Posted on 03/17/2005 12:15:35 PM PST by Alex Marko
SO, if such a thing happened we should launch against Russia, right? Well, you should remember that although a good part of the Russian military machine has atrophied they have not let rust and rot touch their missile forces. They pour billions into those each and every year. Within 30 minutes Armageddon would reign.
A question: PAkistan has several F-16s (the few that managed to get to it before Viper sales were stopped and we withheld the planes they had already paid for). Anyways, Pakistan has several F-16s, and a number have been tweaked to allow them to carry a nuke (specifically the F-16As of Nos 9 and 11 Squadrons at Sargodha have allegedly been modified to carry and deliver a Pakistani airborne nuke in a strike against India). Ok, you know the Pakistanis are crazy. Let's say they attack India, and even though most of those Falcons wouldn't even reach the Indian border without getting shot down by the Indians, let's say one manages to drop its 'egg' on its intended target (or for that matter any target within India's border). Do you think it would be appropriate for India to fume against the US for selling the Pakistanis the F-16s, and to try their best to sneak an Indian nuke into an American city?
In the real world there is a lot of weapons leakage. MOst of the stuff in the world today is Chinese in origin, and before the Chinese copied it most of it came from the then Soviet Union. Thus i can see where you are finding your link from. But just remember that if we nuke a Russian city because Al Queda nuked an American city (most probably using Pakistani nuclear material since Pakistan is the number one place to get such stuff, and Pakistan's nuclear program was basically given to them by China, and decades back it was the Soviets/Russians who helped China develop a working nuclear program, thus, using your logic, putting the 'blame' on Russia). So, if we nuke a Russian city, do you think the Russians will just sit there and say its ok over a bottle of Stoli? Or do you think they will launch at us, and we will launch at them, and the only victor will be China since it will be rid of both Russia and the US.
You can be assured of this. IF an attack ever occured on US soil using WMDs and from a terrorist nation (God forbid), that one of the first things to occur would be communication between the Kremlin and Washington to ensure that there was adequate communication between the two so as to avoid 'misunderstandings.' What is for certain is that Trident SLBMs from our Boomers wouldn't be flying towards Moscow because some nutcase wearing a rag on his head and sitting in some cave was stupid enough to mess with Uncle Sam.
It was kinda funny, actually.
Kuchma is long gone. So is Putin and Russia's influence in Ukraine. They are the ones responsible for this. They are the Stalinists.
Yet you root for a Stalinist outcome in Ukraine.
Why don't you take your outrage and direct it appropriately.
Like the Squall rocket torpedo that blew up and sank the Kursk? :-P
Well put.
Yes, except the most common variant is unguided and it's a huge waste of a nuke if you miss. It's also liquid fueled, so it's highly unstable.
There's supposed to be one that slows down and starts searching in a circle if it misses, but I heard that it had an unfortunate tendency to find the launching ship or vessel instead - it's not got external guidance. A wire-guided torpedo from a previously undetected sub is a much better way. And they can't keep a Squall fueled indefinitely, either. It has a lot of problems, and it's only useful as a "I'm going to take you with me" weapon.
now LOOK OUT
***Chinese will bootleg these into 1000's faster than a new york minute.
The masters of bootlegging.***
Like most stuff made in China, they will break after one use. It's too bad they only need to be used once.
That's a huge story, on the surface and even deeper if you think about. I'm guessing the major networks picked this right up and ran it on the evening news... No? Ok, situation normal.
The note at the linked info page says the design dates to the late 70's/early 80's.
Subsonic....big profile.....non-sneaky....don't look like that big a threat (unless you don't know they're coming).
The real bad news is that if they can carry a 200-kt Soviet warhead, it probably is capable of mounting a small, crude fission device.
Maybe, but I think its a stretch.
Ummm.. I don't think so. Besides, other posters had used the term in the same way. In any event, its no big deal. I just thought I'd clarify that they meant "reverse engineer".
May 1990 - At a ministerial meeting in Moscow, Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze agree:
- To a 600-kilometer range threshold for ALCMs.
- That the first 150 U.S. heavy bombers can carry up to 20 ALCMs but will be counted as carrying 10, and the first 210 Soviet heavy bombers can carry up to 12 ALCMs but will be counted as carrying 8. After the first 150 U.S. or 210 Soviet heavy bombers, the discount will disappear.
- To limit nuclear SLCMs to 880 in number in a separate, politically binding agreement.
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) Chronology
How can you radar track a sea-skimming missle below the horizon?
HawkEye
You think Hawkeye is active right now along the entire US coastlines? This is a sneak attack where I'm talking about the possibilty of being caught unaware.
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.