New Russian ICBM

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
I should have added anthrax, hemmoragic fevers and other bugs that were being actively manufactured and stored. This had been unallowable by treaty since the early 70's. Another treaty that was not honored. The latest excursion for them is breaking the INF Treaty on development of intermediate range missiles. Note that the do not honorably withdraw from a treaty (every treaty that I'm aware of has a clause that speaks to that), no, they just cheat to gain advantage.


Yeah, um, we're not so innocent in all that either...

We tested bio weapons on our own civilian population...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Jetronic


But WW2 was really regarded as part 2 of the first great war by the Germans.


Uh, meh, I think that's a bit of a broad brush...


Agreed.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
I should have added anthrax, hemmoragic fevers and other bugs that were being actively manufactured and stored. This had been unallowable by treaty since the early 70's. Another treaty that was not honored. The latest excursion for them is breaking the INF Treaty on development of intermediate range missiles. Note that the do not honorably withdraw from a treaty (every treaty that I'm aware of has a clause that speaks to that), no, they just cheat to gain advantage.


Yeah, um, we're not so innocent in all that either...

We tested bio weapons on our own civilian population...


Really? How many died? Where and when? I'm serious, not facetious.

Funny story. Early 80's Huntsville, AL. News story says chemical weapons being tested at Redstone Arsenal (they did test with simulants to train with the chem agent detectors). So the reporter goes to the Mayor and Police Chief at their favorite breakfast place, shoves a mic in their face and says, did you know they were testing chemical warfare weapons in open air at Redstone (accusatory tone of course)? The Mayor leans back, finishes picking his teeth, clears his throat and says, Wal, I guess those boys know what they're doin.

The reporter didn't know what to say. They never acknowledged their stupid mistake.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
I recently read the (semi) declassified Soviet War Plan for Western Europe in an invasion of NATO countries. I nearly shat myself with how freely and psychotically the Soviets were willing to use nuclear weapons and literally wanted their armies to advance into nuclear, radioactive wastelands in a plan that was patently bizarre and would almost be hysterical if it weren't so terrifying that they actually believed it was a tenable plan...


The soviet union didn't want to use nuclear power as a first strike weapon, so that plan was either in response to a nuclear attack by Nato, or just plucked out of thin air. Russia in the post soviet area however has changed doctrine, and will not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons.


That's what I used to think before reading the war plan. Actually, the Soviets had a massively overly optimistic outlook regarding their armies progress and just assumed that NATO would resort to nukes so they might as well go first. I don't know if this was a fixed plan or one that was the main plan for the entire duration of what we call the Cold War. But the fact that they expected to nuke Bonn (Germany), then expected to occupy the radioactive wastelands afterwards as if there was some value there is rather telling...


But their "optimism" was shared by the allied forces in the eighties. There was indeed no conventional way to stop the warschau pact armies at the time. Not in the least because there was no in depth defense in place. That begs the question, why aren't you preparing a defense? Is it because you're going on the offense, or you will nuke the agressor?

A year or so ago someobody posted a documentary about NATO exercises in the Fulda gap in the eighties. Those participants realised they're expected lifetime if the Russians started pouring through was measured in minutes (British tank battalion).
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Jetronic


But WW2 was really regarded as part 2 of the first great war by the Germans.


Uh, meh, I think that's a bit of a broad brush...


Not really. That was the general feeling in Germany at the time, which also led to the rise of the NSDAP. The German people and especially WWI veterans felt betrayed by their own leaders and definitely not beaten in WWI. I have no doubt they felt beaten after WWII though...

Hitler had the French sign their surrender in the same train that was used in 1918 when the germans signed the armistice.. apparently the fat lady hadn't sung yet, as far as Germany was concerned.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: UncleDave


We aren't breaking the nuke treaties - they are.

Im not saying we haven't made our mistakes - but the Russians arent the "good guys" here either.

UD



Yes you ARE breaking the treaty. The plant that's supposed to convert the weapons grade plutonium to nuclear fuel, is up and running in Russia, but cancelled in the USA. The USA wasn't destroying their part of the deal either!


OK. The American government is still funding the construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Plant dispute the current President's request to stop construction and it is ongoing as we speak even after Russia's NEW START withdraw.

What is your point? Because your post is false.



Yes.


Unfortunately there is nothing nefarious in the US actions relative to the MOX plant except the Obama administration's misquided, in my opinion, approach to global warming dogma. I wish it was giving us some advantage but, sadly, no. The plant at Savannah River has been held up because the administration wants the highly enriched feeder fuels mixed down and buried - not reused. They don't want more fuel, they want to take it out of the fuel cycle and dump it in further support of renewable energy.

