Guardian: Russian missile test adds to arms race fears

Should the UK has own extended missile program?

  • Unconditinally yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes but not too expensive

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not sure but it is a good idea

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It is waste of time and money

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2091130,00.html

Russia yesterday threatened a new cold war-style arms race with the United States by announcing that it had successfully tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of penetrating American defences.

Russia's hawkish first deputy prime minister, Sergei Ivanov, said the country had tested both a new multiple-warhead intercontinental missile, the RS-24, and an improved version of its short-range Iskander missile.

He said the missiles were capable of destroying enemy systems and added: "As of today Russia has new missiles that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defence systems. In terms of defence and security, Russia can look calmly to the country's future."
The UK has a huge scientific, industrial, military potential. It would be logical for Great Britain to develop own effective missile systems. Or maybe it would be better to rely on American friends?
 
#2
KGB_resident said:
The UK has a huge scientific, industrial, military potential. It would be logical for Great Britain to develop own effective missile systems. Or maybe it would be better to rely on American friends?
Given that the UK's Defence budget is now as low as it was before the rise of Hitler Sergy I doubt it.

edited to add

The current Government believes that companies like DHL and Fed X can deliver deterrents more effectively than any nasty old British Military system (tainted as it is by hundreds of years of oppressing ethnic majorities around the world).
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#4
drain_sniffer said:
How do they know if it can defeat any future missile defence system?
Maybe they have sprinkled them with fairy dust?

The Russians making wild claims about their military capability? Now where have I seen that one before?
 
#5
drain_sniffer said:
How do they know if it can defeat any future missile defence system?
It is a good question. Likely, it really means that new generation of Russian missiles can beat any future defence system based on known principles and existed technoligies.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#6
KGB_resident said:
based on known principles and existed technoligies.
Do you mean known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns or Donald Rumsfeld known unknowns?

Lets hope your new super duper missile system doesnt rely upon anti-freeze to get it where its going. That was a bit of an issue with your tanks back in the day, eh?
 
#7
well is it just me or are we slowly returning to the good old days of the cold war?

MAD did have a some advantages and while some would say that 'Starwars' ABM system broke the soviets i never realy brought into it as a effective defence! or as the fulcrum that brought freedom! to the east.

let us face the real question? Exactly how many warheads are needed to land to be effective!

Like the Maginot line this sytle of defence only needs a slight gap to fall on its ass, i believe the whole thing to be a white elephant drummed up by the defence industrys to justify investment in vapourware.

At present all it is doing is annoying the russians, and while that is fun it is also a waste of time and resources?
 
#8
TheIronDuke said:
KGB_resident said:
based on known principles and existed technoligies.
Do you mean known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns or Donald Rumsfeld known unknowns?

Lets hope your new super duper missile system doesnt rely upon anti-freeze to get it where its going. That was a bit of an issue with your tanks back in the day, eh?
Your Lordship, I meant rather known knows known to those who know it and unknown to those that don't know known knows that are in fact are unknown to them.

As for tanks then anti-tank missiles are so effective now that one could hold a very natural question - why these expensive targets are ever being built?
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#9
KGB_resident said:
why these expensive targets are ever being built?
A decent point, but a boy should have a hobby and you cant have the Guards loafing around the stables all day. Who knows what that might lead to?

As to your claim that you've got a missile system that will beat anything 'we' can throw at it? Upon hearing the news I translated Sergei's comments as... "We are still important. More important than India or China. Straights".
 
#10
TheIronDuke said:
KGB_resident said:
why these expensive targets are ever being built?
A decent point, but a boy should have a hobby and you cant have the Guards loafing around the stables all day. Who knows what that might lead to?

As to your claim that you've got a missile system that will beat anything 'we' can throw at it? Upon hearing the news I translated Sergei's comments as... "We are still important. More important than India or China. Straights".
Develop sophsticated missile system, spend big enough money only to make the statement? Unlikely. I suspect this and previous similar statements are an attempt to stimulate the Americans to develop (or try to develop) similar system that is a very expensive business. Meanwhile S-400 anti-aircraft systems (with effective range 400 km) have been deplored in Moscow region recently. The system can be used against ballistic missiles as well. It is possible that in the near future efficient anti-missile system would be created in Russia. So Russian leadership collects trumps and aces to be prepared to real negotiations with the Americans.
 
#11
If they've got missile that cant be shot down, then why worry about the septics wanting to put 9 battery stations in eastern europe, if they can defeat them.
 
#12
DesktopCommando said:
If they've got missile that cant be shot down, then why worry about the septics wanting to put 9 battery stations in eastern europe, if they can defeat them.
If your partner is not quite sincere in this delicate area (too few believe declared explanations) then it is a matter for big concern. It is possible that instead of defensive, offensive missile would be installed. Anyway complete infrastructure for offensive missiles would be created.

Btw, what would be a rection of Washington if Russia would install missiles in Cuba with declared objective to defend Russia from ... mmm ... Grenada for example?
 
#14
Btw, what would be a rection of Washington if Russia would install missiles in Cuba with declared objective to defend Russia from ... mmm ... Grenada for example?
Depends on what buildings the FSB could fit up the Grenadians with blowing up... :roll:
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top