Russia Tests New "Stealth" Nuclear Missile

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TechAZ
...
...
...Besides, its Obama who wants to dismantle our weapons defense system.
Well at least you openly subscribe to McBush's policy of escalation.
For every [American] action, there is an equal and opposite [Russian] reaction.
We install "missile defense" sites in Poland, Russia builds new stealth ICBMs.
We threaten to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, Russia threatens to supply them with advanced anti-aircraft missile batteries.
Then we build a better missile defense site. Do you think an impenetrable missile shield is impractical and unaffordable?
Of course you do. You have a brain.
Fixed it for you.
The same was said about putting a man on the moon.
What happened to 'yes, we can!'
The moon didn't change its orbit to evade the lander or deploy decoy moons to try to get us to land on the wrong one.
Win.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,419
4,797
126
Cold War 2, if it occurs, will be much different. This time Russia has the favourable position. Oil will make all the difference. Russia has it, the US lacks it. Prices are high fueling the Russian Economy while supressing the US Economy. In the previous Cold War Oil was cheap and easily attainable from other sources. The US was also economically fueled by a huge Manufacturing base, which has largely been shifted Overseas. The US simply can not afford another Arms Race.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Maybe seek the advice of the new VP if McCain would ever croak.
Is that before or after she picks her cabinet members from America's Top Model?
Are you seriously bringing that weak shit here? Just because she's female? Wow, thats just sad.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TechAZ
...
...
...Besides, its Obama who wants to dismantle our weapons defense system.
Well at least you openly subscribe to McBush's policy of escalation.
For every [American] action, there is an equal and opposite [Russian] reaction.
We install "missile defense" sites in Poland, Russia builds new stealth ICBMs.
We threaten to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, Russia threatens to supply them with advanced anti-aircraft missile batteries.
Then we build a better missile defense site. Do you think an impenetrable missile shield is impractical and unaffordable?
Of course you do. You have a brain.
Fixed it for you.
The same was said about putting a man on the moon.
What happened to 'yes, we can!'
The moon didn't change its orbit to evade the lander or deploy decoy moons to try to get us to land on the wrong one.
The moon also didn't have computer technology and modern satellites.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,832
84
91
..quick. get the obama to make a soaring verbose speech loaded with his usual vacuous rehetoric. the russians will fall to their knees and cry.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
4,546
568
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Cold War 2, if it occurs, will be much different. This time Russia has the favourable position. Oil will make all the difference. Russia has it, the US lacks it. Prices are high fueling the Russian Economy while supressing the US Economy. In the previous Cold War Oil was cheap and easily attainable from other sources. The US was also economically fueled by a huge Manufacturing base, which has largely been shifted Overseas. The US simply can not afford another Arms Race.
Considering Russia has a GDP of around 2 trillion and the US has a GDP of 13.8 trillion I don't see how Russia has a favorable position, if another arms race starts.

All I see is the Russians blowing a lot of hot air about stealth missiles. The US has much more experience at stealth than the Russians do. Also the ABM shield isn't intended to stop a Russian strike. A Russian nuclear strike is going to involve hundreds of missiles. Basically the Russians are basically puffing out there chest and doing a lot of talking. I would love to know you a stealth missile is going to be designed with a warhead where the stealth characteristics will remain in place during launch and then re-entry. Also this warhead if able to evade radar will leave a lovely IR signature.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,854
35,978
136
Originally posted by: IGBT
..quick. get the obama to make a soaring verbose speech loaded with his usual vacuous rehetoric. the russians will fall to their knees and cry.
Quick, get IGBT to make a moronic post!

PS: You forgot to shoehorn in "eco-theists". There's an edit button though, so there's still time.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
The moon also didn't have computer technology and modern satellites.
You're proposing a new arms race, but it's an arms race where offense has a significant advantage over defense (since it's much easier to launch missiles than to intercept them), and it looks like Russia will have more money to spend than we do (U.S. budget deficit versus booming oil economy). Bluster all you want, but this is an arms race that would bankrupt us before it does them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,854
35,978
136
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
The moon also didn't have computer technology and modern satellites.
You're proposing a new arms race, but it's an arms race where offense has a significant advantage over defense (since it's much easier to launch missiles than to intercept them), and it looks like Russia will have more money to spend than we do (U.S. budget deficit versus booming oil economy). Bluster all you want, but this is an arms race that would bankrupt us before it does them.
An arms race would bankrupt Russia a long long time before it would bankrupt us.

Size of the Russian economy : 2.1 trillion.
Size of the US economy : 14 trillion.

The problem with the missile defense program is not primarily its expense, it is it's destabilizing nature and lack of effectiveness. The expense is just the icing on the shit cake.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,419
4,797
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
The moon also didn't have computer technology and modern satellites.
You're proposing a new arms race, but it's an arms race where offense has a significant advantage over defense (since it's much easier to launch missiles than to intercept them), and it looks like Russia will have more money to spend than we do (U.S. budget deficit versus booming oil economy). Bluster all you want, but this is an arms race that would bankrupt us before it does them.
An arms race would bankrupt Russia a long long time before it would bankrupt us.

Size of the Russian economy : 2.1 trillion.
Size of the US economy : 14 trillion.

The problem with the missile defense program is not primarily its expense, it is it's destabilizing nature and lack of effectiveness. The expense is just the icing on the shit cake.
GDP is pretty meaningless if Russia funds an Arms Race with Surplus Funds while the US uses Deficit Spending.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
The moon also didn't have computer technology and modern satellites.
You're proposing a new arms race, but it's an arms race where offense has a significant advantage over defense (since it's much easier to launch missiles than to intercept them), and it looks like Russia will have more money to spend than we do (U.S. budget deficit versus booming oil economy). Bluster all you want, but this is an arms race that would bankrupt us before it does them.
An arms race would bankrupt Russia a long long time before it would bankrupt us.

Size of the Russian economy : 2.1 trillion.
Size of the US economy : 14 trillion.

The problem with the missile defense program is not primarily its expense, it is it's destabilizing nature and lack of effectiveness. The expense is just the icing on the shit cake.
I have to stand by my statement because the technology to intercept a missile is much more complex than the missile itself. We've only just gotten to the point where we can sometimes hit a single target if we know its trajectory in advance. Multiple objects of unknown trajectory, with multiple warheads and numerous decoys, multiply the complexity and expense of the solution.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,854
35,978
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
The moon also didn't have computer technology and modern satellites.
You're proposing a new arms race, but it's an arms race where offense has a significant advantage over defense (since it's much easier to launch missiles than to intercept them), and it looks like Russia will have more money to spend than we do (U.S. budget deficit versus booming oil economy). Bluster all you want, but this is an arms race that would bankrupt us before it does them.
An arms race would bankrupt Russia a long long time before it would bankrupt us.

Size of the Russian economy : 2.1 trillion.
Size of the US economy : 14 trillion.

The problem with the missile defense program is not primarily its expense, it is it's destabilizing nature and lack of effectiveness. The expense is just the icing on the shit cake.
GDP is pretty meaningless if Russia funds an Arms Race with Surplus Funds while the US uses Deficit Spending.
Not really. Just through increased taxation due to GDP growth we could probably spend Russia into the ground on this issue if we chose to. For each point of GDP growth we get 700% more money to mess around with as we see fit. This doesn't bode well for Russia in an arms race.

This is nothing new, even with deficits we currently have we are far better able to sustain an arms race than Russia is. That's simply a fact.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,854
35,978
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Maybe seek the advice of the new VP if McCain would ever croak.
Is that before or after she picks her cabinet members from America's Top Model?
What is with the sexist comment??

Wonder how people would respond is someone suggested that Obama was going to pick his cabinet from Soul Train.
Is this the first time Pro-Jo's pulled out the sexist card? I'm betting it won't be the last. Remember, slam Obama for playing the 'race card', but play the 'sexist card' at every opportunity Pro-Jo! Don't let that cognitive dissonance get you!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,854
35,978
136
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
The moon also didn't have computer technology and modern satellites.
You're proposing a new arms race, but it's an arms race where offense has a significant advantage over defense (since it's much easier to launch missiles than to intercept them), and it looks like Russia will have more money to spend than we do (U.S. budget deficit versus booming oil economy). Bluster all you want, but this is an arms race that would bankrupt us before it does them.
An arms race would bankrupt Russia a long long time before it would bankrupt us.

Size of the Russian economy : 2.1 trillion.
Size of the US economy : 14 trillion.

The problem with the missile defense program is not primarily its expense, it is it's destabilizing nature and lack of effectiveness. The expense is just the icing on the shit cake.
I have to stand by my statement because the technology to intercept a missile is much more complex than the missile itself. We've only just gotten to the point where we can sometimes hit a single target if we know its trajectory in advance. Multiple objects of unknown trajectory, with multiple warheads and numerous decoys, multiply the complexity and expense of the solution.
I agree with you, the relative expense compared to countermeasures has a terrible ratio. That being said our economic advantage over Russia is so overwhelming that we could easily sustain this arms race. They cannot.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,671
1
0
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: Irontoes
Originally posted by: ThrockmortonObama's undergrad degree is in foreign relations. I'd say he knows more than a small town Alaska mayor about dealing with Russia.
Actually she was the governer of a state that "bordered" Russia and was commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard. I would say she might have more experience dealing with Russians.

Liberals fear another cold war because there is a good chance it would put America back on the right track :)
Please tell me you aren't serious. There's no one that could be that delusional.
Has there been an attack on Alaska recently that I didn't hear about?
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
I agree with you, the relative expense compared to countermeasures has a terrible ratio. That being said our economic advantage over Russia is so overwhelming that we could easily sustain this arms race. They cannot.
Perhaps. Besides our GDP advantage you have to consider our higher social overhead; huge military expenditures are easier if you don't care what happens to your citizens in the meantime.
At any rate, as you point out, entirely aside from the question of expense there is the question of effectiveness. We're no where near a truly usable system, despite which our Intrepid Leader is already deploying it. Kind of like selling electric cars with absolute confidence that you'll have a usable battery system any year now.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
4,546
568
126
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
I agree with you, the relative expense compared to countermeasures has a terrible ratio. That being said our economic advantage over Russia is so overwhelming that we could easily sustain this arms race. They cannot.
Perhaps. Besides our GDP advantage you have to consider our higher social overhead; huge military expenditures are easier if you don't care what happens to your citizens in the meantime.
At any rate, as you point out, entirely aside from the question of expense there is the question of effectiveness. We're no where near a truly usable system, despite which our Intrepid Leader is already deploying it. Kind of like selling electric cars with absolute confidence that you'll have a usable battery system any year now.
What would be your definition of a usable ABM system?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: Irontoes
Originally posted by: ThrockmortonObama's undergrad degree is in foreign relations. I'd say he knows more than a small town Alaska mayor about dealing with Russia.
Actually she was the governer of a state that "bordered" Russia and was commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard. I would say she might have more experience dealing with Russians.
Fox News had a commentator that was mocked (by Jon Stewart) as an idiot for that argument. I guess Arnold Schwarzeneggar is now an expert on Mexican political issues.

Liberals fear another cold war because there is a good chance it would put America back on the right track :)
Most clueless post I've seen in a long time. It's like a German saying that critics of the Nazis were simply against Germany being on the 'right track' to conquer the world.

One of the fundamental failures of right-wingers is a lack of any respect for the rights of others, with partial exceptions made for those who ally to help us in our pursuit of power.

You righties pursue power like a dog chases a hubcap on a moving car, for its own sake without a clue why or what to do when you get it, not like FDR preparing for an actual threat with what's actually needed. It's always just 'more' - more aggressive, more military spending, more powerful weapons, without any clue how to the world can exist peacefully other than at our mercy, without any clue how your military buildup can cause new and unnecessary problems and violence and instability.

What we need are people like JFK who have an idea how to pursue the "Strategy of Peace", not ignorant enablers of the military-industrial complex.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: joshsquall
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Maybe seek the advice of the new VP if McCain would ever croak.
Is that before or after she picks her cabinet members from America's Top Model?
Weird, misogyny from a liberal.
Not weird, a righty making up a phony attack, by replacing the actual attack on her shallow qualifications with an attack on women simply for being women.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TechAZ
...
...
...Besides, its Obama who wants to dismantle our weapons defense system.
Well at least you openly subscribe to McBush's policy of escalation.
For every [American] action, there is an equal and opposite [Russian] reaction.
We install "missile defense" sites in Poland, Russia builds new stealth ICBMs.
We threaten to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, Russia threatens to supply them with advanced anti-aircraft missile batteries.
Then we build a better missile defense site. Do you think an impenetrable missile shield is impractical and unaffordable?
Of course you do. You have a brain.
Fixed it for you.
The same was said about putting a man on the moon.

What happened to 'yes, we can!'
Let's spend trillions on a time machine, and use your argument for it. Clearly, a democrat's *rational leadership* is the same as a Republican's military waste.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
The moon also didn't have computer technology and modern satellites.
You're proposing a new arms race, but it's an arms race where offense has a significant advantage over defense (since it's much easier to launch missiles than to intercept them), and it looks like Russia will have more money to spend than we do (U.S. budget deficit versus booming oil economy). Bluster all you want, but this is an arms race that would bankrupt us before it does them.
An arms race would bankrupt Russia a long long time before it would bankrupt us.

Size of the Russian economy : 2.1 trillion.
Size of the US economy : 14 trillion.

The problem with the missile defense program is not primarily its expense, it is it's destabilizing nature and lack of effectiveness. The expense is just the icing on the shit cake.
Only a 'head to head' arms race, like trying to build more missiles than the other side.

This is not that - it's 'build a counter to SDI' versus 'build SDI'. There's no saying that they're equivalently expensive, or even 1000:1 ratio for their expense.

Remember the old joke about Americans designing a space pen for a million dollars that can right in zero gravity, and the Russians using a pencil?

Not to mention the questions about things like SDI becoming an offensive system.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Maybe seek the advice of the new VP if McCain would ever croak.
Is that before or after she picks her cabinet members from America's Top Model?
I know you don't care and I can't believe I'm wasting time responding to the biggest troll on AT, but we're recovering from a wipe on the Illidari Council and I've got nothing else to do while waiting for a rez, so for what it's worth -- if McCain were to die, Palin's VP would likely be completely dictated by the democrats in congress, likely an extremely ineffectual republican or attempt to force an R from a blue state to take it to get him replaced in the senate by a D.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Brovane
What would be your definition of a usable ABM system?
A system that can intercept missiles without prior knowledge of launch time and trajectory.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY