Skip to comments.Russia says new Topol RS-12 mobile ICBM can evade U.S. missile defense
Posted on 11/01/2005 11:32:56 PM PST by HAL9000
click here to read article
What they have now is never going to something a anti-missile system can cope with, and they know it. I'm sure there is some geopolitical reason for this, but I don't know what it is.==
Reason is that those huge warheads and huge missiles will retire soon. Then Russia will dismantle them and won't to rebuild them anymore.
With this new warhead Russuia may go to decrease number of warheads further more despite of American anti-misslie shields.
You are off to a good start. If we were to expand on your thesis, and take an unabashed Clausewitzian path, amazing things might come of it. That's a tall order, however. We Americans are way outside our comfort zones with this sort of thinking.
That's a slight exageration. However, one boomer could launch enough missiles and warheads that if they reached their targets, and had high reliability, they could blow huge holes in an adversary's strategic capabilities. They keys would be firstly to avoid allowing the boomer to be surprise attacked and destroyed prior to targetting and launch of missiles, and secondly to either evading, or, proactively destroying using other tactics, any ABM systems the adversary presented.
Yes. My answer assumes that it would be put to rational and effective use. The most rational and effective use would be to destroy something that conventional means would have a difficult time destroying due to range issues and hardening. For example, in order to destroy an enemy missile silo, multiple near direct hits would be needed.
Of course, for the countervalue strike you alluded to (e.g. Chicago) a "terror" (or apparent terror attack) attack would be equally effective.
The last missile defense system protecting the Continental USA was the Nike Hercules. It was entirely dismantled in 1975. Nothing took its place. Nothing. We're on our own.
There are NO American anti missile shields. None!
Just what, in place and operational, defense system are you referring to? There is none!
Some time before WW I, Tsar Nicolas II wrote to his grandmother "what I want is that everybody would leave Russia alone". We have enough housework to do, what we want is little interruption from advisors with hidden agendas.
An ABM - an Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense System - will not be deployed in the United States until after it is needed. It's the way of the West.
...despite of American anti-missile shields.
There are NO American anti missile shields. None!==
But it just in design stage now. Same as Topol12M. There are no operational missiles today.
They will be tomorrow when ABM came into operational.
Respectfully, I disagree. American ABM's will never become operational. They will always be in the R&D stage.
I disagree. Cities would be involved.
The government is barely able to deal with natural disasters. A large scale nuke exchange would be untenable.
It's simply not an option between civilized nations.
Respectfully, I disagree. American ABM's will never become operational. They will always be in the R&D stage.==
What if you mistake on it?
Russia will decrease her nuclier forces anyway since as those big and huge missiles will retire soon (in 5-6 years) and won't be rebuild. When it happened if America will build her ABM then russian smaller forces may not overhelm that ABM as can today.
So now Russia need new warhead which in smaller amount may penetrate so it just insurance that there no possibility that Russia may be threaten from behind those shields.
So you'd be the one crying if some supposedly civilized nation attacked the US in an act of great war. Nothing is impossible. You simply refuse to face it.
There's no mistake. The US population is too ignorant of its exposure to incoming missiles today. The American public would never go along with spending the money to have an effective missile shield. Also, Washington DC lacks the political will to either inform the voters of their peril from IBM's, or vote for an ABM system anyway. My personal opinion is that a land based system is too much of a compromise to be effective. It would be more akin in actual performance to the US Border Patrol.
I favor satellites for detection and tracking and submarines for intercepting missile platforms, as well as missiles intercepting with nuclear warheads. This model takes the Continental US geography out of the defense system and nuclear warheads reduce the need for impossible accuracy. The Nike Hercules used nuclear warheads to increase its kill probability, as well as insure the destruction of the incoming warhead with nuclear heat and pressure.
Nevertheless, arguments to the contrary, America will never have another missile defense system again.
"There is none!"
Okay! Okay!.......But just you wait and see, assuming we survive until there is one. That provision will be included in the final draft.
Did we ever, besides on the drawing board?
This small, fifth-generation ICBM is the latest Russian land-based missile. It can either be carried on an off-road, unhardened transporter-erector vehicle (TEL), or stationed in silos. There was some controversy surrounding the SS-25, which the Soviets claimed was an upgrade to the SS-13 Savage. The United States claimed the SS-25 was more than 5 percent larger than the SS-13, qualifying it as a new system, and therefore a violation of the SALT II Treaty.
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.