Isn't this the same website from last week that warned what setting off a nuclear warhead 300 miles over the US would do?

I would too!

Good old reliable Pravda. Always 100% accurate. I only wish there were as many Pravda links as there are Daily Mail links.

Meh, this reads like it's for Russian internal/domestic consumption. Odds are it's either domestic military pork or an unpopular government trying to redirect internal anger at an external enemy (or both).

In any case, I can't see this making any significant change in US military planning. Russia has been able to hit the US with nuclear ICBMs for decades; nothing new there.

Is this the same Russian military that has all of their subs rusting in bases?

ronaprhys: Is this the same Russian military that has all of their subs rusting in bases?

Those that didn't explode in the Barents sea, that is.

They have trouble fielding toasters.
Plus, this is a Plobda article.

The derp is strong with Plobda.

Ummm, they've had these for years. Decades, even.

Russia needs these to have a feasible deterrent since their conventional forces can't do it any more.

Make it even bigger: easier for tracking systems to lock and for ordinance to blow out of the sky.

jshine: Meh, this reads like it's for Russian internal/domestic consumption. Odds are it's either domestic military pork or an unpopular government trying to redirect internal anger at an external enemy (or both).

It's Putin keeping his tribe's attention directed elsewhere.

/If it ain't Islamic, it doesn't show up on Pentagon radar anymore.
//Bin Laden won.

fireclown: ronaprhys: Is this the same Russian military that has all of their subs rusting in bases?

Those that didn't explode in the Barents sea, that is.



Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the Warroom!'

Do the Russians still care what the United States does? The Cold War was ending before I was even born.

Is that a 100 ton missile in your pocket?

H31N0US: Make it even bigger: easier for tracking systems to lock and for ordinance to blow out of the sky.

Twenty MIRVs are hard to hit by anything.

All what you say may be true, but they only need to get one H-bomb through our defenses to end life as we know it.

Meh, they'll probably have a single test launch; call it a success; claim to have 250 of them; 150 of them in silos, another 100 mobil units thare are always moving around.

"We crush imperialist American pig dog like like bug, miss-isle shield or niet"

I enjoy how around 40% of Pravda articles are some variation on "America is totally gay and it sucks so Russia rules yay!"

We cannot allow a defense plan gap!

HotIgneous Intruder: H31N0US: Make it even bigger: easier for tracking systems to lock and for ordinance to blow out of the sky.

Twenty MIRVs are hard to hit by anything.

Which is why it's puzzling that Russia has made any noise at all about the missile defense system. Even if it works perfectly, it could only handle a tiny fraction of the missiles Russia could lob at us. It's plainly not "targeted" at them.

I think this is how Russia fell into Economic Chaos the first time, Trying to keep up with our Military machine. I am far from a pacifist, in fact I spent a good portion of my life on ballistic Submarines. Still, I wonder if we just partnered with them for a Ballistic Missile Defense program could help bring an end to Nuclear Proliferation.

H31N0US: Make it even bigger: easier for tracking systems to lock and for ordinance to blow out of the sky.

Came here for this. If Russia's idea for defeating a missile defense system is to build missiles that are much larger targets, maybe we should be OK with this?

Fish in a Barrel: HotIgneous Intruder: H31N0US: Make it even bigger: easier for tracking systems to lock and for ordinance to blow out of the sky.

Twenty MIRVs are hard to hit by anything.

Which is why it's puzzling that Russia has made any noise at all about the missile defense system. Even if it works perfectly, it could only handle a tiny fraction of the missiles Russia could lob at us. It's plainly not "targeted" at them.

Doesn't matter; the smart people in Russia certainly know this, but the anti-US propaganda is useful to distract people from their real domestic problems. If it wasn't the US, it'd be some other enemy -- real or invented.

HellRaisingHoosier: Do the Russians still care what the United States does? The Cold War was ending before I was even born.

You'll find most people, whether in Russia, the United States, or anywhere else, are unable to feel national pride without having an enemy country to hate. Also true in regular life (see racism, homophobia, xenophobia). Most people are too lacking in self confidence to ever feel anything that they think counts as such without relying on hatred for another group of people whom they can look down on simply for existing.

Maktaka: You'll find most people, whether in Russia, the United States, or anywhere else, are unable to feel national pride without having an enemy country to hate.

Big country - Small Florida/Kamchatka Syndrome

scottydoesntknow: Ehhh, that's just Russia being Russia. If they aren't making completely unconventional, supersized weapons then we would have a problem.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 522x322]

Misleading graph is misleading. Nuclear explosion effects don't scale up linearly with yield, they follow the inverse square law.

HellRaisingHoosier: Do the Russians still care what the United States does? The Cold War was ending before I was even born.

Did it now?

Who cares what Russia has? The missile defense system isn't for Russia. Russia is deterred quite adequately by our own nuclear arsenal (and vice versa of course). The missile defense system is for smaller, more unpredictable players.

When even a regular sized nuke can wipe out a city I'm not sure of the value of building even bigger ones. At some point you're going to hit the heartbreak of diminishing returns.

It's like two people holding a gun to each others heads. It doesn't matter that one has a 9mm and the other has a .45. It only matters who fires first.

Pravda is full of lies everyone knows Reagan destroyed Russia and he did it all by his self!

dittybopper: scottydoesntknow: Ehhh, that's just Russia being Russia. If they aren't making completely unconventional, supersized weapons then we would have a problem.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 522x322]

Misleading graph is misleading. Nuclear explosion effects don't scale up linearly with yield, they follow the inverse square law.

This.

" I don't think there are any Russians, and there ain't no Yanks, just corporate criminals, playing with tanks"

BelleCurve: All what you say may be true, but they only need to get one H-bomb through our defenses to end life as we know it.

You failed at science, didn't you? Probably flunked out of math and anything that requires thought, logic, or critical thinking on top of that.

I kind of have to wonder why we keep poking the bear on this. The nuclear standoff is the greatest thing ever for world peace. We should thank the makers of nukes every day for eliminating world wars. Now, no world leader wants a major war because he know HIS fat, flabby arse will be roasted along with all the peons.

hitlersbrain: I kind of have to wonder why we keep poking the bear on this.

In gay Russia, bear pokes you.

/NTTAWWT.

BelleCurve: All what you say may be true, but they only need to get one H-bomb through our defenses to end life as we know it.

There have already been dozens of H-bombs (i.e., nuclear weapons that generate energy through fusion) detonated on US soil.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/
(look for the word "thermonuclear" -- it implies fusion)

dittybopper: hitlersbrain: I kind of have to wonder why we keep poking the bear on this.

In gay Russia, bear pokes you.

/NTTAWWT.

Fish in a Barrel:
Which is why it's puzzling that Russia has made any noise at all about the missile defense system. Even if it works perfectly, it could only handle a tiny fraction of the missiles Russia could lob at us. It's plainly not "targeted" at them.

The thing that people always seem to forget is the Russian missile defense system.

You know - the large, active one that's officially centered around Moscow? The one that's several times larger than the US one based in Alaska? The one that's "obsolete," but still in place and getting occasional upgrades?

Not to mention the S-300 and its variants. What's the S-300? It's a very popular surface-to-air missile, and is the basis for the "new" Russian ABM system (replacing the older missiles in the system - except that later "antiaircraft" versions only differ from the ABM ones in what guidance radars they use). Oddly enough, current versions of the "antiaircraft" S-300 have new radars that are versatile enough to act as theater and IRBM defenses, and all it would take would be a moderately improved guidance package to make it an actual ICBM defense system - or a tie-in to the existing ABM radars for initial guidance.

Russia has a LOT of S-300 systems, scattered all over the place.

Then there's the newer S-400 SAM/ABM system, which is "officially" not quite an intermediate-range ABM system - but it has all of the capabilities of one, including range and accuracy. Russia is selling those to places like Iran...

Of course, there's the S-500. Supposedly in hiatus, but maybe not - and it's even longer-ranged than the others, with true midcourse defense capabilities. You should also remember that when the S-500 was in initial development in the 1990s, it was in blatant violation of the ABM treaty. It has about the same capabilities as the "big" US Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system.

jshine: BelleCurve: All what you say may be true, but they only need to get one H-bomb through our defenses to end life as we know it.

There have already been dozens of H-bombs (i.e., nuclear weapons that generate energy through fusion) detonated on US soil.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/
(look for the word "thermonuclear" -- it implies fusion)

That's pretty naive. A H-Bomb set off in the middle of a densely populated urabn area will have more impact than the ones set off 50 miles outside of Asscrack Nevada.

Look at how 'life as we know it' changed when a couple thousand people were killed. Think about what the reaction would be like if a couple hundred thousand or a couple million get nuked...my god man...there isn't a glittery weeping eagle gif large enough to express it.

Just aim the damn things at Switzerland. Everyone should be okay with that . . .

dallylamma: jshine: BelleCurve: All what you say may be true, but they only need to get one H-bomb through our defenses to end life as we know it.

There have already been dozens of H-bombs (i.e., nuclear weapons that generate energy through fusion) detonated on US soil.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/
(look for the word "thermonuclear" -- it implies fusion)

That's pretty naive. A H-Bomb set off in the middle of a densely populated urabn area will have more impact than the ones set off 50 miles outside of Asscrack Nevada.

Look at how 'life as we know it' changed when a couple thousand people were killed. Think about what the reaction would be like if a couple hundred thousand or a couple million get nuked...my god man...there isn't a glittery weeping eagle gif large enough to express it.

Only if you're going with the weakest possible definition of life as we know it. When the phrase "end life as we know it" there's a tendency for the extinction of our species in play, not some horrific tragedy that only kills a city's worth of people.

dallylamma: Think about what the reaction would be like if a couple hundred thousand or a couple million get nuked...my god man...there isn't a glittery weeping eagle gif large enough to express it.


It would be bad.

Fairly certain that as civilians we don't know the full extent of the missile defense system. The tendency among military minds is to take things to the extreme, so if they know the enemy might lob dozens of nukes they plan on hundreds. If they can launch hundreds they prepare for thousands, etc.

watson.t.hamster: When even a regular sized nuke can wipe out a city I'm not sure of the value of building even bigger ones.

Regular sized ones cannot take out a city. Hiroshima just had a blast area with a 1 mile radius, and the houses were made mostly of wood. The largest one we could possibly make wouldn't even level a city, especially if they contain earthquake proof concrete and steel buildings. The only thing truly scary about nukes is the radiation, and that doesn't remain strictly in the area of impact, it goes global, making them rather stupid for anyone to use.

Marcintosh: Just aim the damn things at Switzerland. Everyone should be okay with that . . .

They already painted targets everywhere...

How is 1 really big missile better? It's a bigger slower more expensive target. Hundreds of smaller missiles would be way better.

J. Frank Parnell: Fairly certain that as civilians we don't know the full extent of the missile defense system. The tendency among military minds is to take things to the extreme, so if they know the enemy might lob dozens of nukes they plan on hundreds. If they can launch hundreds they prepare for thousands, etc.

Russian are working on 1000-ton missile?