Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia: No System Will Stop New Missiles (
Las Vegas Sun ^ | March 01, 2005 at 17:07:15 PST | STEVE GUTTERMAN

Posted on 03/01/2005 7:07:17 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia will develop missiles impervious to any defense, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Tuesday in an apparent allusion the nascent U.S. missile defense system.

A year ago, President Vladimir Putin said Russia could build unrivaled new strategic weapons, and in November he said it is developing a new nuclear missile system unlike any weapon other countries have or could come up with in the near future.

Ivanov suggested the weapons would be based on the mobile version of the Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles and on a new sea-based system, the Bulava, according to Interfax news agency.

"There is not and will not be any defense against these missiles," he said, according to Interfax.

The Topol-M can hit targets more than 6,000 miles away, and has been in silos since 1998, with about 40 on duty now, according to military officials. Military officials have said they plan to begin deploying the mobile version this year.

Ivanov said the missiles would be for defense and not be intended for use against any country, but he added that "Russia is stretched across 10 times zones, we have many neighbors, and not all of them are as predictable as European states," according to Interfax.

In December, Putin encouraged the Defense Ministry to keep up production of new strategic missile systems, a process slowed in the past by a shortage of funds.

"Russia will ... remain a major nuclear power," Ivanov said, according to Interfax. "But we will not bake missiles like pies. Their quantity should be such that it allows for the provision of our own security in any potential development of the international situation."

Russia opposed Washington's withdrawal in 2002 from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to deploy a national missile defense shield, saying the 30-year-old U.S.-Soviet pact was a key element of international security.

Russian officials subsequently tempered their criticism. Putin said it was a "mistake" that would hurt global security but not threaten Russia.

The ABM treaty banned missile defense systems on the assumption that the fear of retaliation would prevent each nation from launching a first strike - a strategy known as mutually assured destruction.

The Bush administration has said its prospective missile defense system would be aimed against potential missile threats from nations such as Iraq or North Korea, and would be unable to fend off a massive nuclear strike Russia is capable of launching.

--


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armsbuildup; miltech; missiledefense; missiles; russia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Maybe its paranoia? Putin's recent comments on CBS Rathergate already show he's not in touch with the real world. Putin may really think we intend to bully him with threats of a launch when we have our shield? Weird.


22 posted on 03/01/2005 7:21:05 PM PST by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Hey! LOL. Well like minds are great...


23 posted on 03/01/2005 7:22:13 PM PST by bd476 ("You can't get there from here." from "Which Way to Millinocket?" Bert & I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Righty_McRight

The warheads will be going mach 15 at top speed. What they are doing I think is trading off the MIRVs for an advanced evasion system designed to get one warhead (per missile) through an ABM defense. This could be overcome with SBL (space based lasers) or nuclear ABMs. Something like Brilliant Pebbles with an SBL component would be impervious to their "impervious missile."


24 posted on 03/01/2005 7:22:39 PM PST by Norman Bates (Usama Bin Laden, 1957-2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Righty_McRight

In some ways, Mach 10/hypervelocity missile is actually easier to intercept, if we have sea or ground based interceptors in the right place. Because of the speed, deploying countermeasures from the missile becomes a problem. And going that fast, the thing can't do much by way of evasive manuvers. And of course the added velocity will magnify the damage when something hits it.


25 posted on 03/01/2005 7:23:16 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

I would very much appreciate a link to that.


26 posted on 03/01/2005 7:23:47 PM PST by Norman Bates (Usama Bin Laden, 1957-2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Considering that we don't actually have a missile defense at this time, what exactly is "any possible missile defense"?

Maybe it's not us that they are trying to impress?

27 posted on 03/01/2005 7:25:08 PM PST by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

The faster a missile travels through the air the greater the pressure upon the missile by the atmosphere. If it's doing Mach 15 then slight damage to it could destroy it. The ABL can punch a basketball sized hole in a regular missile. I doubt this system could survive that.


28 posted on 03/01/2005 7:25:30 PM PST by Bogey78O (*tagline removed per request*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
he said it is developing a new nuclear missile system unlike any weapon other countries have or could come up with in the near future.

This guy is utterly delusional. If he does not know about the unlimited power of the American engineering and technology then he is a complete fool. He needs to know that it is an impossibility that any nation on this planet can have any technology in any area that can be superior to ours.

