Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

U.S. Plans for Nuclear Warhead


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1    Solve et Coagula

Solve et Coagula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 239 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2006

Posted 12 May 2006 - 02:32 PM

U.S. Plans for Nuclear Warhead Replacement Irresponsible — Russian Official

Created: 12.05.2006 14:43 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:43 MSK, 3 hours 35 minutes ago
MosNews

Russia has expressed concern over U.S. plans to replace nuclear warheads with conventional charges on some intercontinental missiles, warning it would be impossible to tell one from the other on launch, the Financial Times said Friday.

A senior Kremlin official condemned the switch being discussed in the U.S. as “irresponsible”.

“You can imagine, a rocket is fired, especially from a submarine, and no one knows what kind of warhead it is carrying,” the official said. “It doesn’t say on the rocket whether it has a conventional or nuclear warhead.”

He said the Pentagon’s plans were “extremely dangerous” and the launch of such a missile could lead to an “inappropriate” response from other nuclear states.

The comments came a day after President Vladimir Putin referred to the danger, in his annual state of the nation address, although he made no specific reference to the U.S.
“The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry non-nuclear warheads. The launch of such a missile could . . . provoke a full-scale counter-attack using strategic nuclear forces,” said Putin.

The Russian president’s seventh state-of-the-nation address placed heavy emphasis on the need to modernize the country’s military forces, including its nuclear arsenal, to enable it to withstand external pressures.

Putin also said Russia needed to “preserve the strategic balance of forces”, noting that the U.S. was spending 25 times as much as Russia on defense. He pledged not to repeat the mistakes of the cold war, when the Soviet Union spent so much on arms that it weakened its economy, but warned that the arms race was not over — an apparent reference to U.S. plans to develop new types of nuclear weapons.

“What’s more, the arms race has entered a new spiral today with the achievement of new levels of technology that raise the danger of the emergence of a whole arsenal of so-called destabilizing weapons,” he added.

“There are still no clear guarantees that weapons, including nuclear weapons, will not be deployed in outer space. There is the potential threat of the creation and proliferation of small capacity nuclear charges.”

In February, the Pentagon unveiled its Quadrennial Defense Review — a major assessment of the capabilities needed by the U.S. over the next 25 years — which called for the conversion of some intercontinental ballistic missiles from nuclear warheads to conventional weapons.

While some military officers concede that problems exist regarding the difficulty for other countries to detect the kind of warhead launched, they say the changes are needed to improve U.S. strike capability.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/05/12/moremissiles.shtml


#2    Sanjuro

Sanjuro

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2006
  • Location:R?ga

  • "I'm afraid the making of World War III is actually taking place in front of our eyes."

Posted 12 May 2006 - 02:46 PM

Last year US forces deployed 90 nuclear warheads in Turkey, but now they are gone because Turkey civilians and goverment wasnt happy about it. I wonder where is the new nuclear base in europe now.

Posted Image

#3    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,897 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 12 May 2006 - 07:22 PM

This is actually quite an interesting strategy. Its a no win situation from the targets standpoint, but a potentially disasterous situation from the USs standpoint too...

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#4    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 May 2006 - 07:55 PM

i dunno what does it matter overall? now it means whatever country on the recieving end has to shoot it down or wait it out before using the nuclear option, if a nation has a policy of WE WILL SEND NUCLEAR ICBMS IF WE DETECT YOU LAUNCHING ICBMS AT US REGARDLESS, i doubt the US or any othe rcountry for that matter would bother launching conventional ICBMS, by the same token, conventional ICBMs do make a great ultra longrange offensive weapon against a nation that can't retalliate instantaneously with nuclear warheads of their own.


#5    PLO

PLO

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2005

Posted 12 May 2006 - 08:13 PM

"I wonder where is the new nuclear base in europe now."

quite a lot of european countries stor U.S warheads, a good number of nukes in europe are the U.S's, mostly becuase of Warsaw. These are ranges of ranges for ballistic missles.

BSRBM Battlefield Short Range up to 150 km   up to 94 miles
SRBM Short Range - 150-799 km/94-499 miles
MRBM Medium Range - 800-2,399 km/500-1499 miles
IRBM Intermediate Range - 2,400-5,499 km /1,500-3,437 miles
ICBM Intercontinental Range- + 5,500 km/3,438 miles
SLBM Submarine Launched - No Specific Range

Most countries with submarines though dont have to bother with ICBM's, basicaly anytime a country pisses of america or a major european power we just send a handfull of nuclear submarines off their coasts or within range of their country, that happens a lot.  Nuclear submarines are completely insane.

www.oilempire.us  www.killinghope.org




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users