Zephyr Net

http://www.rusnet.nl/news/2003/10/03/politics_01_1630.shtml

I think that Ivanov (russian Defense minister) Read our Board... then he readed all the Nuke threats that Cag, da_Big and Cent post everyday... Than he stole their words (cus he went jeallous) and gave us a "- Hey we can also threat you with nukes!"


Now Seriously..... do they have the money to pay an ICBM`s Fuel load?
I think that this is Nato´s major question in debate today Hehe

_________________
"History is written by the winners"
Robert McNamara

LOL

First these missiles and supporting systems require constant maintinence, they aren't great big bottle rockets you can plant in the ground and hope they light off when you need them.
If .... they hit the button over 75% of their junk will noy even lift off
15% will go who knows where and probably blow up in their faces
The remaining 10% that is concidered a threat are the ones in the Submarines and with every tick of the clock the chance they will work deminish.

Plain and simple the Russian nuclear threat for all intents and purposes is over, they where suckers and went for the carrot.

It's over we won the cold war, all we gotta do now is make sure they don't sell anything usefull to our enemies.

_________________


"cool beanz"
D. "FETCH" Jordan

The only Russian nuclear threat is as follows: They don't know where half of their bombs are, their security sucks, they don't pay their generals (who are in charge of the damn weapons), and they'll sell to the highest bidder.

_________________
Centurian

Any sources to confirm these "75% failure rates"?

Zephyr

Here is some conservative estimates of what they have and what is actually operational.
True when I state 75% it is useing a no. from when their systems where at their peek.

Carnige Global Nuclear watch Home ...
http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/numbers/russia.asp

Most recent estimates
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nuken ... enote.html


HIGHLIGHTS

At the end of the Cold War in 1991, the Soviet Union may have had as many as 35,000 nuclear weapons

Based on the best available information, we estimate that the total current arsenal of intact warheads is around 18,000. Of those, some 8,250 are considered active and operational; the rest occupy an indeterminate status. Some may be officially retired and awaiting disassembly; others may be in short- or long-term storage,

Economic problems, a shrinking SSBN fleet, and safety concerns after the sinking of the Kursk in August 2000, have led to dramatic decreases in the number of annual SSBN patrols, from 37 in 1991 to zero in 2002, according to the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence. Patrols of nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) and cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) also declined from 18 patrols in 1991 to only three in 2002.

_________________


"cool beanz"
D. "FETCH" Jordan

So they still represent a threat.....

But this reminds me of that movie where the guy says: I don´t fear who has thousands of bombs I Fear that who has Only One....

_________________
"History is written by the winners"
Robert McNamara

Well don't try to read to much into that 8000 or so operational weapons.
Some estimate fewer than 100 operational launch platforms.
The newest ones are the only ones truely concidered a threat,
these are all single warhead missiles.

The 8000 or so no. is operational warheads most of which are bomber delivered weapons.

And another problem with what the Russians have done since the fall of the USSR is we and the rest of the world have a way better ideal where they are. They are monitored by many countries and systems, where as we still enjoy a good measure of security around location and launch signatures. it is questionable if they would even be able to detect a launch in time to respond. They can't shot a rock out of a slingshot without us knowing it.

Are they a threat, sure, any Nuke strike would be devastateing to a lerge populated area. But the threat of total mutual destruction is not really there anymore. But we could turn Russia into one large sheet of glass at the drop of a hat.
although no new weapons are under development here, improvements and updates to our missiles, and supporting systems continue.
our stockpile is more deadly than ever and the time to target of our newest systems is down to 22 minutes for our frontline missiles.

Not to mention we still maintain submarine launch platforms right off their coast.

Like I said, they went for the carrot, they simply can not regain their former level of preparedness, and it's just now sinking in over there that as their capiblity rust away, ours improves, remains secret, and we have absolutely no plans of total disarmerment.

_________________


"cool beanz"
D. "FETCH" Jordan

Here is a best case senario for us....

First we develop a anti balistic missile system and deply it.
(and we are moveing ahead on this program)
Then we call for the world wide desmantlement of all land base ICBMs.
And lead the way by junking all ours.
This will leave the Submarine based systems, which our Submarine based missiles alone could wipe out all human life on earth.

And the Russians are not even able to mount ANY patrols some years, had only 3 patrols in 2002, (see above highlights or link to documentation) and we know where every single one of their subs are 24/7.

Does this scare you ... well it should since the ideal of total global domination, even by the good guys, is that same old crazy thinking and in history has only lead to total world war in the end.

