Russia Developing New Nuclear Missile

MyWay.com ^ | 11-17-2004 | AP

[hsrazorback1]

MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported.

Speaking at a meeting of the Armed Forces' leadership, Putin reportedly said that Russia is researching and successfully testing new nuclear missile systems.

"I am sure that ... they will be put in service within the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have," Putin was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Putin reportedly said: "International terrorism is one of the major threats for Russia. We understand as soon as we ignore such components of our defense as a nuclear and missile shield, other threats may occur."

No details were immediately available, but Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said earlier this month that Russia expected to test-fire a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile this year and that production of the new weapon could be commissioned in 2005.

News reports have also said Russia is believed to be developing a next-generation heavy nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of 4.4 tons, compared with the Topol-M's 1.32-ton combat payload.

Topol-Ms have been deployed in silos since 1998. The missiles have a range of about 6,000 miles and reportedly can maneuver in ways that are difficult to detect.

Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless. Details were not given, but military analysts said the claimed new weapon could be a hypersonic cruise missile or maneuverable ballistic missile warheads.

[01ragtop]

Jump in the time machine; let's go! All the way back to July 2001. The talk of the day was the Bush Administration's plan to break the ABM treaty. The opposition to his plan was extraordinary, but Bush, as we now know, was determined and continued with his plan despite the Left's warnings of death and destruction that would come form such reckless pursuits.

Back in the time machine, destination: present day. After 9-11-01 a nuclear missile attack was forced from mainstream fear into an almost nostalgic idea. The Media rarely mentions the idea of a nuclear attack by ballistic missiles anymore because the nuclear suitcase bomb has been deemed far more likely, and admittedly they are right.

This however, does not remove the threat of a missile attack, consider North Korea for a moment. They are actively pursuing nuclear missiles, mainly for legitimacy on a global scale, but regardless they are determined to achieve WMD status. Status? Yes, WMD have become a showing of status, much the same as that Rolls Royce at your local Country club. Without them you are not considered a major player, and for that reason many countries pursue their nuclear ambitions with legitimacy on the agenda. Their reasoning is flawed of course, France has a nuclear arsenal, and they mean almost nothing to the world.

One of the reasons the Left believes America should disarm herself as a show of good faith, is because they believe in the WMD as status legitimization. And in their minds, if America could show the world she could hold her status without WMD, then the world would abandon their pursuit of WMD as well. America could not, and the world would not.

This sounds unbelievably contradictory on my part, but let me explain. It is not the nuclear weapon that legitimizes a threat. It is the credibility of the threat to use nuclear weapons. Under France's current administration, no one seriously believes France will use nuclear weapons. On the other hand, America's willingness to use WMD is well documented in the pages of history, and considering the world believes we are a bunch of crazies led by a reckless cowboy, I think the threat is legitimate, and I don't care what Europe thinks, as long as the threat remains. But, I digress.

The Bush Administration's decision to break the ABM treaty may have been one of the most important actions they undertook during his first term. No, it may not protect us from a nuclear terrorist attack, but terrorism is not the only threat(Think Russia). If allowed to continue their pursuit of nuclear missiles, North Korean will become a very real and legitimate threat. And the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system the U.S. has in place does not give us some kind of nuclear immunity, but it gives the Kim Jong Ils of the world something to think about before they launch that attack. Like, what if the ABM system works. Would the Americans exterminate a country for a failed nuclear attack? I should hope so, but let's pray we never find out. From A Better Future