User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:25:03 PM EDT
[#1]
Apparently the missile is the SSC-X-8, which is an intermediate range ballistic missile believed to have a range between 300 and 3,400 miles. It is believed to be nuclear capable missile with a road mobile launcher system. The Russians have two missile battalions of this missile, each battalion has 4 mobile launchers and additional missiles. One battalion has been deployed to an operational base and the second battalion is still at the test base.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:37:10 PM EDT
[#2]
<cue Fred Thompson pic>
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:39:38 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:40:38 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryAt least my thread got a couple of responses. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:45:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Russia is not our friend and is not to be trusted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:47:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia is not our friend and is not to be trusted And we are falling way behind both Russia and China in terms of our nuclear capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:52:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apparently the missile is the SSC-X-8, which is an intermediate range ballistic missile believed to have a range between 300 and 3,400 miles. It is believed to be nuclear capable missile with a road mobile launcher system. The Russians have two missile battalions of this missile, each battalion has 4 mobile launchers and additional missiles. One battalion has been deployed to an operational base and the second battalion is still at the test base. They could hit Alaska or the northwest portion of Washington state if it were fired from the eastern-most part of Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:52:39 PM EDT
[#8]
I also wonder what this means for New START. Are the Russkies going to argue that this is a non-strategic system not covered by New START and therefore they can deploy this system in addition to their New START covered warheads (and thus giving them a substantial superiority in terms of deployed warheads)?
I think it's past time to fire up Los Alamos and start cranking out new warheads and non-strategic delivery systems of our own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:55:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
3,400 miles max? They could hit Alaska or the northwest portion of Washington state if it were fired from the eastern-most part of Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Apparently the missile is the SSC-X-8, which is an intermediate range ballistic missile believed to have a range between 300 and 3,400 miles. It is believed to be nuclear capable missile with a road mobile launcher system. The Russians have two missile battalions of this missile, each battalion has 4 mobile launchers and additional missiles. One battalion has been deployed to an operational base and the second battalion is still at the test base. They could hit Alaska or the northwest portion of Washington state if it were fired from the eastern-most part of Russia. They could also hit any NATO base or capital in Western Europe from deep inside Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:57:47 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<cue Fred Thompson pic> "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it." "Russians don't take a dump without a plan, son..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 2:58:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And we are falling way behind both Russia and China in terms of our nuclear capabilities. Away yes because last MAD race got us so much...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:00:12 PM EDT
[#12]
The only nation that honors treaties is us. Why we do this, I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:00:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Away yes because last MAD race got us so much...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And we are falling way behind both Russia and China in terms of our nuclear capabilities. Away yes because last MAD race got us so much...... It prevented WWIII. You want to continue to prevent WWIII? Then you need to keep up with the Russians and Chinese, because if they feel that they have superiority then they will start throwing their weight around even more than they are now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:02:20 PM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:02:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They could also hit any NATO base or capital in Western Europe from deep inside Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:04:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia is not our friend and is not to be trusted Nor should American leaders be advocating to start another conflict with Russia either, especially on behalf of ISIS aligned groups. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:04:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It prevented WWIII. You want to continue to prevent WWIII? Then you need to keep up with the Russians and Chinese, because if they feel that they have superiority then they will start throwing their weight around even more than they are now. MAD certainly didn't prevent WWWIII. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent. Once you have enough to obliterate a country it's irrelevant if you can do it 2 or 3 times over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:07:41 PM EDT
[#18]
In before the "Russia can be our friend" dumbasses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:11:07 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also wonder what this means for New START. Are the Russkies going to argue that this is a non-strategic system not covered by New START and therefore they can deploy this system in addition to their New START covered warheads (and thus giving them a substantial superiority in terms of deployed warheads)? I think it's past time to fire up Los Alamos and start cranking out new warheads and non-strategic delivery systems of our own. we need to push the RRW and get it in place. then we need to start on completely new designs and better delivery vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:15:37 PM EDT
