Russian Missile Test Failure Increases Fears of Nuclear 'Hair-Trigger'

onedomino

SCE to AUX
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
478
Points
98
An interesting article outlining severe problems with the Russian nuclear deterrent:

Russian Missile Test Failure Increases Fears of Nuclear 'Hair-Trigger'

Complete article: http://worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=329

The second failed test launch of Russia's experimental Bulava (R-30 SS-NX-30) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) in as many months has renewed doubts about the viability of the country's strategic nuclear deterrent, and in turn increased fears that Russian policy makers might adopt "hair-trigger" operational procedures to guarantee that their nuclear forces could survive and respond to a first strike.

The Bulava is a three-staged missile designed to carry up to six individually targeted nuclear warheads for a range of approximately 8,000-10,000 kilometers. The two back-to-back failures have effectively suspended the test program. Previously, the missile had been scheduled to enter service in 2008, after completing at least ten additional test launches.

The missile tested on Oct. 25 automatically self-destructed after veering off course three minutes after launch from the Dmitry Donskoy nuclear submarine in the White Sea. The target had been a testing range in the far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula. The previous Bulava test launch, from the same submarine on Sept. 7, also failed when the missile fell into the sea one minute after takeoff. Following the first mishap, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the government had become concerned about the viability of the maritime component of Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent. In February 2004, the navy experienced two embarrassing failures during tests of its older SLBMs when, in the presence of President Vladimir Putin, one missile failed to launch and a second exploded shortly after takeoff. The short time between the Bulava launches would suggest a rushed, if now evidently counterproductive, effort to set aside doubts about the missile.
 

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
Infact I don't know why Russia needs a nuclear deterrent.They have enough nukes to blow up the world thrice. As for their Bulava SLBM's they don't need them. They have enough Typhoon class nuclear submarines equipped with nuclear weapons which is pretty much world class. Plus they have more ICBM's and SLBM's then the United States. The Topol M might be old but it is very very effective. Plus it has a very high yield. America may have ICBM's which are have far more accuracy and precison but Russia has weapons with more yield. Russia also possesses long range nuclear bombers like the BlackJack. I guess the Black Jack's go back to the Cold War era but still havent been retired by the Russian Air Force. Russia has currently the world's largest nuclear arsenal with which they can do more damage to America , the EU and China i.e if it comes to an allout war which won't happen anyways.Not with Russia.Plus Russia has bio-wepaons facilities in Pokrov and other Chem weapons centers which are still active. I feel Russia won't be participating in a global war anymore. Moscow is concentrating more on the Russian economy and internal matters like Georgia , Ukraine etc. etc. Sure military is still the prime focus of the Kremlin but not as drastic as the Cold War. Russia has right now nothing to gain with a war against America and Chian. I am sorry if I am deviating away from the topic but it is important. Russia is more keen on exporting their missiles to their prime defence partners like India and China. So , basically I wouldn't be worried IF i were the Russian President.

Akshay
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Infact I don't know why Russia needs a nuclear deterrent.They have enough nukes to blow up the world thrice. As for their Bulava SLBM's they don't need them. They have enough Typhoon class nuclear submarines equipped with nuclear weapons which is pretty much world class. Plus they have more ICBM's and SLBM's then the United States. The Topol M might be old but it is very very effective. Plus it has a very high yield. America may have ICBM's which are have far more accuracy and precison but Russia has weapons with more yield. Russia also possesses long range nuclear bombers like the BlackJack. I guess the Black Jack's go back to the Cold War era but still havent been retired by the Russian Air Force. Russia has currently the world's largest nuclear arsenal with which they can do more damage to America , the EU and China i.e if it comes to an allout war which won't happen anyways.Not with Russia.Plus Russia has bio-wepaons facilities in Pokrov and other Chem weapons centers which are still active. I feel Russia won't be participating in a global war anymore. Moscow is concentrating more on the Russian economy and internal matters like Georgia , Ukraine etc. etc. Sure military is still the prime focus of the Kremlin but not as drastic as the Cold War. Russia has right now nothing to gain with a war against America and Chian. I am sorry if I am deviating away from the topic but it is important. Russia is more keen on exporting their missiles to their prime defence partners like India and China. So , basically I wouldn't be worried IF i were the Russian President.

Akshay
The huge arsenal of nuclear devices does not protect against a first strike. When it was a 'war' between Western/Western influenced nations with nuclear weapons, mutual assured destruction worked, nervously, but it worked. Not so much anymore.
 

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
The huge arsenal of nuclear devices does not protect against a first strike. When it was a 'war' between Western/Western influenced nations with nuclear weapons, mutual assured destruction worked, nervously, but it worked. Not so much anymore.

If it came to an allout nuclear war between lets say USA and Russia ...Russia would win becuase it can abosorb a first strike. Even IF America bombed Russia thrice still Russia could obliterate every major city in the Continental States. Russia has uncountable mobile road launchers which can be anywhere within Russia. Russia has so many silos and launching stations.America's missile defence system is YET not completely ready to stop long range Russian ICBM's and SLBM's.The Russians could just keep throwing their "birds" at America continuosly (This was actually a Soviet plan in the Cold War era to bomb every major city in USA continuosly by nukes containing multiple warheads). How many nukes can the Patriots stop ? I agree that "The huge arsenal of nuclear devices does not protect against a first strike" but Russia dosen't need so many SLBM's. The nuclear deterrent issue is no justification for Russia to test yet another SLBM. Russia already has enough missiles...As I said more then enough to take down the world. And only a country which wants to commit Hara Kiri would attack ONE of the most powerful nuclear powers.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790



If it came to an allout nuclear war between lets say USA and Russia ...Russia would win becuase it can abosorb a first strike. Even IF America bombed Russia thrice still Russia could obliterate every major city in the Continental States. Russia has uncountable mobile road launchers which can be anywhere within Russia. Russia has so many silos and launching stations.America's missile defence system is YET not completely ready to stop long range Russian ICBM's and SLBM's.The Russians could just keep throwing their "birds" at America continuosly (This was actually a Soviet plan in the Cold War era to bomb every major city in USA continuosly by nukes containing multiple warheads). How many nukes can the Patriots stop ? I agree that "The huge arsenal of nuclear devices does not protect against a first strike" but Russia dosen't need so many SLBM's. The nuclear deterrent issue is no justification for Russia to test yet another SLBM. Russia already has enough missiles...As I said more then enough to take down the world. And only a country which wants to commit Hara Kiri would attack ONE of the most powerful nuclear powers.

Russia is not our most serious threat, not anymore. This was from early 2001:

http://lists.state.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-USIAINFO.EXE?A2=ind0103e&L=arms-control&D=1&H=1&O=D&T=0&P=78&F=P

The state that the Russian military is and has been in, should be considered a threat to its immediate neighbors.

Our concerns are currently more from your neck of the woods.
 

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
Russia is not our most serious threat, not anymore. This was from early 2001:

http://lists.state.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-USIAINFO.EXE?A2=ind0103e&L=arms-control&D=1&H=1&O=D&T=0&P=78&F=P

The state that the Russian military is and has been in, should be considered a threat to its immediate neighbors.

Our concerns are currently more from your neck of the woods.

I never said that Russia was a threat. I was just trying to prove that Russia dosent need any more so called "nuclear deterrents"

The situation I gave was IF and IF it came to an allout nuke war which will never happen anyways! And might I add IF and I say IF again the above scenario happens America might emerge the ultimate winner because of its superior air power and navy but US may lose NY , Washington , LA , Chicago , and San Francisco in the process!

Akshay
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790



I never said that Russia was a threat. I was just trying to prove that Russia dosent need any more so called "nuclear deterrents"

The situation I gave was IF and IF it came to an allout nuke war which will never happen anyways! And might I add IF and I say IF again the above scenario happens America might emerge the ultimate winner because of its superior air power and navy but US may lose NY , Washington , LA , Chicago , and San Francisco in the process!

Akshay
Not quite sure how you can say that, they face more of a threat than we do:

Chechnya
 

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
Not quite sure how you can say that, they face more of a threat than we do:

Chechnya
I am sorry but I have to disagree. America has the worlds most dangerous terrorist Bin Laden and his gang AL QAEDA/Taliban against them. America has strong long term threats like Irana nd N.K not to mention China who are actually competing against the trillion dollar US economy and military.

Do you mean to say Russia needs nukes against Islamists in Chechenya?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790


I am sorry but I have to disagree. America has the worlds most dangerous terrorist Bin Laden and his gang AL QAEDA/Taliban against them. America has strong long term threats like Irana nd N.K not to mention China who are actually competing against the trillion dollar US economy and military.

Do you mean to say Russia needs nukes against Islamists in Chechenya?
For both Russia, US the threat is more from terrorists with dirty bombs-state sponsored, which in case one went off, would be determined. Really, I have no doubt of that.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
For both Russia, US the threat is more from terrorists with dirty bombs-state sponsored, which in case one went off, would be determined. Really, I have no doubt of that.
Agree. We still growl at each other because someone said we're supposed to, but the mutual desire for self-preservation has overidden any rash decisions by either side.

The real problem is when fanatics who think there is something to gain by taking your enemy with you get their hands on WMDs.

Akiboy's argument of who would win in a nuclear war between the US and Russia is moot. How does one win a war if th entire Earth is rendered uninhabitable? The "chosen few" may get to hide out in well-stocked bunkers for awhile, but for all intents and purposes, life on Earth will cease to exist.
 

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
Agree. We still growl at each other because someone said we're supposed to, but the mutual desire for self-preservation has overidden any rash decisions by either side.

The real problem is when fanatics who think there is something to gain by taking your enemy with you get their hands on WMDs.

Akiboy's argument of who would win in a nuclear war between the US and Russia is moot. How does one win a war if th entire Earth is rendered uninhabitable? The "chosen few" may get to hide out in well-stocked bunkers for awhile, but for all intents and purposes, life on Earth will cease to exist.


Thats exactly what I said Mr Gunny L. "How does one win a war if th entire Earth is rendered uninhabitable? The "chosen few" may get to hide out in well-stocked bunkers for awhile, but for all intents and purposes, life on Earth will cease to exist" is what I meant to say. If you read my post you will see that I have mentioned that if it came to an allout nuke war between Russia and States then America MIGHT win but WILL lose all its major cities as well as its trillion dollar economy!

END RESULT:- America , Russia and the world are losers! I mean even if some part of AMerica is left functioning after a nuke war with Russia which lucky- to- be- alive AMerican would want to live in an AMerica without LA , NY , Chicago , Washington and San Francisco and in an AMerica where there is nothing but radioactive debris and dust??
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX




Thats exactly what I said Mr Gunny L. "How does one win a war if th entire Earth is rendered uninhabitable? The "chosen few" may get to hide out in well-stocked bunkers for awhile, but for all intents and purposes, life on Earth will cease to exist" is what I meant to say. If you read my post you will see that I have mentioned that if it came to an allout nuke war between Russia and States then America MIGHT win but WILL lose all its major cities as well as its trillion dollar economy!

END RESULT:- America , Russia and the world are losers! I mean even if some part of AMerica is left functioning after a nuke war with Russia which lucky- to- be- alive AMerican would want to live in an AMerica without LA , NY , Chicago , Washington and San Francisco and in an AMerica where there is nothing but radioactive debris and dust??

So you have to ask yourself "who would be willing to kill themselves along with thier enemies by using a nuke?" Anybody come to mind?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas




Thats exactly what I said Mr Gunny L. "How does one win a war if th entire Earth is rendered uninhabitable? The "chosen few" may get to hide out in well-stocked bunkers for awhile, but for all intents and purposes, life on Earth will cease to exist" is what I meant to say. If you read my post you will see that I have mentioned that if it came to an allout nuke war between Russia and States then America MIGHT win but WILL lose all its major cities as well as its trillion dollar economy!

END RESULT:- America , Russia and the world are losers! I mean even if some part of AMerica is left functioning after a nuke war with Russia which lucky- to- be- alive AMerican would want to live in an AMerica without LA , NY , Chicago , Washington and San Francisco and in an AMerica where there is nothing but radioactive debris and dust??
Your first statement is contradictory. I read your posts. You spend some amount of time speculating as to who you think would win a nuclear encounter between the US and Russia. That does not agree with my stance that there would be no winner.

There are no survivors in an all-out, global thermonuclear war. Those not killed outright by the weapons won't last long due to radiation exposure, and the Earth itself will be unihabitable. Even those special folks who don't have to die at the same time as us common folksare only going to last for so long in their holes. I seriously doubt it will be anywhere near long enough for the Earth to become habitable again, if it ever does.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top