30-2004, 10:14 AM
Well, when you have a BS non-existent weapon system like "Star Wars" why would you need a real weapon system to combat it? rofl

Nicley said. rofl rofl




How can Russia afford this?
You are looking at it from a typical westerner point of view and that is where your downfall is.
Russian reserch and hardware cost a fraction of its western analogs. Besides, Russian scientists are known for finding cheap but not always elegant solutions to very expensive problems...


Also here is the "NewsFlash": Russia's economy is on the rise, last year I believe it was 8%.

It amazes me that people still think of Russia in terms of early ninenties, a lot has changed and changing everyday, I am even considering applying for a job there ;)


"Russian scientists are known for finding cheap but not always elegant solutions to very expensive problems..."

I read somewhere that during the Space Race, the US spent a ton of money on a pen that could be used in space. It was a neat little invention. It could write in any position and the insert was made in such a way that the zero gravity did not have an effect on the pen. It is still for sale today, the Space Pen (@$20). The Russians, on the other hand, had something that was not as elegenat, but it too was not affected by zero gravity and could also write in any positon. This item is also for sale even to this day...it was a pencil (@.59c).

MCWARPIG
03-30-2004, 10:40 AM
[quote=StukaJr]Well, when you have a BS non-existent weapon system like "Star Wars" why would you need a real weapon system to combat it? rofl

Nicley said. rofl rofl

Keep thinking that. Maybe the program is non-existant. Funny how so many people are keeping quiet about a non-existant program.
Good thing though. If the international community felt the US had weapons in orbit that could reach out and touch them from space.. the paranoia would be incredible.

Zmey
03-31-2004, 03:39 AM
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=krispy+kreme/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.riceepicurean.com/epic_dept/images/krispy_kreme.jpg

So the secret American weapon is Krispy Kream doughnuts that are marketed as bagels? Cunning.

pridurki.

Z.S.

flickme
03-31-2004, 09:05 AM
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts are SOOOO good! I could eat a dozen of them in one sitting. :P

Some Guy
03-31-2004, 09:07 AM
"zig-zag" at mach 6?
You know- ABM interceptors like the ones deploying in AK do their business pretty close to the target- If you're a re-entry vehicle plowing your way back into the atmosphere at several thousand MPH, you can't exactly spin the steering wheel without breaking up- The problem isn't being able to turn, its about being able to turn without becoming vapor as a result. On top of that, once you've dodged the bullet, you're going to turn again and hit your target?
No. No you're not.

Remember- Moscow has had ABM for a very long time- solutions like the one described have been considered and rejected long ago.

Russian Texan
03-31-2004, 12:18 PM
Perhaps I did not explain it correctly: it is capable of "zig-zaging" at mach 6 on its final approach, after it re-enters atmosphere.
If you care, here is the article in Russian which I used as a source - use online translator

http://www.gazeta.ru/print/2004/02/19/oa_112610.shtml

2Sheds_Jackson
03-31-2004, 02:00 PM
If Russians are content to fund a system designed to beat missile defense, then they're being misled.

As been mentioned by Midav, the defense system is only designed to defend against 1 or 2 missiles fired from a rogue nation or terrorist group. Any proposed US system can be easily overcome by an attack from a major power.

The Russians funding the program should be asking some informed questions rather than succumbing to this kind of Cold War era rhetoric. Their government & military complex spent the country in to ruin once. The Russian people deserve better than to be led down that road again.

RomanS
03-31-2004, 02:04 PM
If Russians are content to fund a system designed to beat missile defense, then they're being misled.

As been mentioned by Midav, the defense system is only designed to defend against 1 or 2 missiles fired from a rogue nation or terrorist group. Any proposed US system can be easily overcome by an attack from a major power.

The Russians funding the program should be asking some informed questions rather than succumbing to this kind of Cold War era rhetoric. Their government & military complex spent the country in to ruin once. The Russian people deserve better than to be led down that road again.

Sorry buddy
have to disagree there.

Americans develop anti-missle defence, and lets say they accomplish it. Than they can do whatever they want.

It is much better when you have a John Woo style standoff in the world. This way both powers respect eachother equally. Gotta have that balance on earth right?

GazB
04-01-2004, 06:24 AM
The same way they afford all their military goodies...by not using their money to feed their citizens.

Of course, it is the role of the government in a democratic society to feed its people.

what planet are you from buddy?


I mean, back in the 80's Russia had undergroung missle silos thinking that we couldn't see them from space or spy planes.

Ummm Bull****. Back since they were all built silos have 300 tonne lumps of concrete slabs that slide open to let the missile launch... they are in great field surrounded by barbed wire and are out in the middle of nowhere. Even the best radars that see through soil that are being used to search for mines and rivers can't see through the tens of metres of steel reinforced concrete that silos are made of... they couldn't tell if there is a missile in them or not.


Satelites, that saw underground. Russia had to make their nukes mobile then.

Whipty doo. What difference would it make if the Russians gave precise data on where all their nuclear weapons silos are... you you really think that by the time the US ballistic missiles got there the silos would contain anything?


If the public knows about a "star wars" program, isn't it safe to say that there is something a little more radical probably operating already?

The Star wars program as you call it started and stopped in the 1980s and was horribly expensive and led to very little that was useful for space based systems. The airborne laser was a development from one of the technologies that was explored for star wars, but I doubt the US will get a 747 within 2,000km of a Russian ICBM field let alone the 300km it needs to do anything to the missiles as they climb.


And, if this technology can target and kill cruise missles from space, think it can reach out and touch targets on the ground?

It can't.

The problem is the atmosphere. Most of the space based systems that were worked on for star wars were either detection systems or designed to attack warheads in space.


If the international community felt the US had weapons in orbit that could reach out and touch them from space.. the paranoia would be incredible.

Then the US would definitely keep such a thing a secret as there is a treaty banning the stationing of weapon systems in space.


The problem isn't being able to turn, its about being able to turn without becoming vapor as a result. On top of that, once you've dodged the bullet, you're going to turn again and hit your target?


At the speeds we are talking about they aren't in the "air" very long... maybe 2 seconds. MARV warheads aren't new and mach 6 is actually incredibly slow. The S-300V is a manouvering surface to air missile system that can engage targets flying at up to mach 9. The S-300V, also known as SA-12 has been in Russian service for almost 25 years now.


Any proposed US system can be easily overcome by an attack from a major power.

Wrong.

The currently proposed system can be easily overcome but if the technology is successful it could be expanded and upgraded to extend the coverage and ability. Not looking at alternatives to defeat it now would be the height of incompetance on the part of the Russians. The odds are that a manouvering missile will be no where near as expensive as the system needed to stop it.

MCWARPIG
04-01-2004, 07:59 AM
The same way they afford all their military goodies...by not using their money to feed their citizens.

Of course, it is the role of the government in a democratic society to feed its people.

what planet are you from buddy?


I mean, back in the 80's Russia had undergroung missle silos thinking that we couldn't see them from space or spy planes.

Ummm Bull****. Back since they were all built silos have 300 tonne lumps of concrete slabs that slide open to let the missile launch... they are in great field surrounded by barbed wire and are out in the middle of nowhere. Even the best radars that see through soil that are being used to search for mines and rivers can't see through the tens of metres of steel reinforced concrete that silos are made of... they couldn't tell if there is a missile in them or not.


Satelites, that saw underground. Russia had to make their nukes mobile then.

Whipty doo. What difference would it make if the Russians gave precise data on where all their nuclear weapons silos are... you you really think that by the time the US ballistic missiles got there the silos would contain anything?


If the public knows about a "star wars" program, isn't it safe to say that there is something a little more radical probably operating already?

The Star wars program as you call it started and stopped in the 1980s and was horribly expensive and led to very little that was useful for space based systems. The airborne laser was a development from one of the technologies that was explored for star wars, but I doubt the US will get a 747 within 2,000km of a Russian ICBM field let alone the 300km it needs to do anything to the missiles as they climb.


And, if this technology can target and kill cruise missles from space, think it can reach out and touch targets on the ground?

It can't.

The problem is the atmosphere. Most of the space based systems that were worked on for star wars were either detection systems or designed to attack warheads in space.


If the international community felt the US had weapons in orbit that could reach out and touch them from space.. the paranoia would be incredible.

Then the US would definitely keep such a thing a secret as there is a treaty banning the stationing of weapon systems in space.


The problem isn't being able to turn, its about being able to turn without becoming vapor as a result. On top of that, once you've dodged the bullet, you're going to turn again and hit your target?


At the speeds we are talking about they aren't in the "air" very long... maybe 2 seconds. MARV warheads aren't new and mach 6 is actually incredibly slow. The S-300V is a manouvering surface to air missile system that can engage targets flying at up to mach 9. The S-300V, also known as SA-12 has been in Russian service for almost 25 years now.


Any proposed US system can be easily overcome by an attack from a major power.

Wrong.

The currently proposed system can be easily overcome but if the technology is successful it could be expanded and upgraded to extend the coverage and ability. Not looking at alternatives to defeat it now would be the height of incompetance on the part of the Russians. The odds are that a manouvering missile will be no where near as expensive as the system needed to stop it.

Trust me boss... the Star Wars stuff was publicly a failure. But missle defense has been moving along pretty well. If you think there isn't a technology that can reach out from space and hit a target on the ground.. well then I am ok with that.
With this kind of technology, what the public knows about it is pretty out dated or is false.
Let's just say, that I work for a government contract company. We are either competing or on a team with the likes of Boeing, NASA, Lockheed Martin, Genera Dynamics, etc.. depending on what project. I also have friends and relatives that work for similar companies. Go to get togethers, barbeques, and functions in these kinds of circles and you pick stuff up. Engineers aren't usually good at typical small talk so work seems to bubble up more often. I am not gonna tell you I know something. The opposite is true... I find that I (as most of the world) am more in the dark than I realize. I think I am more comfortable not knowing about some of this stuff.

Some Guy
04-01-2004, 08:05 AM
Perhaps I did not explain it correctly: it is capable of "zig-zaging" at mach 6 on its final approach, after it re-enters atmosphere.
If you care, here is the article in Russian which I used as a source - use online translator

http://www.gazeta.ru/print/2004/02/19/oa_112610.shtml

No- I gotcha the first time- You see, when they say it can "zig-zag" at mach 6 they are "Ly-ing"

Again- go slowly here- picture two interceptors going up with a few seconds between- this nuke is going to dodge once, twice and then get back on track to hit its target? At mach 6?

Debating this is like discussing how tall the tooth fairy is.

2Sheds_Jackson
04-01-2004, 09:47 AM
If Russians are content to fund a system designed to beat missile defense, then they're being misled.

As been mentioned by Midav, the defense system is only designed to defend against 1 or 2 missiles fired from a rogue nation or terrorist group. Any proposed US system can be easily overcome by an attack from a major power.

The Russians funding the program should be asking some informed questions rather than succumbing to this kind of Cold War era rhetoric. Their government & military complex spent the country in to ruin once. The Russian people deserve better than to be led down that road again.

Sorry buddy
have to disagree there.

Americans develop anti-missle defence, and lets say they accomplish it. Than they can do whatever they want.

It is much better when you have a John Woo style standoff in the world. This way both powers respect eachother equally. Gotta have that balance on earth right?

What I'm trying to say is that US "star wars" programs are not designed to, nor will they ever be able to stop an attack from Russia, China, etc. etc. It is too easy to spoof the system & get around it. Even the US doesn't have the $$ to build a system capable of doing that.

What it is designed to do is to stop 1, maybe 2 missiles from hitting us. You know, the scenario where some lunatic with a bald head, lazy eye & bald cat builds a missile silo inside a volcano on tropical island. The system will be able to stop that from hitting us.

But for Russia to throw money & resources at a system that's already beaten as far as Russia is concerned is a waste of time. There's no unbalancing here. What we do have though, is the military complex creating fear for their own gain.

Zmey
04-01-2004, 11:01 AM
Give me a break people... Debating the performance, feasibility and (my favorite) NECESSITY of the new weapon is pointless. Do you really think that you - forum users - are smarter, more cunning and more educated that thousands upon thousands of scientists, generals, policy analysts and engineers that work for Russia's Ministry of Defense? Half of you, stating your precious opinions here dont even have bachelors degrees. You people remind me of a bunch of renecks sitting on the front porch "Ehh, Bubba, you reckon those Russians can really put Sputnik in orbit?" - "Heck no, Bob, my good pastor toldz me that he reckons the Earth is like pancake, likes the ones your sister cooks"

So do me a favor, before you present your authoritative opinions on the new, revolutionary and so far absolutely secret weapon - state your credentials.

regards.

Z.S. (MPA)

Blanke
04-01-2004, 12:08 PM
Give me a break people... Debating the performance, feasibility and (my favorite) NECESSITY of the new weapon is pointless. Do you really think that you - forum users - are smarter, more cunning and more educated that thousands upon thousands of scientists, generals, policy analysts and engineers that work for Russia's Ministry of Defense? Half of you, stating your precious opinions here dont even have bachelors degrees. You people remind me of a bunch of renecks sitting on the front porch "Ehh, Bubba, you reckon those Russians can really put Sputnik in orbit?" - "Heck no, Bob, my good pastor toldz me that he reckons the Earth is like pancake, likes the ones your sister cooks"

So do me a favor, before you present your authoritative opinions on the new, revolutionary and so far absolutely secret weapon - state your credentials.

regards.

Z.S. (MPA)

The irony here is you say this with the arrogance to suggest you would actually know better....

Zmey
04-01-2004, 09:41 PM
The irony here is you say this with the arrogance to suggest you would actually know better....

I would love to answer that... Now follow me here - I definitelly know better that the people who design and implement weapon programs of that magnitude KNOW BETTER.... did I lose you?... I'm afraid so. :cantbeli:

regards.

Z.S.

Blanke
04-01-2004, 10:12 PM
The irony here is you say this with the arrogance to suggest you would actually know better....

I would love to answer that... Now follow me here - I definitelly know better that the people who design and implement weapon programs of that magnitude KNOW BETTER.... did I lose you?... I'm afraid so. :cantbeli:

regards.

Z.S.


What's posted here on this board doesn't really mean anything in the real world. Unless it's something personal, what do you care if people out of the know are discussing a topic such as this?

Blanke
04-01-2004, 10:20 PM
As for this original topic, I think it would be pretty predictable that Russia would at least come up with the idea for a delivery system that could penetrate a US ABM shield. We're dealing with nuclear weapons afterall, neither Russia or the US would want to be left behind and made in effective by the other regardless of the Cold War ending and the ABM system's original purpose.

Some Guy
04-01-2004, 10:43 PM
Give me a break people... blah blah sputnik blah blah

Z.S. (MPA)

See heres the thing- funny you mention sputnik- Cause back in tha day, the USSR claimed to have put a man made satelite into orbit- and you know what? My uncle was able to tune a ham radio to hear the periodic beeping signal it made so he knew it wasn't a bluff.

Today, we're not so lucky- no demonstrations of technical expertise- just some chest thumping statements and hand waving about dancing missiles. You don't need "thousands of scientists" to make hollow claims- You just need a big mouth and a bunch of gullible peons to believe you.

So my edjumicated friend.. What university do I need to attend so I believe whatever bull**** propaganda my government puts out without any proof? I see you have a PhD in that field..


BTW before we get into a "Russia Great! No! USA Great!" flame fest, let me point out that I don't believe that the US has a working missile defense so I'm not just flag waving here..

Zmey
04-02-2004, 02:52 AM
blah, blah, blah...BTW before we get into a "Russia Great! No! USA Great!" flame fest, let me point out that I don't believe that the US has a working missile defense so I'm not just flag waving here..

Thank you, my friend.

Which brings me to my original point, the one you decided to opmit from my quote... "debating performance, feasibility and neccesity of new secret or perhaps non-existing weapon system is pointless". Yet some yo-yos here insist on sharing their take on hyposonic aerodynamics.

I guess the only thing that places me closer to believeing in the new weapon than you, is fielding of Topol-M ICBM. Supposedly the "M" is the highly manuverable warhead, with some kind of anti-laser coating. Other than that I'm just as sceptical as you.

regards

Z.S.

Korth
04-02-2004, 03:07 AM
Actually it is more than a month old news.
The test happened during the same exercise when Northern fleet sub failed to launch ICBM but it did't make the "news" because it was a success.
The missile is capable of zig-zaging and evading whatever at Mach 6, it was mentioned that it will be fielded in 2008.
Obviously it is great achievement but Russia can do without it: SS18s and other missiles with MREVs and decoys are more than sufficient to penetrate any hypothetical "shield".
In my opinion tax money would be much better spend on "interceptor" body armor for GIs than on "mad science" project.
My understanding is that it is an old project that was resumed after US unilaterally abandoned ABM treaty.
The first weapons race had put a man in space, will see what happens now...



How are decoys valuable? Just shoot down the warheads and the decoys, problem solved. Of course the easiest way to deliver atomic warheads or anything else into the USA would be to smuggle them across the southern border from Mexico.

BTW, the Cold War is over. I think Russia will have real problems with the Islamic militants and possibly with an overpopulated China that covets Russia's open land.

Russian Texan
04-02-2004, 09:20 AM
Today, we're not so lucky- no demonstrations of technical expertise- just some chest thumping statements and hand waving about dancing missiles. You don't need "thousands of scientists" to make hollow claims- You just need a big mouth and a bunch of gullible peons to believe you.

In the last paragraph of the article, that I provided a link for, it says that NASA was given a "77 second" demonstration of the engines and paid $5 mill for it, which helped to develop project further.


How are decoys valuable?
A potential "interceptor" has to decide which one of the hundreds of targets to shoot down/intercept and only ten of them (MREV) are real...


BTW, the Cold War is over
I know that, you know that but some people don't...
"Better safe than sorry"


I think Russia will have real problems with the Islamic militants and possibly with an overpopulated China that covets Russia's open land.

I agree, China is a potential, more so than US, threat to Russia.
Russia should stop worrying about NATO expansion, which is not a capable military force anyhow, and concentrate on strenghtening its eastern borders.

-Max2-
04-02-2004, 10:01 AM
Russia should stop worrying about NATO expansion,which is not a capable military force anyhow, and concentrate on strenghtening its eastern borders.

Hum... :roll:

Looks like some Russkies are not happy with the new NATO expansion... ;)

MaDuce
04-02-2004, 02:12 PM
It doesnt really matter in the end russia could use super fast nukes or what ever. We will return fire and every on earth will be dead within 24 hours.

Adri
04-02-2004, 02:58 PM
ok how many Nuclear missils does Russia have ?

lets say 6000 ?
how can a Star wars system be effective against 3000 missils ?
thats a hell of a system ;)

I do not belive that this system is to stop a nuclear attack from russia (cause that woun't come)

I belive that if this program is real it is to shoot down missils for terrorist who have got their hands on these weapons, but I also belive that they aim at the wrong type of nuclear attck
if terrorist got their hands on a nuclear missil the would not be able to shoot it....they need som thing to shoot it from which they don't have.
I belive that if terrorist get their hands on a nuclear weapon they would use it as a bomb, not a missile.

when you have a missil you know where it is lanched from and when it hits, you can also get some people away from the target and mobilize forces, you don't have that time with a nuclear bomb.

perdurabo
04-02-2004, 03:06 PM
http://www.thouck.com/uf/gallery/russia.jpg
Is it Polish vodka? hmmm :> new weapon of mass destruction hmmm

Blanke
04-02-2004, 04:27 PM
ok how many Nuclear missils does Russia have ?

lets say 6000 ?
how can a Star wars system be effective against 3000 missils ?
thats a hell of a system ;)

I do not belive that this system is to stop a nuclear attack from russia (cause that woun't come)

I belive that if this program is real it is to shoot down missils for terrorist who have got their hands on these weapons, but I also belive that they aim at the wrong type of nuclear attck
if terrorist got their hands on a nuclear missil the would not be able to shoot it....they need som thing to shoot it from which they don't have.
I belive that if terrorist get their hands on a nuclear weapon they would use it as a bomb, not a missile.

when you have a missil you know where it is lanched from and when it hits, you can also get some people away from the target and mobilize forces, you don't have that time with a nuclear bomb.

Actually a US ABM system is intended to deal with rogue states who may very well be trying to develop or buying ballistic missile technology. They would have plenty of good reasons for acquiring such a capability.

For example say it is positively confirmed that Iran has just bought or built three or four ballistic missiles that can deliver a nuclear warhead within a 2000 mile radius with enough accuracy to hit a soft target. There isn't much anyone can do without there being the possibility of a nuclear attack or retaliation.

Iran could do a lot to conceal these missiles and their launchers, disguise the construction of their silos and build them in an unlikely area, build their launchers in railroad box cars, etc. If a conflict with Iran actually broke out there probably would not be enough time to pinpoint their location with just satellite or aerial reconaissance.

With an Airborne laser system if the US is lucky enough to get them into the right place at the right time they might be able to make sure no Iranian ballistic missile reaches its target. Or they might be positioned to protect US in theater forces from a possible nuclear attack. ABL's very presence could be enough to buy the US some leverage in the situation.

Of course it gets a lot more complicated than just this but just to give an idea.

Adri
04-02-2004, 05:18 PM
I don't think Iran would launch these missils without a war first (and then that is the first you will destroy)
but the threat is that they very easly it a country like Iran can end in the wrong hands.....

GazB
04-03-2004, 03:21 AM
If you think there isn't a technology that can reach out from space and hit a target on the ground.. well then I am ok with that.

If you mean reach out into space and hit a target from the ground... well duhh!!! the Balisitic missile defence system around Moscow has been operation for just over 30 years now and they have tested it most years since it was built.


the Star Wars stuff was publicly a failure.

It was a failure as a defence system to defend the US. That doesn't mean there was no progress in technology.


No- I gotcha the first time- You see, when they say it can "zig-zag" at mach 6 they are "Ly-ing"


So SA-12B SAM missiles that entered Soviet service in the late 1970s don't exist? They fly at Mach 7.2 and are guided... ie they manouver to intercept targets.
US and Russian designed ICBM warheads are also designed to manouver and later versions called MARVs (as opposed to MIRVs which simply fly to seperate targets) are able to manouver to avoid interception. ICBMs retenter the earths atmosphere at rather more than mach 6... actually closer to mach 26.


But for Russia to throw money & resources at a system that's already beaten as far as Russia is concerned is a waste of time. There's no unbalancing here. What we do have though, is the military complex creating fear for their own gain.

If your system is successful then there are no arms limitations treaties that limit you to 100 interceptors like with the 1972 ABM treaty. There is nothign to stop a US government building 10,000 interceptor missiles and 500 command and control sites. Don't you think spending a little money now countering a small system will pay off in the future... the alternative is to just build more nuclear missiles than any realistic system can handle... I personally prefer their current choice to the other alternative.


Again- go slowly here- picture two interceptors going up with a few seconds between- this nuke is going to dodge once, twice and then get back on track to hit its target? At mach 6?

Unless you are prepared to detonate a nuclear warhead in space to destroy the warheads (by bombarding their warheads with neutrons) and at the same time blacking out your radar network for half an hour by ionising the atmosphere then you need kintetic hits for kills. HE just doesn't cut it in the upper atmosphere. By turning the warhead a couple of times the interceptor missiles will be in the wrong place to intercept the warhead when it comes in on its real target. The warhead is the fastest object in this race so the interceptor missile has to get into the path of the warhead... not the other way around. By turning 10 degrees while travelling at very high speed the interceptor missile will be 10s of kilometers out of position when the warhead turns back 20 degrees toward its target and being the slower object will not be able to get into a position to kill the warhead before it hits.


I don't believe that the US has a working missile defense so I'm not just flag waving here..

But the Russians have...


How are decoys valuable? Just shoot down the warheads and the decoys, problem solved.

Because an SS-18 could carry 10 real warheads and over 30 decoys. How many interceptor missiles are you going to need... they had 308 SS-18s...


but the threat is that they very easly it a country like Iran can end in the wrong hands.....

Wouldn't want to mess with someone big enough to backpack a 2,500km range MRBM out of Iran... sounds like SNI.

budanski
04-03-2004, 01:54 PM
The only trick here is to get them working properly. ;)

Webley
04-03-2004, 03:28 PM
Because an SS-18 could carry 10 real warheads and over 30 decoys. How many interceptor missiles are you going to need... they had 308 SS-18s...


Instead of anti-missle missiles, why not use space based lasers or other new technology?

GazB
04-04-2004, 12:31 AM
Instead of anti-missle missiles, why not use space based lasers or other new technology?

Because there are currently agreements banning the use of space for weapons.

These agreements are in the US's interests as its ability to spy on others without worrying about these sensors being threatened is worth more than being able to put a laser in space.

If you think about it any country in the world could put a satellite up in space with a nuclear weapon inside it. If you think the US is going to attack you with lasers or has lasers to stop your ICBM strike the first thing you will do is send the signal to blow up those satellites and destroy all of the US's satellites... or at least disable them.

Besides once the US has this laser battle station technology the Russians will want it too... no matter what the cost. They will probably use Chinese money to make one together. The Chinese have the money and the Russians certainly have the expertise.