[#20]
I'm also purdy sure we promised not to move more anti missle systems closer to
the Russians...yet we have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:15:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MAD certainly didn't prevent WWWIII. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent. Once you have enough to obliterate a country it's irrelevant if you can do it 2 or 3 times over. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It prevented WWIII. You want to continue to prevent WWIII? Then you need to keep up with the Russians and Chinese, because if they feel that they have superiority then they will start throwing their weight around even more than they are now. MAD certainly didn't prevent WWWIII. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent. Once you have enough to obliterate a country it's irrelevant if you can do it 2 or 3 times over. Not true. If you have enough warheads to take destroy or severely degrade your enemy's retaliatory capability and still hold their populations at risk then you have the upper hand and a first strike looks very appetizing. It also gives you the ability to push your agenda against your adversaries. What can NATO do if Russia decides to roll tanks into the rest of Ukraine now that they have this missile deployed? Does anyone want to risk trading London or Paris for Kiev? Will anyone want to trade London or Paris for Vilnius or Riga? Where do we draw the line? How far are you willing to let Russia push us around? In the Flynn threads, you've been freaking out because the Russkies have our NSC by the balls and none of the Trumpbots seem to care. Now you're wanting to sit back and do nothing while the Russians develop and deploy nuclear weapons meant to threaten NATO directly. So which is it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:20:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Depending on where they parked it in Russia that could reach to Kansas/Oklahoma area.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:25:36 PM EDT
[#23]
The democrats need to get behind the president, and realize who the real enemy is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:25:58 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Away yes because last MAD race got us so much...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And we are falling way behind both Russia and China in terms of our nuclear capabilities. Away yes because last MAD race got us so much...... Yet another completely moronic and ignorant post from you. Congrats on your streak remaining unbroken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:28:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm also purdy sure we promised not to move more anti missle systems closer to the Russians...yet we have. 
Obama scrapped the missile defense system in Europe. Besides, the proposed locations of those systems would have been within range of their Iskander missiles as well as these missiles. The problem with short and intermediate range nuclear missiles is that they can hit their targets before anyone can do anything about it. The Iskander missile can hit a target 300 miles away in 4 minutes, and they have those stationed in Kaliningrad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:32:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MAD certainly didn't prevent WWWIII. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent. Once you have enough to obliterate a country it's irrelevant if you can do it 2 or 3 times over. It's like you have some burning need to adopt the opposite of anything that has actually occurred. At least take a more nuanced approach and assert that Earth based nuclear weapons didn't prevent WW3. That the inability for either power to prevent nuclear proliferation in space and retaliate, caused enough brick-shitting that each side agreed, insert Fred Thompson. That would allow for some debate on the merit of that position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:43:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we need to push the RRW and get it in place. then we need to start on completely new designs and better delivery vehicles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I also wonder what this means for New START. Are the Russkies going to argue that this is a non-strategic system not covered by New START and therefore they can deploy this system in addition to their New START covered warheads (and thus giving them a substantial superiority in terms of deployed warheads)? I think it's past time to fire up Los Alamos and start cranking out new warheads and non-strategic delivery systems of our own. we need to push the RRW and get it in place. then we need to start on completely new designs and better delivery vehicles. Another program that Obama killed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 3:49:49 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MAD certainly didn't prevent WWWIII. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent. Once you have enough to obliterate a country it's irrelevant if you can do it 2 or 3 times over. Deterrence is the entire point of MAD...therefore it worked. But even at the height of the Cold War neither the USSR nor we could "obliterate" the other one, let alone do it 2-3 (or however many multiples you want to come up with) times over. That whole argument began with the anti-nuke groups in the '80s, who were parroting the talking points of the Soviet (and even moreso the DDR with regards to West German groups) propaganda establishment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:08:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Seems like the SSC-X-8 is a RK-55 derivative with greater range.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:10:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only nation that honors treaties is us. Why we do this, I have no idea. Injuns say otherwise
