backtop

Science Russia Tests New Nuclear Missile
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 31, 2008 10:30 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 202 comment(s) - last by iNGEN.. on Sep 7 at 1:24 PM

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev stands next to a Topol-M  (Source: Sun UK)
Tensions heighten as Russia flexes newfound military muscle.

Upping the ante in the recent geopolitical brinksmanship over Georgia, Poland, and Ukraine, Russia responded by test-firing its new RS-12M nuclear missile.

The test, launched from a point near Moscow, struck a target in Kamchatka nearly 4,000 miles away. Russia and independent observers deemed the test a success.

The RS-12M is an advanced version of the land-based Topol-M. It is a three-stage ICBM with a range of 12,000 km, carries a 550-KT nuclear warhead, and has an unknown number of advanced "stealth" features designed to prevent interception by ABM (anti ballistic missile) defenses. NATO refers to it as the SS-25 Sickle.

It is road-mobile and launchable with little notice from any point during transit, making it essentially immune to first-strike or counter-strike capabilities. In the 1970s, the US attempted to adopt similar technology with the Midgetman program, but Congress ultimately canceled the initiative.

Russia says the RS-12 was designed to evade the new US "Star Wars" defense shield. Such claims have not been independently verified, and few DoD analysts have expressed firm opinions one way or another.

Rising oil prices have allowed Russia to modernize and re-equip its aging military, with its defense budget rising by 30% annually.

The test follows on the heels of a statement by British Foreign Secretary David Milliband that Russia's invasion of Georgia has meant "the end of peace in Europe". Britain canceled a scheduled set of military exercises with Georgia after Russia stated their participation would be declared an "declaration of war".

Russia has also responded to recent events in Poland and Ukraine by noting that both nations may be the target of a future nuclear attack. 

Several EU nations, including France and England, are considering sanctions for the acts.

Russia has also been developing new conventional payloads in recent months.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The whole story?
By Mitch101 on 8/31/2008 11:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
Hey UK. What's the dilio over there with Russia? From the American side or at least from what I have seen Russia has gone power crazy lately flexing it muscle for some reason? I know were no angels but whats the scoop/view from your side of the pond?




RE: The whole story?
By Trisagion on 8/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: The whole story?
By Fnoob on 8/31/2008 11:56:08 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed. Georgia started shelling their 'breakaway" regions who were loyal to Russia. As democracies, both Georgia and the US should allow the people of those regions to do as they see fit. What happened to "spreading freedom" around the globe? If those regions choose to return to totalitarianism, that's their choice. Russia should, however, get completely out of Georgia and cease interfering with their ports and the return of its refugees.


RE: The whole story?
By Amiga500 on 8/31/2008 12:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yeap.

Whatever happened to self-determination?


RE: The whole story?
By BladeVenom on 8/31/2008 6:19:42 PM , Rating: 5
Like in Chechnya.


RE: The whole story?
By Amiga500 on 9/1/2008 5:17:32 PM , Rating: 1
Indeed.

The Russians should not be in Chechnya... but the Russians weren't hypocritical in doing it. There was no BS facade about "freedom and democracy".


RE: The whole story?
By Ammohunt on 9/2/2008 3:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
it was BS about Chechn terrorists.


RE: The whole story?
By Treckin on 9/1/2008 9:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
went the same way as nullification, idiot.
Try seceding ANY WAY you want buddy, I bet you get nuked...


RE: The whole story?
By Chaser on 8/31/2008 2:12:06 PM , Rating: 5
Excuse me? You need to get a clue and grip on the facts before you start spewing Russian propaganda. Within the boundaries of Georgia is South Ossentia. This tiny breakaway country has announced it would "be absorbed back into Russia. a b Halpin, Tony (2008-08-30). "Kremlin announces that South Ossetia will join 'one united Russian state'", The Times, News Corp.. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.

South Ossentia rebels began unprovoked attacks towards Georgian civilians. Despite formal requests to cease those attacks they were ignored. After no choice Georgia sent it's military into South Ossentia to restore order. That's when Russia invaded Georgia in response. And considering the magnitude of the military force Russia sent into Georgia at very short notice its very obvious to military experts worldwide this entire sham was planned from the beginning.

Russia if anything is a very paranoid, overly prideful, controlling country. This unjustified invasion of Georgia is nothing more than a show of force to large countries like the Ukraine and Poland that are very U.S. friendly where democracy has spread.

Check your "facts" before you post your politically inspired idiocy.


RE: The whole story?
By foolsgambit11 on 8/31/2008 3:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's inaccurate to quote South Ossetia's and Russia's intentions as stated after the brokered ceasefire. Before the current outbreak of violence, South Ossetia and Abkhazia both wanted to be independent states, not "absorbed back into Russia".

Additionally, it is propogandist and overly simplistic to say that Georgia had no choice but to invade South Ossetia, but to imply that Russia had a choice in their response. The use of force is always a choice. Georgia chose to invade, provoked by continuing efforts by some South Ossetians to cede from Georgia, and made little effort, it would seem, to protect Ossetian civilians during their bombardment. Russia chose to repel the Georgian incursion, and then continue on into Georgia proper, based on their obligations under the tenuous ceasefire that they had been charged with maintaining between Georgia and South Ossetia since the 90's. They were also less discriminant than could be hoped for in separating military from civilian targets.