29 posted on 03/01/2005 7:25:51 PM PST by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
Why?

Well, that's when you'll hear the leftists try to explain how a completely defensive weapon (BMD) is aggressive and how obvious offensive strike weapons (actual nuclear tipped missiles) are defensive.

30 posted on 03/01/2005 7:26:25 PM PST by Gumption (I'm waiting until the time is right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I don't underestimate the ability of Russian scientists locked away in laboratories studying for months on end because it's very very cold and dark most of the year.

Yes, there are many secrets that the old cunning Soviet stole and bought from willful leftist socialists, but who came up with stealth technology that brought about the first F-111? Who developed HUGE WIG (wing-in-ground) effect Ekranoplans? Who developed a tank that beat the Germans in their own tank warfare tactics? Who put the first satellite into space? Who never retires their old equipment and has the ingenuity to keep it running for decades on end? And which people are best known for their ability to suffer and endure through the most miserable of conditions?

Like I said, I don't underestimate the Russians' ability.
31 posted on 03/01/2005 7:27:51 PM PST by SaltyJoe ("Social Justice" begins with the unborn child.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6
Uh, Russia, we weren't thinking of you re the Missile Shield. Thanks for the heads up.

Right, our defense was never intended for a large number of missiles, (which Russia has) so they don't need to do much, just overwhelm us. We could stop a single rogue launch, and the countermeasure game is one that we play too, so its tough to predict success on either side. Hitting a non-evading missile is quite a trick, but the easy counter measures have been accounted for as well.

32 posted on 03/01/2005 7:28:27 PM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

forgive me for asking, but why is russia so focused on this?

i may be wrong, but i doubt that europe has militaristic goals with russia. nor the united states. china? who knows.


33 posted on 03/01/2005 7:29:24 PM PST by ken21 ( warning: a blood bath when rehnquist, et al retire. >hang w dubya.< dems want 2 divide us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shortwave

What is that .... thing?


34 posted on 03/01/2005 7:29:27 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Bush administration has said its prospective missile defense system would be aimed against potential missile threats from nations such as Iraq or North Korea, and would be unable to fend off a massive nuclear strike Russia is capable of launching

Putin should know this, unless he is a paranoid lunatic. Maybe the second coming of Ivan the Terrible? Maybe its just something for the Chinese to consider?

If the Chinese were to steal or buy the technology once it is perfected, the Russians would have more to fear from them than us.

35 posted on 03/01/2005 7:33:00 PM PST by normy (Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050228-084038-9858r.htm

Search FR for other posts about it, too.


36 posted on 03/01/2005 7:34:07 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Here's an update to reflect recent events and an added guess. It's actually a lot more complicated than the following, BTW.


Supply line:

Russia ----------------------------> Iran
     |                                              |
     |                                              |
    V                                             V
Syria ---> Islamic Jihad ---> Hezbollah ----> Mediterranean Port


37 posted on 03/01/2005 7:35:52 PM PST by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Just some silliness I found on the web. I found it very appropriate. One thing you can always count on is Russia being Russia. Putin is a paper tiger and I don't see him doing all that much. It's like every now and then he has a KGB flashback . Once a Communist always a Communist.


38 posted on 03/01/2005 7:36:01 PM PST by Shortwave (Supporting Bush was a duty one owed to the fallen. Now, it is an honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

Those warheads are pretty hardened. They certainly couldn't take a direct hit by a kinetic kill vehicle but might or might not survive a near miss by a conventional ABM. The ABL has stabilization issues that are trying to be overcome. The main worry about lasers is that they could polish the surface to a mirror-like gloss to reflect the laser-shine or they could rotate it. To be honest I don't know if they could actually rotate a missile effectively enough to reduce laser-shine or how powerful the laser would need to be to oversome such countermeasures. But frankly that stuff is a long way off if ever (Is anyone worried if the N.Koreans can rotate their mirrored missiles?). The fact is a deployment of off the shelf SBL technology right now would be a strong deterrent.


39 posted on 03/01/2005 7:37:21 PM PST by Norman Bates (Usama Bin Laden, 1957-2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Anything that man can build and deploy, man can defeat.

Putin either doesn't know history, or he's ignorant of human nature.


40 posted on 03/01/2005 7:38:55 PM PST by Leatherneck_MT (A Patriot must always be willing to defend his Country against his Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson