"Secret Russian weapons" still terrify Americans

[faheem]

These are soem weapons which seem to be a nightmare for USA

SS-18 Missile (Satan)
Having Satan missile, Russia may not be afraid of the US withdrawal from the Anti-Missile Treaty and anti-missile systems.

This missile has Multiple Independently - Targetable Reentry Vehicle and is still invulnerable for anti-missile systems. SS-18 missile bears 16 platforms, one of them contains false targets system. After reaching high orbit, all missile heads become hidden in the cloud of false targets and therefore invulnerable for radars.

The missile heads are armored with the use of extremely dense and heavy metal Uranium-239. Such an armory cannot be burnt by laser in foreseeable future.


R-27 Missile

R-27 intermediate range ballistic missiles are designated for intercepting and destroying aircrafts of all types and cruise missiles at long and average distances


Mosquito Missile

This recently developed Russian missile is invisible for enemy air-defense devices and designated for hitting ships. The missile has extremely high precision degree, it annihilates itself in case of deviating from the target. This is the most modern anti-ship weapon.

All this information is obtain from the
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/11921_missile.html

 

[aaaditya]

These are soem weapons which seem to be a nightmare for USA

SS-18 Missile (Satan)
Having Satan missile, Russia may not be afraid of the US withdrawal from the Anti-Missile Treaty and anti-missile systems.

This missile has Multiple Independently - Targetable Reentry Vehicle and is still invulnerable for anti-missile systems. SS-18 missile bears 16 platforms, one of them contains false targets system. After reaching high orbit, all missile heads become hidden in the cloud of false targets and therefore invulnerable for radars.

The missile heads are armored with the use of extremely dense and heavy metal Uranium-239. Such an armory cannot be burnt by laser in foreseeable future.


R-27 Missile

R-27 intermediate range ballistic missiles are designated for intercepting and destroying aircrafts of all types and cruise missiles at long and average distances


Mosquito Missile

This recently developed Russian missile is invisible for enemy air-defense devices and designated for hitting ships. The missile has extremely high precision degree, it annihilates itself in case of deviating from the target. This is the most modern anti-ship weapon.

All this information is obtain from the
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/11921_missile.html

r27,isnt that the ks172 raduga missile which russia has offered to india as a joint development project.this missile to be developed by the brahmos corporation is claimed to have a range of 400+kms,is an air to air missile claimed to have a speed of mach5,weighs around 750kms,can be carried by the su30mki and will be used to take out enemies high value targets like the awacs and the inflight refuellers.

 

[webmaster]

aaaditya, Russian weapons terrifying Americans, where does India come into the picture?

You don't really need to quote EVERY SINGLE POST, but knew that; right?

 

[Generaltamer]

Im not suprised... who wouldn't be afraid of the Russians after what they did...

 

[KGB]

What did they do? Believe me I have zero nationalisim/idealisim, but with the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, plus the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US and UK are responsible for much of the WMD use the past century.

There are no systems in existence now that can stop a massive ICBM strike from the US or Russia. That's why they keep SSBNs for insurance. No secret about that.

 

[Moroz.ru]

Americans are terrified by their weapon manufacturers and lobbyists. 400 000 000 000 USD of Pentagon budget is very sweet pie.
Russians have created the nuke shield to prevent new 1941 only. “If you wont a peace that be ready to a war”.

 

[Wooki]

Americans are terrified by their weapon manufacturers and lobbyists. 400 000 000 000 USD of Pentagon budget is very sweet pie.
Russians have created the nuke shield to prevent new 1941 only. “If you wont a peace that be ready to a warâ€.

Shouldn't that read

... Sic vis pacem, para bellum (sik vis paw kem, para bellum)

"If you want peace, prepare for war"...?

I did a google and found this;

" ...This sentiment is attributed to Flavius Vegetius Renatus, who wrote in the "De re militari" (390 B.C.E.): "Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem". (Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know know to be superior in battle.)
..."

Apparently "Pacem", might be "Pacis", but I was never too good at Latin.

Anyway, I hope it helps with your English Moroz.

Cheers

 

[Moroz.ru]

Shouldn't that read

... Sic vis pacem, para bellum (sik vis paw kem, para bellum)

Exactly, Wooki!

Anyway, I hope it helps with your English Moroz.

It could helps me with my Latin!

Thanks for interesting reply!

 

[Rich]

I dont feel "terrified". Do any other Americans? The problem with ICBMs is you cant really use them, at least other countries who possess them, and especially America which has such a large, nimble, and first rate, retalitory capacity.

Oh, and the R-27 is an old SLBM design thats been around since the early 60's. I dont even know if its still around. Its a liqued fueled missile that only carries three warheads and has very limited range. Your statement, "R-27 intermediate range ballistic missiles are designated for intercepting and destroying aircrafts of all types and cruise missiles at long and average distances", is not rooted in reality.

I see Pravda hasnt changed much.....:

 

[Moroz.ru]

Oh, and the R-27 is an old SLBM design thats been around since the early 60's.

Old doesn’t mean useless. Soyuz TM rockets based on a 50’s designed R-7 missile is single safe way to space for mankind yet (may be Chinese Soyuz-like rocket “Shenzhow” else ). There is nothing to brake into Soyuz. But two high-tech shuttles have lost .

PS: I wish NASA to solve all troubles with shuttle ASAP.

 

[Rich]

Old doesn’t mean useless. Soyuz TM rockets based on a 50’s designed R-7 missile is single safe way to space for mankind yet (may be Chinese Soyuz-like rocket “Shenzhow” else ). There is nothing to brake into Soyuz. But two high-tech shuttles have lost .

PS: I wish NASA to solve all troubles with shuttle ASAP.

My comments were towards SLBMs, the R-27, what is was and capable of. The Russians have far more capable, and safer, SLBMs in service. I doubt they have any R-27s in service anymore and liqued fueld SLBMs arent exactly safe for a submarine crew anyways.

We both have enough nukes to pound each other into dust many times over. We are either,"not as terrified", or, "as terrified" as you are. Now 1977, when I was in USAF, that was "terrifying". We both had monstrous arsenals on trip wire and were much closer to MAD.

 

[Moroz.ru]

About terrifying
I have grown up in Ural near nuke warhead assembling plant. We have understanding that our town is the aim for the first strike. (Somebody told about 10 warheads directed to us on duty).
My father have told me curious story. Once evening 30 years ago, windows were lighten by bright rays. Big mushroom-like cloud appeared above the taiga. Thousands people got thought: “It has begun!!!!!!!!” (Really all men said: “Pizdets!”- Russian non-lexicon word)

The Apocalypses haven’t become. Turn out a new gas-main have been checking by extra pressure and blew up.

In my childhood I dreamt three my wishes to become true:
1)IIIWW (as MAD) will not start ever (that wasn’t wish, but desire)
2)The “Cubic-Rubik” puzzle
3)1000000 rubles.

First (I hope) and third have become true, but I still haven’t (and won’t) the “Cubic-Rubik” puzzle.

 

[KGB]

There's an 80's article by a US miliitary theorist describing to be what the US believed was Soviet Doctrine. I don't have the website but I have the text file. I omit it because it's looong.

Anyway, the Russians, it said, had always assumed that any NATO - WARSAW pact conflict would eventually be nuclear. Hence the emphasis on NBC protected IFV's and first strike capability. It was quite a problem for the Soviets to combine their "deep battle" approach which emphasized massing troops in important areas, and the need to disperse troops to limit vulnerability to tactical nukes. An officer I knew at the Strategic Air Command said that they believed in the 80's that the USSR had an actual advantage in a total nuclear war because of the USSR's larger landmass.

 

[wittmanace]

i think that itd be wrong to say that the west isnt afraid of russia to some extent still.....
as for during the cold war...as a (half)norwegian i can tell you that absolute fear of an even conventional war terrified most...

what i dont understand is the disregard for eastern bloc weapons in the west...i know the gulf war had a huge role in this, but the fact is that was a second rate army against the power the west's best could muster...

itd be appropriate for the west to have a healthy respect for arms and arms breakthroughs ineastern europe.....we talk about the decline after the collapse of the union and russias shortcomings in chechnya...yet we forget the wests failures in similar situations (vietnam, iraq 2003-, so on...).

historically, russia/the ussr's opponents have had nasty surprises when engaging them......i think the respect that the west does have for the former eastern bloc is based on the fact that when they have decent or revolutionary weapons, it comes as a surprise....hence we can assume that the eastern weapons we see are second grade, yet we fear that there are hidden or secret almost miracle weapons...

another reason is that, whether right or wrong, we tend to see eastern europe as a place where strongmen can act unilaterally in coups, mini coups and so forth....that lack of predictability causes concern in the west.

one has to look back to world war 2 (not suggesting that things havent changed or that all the aspects are relevant, or that the same war would ever be waged again..) and remember that nazi germany wiped out western europe's armies and in the long term got completely destroyed by the union.
think of the surprises like the t 34, kv 2, etc.......and the fact that the red army had 17 million men in 1944 (a record for all time, i believe)......the western powers including america killed 200 000 german soldiers in ww2 (this is the number ive read...anyone please corrrect this or chime in if im off) whereas the ussr killed 3.5 million german soldiers in ww2......essentially world war 2 was on the eastern front and the allies fought nazi germany in a sideshow, as controversial as it sounds...

if we look at the west's current fears....such as war with iran..we see articles about the s300, the tor m1, the potential of iranian tanks from russia, etc....its basicallythe case that the media depicts smaller nations as being powerful opponents due to russian/soviet weapons.....

thats my take on it, from a western point of view. its not really weapons based, as i said before, as the west tends to disregard non western arms, though the potential is recognised....

in a sentence, the west fears easern europes capabilities, but perhaps for the wrong reasons and reasons other than i think the original post meant to imply, whether thats the best set of reasons or not.

 

[KGB]

i
......essentially world war 2 was on the eastern front and the allies fought nazi germany in a sideshow, as controversial as it sounds.

There's a controversy over that? Oh well. They way movies get made, I'm sure lots of people have the impression that WW2 started on D-Day.

 

[wittmanace]

sorry, i didnt mean to imply that it was an absurd notion ( i in fact see it as a matter of fact), but i know that here in the west alot of people would take issue with it and i didnt want to take the conversation copletely off topic with a discussion as to why i say that and so on.....as i said, i see it as a fact

 

[LancerMc]

The war of the Western front during the WW2 (The Great Patriotic War) was just as valid as the Eastern front. The reason why the Eastern front was so much bloodier was because Stalin and Hitler were having a duel by sacrificing as many solider as possible to win that duel. Hitler spurred this action by killing Soviet civilians and buring town and cities. Stalin poured men into the front, having generals force massive waves of infantry attacks against the early superior German force. The Soviet soldiers that retreated were shot by their own officers. In the end this fight between the two dictators caused the lives of millions of Germans and Soviets soldiers and civilians.

Does a war with Russia still worry me personally? Yes, it does.

Some people ask me why, it is because my city is a few miles from the second largest Aluminum smelting plant in the world. Any intelligent person could understand that plant would be an important strategic target during a nuclear exchange. The nuclear destruction of that plant would most likely destroy of severely damage the city I live in.

I doubt any such exchange will happen in the near future because of the situation in Russia. Unfortunately we can't predict the future so you never know.

 

[Sea Dog]

:rolling .....will someone please notify me when I can stop shaking in fear over "Secret Russian weapons"?

nfloorl: I don't know if I can take this anxiety and stress for much longer!!!nfloorl:

 

[Rich]

"""""the western powers including america killed 200 000 german soldiers in ww2 (this is the number ive read...anyone please corrrect this or chime in if im off) whereas the ussr killed 3.5 million german soldiers in ww2......essentially world war 2 was on the eastern front and the allies fought Nazi Germany in a sideshow, as controversial as it sounds..."""""

That's awful high. Various estimates for total German dead, including soldiers and civilians, range from 3.5 million to 6 million. Of which around 2 million were civilians.

As to the Soviets?? I think we always over-estimated their capability. I think there was a window in the 70's when the western powers allowed their defense capability to wither, thanks to the moronic political movements of the time. But in the 80s the window drew to a close and you saw that "window" in the Gulf War-1, which was NATO at its most invincible.

I'm sorry, no disrespect intended. But I don't think the Soviets were that good to begin with. I do however honor Russian bravery and I think they would die to a person before allowing their country to be invaded. Nothing has changed in that regard in the last 60 years.

Of course NATO doesn't want to even kill one Russian, or invade 1 klm of their territory. And nuclear war is the last thing either side wants. So the point is moot.

 

[wittmanace]

well, to saythey were never good might be going a bit far imho...

not as a criticism, but alot of armies and their equipment might be funny, but id guess there wouldd be an awful lot less smiling and laughing if the russians were your opponents in a real war. do consider that the anti armour ied technology as well as anti air "mines" are taking their toll in iraq, and this is essentially improvised equipment from iranian tech/tactics. imagine you end up at war with russia where she wont ever surrender, you can never take russia, her full output under these conditions is forced out, and you come up against her latest weapons. the germans laughed in 1941, but i would suggest that it was alot less funny for them by 1945. iraq was laughable to some.....id guess theyre probably not laughing now. the point is that severe underestimation of russian arms and capabilities is one of the reasons their opponents are always surprised. the fact that their opponents are historically surprised might be another reason some fear them to the extent they do.

it would be interesting to come back to this conversation in 15 years, when we know alot more about 2006 russia's capabilities and arms....who knows...maybe id look at this post and blush or perhaps those more dismissive would look back and feel silly.

whatever her capabilities now, one reason why rusia is feared/respected is that the is an unknown quantity, ans erring on the side of caution might just be the besy way to proceed.