Yes, my dear Kojedub! Mr. Ivanov still “assigns billions of dollars on Russian nuclear triad” in his stupid boasts printed in the “Krasnaya Zvezda” but real effects of these “assignations” are so funny that Ivanov should stop doing derision with himself and contemporaneously with Russia, too! Besides I counted in one of my previous posts that if Russia buy SIX SS-27s annually, there will be about ONE HUNDRED of them in 2015! Now Ivanov can buy TWO mobile SS-27s by year. Do you know what exactly means “increased a lot SS-27’s production”??? How many of them Ivanov is going to purchase yearly: 2, 20 or 200??? In fact even Ivanov doesn’t know that because in the near future your missile factories may cease to exist due to present negligible Ivanov’s orders! And why mobile SS-27’s developnemt is lasting so long? Exactly for that same reason why Borey, Su-34/37, H-101, Mi-28N, Iskander developments are lasting for more than TEN YEARS: due to lack of money and downfall of your military-industrial base as a direct result of prolonged lack of Ivanov’s “billions of dollars”! It is obvious for me that many of Russian new weapon systems can’t be finished simply because some of its key components are now outisde of your industry reach.
As for new SSBNs/SLBMs: Are you going to suggest me that BUILDING of a good boomer must take ten years??? No, buddy! Maybe its DESIGN can take so many years but NOT production! Unfortunately Borey project was ready in 1996 when first SSBN of these type was launched. But all delays in both Borey and Bulava production are simply effects of constantly lacking money and organizational mess! So, in fact I seriously doubt Russian Navy will get even three new SSBNs up to 2015. Moreover in that year you will have to begin withdrawing from service all SS-18M5s, Delta-IVs and…SS-27s deployed in 1997 because its warranty time is 17-20 years! :diablo:
Therefore I suggest you to seriously recalculate your quite optimistic “1700 warheads” scenario! In my opinion your new estimation of future Russian strategic potential will be much closer to the Chinese or French deterrence about which you think Russia will possess a huge advantage!

the russkies realize that the roadmobile topols wont last long which is why Borei is such a priority now. The SSBN fleet by 2015 will be vastly healthier with at least 3 new boats in service and with operational costs for the Borei set to be at least 1/2 that of the Delta IV (newer electronics, less need for people) we can actually expect to see this ship doing patrols.

Obviously the days of 60+ boomers are over but 3 new boomers is NOT NOTHING. Also the first 2 road mobile Topol-M’s should enter service this year. Yes, at least 40 Topols will be written off this year and 40 >>> 2, but 2 is way better than zero.

There is progress. Frankly wait 20 years for the GDP to reach respectable levels and then these problems will fix themselves.

As you admitted above present Russian military purchases are negligible. Putin doesn’t modernize your nuclear forces but he simply liquidate it! Though you own data indicate this buffoon from Kremlin supresses TWENTY-THIRTY TIMES MORE strategic nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles than he orders it! I can’t describe it as a progress anywise…
Maybe Putin’s grand strategy is aimed at creating Russia as a world’s resource power instead of Soviet military power but this may be a very risky policy! As history teaches us country resources must be well protected by strong army. Many African and Indian caciques were robbed by Western conquistadors with all their treasures because they lacked military power! Remember fate of African king Lobengula from the Kingdom of Matabele hideously cheated and robbed by Cecil Rhodes and his South Africa Company! I am sure Austin can tell you how in the XIX century Indian maharajahs “sold” to Britishers entire provinces for a few gunpowder barrels or several rolls of red cloth! Don’t permit Putin to commit their mistakes again!

I dont read Red Star every day because its full of BS, nor do I take Ivanovs word for everything but you have to be blind not to see the progress.

I am glad you are more objective than most Russians because I think you were skilfully charmed by Putin and his comrades. I know Putin looks much better than constantly drunken or ill Yeltsin but sometimes appearance misleads…

u are trying to predict future based on present and past. which are irrelevant. did Soviet Union sold $25b of weopons on hard currency in 5 years? the answer is no and has $23b of contracts and much more in pipeline.
no western country can match these figures.

No, I only describe future effects of actual Russian plans for modernizing its nuclear triad! Of course, it is sad you can’t perceive all these future ruinous results of Putin’s unilateral nuclear disarmament additionally not compensated by strengthing of Russian conventional capabilities. For example, only a complete madman in Russian MoD/General Staff/Government (???) can support opinion that THREE SSBNs is enough for deterrence!
You are wrong, star49! I inform you USSR was selling weapons worth $20 billions ANNUALLY and Soviets were the world’s biggest arms supplier up to its downfall!

