Russia reveals new missle

[AB8TM]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041206/1/3p2h4.html

Quote[/b] ]"Russia's long-range air force finally has a new weapon," the government's Rossiyskaya Gazeta daily announced in a headline. "We now have a strategic cruise missile with a non-nuclear warhead," the paper wrote.

"We have broken the US monopoly on the use of long-range conventional cruise missiles," an unnamed senior air force commander told ITAR-TASS.

[...]

Putin declared last month that Russia had "conducted tests of the latest nuclear rocket systems" in a cryptic comment that puzzled military strategists but seemed aimed at Washington and its mooted missile defense shield that Moscow considers illegal.

Russia has been developing a range of new missiles capable of penetrating US defenses as a result.

[KA9VQF]

Quote[/b] ]The unnamed general told ITAR-TASS that Russia's technology was primarily aimed for "anti-terrorist operations" rather than a major war.

Yeah right.

This is my personal opinion.

YOU DON’T HAVE TO READ IT.

Seems W didn't need to pump up Sadam into the new threat to world peace after all. Granted Sadam was pretty bad all on his own but….Now the Neocons can all come out of hiding thumbing their noses and ‘make it happen’ everything will be like it was in the late fifties and early sixties.

They may even put the Berlin wall back to show if not their superiority at least that they ‘ain’t fraid of the U S of A’.

Won't that be nice.

Guaranteed total mutual destruction again. Just like the good old days.

[WA5KRP]

Ya' reckon those Pentagon idiots developed cruise missle technology without giving a thought to cruise missle defense?

Or ya' reckon those Pentagon brainos saw this coming twenty years ago?

Before you get bent out of shape, think about the technology resources available in the free world vs. the resources available to the Soviet technochracy. If push comes to shove, what side would you want to be on?


WA5KRP
Texas

[KA9VQF]

Ever try doing a web search on cruise missile?

Go ahead you may be shocked to see what all is unclassified.

Maybe those flying triangles Art Bell has been talking about are the new defense thingy 'eh?

[AB8TM]

What about the mysterious booms KWW is always talking about on here? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[AB8TM]

Quote[/b] (KA9VQF @ Dec. 07 2004,02:12)]They may even put the Berlin wall back to show if not their superiority at least that they ?ain?t fraid of the U S of A?.

Won't that be nice.
I often wonder which side absorbed Germany, the East or the West!

About mutally assured destruction, For what it's worth, many people believe a nuclear war (with a nuclear power) to be winnable. I have heard this from ex soviet generals and a few ex American Generals as well.

[AB8TM]

Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ Dec. 07 2004,02:28)]Ya' reckon those Pentagon idiots developed cruise missle technology without giving a thought to cruise missle defense?

Or ya' reckon those Pentagon brainos saw this coming twenty years ago?

Before you get bent out of shape, think about the technology resources available in the free world vs. the resources available to the Soviet technochracy. If push comes to shove, what side would you want to be on?


WA5KRP
Texas
I assume there is a defense and I assume that many nations constantly try to find an offense to beat this defense. I know that the Russians and their 16 year veteran of the KGB president are very much opposed to a North American missle defense shield. That makes me wonder too.

[W5HTW]

The AP article a week or so ago on this subject, contained a remark by Putin that Russia was developing a "new technology in ICBMs" that not only could penetrate the US missile defense system, but was of such design that the US could not build a system to protect against it. That particular article did not state the missiles were non-nuclear.

Note: Putin's focus, and his comments, was on the US, not on terrorism. Russian long-distance armaments are designed with the US in mind. When Bill Clinton met with Putin in the last two years of Clinton's term, he returned to the US with the comment, "They are not our friends" but we can co-exist.

Nothing has changed. It was the USSR's economy that toppled the Berlin wall, not political intent or or attitude change. Reagan pushed the arms race to the point it broke the Soviet economy and destroyed the Union. Russia longs to be a massive superpower again, not just the leaders, but the citizens on the street. They were not raised in democracy, and in many cases were better off not having to compete in a free economy setting. Middle-aged and older Russian citizens miss the status of their nation, but equally, they miss the stability of the Communist government. For four years, in the early 1990s, I had an insider in Russia who rleayed to me the content of daily conversations on the street, and the feelings of the Russian people.

Putin has taken quite a firm hand on the free press in Russia, as well as pulling in the reins on free enterprise. All Russia needs is money to again climb the ladder of armed socialism.

Note, too, Putin's approach to the elections in Ukraine, and to the upcoming free election in Iraq.

While the Cold War has simply been renamed, to appease Americans who do not wish to think of war, it is true several of the former USSR entities do not seek a return to Communism or to dictatorship. Russia, though, has that spark beneath its surface, fanned by well over 70 years of strict rule.

China, by the way, is increasing their nuclear ICBM inventory, and is now adding a nuclear missile submarine to the navy. Most of China's active nuclear ICBMs are targeted at the United States. They are expected to have around 50 such weapons by mid-century, though currently it is estimated they have 10-14 actually targeted at the US mainland.

Enjoy.

Ed

[KB9YCO]

I always knew those non-proliferation treaties were a joke. It's kind of like gun control, out law them all you want, criminals, or in this case criminal type nations, will still have them regardless.

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] ]wa5krp
If push comes to shove, what side would you want to be on?

The side of the Greatest Military in the world, the USA!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[w3bny]

Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ Dec. 06 2004,23:28)]If push comes to shove, what side would you want to be on?
http://img61.exs.cx/img61/5163/romeo15xs.jpg

Does it really matter when the MIRV's start falling.


P.S.

Quote[/b] ]Always Bring 8 Tender Mommas

d00d....your gonna have to start bringing the "tenderness" or else face charges of false advertising! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K0RGR]

Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger wrote an outstanding book a decade or so ago that laid out a number of scenarios that he thought were likely ones leading to future wars involving the USA.

One of the more horrific ones was that his former boss, President Ronnie Raygun, started the 'Star Wars' missile defense program and this program bankrupted the Soviet Union, who could not compete, but, the Russians kept on working on their own version, anyway (so did some others, too). Meanwhile, we dropped the program as too expensive, and/or impractical.

In his book, the President of Russia picks up the phone one day, and calls the President of the US, announces that they have just deployed their system, and basically tells him to send all the gold in Fort Knox to Russia, NOW, or they will vaporize us. And, next week, we'll see what Russia needs then... Somehow, we manage to win WWIII, which lasts 45 seconds, but Weinberger doesn't say how.

So, I have been a firm supporter of anti-missile defense systems since Nixon proposed them back in the 60's. Somebody is going to build one. It is not impossible, just very hard, and incredibly expensive. But for our enemies, being the first to build a successful one would have an immeasurable payback.

The Russian experiment with democracy seems to be coming to an end. I'm not sure if the west could have done anything to prevent this, or still can, but there is more than a little cause for caution when dealing with these "friends".

[w3bny]

Who said we dropped "Star Wars".... It became TBMD and is the jewell of the Aegis Navy. (I should know, I did some of the tests!)

[ai4ep]

We would have no worries if we had only elected KERRY !!

[gw4rcm]

There are three question in this thread that begs to be asked, and that is why would Russia,China, Iran (if they ever become nuclear) would wan't to target the USA.?
Are they becoming offensive or defensive.?
What have you guys done to create so much animosity in the world?
I am not "American Bashing" just asking a question .
RCM

[AB8TM]

Quote[/b] (w3bny @ Dec. 08 2004,16:45)]d00d....your gonna have to start bringing the "tenderness" or else face charges of false advertising! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
The tender mommas usually accompany me to a variety of hamfests. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[AB8TM]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 08 2004,10:15)]The AP article a week or so ago on this subject, contained a remark by Putin that Russia was developing a "new technology in ICBMs" that not only could penetrate the US missile defense system, but was of such design that the US could not build a system to protect against it. That particular article did not state the missiles were non-nuclear.

Note: Putin's focus, and his comments, was on the US, not on terrorism. Russian long-distance armaments are designed with the US in mind. When Bill Clinton met with Putin in the last two years of Clinton's term, he returned to the US with the comment, "They are not our friends" but we can co-exist.

Nothing has changed. It was the USSR's economy that toppled the Berlin wall, not political intent or or attitude change. Reagan pushed the arms race to the point it broke the Soviet economy and destroyed the Union. Russia longs to be a massive superpower again, not just the leaders, but the citizens on the street. They were not raised in democracy, and in many cases were better off not having to compete in a free economy setting. Middle-aged and older Russian citizens miss the status of their nation, but equally, they miss the stability of the Communist government. For four years, in the early 1990s, I had an insider in Russia who rleayed to me the content of daily conversations on the street, and the feelings of the Russian people.

Putin has taken quite a firm hand on the free press in Russia, as well as pulling in the reins on free enterprise. All Russia needs is money to again climb the ladder of armed socialism.

Note, too, Putin's approach to the elections in Ukraine, and to the upcoming free election in Iraq.

While the Cold War has simply been renamed, to appease Americans who do not wish to think of war, it is true several of the former USSR entities do not seek a return to Communism or to dictatorship. Russia, though, has that spark beneath its surface, fanned by well over 70 years of strict rule.

China, by the way, is increasing their nuclear ICBM inventory, and is now adding a nuclear missile submarine to the navy. Most of China's active nuclear ICBMs are targeted at the United States. They are expected to have around 50 such weapons by mid-century, though currently it is estimated they have 10-14 actually targeted at the US mainland.

Enjoy.

Ed
Well put Ed. I sometimes wonder why these things don't seem to exist in the "mainstream mind." I hope I'm just overreacting.

[AB8TM]

Quote[/b] ] why would Russia,China, Iran (if they ever become nuclear) would wan't to target the USA.?

These are just my opinions and they won't buy you a cup of coffee, but I'll give it a shot. In the case of Russia, I think it can be as simple as Ed put it previously. Old habits are hard to break. Maybe I am making a big deal out of nothing, but Putin was a 16 year veteran of the KGB. I don't think I could work 16 years at something, as a profession and passion, and give it up on a whim.

China is more complex. Right now they are making too much money off of us, and making any kind of ridiculous public statements about the US would probably not be a good idea.

Iran's national religion is Islam, which believes that Satan sends servants to earth to create vice and murder. We just happen to be Satan's servants.



Quote[/b] ]Are they becoming offensive or defensive.?

Your guess is as good as mine, but if they have the capability to attack, a contingency plan for both offense and defense would be produced.

Quote[/b] ]What have you guys done to create so much animosity in the world?

By 'you guys' I guess you mean my government. What can be done about those things now? Maybe you can give examples of some of these things. If the American government came out and said "We're sorry for doing X, here's some food, some condoms and some blankets," would that make a difference?

As you say, while the American government is creating all this animosity in the world, people still want to immigrate to the United States.

Looking beyond just these countries we are talking about, you will see people that have animosity towards the US for involving itself in WWII. Was it wrong?

The bottom line to me is that the US has been a major superpower for much of it's recent history, and as such it has had to bear the load of many different issues in the name of national security and global stability. The US appears to be the 'boss' running everything, and there are always people who think they know better than the 'boss.' Sometimes they do know better. I am not prepared to defend every action by the US government in the past 150 years or so.

But there's hope! Maybe, the UN will unite as ALL under a one world government and rule of law, globally. There will not be any wars then. Of course, we will all have to practice the world religion to maintain this stability, since religion is a divisive issue.

War is another avenue of politics. When people want things, they can be obtained by diplomacy or war. To have no wars, this global government would have to give everybody exactly what they want or neutralize those whose 'wants' are unobtainable.

Anybody can ask questions, answering them is the hard part.

[WA5KRP]

Quote[/b] (gw4rcm @ Dec. 08 2004,19:07)]There are three question in this thread that begs to be asked, and that is why would Russia,China, Iran (if they ever become nuclear) would wan't to target the USA.?
Are they becoming offensive or defensive.?
What have you guys done to create so much animosity in the world?
Quote[/b] ]There are three question in this thread that begs to be asked, and that is why would Russia,China, Iran (if they ever become nuclear) would wan't to target the USA.?


Stalin, Mao, and Khomeini. Each was a brutal, murderous dictator that inflicted horrendous tyranny on their own. Does anyone seriously believe the US caused them to kill their own? Like other aggressors found throughout history, they set their sites on those they felt most threatened their miserable existence.

Quote[/b] ]Are they becoming offensive or defensive.?
That's a STUPID question.



Quote[/b] ]What have you guys done to create so much animosity in the world?


Formed alliances to confront the Axis Powers, the Soviet Union, the devolving Communist China, and more recently Muslim terrorist thugs and narco-terrorists that float across international boundaries. Where the hell have you been? The US and Britain have been joined at the hip since before WWI. Do you think it would be wise to abandon our alliance now?

Good luck, pally.



WA5KRP
Texas

[AB8TM]

Good points KRP,

I think we are wasting our typing power, our friend RCM here has a habit of asking a question, someone answers it, and he never responds.

[W5HTW]

RCM, the questions you ask seem simple, but the answers could require a book! Let me roam a bit! Hopefully, though, the "book" will not be full length!

Russia was our (and your) ally during World War II. But under Joseph Stalin, Russia was a very closed society, almost like North Korea of today. However, Russia, then the 'master country' of the Soviet Union, was aggressively expanding. The US role was to attempt to 'contain' the outward spread of that form of vicious and oppressive Communism. We did not want it eating up free nations, like a dark Pacman. We viewed it in much the same light we had earlier viewed Germany's attempt to take over Europe. The Soviets had proved their penchant for violent take-overs (Hungary comes to mind, as does Poland, a nation which had already suffered under Nazi Germany.) Our intent was to halt it in its tracks. We did not try to reverse it, to free the Soviet nations. We lived with a divided Germany for a very long time.

Then came the 'art' of nuclear deterrent. There are, though, no such things as defensive nuclear weapons. They are all offensive, not just in the USA but elsewhere, including France, Britain, China and Russia. MAD was Mutally Assured Destruction, and it meant if anyone fired the first shot, the second shot would be automatically fired by the target. It would be an offense in return for a previous offense. It was deterrent, and deterrent worked, for we had no nuclear wars. That kept the game fairly honest, for no one could push the button. If one did, his target would destroy him. And there was absolutely no way to stop it.

But then some of the non-superpowers got "the bomb." Israel has refused to confirm it has nuclear weapons, but all intel suggests it is quite capable in that area. Pakistan and India have them, and as recently as a few months ago actually talked of using them if conflict escalated over the Kashmir border. The world lingered for a month on the brink of a localized nuclear war. It was a very bad time, perhaps as close to massive destruction as was the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Neither nation had, or has, nuclear weapons targeted at the USA. The problem, though, is these nations are perhaps more prone to use such weapons than a superpower would be. They believe, if they are not facing down a US, Russia or England, they can intimidate their lesser enemies. They believe a nuclear war could be contained, limited. That is very unlikely.

Let's turn to China. China is still a Communist nation, but it does not have the same expansion goals as did the Soviet Union. China's main problem today is Taiwan. Taiwan claims to be an independent country. China claims it as a renegade province. China threatens regularly to 'bring it under control' which means take it back into the fold. And the US has stated repeatedly it will not let that happen. We do not, though, have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. If we recognized Taiwan diplomatically, China would refuse to have diplomatic relations with us. It is called the "One China" policy. We can have relations with only one, and it makes sense to have that one be mainland China, because they are the nation most dangerous to us, the one with whom we most definitely need dialogue.

China understands that our threat to protect Taiwan is not a hollow one. Consequently they have to be ready for war with us. They want Taiwan. It is as much a sore spot in their government as Hong Kong was; an island of democracy in a nation of rigid Communism. But we stand in the way. If they make a move on Taiwan, they need to be able to threaten us with nuclear force. Most analysts seem to believe such a conflict could be restricted to conventional weapons, but some are not so sure.

Our concern over Taiwan, though, is largely self-serving. We need it as a strategic military location. That is especially true since Clark Air Base in the Philippines was abandoned (shortly before its lease ran out anyway) due to a volcanic eruption, and Okinawa was returned to Japan rule in the early 1970s. Taiwan is our jumping off place for trouble in Southeast Asia. We need to maintain a strong military presence there, and we can't do that if we let it go back to China.

All this is to explain that the assumption that we have antagonized Russia, China or Iran, to make them target us, is not necessarily true. We fought a Cold War of containment, not aggression. We simply sought to contain Communism, (which is what we were doing in Vietnam, as well as in Korea in 1950, and even in Central America in the 1980s.)

Iran is not likely to target the USA with nuclear missiles. It could be decades before they develop a long range missile. Iran would more likely target Iraq, or Pakistan.

Alas, there is no such thing as "a small nuclear war." If Pakistan used one bomb on India, India would use two on Pakistan. Russia and the US would quickly become involved, and on opposite sides.

The issue of the moment, though, is the attempts to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons. If such weapons are developed in the Middle East, they can wind up in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. And from there, in the hands of terrorists. Almost certainly some terrorist organizations would have little if any hesitation in using them. It has been said recently that Osama bin Laden has claimed he has access to nuclear weapons, and has had for a long time. But bin Laden is not likely to use them, even if he has them. I question whether Hamas would use small scale nuclear devices if it had access to them. That may be especially true in light of the fact Israel would simply remove the Palestinians from the face of the planet.

