backtop


Print 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.


RE: The whole story?
By omnicronx on 9/1/2008 4:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
And this gives Russia the nod to go in, and annex the country. If they wanted independence, then why are they now part of another country? You are not making sense here.

Your comparisons have absolutely no baring on this situation, as not one has anything to do with a country invading another country and annexing it completely.


RE: The whole story?
By heffeque on 9/1/2008 5:32:34 PM , Rating: 4
You must not be very bright.
Chechnya wants independence->Russia doesn't want that->The US does.
Tibet wants independence->China doesn't want that->The US does.
Ossetia wants independence (from Georgia)->Russia DOES want it->The US doesn't.

Do you see a pattern here?

If not... "quod natura non dat salamantica non praestat".


RE: The whole story?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/2/2008 12:05:17 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Chechnya wants independence->Russia doesn't want that->The US does.
Tibet wants independence->China doesn't want that->The US does.
Ossetia wants independence (from Georgia)->Russia DOES want it->The US doesn't.
To correct a few of your many errors, The US has long recognized Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. Our official policy has been only to recommend China seek a 'peaceful resolution' of its problems in the region. Do you have a problem with that?

The situation in Chechnya is similar. The US publicly recognizes Russia's control over the region, and has raised only issues of human rights abuse and the desire to seek a political, rather than military solution to the crisis there:
quote:
A: The U.S. Government supports Russia's territorial integrity and right to defend itself against terrorism. At the same time, we consistently press the Russian Government to end human rights abuses and to prosecute those found responsible. We remain committed to a cessation of violence by all parties and to finding a sustainable political solution to the conflict
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/27176.htm

US policy in regard to South Ossetia is identical. The US recognizes Georgia's control over the region, and seeks a peaceful response to the situation:

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/102834.htm

In short, you couldn't possible be more wrong. US policy has been nothing but consistent in all three cases. Furthermore, Russia doesn't "want independence" for Ossetia. It wants to control it, and in fact has already announced the annexation of Ossetia into its own domain.


RE: The whole story?
By heffeque on 9/2/2008 8:37:10 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, and the US policy is to bring peace to Iraq. One thing is what some politicians say and another what they really mean by it.

People from South Ossetia want to be part of Russia, that's what you don't seem to understand. It's only logical that Russia open their arms for them.


RE: The whole story?
By SunLord on 8/31/2008 10:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to get the truth bout Russia and Georgia read the newest article by totten on teh site below.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/


RE: The whole story?
By Heyga4Huk on 9/1/2008 9:06:58 AM , Rating: 1
Great analysis, kudos from my side.


RE: The whole story?
By heffeque on 8/31/2008 5:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's interesting how biased some views are. Lets put it this way:

Imagine... Oregon's people aren't Christians anymore.
Most of the Christians have left the state and all the Muslims that live in the US go to live to Oregon.
Iran starts giving to all the Muslims that live in Oregon Iranian passports. People there want those passports.
The rest of the US isn't very happy about it.
The people responsible for Oregon's government are now Muslims and say that they want to be independent from the USA and that eventually they'll become a Muslim exclave territory of Iran.
The US finally gets really pissed off and attacks Oregon killing all Muslim civilians they can so as to re-conquer Oregon.
Iran gets angry because the US is attacking its citizens (remember that they now have Iranian passports).
In this "representation" Iran is a lot bigger than the US, and the US isn't very powerful, so Iran not only regains power in Oregon, they also attack the US killing several hundred civilians.

Now... who is right?

It IS true that Oregon shouldn't be a separate part of the US and start to be part of Iran but... it's also true that the US attacked first, giving Iran the right to attack US military forces in Oregon and also in the US for "preventing" reasons and to restore peace.

Both of the parts have "good" points of view that give strength to their cause but... can you really say that one is right and one is wrong?

Going back to reality: the government and most US media automatically went against Russia, their natural "enemy". And most European countries did what they do best: wait and see until something gets cleared out from the situation. Europe wasn't very happy that the Georgian president put a European Union flag in his public appearances and asked for Europe to defend their country, to defend democracy. European countries were pissed by this, so they let Russia continue doing what was a peace making thing "à la Americain".

Russia got carried away and European countries started rethinking about their views and the US and Europe told Russia that they shouldn't get so carried away.
Russia pushed a little, but always inside what they were legally able to do (they learned their lesson well, they were doing peace making just like the US in Iraq, so if the US could do it, so could them).

Russia discovered that the US had aided Georgia. Russia got pissed by it (imagine if Russia had aided Iraq during the invasion. That would have been very problematic) so Russia got angry and starting pushing more and more, and... this "pushing more and more" is what we are living right now.

We still don't know when this ego cock fight will slow down, but it's leading nowhere.

This whole thing reminds me of the movie "War Games".
I hope it doesn't end in a real war this time. Nothing good can come out of it.


RE: The whole story?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 5:07:16 PM , Rating: 5
A very good post. To make your analogy a little more accurate, however, let's modify it slightly:

- Oregon isn't 100% Muslim; one third of those remaining are people who wish to remain under US control.
- The pro-Iranian separatists have begun attacks on the US loyalists, and the loyalists have begun to retaliate.
- Both US and Iran have already had "peacekeeping" forces stationed in Oregon.

That gets us very close to the situation in South Ossetia, prior to the Georgian incursion and Russian response.


RE: The whole story?
By heffeque on 8/31/2008 5:14:44 PM , Rating: 3
I agree in points 1 and 3, but... point number 2 is pretty shady. There had been minor attacks from both sides for quite some time now, and the really big attacks started from Georgia, not South Ossetia. But anyway... good clarifications.


RE: The whole story?
By rs1 on 8/31/2008 7:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
No, It wasn't a very good analogy. The analogy was forced and artificial, and the players involved were chosen either intentionally or unintentionally to play upon the prejudices that many people hold regarding the respective groups. Instead of being a fair analog of the actual situation, what the poster presented was an example crafted with a bias designed to get people to side with the familiar (the U.S., Christians) by invoking their perceived enemies (Iran, Muslims).

Here's an artificial analogoy with less bias:

1. For the sake of geographic compactness (which is another thing which the original example failed to preserve), let's say that the U.S. used to be controlled by Canada.

2. The Canadian empire collapsed, and the U.S. declared itself as an independent nation. During this same time, Washington declared its independence from the U.S., and conflict ensued.

3. The U.S. attacked Washington, and inflicted heavy casualties. Canada then intervened and brokered a cease-fire, under which Washington would be allowed to exist as an autonomous region within the U.S..

4. About 15 years of relative peace ensue, but the president of the U.S. is elected on a platform based upon eliminating Washington's autonomous status. This causes tensions, obviously.

5. The U.S. attacks Washington, and lays waste to Olympia (or, if the official capitol of Washington is too obscure for you, then we'll just say Seattle).

6. Canada, which had kept a peace-keeping force in Washington since the cease-fire 15+ years ago, decides to intervene to stop the conflict. They stop the fighting, in part by sending troops into other parts of the U.S., like upstate New York.

7. Washington, for obvious reasons, now wants to become part of Canada instead of simply an independent state.

8. Great Britain, who had a hand in encouraging the original collapse of Canada, and who was friends with the U.S. but still viewed Canada as "the enemy", sees all this happening half the world away, and decides that it needs to step in and characterize the events as a Canadian power play.

...so, who is right? Certainly not the U.S., because they broke the general peace by laying waste to the capitol of Washington (and even if they were just responding to a terrorist attack from inside of Washington that killed 12 people, that doesn't justify the strength of their response). Though not necessarily Canada either, as although they had some justification for intervening in the conflict (at least as much justification as the real U.S. had in intervening in Iraq/Kuwait, or Bosnia, or Kosovo), some of their responses may have been more heavy-handed than necessary (sending troops into upstate New York, for example).

But you know who is 100% wrong in this case? Great Britain. They have no business getting involved in a conflict that is half the world removed from them. The fighting is happening in Canada's back yard, so Britain really has no claim whatsoever, even if the U.S. is technically its friend.

So basically, everybody is wrong. But the people most wrong are the diplomats and politicians half a world away who are using defunct, cold-war era fears to paint the entire incident as nobody's fault but Russia's.


RE: The whole story?
By InsaneGain on 8/31/2008 8:47:12 PM , Rating: 3
The United States does have a legitimate interest in what happens in Georgia. The region has become very important strategically to the western world, especially Europe. Russia's invasion of Georgia likely has much to do with the Western backed BTC oil pipeline running from the oil rich Caspian Sea region to the Mediterranean. This region is estimated to contain the world's third largest oil reserves. Russia attempted to have this pipeline constructed through Russian territory but it was purposely built through Georgia to prevent it coming under Russian control. Given Russia's propensity to use the control of vital energy resources to impose its will on other nations, it is obvious why the western world does not want Russia to gain control over the BTC pipeline.


RE: The whole story?
By winterspan on 8/31/2008 9:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
Bravo! Thank you very much (along with the posters above) for further educating many of us here. It's difficult to really understand who is on the "right" side here. Very complex issue, and Russia is definitely getting painted as the sole aggressor here, which is unnecessary. As bad as Russian nationalism and zealotry is, the United States isn't very far behind, at least among the uneducated nationalistic circles (aka Red States).


RE: The whole story?
By grenableu on 8/31/2008 10:57:54 PM , Rating: 5
Look, open your eyes. No one, not even the US, launches a highly coordinated land-sea-air invasion of a foreign country on 24 hours notice. It takes months to setup the planning, logistics, and troop/material movements for such a thing.

Russia planned this long ago. It got everything ready, then it staged a few attacks to force a Georgian response, to justify its own invasion. And it didn't just stop with invading (and then forcibly annexing) South Ossetia, it has rolled over most of Georgia as well, a place it has even less justification to be in.

This kind of power politics has NO place in a modern 21st century world. Those of you justifying it need to have your fannies spanked until you grow up and learn to play with the big kids.


RE: The whole story?
By heffeque on 9/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: The whole story?
By greenchasch on 9/2/2008 10:53:11 AM , Rating: 5
No **** sherlock. The army invading Iraq DID take months to move in after Iraq's final refusal to allow UN inspectors to do their jobs properly.

Now, since you're a bit slow let me explain it in small words. If after Iraq did that, the US invaded in 24 hours with a massive full scale assault, then it would have been obvious we planned the whole thing in advance.

Thats just what Russia did though. Get it finally?


RE: The whole story?
By heffeque on 9/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: The whole story?
By Solandri on 9/1/2008 2:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
Close, but you de-emphasized (1) later on. Canada would have to be vastly larger than the U.S. in population, economy, and military. There's a possibility (real or perceived) that this could be an opening move by Canada to invade and conquer the entire U.S. Great Britain considers the U.S. to be an ally, so wants to insure that it remains an independent state. So you bet it's going to get involved.

I'm reminded of something Mikhail Gorbachev said about the fall of the Soviet Union and trying to reconstruct the individual nations and economies afterward. It went something like, "It's easy to turn an aquarium into a fish market. It's not so easy to turn the fish market back into an aquarium."

Also, I think Americans have trouble relating to nationalistic sentiment that rises to the point of secession. Nearly all Americans can trace their heritage to a different country, yet we for the most part have no problem living together. Different nationalities coexisting together (even if not always in perfect harmony) is something we now just take for granted. The concept that you would not want to remain a part of a country because of your heritage is alien to us. So we tend to favor the side of the country remaining intact, hence automatically siding with Georgia in this case.


RE: The whole story?
By heffeque on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: The whole story?
By Penti on 8/31/2008 8:25:57 PM , Rating: 1
So Georgia had no choice but to attack Russian peace keepers effectively violating the agreement? They did so before Russia responded. And it's quite clear that they didn't send it some elite military which was prepared to occupy Georgia, the organization was not great.


RE: The whole story?
By swizeus on 9/1/2008 5:18:22 AM , Rating: 2
For The New Uni Soviet


RE: The whole story?
By erikejw on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: The whole story?
By jgvandemeer on 9/1/2008 7:22:17 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"Feel free to exchange Russia with USA, that is how EU view USA.
Yeah right, that's why Europe has begged the US for half a century to base troops there, to keep the Russian tanks from overrunning the entire continent. Guess you smartass kids don't even have a clue what NATO was formed. Maybe its your educational system.


RE: The whole story?
By erikejw on 9/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: The whole story?
By jgvandemeer on 9/1/2008 8:08:46 AM , Rating: 5
If you're trying to make the point that the average EU citizen is an idiot, easily influenced by media accounts of the war in Iraq, you've succeeded. Just like the average American age 16-24, which also believes the US is a major threat.

Anyway, that article is over a year old. In a couple years, when Iran has nuclear bombs and Russia makes god on some of its threats to Poland or Ukraine, those saps will wise up.

They'll then do what they've done for the past 50 years -- scream to America for help.


RE: The whole story?
By mircea on 8/31/2008 2:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious you have no clue what it's happening. It's not the people of the region it's some ex-millitary movement that want's to take control over some land to comand people not region Russia (Russia would like to take over afterwards).
We here in romania have an area with a high density of hungarian ethnical population, and from time to time they start talking about indipendent region and local goverment and what not. But really I bet there just some people that want more political power that can't get in the Romanian government. I mean what can they do alone in an area of a few hundred square kilometers in an area that's been romanian territory since ever.


RE: The whole story?
By Raynor on 9/1/2008 2:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
It was Hungarian territory for 900 years bro. Just open a history book which is not Romanian. Those books are fake as your entire history.


RE: The whole story?
By mircea on 9/1/2008 11:27:54 AM , Rating: 1
I know comunists changed part of history, and I learned as fact for a while.
But a 900 hundred years Austro-Hungarian ocupation I call it just that, just as we don't call Bulgaria, Ottoman territory just because they were ruled by them for a while. It was actually beneficiary for us that we were under the Austro-Hungarian rule (with the exception of the army enrolment) for culture and economy.


RE: The whole story?
By Penti on 8/31/2008 8:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
You fail if you see Georgia as a democracy any more then Russia are.

They failed holding there last elections in several ways even if the political right all over Europe supported Saakashvili and claimed the election was mostly fair. They where irregularities in voter registration, in counting of a large part of the votes, in voter privacy and the information to the election workers where flawed, the election workers didn't follow the rules and regulations, the procedures.

The TV media failed and didn't provide a balanced view and there is evidence that Saakashvili used state resources in his campaign for office. Even though voting irregularities clearly occurred the authorities did dismiss the oppositions claim of voter fraud without a sound basis to do so, and therefor didn't investigate the claims.


RE: The whole story?
By Ringold on 8/31/2008 8:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The TV media failed and didn't provide a balanced view


They're just following the West's example, going to blame them for that? ;)


RE: The whole story?
By Penti on 8/31/2008 11:13:33 PM , Rating: 1
As the media sides with the government there I am going to blame them for that. The war didn't make it better it made it worse on the media scene however.

My own foreign minister did appear on Georgian TV during Saakashvilis election and criticized the opposition in Georgia before even half of the votes where counted, it was humiliating and what he said was that there is parts of the opposition that has a strategy to question the election and sabotage a election they couldn't win. He commented (on Swedish TV) and said the election was free and democratic. I didn't vote for him and hopefully he will be out in 2010. Hopefully no more liberal-conservative in Government.

He has also said that Georgia now was ready for Nato-membership after the presidential election and before the parliamentary. And of course supports them becoming Nato-members.

As the opposition in Georgia is pretty right wing and west oriented. It's pretty odd that west take such a pro-Saakashvili stance. It's however clear that it is a vital part of our foreign policy since they got elected here. Democracy doesn't seem to be important.

Btw there is plenty of refugees from Abkhazia that don't support Saakashvili and didn't vote for him in January. They didn't want a military solution and saw that he didn't work for a peaceful solution.


RE: The whole story?
By Steve Stip on 8/31/2008 10:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
"What happened to "spreading freedom" around the globe? "

We've spread it so much it has gotten thin here in the US. Also, why is it we are interested in spreading democracy in oil rich regions?


RE: The whole story?
By SlyNine on 9/1/2008 1:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
This gets old, Sure we are spreading democracy in places that matter to us. What about it.


RE: The whole story?
By iNGEN on 9/7/2008 1:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
The US has aimed to spread democracy around the world. The two are neither synonyms nor antitheticals. Do not confuse democracy with freedom.


RE: The whole story?
By Aloonatic on 8/31/2008 5:40:48 PM , Rating: 5
Wow, I'm from the UK.

UK Woo.

Erm re: Russia.

They've been playing up ever since they realised that their gas (gas gas, not gasoline gas, though they have a fair bit of that but it's no so critical) is something that people don't want to mess with and risk rocking the boat over.

There was the Alexander Litvinenko thing, which appeared to be more of a play for the home crowed but pissed off a few people in the UK.

They've been playing with the gas taps in the Ukraine for a while as well.

Seems like its fairly standard boundary finding, pushing to see how far they can go and maintain the status-quo, whilst trying to restore a bit of national pride that was lost with the collapse of the USSR.

It's not so much a case of mutually assured destruction as mutually assured bankruptcy that is on most people's minds over here.

As it happens, you'll probably notice that the countries in Europe that are making the most noise for peace/appeasement with Russia are the ones who have got the big gas pipes due to be opened soon, most notably Germany.

I wouldn't expect too much politically from the UK for a while though. Gordon Brown has been found out as a bit of a fraud, riding on the wave of (and taking all the credit for) a booming global economy and endless personal credit which is now crashing around his ears, the noise of which is just about being drowned out by the laughter of Tony Blair who (love him or hate him, you have to admit) was a genius of timing and got out at just the right time.

Gordon's hands as full here fighting for his own credibility and political future to worry about some Georgians and Russia, he'll probably do anything to get some cheap natural gas though.

On the Georgian front, If South Ossetia is now and independent state according to Russia, are they going to unite North and South Ossetia and let the "country" unite as a sovereign state in it's own right?

Or is this just a pissing contest?


RE: The whole story?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 7:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They've been playing with the gas taps in the Ukraine for a while as well.

Seems like its fairly standard boundary finding, pushing to see how far they can go and maintain the status-quo, whilst trying to restore a bit of national pride
True. A few points not often mentioned in the media are that

a) The areas of Georgia that Russia now controls -- areas far south of Ossetia -- are the only pipelines for Caspian oil and gas which don't already pass through Russia.
b) Putin's power base, the United Russia Party, is predicated on it's ability to restore Russia's image of toughness.


RE: The whole story?
By Scolar on 8/31/2008 8:36:01 PM , Rating: 3
>> a) The areas of Georgia that Russia now controls --
>> areas far south of Ossetia -- are the only pipelines for
>> Caspian oil and gas which don't already pass through
>> Russia.

- not true. No pipelines go through this region, and the only major pipeline from Caspian, BTD, was not touched by the conflict at all. If Russians desired, they could have taken all of Georgia in the couple of days following the enforcement of peace operation, but they didn't.


RE: The whole story?
By Aloonatic on 9/1/2008 2:01:28 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, the pipeline goes through the south East of the country which is no where neat Ossetia.

Then again, the ports were no where near Ossetia too but that didn't stop the Russians from running riot there, destroying ships as they may be used against land locked Ossetia?

From the direction that the Russian tanks took it would seem that there may have been plans to go all the way for the pipeline. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there were a few Russian Generals who had drawn up plans but someone eventually saw sense.

It seems that they are happier to go for a political overthrowing of the Georgian government, with the invasion/really keen peace keeping being the catalyst to get things going.

And after all, who would go to war over something as silly as a oil or gas pipeline?


RE: The whole story?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/1/2008 6:37:46 AM , Rating: 2
> "not true. No pipelines go through this region, and the only major pipeline from Caspian, BTD, was not touched by the conflict at all"

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. No pipeline runs through Ossetia, but the BTD pipeline does indeed run through areas Russian forces have attacked:
quote:
Russian jets targeted a key oil pipeline in Georgia yesterday with more than 50 missiles in a raid that raised fears that the conflict would tighten Moscow's stranglehold on Europe's energy supplies.

Deep craters pockmarked the landscape south of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, in a Y-shaped pattern straddling the British-operated pipeline. The attack left two deep holes less than 100 yards either side of a pressure vent on the pipeline...
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/russia-jets-bomb-geor...


RE: The whole story?
By katt on 9/1/2008 1:32:25 AM , Rating: 2
im sorry to tell you guys but this story is an utter and complete fabrication not one single reputable news agency is reporting this story ...not reuters not the ap...im starting to get really pissed off here that no one seems to be questioning why the daily tech is the only place telling this story...what is going on here


RE: The whole story?
By Aloonatic on 9/1/2008 3:09:12 AM , Rating: 2
It may have something to do with hurricanes posing a slightly more more immediate threat to US soil than yet another missile test, for a type of missile that we all know that Russia already has, so news agencies aren't really bothered about picking up a Russian propaganda story like this.

It's no surprise that The Sun is the only UK media outlet to have picked it up however. Their bread and butter is scaremongering and trying to make people afraid of what is going on outside of the UK, never trust those funny foreign people Sun readers, they are different to you.

Just searching for Russian missile test will show you just how common these things are.

So reporting it or not is really up to the team at DT, unless you are saying that they have to report every missile test or none at all?

It just seems a little bit more relevant now that Russia is growing in strength and making a lot more noise than it has done in the recent past.

For most news feeds this will be a foot note in them though when talking about Georgia/Ukraine stories etc, rather than main story in it won right.

I don't think there is a big cover-up going on, just more important things really.


RE: The whole story?
By katt on 9/1/2008 3:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
good point...still it seems odd that the major news groups are not reporting it..especially considering how cnn,fox,and msnbc are just as into scaremongering sensationalist stories as the sun is..also considering the timing what with the eu meeting tomorrow..oh well


RE: The whole story?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/1/2008 6:33:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
this story is an utter and complete fabrication not one single reputable news agency is reporting this story ...not reuters not the ap...im starting to get really pissed off here
I'm always happy when readers question a story, but the Reuters wire did indeed report this event:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSLS601...

Most major media outlets, however didn't pick up on it.


RE: The whole story?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/1/2008 7:26:55 AM , Rating: 3
" Russian Peacekeepers " is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Anyone who actually believes Georgia was the bad guy in this needs to have his head examined.


Ahh, the power of the motherland
By piroroadkill on 8/31/2008 11:17:10 AM , Rating: 1
They already won in this race though - Tsar Bomba up to 100MT yield - and Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, which was then not allowed by the Outer Space Treaty, almost certainly just because the Americans were shit scared that they could hit them from any side, avoiding missle shields. The Russians have always had the most awesome icbm tech




RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By Baov on 8/31/2008 11:26:03 AM , Rating: 1
And i'm glad it's not china.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 12:53:11 PM , Rating: 4
Eh? Tsar Bomba was far too large to mount on a missile; it was also nothing the US couldn't have done themselves (and done earlier). By that time, though, public opinion would have never allowed a test which generated that much radiation. Even the Soviets didn't want to risk a 100MT test, which is why they used a lead damper on the Tsar, which cut its yield in half.

Furthermore the CEPs and launch reliability on Soviet ICBMs were always horrendous. That's the primary reason their warhead figures were larger than ours...their delivery systems were always sub par.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By Fnoob on 8/31/2008 1:21:31 PM , Rating: 1
Lets just be glad there was a mutual concensus regarding the deployment of the neutron bomb.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By islseur on 8/31/2008 1:23:10 PM , Rating: 1
Then answer me this question. Why do their Soyuz rockets are the most reliable in the world in launching to space? Why does the US has to ask Russia to send them stuff to ISS?

Rude awakening fact #1:
Russian missile and rocket technology is one of the most reliable and advanced in the word. Rockets 20+ years old are button pushed and they fly like made yesterday.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By Bremen7000 on 8/31/2008 2:19:17 PM , Rating: 4
Russian missiles, American missiles, all made in Taiwan.


By Runiteshark on 8/31/2008 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
I AM NOT GASSATION


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By Goty on 8/31/2008 3:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm, we have them send stuff into space for us because we didn't HAVE to keep using the largest rockets in history just to loft single-use capsules into space. We had the technological know-how and the economic strength to develop a system that allows us to launch our astronauts into space without having to resort to antiquated, inefficient technology.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2008 3:56:30 PM , Rating: 3
As much as I love the shuttle program, it's pretty antiquated. But I still prefer it to going up in Apollo style capsules which require recovery in the ocean.

And if Clinton hadn't canned and scrapped the X-series prototypes, we'd likely have a replacement shuttle now.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By Goty on 8/31/2008 4:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well, sure, but Russia has been using the Soyuz basically since the beginning of the space race in the 60'.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By Solandri on 8/31/2008 5:05:39 PM , Rating: 3
The Shuttle is actually one of the most expensive launch vehicles ever used per ton of payload put into low earth orbit. I believe it's something like $5,000-$10,000 per kg, while Arianne and Delta are around $1,300 per kg. The Shuttle's cost per launch was supposed to go down by ramping up launches to almost weekly. That would let you amortize the R&D and construction costs of the vehicles over more launches, driving the cost per launch down. Unfortunately early estimates of the Shuttle's reliability and the turn-around time turned out to be wildly optimistic. So we're stuck at 5-12 launches a year which cost 3-8x more than anything else.

Same thing happened to the B2 bomber. Originally it was supposed to be something like $250-$400 million per plane. But the Congress and the USAF kept cutting the number of planes. Since the R&D costs were amortized over all the planes ordered, this drove up the cost per plane. Towards the end, in some of the weirdest demonstrations of circular reasoning I've seen, they were citing the cost per plane as a reason to cut the number of planes further.


By modus2 on 9/1/2008 1:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately even 12 launches is too optimistic since the most active years where 1985 with 9 launches and 1992 and 1997 with 8 launches.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 4:18:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Rude awakening fact #1:
Russian missile and rocket technology is one of the most reliable and advanced in the word
Certainly. But Russian ICBM technology still lags substantially behind the US. Even the new Topol SS-25 carries a CEP (accuracy radius) of 900 meters. The old US MinuteMan III, on the other hand, has had a CEP of <100 meters for decades.

As for reliability of space missions, the US separates NASA and the military far more than the Soviets ever did. Furthermore, the Space Shuttle is essentially a failed design that is less reliable and much more complex than the old Saturn V launch system which preceeded it. Originally designed to reduce launch costs by a factor of 10, it actually costs more per pound of payload than the technology we had in 1970.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By rs1 on 8/31/2008 7:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the new Topol SS-25 carries a CEP (accuracy radius) of 900 meters. The old US MinuteMan III, on the other hand, has had a CEP of <100 meters for decades.


That doesn't necessarily mean anything when you're talking about ICBM's that are designed to deliver payloads in the 500+ kt range. A payload that size can be delivered fairly far from its mark and still kill its intended target. The fireball alone is likely to be close to 750m across, and blast, thermal, and radiation damage is going to extend to several times that radius. It's entirely possible that the Russians simply decided that it wasn't necessary to further improve accuracy, and spent their R&D dollars enhancing other aspects of the design.

So I don't think accuracy alone can be used to justify blanket statements comparing the quality of ICBM technology, as it really isn't essential to having an effective nuclear weapon. A slightly inaccurate nuke can destroy a city just as effectively as a precision-guided one, and from a practical standpoint, it probably makes a lot of sense to devote effort to improving other aspects of the device instead.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 8:10:26 PM , Rating: 5
> "fireball alone is likely to be close to 750m across, and blast, thermal, and radiation damage is going to extend to several times that radius."

If you're just talking about killing civilians. But for a strike against military targets -- specifically nuclear missiles in hardened concrete silos -- there's a vast difference between striking within 100 meters versus 1 km.

Also remember a CEP is a probability rating -- half the time a missile will land farther away than the CEP. A missile with a CEP of 1500 meters can easily miss its target by 2 or even 3 times that.

Declassified Soviet documents detail their struggles to reduce ICBM CEPs; claiming they just feel their missiles are "good enough" isn't accurate.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By Some1ne on 8/31/2008 9:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, although would a 550 kt warhead really be used for targeting missile silos? I would think that such a task would require something with a much smaller yield (certainly not bigger than 100 kt, and maybe closer to 50 kt), and much more precise delivery. Anything bigger just seems like it would waste the vast majority of its energy destroying things that weren't the target.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 10:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
For targetting missile siloes, The US uses warheads in the 100-300KT range. . . but then, their missiles are more accurate. The Soviets chose a larger payload, to compensate for the larger CEP.

As for any waste involved, by far the majority of the cost on such warheads is the fission package itself, which is in the sub-50KT range. The fusion portion is relatively cheap, which is why the US and Russians both use almost nothing but boosted-fission warheads for their strategic forces.


By bohhad on 9/1/2008 10:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
accidently rated masher down here, so im just putting in some spam. that is all


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By Penti on 8/31/2008 11:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Topol isn't new it was deployed in the 80's. Topol-M (SS-27 btw) is regarded as having a CEP of 350 meters by globalsecurity.org. The old Topol doesn't even have GLONASS navigation. They also got the Bulava SLBM that's MIRV and at least if not better the same accuracy as Topol M. And they still got there old SLBM that uses up to four warheads, the SS-N-23. The R-39 / SS-N-20 that could carry 10 warheads is however not longer in service. Some versions of R-29 did carry more then 4 warheads the SS-N-23 / Skiff has been tested with 10.


RE: Ahh, the power of the motherland
By Reclaimer77 on 9/1/2008 7:31:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Furthermore, the Space Shuttle is essentially a failed design that is less reliable and much more complex than the old Saturn V launch system which preceeded it.


I think its a bit harsh calling the Shuttle a " failed " design. The 2 lost Shuttles were due to human error, poor safety regulations and a lack of visual inspections. Not design issues.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/1/2008 7:39:25 AM , Rating: 3
> "[the] lost Shuttles were due to human error, poor safety regulations and a lack of visual inspections. Not design issues. "

I'm not referring to the accidents at all. The Shuttle never even came close to meeting its original design goals. It was supposed to fly on a weekly basis, with minimal turnaround, a much reduced ground crew, and lifting costs an order of magnitude cheaper than the Sat-V.