_________________


"cool beanz"
D. "FETCH" Jordan

Its not the guy, its Nicole Kidman and the words are (if I remember correctly): "Im not afraid of the guy who steals 9 nukes, Im terrified of the man who uses one!"

_________________

The Peacemakers!

_________________
Centurian

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a war monger.
(well not when it comes to thermo nuclear conflict)
And as luck and fate would have it one of the big two
players has had to dissarm, out of economic constraints.
So now in the near future we as Americans have two basic courses,
both of which come with risk.

The Ideal outcome would be that we would take the high road
and do away with all our ICBMs to lead the way. This would make
the rearming of Russia not becomeing a priority.
The risk here is certainly for a period of time some of the new members of the Nuke club would have them and we would not.
But lets think for a minute about a couple senarios, and you may start to see that as an deterant they aren't needed as in past to assure mutal destruction.

Senario 1 ...
A rouge Russian general or organisation launches a single missile
that hits America.
Logicially ... it is hard to see us responding with an ICBM attack of our own
to such a limited threat, since a conventional responce could subdue this threat.
And a total comitment to launch all our missiles to a limited attack is not part of our doctine.
And would result in a global escalation of situation.

Senerio 2 ....
A country like Pakistan launches an attack in future as they maintain a
ICBM program and ours have been dismantled.
Here one must question if haveing a stockpile actually is or could be a deterant to keep them from attacking, and again what responce would we make, seems like a convention war could solve this senario also.

Senario 3 ...
Two countries (like India and Pakistan) go to a regional nuke conflict.
Would our maintaining a stockpile deter this, I dought it.
Would we respond and hit Pakistan or India .... why??

In summary we must remeber the defence doctine that led us to the cold war stand off we where in, it was the doctine of total mutal distruction,
and the only thing it was or could really deter was just that total launch.
We in America have never really ever embraced any sort of limited launch deterant, if that was so instead of sending troops to Afganistan we would just hit them with limited nukes. But we didn't and wouldn't.
Sure their are some wild cards out there China, Korea, France.
But thats where persueing an ICBM defence system comes into play so as to render ALL ICBMs to not be the threat to anybody anywhere.
We have the responceibilty to provide this tech. when developed with the whole human race, and then to follow by being the first to take to brave stance that we will demantle ours first, since they are now rendered obsolite.

But I fear, that we might miss the opertunity, and become heavy handed and use the fact that we will have a defence system and our enemies don't to our advantage, it is human nature. This would be a grave mistake on our part, and would probably lead to us haveing to use the defence system. Or an preimtive strike before we could deply it fully, because they might attack from the stand point of hit them now, before they render our weapons useless.

_________________


"cool beanz"
D. "FETCH" Jordan

You should not discount the Russian capabilities. They do not have to go on partrol with their submarine based missiles to hit targets in the CONUS. They can fire from port and still destroy every living thing on the planet.

They still have a viable (abliet reduced) bomber force that they spend money on to maintian. The TU-22M series and the TU-160s are armed with supersonic long ranged nuclear tipped missiles.

I certainly would not want to see even one used, much less the hundred they still have available.

The Russians will always have a credible Nuclear capability, however its their conventioanl capabilities that are no longer a threat.

In Afghanistan they fought for 10 years losing thousands of troops every year...

We took them inside of 60 days with very little loss of US lives...

That speaks for itself...

CAG out...

Not so ....
Back up a few post and reseach their Submarine launch missiles, range, and no. of operation weapons.

_________________


"cool beanz"
D. "FETCH" Jordan

I did not mean to seeming dispute CAGs contention outright.
We should not and can not discount the threat of even a single missile aimed our way.
But I do not believe they could wipe out all human live with just the sub based missiles from their ports, mostly due to range limitations, and not the no. of operational missiles.
Remember almost all the submarine based missiles are mulipule washead missiles, and very destructive and as potent as anything we have.

But I believe the focus should be on forming policies, and exchangeing intell and dealing in "good faith" with the Russians so as they do not feel the need to rearm.
If .... backed into a corner they have shone they can make this a priority and can match us in this game regardless the cost to their own people.
If we allow this to happen we have failed ..... it's that simple.

_________________


"cool beanz"
D. "FETCH" Jordan

True that war did dwindle down Russian resources but that was a whole different time. The American army was so advanced in the latest Afghan war and the taliban had no where near the morale or the will or supplies the Mujahadeen (sp) had. On top of that American forces supplied and armed the mujahadeen. The Taliban didn't have nearly that much arsenal.