What? Did you just forget what we were discussing for the last few days? :rolleyes:

NMD is designed to shoot down incoming ICBMs, and that will affect Russian MAD capacity visa vi the US. Honestly, who else do you think Russians might be targeting with its ICBMs? The moon?

Mate, looks like its YOU who forget what you wrote 1 hour ago. Its YOUR argument what russian building SSBN’s to somehow avoid NMD. I have showed you what SSBN’s missiles avoid NMD just as good/bad as regular silo missiles from Siberia.

That was in the old days of the cold war when the Russian subs were in serious danger of being wiped out if they venture far from home since they make so much noice anyone with an underwater microphone can find one. And also when the top priority was to launch missiles as close to the US as practical. The new gen Russian subs are going to have a real chance of surviving in the open oceans on their own. That opens the door to all kinds of new tactics.

What a BS! Try to find a sub under arctic ice – no matter how loud that particalar sub is. Try to locate sub within russian backyard – i.e. Northern or Barentse Sea where it covered by all kind of home fleet and sensors. Sub “as close to US as practical…” was practical close to USA only during 60x when SSBN’s were equipped with MRBM’s instead of ICBM’s.

Care to explain that one professor. Please enlighten us as to how a missile traveling 1000km will reach a target the same time as a missile traveling 10000km that was launched at the same time.

If you ever knew about how ICBM’s work you would figure it yourself. But for you, little student, i’ll explain. Every ICBM useally have a trajectory which allows its engine to burn off, then missile orient itself, then MIRV go, then warheads fall back to Earth. Simply put, if you launch a ICBM to 1000km distant target the warhead will fly as high as 5000km and THEN fall back. If launch the ICBM to 15000 km then the warhead will move only at 1000km height. Either way, time-in-flight is almost the same. Also, it should be pretty obvios even for you what russian SSBN’s dont plan sailing along Manhatten. They will be patrolling near North Pole – and in that case there is a little difference between SSBN location and mainland location somewhere near Murmansk.

You seriously think that NMD will have the same chance of intercepting an ICBM fired from 200km off the US coast as one that if flying from siberia over the North Pole?

Geesh! OMG!! Do you even know ANYTHING about NMD??? Did you read at least SOMETHING related to it??? OF COURSE its 1000 times easer for NMD to intercept a missile launched from 200km than a missile launched from 10000km. Thats the WHOLE reason why someone think what US NMD bases in Eastern Europe somehow threats russian ICBM’s – if said ICBM’s are launched from west Russia then they might have not enouth height at the time they fly other Poland, so it would be possible to intercept them. And i dont even say about all that favor-of-the-year like laser THEL.

A CEP of 100m or less makes it far more likely to take out hardened silos or deep underground facilities, and we are not even talking about the improvement in MRV tech which allows the same number of missiles to deliver many times more warheads.

Man, did you even think when you write? We speak about number of WARHEADS all the time. Its completely the other way around as you speak – the more warheads each missile carry the WORSE it is. Its much, much easer to destroy 1 missile with 10 warheads than 10 missiles with 1 warhead.
Now, US have LESS warheads than 25 years ago. If, as you telling, US put even more warheads to single missile than 20 years ago, then its worse for US, not better…
BTW, thats the reason why Bulava is planned with 6 to 10 MIRV’s, and Topol-M is planned with 3-6 MIRV’s.

Because allowing ballistic missiles to merely rust away is an incredible stupid thing to do since they have a nasty habbit of leaking highly toxic material and exploding when treated as such.

Becouse you dont know how missiles are stored? For your information, they are not stored with fuel inside.

Ballistic missiles, like all weapons systems have a use by date. Weapons that have been kept for longer then that period are dangerous to store without overhauls (which cost money), and will start to loose their value pretty quickly as their systems start to fail, rendering them useless. What is the point in keeping weapons that can’t be used and is in fact a threat to your own men and facilities?

Ancient 40-years old Scuds are used by Russians as SAM practice targets for 25 years already. You know, these Scuds still somehow manage in the air… Either way, they are long out of service. But you still didnt answered the question – WHAT SRBM’s should Russia scrap? WHESE thousands SRBM’s are in service and eat money? Did i missed the violation of INF treaty somehow?

Even as the United States’ nuclear forces have grown stronger since the end of the Cold War, Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated. ).

Article by itself is piece of crap. That single phrase says its all about knowledge of the authour. I mean, United States’ nuclear forces have grown stronger since the end of the Cold War ??? The number of US strategic warheads shrunk aslmost 2-fold since the cold war times. Right NOW Russia and US have about equal number of fielded strategic warheads – with the slight edge on the US side according to last official information, which doesnt meant much as number of warheads in service change literally monthly as old SSBN’s retire, new launched, old missiles are scrapped, new rearmed with MIRV’s, etc.

Russia hasn’t had enough money to properly maintain all those missiles since the fall of the USSR, and its widely speculated that a large number of missiles are non-operational. Even as it is, its strategic forces are unbalanced and far too costly to maintain. Russia was going to downsize anyways, and getting the Americans to go along would have been a good bonus. The same is almost certainly true for the Americans. The agreement was as much an act of mutaul domestic political capital building as a real trust break through..

Man, in what world you live? Do you even read russian MOD plans? Do you know how much cost ICBM’s? I’ll tell you: no reduction is planned in foreseeable future. Moreover, the bulk of the ICBM’s will be installed on SSBN’s – surery a way, way more expencive than simply Topol-M. Each Topol-M is believed to cost about 10-15 mil. $, so you can figure what its NOT the money what restrict russian army to aquire more missiles.

I must ask if you have thought that through there mate. What, you think everyone holds nukes EXPECTING to use them? Costs have nothing to do with it.:rolleyes:

Also, FYI, China has had enough nukes to ‘threaten’ Russia for decades and are not even adding to their nuclear arsenal anymore according to the vast majority of sources. As for Iran, well why would they be interested in attacking one of its very few friends? Typical arogence-induced paranioa.

You dont get it, ya? The ONLY and SOLELY reason why USSR and USA had 5000+ strategic warheads in its arsenal and desired to achieve parity is MAD after first strike. I.e. – second stirke capabilty. 2000 warheads on 500 missiles what Russian have is more than enouth for MAD given what China have 200-300 warheads. But it will be NOT enouth given China have 2000 warheads. In that case China can destroy all(or most) russian missiles with first strike. The reverse is also true, currently Russia can, if needed VERY badly, use nukes against China and expect only very minor response. Whats why chinese nukes are not that much threat for Russia – certainly much, much lesser threat than USA nukes.

P.S. I said IF the current trend continues. BTW, China have laid off another nuclear SSBN. Tell us about “China not even adding to their nuclear arsenal anymore” something else… Of course, IF China restrict itself to 200-300 nukes, IF NK, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India and other Middle East countries restrict themselfes to 100-200 warheads, IF USA restrict they NMD to 50-100 interceptors… then IRBM’s will be not needed and Russia most likely will not field them. STILL i expect Russia to develop and field non-nuclear ballistic or cruise or semi-balistic missile in 1500-3000km class.

So, in terms of INF deterrence value we will come back into 1980s!
But the most important factor is whether Russia will be able to design and buy significant numbers of new IRBM??? Take into account plaintively low production rate of “Topol-M” ICBMs alone! The new IRBM can be also produced in Votkinsk plant along with Topol-M. Well, with present finance conditions Russia may be doomed to acquire some three IRBMs and three Topol-Ms annually…not much in my opinion! 🙁

Lol, you shouldnt forget START threaties. Russia aquire as much ICBM’s as it can within these threaties. Contrary to popular belief ICBM’s are not that expencive.

Its a Long awaited News , I think delayed by many years , But better late than never .
]

Ah no. 10 years ago and right now there is no reason for Russia to field IRBM’s. Main threat is USA and IRBM dont help here. But in the future when other countries aquire nuclear weapon IRBM’s might (but not sure) be usefull -as cost saving measure. In fact, if Russian economic continues to growth, then in 10 years Russia will be able to field enouth ICBM’s for MAD. In that case IRBM’s could be seen mainly as non-nuclear deterence for small local conflicts against countries like Japan, China, East Europe, Iran, Turkey, etc with secondary role as nuclear-capable just in case. Something like new X-555.

When did the Soviets begin the wide spread use of transistors in their military/non-military technology?

First soviet transistors (super)computers entered service in mid 60x. In 60x it was already a standard tech. In 70x any military electronic without transistors was aimed to post-nuclear use. You should remember what not only EMP dungerous for transistor tech, but also radiation damages transistors much faster than tubes.