Both sides overstepped their bounds, I'd say. South Ossetia wants independence, and two referenda have been conducted to show this. However, it's probably not an economically or politically viable state (This is what makes the situation different from Kosovo. Both may be breakaway regions of former Soviet republics, but South Ossetia just isn't a viable state). The situation is certainly not black and white, a matter of one noble and just side and one wicked and cruel side. The U.S. position is made especially difficult by these three facts: South Ossetia wants independence, and has shown its desire through democratic means; Georgia is a burgeoning democracy and U.S. supporter in the War on Terrorism; and Russia is a tenuous democracy and major world player that demands respect.

It's sure difficult to say you support democracy and freedom in the world, then pick sides among three democracies, no matter how weak each of them are (and they all three have their flaws when it comes to popular governance). That's why U.S. foreign policy must be more nuanced than simply "promote democracy, fight evil". The Bush administration knows this (now, at least), as do both of the major candidates for President. (McCain has been a little bellicose on this issue, but I'm hoping it's because he's trying to galvanize the Republican base, and Obama has been a little quiet on the issue, probably because diplomacy is not an issue that you can stump, and because he knows statements made could impact diplomatic efforts, which is the purview of the current administration. Or maybe McCain's a hawk and Obama's a peacenik. Who knows.)


RE: The whole story?
By grenableu on 8/31/2008 4:00:34 PM , Rating: 5
Georgia didn't choose to "invade". South Ossetia was already part of Georgia, and recognized as such by the UN and nations around the world. When Georgian citizens are being attacked and killed on your own soil, you have a RESPONSIBILITY to go in and do something about it. Guess you people never realized that.

Russia created the crisis, to force a Georgian response. They then activated their pre-planned response, invading not just Ossetia but all of Georgia.


RE: The whole story?
By foolsgambit11 on 8/31/2008 4:35:52 PM , Rating: 3
Right. I called it an invasion because, in this case, I felt like calling a spade a spade. Georgia didn't have military or political control of the area. They had agreed not to use force as part of the ceasefire. South Ossetia was de facto independent, if not de jure. If you prefer the term "incursion" instead of "invasion", I'm sure the facts on the ground will change materially. South Ossetians, for the most part, wanted independence, and were autonomous. Prior to this year, if Serbia had entered Kosovo, I would have used the term 'invasion' (Of course, now, most everybody would). I use the term for the Russian invasion of Chechnya, too. If you really feel that South Ossetia is part of Georgia, shouldn't you say that, to paraphrase, when Georgian citizens (the South Ossetians) are being repressed and tyrannized on your own soil, you have a RESPOSIBILITY to go in and do something about it. But the government in Tblisi has never had the best interests of the South Ossetians in mind.

Saddam Hussein had to deal with Kurdish separatists attacking Iraqi citizens from Northern Iraq, too. <sarcasm> And we wholeheartedly supported his efforts to 'protect his citizens'. </sarcasm> The point being, a simple claim to the soil does not legitimize governance. Governance is legitimized by representing the best interests of the people.


RE: The whole story?
By Ringold on 8/31/2008 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 5
Did the Union "invade" the South, which it had no political or military control over, in the 1860s? Lincoln, I doubt, would categorize it quite like that.. more along the lines to restoring the rule of law, perhaps. Would it have been justified had the UK sent legions of men in on the side of the South, and then proceeded to not just secure the break-away South but then devastate the North as well? I would say that the US model is the preferred one; Europe largely left us to our own devices to sort out the problem amongst ourselves as a sovereign nation.

Georgia made a tactical error, but everybody ought to be on the same page that Russia was just waiting for an excuse to do what it did. It's been annoyed that NATO was on its borders, and they sent a message of warning at the expense of civilians. That shouldn't be tolerable, but I guess political correctness requires it to be, as messages of strength are so 20th century.


RE: The whole story?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/1/2008 3:21:46 PM , Rating: 4
And then, what about the American Revolution? Perhaps most wouldn't call the British military efforts in the Colonies an invasion, (I'll admit, the use of the word in that case certainly seems odd, as well as your case of the Civil War) but it does highlight the fact that, whatever word you use to describe the military action, claim to sovereignty over a region does not necessarily put you on the side of right. Things are more complicated than that, and the fact that the world generally recognizes South Ossetia as part of Georgia isn't based on justice, but more on pragmatics.

The reason, I think, that I see the issue of the Civil War as different than that of Georgia comes down to a matter of time. The South was part of the United States, and the federal government exercised political and military control of the region right up until the start of the war. In Georgia, South Ossetia has been autonomous for more than a decade. I wouldn't call the violence associated with the original secession conflict an 'invasion' on Georgia's part, because it was an immediate response to the 'breaking away'. Same with the Civil War, and the American Revolution. But when time has legitimized the status quo, while you may disagree with calling it an invasion, it would likewise be inappropriate to ignore the sovereign claims of the South Ossetians.


RE: The whole story?
By omnicronx on 9/1/2008 4:26:07 PM , Rating: 3
Give it up! The area in which Russia is annexing has a major oil pipeline running through it. Russia has been waiting for a chance to annex the pro-russian South Ossetia for a long time now. South Ossetia was part of Geogia and using this situation as a comparison to the Revolution makes no sense.

England was trying to stop their own colony for separating, What exactly was russia doing here? Are you seriously proposing it was for the good of the people? I can't even say that with a straight face!


RE: The whole story?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: The whole story?
By heffeque on 8/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: The whole story?
By Shining Arcanine on 8/31/2008 5:51:14 PM , Rating: 5
If you consider history, it would be more correct to say that China is a part of Taiwan, rather than the other way around, much like one could state that the United States is a part of Washington D.C.