Russia to raise nuclear missile output fourfold

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Jan 8, 2007
30,528
2,263
1,045
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 Russian forces easily routed Georgian troops, but the conflict exposed weaknesses in the Russian army, including outdated equipment and poorly co-ordinated command structures.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
 
Yet Obama wants to reduce our Nuclear weapons...... How do you say good day in Russian... We may want to learn that... Or Chinese....
 
Obama certainly has a full plate. Thankfully Biden is a foreign affairs and security expert.

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.
 
2000 to 2500 warheads. Does it require any more than that to destroy civilization as it exists?

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.
 
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.
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'
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Not sure about that. I agree in principle, but history would seem to indicate that the UN can't control a pan of boiling water.
 
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.

Oh you betcha! The UN needs to get right on top of this. That ought to scare the pants off of 'em.

"Cease and desist or we will call you poopyheads at the next meeting." :rofl:
 
Oh you betcha! The UN needs to get right on top of this. That ought to scare the pants off of 'em. "Cease and desist or we will call you poopyheads at the next meeting."

C'mon now, you're not getting into the spirit of globalization...
 
C'mon now, you're not getting into the spirit of globalization...

You can just figure the odds on that happening somewhere along astronomical in scale.

Some of the arguments above are rather tedious and yawn-worthy. Does anyone know exactly how many nuclear warheads it takes to throw the Earth into a nuclear winter and destroy all life as we know it?

And I'm sure the UN will jump right on top of this as it has Darfur, Iran, Somalia, Rwanda .... Gonna' be a LOT of people called poopyheads around the Security Council.:lol:
 
Does anyone know exactly how many nuclear warheads it takes to throw the Earth into a nuclear winter and destroy all life as we know it?

That's why I wrote: "Every nation should also turn over their military equipment to the United Nations for their use in controlling the globalized system."
 
So in other words, instead of having a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the world three times over, Russia plans to expand its nuclear arsenal so that it can destroy the world four times over! Is that what this really amounts to?? The US defense industry is no doubt delighted at the news. But if the US really wants to clip Russia's wings - develop alternative energy sources so that the price of oil does not go exceed $40 a barrel!! That will cause the Russian (not to mention the Venezuelan and Iranian) economies to shrink, requiring these governments to focus on internal issues rather than messing around every where else in the world!!
 
The USA has so many nuclear wepons that it could BOMB ITSELF and end all human life on this planet.

I'm not too terrible worried about Russia deciding to do a preemptive strike because I doubt the Russians are dumb enough to want to end all life on the planet.
 
Russia and every other nation has the right to defend itself .. AND, if Obama persists in following the Bush strategy of putting ICBM's in Georgia, Russia has a right to put theirs in Venezuela, Cuba, or even Mexico.

It also has every right to arm their allies, like Iran and Venezuela.

Additionally, the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) that includes Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and others, have every right to defend themselves against NATO.

Putin, unlike most Americans, recognizes that Zeb Brezinski is Obama's brain on foreign policy, and they recognize the threat he represents.

For those who are unaware, it was Brezinski, Obama, and Biden behind the conflict in Georgia .. and they gave the Georgian president one billion dollars of taxpayer money as a payoff.
 
Last edited:
Well, Russia is not really happy with Obama. He more or less reappointed the entire Clinton administration, which means that Clintons foreign policy is going to continue.
Lets have a short overview on what Clinton did in regards to Russia:
-Remove Jugoslavia, Russias main ally in the Balkans, from the map
-Disregard Bush Seniors promise of keeping the German army below 200K (according the "unification agreements" the army of unified Germany was supposed to be the West German army MINUS the East German one, in reality it was more like a plus)
-Disregard Bush Seniors more serious promise of not expanding Nato eastwards, as a matter of fact, Nato now ends at Russia Baltic borders.
-Use the lacking leadership in the Jelzin period to his full advantadge and Russias full disadvantadge.

For any Russian nationalist like Putin, Clinton was way worse than Bush Senior. Bush Junior was not regarded as a problem, his "Old Europe" policies did a lot to drive Germany and France into the arms of Russia, he did tie down the only power that could militarily threaten Russia in 2 expensive prolonged Land wars in Asia, and his diplomatic skills were so lackluster that Russia could, for the majority of the 8 years, act from the backfield.
Under Obama, Russia is looking at a likely more atlantic Europe, it will likely face more problems in diplomatic matters (Bush Junior was the guy everyone loved to hate) and it assumes that "Balkan Crisis Volume 2.5" is soon going to happen in the Ukraine.
Russia assumes that it has a window of opportunity while the majority of US forces are tied down. It wants to use this window for powerplays. Once the balance gets reestablished, it will use the advantadges it created during the powerplay to negotiate from a position of strength.
 

Forum List

Back
Top