llien
Member
Russia's Putin unveils 'invincible' nuclear weapons
Russia has developed a new array of nuclear weapons that are invincible, according to President Vladimir Putin.
Mr Putin made the claims as he laid out his key policies for a fourth presidential term, ahead of an election he is expected to win in 17 days' time.
The weapons he boasted of included a cruise missile that he said could "reach anywhere in the world".
He said of the West: "They need to take account of a new reality and understand ... [this]... is not a bluff."
Giving his annual state of the nation speech, Mr Putin used video presentations to showcase the development of two new nuclear delivery systems that he said could evade detection.
One included a "low-flying, difficult-to-spot cruise missile... with a practically unlimited range and an unpredictable flight path, which can bypass lines of interception and is invincible in the face of all existing and future systems of both missile defence and air defence".
Another weapon he discussed was a submarine-launched, long-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.
During the two-hour televised speech to a joint sitting of both houses of parliament, he encouraged Russians to suggest names for the two systems. He argued that Russia had reacted after years of pleading with the US not to break away from anti-missile treaties.
BBC
A little bit of history, shall we?
Sentinel Program
In 1967,[2] U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara announced the Sentinel Program, providing a defense against attack for most of the continental United States. The system consisted of a long range Spartan missile, the short range Sprint missile, and associated radar and computer system. However, U.S. military and political strategists recognized several problems with the system:[3][4][5]
These above issues drove the United States and the USSR to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Under the ABM treaty and the 1974 revision of it, each country was allowed to deploy a single ABM system with only 100 interceptors to protect a single target. The Soviets deployed a system named the A-35 "Galosh" missile system, and it was deployed to protect Moscow, its capital city. The U.S. deployed the Safeguard system to defend the ICBM launch sites around the Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, in 1975. The American Safeguard system was only briefly operational (for a matter of several months). The Soviet system (now called A-135) has been improved over the decades, and it is still operational around Moscow.
Withdrawal from ABM Treaty
In December 1999, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution aimed at pressing the United States to abandon its plans to build an anti-missile missile defense system. Voting against the draft, along with the United States, were three other countries, Albania, Israel, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Thirteen of the 15 members of the European Union abstained, and France and Ireland voted in favor of this resolution. The resolution called for continued efforts to strengthen and preserve the treaty.[7] On 14 June 2002, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty. On the following day, Russia responded by withdrawing from START II treaty (intended to ban MIRV ICBMs). More specifically, then President Bush stated that the USA withdrew from the treaty. There was no Senate "anti-ratification" treaty action similar to what was required by law to first ratify or accept the treaty.
Nowadays
Which brings us to US's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense]Ground Based Midcourse Defense[/url] a major component of US's missile defense strategy.
Destroying ballistic missiles is harder than one would think, for a number of reasons, among them, ineffectiveness of explosives in vacuum.
Hence, interceptor missile destroys targets with kinetic energy, in other words 'Like Hitting a Bullet With a Bullet'
Could that system be used to shut down Russia's Nuclear capabilities?
Nope, definitely not. Russia has about a 1000 of strategic ballistic missiles, each could carry multiple warheads (not counting fakes), US's systems are relevant only in the context of lesser 'Bomber Man' like that of North Korea.
Russia has developed a new array of nuclear weapons that are invincible, according to President Vladimir Putin.
Mr Putin made the claims as he laid out his key policies for a fourth presidential term, ahead of an election he is expected to win in 17 days' time.
The weapons he boasted of included a cruise missile that he said could "reach anywhere in the world".
He said of the West: "They need to take account of a new reality and understand ... [this]... is not a bluff."
Giving his annual state of the nation speech, Mr Putin used video presentations to showcase the development of two new nuclear delivery systems that he said could evade detection.
One included a "low-flying, difficult-to-spot cruise missile... with a practically unlimited range and an unpredictable flight path, which can bypass lines of interception and is invincible in the face of all existing and future systems of both missile defence and air defence".
Another weapon he discussed was a submarine-launched, long-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.
During the two-hour televised speech to a joint sitting of both houses of parliament, he encouraged Russians to suggest names for the two systems. He argued that Russia had reacted after years of pleading with the US not to break away from anti-missile treaties.
BBC
A little bit of history, shall we?
Sentinel Program
In 1967,[2] U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara announced the Sentinel Program, providing a defense against attack for most of the continental United States. The system consisted of a long range Spartan missile, the short range Sprint missile, and associated radar and computer system. However, U.S. military and political strategists recognized several problems with the system:[3][4][5]
- Deployment of even a limited defensive ABM system might invite a preemptive nuclear attack before it could be implemented
- Deploying ABM systems would likely invite another expensive arms race for defensive systems, in addition to maintaining existing offensive expenditures
- Then-current technology did not permit a thorough defense against a sophisticated attack
- Defended coverage area was very limited due to the short range of the missiles used
- Use of nuclear warheads on antimissile interceptors would degrade capability of defensive radar, thus possibly rendering defense ineffective after the first few interceptions
- Political and public concern about detonating defensive nuclear warheads over friendly territory
- An ICBM defense could jeopardize the Mutual Assured Destruction concept, thus being a destabilizing influence
These above issues drove the United States and the USSR to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Under the ABM treaty and the 1974 revision of it, each country was allowed to deploy a single ABM system with only 100 interceptors to protect a single target. The Soviets deployed a system named the A-35 "Galosh" missile system, and it was deployed to protect Moscow, its capital city. The U.S. deployed the Safeguard system to defend the ICBM launch sites around the Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, in 1975. The American Safeguard system was only briefly operational (for a matter of several months). The Soviet system (now called A-135) has been improved over the decades, and it is still operational around Moscow.
Withdrawal from ABM Treaty
In December 1999, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution aimed at pressing the United States to abandon its plans to build an anti-missile missile defense system. Voting against the draft, along with the United States, were three other countries, Albania, Israel, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Thirteen of the 15 members of the European Union abstained, and France and Ireland voted in favor of this resolution. The resolution called for continued efforts to strengthen and preserve the treaty.[7] On 14 June 2002, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty. On the following day, Russia responded by withdrawing from START II treaty (intended to ban MIRV ICBMs). More specifically, then President Bush stated that the USA withdrew from the treaty. There was no Senate "anti-ratification" treaty action similar to what was required by law to first ratify or accept the treaty.
Nowadays
Which brings us to US's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense]Ground Based Midcourse Defense[/url] a major component of US's missile defense strategy.
Destroying ballistic missiles is harder than one would think, for a number of reasons, among them, ineffectiveness of explosives in vacuum.
Hence, interceptor missile destroys targets with kinetic energy, in other words 'Like Hitting a Bullet With a Bullet'
Could that system be used to shut down Russia's Nuclear capabilities?
Nope, definitely not. Russia has about a 1000 of strategic ballistic missiles, each could carry multiple warheads (not counting fakes), US's systems are relevant only in the context of lesser 'Bomber Man' like that of North Korea.
.