Instead, it has to be essentially rebuilt after every launch, can only fly a few missions a year in the best of times, has the majority of its launches scrubbed due to mechanical failures of one sort or another, and is the most expensive launch platform ever built by far, with costs far exceeding the system it replaced.


By Amiga500 on 9/1/2008 8:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
Certainly. But Russian ICBM technology still lags substantially behind the US. Even the new Topol SS-25 carries a CEP (accuracy radius) of 900 meters. The old US MinuteMan III, on the other hand, has had a CEP of <100 meters for decades.

TOPOL-M (the newest) is SS-27 and has a CEP of >350 metres.

TOPOL is SS-25 and has a CEP of >200 metres.

SS-24 (Molodets) had a CEP of 500 metres or so.

Minuteman III had an initial accuracy of around 200 metres, although changes to the nav system reduced this to approx 120 metres.

Minuteman IV is still in development, and will half that.


By Solandri on 8/31/2008 4:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
The failure rates for rockets in the last decade are statistically identical for the U.S, Russia, and Europe (ESA).

http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2...


Get Ready....
By UppityMatt on 8/31/2008 12:29:06 PM , Rating: 3
I fear WW3 is much closer then we think.




RE: Get Ready....
By FoundationII on 8/31/2008 12:37:29 PM , Rating: 3
Why? Russia has missiles that can penetrate the missile shield, but they don't have a missile shield themselves.
So basically we're still stuck at the Cold War, where mutual destruction would be inevitable if one side launches ICBM's.


RE: Get Ready....
By Hare on 8/31/2008 1:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need nukes to fight a world was and there are plenty of small countries along Russian borders, some belong to NATO so an attack would pretty much mean a WW...


RE: Get Ready....
By FoundationII on 8/31/2008 1:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
And do you think when either Russia or the US is on the verge of collapsing they'll refrain from using nukes?
I sure hope so, but you can't be sure. MAD (mutual assured destruction) is still very much a reality in WWIII.

Also, Russia isn't stupid you know. They'll think twice before attacking any NATO member. Also the NATO is a defensive treaty, so if a NATO member would be foolish enough for attack Russia, the other NATO members aren't bound to help that country.


RE: Get Ready....
By Hare on 8/31/2008 2:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And do you think when either Russia or the US...
No, I don't think so. I hope so, as you also said.

And obviously Russia isn't stupid and attack a NATO country just for kicks. My point was that just because some nations have nukes a WW is not impossible. Unlikely, yes. Possible, yes.


RE: Get Ready....
By NovoRei on 8/31/2008 1:17:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, 2012 is approaching.


RE: Get Ready....
By ATC on 9/1/2008 2:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
heh, the end of the Mayan calendar. Dec 21 to be exact.


RE: Get Ready....
By strmbkr on 9/2/2008 6:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Time to do some, and by that I mean lots, of Loving before 2012 then. Go go Gadget go!


WMDs
By Fnoob on 8/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: WMDs
By StevoLincolnite on 8/31/2008 12:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, a Pre-Emptive Strike.

I shall ready the Seagulls for bombardment!


RE: WMDs
By Fnoob on 8/31/2008 1:08:32 PM , Rating: 3
We will bury them in guano!

They will know us by the trail of shat.


RE: WMDs
By islseur on 8/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: WMDs
By Ardan on 8/31/2008 2:51:11 PM , Rating: 4
Wow, you really do need to get a sense of humor. :P


RE: WMDs
By Ringold on 8/31/2008 5:15:25 PM , Rating: 4
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. - islseur


RE: WMDs
By andrinoaa on 8/31/2008 11:32:49 PM , Rating: 4
Your all M.A.D


Go Russia!
By FaceMaster on 8/31/2008 1:16:13 PM , Rating: 3
You have to give it to them- they make an excellent show for the cameras.




RE: Go Russia!
By Fnoob on 8/31/2008 1:53:41 PM , Rating: 5
And they have those kickass fur hats! All the whiners over here would never let us have such cool hats.


RE: Go Russia!
By DeepBlue1975 on 8/31/2008 6:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
On this side of the world, GreenPeace would decidedly kill anyone wearing such a hat.
Though, because of their height, you could install a small windmill over them to power up the soldiers' indispensable warfare stuff such as... an mp3 player and cell phone loaded with "war simulation games".

So it'd be a tie: they'd offer soldiers to stop wearing those hats, or to install little, colored and funny windmills atop their heads to make the soldiers "environmentally friendly".


RE: Go Russia!
By FaceMaster on 9/1/2008 7:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
No.


RS-12M RV maneuver
By AFMatt on 9/1/2008 6:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
I work in ICBM test launching, and even though we also have the defense system here at my base I do not know everything about it. However, and someone correct me if I am wrong or know of changes, but doesn't their supposed RV capability to avoid missile defense come during the terminal phase?

If so, by that point it is pretty much a lost cause for the missile defense system anyway. That's a last resort for intercept and it's damn near impossible. We strike the missile during the midcourse phase. The flight path is also tracked the entire way, from ground to space. So unless the RS-12M is able to change it's flight path, abruptly, at the end of boost phase or during the midcourse phase, it doesn't really change anything about how our missile defense works.
Not that it's really in place to protect against Russia anyway. Our defense system is far too limited to protect in a case that would likely be a full scale nuclear attack.




RE: RS-12M RV maneuver
By TerranMagistrate on 9/2/2008 12:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
True, the sheer number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (likely with MIRVs built-in, yikes) that Russia has ready to launch at a moments notice is substantially more than what our missile defense shield can handle.


RE: RS-12M RV maneuver
By Nik00117 on 9/2/2008 2:01:58 PM , Rating: 1
I agree, if Russia and America ever got into a fight I'd head down to my local airport and buy a one way ticket to south Africa. I like in Germany BTW.

Honsetly I don't forseen Russia and America ever going at it. I spoke to a old general who used to work in Japan, he said that sometimes when Russian planes would come around to show off, radio chatter between Russias and Americans would joke about how stupid it is.

Russians understand attacking America is stupid
Americans understand attacking Russia is stupid

At the end of the day, when it comes down to pushing the button both countries will go with "We kill them we die, they kill us we did no one wins fuck it lets go home"

Don't be worried about what Russia is doing, let it flex its muscles show off and scare some little kiddies. Pay attention to countires like Iran, and N. Korea.


RE: RS-12M RV maneuver
By theendofallsongs on 9/2/2008 2:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
French and German soldiers used to joke over the Maginot line also, right before WW2 started.


RE: RS-12M RV maneuver
By Penti on 9/5/2008 1:42:41 AM , Rating: 2
No, pay attention to countries like Pakistan and India, Pakistan is actually a nuclear weapons proliferator, unstable as hell and neither of the countries has signed the NPT or accepted any international inspections. Both are well on the way building working ICBMs. And they are US allies which are likely to get future nuclear technology and assistance from the US! Of course US has a lot of other terrible allies like Saudi Arabia.

Israel of course already has nukes and ICBMs that can hit Europe and aren't a signatory of the NPT either. They also has ABMs that could stop Iranian Scuds. But they would never be viewed as a threat and are a major trading partner with the EU and even has a association treaty. Even if they really don't match up too the criterias. Iran would like EU to be there major trading partner but because the harshening climate has to turn to China and other countries to the east.

The only countries that would actually be stupid enough to use nukes are your allies. It would be in extreme circumstances but it could happen both between Pakistan and India and that Israel might nuke Iran after it attacks Iranian nuclear facilities and the Iranians retaliates with there Scuds. DPRK wouldn't have the means to attack any one. And they aren't as stupid as Fox news believes.


Let Cold War II Begin
By MrDiSante on 8/31/2008 11:00:39 AM , Rating: 3
Karl Marx was an idiot when it came to many things, but he did say a great wisdom: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." Here's to hoping the oil prices crash.




RE: Let Cold War II Begin
By Ringold on 8/31/2008 5:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
They've already paid a pretty large financial price for their fun n' games in Georgia; free market capitalism is exacting its revenge on a government that damages capitalism itself. Money has been flowing out of Russia pretty fast.

It's almost got a poetic beauty to it.


RE: Let Cold War II Begin
By jgvandemeer on 9/1/2008 7:54:57 AM , Rating: 3
Everyone is yapping about the US here, but its the European countries that are really scrambling to isolate Russia now. The British and French papers read like red-star tanks are about to roll over their borders.

Russia really shot itself in the foot with this one. A lot of countries aren't going to deal with it any more.


talking about facts
By Scolar on 8/31/2008 6:18:51 PM , Rating: 1
South Osetia (and Abhazia, another breakaway region) never was a part of Georgia, they existed as independent kingdoms for many hundred years, then they were joining Soviet Union independently and before Georgia. Later Stalin (a georgian) subordinated these regions to Georgia Socialistic Republic, but then it mattered little as all were within USSR. When leaving the Union, according to the existing USSR laws for leaving the state, all regions must vote independently and separately. "Core" Georgia voted to leave, South Ossetia and Abhazia never did. Georgia tried in 1992 to subordinate S.Osetia by force, killing thousands, but lost and called for Russian peacemakers which were introduced then. Their UN-agreed quota of 500 men, light armed, never was exceeded until the next day after the heavy shelling of S.Osetia capital, Tshinvali, was started by Georgian on August 7, 2008, and which killed several dozens of Russian peacemakers and about 1500 osetian civilians in one night in that city.




RE: talking about facts
By Scolar on 8/31/2008 6:59:27 PM , Rating: 1
Georgian president Suckashwilly on Aug.07,2008, at ~ 8 p.m., has declared a cease-fire, broadcast over national TV. During the next two hours, in direct violation of UN Security Council-backed peacemaking treaties, Georgian massive artillery systems GRADS were moved in to Osetian territory, to several direct shooting elevated locations near S.Osetia capital, while Georgian military forces of approximately 17000 heavily armed men on hundreds of tanks and US-supplied Hammers were invading S.Osetia. At 10 p.m., heavy and indiscriminate shelling of the capital started, shortly followed by an announcement over TV from Suckashwilly and georgian defence minister, of a beginning of an operation to "restore constitutional order" in the region (which has been completely independent since 1992). Russian forces of approximately 7000 were sent to intervene only the next day after Russia-called meeting of UN Security Council and a conversation between Putin and Bush in Beijing took place, where the West seemed completely unmoved by the ongoing massacre and a genocide of Osetins by the Georgians. To the most of the people in US and EU, as the mass media disinformated them, the war only began in the afternoon of the 8-th of August, with the peace enforcing operation by the Russians.


RE: talking about facts
By jgvandemeer on 9/1/2008 7:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Georgian president Suckashwilly...
Do you really think anyone takes you seriously after calling him names like that? You're obviously a Russian nationalist willing to say or do anything to justify their actions.


RE: talking about facts
By Scolar on 9/1/2008 10:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously. But the president's name is pronounced more correctly with the spelling that I used. And every thing I said is a verifiable fact, whether you like it or not.


Stupid Russians
By AggressorPrime on 8/31/2008 2:59:09 PM , Rating: 1
Why are the Russians so eager to begin a war that will kill everyone?




RE: Stupid Russians
By heffeque on 8/31/2008 5:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well... because Russia is like a little kid. The US is that guy that puts both hands beside the little kid's face and says... "I'm not touching you, so don't get angry with me!" Russia is getting pissed off so he's moving your hands off of his face. Now the guy is getting pissed because the little kid "rebelled" and if this continues like this, one of them is going to give the first slap in the face to the other one and they're going to start a nasty fight that no one wants (a fight were no one wins, everybody looses).


RE: Stupid Russians
By Aloonatic on 8/31/2008 6:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
So America isn't touching a kid, but likes to hold kids faces? You'll end up a register for that sort of behaviour if you're not careful America.

Russia is considerably richer now than it has been in recent history.

Russia feels like it has not had the respect that it thinks that it deserves and is looking to reassert itself on the international stage.

The best way to do that is to do something that makes the UN look like the waste of time talking shop that it is, whilst saying to the rest of the world "what are you going to do about it?" with a slightly crazy look in your eyes.

In the words of Aretha Franklinski

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

Find out what it means to.... Russia


In Soviet Russia...
By Azsen on 8/31/2008 7:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
In Soviet Russia "Star Wars" defense shield evades new RS-12M missile.




RE: In Soviet Russia...
By overzealot on 9/1/2008 7:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
I was waiting for it.
Not even doom music could make that joke funny 100 times.


Russians
By joegee on 8/31/2008 7:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
A twenty-something year old song, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rk78eCIx4E

-Joe




out of topic..
By majorpain on 9/1/2008 4:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
I just wonder why the fu#*& nobody waved their hands up when East Timor was "taken" by force... And UN never recognized it as part of Indonesia...




They're all just Pawns
By TimberJon on 9/2/2008 11:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
The sum of the whole story is that the human race cannot effectively police or govern themselves without disaster.

Never in history has there been a time that this president and that president settled something in a bloodless way. Oh you want to argue? So how long did it last? Were there zero consequences? What % of magnitude were these "peaceful acts" when compared to WW1 or WW2? or all the "lesser" wars put together? less than 1%? Who can really quantify the bloodshed due to poor decisions?

Can we really govern ourselves? US is doing pretty good right? yeah sure buddy.. We can never truely govern ourselves for the GOOD of anything. Proof is in the pudding, how it doesn't matter WHO becomes president, covernor, senator, Etc... because they're all just pawns for someone else. All those electoral speeches and promises usually come to naught.

Here's how it works. The more you promise, the better chance you have to have some of them happen. If you are politically savvy enough you might be able to figure out a way to promise several things that just might bypass opposition. When you're in office (whichever), the 10 things you promised are going to be bogged down, blocked, slashed or LET THROUGH. Never allowed. So you due to political pressure and opposition, personal agendas, greed, thirst for power/prominence/reputation/face, etc... maybe 1/10 or 1/5 promises may get through. It always seems to be one or two BIG things per president (nowadays) that really stands out.

So Obama or McCain.. whatever, they will both be forced to act in similar ways, as pawns.




What? When?
By futureg2010 on 9/4/2008 9:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
I have not heard of this in the media at all nor can I find any reports on the net but hear. I'd like to know where Dailytech is getting this info?




you did it to your self
By Retrospect on 9/2/2008 8:37:34 AM , Rating: 1
The west need to stop poking at the Russian.
Georgia? I don't feel sorry for you
You did it to your self and I'm surprise the Russian didn't annex you back




this story is bull$$$*
By katt on 8/31/08, Rating: 0
So how much did the US waste on those ABMs again?
By Amiga500 on 8/31/08, Rating: -1
By AlexWade on 8/31/2008 11:48:47 AM , Rating: 5
So the question remains: if it is indeed improbable to intercept a missile, why is Russia so upset with the US ABM system?

Answer: Because part of it is being put in countries that were in Russia's sphere of influence and this shows that the Russia's influence is fading. So, Russia lashes out in an attempt to become a big wig once again. In the US's and Europe's eyes, this is about defense. In Russia's eyes, this is about becoming relevant once again.

Problem is, by lashing out and annexing territory not theirs (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe... ), it has actually decreased their sphere of influence. Ukraine is now isolating itself from Russia, even though half the country speaks Russian and the other half speaks Ukrainian. Indeed, Ukraine approached the US about ABM because of Georgia.

We may indeed be looking at the genesis of another cold war or worse, another world war. All because one bully is losing the popularity contest to another bully.


By Amiga500 on 8/31/2008 11:54:02 AM , Rating: 1
I disagree.

I think we will find that all of Europe will increasingly come within Russian's sphere of influence. You may ask, why?

The answer is simple, oil and gas.


RE: So how much did the US waste on those ABMs again?
By KernD on 8/31/2008 12:38:42 PM , Rating: 3
By your reasoning Europe should have been under the influence of Africa by now...

But it's the other way around isn't it...

Europeans won't come under the influence of Russia, historically Russia closest buddy in western Europe has been France, but we all know who's the French president right now, and the mandate of a French president is much longer than an American one, and he might just get a second mandate.

British will never side with them, nor would the Germans, and every other western European country actually has near zero influence in the world, so they don't really matter.

I know oil is important, but Europe never had any and they still never were the bitch of any of there supplier. Russia isn't the only country in the region with oil.


By Amiga500 on 8/31/2008 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 3
Africa?

The Europeans have plundered it and bent the rulers to their will long ago.

Long ago = before the age of oil.


By FoundationII on 8/31/2008 1:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Europe isn't some small country that will get dominated by a single country just like that. The probability that Europe will come under Russian influence is about the same as the probability that the US will come under Russian influence. Which I believe is very slim.
Europe isn't the post WWII rubble the USSR can take advantage of anymore. The EU is one of the worlds strongest economies.

"the mandate of a French president is much longer than an American one, and he might just get a second mandate."
As of 2000 the mandate of a French president is 5 years instead of the former 7, so it's not that much longer anymore.


By KernD on 8/31/2008 2:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
Ho, really, I must have missed that news, it's a good thing, 7 year was quite long and unusual, 5 is quite standard, except for Americans.

I question the Russian presidency tough, the same party has been in power for 5 mandates now, quite a feat, or should I say cheat... I guess they are used to it, having had the communist party in power for more than 50 years.


By FaceMaster on 8/31/2008 1:19:17 PM , Rating: 1
The only countries who believes there are sides in he matter are America and Russian. I reckon that most European countries think of Russia as a large expanse of nothingness and with an alphabet with funny upside down letters.


By Strunf on 8/31/2008 3:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
Most European countries are less than 1000km apart from Russia, a good deal of them even share borders with it... I'm pretty sure most Europeans are perfectly aware of what is and is not.

Russia is exactly that... a large expanse of nothingness with a few developed cities, it's for no reason that Russia is between Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina on the human development index.


RE: So how much did the US waste on those ABMs again?
By islseur on 8/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: So how much did the US waste on those ABMs again?
By KernD on 8/31/2008 1:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ho great the Kosovo precedent I like that argument...

Please show me the mass graves in the breakaway republic in Georgia? All the dead citizens in Kosovo is what made it so that Kosovo could not be part of Serbia anymore (Very much like the Jews survivor couldn't just return home, you can't possibly live with people who yesterday tried to kill you...).

We all hear the Russian president say that it was the same here, they could no longer work together... got proof?

We saw no proof of anything, there is some displaced population in both camps, and no mass graves, no massacre to be seen?

And what about the north western chunk, no fighting ever took place there, so what is there reason for this? I know the answer, but do you?

The answer is vengeance, the Russian are pissed because there bastard buddy the Serbs paid the price for some more trouble they were causing... again, see Yugoslavia and Sarajevo for reference.
This has all been set up by Russia as a vengence, they had these 3 semi independent states withing Georgia, and Georgia siding with the west, what a perfect victim. The message would be clear to all the NATO wanabe.

I seem to be the only person here who remember the first news in this conflict, probably because you guys weren't paying attention before the name Russia was part of the news. The first news was the Georgian were responding to attacks when they went in with there army. They fell into a trap, that's politics, the bloody type, the good old fashion Russian way.


By Jedi2155 on 8/31/2008 1:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid we might all of a sudden find mass graves in Abkhazia or South Ossetia....recently dug ones at that....


By KernD on 8/31/2008 1:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
There has been no fighting in Abkhazia, so what would it be?


RE: So how much did the US waste on those ABMs again?
By KernD on 8/31/2008 2:13:00 PM , Rating: 1
The link to which you point is a text of a famous conspiracy theorist apparently.

Maybe there were less dead than reported, actually of course there were less, there is always less than reported, even in the crowd at the Celine Dion show recently in Quebec City there were less people than reported...

It's always hard to evaluate such things, especially when a war is going on, it's hard to keep count when gun fire interrupts you all the time.

I quite frankly don't give a shit what weapon they used on the Ossets, I know that this republic has been de-facto independant for 10 years now, and yet no fighting too place there, except now, right after the Kosovo independence proclamation, nice coincidence, 2008: the year of the independence proclamation; apparently. I should really try that for my home Quebec... before the year is over of course, good thing there will be an election soon...

Grad rockets on Russians... now that's ironic, the Russian made those weapons, you have to ask yourself what weapon the Russian now use against the Georgian, they have much more advanced weapons than those old rockets, they have the luxury of more accurate weapons.


By islseur on 8/31/2008 3:09:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I quite frankly don't give a shit what weapon they used on the Ossets, I know that this republic has been de-facto independant for 10 years now, and yet no fighting too place there, except now, right after the Kosovo independence proclamation, nice coincidence, 2008: the year of the independence proclamation; apparently.

I can conclude based on your comments that you don't know the history of the Caucasus region. Abkhazia and Ossetia(North with South) were independent states through all of the history. They together with Georgia all entered Russian Empire in the 18-th and 19-th centuries in different years, one by one.

Immediately after the Russian revolution of 1917, Georgia for a small period of time became independent and tried already then almost a century ago to ethnically cleanse those territories. When communists came Stalin who was a Georgian national added to the jurisdiction Abkhazia and South ossetia inside the borders of USSR these were inside national borders and this was done all of the time inside USSR.

When in 1992 USSR broke apart, on referendum Abkhazia and South Ossetia voted to stay with Russia. Then Georgians back then, 15 years ago tried to ethnically cleanse them again a fact which resulted in a bloody war that Georgians lost with Ossetians and Abkhazians fighting the Georgians with anything they got on their hand. After that Georgia practically stopped controlling those territories and de facto they became independent but not recognized.

Georgians used violence before, this is their not first time and not first attempt. This time they tried to do the same under the umbrella of the west and miserably failed.

I was really sorry to read your answer. It's so much disturbing to see people turn away their eyes from the truth but unfortunately you are not the first one I encounter. Pity, but I guess truth is a red pill that sometimes is too hard for some to swallow.

They Have Eyes But Will Not See. Ears But Will Not Hear. They Prefer The mAtRiX!


RE: So how much did the US waste on those ABMs again?
By KernD on 8/31/2008 6:39:51 PM , Rating: 1
I don't turn away from the truth, that's so funny, I just know what you seem to ignore, this kind of shit, power struggle in small regions of little interest happens all the time, post war map redraw caused so much war and killing, I just don't like the fact that Russia is trying to take back land from anyone. I know that these little states were conquered by the russian, back in the days of the Tsars.

You probably already know that the current Poland, isn't exactly much of what it used to be, it was more on the russian side, probably because the russian had given up in WW1, but russia won the last big war, so now it's more on the german side, it also at some point no longer existed, having been totally eaten by both ends... this is the kind of crap that starts war like this, and Russia still plays that kind of stupid games...

After having done all this to Poland, when Poland want missile to protect itself, because history taught them something about Russians, what does the Russian say... we might attack you, again... how predictable, just like a bully.

Like I said before, this is just revenge for them, this is them moving pawns around the board. Russians are famous for there great chess player, but obviously real world politics are beyond them, there isolating themselves more than ever. Allot of ex Warsaw pack country who are now free to chose, chose NATO and China is too busy manufacturing all there junk, so what allies do they have left... Cuba!!!!

The Russian are remarkable, in recent history they were under an imperial government, communist government and lastly, a not so democratic government, all of them with one thing in common, imperialist views.


By islseur on 9/1/2008 1:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't turn away from the truth, ....
No, you do.


By slunkius on 9/2/2008 7:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Today there are 1600+ bodies you can go and count.


you repeat words of russian official Ivanov, who gave interview to BBC. interestingly enough in latest reports even russian sources stopped using "thousands of killed civilians" and now are citing "hundreds". would't be surprised if actual figures are smaller than that


By Cunthor666 on 8/31/2008 6:36:46 PM , Rating: 1
I wish people that have no idea what actually happened in Serbia would stop using it as an example. Oh, and congratulation - you are a racist. A complimentary tour of Auschwitz and Republican Party HQ is coming your way.


RE: So how much did the US waste on those ABMs again?
By KernD on 8/31/2008 6:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I am a racist, I hate the human race!
Bunch of stupid chimps fighting to know who pisses the furthest all the time.

BTW I'm not the one who should be visiting Auschwitz, I've already seen it, it's people like the Iranian president who denied that there ever was a genocide that should visit it and everyone who don't understand that the Jews had nowhere else to go but back to there homeland after WW2.


By jgvandemeer on 9/1/2008 6:46:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
everyone who don't understand that the Jews had nowhere else to go but back to there homeland after WW2.
They didn't? Funny, 150 million other WW2 refugees returned home after WW2. Millions of them were Jews, who had no problem at all going home, especially since the nation of Israel didn't even exist until five years after the war ended.

After the war, more Jews from Britain (a country they never had to leave in the first place) emigrated to Israel than from Germany.

The Holocaust was a terrible event, but trying to use it as the justification for making millions of Palestinians homeless is nearly as bad as what the Germans did.


By Spuke on 9/4/2008 2:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
millions of Palestinians homeless is nearly as bad as what the Germans did.
Huh? When did he mention the Palestinians?


By Scolar on 8/31/2008 8:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Of the ~10,000 people killed in the conflict about Serbian province Kosovo, 8000 were Serbs killed by NATO bombs, the mass graves announced by the media were never actually found, same as WMD in Iraq.
Four weeks ago, Georgian soldiers (trained and equipped by the US) were killing Osetian civillians simply on the basis of their nationality - those not speaking their language were shot. In the first war of 1992, about 2000 Osetins were killed. Just one episode - shooting of a civilian bus on a road between two Osetian villages, killing (by machine guns) 32 people including 12 kids.
Also, Kosovo never was independent country before, no UN recognized peacemakers were in the territory separating sides.


By islseur on 9/1/2008 1:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
So true.


By grenableu on 8/31/2008 4:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, did you really say that an interceptor missile could be used to nuke Moscow? It's a totally different technology, not to mention that nuclear warheads are pretty hard to miss. Unless you encase them in huge blocks of lead (which is a dead giveaway anyway) all that plutonium gives out a strong radiation signature.


By FoundationII on 8/31/2008 12:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
A single object is easy to intercept in theory, it's just a matter of calculating the trajectory and the interception trajectory.

Of course both the computer and software calculating it must be good enough and you need to have a missile accurate enough to hit the missile.
Then we're not even talking about the dummies or stealth capabilities of the missiles.

I do believe an F-15 Eagle can intercept a SR-71 Blackbird with the AIM-120D AMRAAM.
Of course if you mean with the older AIM-9 Sidewinders, yes the Eagle has no chance, since a Sidewinder has a speed of mach 2.5 and a range of 18 km. Since the SR-71 flies about 5km higher and at mach 3.2 it would just outrun the missile.
I don't see why an F-15 would want to intercept an SR-71 though since they're both US aircrafts.


By Amiga500 on 8/31/2008 12:37:57 PM , Rating: 1
A single object is easy to intercept in theory, it's just a matter of calculating the trajectory and the interception trajectory.

Sorry, but the object can change direction.

The F-15 eagle cannot intercept an SR-71. The USAF tried to a few times for training. First time the SR-71 kept a straight line and a squadron of F-15s made an intercept. Cue the eagle drivers bragging about it - the SR-71 community didn't take kindly to it.

Next time the Blackbird pilots adjusted their heading a few degrees. The eagles never got within a hundred miles of them.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 12:49:08 PM , Rating: 5
> "Sorry, but the object can change direction."

The faster you're moving, the harder it is to change direction. For a ballistic missile, there are even more constraints...during the ballistic phase, maneuvers beyond a certain narrow range will prevent you from ever striking your target, regardless of whether or not you're intercepted.

> "The F-15 eagle cannot intercept an SR-71"

The SR-71 flies Mach 3, with a service ceiling of 80K ft, compared to the F-15's Mach 2.5, and 65K ft. Comparing this to the interception of an ICBM by a far more agile EKV is off base.


By Amiga500 on 8/31/2008 1:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
If your travelling 15,000 mph, and change direction by 1 degree, in 1 minute you've laterally moved over 4 miles.

1 degree per second at 15,000 mph is approx 2g. The Topol-M final bus/warheads have probably got G-limits easily north of 10. I'd guess 20-30 would be more accurate. Note: This is not the main stage 1 or 2 engines which have much lower ratings.

So a 10 second 2 g maneuver results in a direction change of 10 degrees. Give that 10 seconds and you've moved over 7 miles laterally.

If TOPOL-M has a 10g limit, that is, a 5 degree/sec maneuver, or a mile maneuvered (from the flight plan) in 3 seconds. You'll be doing well to match that with anything short of a laser.

Google "eagle bait". Entire squadrons failed to intercept = get radar lock.

It is generally accepted within the aviation community you have to be 4 times more maneuverable than something to kill it (missile vs. plane). No way is the ABM gonna be anything like 4x maneuverable.


RE: So how much did the US waste on those ABMs again?
By KernD on 8/31/2008 12:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Things have changed since then, why do you think the SR-71 was pulled out of service? one of those reason is that the Russian had interceptor missile capable of something like mach 6, so yea they would catch them in no time, no matter if the SR-71 adjusted there heading.

Things may also be different if you try to catch one with a F-22, it's max speed is still unknown but we do know it doesn't need afterburner to go to mach 1.2, it has a total of 70000 lbs of thrust, that's 20000 more than the F-15.

And let's not forget they have tested the on-board laser weapon to destroy ICBM, I'm pretty certain light can intercept a ICBM, and I've seen how fast those high power laser burn through a missile.


By FITCamaro on 8/31/2008 1:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the F22s max speed is somewhere around Mach 2.5. It can't hit Mach 3 I know that.


By TheDoc9 on 9/1/2008 4:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm, I'm not so sure. Someone who works on military planes told me that their published specs are almost always incorrect and they are capable of more.

It's a matter of making sure the planes sound impressive enough but not giving away their true power so you're still to come on top.

I don't know how true it is, but it seems perfectly sound.


By Amiga500 on 9/1/2008 5:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22's design top speed is around Mach 2.45ish.

This can simply be calculated from the planform geometry and Mach cone design rule. :-)


By FoundationII on 8/31/2008 1:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, if the SR-71 avoids the F-15 (the range of the AIM-120D AMRAAM is 95 km) or initiates evasive manoevres the F-15 has only a tiny chance of intercepting the SR-71.
F-15's have intercepted satellites (with specialized missiles) though.