But some radical groups, such as the insurgents in Iraq, would almost certainly use them. And the use of one, leads to the use of many. Only the superpowers knew the value of deterrent; the lesser nations do not comprehend that position.

Not all nuclear devices are pointed at the US, or at Russia or China. North Korea, for example, would target Japan, and, of course, South Korea. Pakistan targets India, and vice versa. For decades, China had more ICBMS pointed at the USSR than it did at the US! Tensions along the Sino-Soviet border were high, and armed conflicts were a constant thing, so much so they were never considered as "news."

Israel targets Iraq as well as Iran, Lebannon, Syria. If Saddam Hussein had remained in power and had acquired nuclear weapons, he would not have been aiming them at the US. He would have been aiming them at Turkey and Kuwait, and quite probably Iran, and at some point, Israel. And he probably would have used them. He may would have even used them on the Kurds.

So the bottom line is, it isn't animosity, and it never has been. It has been the US, and often with England as our ally, (and sometimes France as well as West Germany) attempting to halt the spread of the dominance of Communism. Had not the USSR fallen due to economics, we would still be doing exactly the same thing, though perhaps with a major difference; Afghanistan. It is possible the USSR would have chosen to use limited nuclear force in that war, just as there was discussion of the US using such limited force in Vietnam. Sensibilities prevailed with us, but we can't be sure they would have been with Russia's Afghani quagmire.

What do we think of Russia's problem with Cheknya? If the US was not a deterrent, would Russia use limited nuclear force there? I believe it is a possibility. If the US was not a deterrent in the Taiwan issue, would China use nuclear force to gain control? Not as likely, but still possible. Or maybe they would use whatever force was necessary, starting with conventional weapons and escalating. If the US was not a force to be reckoned with, would North Korea invade the South? Probably, though perhaps not with nuclear weapons.

Then, would a unified Korea, under Communism, challenge Japan? Yes, that's possible.

We stand as the sentry in that world of political turmoil. However, when it comes to the Muslim world, everything changes. In this world, unlike with Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Central America, it is a religious war. Historically, religions are totally intolerant. They are the most dominant human attitude, and often the most aggressive. They operate without reason, without logic, without politics, and without mutual acceptance.

Every religion has a driving and irresistable 'need' to convert everyone else to that religion. In history much of this came down to "do it my way or die," but man's laws have made inquistions mostly a thing of the past. Today a lot of that is toned down in the free world, but not in the radical religious world. In that culture, the mere existence of someone who is not of that religion is an insult. One does not have to go out of his way to antagonize; one need only exist.

This is a world we, the USA, have not understood. We could understand our Cold War opposition. We understood politics, and power and political aggression. But we have yet to adapt to the radical and violent religions. We thought of them as the Dark Ages, but now they are upon us again.

We exist. Hence we are the enemy.

Ed

[gw4rcm]

Ed, you'r eloquence astounds me, I now know more today than I did yesterday.

8TM
Due to the time difference between our two countries,I cannot usually respond to a post straight away, I'm usually in beddy byes when you are in fullflow.
I also have other interests apart from Radio and computers, so it might be many days before I return to a thread, but by that time everything that needs to be said, has been said.
By that time something new has come up.
I am truly sorry for that, I did not know you were waiting on my wisdom with such anticipation. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
RCM

[W5HTW]

More on post-Soviet Russia. Where do you suppose they are heading? Does this sound like the Cold War is over? I don't think so, Tim.

KGB Russia (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041214/D86VJQIG0.html)

Ed

[AB8TM]

Forgiven RCM, maybe it is my fast food American mentality kicking in. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[G0GQK]

Ed W5HTW,

That was excellent documentation of the current situation. Perhaps if politicians of all nations spoke with such clarity we would not have the dreadful problems that we have today.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (AB8TM @ Dec. 09 2004,00:07)]The bottom line to me is that the US has been a major superpower for much of it's (sic) recent history, and as such it has had to bear the load of many different issues in the name of national security and global stability. The US appears to be the 'boss' running everything

Agreed, the world has benefited from such actions as the destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime, but why must the American people alone bear the burden, both financial and in human lives, of policing the world?

Military spending has pushed the nation to the brink of bankruptcy and now social security is being dismantled while corporations withdraw medical benefits promised to retired employees, and education becomes increasingly unaffordable for the young.