Russia to raise nuclear missile output fourfold

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Shogun, Dec 24, 2008.

  1. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    Russia has thrown down a new gauntlet to Barack Obama with an announcement that it will sharply increase production of strategic nuclear missiles.

    In the latest of a series of combative moves by the Kremlin, a senior government official in Moscow said the Russian military would commission 70 strategic missiles over the next three years, as part of a massive rearmament programme which will also include short-range missiles, 300 tanks, 14 warships and 50 planes.

    Military experts said the planned new arsenal was presumed to consist of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) rather than submarine-launched missiles. If this is the case, the plans represent a fourfold increase in the rate of ICBM deployment. The arsenal will include a new-generation, multiple-warhead ICBM called the RS-24. It was first test-fired in 2007, with first deputy prime minister Sergei Ivanov boasting it was "capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defence systems".

    The new missiles will be part of a £95bn defence procurement package for 2009-2011, a 28% increase in arms spending, according to Vladislav Putilin of the cabinet's military-industrial commission. There will be further increases in spending in the following two years.

    The new military procurements follow the war in Georgia in August. Russian forces easily routed Georgian troops, but the conflict exposed weaknesses in the Russian army, including outdated equipment and poorly co-ordinated command structures. The defence ministry said it would carry out drastic reforms, turning the army into a more modern force.

    Vladimir Putin on Monday urged cabinet officials to quickly allocate funds for new weapons and closely control the quality and pace of their production. Military experts said the construction of 70 long-range nuclear missiles in the next three years represented a Russian attempt to strengthen its bargaining position with Washington, in talks aimed at agreeing new nuclear weapons cuts when the current treaty in force, Start I, expires next December.

    Moscow's strategy appears to be to challenge Obama's new administration as soon as it takes office on 20 January. On the day Obama was elected the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, announced plans to station short-range Iskander missiles in Russia's Kaliningrad exclave as a counter to American installation of its missile defence system in eastern Europe.

    Ruben Sergeev, an expert on disarmament issues, said Moscow was afraid of falling behind in a new arms race.

    "Russia is decommissioning its old liquid-fuel missiles from the Soviet era at a rate of several dozen every year," he said. "The Kremlin knows that if it doesn't increase production of ICBMs rapidly now then it will have no chance of getting a new arms reduction treaty out of the US, which has much greater quantities of missiles." Negotiations on a successor to Start I have been bogged down in detail, and hamstrung by the Bush administration's lame duck status.

    The chief US negotiator, John Rood, said last week that the latest sticking point was Russian insistence that the new treaty cover long-range delivery systems, such as bombers and missiles, intended for conventional arms as well as nuclear warheads. The US wants the treaty to focus solely on nuclear warheads.

    Moscow has also signalled that it would supply Tehran with new surface-to-air missiles in defiance of US opposition. Washington has asked for more information on the sales, fearing the weapons being sold include long-range S-300 missiles, which have a 120km (75 mile) range. They could threaten US planes in Iraq, and could also protect Iranian nuclear sites from aerial attack.

    The US has set aside its own plans for military action against Iran for now, but US officials hoped that fear of an Israeli strike would make Iran more amenable to suspending its enrichment of uranium.
    Arms treaties

    Start I Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, July 1991, limited US and Soviet Union to long-range nuclear arsenals of 6,000 warheads on 1,600 delivery systems. Expires 5 December 2009.

    INF Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty 1987 banned missiles such as the US Cruise with range of 3,500 miles.

    Start II Signed 1993, supposed to ban multiple warheads on long-range missiles. Russian Duma delayed ratifying and it never came into force.

    Start III Negotiated in 1997 to reduce nuclear stockpiles to 2,000-2,500 warheads, but fell apart over the US missile defence system. Talks resumed in 2007.

    Sort Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or 2002 Moscow Treaty, cuts US and Russian arsenals to 1,700-2,200 operationally deployed warheads each. No verification procedures.


    Russia to raise nuclear missile output fourfold | World news | The Guardian
     
  2. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,537
    Thanks Received:
    4,851
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,376
    Let's pre-emptively invade!
     
  3. Lycurgus
    Offline

    Lycurgus Who is Obama, really...??

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,743
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +258
    Obama certainly has a full plate. Thankfully Biden is a foreign affairs and security expert.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
    Yet Obama wants to reduce our Nuclear weapons...... How do you say good day in Russian... We may want to learn that... Or Chinese....
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    2000 to 2500 warheads. Does it require any more than that to destroy civilization as it exists?
     
  6. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    I wouldn't want Obama's job for all the tea in China. Obama has the beginings of a world war and a great depression on his hands. I like his cabinet picks, all of them except Hillary, which I feel Richardson should've gotten and Hillary should've gotten Health and Human Services, but that's just my opinion. In the end, everyone will contribute and I certainly hope that Obama will put the fires out Dubyah started. I kind of view it like terrorism... Obama has to be right ALL the time on these foreign policy matters. These foreign countries have be to right only once and we have a major international crisis on our hands.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    We have several problems. One is we no longer have a triad system. Our bombers are on stand down and so are our land based missiles. leaving us with just our subs as a deterrent to a first strike.

    Doesn't matter how many bombs you have if you can not deliver them because you were caught with your pants down.

    All we need is for some Russian crackpot to decide they think they can catch us napping and we won't be able to seriously retaliate. With them actively building more missiles and multiple war heads we should revive our triad system. We should place our bombers on alert and load them like we used to and we should return our land based systems to full manning and alert status.
     
  8. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,387
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,387
    each trident sub has what? 16 launch tubes?
    each trident-3 missile can have 10 warheads(by treaty they only have 8 right now)
    i dont know how many trident class subs we have, but i know it is enough to make Russia glow in the dark for years


    i wont worry about Russia so much as a terrorist group getting their hands on one'
     
  9. Lycurgus
    Offline

    Lycurgus Who is Obama, really...??

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,743
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +258
    I understand that a lot of people rule out that Russia would ever push the envelope far enough to ignite a armed confrontation. However, I am not of that opinion. I can see circumstances where Putin would open the door to a conventional skirmish.

    The Russian's always have been good saber rattlers, but, I could see them seriously testing our resolve over a few issues. I guess over the past couple of years I have not been comfortable with what I hear family members sharing from several parts of Europe, most of all the Balkans.
     
  10. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,050
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    This should be denounced by the United Nations in the clearest form. The United States should file a protest with the United Nations denouncing this move by the Russian Military. With the United States moving toward open borders, free trade, and globalization, any nation's quest for greater armaments must be looked upon as not a good faith move. Every nation should also turn over their military equipment to the United Nations for their use in controlling the globalized system.
     

Share This Page