However, ICBM's aren't piloted, and don't initiate evasive manoevres as far as I know. They probably don't even have radar, which makes their trajectories predictable, and therefore interceptable. Especially since they fly towards the general direction of the ABM system.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 12:44:36 PM , Rating: 3
> "Anyone that knows anything about ballistics and geometrics knows intercepting something that is moving as fast as you is nigh on impossible."

Tell that to all the ICBMS the MDA has already intercepted in flight.

History is littered with accomplishments people once though were impossible. In WW2, learned advisors told heads of state that intercontinental missiles could never exist... within little more than a decade, they were commonplace.

To a multi-ghz processor, a missile moving 7000 m/s or so is excruciatingly slow, moving only micrometers every clock cycle. We've now reached the point that, barring possible ABM defenses, intercepts are highly repeatable and reliable phenomena.

How effective are Russia's anti-ABM options? If they were cheap and effective, they wouldn't be kicking up such a fuss over a proposed shield. But when your entire foreign policy is predicated on your ability to near-instantly turn any opponent into glowing slag, an effective missile shield is your worst nightmare.


By Amiga500 on 8/31/2008 12:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Tell that to all the ICBMS the MDA has already intercepted in flight.

Right... because they were able to intercept something that they had put on a fixed flight path.

Things can change direction - and when they do kinematics is strongy against you. That is the whole idea behind MaRVs, only TOPOL moves it into the mid-flight stages too.

I guarantee you that the ABM is useless against such maneuvering targets.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 1:05:00 PM , Rating: 3
You have it in reverse. A reentering missile is bound by several constraints. It's already expended the vast majority of its energy budget; it has a fixed target it must reach, and it's also carrying a heavy, fragile payload (a nuclear warhead). An EKV is bound by no such constraints.

From the perspective of pure physics, an ABM missile will always be more manuevarable then a nuclear ICBM. The only difficulty lies in sensing and tracking. . . and given the MDA's recent successes in hot-fire tracking and decoy discrimination, this doesn't seem to be a serious issue

The Russians know they're only buying a little time with the MARV concept. The laws of physics are against them here.


By Amiga500 on 8/31/2008 1:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
1. The warhead has its kinetic energy built up, the ABM has PE it needs to covert - fast. PE is not KE, don't mistake the two as common.

2. You've no idea of the target, that doesn't help you. Please don't tell me your assuming they launched the ICBM *straight* at its target?

3. There are virtually no moving components to a nuke. Fragile it is definitely not.

4. The ABM needs to be about the magic 4x more maneuverable to kill the incoming RV. Not a chance.

5. The laws of physics are firmly on the side of the ICBM. I know the area quite well.


By Penti on 8/31/2008 9:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Plus I don't see how the 10 ABM missiles in Poland would make a difference. They might be able to intercept Israeli ICBMs/warheads just fine. That's pointless however. As they wouldn't attack.

But the russians already has SLBM and ICBM with MIRVs.

I mean if you launch two Topol-Ms with 6 warheads 550 kT each at least two will hit there targets.

And North Korea? Come on, not even India and Pakistan has missiles with range to Europe. Iran has surpassed the DPRKs tech and wouldn't be able to get help from them anymore but the only one who has to worry about the Scuds on steroids is the country that has threaten to attack Iran - Israel and they already got there own ABMs that should be effective and of course several hundreds warheads and a ICBM delivery system should also deter that Iran would strike back at Israel.


By feelingshorter on 9/1/2008 2:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
Masher2 has this argument won hands down. Your making NO sense.

1. What makes you assume in the first place that ABM can't convert their fuel into KE? ABMs are already faster than ICBMs, so i think they are able to use their PE quite effectively.

2. ABMs by its nature is smaller/quicker/lighter than a ICBM because it doesn't have to carry a heavy nuke. So even if the ICBM can wiggle a little in the air, the ABM will catch it.

3. I do get the feeling that they are "fragile" like masher said. For a nuclear reaction to happen you have to have it timed right. Nuclear reactions don't just happen on their own. Conventional explosives in the warhead is used to propel the atoms together initially to "start" a nuclear reaction. Most ICBM (if i can guess, as they did in the past), have more than just one nuclear warhead. Why? Because nuclear reactions aren't always reliable. So lets say you have 3 nuke payloads on an ICBM, and one explodes, does it cause a chain reaction with the other two to explode? No because the atoms need to be closer together. The atoms have to be close to continue a chain reaction. Nukes are fragile because you have to make sure the components in the nuke are perfectly stable.

4. Where did you get the number 4x more? As far as numbers goes, ABMs are fairly faster than ICBMs and will catch up.

5. These missiles travel thousands of miles to hit their target. They don't have the fuel to keep maneuvering themselves. At ANY point in those hundreds of miles into enemy territory, ABMs have a chance to intercept. Physics is on the side of ABMs, now that we have the technology to track missiles and the computers fast enough to predict its trajectory.


By Amiga500 on 9/1/2008 5:23:46 AM , Rating: 1
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I work in this area. Its quite obvious who doesn't.

1. PE is not KE. You need time to convert it - time you won't have.

2. C'mon people. You are not intercepting an ICBM, your intercepting the final stage and warhead bus. Quit confusing the two with stupid arguments over g-loading.

3. They are not fragile. Go educate yourself. MiRVs exist to do more damage, not for redundancy!

4. Go ask someone else that knows what they are talking about. 4x is the magic number.

5. I've already answered this. hypersonic wave riders, all the warhead needs is attitude thrusters.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/1/2008 7:19:19 AM , Rating: 3
> "I work in this area. Its quite obvious who doesn't"

No you don't. The *only* people who express doubt over ABM defensibility are those opposed to it politically. Those who work in the field (of whom I know several) have stated for decades it's only a matter of time before the ICBM is a dead concept.

> "Quit confusing the two with stupid arguments over g-loading"

I don't think you understand the issue at all. Now that tracking circuitry is orders of magnitude faster than even the fastest ICBM, the problem of short-range interception devolves to which missile has the greater deflection rate. ABMs are faster and more maneuverable. Interception occurs at a point in time when an incoming missile is out of its primary fuel source and can only depend on comparatively weak attitude thrusters or control surfaces to generate atmospheric effects.

The ABM, however, has its entire energy budget to devote to interception, and it isn't carrying a heavy nuclear warhead. More importantly, it can maneuver freely, whereas an ICBM has to maintain a course that will allow it to reach its original target. Even a MARV can only change its actual course a few degrees; large course corrections are impossible.

There are still peripheral problems with long-range detection, decoy discrimination, etc, but casting these as insurmountable is far off target (pun intended).

> "MiRVs exist to do more damage, not for redundancy!"

While true, this doesn't change the fact that a warhead is a very fragile device. The arrangement of the implosion package is excruciatingly delicate. There is also timing circuitry precise to the nanosecond. . . even the smallest disruption will turn a 500kt explosion into a 1-kt fizzle or a subcritical nonevent. This is the reason it takes years of work (or a vast amount of test data from another nation) to build a warhead in the first place.

A nuclear bomb isn't a chunk of C-4. It's a precision instrument more sensitive than a Swiss watch.


By feelingshorter on 9/1/2008 5:56:59 PM , Rating: 1
No you don't just have to destroy a missile just in the boost phase. I'd agree to disagree but your just a pessimist that doesn't believe anything is possible because you cant comprehend it. The solution exists.

A warhead is a fragile device. Your talking about a nuclear explosion here, not a conventional bomb. You have to have conventional explosives start off a nuclear explosion with precision, which then leads to nuclear fission. Using that energy, then fusion. See the complexity already, even without fusion? It is a fragile device, the proof is in the missiles themselves. They have multiple warheads because they DO fizzle.

No moving parts? Think smaller in scale. Atoms can move. If your pulling gforce one way or the other it will move things. And then think how much precision it takes just to get one of these nukes to go off. And you wonder why nuclear missiles have multiple warheads. Your still thinking too much about conventional and not nuclear explosives.


By Amiga500 on 9/2/2008 8:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
Once more... the warhead is not a fragile device. I wish you lot would quit being so stubborn over something you plainly have no clue about.

Look - the US made Spring ABM in the 60s/70s had a nuclear warhead and had accelerations of over 100g... the US made Spartan ABM (also in the 60s/70s) had accelerations of up to 15g. Those are easily verifiable numbers.

The RVs on ICBMs will typically experience deceleration loadings of the order of 30g.

Now please. Quit with the BS about delicate nuclear warheads.


By Amiga500 on 9/2/2008 8:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
Correction

spring = sprint

Sorry


By theendofallsongs on 9/2/2008 3:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
Um, nuclear warheads are very delicate. In the AF, I once had responsibility for transporting warheads for a pair of AGM-86Bs. Drop them more than 3 inches and they had to be sent back for a full respec.


By Josett on 9/1/2008 9:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The faster you're moving, the harder it is to change direction. For a ballistic missile, there are even more constraints...during the ballistic phase, maneuvers beyond a certain narrow range will prevent you from ever striking your target, regardless of whether or not you're intercepted.

Sorry to barge in, but you've almost answered yourself on what concerns the inertia/velocity and the manouverability of both objects. I don't know about the x4 factor (didn't do any calculations) but, aside from 'purely' ballistic trajectories/relatively slow velocities, current ABM systems will have a tough time with 'small' & manouverable WHs (perhaps a multi-warhead ABM...).
By the way, the MARV concept dates back from the 70's and is not Russian-bound.
While I agree it's only a matter of time, it runs both ways, as do the laws of physics.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/2/2008 12:28:55 AM , Rating: 1
> "Sorry to barge in..."

Not at all; glad to have you in the discussion.

> " I don't know about the x4 factor didn't do any calculations)..."

That is indeed a rule of thumb which dates from the development of the Sidewinder. But it *is* a rule of thumb, not predicated on calculations or any underlying law of physics.

Furthermore, that estimation applies onto a certain domain -- that of low Mach-number air-to-air interceptions. The dynamics at speeds much lower and much higher are vastly different. For an extreme example, consider two cars at opposite ends of a large parking lot. Does car #2 truly need to be 4X faster and manueverable to prevent car #1 from passing it without a collision? No, of course not.

Still further, one has to remember that an EKV is the fastest, most maneuverable missile yet built by man. Things like the pitch and yaw rate of a MARV aren't well known, but they certainly don't match what ABM can generate, due to the factors I've described in my earlier post.

> "current ABM systems will have a tough time with 'small' & manouverable WHs "

Sure. I never disputed it. But the problem is far from as insurmountable as a few politically-motivated indivuals are trying to cast it.


By islseur on 8/31/2008 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. The assumption is as always that the ICBM will fly a linear trajectory that will enable you to calculate all the calculations you need.

It's a fact that Russians have missiles with non linear trajectory in other words a missile flying like a snake applying random fly path attributes. One example is the Iskander missile complex. You can see it on radar but have no way to intercept it. Russians already warned they would put in Kaliningrad (A small piece of Russian territory to the northern border of Poland) Iskander missiles to answer the Poland interceptor base.


By Rebel44 on 8/31/2008 3:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
Thats BS - if you want to change course of object which is travelling 6-8km/s you have to use lot of rocket fuel (so that warhead has to carry propulsion and fuel - and dont forget that warhead has sevre weight limit). Second problem for ICBM is that it has no way of knowing if someone launch antimissile, it also doesnt know abou antimissiles course, speed etc. so it cant respond effectively.

IMO ICBMs will become obsolete in 20 years because as soon as we have 10+MW lasers we could destroy any warhead.


By Amiga500 on 8/31/2008 3:47:52 PM , Rating: 3
Oh please.

Go google hypersonic wave-riders and the US experimental FALCON research.

The TOPOL-M is essentially a hypersonic wave-rider with attitude thrusters. It uses the shockwave to get the forces for maneuver.

The warheads will be going through individual set maneuvering patterns - the ABM does not know the actual target, so has to to try and match every move, or risk making a wrong turn and ending up hundreds of miles out.

Agree 100% on DEWs though. Once the big lasers are up and running, missiles are toast.


By grenableu on 8/31/2008 4:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please yourself. You're the same people who claimed it was physically impossible to EVER intercept a missile in flight. When we began doing that regularly (near 100% success ratio for PAC-3 in Operation Iraqi Freedom) you switch to some other nonsense argument.

So the interceptor has to match every movement? That's no different than what any air-to-air or surface-to-air missile has to do. It used to be we couldn't even hit a slow-moving airplane in the air, now they're sitting ducks. Times change. You need to understand that.

For some perverted reason, you people just don't LIKE missile defense. And you'll stop at nothing to try to destroy it with BS arguments like this.


By FoundationII on 8/31/2008 5:55:59 PM , Rating: 1
Actually I'm starting to believe amiga here.
I looked up the speeds of both ABM's and ICBM's, and ABM's only fly at about mach 10 while ICBM's fly at mach 20+ (after burnout). Also missiles can take an enormous amount of G-forces, e.g. the Sprint missile carried a thermonuclear warhead and pulled 100G during it's acceleration (mach 10 in 5 secs), so the ICBM can still be pretty mobile at their high speed.
If the ICBM's flight isn't linear the chances of hitting it seems average at best. Let alone if the ICBM carried some kind of detection system to actively evade the ABM.
But I certainly agree that as soon as the DEW become operational the ICBM's are toast.

Grenableu, Iraq isn't exactly known for their high tech equipment. Most of the missiles fired by Iraq were SCUD-B's, their first flight was in 1961, while PAC-3 is from 1999. That's 38 years of difference, more difference than between the P-51 Mustang and the F-15 Eagle (32 years).
PAC-3 have a speed of mach 4, that's less than 1/5th of the ICBM's. Now if the ICBM's don't follow a predictable flightpath it's doubtful the PAC-3 will impact.
Don't get me wrong, the PAC-3 has is a useful weapon, but their usefulness against ICBM's is doubtful.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2008 7:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
> "I looked up the speeds of both ABM's and ICBM's, and ABM's only fly at about mach 10 while ICBM's fly at mach 20+"

No. Ratheon's EKV has a velocity of 10 km/sec -- about Mach 33.

> "The Sprint missile carried a thermonuclear warhead and pulled 100G during it's acceleration "

Whoops...Sprint was an ABM missile, not an ICBM. It was designed for enormously high accelerations; it had a very short range, however. Your average ICBM has a burn time of about 5 minutes, rather than 5 seconds.

In any case, the point itself is off base. Straight-line acceleration is not the same as maneuvrability; ICBMs are not designed for large lateral stresses. But more importantly, interception is not performed during the boost phase, but during reentry, when the fuel is expended.

> "the PAC-3 has is a useful weapon, but their usefulness against ICBM's is doubtful. "

Of course. PAC is a theatre defense missile; it's not designed to intercept ICBMs.



By FoundationII on 9/1/2008 5:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
My point was if they could design a missile with a nuclear warhead to withstand 100G in a straight line acceleration, it's possible to build one that can withstand about the same amount of lateral G's.

quote:
No. Ratheon's EKV has a velocity of 10 km/sec -- about Mach 33.

Thank you for this information, I didn't know that. That makes it more likely to hit indeed.

quote:
Of course. PAC is a theatre defense missile; it's not designed to intercept ICBMs.

Well, that was my point as well actually.


By Amiga500 on 9/1/2008 5:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
Again - don't confuse the main engines of an ICBM with the warhead bus.


By jgvandemeer on 9/1/2008 7:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
Amiga, what you just don't get is that our missile shield isn't designed to stop Russian missiles. Not yet at least. That's not the real threat any more.

Look at how many countries have gotten nuclear weapons in the last 25 years. In the next 25, twice that many will get them. And most of those countries will have missiles to put them on also. But they'll be the low-tech non-maneuvering missiles we can shoot down easily.

In another 25 years, our missile shield might be in a position to stop a full assault from Russia. Maybe not. But I don't care, because the real threat is from the dozens of smaller countries who very soon are going to start lobbing nukes at each other.

This system is worth every penny at 10 times the price. That sort of exchange will lead to a bigger war than WW2 ever thought about. We can prevent it.


By grenableu on 9/1/2008 10:54:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is a repeat and that idiot Bush is leading us into the same brown stuff
You post political crap like this and expect us to believe you're just an innocent engineer trying to stop us from building a system that can't work?

Busted, dude. Busted.


By R0B0Ninja on 8/31/2008 4:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
You can only shoot down a missile if you know it's coming.

Stealth missiles may be the next thing.


By Amiga500 on 9/1/2008 8:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
Not possible. You simply cannot hide the thermals of any of the flight stages.

That is why the EKV uses IR sensors and not radar.

Of course there are ways to reduce IR signature, and there is work on plasma stealth, but I don't see it working without IR levels hundreds if not thousands of times higher than the detection threshold of any decent IRST.


By islseur on 9/1/2008 2:39:05 PM , Rating: 3
You have my respect man. Your words show that you understand what you are talking about, not like the other bragging "specialists" over here.

What's true is true. The fact that it's impossible today to hide the thermal trail of the engine of stealth aircraft, ICBM's and any other flying object using the current propulsion technology is why the Russians from the first place have dropped the idea of developing stealth aircraft decades ago, realizing it would be ineffective and too costly.

Modern Russian tactical air defense systems S-300, S-400 can easily detect and intercept stealth aircraft. Even the Serbs in 1999 were able to shot down a Stealth F-117 Nighthawk using an old S-200 complex.

Stealth is good on countries like Iraq and other third world countries that have nothing to eat and dying of hunger not even talking about them able to defend themselves from any world superpower.


By Penti on 8/31/2008 9:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's of no threat to Russia but of course they has to answer to the deployment of ABM bases.

They already has subs with SLBMs with MIRV capability in use, but they could also answer by equipping the Baltic sea fleet with nukes again.


By Solandri on 8/31/2008 5:17:47 PM , Rating: 1
I think all this discussion is missing the bigger picture. The Cold War is over. The main threat to humanity isn't all-out nuclear war anymore. The primary purpose of ABMs isn't to short circuit Mutually Assured Destruction.

Like it or not, more countries are gaining ballistic missile technology. It's not going to be long before corporations and organizations are going to gain it too. Most countries have a fairly sophisticated and redundant hierarchical command structure in place to control the firing of a missile. A company or organization will not. It's inevitable that eventually some crackpot group is going to get their hands on such weapons, and will use them. The world is going to want some sort of ABM technology to protect against that.


RE: So how much did the US waste on those ABMs again?
By katt on 8/31/2008 6:56:35 PM , Rating: 3
heres a good question ..why in the hell arent u.s. news organizations reporting this story...nothing on cnn ,msnbc or fox...ill assume its because the fascist psy ops bastards who have essentially taken over the u.s. news think the american public would get freaked out.


By mindless1 on 9/1/2008 3:28:35 AM , Rating: 1
I take it you don't actually live in the US and are just making a veiled attempt at trolling.

I remember the cold war, I find the current situations unsettling, and I am a US citizen. It doesn't mean I expect another cold war but Russian is acting pretty cocky lately, one thing or another is going to have to happen to let them know that their newfound addt'l income from oil doesn't change their place in the world moreso than letting them have some prosperity.


By islseur on 9/1/2008 2:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are ready for:

A rude awakening fact #2:
United States of America is on an unstoppable course of collapse due to a cocky behavior of the Bush administration and citizens like you supporting them.

Sorry folk. But there won't be a new American century whether you like it or not, most of the world's population have rejected the idea of Americas legit right for a world hegemony.


By AssBall on 9/2/2008 3:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Better check the air quality of the cave you live in. It's making you retarded.


By Jim28 on 9/2/2008 10:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
Making?

Made is the proper word!


By Spuke on 9/4/2008 3:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
rejected the idea of Americas legit right for a world hegemony
The average American citizen would prefer we not be involved at all. The average American citizen would prefer we pull back our bases and troops and quit getting in everyone else's business. Pick an American and ask them what they think. You'd be surprised what our answers are. Our government, however, seems to differ on this matter. And as long as we continue to vote the same two parties into office, the differences will continue.

But because of Iraq, I think we will become more uninvolved in the future. NO ONE in this country is interested in another Iraq. We do tend to learn from our mistakes once they've been beaten into our heads.

Get your requests in now.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki