User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 8:59:03 PM EDT
[#1]
Just in case you wonder what it may look like
Was playing a football game during this one in 97, the twilight shots are breath taking. You get a real good feel for how fast they are... FuKing cooking! 
Plus you get some cool colors when rockets burn out / stage out of Atm and the most crazy "cloud" that just keeps expanding in all directions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 9:02:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Nothing new
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 9:03:37 PM EDT
[#3]
So, if Russia can destroy us in an hour's time, the only thing that has changed since the '60s is that it's Russia and not the Soviet Union.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 9:04:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: Sure...and they couldn't stop a Cessna flown from West Germany by a teenager from landing in Red Square.... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/MRust.jpg  Yeah. That was by far the dumbest comment in the entire thread. First off, we are talking about a first strike scenario, second, WE couldn't prevent four of our own airliners being used as guided missiles. Neither incident proves anything about our respective first strike capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 9:08:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I wonder, if Russia were to launch all its ICBMs right now, and the US were to launch all its ICBMS right now, and for the sake of argument, presume that they were ALL targeted at isolated spots in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, what percentage of (A) Russian and (B) American missiles would fail to (C) reach its target, (D), even launch successfully, and (E) end up doing damage in its own country of origin? CJ If you're asking about reliablity rates of missles, that information is not open to the public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 9:33:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Kinda weird FUCKING TERRIFYING to think about kids growing up now a days not even realizing that the Russians could nuke us off the map. FIFY Being born after the fall of the USSR is no excuse for being completely ignorant of the simplest concepts of the Cold War. With few exceptions, this thread has completely maxed out the full on fucking retardation factor. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 9:48:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure...and they couldn't stop a Cessna flown from West Germany by a teenager from landing in Red Square.... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/MRust.jpg Yeah. That was by far the dumbest comment in the entire thread. You didn't read the thread carefully enough. There were 10 dumber posts than that. It's like the second half of the 20th Century never happened for some of these numbskulls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 2:11:24 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often?  share more, if unclassified I won't share dates, but this is from an open source and will give you an idea of the scope of the testing program: On November 29th, 2007 the U.S. Navy conducted a successful test launch of a Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) built by Lockheed Martin. The Navy launched the unarmed missile from the submerged submarine USS HENRY M JACKSON (SSBN 730) in the Pacific Ocean. The Trident II D5 missile had achieved 120 consecutive successful test launches since 1989 - a record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle. The missile launch was part of the Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO) to certify USS HENRY M JACKSON for deployment, following a shipyard overhaul period and conversion from Trident I C4 to Trident II D5 configuration. The Navy performs tests to assure the safety, reliability, readiness and performance of the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System, as required by the Department of Defense's National Command Authority and conducted under the testing guidelines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For the tests, operational missiles are converted into inert configurations using test missile kits produced by Lockheed Martin that contain range safety devices and flight telemetry instrumentation. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/d-5-recent.htm   |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 2:13:49 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: the doctrine of mobile ICBMs is inherently flawed. You know this. I don't know, it works pretty good for the Navy  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 3:03:40 AM EDT
[#10]
while i hated the fuckin commie bastards in the 80's and 90's still do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 3:19:21 AM EDT
[#11]
There was apparently a coffee table book that had pics of all the blast door "wing art", they photographed 'em all before decommissioning. I want that book. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 3:23:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Our military looks 10x more professional than theirs....even when our own military personel are just laying around doing nothing, enjoying their much deserved downtime... they still look more professional than the average russian soldier. The average russian soldier looks like a drunk baffoon...because that is what they are... a bunch of drunk baffoons. BEGS TO DIFFER. http://www.goatlocker.org/boats/pics/ssn-21.jpg LOL WUT?? http://thoroughbred.subclub.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/100_0105.jpg Russia has the opposite problem that we do. A pretty neat, professional, competent, and presentable leader... and a shitty military to administer over. We have a neat, professional, competent, and presentable military, but a shitty, incompetent, baffoon for a leader in Obama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 3:28:43 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Our military looks 10x more professional than theirs....even when our own military personel are just laying around doing nothing, enjoying their much deserved downtime... they still look more professional than the average russian soldier. The average russian soldier looks like a drunk baffoon...because that is what they are... a bunch of drunk baffoons. BEGS TO DIFFER. http://www.goatlocker.org/boats/pics/ssn-21.jpg LOL WUT?? http://thoroughbred.subclub.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/100_0105.jpg Russia has the opposite problem that we do. A pretty neat, professional, competent, and presentable leader... and a shitty military to administer over. We have a neat, professional, competent, and presentable military, but a shitty, incompetent, baffoon for a leader in Obama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 3:38:19 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 4:29:20 AM EDT
[#15]
Just hacked the Kremlin's DB,polonium is on the way
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/6908/makeyevkb034.jpg http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9164/makeyevkb036.jpg http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/6392/makeyevkb038.jpg Russians claims they produced 63 brand new SS-N-18 between 2004-2007 : http://armstass.su/?page=article&aid=48627&cid=25 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 4:40:32 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: The stupidity of that scene? That space station, would not have been damaged at all. Plus the nuclear blast would not look like that at all. It would just be a sphere. No "Planar shockwave" crap. Quoted: Duh! Quoted: Russia seems to have had a working orbital EMP weapon active since the 1960s. IIRC it is now non-nuclear, so they could use it to knock out or electric grid and military C3 without crossing the nuclear threshold. That means we would be powerless (no pun intended) to respond short of blindly launching all our ballistic missile submarine warheads. That is in direct opposition of our stated policy of retaliation only, with no first strike. And the continental military and US cities would be toast. Yes, a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System with a few EMP weapons takes less than 1 hour over the south pole and NORAD would be looking north. Already in orbit, one orbital EMP weapon burst could be followed up by an ICBM launch against military targets and/or our cities. I think blackmail and power trips are what the Russians like best. Let them rape the "Near Abroad", or else. Now we are cutting the military to save entitlements. Brilliant! Use of an offensive nuclear weapon in space DOES cross the nuclear threshold. Its not as if such an act would duck some loophole negating retaliation. You also assume that one (or a few) EMP events would render most of the the US electronic assets inoperative. And you assume that our national C3I system are not EMP hardened. I don't know you assume this. ETA: Your "Russia seems to have" speculation is groundless without some authoritative cite. I know of no such capability. http://www.nickcook.net/images/MW2/second_sun_strike.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 4:57:49 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? From all the data I have, Russia tests their missiles more often than the US does. Not significantly more, but they test fire around half a dozen of their ICBMs a year. Their RT-2PM would be a rather decent second strike system, although not nearly as good as our tridents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 5:00:48 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? From all the data I have, Russia tests their missiles more often than the US does. Not significantly more, but they test fire around half a dozen of their ICBMs a year. Their RT-2PM would be a rather decent second strike system, although not nearly as good as our tridents. The Trident II D5 missile had achieved 120 consecutive successful test launches since 1989 - a record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle. Have you read the posts above? The trident alone is apparently tested that many times each year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 5:10:42 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't even know where to begin. Thanks for that. I always enjoy your input in the nuke threads. The amount of ignorance that you need to correct from both ends of the spectrum is just astounding. To comment on what you said, even if only half of the warheads detonated, lets say 800, I think "Destroyed" would be an accurate description of the state of our Nation. Is there any way to verify that they aren't targeting population centers any more? Assuming that they choose to target military installations with 90% of their warheads, that still leaves 80 cities hit- give of take. When you consider how badly 9/11 or Katrina effected our economy and National Debt, it's pretty easy to see that something 80 times worse would result in some very bad things. Of course, it wouldn't result in the end of humanity or anything close to that, but it would change forever the nature and direction of our country. I guess the whole discussion hinges on the definition of the word "Destroyed" They could never target us with all their weapons - Chinese are good at counting. Once the Russian level of available warheads fell low enough, China could say, 'We own you now." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 5:10:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? share more, if unclassified I won't share dates, but this is from an open source and will give you an idea of the scope of the testing program: On November 29th, 2007 the U.S. Navy conducted a successful test launch of a Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) built by Lockheed Martin. The Navy launched the unarmed missile from the submerged submarine USS HENRY M JACKSON (SSBN 730) in the Pacific Ocean. The Trident II D5 missile had achieved 120 consecutive successful test launches since 1989 - a record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle. The missile launch was part of the Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO) to certify USS HENRY M JACKSON for deployment, following a shipyard overhaul period and conversion from Trident I C4 to Trident II D5 configuration. The Navy performs tests to assure the safety, reliability, readiness and performance of the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System, as required by the Department of Defense's National Command Authority and conducted under the testing guidelines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For the tests, operational missiles are converted into inert configurations using test missile kits produced by Lockheed Martin that contain range safety devices and flight telemetry instrumentation.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/d-5-recent.htm I have a cousin in the missle program at Vandenberg. I've been to launches, and have seen them as recent as 2008 before moving out of state. I also witnessed the first sucessful missle shield test. Watching a ICBM explode in the atmosphere gives me a warm feeling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 6:04:36 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
There was apparently a coffee table book that had pics of all the blast door "wing art", they photographed 'em all before decommissioning. I want that book. Me too. I tried to put the Domino's 30 min or less label on my buisness debit card, ie. business name is Minuteman LLC. Wells Fargo didn't take kindly... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 6:05:38 AM EDT
[#22]
I used to hate the Russians. I still do, but I used to too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 6:42:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This wasn't really the point of the article, but thought it was inderasting. Putin is on the list for the Chinese "Confucius" Peace Prize. His comment at dinner was that " Russia can destroy the U.S. in a half hour or less." WTF, really, since when. What dose he mean? Kinetic military strikes, economics, diseased russian whores. Link Not meaning this in an insulting way, but how old are you? We didn't have the worlds longest staring contest with the russian bear for no reason afterall. Mid 20's. I understand that part of it, i just thought between our newer tech and anti missle systems that those older ICBM's wouldn't be that effective. Just so OP doesn't feel so alone, I'll admit that as a young person I didn't really appreciate that Russia could strike as far south as Texas by firing from the north, across Canada, until I saw some old ass 70's movie about a supercomputer that went nuts and tried to take over the world. Name of the movie was "Colossus" I think. I think most people envision the missiles lumbering across the Pacific and giving us plenty of time to spot them. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hintbDCSmZM/RehUVa9UV_I/AAAAAAAAAA8/ttEB7nuMW4w/s320/arctic.gif Kinda weird to think about kids growing up now a days not even realizing that the Russians could nuke us off the map. Sure we could hit them back, and nuke them to the stone age. But if they launched first, well.......America is going to have a real bad day. Weird.....it just seems so damn foreign to not realize that. Nukes....how the frak do they work....? Yeah i was only in the 6th grade when 9/11 happened. We were fighting the new bad guys when i was coming up. I didn't grow up in the Cold War era. So my kowledge on the subject is sub par. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 7:06:55 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Kinda weird FUCKING TERRIFYING to think about kids growing up now a days not even realizing that the Russians could nuke us off the map. FIFY Being born after the fall of the USSR is no excuse for being completely ignorant of the simplest concepts of the Cold War. With few exceptions, this thread has completely maxed out the full on fucking retardation factor.
You're great at making assumptions. So am I appently, i assumed that we had come up with a way to counter the Soviets missles by now. Why? Mainly because it seems now one worries about it that much anymore. Guess i was wrong. Russians can wipe America off the map anythime they want. Damn 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 8:12:20 AM EDT
[#25]
Alright. Flush the bombers, get the subs in launch mode. We are at DEFCON 1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 8:15:37 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: I used to hate the Russians. I still do, but I used to too.  Russians are not good to go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 8:29:40 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: It wasn't your average ordinary Smallpox, nor was that their only weapon. I highly recommend The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and its Dangerous Legacy by David E. Hoffman. He does a good job detailing their program. I swear, every time I read this site I need to shuffle over to Amazon to add another book to the war library  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 8:36:57 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: It wasn't your average ordinary Smallpox, nor was that their only weapon. I highly recommend The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and its Dangerous Legacy by David E. Hoffman. He does a good job detailing their program. I swear, every time I read this site I need to shuffle over to Amazon to add another book to the war library Amazon? Oh yeah, I get all my books from amazon too  no dowloading crap online for me, strictly amazon ETA: I started reading that book, it's a pretty good read so far |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 9:07:47 AM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 9:15:54 AM EDT
[#30]
I know in which we could destroy russia gentlemen... We send the illegals we catch there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 9:44:47 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
From all the data I have, Russia tests their missiles more often than the US does.. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 9:45:52 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? share more, if unclassified I won't share dates, but this is from an open source and will give you an idea of the scope of the testing program: On November 29th, 2007 the U.S. Navy conducted a successful test launch of a Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) built by Lockheed Martin. The Navy launched the unarmed missile from the submerged submarine USS HENRY M JACKSON (SSBN 730) in the Pacific Ocean. The Trident II D5 missile had achieved 120 consecutive successful test launches since 1989 - a record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle. The missile launch was part of the Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO) to certify USS HENRY M JACKSON for deployment, following a shipyard overhaul period and conversion from Trident I C4 to Trident II D5 configuration. The Navy performs tests to assure the safety, reliability, readiness and performance of the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System, as required by the Department of Defense's National Command Authority and conducted under the testing guidelines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For the tests, operational missiles are converted into inert configurations using test missile kits produced by Lockheed Martin that contain range safety devices and flight telemetry instrumentation.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/d-5-recent.htm I have a cousin in the missle program at Vandenberg. I've been to launches, and have seen them as recent as 2008 before moving out of state. I also witnessed the first sucessful missle shield test. Watching a ICBM explode in the atmosphere gives me a warm feeling. That was a Minuteman, not a Trident. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 9:56:48 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? share more, if unclassified I won't share dates, but this is from an open source and will give you an idea of the scope of the testing program: On November 29th, 2007 the U.S. Navy conducted a successful test launch of a Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) built by Lockheed Martin. The Navy launched the unarmed missile from the submerged submarine USS HENRY M JACKSON (SSBN 730) in the Pacific Ocean. The Trident II D5 missile had achieved 120 consecutive successful test launches since 1989 - a record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle. The missile launch was part of the Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO) to certify USS HENRY M JACKSON for deployment, following a shipyard overhaul period and conversion from Trident I C4 to Trident II D5 configuration. The Navy performs tests to assure the safety, reliability, readiness and performance of the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System, as required by the Department of Defense's National Command Authority and conducted under the testing guidelines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For the tests, operational missiles are converted into inert configurations using test missile kits produced by Lockheed Martin that contain range safety devices and flight telemetry instrumentation.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/d-5-recent.htm I have a cousin in the missle program at Vandenberg. I've been to launches, and have seen them as recent as 2008 before moving out of state. I also witnessed the first sucessful missle shield test. Watching a ICBM explode in the atmosphere gives me a warm feeling. That was a Minuteman, not a Trident. Where did I say it was a Trident? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 10:04:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Putin can go suck cock of bear. We've survived years of a Kenyen laying waste to our country. Soviet missiles do not strike fear in me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 10:04:56 AM EDT
[#35]
In Soviet Union - missile tests YOU.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 10:07:35 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
From all the data I have, Russia tests their missiles more often than the US does..
Perhaps - if you give partial credit ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 10:08:07 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
M.A.D. This has been true since the 1960s. The door swings both ways. That would depend on who our QB is with the football. Our QB... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 10:41:03 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
From all the data I have, Russia tests their missiles more often than the US does..
Is it on fire?? thank god. Is it on fire?? thank god... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 10:42:48 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? share more, if unclassified I won't share dates, but this is from an open source and will give you an idea of the scope of the testing program: On November 29th, 2007 the U.S. Navy conducted a successful test launch of a Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) built by Lockheed Martin. The Navy launched the unarmed missile from the submerged submarine USS HENRY M JACKSON (SSBN 730) in the Pacific Ocean. The Trident II D5 missile had achieved 120 consecutive successful test launches since 1989 - a record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle. The missile launch was part of the Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO) to certify USS HENRY M JACKSON for deployment, following a shipyard overhaul period and conversion from Trident I C4 to Trident II D5 configuration. The Navy performs tests to assure the safety, reliability, readiness and performance of the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System, as required by the Department of Defense's National Command Authority and conducted under the testing guidelines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For the tests, operational missiles are converted into inert configurations using test missile kits produced by Lockheed Martin that contain range safety devices and flight telemetry instrumentation.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/d-5-recent.htm I have a cousin in the missle program at Vandenberg. I've been to launches, and have seen them as recent as 2008 before moving out of state. I also witnessed the first sucessful missle shield test. Watching a ICBM explode in the atmosphere gives me a warm feeling. That was a Minuteman, not a Trident. Where did I say it was a Trident? You were quoting me when I was discussing Trident testing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:17:54 AM EDT
[#40]
Good grief.....I hate to apply common sense to GD, but here it goes.
Yes Russia has the ability to destroy the US. Yes, the US has the ability to destroy Russia. To get an accurate and reliable answer to the questions that seem to have perpetuated from the OPs original post you are going to need accruate and reliable information. Guess what, that information is classified (some of it is just about as classified as you can get). Those people that are truely "read on" to our SLBM, ICBM, Nuclear Command Protocals, and Missile Defense cabilities can not and will not "share" that classified knowledge with the general public. Those people that have access to classified intel products on current Russian ICBM/SLBM/Missile capabilites are not going to "share" that classified knowledge with the general public. If someone REALLY wants to know the truth, well figure out a way to get read onto those programs. Take everything else you read/hear/ "get of AR-15.com" as just what it is...... (Edit to fix my public education system spelling) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:21:05 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Good grief..... Yes Russia has the ability to destroy the US. Yes, the US has the ability to destroy Russia. Those people that are truely "read on" to our SLBM, ICBM, Nuclear Command Protocals, and Missile Defense cabilities can not and will not "share" that classified knowledge with the general public. Those people that have access to classified intel products on current Russian ICBM/SLBM/Missile capabilites are not going to "share" that classified knowledge with the general public. If someone REALLY wants to know the truth, well figure out a way to get read onto those programs. Take everything else you read/hear/ "get of AR-15.com" as just what it is...... (Edit to fix my public education system spelling) easy there, just because I don't have a security clearance, doesn't mean I can't be interested in the matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:26:44 AM EDT
[#42]
Not bagging on you for asking, questions are good. But the understanding by everyone particpating in the discussion is that unless someone screws up, pretty much anything you are going to get on here is conjecture or guesses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:34:21 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Not bagging on you for asking, questions are good. But the understanding by everyone particpating in the discussion is that unless someone screws up, pretty much anything you are going to get on here is conjecture or guesses. Well I love me some good old fashioned GD |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:42:50 AM EDT
[#44]
Very true, that is what makes GD what it is.
Other than the fact I am more familier with many of the topics in this thread than I honestly care to be, I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:45:09 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Very true, that is what makes GD what it is. Other than the fact I am more familier with many of the topics in this thread than I honestly care to be, I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly.  relax, have some more wine, we'll make you feel goooooood |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:47:47 AM EDT
[#46]
Hmm, not sure I would want to try and smuggle wine into this mountain.
BUT, drinking on duty would be a sure fire way to get out of this command........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:50:04 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: I wonder, if Russia were to launch all its ICBMs right now, and the US were to launch all its ICBMS right now, and for the sake of argument, presume that they were ALL targeted at isolated spots in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, what percentage of (A) Russian and (B) American missiles would fail to (C) reach its target, (D), even launch successfully, and (E) end up doing damage in its own country of origin? Of course, there IS no factual data on this, but my belief is that US launches would enjoy a CONSIDERABLY higher success rate in all categories than Russian launches. A great deal of former Soviet equipment and systems fell into a state of very serious disrepair in the years following the collapse of the Soviet union and were never restored to full capability, or in many cases, restored at all. CJ I'm inclined to agree. Given the liquid fueled nature of Russian ICBM's, and the general issues with the Russian military, I suspect that there would be a LOT of failures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:52:55 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Submarines laugh at EMP. I don't live in a submarine.  Also, the Ruskies retired the high altitude EMP version of the R-36 in 2009 anyway if I remember right. You realize of course all it takes to make a high altitude EMP is to adjust your fuzing? You don't need a special version of the missle. EMP is not that simple or reliable. The Ruskies probably retired it because they figured out that it was all it's cut out to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 11:54:47 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
In the back of my head, I'm thinking one ground burst on the Pantex storage facility would be bad juju as far as distribution of fallout. Don't think so. All the nuclear material at Pantex is so far underground that a bunkerbuster wouldn't release enough energy to run an LED flashlight |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2011 12:04:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Good grief.....I hate to apply common sense to GD, but here it goes. Yes Russia has the ability to destroy the US. Yes, the US has the ability to destroy Russia. To get an accurate and reliable answer to the questions that seem to have perpetuated from the OPs original post you are going to need accruate and reliable information. Guess what, that information is classified (some of it is just about as classified as you can get). Those people that are truely "read on" to our SLBM, ICBM, Nuclear Command Protocals, and Missile Defense cabilities can not and will not "share" that classified knowledge with the general public. Those people that have access to classified intel products on current Russian ICBM/SLBM/Missile capabilites are not going to "share" that classified knowledge with the general public. If someone REALLY wants to know the truth, well figure out a way to get read onto those programs. Take everything else you read/hear/ "get of AR-15.com" as just what it is...... (Edit to fix my public education system spelling) You can get pretty fair idea from looking at open source info and paying close attention to the news. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
