Putin: Russia Building Nuclear Weapon U.S. Won't Have

netscape.cnn.com ^ | Nov. 17, 2004 | netscape.cnn.com

[crushelits]

Russia Developing New Nuclear Missile.

MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported. Speaking at a meeting of the Armed Forces' leadership, Putin reportedly said that Russia is researching and successfully testing new nuclear missile systems. ``I am sure that ... they will be put in service within the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have,'' Putin was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Putin reportedly said: ``International terrorism is one of the major threats for Russia. We understand as soon as we ignore such components of our defense as a nuclear and missile shield, other threats may occur.'' No details were immediately available, but Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said earlier this month that Russia expected to test-fire a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile this year and that production of the new weapon could be commissioned in 2005. continues...

[JonDavid]

IMHO, your are sadly mistaken.

[ASA Vet]

And why not, Hitlery has a pretty good chance of being elected in China.

[JonDavid]

I sure the Communist in Russia & their leader Putin don't mind the name.

[Defiant]

That sounds right. I wonder if the Russian ICBMs use our GPS? Do the Russians have their own GPS up there? If so, I've never heard of anyone using it for anything.

A maneuverable ICBM might pose some problems for missile defense, but would sure cost the Russians a lot of money and effort just so they can say we can't shoot their missiles down. Seems like a waste to me, unless they wanted to start expanding their empire again, which I don't think they want to do. Our missile defense is important so we can continue to threaten North Korea, China and Iran, not so we can defeat an all out Russian attack. With their subs, bombers and ICBSMs, they would get some through no matter what. So they don't gain any significant perceived power with such capabilities with respect to the US. Maybe it's for China.

[WorkingClassFilth]

No problem - my fault entirely. I have, somewhere, a fascinating article by an Italian academic who has made quite a study on the KGB and Soviet intelligence control of all facets of life in the new Russian republic. In my view, we are in a dance with the 'Soviets' like that of boxers in the 9th round who are unable (or willing) to land a decisive blow. Sooner or later, one will break the clench and land that blow. Like terrorism, I do not think many see the continuing threat for what it is. Certain elements of conservatism, too, are asleep and more preoccupied with geo-political machinations to see anything other than a 'has-been' superpower nominally allied with current allignement goals.

[JonDavid]

Putin has no opposition. He is the head of the KGB. He is also working with the Islamic Fascists. Iran is the prime example of Putin's real intentions.

[mindburglar]

Yawn...

[familyop]

"Or they are a cheap way to circumvent anti-missile defense."

Yes. That's exactly what they are for.

And I wrote, "lazy" and "cruel," because vanity leads to preferences for destroying civilian populations in warfare. To attempt to stop civilian populations from being destroyed (mercy) is perceived as weakness by our enemies, but it requires much more time and hard work.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Have you ever considered the idea that Marxism is nothing - never was anything - other than a mirage used to gain power? Seems to me that no Marxian state ever cared a speck for the niceties of ideology except as a hook to hang their pogroms from. To me, any '-ism' is the same. The only thing that matters is the relative power relationship between individuals and the state.

[Smokin' Joe]

My bet is that it is for whoever they decide needs to be eliminated.

A sufficient number of warheads aimed at any target can neutralize it, regardless of defensive systems (which would be overwhelmed by the volume of 'traffic', hence 20 MIRVs. Saturation of the defensive systems is the key. Accuracy is only critical against hardened targets, especially with a larger warhead yield.

The Chinese pose a developing threat as well (another Clinton Legacy), and North Korea, possibly Iran, and Iraq(had we not intervened) would all have had delivery capability and warheads in the near future (next 10 to 15 years), although the last three would probably be short to intermediate range delivery systems.

Don't forget the French, British, India, or Pakistan, either.

BTW, what happened to South Africa's nuke program?

Also, I remember reading in a book where Iraq was expected to have theater delivery and nukes by 2000 (pre Gulf War I estimate). Apparently we disrupted that development, or at least slowed it down. (Right War, right place, right time.)

[Bon mots]

Well, if it's any consolation...

If anyone ever does attack us with horrific weapons,
the most likely targets are all blue.

[Polybius]

IMHO, your are sadly mistaken.

About present-day Russia not being a Communist state or about nations putting their self-interest first?

[nw_arizona_granny]

Ping

[Polybius]

Have you ever considered the idea that Marxism is nothing - never was anything - other than a mirage used to gain power? Seems to me that no Marxian state ever cared a speck for the niceties of ideology except as a hook to hang their pogroms from. To me, any '-ism' is the same. The only thing that matters is the relative power relationship between individuals and the state.

That is my view exactly.

The true believers is Communism are the chumps who sacrifice and toil to keep the bosses in the riches they claim to despise.

Fidel Castro is a prime example.

[JonDavid]

About present-day Russia not being a Communist State. Think of a Trojan Horse.

[Ol' Sox]

".... and who would like to be number ten?"

Grozny.

[jb6]

Better yet, it can penetrate the best anti-missile umbrella the Saudies can buy to make a nice little ring of mushrooms around that acursed black box the islamoos love to worship.

[jb6]

Um, then why would Putin repeatedly come out as the only world leader to vocally and publically support and endorse Bush? Wouldn't he be better off then, by your theory, endorsing sKervy?

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

The missile doesn't look very impressive...

[Truth666]

2003 - Russia enters new territory : threatens NATO with pre emptive strike - regularly updated