But what could be more renewable than a fast breeder reactor? That's what the Russians are doing with their MOX but we in our Democratic administrations have been against them since Jimmy Carter forbade further development in the 1970's. The worry, rightly or wrongly, was the further proliferation that "might"occur.

The bomb reprocessing program (megatons to megawatts) was a total suucess and ended, as scheduled, in 2013. Indeed power generation companies are still buying some of their fuel from the Russians on a commercial basis.

So when you hear the Russians moaning that we broke the treaty be aware that it is crocodile tears. They are producing more fuel than they use (fast breeder) while the current administration has been intending to throw ours away! Wow, big threat to the Russians, right? So they cry their tears while using such reasons to break other treaties.

Don't be taken in when those people moan. All you need do is look elsewhere to see what they're actually doing. And please don't fall for or use the faux-intellectual "America sucks too" equivalancy. Those who do fall into the group that Stalin called useful idiots. Dive into the data and find the truth.
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
DeepFriar said:
I should have added anthrax, hemmoragic fevers and other bugs that were being actively manufactured and stored. This had been unallowable by treaty since the early 70's. Another treaty that was not honored. The latest excursion for them is breaking the INF Treaty on development of intermediate range missiles. Note that the do not honorably withdraw from a treaty (every treaty that I'm aware of has a clause that speaks to that), no, they just cheat to gain advantage.


Yeah, um, we're not so innocent in all that either...

We tested bio weapons on our own civilian population...

Really? How many died? Where and when? I'm serious, not facetious.


Not "facetious", perhaps a bit smug, glib, and disingenuous?":

Quote:

Funny story. Early 80's Huntsville, AL. News story says chemical weapons being tested at Redstone Arsenal (they did test with simulants to train with the chem agent detectors). So the reporter goes to the Mayor and Police Chief at their favorite breakfast place, shoves a mic in their face and says, did you know they were testing chemical warfare weapons in open air at Redstone (accusatory tone of course)? The Mayor leans back, finishes picking his teeth, clears his throat and says, Wal, I guess those boys know what they're doin.

The reporter didn't know what to say. They never acknowledged their stupid mistake.
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Nickdfresh said:
DeepFriar said:
I should have added anthrax, hemmoragic fevers and other bugs that were being actively manufactured and stored. This had been unallowable by treaty since the early 70's. Another treaty that was not honored. The latest excursion for them is breaking the INF Treaty on development of intermediate range missiles. Note that the do not honorably withdraw from a treaty (every treaty that I'm aware of has a clause that speaks to that), no, they just cheat to gain advantage.


Yeah, that's a knee-slapper!

Quote:

Really? How many died? Where and when? I'm serious, not facetious.


Well, since you're serious, I'll reply.

Quote:
Funny story. Early 80's Huntsville, AL. News story says chemical weapons being tested at Redstone Arsenal (they did test with simulants to train with the chem agent detectors). So the reporter goes to the Mayor and Police Chief at their favorite breakfast place, shoves a mic in their face and says, did you know they were testing chemical warfare weapons in open air at Redstone (accusatory tone of course)? The Mayor leans back, finishes picking his teeth, clears his throat and says, Wal, I guess those boys know what they're doin.

The reporter didn't know what to say. They never acknowledged their stupid mistake.


Not a funny story: We had this war in a place called Vietnam, and in that war be liberally sprayed the residents and our troops with defoliant...

Maybe try going to a Veterans Hospital and speak to some our 'Nam vets. A lot of them died after being sprayed with Agent Orange. You know, knowingly poisoned by the government with very toxic chemicals that alters DNA?

You can Google Agent Orange yourself...

And then there was this chestnut from the Cold War that I'm pretty sure you're rather aware of:

Quote:
As leaves turned red, and as San Francisco segued into the smoky autumn of 1950, Edward Nevin lay dying in a hospital bed.

A rare bacteria had entered his urinary tract, made its way through his bloodstream, and clung to his heart -- a bacteria that had never been seen in the hospital’s history. Before researchers could hypothesize the bacteria's root cause, ten more patients were admitted with the same infection. Doctors were baffled: how could have this microbe presented itself?

For nearly thirty years, the incident remained a secret -- until Edward Nevin’s grandson set out to bring about justice.

What ensued was a series of terrifying revelations: for two decades, the United States government had intentionally doused 293 populated areas with bacteria. They'd done this with secrecy. They’d done this without informing citizens of potentially dangerous exposure. They’d done this without taking precautions to protect the public’s health and safety, and with no medical follow-up

And it had all started in 1950, with the spraying of San Francisco.
...


LINK

Of course, there are all the complete [censored] in the Imperial Japanese Army Unit 731 that did hideously gruesome things, and were conveniently never faced prosecution, unless they were unlucky enough to have been captured by the Soviets. You see, even though they essentially conducted autopsies on living subjects and used biological warfare on unfortunate Chinese civilians. But that didn't stop us from employing these demonic scum!

So yes sir, we're not so "innocent".

And of course, this little fun video showing U.S. Army (many of whom are probably draftees) being ordered to take LSD just to see what would happen:
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
I recently read the (semi) declassified Soviet War Plan for Western Europe in an invasion of NATO countries. I nearly shat myself with how freely and psychotically the Soviets were willing to use nuclear weapons and literally wanted their armies to advance into nuclear, radioactive wastelands in a plan that was patently bizarre and would almost be hysterical if it weren't so terrifying that they actually believed it was a tenable plan...


The soviet union didn't want to use nuclear power as a first strike weapon, so that plan was either in response to a nuclear attack by Nato, or just plucked out of thin air. Russia in the post soviet area however has changed doctrine, and will not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons.


That's what I used to think before reading the war plan. Actually, the Soviets had a massively overly optimistic outlook regarding their armies progress and just assumed that NATO would resort to nukes so they might as well go first. I don't know if this was a fixed plan or one that was the main plan for the entire duration of what we call the Cold War. But the fact that they expected to nuke Bonn (Germany), then expected to occupy the radioactive wastelands afterwards as if there was some value there is rather telling...


But their "optimism" was shared by the allied forces in the eighties. There was indeed no conventional way to stop the warschau pact armies at the time. Not in the least because there was no in depth defense in place. That begs the question, why aren't you preparing a defense? Is it because you're going on the offense, or you will nuke the agressor?


By the mid-1980's, it was estimated when one accounted for the vastly superior technology of Western tanks and the fact that they would be picking off Soviet tanks funneling through the Fulda Gap, NATO many have enjoyed a roughly 1.1:1 advantage against the Warsaw Pact despite their massive numbers of tanks. Also, US doctrine changed from the
"hedgehog" style forward defense the French pioneered in WWII (but too late to save France) to a much more aggressive "Air-Land Battle" structure designed to flank and cut off their logistics by actually counter-invading the Warsaw Pact and causing mayhem in their rear. They would have faced severe logistical nightmares even without this...

Fun fact: the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and had lots of ammo for their tanks but basically forgot about food and potable water. They might have had real issues with their logistics...

Quote:
A year or so ago someobody posted a documentary about NATO exercises in the Fulda gap in the eighties. Those participants realised they're expected lifetime if the Russians started pouring through was measured in minutes (British tank battalion).


Possibly true. I briefly worked with intelligence ground radar operators called "Romeos" after their MOS. They were pretty proud of the fact that they would be overrun and dead within minutes of spotting formations of incoming Soviet armor! But the Soviets would have had some nasty surprises and they would suffered catastrophic losses themselves...
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: UncleDave


We aren't breaking the nuke treaties - they are.

Im not saying we haven't made our mistakes - but the Russians arent the "good guys" here either.

UD



Yes you ARE breaking the treaty. The plant that's supposed to convert the weapons grade plutonium to nuclear fuel, is up and running in Russia, but cancelled in the USA. The USA wasn't destroying their part of the deal either!


OK. The American government is still funding the construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Plant dispute the current President's request to stop construction and it is ongoing as we speak even after Russia's NEW START withdraw.

What is your point? Because your post is false.



Yes.


Unfortunately there is nothing nefarious in the US actions relative to the MOX plant except the Obama administration's misquided, in my opinion, approach to global warming dogma. I wish it was giving us some advantage but, sadly, no. The plant at Savannah River has been held up because the administration wants the highly enriched feeder fuels mixed down and buried - not reused. They don't want more fuel, they want to take it out of the fuel cycle and dump it in further support of renewable energy.

But what could be more renewable than a fast breeder reactor? That's what the Russians are doing with their MOX but we in our Democratic administrations have been against them since Jimmy Carter forbade further development in the 1970's. The worry, rightly or wrongly, was the further proliferation that "might"occur.

The bomb reprocessing program (megatons to megawatts) was a total suucess and ended, as scheduled, in 2013. Indeed power generation companies are still buying some of their fuel from the Russians on a commercial basis.

So when you hear the Russians moaning that we broke the treaty be aware that it is crocodile tears. They are producing more fuel than they use (fast breeder) while the current administration has been intending to throw ours away! Wow, big threat to the Russians, right? So they cry their tears while using such reasons to break other treaties.

Don't be taken in when those people moan. All you need do is look elsewhere to see what they're actually doing. And please don't fall for or use the faux-intellectual "America sucks too" equivalancy. Those who do fall into the group that Stalin called useful idiots. Dive into the data and find the truth.


Some maybe "useful idiots". Others might be useless ones that are sheep with blinders on...


And we do have a pretty active "bio-weapons DEFENSE" program that is alleged to be a bit offensive. I don't object to this at all in fact...
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Jetronic


But WW2 was really regarded as part 2 of the first great war by the Germans.


Uh, meh, I think that's a bit of a broad brush...


Not really. That was the general feeling in Germany at the time, which also led to the rise of the NSDAP. The German people and especially WWI veterans felt betrayed by their own leaders and definitely not beaten in WWI. I have no doubt they felt beaten after WWII though...

Hitler had the French sign their surrender in the same train that was used in 1918 when the germans signed the armistice.. apparently the fat lady hadn't sung yet, as far as Germany was concerned.


The infamous "stab-in-the-back by the JEEEWWWWSSSS!" Yes, there is something to that based on the myth the German Army was never formally defeated "in the field". This of course was silly as they certainly didn't win either and the Western Allies were in the process of mounting the final offensive which was already beginning the crushing process by the Armistice...

But I think that is a bit over-simplistic and puts all the blame on the Germans, which they deserve some of. But the actions of France in the squeezing of Germany and the crushing U.S. based Depression cascaded with a whole host of factors to allow the Nazis to essentially seize power after gaining seats in the face of catastrophe. Certainly there was extremism in Germany from all sides. But the limitations on the German military ironically was one of the factors as they had to rely on non-state controlled militias like the Freikorp to fight border wars in Poland. This began a bad precedent of armed militias that vied for power. Even the the center-left and center-right democratic minded parties had armed militias/street fighters that fought with the NSDAP and communists, among others...
 
Quote:


Not a funny story: We had this war in a place called Vietnam, and in that war be liberally sprayed the residents and our troops with defoliant...

Maybe try going to a Veterans Hospital and speak to some our 'Nam vets. A lot of them died after being sprayed with Agent Orange. You know, knowingly poisoned by the government with very toxic chemicals that alters DNA?

You can Google Agent Orange yourself...

andd then there was this chestnut from the Cold War that I'm pretty sure you're


You can't see the humor in some overeager reporter trying to scare his viewers over testing chemical agent detectors with simulants and a good ole Southern boy not getting excited? Too bad.


I don't need to google it - I was there and, for a couple of months, living right next to a helipad where the stuff got loaded. And I'm on the Agent Orange Registry (1 of 9,000,000, whoopee). Where were you hero?

You haven't forgotten why AO was used. You know why. How many more thousands, yes thousands, of US and RVN lives were saved because of the interdiction of men and materiel on the trail? The way you tell it somebody in the US was just looking for a way to poison Americans.

The Cold War examples you quote are well known and they are also extreme outliers in the statistical sense compared to the Russians loadng bioagents into warheads 20 years after swearing they wouldn't (my original post that we are now on a tangent of).

Yes, wrong things were done. Humans being humans we occasionally suck big time. And it's horri ble if you're on the wrong end of that. It's good to be outraged by it so we either don't make the same mistakes twice or minimize mistakes in war that take lives unnecessarily. But what is not OK is to take what amounts to past statistical anecdotes and reach a broad conclusion of equivalence between us and the Russians for instance.

War sucks and people get hurt. They get hurt because we order them to fly into the thickest air defense in history (after making sure the bad guys know exactly when and which way we're coming), or sending soldiers against prepared positions and many times, too many, by stupid human venality or mistake. It's just the way it is.

Put away your broad brushes and I'll agree with most of your feelings. If you wish to believe that all politico/DOD types are just monsters I will simply wish you Merry Christmas and hope for a better New Year.
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar


You can't see the humor in some overeager reporter trying to scare his viewers over testing chemical agent detectors with simulants and a good ole Southern boy not getting excited? Too bad.