Were Soviet union able to build nuclear reactors on scale which russia is building now in foreign countries (China, Iran, India etc) the answer is no. soviet union has weapons which were more in quantities less in sophistication and build in industries which were widely dispered in republics. just consolidation of those industries takes time.

I don’t think so: You probably forgot about about 400 nuclear reactors on Soviet SSNs! 😀
Unfortunately, loss of key factories, design bureaus and weapon’s components produced outside Russia isn’t so simple to replace. The cost of starting its production in Russia would be enormous and Russia has many troubles with financing its own military complex. That is why Yuri Solomonov stated in an interview that Russia finally lost capabilities to produce and apply about TWO HUNDRED key military components and technologies! Well, in present financial and political situation Russia can forget not only about all “now abroad” but also many of its own underfounded technologies. As I read somewhere in the Russian press that minimum cost-effective SS-27’s production rate is 10-15 missiles annually! But now “brilliant” Ivanov wants to buy TWO mobile Topol-Ms yearly! Well, you could ask this duffer what he manage to do if Votkinsk plant and its sub-suppliers go into bankrupcy in several years and thus Russia lost potentiality to produce its sole ICBM??? 🙁

Dear soyuz1917: are you serious youself, man???

1. I described situation for several years in my post above! So, SS-25/27s wouldn’t be more than 100 launchers in about 2011-2012. The rest of Russian delivery vehicles also wouldn’t be more…

2. You wrote Russian Air Defence System is improving now but comprare it with with Soviet ADS! You immediately discover your current system is in shambles but present dangers are a lot more serious than they were 20 years ago.

3. Don’t quote this clown Ivanow! That guy tells you the same bull****s since he became a Defence Minister but in fact he does practically nothing to improve situation. It is rather boring for us to listen him, don’t you think?

As for INF: that was the biggest USSR’s mistake to sign this treaty! Soviets simply agreed to ban their own medium range nukes for nothing! They had to destroy 114 SS-4, 414 SS-20, 150 SS-12/22, 172 SS-23 and 80 SS-C-4 launchers. That was approximately 1758 INF warheads on 730 mobile launchers (without additional refireable missiles!) sold for 108 Pershing II and 464 GLCM launchers equals 572 US warheads! As we can see this stupid Gorbie was hoodwinked by Reagan on at least THREE-TO-ONE unequal exchange! Additionally INF treaty didn’t ban American SLCMs and ALCMs in which US had a huge advantage over USSR and which could successfully replace Pershings and GLCMs! Moreover Pershings short flight time was countered by Soviet SS-12 deployment in GDR and Czechoslovakia so Pershings weren’t an ideal first strike strategic weapon as Reagan cheated Gorbie. Pershing II was able to reach targets in USSR in about seven minutes but SS-12 could reach Pershing’s bases in about three minutes in the preemptive strike!
Generally INF treaty was a point when first time USSR showed its weakness and US recognized it as a possibility to fool Soviets on the much wider scale!

Really? You’re talking to him every morning?

No! That is Putin who has been talking to you about “hypersonic warheads” every morning for two years and you still belive him like an ordinary simpletons! 🙁

What makes you think that? NATO never made any commitment not to use nuclear weapons first. Why wouldn’t they use nuclear weapons against enemy force concentrations?

It is very simple! You, like NATO, permits using of TNW first against WP forces only because NATO conventional forces were unable to stop WP conventional offensive. On the other hand in 1982 “evermemorable” Comrade Brezhnev announced that USSR would never use nuclear weapon first because he knew very well USSR could easily win war with NATO without resort to nuclear warfare!

Because you are confusing fighting technique with temprement. The Soviets were no more likely to invade a country than the west was. Everyone invaded countries or put down uprisings when it was in their interests to do so. Has nothing to do with wanting to take over the world. More to do with keeping your house in order.

I didn’t state Soviets horribly wanted to attack Western Europe but I only stated that USSR was militarly strong enough to counquer most of European NATO countries in conventional warfare if Soviets would have such a desire.

NATO is the US. Without the US NATO is rubbish. And of course the US’s so called aggressions persisted throughout, before and after the cold war.

Of course, US aggressions persisted during Cold War period but their scope and results were uncomparable with present ones! That was thanks to communst camp existence. Let’s look at some of these US adventures:

– Korea – US Army retreated from North Korea when confonted with Red Chinese “volunteers” offensive

– Cuba – US didn’t dare to invade Cuba because of Soviet “nuclear umbrella” over Castro regime

– Vietnam – US Army was able to win that war simply by mounting a land invasion on North Vietnam. But such a move was rejected because of fear of PRC or Soviet intervention, like in Korea. So, US was drawn in protracted war without any chances on success.

After all these “lessons” US rulers decided that US forces could be involved only in limited interventions, like those in Grenda, Lebanon or Panama. Just after Cold War’s end US immediately started again major worldwide military interventions because threat of communist help to invaded countries completely disappeared.

And if there had been a communist uprising in Spain or Italy they would have crushed it the same way uprisings in the east were crushed. Both peacfully and defencively.

Of course, but If I write about aggresive or defensive behaviours I don’t mean intra-alliance activity but its strategy aimed at foreign opponents.

They could do nothing about UN forces in Korea. I doubt they would care who went to Vietnam to fight. Even if North Vietnam lost why should the Soviets care… wouldn’t have been the first place a nationalist uprising to overcome imperialism had been turned into a communist uprising and then squashed. Look at Malaya.

As long as East and West Germany were seperated I doubt the Soviets would have been worried about anything the Germans did… except make their own nukes.

Yes, they could do noting about UN forces but only in the UN! 😀
Elsewhere Soviets could do much more and in fact they did! That was Stalin who persuaded Mao to intervene. Moreover, USSR secured practically all military supplies for Mao’s and Kim’s armies.
As for Bundeswehr in Vietnam: Soviets didn’t have to act military but I am sure their “anti-nazi” (= anti-West German) propaganda offensive would be more destructive for NATO than you can ever imagine!

The real difference was that the so called bomber gap and the missile gap (ICBM). The west thought the Soviets had the advantage right up to the early 60s and so took steps to greatly increase the size of their nuclear forces. It wasn’t till the U2s and early spy satellites started to give them an accurate picture they realised that the only missile and bomber gaps were the ones they were creating. This led them to change their policy. They wanted parity, but now they had the potential with a first strike to actually try to win a nuclear war.

Your logic is funny! As you mentioned above US possessed a huge nuclear supremacy over USSR at 1950s/1960s. So, why US didn’t attack USSR during Cuban Missile Crisis??? Though they could easily win nuclear war then… 😀

“On the maps on this and the following page, a total of 211 Soviet Army divisions is listed, together with 53 divisions in other WP armies. In fact the Soviets have 185 divisions, only 119 of which are within potential reach of western europe.Only 1/3rd of these or 42 div could mobilise within less than a month’s time. Most of the remainder would take from 3 – 4 months. The waves of reinforcing divisions the alarmists portray following right on the heels of the initial WP attack would not be there. Only 27 Soviet Div are in position to participate, with 20 other WP divs, in an immediate attack on NATOs central front. NATO would have 8-15 days warning time before that attack began, in which to bring in masive reinforcements. By the time the WP had got its 47 divs ready for the attack NATO would have 55 divs waiting for it. MOST NATO DIV ARE 50% LARGER THAN WP DIVs. NATOs advantage in manpower is therefore substantial. In an effort to obscure these realities, some NATO governments have misrepresented the manpower balance with counts of troops “in place” in Europe. One of these frequently quoted by the Reagan administration, reports 742,000 NATO and 960,000 WP troops in central europe. Ths counts all the WP combat and support troops in the region but only a portion of NATOs support troops. It excludes 58,000 French troops in place in West Germany, and 411,000 British, French and US forces which are not in place there but would arrive in the region to round out and reinforce existing units, well before combat began. On the other hand it includes 45,000 polish, czech and e german troops that could not be mobilised in time to join the initial attack force and 150,000 Soviet Forces stationed not in Central Europe but in the Soviet Union, most of them so distant from the battlefield that they could not reach it until at least 10 days after the attack had taken place. In fact by the time an immediate attack could be launched in this region 1,298,000 NATO troops would be facing 766,000 troops of the WP. There would never be a time, in successive stages of mobilisation and reinforcement, when the WP could bring up more troops into battle than NATO would already have opposing them.”

