Vladimir Putin Speech and Russia's most recent nuclear powered missile

Dec 2010
274
Southwest U.S.
So long as the US can return fire, the threat of this new missile is mostly hype. Unless this missile can strike the American nuclear weapons that are based on land in silos, in the oceans in submarines, and in the skies in nuclear bombers all at once, then the Russians can't risk using them against NATO. They could try to wipe out the computer networks which largely control these weapons, but that would be extremely risky and provocative.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,627
China
why nobody just mention what the weapon means?

a nuclear powered missile means ultra long flying range.

other missiles cannot waste fuels to do maneuver, that means their trajectory is possible to be calculated.
while this weapon is not similar.

thus it means an intercept system is not going to work as assumed.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,627
China
it would be very similar to the star war program, though russia is on the active side this time.

the US has built lots of missile intercept systems in the whole world, most of which surround russia, and china as well.

however, since those systems would not be effective against the new weapon of putin. the cost of US that has already been paid would be ruined.

if the US continues on the road of building more such systems, it will cost more and more billions of dollars.
if the US stops building, the already built systems can no longer be considered the best options.

it would be a time for the US to consider reparing relationship with russia that russia has no reason to attack US. this however, will not truly happen, as long as the missile intercept systems are still surrounding russia.
 

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,561
Malaysia
Well, US did pull out of that once much hyped missile defence project in Poland-Ukraine area that time, under vehement Russian resistance. And the Russians did also make their mind up about coming into Syria to gv backing to a Bashir under heavy siege. So, I for one would not be inclined to say that Russia is just all hype all the time.
 

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,561
Malaysia
So long as the US can return fire, the threat of this new missile is mostly hype. Unless this missile can strike the American nuclear weapons that are based on land in silos, in the oceans in submarines, and in the skies in nuclear bombers all at once, then the Russians can't risk using them against NATO. They could try to wipe out the computer networks which largely control these weapons, but that would be extremely risky and provocative.
We're talking non-nuke now. With all due respect, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but right now I don't think US can do much in counter versus a 20-Mach cruise missile. Let alone a barrage of them.
 

Earl_of_Rochester

Ad Honoris
Feb 2011
13,609
Perambulating in St James' Park
I was rather hoping that mankind was past the MADness phase. What exactly do these idiots think they'll achieve by destroying the world, or destroying an entire country? Is that something to be proud of?
 
May 2016
811
Vatican occupied America
I was rather hoping that mankind was past the MADness phase. What exactly do these idiots think they'll achieve by destroying the world, or destroying an entire country? Is that something to be proud of?
One needs to put all actions in the context of the interactions they're part of and then judge them by the gold standard of reciprocity. NATO has been acting aggressively towards Russia for decades.

This is a mere sample of some of NATO's acts that the Russia has responded to and that Putin's speech was directed at. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/07/washington-threatens-america-world/

Almost everything the Western media has said against Putin is a lie.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,700
One needs to put all actions in the context of the interactions they're part of and then judge them by the gold standard of reciprocity. NATO has been acting aggressively towards Russia for decades.
The 'minor' problem with that argument is that NATO is defensive coalition - only way it could be aggressive towards Russia is if Russia attacked a NATO member state. So are you saying that is Russia's intention?
This is a mere sample of some of NATO's acts that the Russia has responded to and that Putin's speech was directed at.
I really got to wonder if you actually what you linked to - and even more so if you read what he linked to... Namely for example the detail like the Russian harebrained concepts of tactical nuclear weapons (which really do not exist - any use of such is a use of an strategic weapon and subject to the MAD).
 

Earl_of_Rochester

Ad Honoris
Feb 2011
13,609
Perambulating in St James' Park
One needs to put all actions in the context of the interactions they're part of and then judge them by the gold standard of reciprocity. NATO has been acting aggressively towards Russia for decades.

This is a mere sample of some of NATO's acts that the Russia has responded to and that Putin's speech was directed at. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/07/washington-threatens-america-world/

Almost everything the Western media has said against Putin is a lie.

How likely is a US invasion or nuclear strike against Russia? In the US free speech and political freedom still exists, in Russia it doesn't. Inviting a few countries to join NATO isn't the same as annexing the Ukraine with military force.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,627
China
the missile defense system is "defensive" when it is located within the nation of the owner. when it is pushed forward in the front of a so called potential enemy, it is no longer "defensive" despite it is named so.

the nuclear powered missile is simply an action-reaction result.

plz do not try to start a not so sound moral debate over the issue.

rather, try to provide some opinion on the further reaction chains of the events.