Oh I do. But chemical and bio warfare was something I was personally terrified of while nervous in the service...


Quote:
I don't need to google it - I was there and, for a couple of months, living right next to a helipad where the stuff got loaded. And I'm on the Agent Orange Registry (1 of 9,000,000, whoopee). Where were you hero?


Thank you for your service. I was born in 1970...

Quote:
You haven't forgotten why AO was used. You know why. How many more thousands, yes thousands, of US and RVN lives were saved because of the interdiction of men and materiel on the trail? The way you tell it somebody in the US was just looking for a way to poison Americans.


Unfortunately it's a bit more insidious than that and played into Gen. Westmorland's strategy of "Attrition". The country-side was to be depopulated and one of the ways to do that was to destroy food supplies and agriculture - which AO did rather well. Yes, it did prevent the enemy some cover, but in the end the actual strategy failed and it didn't matter...

Quote:
The Cold War examples you quote are well known and they are also extreme outliers in the statistical sense compared to the Russians loadng bioagents into warheads 20 years after swearing they wouldn't (my original post that we are now on a tangent of).

Yes, wrong things were done. Humans being humans we occasionally suck big time. And it's horri ble if you're on the wrong end of that. It's good to be outraged by it so we either don't make the same mistakes twice or minimize mistakes in war that take lives unnecessarily. But what is not OK is to take what amounts to past statistical anecdotes and reach a broad conclusion of equivalence between us and the Russians for instance.


That was my only point, yes we're not perfect and yes the Soviets were much, much worse in many aspects. They probably used bio and chems on political prisoners to test them, which is reminiscent of Unit 731. Perhaps not often and it was rare, but they did it...

Quote:
War sucks and people get hurt. They get hurt because we order them to fly into the thickest air defense in history (after making sure the bad guys know exactly when and which way we're coming), or sending soldiers against prepared positions and many times, too many, by stupid human venality or mistake. It's just the way it is.


I agree war sucks. Have you ever read Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie?

Quote:
Put away your broad brushes and I'll agree with most of your feelings. If you wish to believe that all politico/DOD types are just monsters I will simply wish you Merry Christmas and hope for a better New Year.


You have a Merry Christmas and New Year as well...
 
We need to do what it takes to stay ahead of the Russians in terms of technology of missiles and warheads, and ABM systems.
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
We need to do what it takes to stay ahead of the Russians in terms of technology of missiles and warheads, and ABM systems.


Modernizing would do it. Especially with the Air Force's Red-Headed Stepchild ICBM arm I think...
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
We need to do what it takes to stay ahead of the Russians in terms of technology of missiles and warheads, and ABM systems.

Lets see...We could do nothing in the next 20 years except maintain what we have. We can deliver 1500 active warheads via Ohio Class Boomers, Air Force bombers, and ICBM's. We have a couple thousand inactive ones that can be strapped onto any number of Cruise missles. Staying ahead means we could destroy them 20 times over . They can destroy us 15 times over. Let them be able to destroy us 25 times over who cares.

This thinking is what led the military to happily build 35K warheads. Just what we needed
crazy2.gif
 
Last edited:
A liquid fueled ICBM delivery vehicle is essentially useless.
It cannot be maintained in a fueled and ready state, which means that it can only be a first strike weapon. Fueling these rockets for flight would be observable, so any first strike surprise advantage is lost.
These aren't even especially impressive launch vehicles.
We built a heavier lifting liquid fueled rocket way back in the sixties. A guy who lived a couple of towns over from me flew one with two other crewmen to lunar orbit and then actually landed on the moon way back in 1969.
You could look it up.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
A liquid fueled ICBM delivery vehicle is essentially useless.
It cannot be maintained in a fueled and ready state, which means that it can only be a first strike weapon. Fueling these rockets for flight would be observable, so any first strike surprise advantage is lost.
These aren't even especially impressive launch vehicles.
We built a heavier lifting liquid fueled rocket way back in the sixties. A guy who lived a couple of towns over from me flew one with two other crewmen to lunar orbit and then actually landed on the moon way back in 1969.
You could look it up.


Actually, whether they can be kept fueled depends on the rocket. The Titan II, our last liquid-fuel ICBM, was kept fueled and ready to launch. It was the heaviest ICBM we have ever deployed - capable of delivering an ~ 9MT warhead or 3 smaller ones.

The earlier Titan I and Atlas did not use storable fuel. In any case, solid-fuel rockets are much easier to deal with, and that's the only ICBM we still have (Minuteman III).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top