backtop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments     Threshold


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




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


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

Whatever happened to self-determination?


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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.