Posted on 09/26/2007 9:35:55 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Defense Focus: Wonder weapons -- Part 1
By MARTIN SIEFF UPI Senior News Analyst
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 (UPI) -- Russia is not just using its windfall energy profits to beef up its existing nuclear and conventional armed forces, it is also seeking to develop sophisticated conventional submarine and systems and bombs that while non-nuclear, are in their own ways as formidable as nuclear systems could be.
In the past month RIA Novosti has reported Russia's announcement that it has successfully tested a thermobaric, or fuel bomb, a devastating non-nuclear weapon first developed by the United States and used in Vietnam some 40 years ago. The Russians said their new thermobaric bomb was more powerful than any previous one ever used.
Then, the Moscow newspaper Kommersant on Sept. 12 reported that Russia was developing a new so-called Project 20120 submarine that may have followed German and Swedish designs and further developed them in creating a new diesel-electric drive with hydrogen fuel cells that would allow diesel-powered subs to stay submerged while recharging their batteries.
The Russian navy promptly denied the story, but Stratfor Forecasting gave it serious credence and assessment in a published analysis.
The first question that both these reports raised the following day is why the Russians are bothering to develop conventional weapons systems that only appear to replicate capabilities they already have in abundance in their nuclear weapons and submarines?
After all, Russia has the second-largest nuclear armament force in the world, and the second largest nuclear submarine one as well behind the United States. And Russian military leaders and planners today, as at the height of the Cold War, are entirely uninhibited about developing or reviving their nuclear weapons complex.
Nor does cost-effectiveness appear to be the driving force behind either the admitted thermobaric bomb program or the still speculative, but extremely feasible, diesel-electric/hydrogen cell sub program.
It is true that China's conventional diesel submarines are vastly cheaper and easier to build than nuclear ones. Last year the United States built a single new submarine and it was, like all U.S. Navy subs, a nuclear-powered one. China, by contrast, is years, perhaps still even decades behind U.S. submarine nuclear technology, especially in their lack of ability to build stealth nuclear submarines. But they built 14 new subs to America's one.
Of course, all the new Chinese submarines were non-nuclear diesel-powered ones.
However, while it is very cheap to build a conventional diesel submarine, developing a new improved technology one as the prototype for an entire class of them is prohibitively more expensive. And the unconfirmed -- indeed, denied -- Kommersant report indicates that this is the route the Russians have chosen. Why?
It will hardly be because the new technology is absolutely cutting edge and sexy. On the contrary, diesel-powered submarines capable of impressively long periods of endurance underwater and with formidably long ranges had already been developed by the Nazi Kriegsmarine and were operationally deployed in 1945 -- the Type XXI and Type XXII classes.
The same argument can be made against developing the fuel bomb. It isn't original. It's been around for decades. And Russia already has weapons of the same or vastly more destructive power.
However, developing both weapons, in fact, would make a great deal of strategic sense for Russia because, while on paper neither the thermobaric bomb nor the diesel electric/hydrogen cell submarine give the Russian armed forces capabilities they do not already possess in abundance, both weapons have a lot more flexibility than meets the eye.
Defense Focus: Wonder weapons — Part 2
Published: Sept. 26, 2007 at 10:51 AM
By MARTIN SIEFF
UPI Senior News Analyst
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 (UPI) — Why is Russia investing heavily in new thermobaric bombs and more formidable conventional submarines when it already has a formidable nuclear arsenal in nuclear-powered munitions and subs? There appears to be only one realistic answer: Russia is preparing to fight conventional wars as well as deterring nuclear ones.
In other words, Russia’s new fuel bombs and possible diesel-electric/hydrogen cell submarines will give it far more capabilities to fight conventional wars.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has worked hard and with great success to revive Russia’s arms exports. Sales have boomed to major nations such as China, India, Iran, Syria, Indonesia and Venezuela. Putin is also targeting the nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations — which include Indonesia and Vietnam, a traditional Russian ally, for such sales. And Russian officials are hopeful of their prospects in the United Arab Emirates as well.
However, the development of the thermobaric, or fuel bombs, which the Kremlin has energetically publicized, and possible work on dual diesel-electric and hydrogen cell powered conventional submarines, which the Russian navy has denied, but which has been reported in the Russian media this month, do not fit into this category. They both are weapons systems that would enormously boost Russia’s conventional military capabilities to fight non-nuclear wars.
Clearly, in the disturbed 21st century world, conventional wars are far from inconceivable for a major world power. The United States fought a full-scale conventional war in 2003 to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and it has been fighting a Sunni Muslim insurgency in Iraq ever since. The United States and its NATO allies also continue to face a serious and escalating Sunni Muslim insurgency generated by the Taliban movement in Afghanistan.
Nor are the two formidable new non-nuclear military technologies that Russia appears to be developing unprecedented: The United States was the nation that first developed the formidable thermobaric bomb — the most devastating non-nuclear munition yet created, and comparable in its effects to a small atomic bomb — 40 years ago and used them in Vietnam. If Russia is indeed developing new dual drive conventional submarine propulsion systems as reported by the Moscow newspaper Kommersant on Sept. 12, it is copying, adapting and, no doubt, improving, upon new submarine technology that Sweden and Germany have both pioneered over the past two years.
The point about developing improved nuclear strategic weapons and delivery systems is that they are doomsday weapons. Although it is feasible that future limited nuclear wars could indeed be fought, the primary purpose of nuclear weapon systems is as “doomsday” or deterrent weapons that apply late U.S. strategist Herman Kahn’s concept of mutually assured destruction to preserve the national security of nations.
This kind of grim balance held between the United States and the Soviet Union through the Cold War, and now it holds between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan — traditional antagonists that between them contain one-fifth of the population of the human race.
However, to use the terminology of the great Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld, non-nuclear weapons systems such as thermobaric, or fuel bombs, are far more “flexible” than nuclear weapons of comparable or greater power.
They combine the devastating power of atomic bombs — that guerrilla forces or non-nuclear states such as Iraq or Iran could not hope to match — with the freedom to use them in conventional conflicts such as Vietnam, Iraq or Chechnya. They therefore serve notice that major nuclear powers like Russia will not regard themselves as stymied if they face either future rebellions comparable to the kind of conflict they fought in Chechnya, or if, like the United States in Iraq, Russia’s leaders feel the need in the future to wage major conventional campaigns as well.
If Russia is indeed developing new, more formidable diesel subs, that move may have different implications. It could signify a further willingness to boost conventional naval capabilities against the United States — or even a desire in the future to sell the technology profitably to China, which has invested heavily in diesel submarine technology.
In both cases, the actual technology involved in the new conventional weapons is incremental rather than dramatic, relying as it does on improvements in previous existing systems. That is likely to make both weapons all the more reliable, formidable and cost effective.
But the strategic implications of both developments could be far more dramatic — and troubling. They may indicate that Russia’s current leaders are willing to contemplate future conventional conflicts of a far greater variety, intensity and even scale than was the case through all of the Cold War.
I would think they would want to reestablish their satellites over the US....as it stands now, they can only monitor a FIRST STRIKE from CONUS six hours out of the day.
I DO fear the results of their continued sales to "borderline" nations.
When Russia develops them twenty years later, they become "wonder weapons."
Forgive me but this scripture is not referencing Russia.
It really stands out, doesn't it?
I agree that there is conjecture of opinion but I certainly believe, as do many others that this is a confederation that includes Russia
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume1/Part_II/Chapter2.html
I agree with you on both counts.
Russia is desperate to be relevant and important on the world stage again.
At one time I also thought so...but after further study it is clear that Russia is not spoken of in this scripture.
Even though allot of men of God have for years prophesied a coming invasion of Israel headed by Russia, the Bible just does not support this.
Honestly, it is safe to say that the entire argument for a Russian involvement is based on some pretty lame scholarship born out of a western-centric mindset that requires a violation of some basic linguistics.
I've looked at every angle. But the conclusion is clear and actually, simple; this scripture is referencing an islamic Invasion of Israel, led by either Turkey or Syria [looks closer to Turkey] and made up of at a minimum, three or more other islamic nations [most likely armed and supported by Russia].
Persia: Iran [depending on how things unfold, maybe a portion of what is currently Iraq.]
Cush: Islamic Republic of Sudan
Put: Libya [The Septuagint translates the word Put here as Libue]
Gomer: North central Asia Minor...central Turkey.
Togarmah: Southern Turkey bordering with Syria.
Given the nation's listed, it would be hard to see how either Iraq, Syria or Egypt [proper] would be able to sit it out. Why the Bible does not reference them specifically, I do not know. But wisdom says they are more than likely involved.
Regardless, Russia is nowhere referenced in any of the end time scriptures. Some regions that were formerly part of the soviet union are obliquely referenced [probably accounts for the development of Russian hysteria] but not Russia itself as a participator or leader.
But I do agree that Russia desperately wants to become relevant again. Probably explains how they've ended up supporting the nations referenced.
Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree,
http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen3.html
but I will say that I have read a thousand commentaries on the subject and there are a thousand different views, so we’re in good company.
Also, just by looking on the world scene, Russia is being compromised by Islam, and is certainly arming and buddying up to the likes if Iran. It is not a stretch of the imagination to see them fighting together in the future.
Forgive me, I meant to say "looks closer to Syria".
Cross referencing threads: Thermobaric Bomb Destroys Hobbit Hole.
And my point being, when the time comes, Russia -will be- an Islamic nation. Ha. If they aren’t already. But yes, the muslims will certainly be there alongside them with the Iranians.
Perhaps.
Forgive me but I have not visited your links because quite frankly, we both have the Bible itself to reference.
I agree that Russia is desperate to be something similar to what it once was...and I have no problems “imagining” their direct participation. But unless the Russians invade and retake Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan...they have zero link to the Ezekiel and are not referenced either directly or indirectly anywhere else in the Bible.
The nations I have listed are.
That is not my opinion, it is fact.
I didn't make one. I try to stay away from anything prophesy/religious interpretation related
Syria isn’t mentioned in Ezekial because of something Isiah said.
I guess anything is possible.
But again, the Russian geographic region is not referenced anywhere in the Bible.
I could see direct Russian participation as one of so many options possible...but from a scriptural standpoint, it is not supportable. And the notion of Russian leadership is actually contrary to what the scripture explains.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.