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:15:33 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I feel the heat around the corner. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They could also hit any NATO base or capital in Western Europe from deep inside Russia. Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:17:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like the SSC-X-8 is a RK-55 derivative with greater range. So then it truly is a cruise missile and not a ballistic missile. That's slightly less horrifying, in that it won't be as fast. But, it may be harder to detect a launch. Between this and the Iskander the Russkies can hold all of Western Europe at risk without augmenting their strategic capabilities, and short of increasing our own deployable non-strategic nuclear weapons there is a damn thing anyone can do about it. They have NATO in a tight spot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:21:14 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So then it truly is a cruise missile and not a ballistic missile. That's slightly less horrifying, in that it won't be as fast. But, it may be harder to detect a launch. Between this and the Iskander the Russkies can hold all of Western Europe at risk without augmenting their strategic capabilities, and short of increasing our own deployable non-strategic nuclear weapons there is a damn thing anyone can do about it. They have NATO in a tight spot. Pretty much. This missile is like a Tomahawk on steroids. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:22:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also wonder what this means for New START. Are the Russkies going to argue that this is a non-strategic system not covered by New START and therefore they can deploy this system in addition to their New START covered warheads (and thus giving them a substantial superiority in terms of deployed warheads)? I think it's past time to fire up Los Alamos and start cranking out new warheads and non-strategic delivery systems of our own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:23:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Deterrence is the entire point of MAD...therefore it worked. But even at the height of the Cold War neither the USSR nor we could "obliterate" the other one, let alone do it 2-3 (or however many multiples you want to come up with) times over. That whole argument began with the anti-nuke groups in the '80s, who were parroting the talking points of the Soviet (and even moreso the DDR with regards to West German groups) propaganda establishment. I am pretty sure with a estimated 32,000-40,000 nuclear weapons between USA and ussr there would be no practical survivor population in either country. As far as nuclear deterrence I think maintaining 3000-5000 nuclear weapons with over half being ICBM should be good enough. A few hundred more squirreled away on subs as a deadman switch. I think our activities on nuclear defense is what is triggering china and Russia to develop more capable missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:23:41 PM EDT
[#36]
Trump must be an investor in it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:24:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Away yes because last MAD race got us so much...... You mean no more world wars and victory in the cold war? You are such a clown. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:25:06 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am pretty sure with a estimated 32-40,000 nuclear weapons between USA and ussr there would be no practical survivor population in either country. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Deterrence is the entire point of MAD...therefore it worked. But even at the height of the Cold War neither the USSR nor we could "obliterate" the other one, let alone do it 2-3 (or however many multiples you want to come up with) times over. That whole argument began with the anti-nuke groups in the '80s, who were parroting the talking points of the Soviet (and even moreso the DDR with regards to West German groups) propaganda establishment. I am pretty sure with a estimated 32-40,000 nuclear weapons between USA and ussr there would be no practical survivor population in either country. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:27:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not true. If you have enough warheads to take destroy or severely degrade your enemy's retaliatory capability and still hold their populations at risk then you have the upper hand and a first strike looks very appetizing. It also gives you the ability to push your agenda against your adversaries. What can NATO do if Russia decides to roll tanks into the rest of Ukraine now that they have this missile deployed? Does anyone want to risk trading London or Paris for Kiev? Will anyone want to trade London or Paris for Vilnius or Riga? Where do we draw the line? How far are you willing to let Russia push us around? In the Flynn threads, you've been freaking out because the Russkies have our NSC by the balls and none of the Trumpbots seem to care. Now you're wanting to sit back and do nothing while the Russians develop and deploy nuclear weapons meant to threaten NATO directly. So which is it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It prevented WWIII. You want to continue to prevent WWIII? Then you need to keep up with the Russians and Chinese, because if they feel that they have superiority then they will start throwing their weight around even more than they are now. MAD certainly didn't prevent WWWIII. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent. Once you have enough to obliterate a country it's irrelevant if you can do it 2 or 3 times over. Not true. If you have enough warheads to take destroy or severely degrade your enemy's retaliatory capability and still hold their populations at risk then you have the upper hand and a first strike looks very appetizing. It also gives you the ability to push your agenda against your adversaries. What can NATO do if Russia decides to roll tanks into the rest of Ukraine now that they have this missile deployed? Does anyone want to risk trading London or Paris for Kiev? Will anyone want to trade London or Paris for Vilnius or Riga? Where do we draw the line? How far are you willing to let Russia push us around? In the Flynn threads, you've been freaking out because the Russkies have our NSC by the balls and none of the Trumpbots seem to care. Now you're wanting to sit back and do nothing while the Russians develop and deploy nuclear weapons meant to threaten NATO directly. So which is it? You got that troll account by the balls Steve. The only question is when is staff going to admit who's account it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:28:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia is not our friend and is not to be trusted That's a two street Bud! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:30:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Build Pershing IV right fucking now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:39:16 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am pretty sure with a estimated 32,000-40,000 nuclear weapons between USA and ussr there would be no practical survivor population in either country. As far as nuclear deterrence I think maintaining 3000-5000 nuclear weapons with over half being ICBM should be good enough. A few hundred more squirreled away on subs as a deadman switch. I think our activities on nuclear defense is what is triggering china and Russia to develop more capable missiles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Deterrence is the entire point of MAD...therefore it worked. But even at the height of the Cold War neither the USSR nor we could "obliterate" the other one, let alone do it 2-3 (or however many multiples you want to come up with) times over. That whole argument began with the anti-nuke groups in the '80s, who were parroting the talking points of the Soviet (and even moreso the DDR with regards to West German groups) propaganda establishment. I am pretty sure with a estimated 32,000-40,000 nuclear weapons between USA and ussr there would be no practical survivor population in either country. As far as nuclear deterrence I think maintaining 3000-5000 nuclear weapons with over half being ICBM should be good enough. A few hundred more squirreled away on subs as a deadman switch. I think our activities on nuclear defense is what is triggering china and Russia to develop more capable missiles. Well, you're 32,000-40,000 number may have been accurate at one time, but it is no where near accurate today. Today, the United States has under 1,500 deployed strategic warheads (warheads that can be deployed by ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers) and about 180 non-strategic warheads, all of which are attached to B61 gravity bombs. The Russians now have a sizable advantage over NATO in terms of deployed warheads and modernized delivery systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 5:40:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia is not our friend and is not to be trusted  Failed To Load Title
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 6:05:59 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And we are falling way behind both Russia and China in terms of our nuclear capabilities. Yeah but we got The Donald. Relax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 6:49:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Time for us to just go back into Europe Bigly. Deploy our GLCMs and bring out a new Pershing 3 to fuck with them again.
Trump cannot allow this shit to go unanswered. Reagan provided the example. Fuck the Russkies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 6:56:15 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean no more world wars and victory in the cold war? You are such a clown. You were to nice Sylvan to nice Clowns everywhere are crying 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 8:03:51 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also wonder what this means for New START. Are the Russkies going to argue that this is a non-strategic system not covered by New START and therefore they can deploy this system in addition to their New START covered warheads (and thus giving them a substantial superiority in terms of deployed warheads)? I think it's past time to fire up Los Alamos and start cranking out new warheads and non-strategic delivery systems of our own. I dont think for one second the Russians are holding up there end of the deal Can only hope neither are we...wish full thinking though im afarid They will never be our "friends" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 8:28:32 PM EDT
[#48]
I wonder how long it would take to integrate a W80
or W84 warhead on a JASSM-ER. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 8:34:24 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dont think for one second the Russians are holding up there end of the deal Can only hope neither are we...wish full thinking though im afarid They will never be our "friends" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I also wonder what this means for New START. Are the Russkies going to argue that this is a non-strategic system not covered by New START and therefore they can deploy this system in addition to their New START covered warheads (and thus giving them a substantial superiority in terms of deployed warheads)? I think it's past time to fire up Los Alamos and start cranking out new warheads and non-strategic delivery systems of our own. I dont think for one second the Russians are holding up there end of the deal Can only hope neither are we...wish full thinking though im afarid They will never be our "friends" There are no treaties governing non-strategic warheads and they have somewhere between a 10:1 and 30:1 advantage.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 8:39:09 PM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
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.
