Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia Developing New Nukes


Erikl

Recommended Posts

Russia Developing New Nukes

MOSCOW, Nov. 17, 2004

(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.

News reports have also said Russia is believed to be developing a next-generation heavy nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of 4.4 tons, compared with the Topol-M's 1.32-ton combat payload.

Topol-Ms have been deployed in silos since 1998. The missiles have a range of about 6,000 miles and reportedly can maneuver in ways that are difficult to detect.

Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless. Details were not given, but military analysts said the claimed new weapon could be a hypersonic cruise missile or maneuverable ballistic missile warheads.

SOURCE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AztecInca

    2

  • Erikl

    1

  • Mad Manfred

    1

  • Me_Again

    1

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh yay, lets waste billions upon billions of dollars creating far more destructie weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands even millions of people instead of spending it on the people who desperately need it. Sometimes the human race really makes me sick!

Edited by AztecInca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well John Titor (I know, I know, he was proven a 'fake')...but he said that it would be Russia that sets off the nuclear blast - killing like 3 billion people blink.gif

Don't worry, be happy. I just want to make sure that if and when I die - my finger is on my own button, that turns me on laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, you gotta think like a Russian. They have a bad economy now, yes. Though if they nuke humanity, their economy will be back on top, no?

But seriously, I can't understand why Russia would be developing nukes...doesn't the allmighty hand-of-god US have them under strict supervision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the russians are scared. I mean america already has the trition missile system which is one missile with 10 warheads, meaning one missile will destory 10 cities.

Anyways america also is in the process of developing that new missile defense system with a lazer attacht to a plane. Saw it on the history channel.

Now everybody says that the cold war is over, but is it really? i mean america and russia both still have the largest nuclear weapons of any countries, and i think that russia has more than america.

But nuclear weapons will most likely be the end of humanity, but i think that they are great protectors. Call me crazy but look how many lives these weapons have saved.

If america would have invaded the japanease mainland, it would have cost millions of more lives than the 2 bombs did.

The only reason europe isn't in flames or under the iron curtain is because of a nuclear threat that america posed to russia. And then france and britian posed to the motherland to.

So you tell me y these weapons are so bad, even if the russians do make the new missiles they won't use them, because they know that if they did they themselves would be dead.

am going to put that in the debate room

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cold war is over, but that wont stop both countries from attempting to have the most superior weapons and weapons systems, its just teh continuning cycle of one country creating a weapons, so another country create another weapon or superior armour/defence systme, so then that other cuntry builds a even more powerful weapon. Its just another example of people wanting to be better and more powerful than the others!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well John Titor (I know, I know, he was proven a 'fake')...but he said that it would be Russia that sets off the nuclear blast - killing like 3 billion people  blink.gif

360803[/snapback]

Hey, that's what is supposed to happen in Terminator! laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But nuclear weapons will most likely be the end of humanity, but i think that they are great protectors. Call me crazy but look how many lives these weapons have saved.

If america would have invaded the japanease mainland, it would have cost millions of more lives than the 2 bombs did.

All of these are hypothetical statements, we do not know if these seniors would have played out this way. To justify mass murder of woman and children by theorizing about what could have been; is, well, the epitome of why these STUPID ******** things were built in the first place!

So you tell me y these weapons are so bad, even if the russians do make the new missiles they won't use them, because they know that if they did they themselves would be dead.

One day a effortless person will walk into a major city and light it up, BOOM!. THIS WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING – MORE THEN WE THING POSSIBLE!

3000 plus US civilians murdered on 911; 30,000 plus dead Iraqi civilians dead since the second Iraq war started. This is a ten to one ratio and the US ain’t done yet. So, 5 million dead in (?) means, at least 50 million dead in (?) … Nukes don’t save lives, dismantling them does.

If you have read any of my post hear at UM, you will see I am opposed to the proliferation of fear; but on the topic of nukes, I become very freaked out. Nukes have given too much power to man and his fear of death!

If this is too hard for anyone to comprehend I recommend this book for starters.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0394865804...953#reader-page thumbsup.gif

Hey, that's what is supposed to happen in Terminator!

Ya that really p***ed me off! I grew up with the terminator. He taught me the concept of Revelations long before I learned it from my Christian friends. To see the movie fall to such a simple, played out concept of, humans are weak, and they have to go through suffering because of sin and stupidity; is again, just ****** stupid.

I could have come up with such a better story line. First off, the Terminator would have never worn makeup because …

Edited by 4dplane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think to view things simply by number of lives lost is a little simplistic and maybe a tad naive. At least in certain cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.