Arms control: Why do Russians have road-mobile ICBMS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 26, 2002
Messages
1,715
Location
Texas & BWI Area
Like to the deadly Topol-M

It makes no sense to me. Talk about spooky weapon systems. One of these babies parked in China or Syberia can hit any US city.

Any takers?
 
Probably for self defence.

Every country is allowed to defend themselves, and sometimes the best defence is a strong offensive capability.

(I'm lernin' more about the world everyday)
 
Old habits die hard and it is most difficult for a leopard to change its spots. Until just recently Russia has been an expansionist empire for the past two hundred years. They certainly were not the only ones playing "the great game" however, and there were many shifts in alliances over the years.

In the mid 1800's the Russian and British empires came into conflict. Indeed, when British agents in Charleston precipitated the U.S. War Between the States in a bid to regain control over the lost colony, two years later, after the British supported rebels were defeated at Gettysburg and it appeared open intervention by the British would take place, the Russian Czar sent the Atlantic fleet to New York and the Pacific fleet to San Francisco to signal to the British that Russia would go to war to stop Britain from regaining control over America. This goodwill gesture was furthered with Russia later ceding Alaska to America.

However, by the beginning of the last century, Russia ran into two great roadblocks to further expansion, Japan and Europe. In 1904 Japan decisively defeated the Russian thrust into Manchuria and Korea.

In 1914 Russia allied with France and backed "the little Slav brothers" of Serbia who had assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The end result however was first the decisive defeat of the Russian thrust to the West at Tannenburg and ultimate defeat in WWI.

Indeed, it may here be noted, in 1917, after the mutiny of the French armies after the disastrous spring offensives, and the defeat of Russia, the British themselves were staring defeat full in the face. However, through the Balfour Declaration and effective control of the press with its drumbeat of atrocity propaganda, the British were adroitly able to mobilize internal pressure within the U.S. and bring America into the war to save the British bacon.

After the fall of the Czar who was replaced by a liberal government, there was a second revolution in October 1917 and the Bolsheviks gained control over Russia and began a "reign of terror" (the likes of which that had not been seen since the French Revolution), that convulsed the Russian empire. To consolidate their hold on power the Bolsheviks rapidly and ignominiously withdrew from WWI. By 1920 the Red Army with tactics of unlimited terror had gained full control and the march to the West resumed. It was only the brilliant victories by the Poles outside Warsaw which kept a revolutionary Russia from uniting with the revolutionary elements within Germany. One may ponder long on what the ultimate consequences would have been if such a union could have taken place.

The subsequent expansion under Stalin is fairly straight forward with the above as background. Germany, Poland and Japan were all the principle objects of Stalin's hatred and were marked for utter destruction. A by no means minor consideration in this regards is the extent that Stalin was able to exercise control over the FDR administration as revealed by Venona. Once understood, such control is simply staggering in scope.
 
Where do you get some of this stuff? The Brits precipitated the Civil War?

Anyone who thinks the Brits handed the Americans their independence on a silver platter in a goodwill gesture after putting up just a bit of a gentlemanly fight is utterly mistaken.

The American Revolution was a hard fought struggle. Witness the battle of Bunker Hill for the tenacity and ferocity of the Brits. If not for French support, it's difficult to be certain what would have been the outcome.

Within 30 years of their decisive defeat at Yorktown, the Brits launched the War of 1812 sacking the American capitol. If the Brits could have gained control over New Orleans and the Mississippi Basin, the U.S. national map might be quite different. That they did not was due to the great victory of Andrew Jackson and his militiamen in January 1815 where they squared off against a British army fresh from it's victories over Napoleon.

British agents directed the shots fired on the federal Fort Sumter in Charleston. The Brits saw America as an economic competitor with it's rising industrial base and world best merchant marine. However, their memory of catastrophic defeat on American soil was still vivid so they resorted to war by proxy. To precipitate the war, shots needed to be fired since simple seccession did not meet their agenda.

It was this same fear of economic competition which drove the British into two wars with Germany.

[ January 24, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: ex_MGB ]
 
Fascinating, but once again I ask, where do you get this stuff? Is this a theory you've come up with, or is it a verifiable fact?

BTW, who said anything about the Brits handing us anything on a silver platter?
And the Battle of new Orleans was fought after the treaty of Ghent was signed on Christmas Eve, 1814, ending the war before the battle was even fought.
 
The Russians developed mobile ICBMs a long time ago. At that time they had fewer submarine ICBMs and wanted for their missle force to be able to survive more readily in the event of a nuclear war. This is cold war stuff.

Since that time maybe the Russians have made more mobile ICBMs, if they can afford it with their current economy.