All that data are simply a derision! Soviet divisions mobilized by one to four months but NATO reinforcements arriving in a week timeframe??? Don’t be silly. You probably missed Soviet Army with some medieval armies. 😀
Please look at some declassified NIE memorandums from the 1980s. You can find them at CIA webpage.

Yeah, American M60 tanks were so much better than Chieftans… NOT!

YES, because how many Chiefains was in British inventory??? One-tenth or one-twentieth of M60 inventory! In other words Chieftains didn’t have any military significance in the NATO-Pact war.

Yeah. The US was all give give give and got nothing in return… that is why they are so poor now.

So, what US took back from Western Europe than in your opinion???

Sounds no different to the situation immediately after WWII. Stalin had troops in finland and Austria. There were agreements regarding the other eastern european countries that “gave them” to Stalin. There were no such agreements regarding Austria and Finland. In both cases Stalin withdrew without problems. Big scary Stalin… european land grabber. Wonder why he didn’t keep those two territories he had just lost Soviet lives liberating…

Like situation after WWII??? I wrote earlier that in my scenario USSR wouldn’t have yet its troops in the former WP countries!
Besides: Was Austria or Finland joined into NATO???

But that is the point! Build a few Nimitz class carriers and TAKE some naval bases.

I agree, but they also spent a lot of money on other things the west had that didn’t match what the west had and wasted a lot of money. If they were innately landgrabbing why not spend the money and get more resources?

Yes, of course! USSR after building its NIMITZs should begin construction of adequate vessels to form a dozen or so CSGs. Later USRR should form an equivalent of USMC and additionally construct tens of worldwide naval nad air bases, right? Moreover Red Fleet already had three-to-one advantage over US Navy in submarines. I am only interesting in one question: FOR WHAT???
In the 1980s USSR alone possessed advantage two-to-one over NATO combined in all main conventional weapon categories except surface ships and helos. So, for what USSR could close this last gap in such an enomous cost? Much more clever strategy was creation of such Soviet Fleet, which could negate NATO’s naval advantage at least close to Soviets coasts and probable TMOs but in lessen cost. And it was done!

Stalins solution for the Chechen problem worked. It has only now become a problem because they let them go home again.

Could just work them to death like the germans did to Soviet prisoners during WW2.

Your hints to “Unce Joe” are really ridiculous. “Uncle” should deport into Siberia some one hunded million East Europeans at once and “work them to death” maybe in the uran mines??? 😀
Thanks God, Stalin was more intelligent than you. You are more crazy than I supposed… 😮

Yes, having lots of weapons is the same as having to use lots of weapons. By buying a guard dog and having a baseball bat under your bed and paying for a security alarm in your house and locking your doors at night this means you actually have to go out an rob other people… according to your logic.

You don’t understand my logic. We must distinguish between defensive and offensive type of the army. Soviet Army was an agressive structure in contrary to the NATO armies which were mostly defensive ones. Soviets were always prepared to conquer Western Europe in the event of war with NATO, so their order of battle and concept of war operations were offensive in nature. This is why Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces possessed such a huge advantage in manpower and equipment numbers over NATO forces. On the other hand NATO’s deterrent was based mainly on nuclear weapon because “nuclear blackmail” is much more useful in defense.
Now we can see this also. Look at Serbia and Iraq. These states didn’t have nuclear weapon and therefore they could be attacked with impunity by US. Russia has nukes and US can’t attack it like above states BUT NOW CONVENTIONAL Russian forces are only a shadow of its former power. And that is why present Russian sphere of influence is narrowing sharply. All former WP states and Soviet republics are joining NATO because Russia can’t prevent this without resort to nuclear weapon, what is a madness of course. Unfortunately, no other arguments are now in Russian hands. BUT could you even imagine an eastern enlargement of NATO during Soviet times??? It is rather hard to imagine! Do you know why???

I don’t remember seeing any Nimitz class carriers in Soviet Service… do you?

USSR wasn’t a “sea empire” so naval power wasn’t necessary for it due to some geopolitical factors. Soviet naval strength was based on submarines and land stationed naval aviation. I think Soviets posture was stricty defensive as for sea warfare in contrary to its offensive land strategy. Of course Soviets could build supercarriers if they wanted to do so. In fact USSR planned to construct an “Oriel” project CVNs in the 1970s but it was rejected due to above reasons.