The US has also cut back on stationary land-based ICBMs. They can be targeted too easily.
 
quote:

Originally posted by ex_MGB:
Where do you get some of this stuff? The Brits precipitated the Civil War?

Anyone who thinks the Brits handed the Americans their independence on a silver platter in a goodwill gesture after putting up just a bit of a gentlemanly fight is utterly mistaken.

The American Revolution was a hard fought struggle. Witness the battle of Bunker Hill for the tenacity and ferocity of the Brits. If not for French support, it's difficult to be certain what would have been the outcome.

Within 30 years of their decisive defeat at Yorktown, the Brits launched the War of 1812 sacking the American capitol. If the Brits could have gained control over New Orleans and the Mississippi Basin, the U.S. national map might be quite different. That they did not was due to the great victory of Andrew Jackson and his militiamen in January 1815 where they squared off against a British army fresh from it's victories over Napoleon.

British agents directed the shots fired on the federal Fort Sumter in Charleston. The Brits saw America as an economic competitor with it's rising industrial base and world best merchant marine. However, their memory of catastrophic defeat on American soil was still vivid so they resorted to war by proxy. To precipitate the war, shots needed to be fired since simple seccession did not meet their agenda.

It was this same fear of economic competition which drove the British into two wars with Germany.


I have read a book or two about the Civil War and I have never heard about that one. I'd have to see that in a reputable publication other than the "Stranger than Fiction" stuff on the internet. But no matter the Civil war was going to start period-its a mute point.

Point #2 (and I am no expert here) The American Civil war and the War of 1812 had really only one logical outcome. The logistics in those days of occupying the colonies and later the U.S. were just not possible.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MarkC:
Where do you get some of this stuff?
The Brits precipitated the Civil War?


Exactly OMG we agree again
shocked.gif


BTW the Russian influejnce with respect to FDR (U.S.) and Churchill was only to the extent that it forced the U.S. modify their tactics. For instance they (allies) needed to convince the Russians that they were opening up a Western front to take the pressure off of the Russians on the Eastern Front. The Russians were upset with operation Torch and subsequently Italy. But in the end the U.S and Allies did what was best for them when they invaded at Normandy at their own timetable.

One other notable Russian "Influence" was the timetable for dropping at least the second A Bomb on Nagasaki. The Russians were beginning to advance into Japan and it was feared by the U.S/Brits that this would undermine post war plans for Japan.

Actually (flamesuit to high) it was fortutious for Japan that we dropped the second A-Bomb when we did on Nagasaki: If we would have waited Japan would have suffered 100's of thousands more deaths at the hands of the relentless B-29 Bombings which were killing 10's of thousands of Japanese per day. The time period of March 7-17 saw around 175,000 japanese die in B-29 Raids. The Russian invasion from the North would have literally killed millians of Japanese in addition to turning Japan into a partial Communist country-Post WWII.

Flame away
smile.gif
 
Rhetoric aside i meant the question in this context.

During the 1980's all the repugnant liberals in western europe cried bloody murder and protested like **** when we deployed the Pershing II road mobile IRBM's in response to the Soviet SS-20 missiles in East Germany.

These missiles bascially scared the Soviets silly..as there range could hit the Moscow suburbs easily.

So a couple talks later we trade them pro-quid quo.

The bottom line of the question is the road mobile ICBMS are intensely destabolizing and dangerous. Lets assume we have a crazy ground commander, or even a couple terrorists drive off with a loaded Topol-M transporter (as big as they are *lol*

Second, from a parity standpoint, if the Russians have some 3,500 warheads, with there land-silo based detterent the most ominous, why do you need road mobile ICBMS>

Third, in the 80's Reagan nixed our plans to build the rail and road mobile MX missile program.

There thats a better rephrase of my question.

It is my contention that road mobile missiles are only fielded by countries that are fearing a 1st nuclear strike by anyone. (india, pakistan, china, russia that is)
 
quote:

It is my contention that road mobile missiles are only fielded by countries that are fearing a 1st nuclear strike by anyone. (india, pakistan, china, russia that is)

I'm not arguing ...but wouldn't a mobile platform have a much higher (and at much lower cost) survivability rate (which I think was mentioned)? The Soviets had a very hard time keeping up with us in the nuclear arsenal. They coped with it by opposing any limits to the number of warheads that they had ....which caused us to apply as much pressure as possible to have them limit them ....to the numbers that they could produce. It's all typically eastern bloc mentality.

I would offer that the mobile lauch platform was far cheaper than our proposed "dense pack" (or was it implimented?). How does one target mobile platforms with a high probability of their destruction?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom