@PastorBrownSteve too slow?its speed is 7.9km/s or 7900m/s or 28,440 km/hr.thts the fastest ever faster than trident, peacekeeper, minuteman.........tht is slow????...its mod 6 variations have 16,000km range thts the highest ever by a icbm.............thts why even the western media, nato naming called it SATAN
@jcsftwre "Jack wagon" and "Johnnie jump-ups" I think your confused with another country fuckstick. Name a country that starts with A? ummm.. fuck off dildo.
@CrazyPotatos that is how it is designed. It's driven out of the silo by a gas piston.. then the propellent takes over. Same as the US Peacemaker. ...called a cold launch
after the separation of the first stage it aquire tremendous acceleration and nothing can stop it until each of the ten 150 kt warhead impact the target,most deadly weapon ever made... I LOVE RUSSIA
What do you mean so much for START. We traded Minuteman and Peacekeeper to retire this beast. They're almost all gone and due for final retirement in about 5 years. I'd say START worked just fine. Nice writeup, the R-36 will always be the quintessential nuclear warfighting machine in my view. A horrible yet beautiful missile by any measure.
@TalksWithDirt minuteman and peacekeeper are not enough, itś must traded with a bonus of some billions US dollar with many bussiness contract approvals... 1 or 2 launch of SS-18 SATAN are enough to demolished even large countries. (1 SATAN contain 10 warhead, then it only takes 6 SATANS at most to destroyed all states in US)
@sambaboy81 Well consider this. The USSR, which was really a phase in the saga of the Russian empire collapsed under economic forces alone. The USA has driven itself bankrupt after 9/11. I really doubt Russia or the USA can survive even one nuclear attack in one city. Even one atomic bomb detonated in either of our countries would probably drive us to self destruction.
@TalksWithDirt Nobody retired the Minuteman missile. The Minuteman is the US' land based ICBM, the US has 450 of them. And even though this "beast" will be retired, it will be replaced by the RS-24, which is just as capable.
@StiviGun1 My comment is out of view, but I'll bet I said the Minuteman II. You are correct Minuteman III will remain on duty well into the future. RS-24 is really just a road mobile Peacekeeper class missile. Similar propellant mass, similar dry mass, similar warhead load. The R-36 had twice the lofting power of the RS-24 or Peacekeeper. Amazingly the Soviets only put enough warheads on the R-36 to engage the Minuteman silos. They stopped when they had enough. With room to grow if need be.
@AndrewTubbiolo I don't think the Minuteman II was retired in exchange for the SS-18. It was retired as part of the reduction in the US' arsenal treaty.
As for the RS-24, it replaces the SS-18 and it can carry 10 550 kt warheads, just like the SS-18. Little is known about its throw weigh, but since it replaces the SS-18, it's gotta have similar performances. And the RS-24 will be silo based BTW, not mobile platform based.
And BTW, responding g to missiles with treaties is something only a pussy
@StiviGun1 Both Russia and the US reduced their arsenals. It was very much tit for tat. ICBM performance follows the performance of any rocket. It's a function of structure mass, payload mass, propellant mass and the energy density of the propellant. RS-25 and peacekeeper have similar total masses, and at best the Russians might have 10% less structure mass than the Peacekeeper did. And the energy density of the two systems fuels are the same. Thus the payloads are similar.
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, the Russian say that the RS-24 can carry 10 550KT warheads, just like the current R-36M2 missile. They also say it can execute evasive maneuvers that would make it impervious to missile defense systems. So it seems pretty dangerous to me.
@AndrewTubbiolo would do. The biggest mistake however, was that they replaced the heavy Titan II with the light Minuteman. There could've been made more advanced and powerful Titan II variants that would've matched or exceed the SS-18's capabilities. But your sissy politicians ruined that. And then the soviets gained the advantage that they still have until this day.
@StiviGun1 Titan II and RS-36 were similar class vehicles. R-36 had twice the thrust and a much more advanced structure, prop management system and tankage pressurization. Don't worry about the size of the arsenals or the throw weights. We can bounce each others rubble plenty good enough. A city, airfiend, naval port what have you us just as destroyed with one as it is with 4 or 5. They're just as dead, you're just as dead. Even a real man dies when he takes a thermal neutron flash.
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, I still believe that better, more advanced and more powerful Titan II variants or Titan II based missiles should've been built. The US would've had a much more powerful arsenal and that would've gained the Russians' respect. Today, the Russians know they have a more powerful nuclear arsenal and that gives them a sense of power and security that they shouldn't have. Too bad Kennedy didn't know what to do with them when they started the Cuban missile crisis.
@StiviGun1 Power is warheads delivered on target. Trident II D5 does plenty of destruction with 14 warheads per missile. You want to Russians to feel secure. You don't want them occupying Eastern Europe again in order to placate their sense of insecurity. If you don't like living under the cover of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces try looking down the barrel of the meat grinder that was supposed to happen between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. You've got it good kid.
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, personally, I think the Russians could've been intimidated and that's how you should've dealt with them. Saying that you have to make them feel secure out of fear of not being attacked by them is laughable to me... This is the voice of fear. A nuclear war would've never started, the Russians would've never made any suicidal move. The US politicians should've acted much more aggressively against them, even from early '50s, to put them in their place. Instead, they just let
@StiviGun1 At what cost? Europe smashed again? Why do that when a good fraction of the Eastern Europeans wanted to try communism? Heck the Western Europeans did too. Why not wait 40 years and let the Russians bleed themselves dry. Think of all the lives saved, and the lines of NATO held. And if you don't think that was not policy look up a man called George Keannan. Read his article in "Foreign Affairs" from the late 40's. The general direction was laid out very early on.
@AndrewTubbiolo the bullies and the aggressors go ballsier and more powerful. Saying that you had to back down out of fear of not being afraid is just outrageous to me. It must be the enemy who should feel this, not you. And the Russians could've been made to feel this with the right attitude used against them, in specially during the '50 and early 60s when the US had the nuclear advantage over them,
@StiviGun1 They did feel it. And they put 65 armored rifle and heavy armored divisions in Eastern Europe poised to push into the West. There was no avoiding the Cold War. It was going to happen. Playing it your way would have required the obliteration of much of Europe (again) and the obliteration of Russia. Why all the bloodshed when the outcome we wanted most came about just by waiting them out?
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, that's the thing. If you had been more aggressive, I don't think the Russians would've started anything. This is just the impression they gave which was actually their goal with the missile crisis. They wanted to scare you, to intimidate you. And they succeeded. I don't think Europe would've been smashed again, I think the Russians could've been made to back the fuck down. Anyway, the best solution would've been to just listen to Patton and nuke Russia right after the end
@AndrewTubbiolo of the WW2 when they had no nuclear weapons. That would've put an end to many things, including all the atrocities the communists committed in Eastern Europe.
@StiviGun1 They put massive conventional forces in Eastern Europe in order to ravage Europe if the US did what you propose. That's why they build up the WP during the 50's. I'm sorry. I think it was better to let the Europeans play with Communism, and avoid killing 100's of millions of people and smashing European cities again. Was Eastern Europe left out? Sure, but there are limits to American and allied power.
@AndrewTubbiolo "Sure, but there are limits to American and allied power". So you're practically saying that you were weaker than them? I find this hard to believe. Yeah, they put massive forces in Eastern Europe. Your response should've been the same: put massive forces in Western Europe. US had the economic power to develop a much more powerful military than the USSR. The only thing that prevented it from doing this was your sissy politicians who were afraid of the soviets.
@StiviGun1 No I'm not saying we were weaker. I'm saying there are limits. Allied power allowed us to take and hold Western Europe. It allowed us to surround the USSR with military bases and hold the seas. Soviet power was unable to counter or stop this. Soviet power was able to take and hold the Warsaw Pact nations. Allied power was unable to prevent this. It's a spectrum, not a switch. Not overplaying your hand is critical in avoiding the fate of the USSR.
@AndrewTubbiolo I don't think the US would've had the USSR's fate and I think the US had the capability to overplay it much more than it did. The fact is the US didn't use its entire potential and you let the soviets intimidate and bully you. The fact that many very powerful weapons systems were rejected out of fear that the Russians would've found out about the and attack first is something that makes me laugh. You were afraid of them up to the point that this affected your potential. This
@AndrewTubbiolo never happened to them though. They felt they had the right to dominate you militarily and they did it. While you were afraid of them. That's what I'm talking about. You let yourselves being intimidated an bullied. Even during a period when you had the upper hand...
@AndrewTubbiolo You say that they did feel it and they reacted in force. Well then that's exactly what you should've done. Mass large numbers of tanks and artillery at the border of the West and East Berlin. The problem is you only let them think you're weak. And that's exactly why they had the balls to start the missile crisis. BTW, destroying Russia wouldn't have been a bad thing, on the contrary.
Respond to this video... When you consider that the Russians still don't send out regular SSBN patrols the US has quite an edge in the ability to deal a crippling first strike against the Russians. Also consider NATO is right on their front door. Russia has no real allies. To them the world looks a bit much like the 1930's for their taste. They just want everyone in Europe to know there are limits and that Russia still has a stick to make it hurt. It's their version of diplomacy.
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, the SSBNs thing will soon change. The new Borei class will enter service and it will be armed with the Bulava missile, which is more capable than the Trident II. By 2020 Russia will have at least the same capability as you to deliver a crippling first strike.
As for Russia having no real enemies, don't be so sure that the Chinese won't back them up, just to see you destroyed in case a war would erupt.
@StiviGun1 The Bori is 10 years over due. It may still not work. Probably still does not work since the Russians are not blaring at the top of their TV's that it is. And Bulava has a long way to go yet. I'm betting the Norwegians and Sweds will have a few more high altitude propellant dumps to enjoy. There was a major Bulava failure again earlier this year if memory serves. The project was halted then re-started last month.
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, Borei is overdue because of the precarious economical situation in Russia in the 1990s. Otherwise, it would've been finished much earlier. But it will be more silent than the Ohio and that's very important.
As for Bulava, that missile is very complex and that's why it had so many failures. But once its bugs will be sorted out, it will be invincible. It will penetrate any missile defense system. Just like the RS-24.
@StiviGun1 China is no ally. The 120 Million Russians are suffering a severe illegal immigration wave from 1.2 thousand million Chinese who want Siberia for themselves. The reality will be Russia joins NATO and Abrams tanks will help hold the line against the Chinese at Lake Biakal. The Russians know where their real interests lie. They're just posturing for position.
@AndrewTubbiolo Putin would contradict you. He said many times that Russia is much closer to China than it is to the West. Don't forget that China is also the most important customer for the Russian weapons. And they both consider America their main enemy. They may have some differences between them, but they will put them aside if they're gonna have to take you on. They both consider the US their primary enemy.
@StiviGun1 Russia faces the same problems American companies face in China. A paying customer today in exchange for a competitor tomorrow. The Russians play the game like you do. They look at the world as if they were the only people on the Earth who should feel secure. Like you they derive their sense of security by compromising the feeling of security of others. To view how this works out over time look at US relations and the rest of Europe vs Russias relations with the same people.
@AndrewTubbiolo That's right. In order to feel safe, the Russians feel that they need to make others feel unsafe. They're bullies. And with bullies, you need to speak on their language. Otherwise, they will grow ballsier and stronger. And this is exactly how your politicians let Russia become. And BTW, the US doesn't have such great relations with Europe anymore, most of the Europeans are anti-American. Germany being the most predominant who sold the EU countries for good relations with Russia.
@StiviGun1 What should we have done? Russia is coming more to the fore because of oil wealth. There is nothing we can do about that other than finding an oil alternative. And just how did we "let the Germans down"? NATO will come together and fly apart depending on the times. It's the problem with any alliance. Russia has it easier as they only have to serve one sent of perceived interests. Not to mention, if you have not been watching the past decade there are severe limits to military power.
@AndrewTubbiolo I didn't say you let the Germans down, I said that the German people has become to be anti-American.
As for what you should have done, I told you, you should've showed the Russians that they can't have it their way. One way to do this, was to build more powerful weapons than them, not to be afraid to do so.
Yeah, I know that in the last decade there's been a limitation to military power and that's BULLSHIT. In specially when China and Russia are growing their military spending
@StiviGun1 The German people are mad at the US because 1) We pushed for total surrender and allowed their country to be split. 2) Many West Germans were believing communists as a recoil against fascism. 3) Regardless how friendly American occupation was, it was still occupation, and they knew it. 4) NATO was going to hold the line in their country, they knew they would pay the price for absorbing a WP invasion. 5) They feared the US would not sacrifice Chicago for Frankfurt.
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, I would say the Germans are right on all accounts then. The most important to me is the fact that you gave up at East Berlin so easily. That's exactly what I'm saying. You should've been much more aggressive with the Russians. Acting out of fear of not starting new war only made them stronger. They sensed this weakness and they exploited it BIG TIME. Like I said, letting a bully feeling secure and powerful is the worst idea and it will not give you safety nor peace.
@StiviGun1 Well, the Germans did invade all of Europe and killed an awful lot of Russians. I don't feel much sympathy for the Germans. The Poles yes. They got the full shaft of the 20th Century. No doubting that. The rest of Eastern Europe is also tragic. Look things now are much different. And Europe is for the most part doing quite well. If the Russians come out the play we have a much better starting position.
@AndrewTubbiolo O don't know why, but something tells me that if the Russians come out the play, US couldn't rely on Germany, Italy or France.
As for the Germans who killed a lot of Russians, in my opinion, they didn't kill enough of them. You should've let them exterminate the Russians.
As for the East Berlin and Eastern Europe, that was a matter of principle. It was about not letting yourselves being intimidated. You should've put the Russians in their place. Kennedy was an idiot. If he had
@StiviGun1 Yes I'd agree we can't rely on France until the last minute. We both know that the only thing you can rely on with Italy is that you cannot rely on them. It's critical that Germany, Poland, Hungary, Scandinavia, The Baltic states The Netherlands, Belgium, and England hold. I think, if pressed, they will with the US giving what it can.
As for exterminating the Russians ... well, there's a fine place for you in the infantry where you'll get to make your wishes come true.
@AndrewTubbiolo I don't think Hungary will hold it either. The Baltic States maybe and Scandinavia. The UK for sure.
As for me in the infantry, that's not the way to do that. The soldiers don't have the power to do that, only the politicians. Which in your case were nothing but sissies. That's the truth. USSR and communism could've been eradicated right after WW2 ended, but you didn't do it. And that led to you living in fear for almost a half a century. And you also let the East European
@AndrewTubbiolo peoples being oppressed. The reality is that you really could've done something about it, but your politicians were too sissies to act.
@AndrewTubbiolo occupied Cuba properly in 1961, then the Russians wouldn't have had any place to put their missiles on and start the missile crisis. But he had to be a pathetic sissy liberal. In my opinion, he miss managed the Cuban missile crisis too.
You are correct the Germans do take their stance with some grounding in reality. But it was a very overbearing reality. Some of their points were right, some wrong. In the end, an awful lot of Americans would have died defending the Germans. And we now know American cities were going to take a huge beating on behalf of Europe. It would have been an ugly occasion for all with plenty of suffering and bloodshed to go around.
@AndrewTubbiolo You continuously say that a nuclear war would've started. That would've been suicidal for the Russians, they knew this very well and they would've never engaged in such a war. They only made you believe they would. The American cities wouldn't have taken anything, the Russians simply didn't have the capabilities to attack your cities during the '50s and the '60s. But you had, in specially at the beginning of the '60s. For instance, at the beginning of the Cuban missile crisis,
@AndrewTubbiolo you had over 200 land based ICBMs and a large number of SLBMs, plus the IRBM in Europe. The Russians only had 27 more primitive ICBMs with only 10 launching sites for them and their subs at the time had to surface to launch their missiles which made them practically sitting targets for the American bombers. Kennedy was a pussy who didn't know how to use his enormous assets. The Russians should've been payed a harsh lesson then, but instead they got out of that situation with the
@AndrewTubbiolo every year. The US has become to neglect its military, and just like the European countries who made the same mistake after WW2, this may make you regret it.
@StiviGun1 The US is broke because we adopted your approach to the Arabs after 9/11. We've neglected our military because we are running it into the ground doing operations instead of maintaing and building new systems. Will this destabilize the world? Yes it will. But we already made the poor decisions and have yet to reverse them. Sorry, but you can't force something like an economy. It's best to take the economic hit, recover, and come out the other side better than you started.
@AndrewTubbiolo The US is broke because of poor economic strategies in the last decade, not because you took my approach with those towel heads. In fact, you didn't take my approach with them. The war in Iraq was the worst planned ever. And that's why the war went on like it did. You didn't use your brains at all.
As for the military, I know that now it's not the time to push things. That time was during the '90s when America had a strong economy and Russia and China were much weak.
@StiviGun1 Yeah I'd say we did Iraq your way. We smashed the Iraqi military. Smashed their government. Took entire neighborhoods prisoner. Showed the rich Iraqi's that they were scum. Shut down Iraqi heavy industry. We showed them who was boss.
As for the 90's America was busy making a killing selling its industrial sector to the Chinese government.
@AndrewTubbiolo No, you didn't do it my way in Iraq. If you had done it my way in Iraq, you wouldn't have had the problems with the insurgents that you had. Some experts still believe that militarily, America lost that war. It was even worse planned than the Vietnam war.
As for the '90s, you are right and Bill Clinton simply ruined the US military. He could've made so powerful that absolutely no one would've had the balls to be anti-American like many people are today only because they can.
@StiviGun1 The American Government and Military lost Iraq by alienating whole swaths of the population and then arresting them by placing them into concentration camps. Where, if they were not opposed to the occupation before imprisonment, were after. And while in prison had all the time they needed to organize the resistance once they got out. That is how America lost Iraq.
As for ruining the US military. I'm afraid you live in a fantasy world and I can't take what you say seriously anymore.
@AndrewTubbiolo So you're saying that US put innocent people in prison, in Iraq?
As for the US military being ruined by Clinton, even Robert Gates said this. He said that the worst periods for the US military was during the '70s and the late '90s. And he was right. The budget for defense was cut severely. A lot of powerful weapons systems could've been developed during the '90s and also, the transformation that Bush adm started for the army could've been started during the '90s and now, it
@AndrewTubbiolo it would've been complete. It's just that Bill Clinton was the typical anti-American democrat who didn't give a fuck on the military. Just an example, during his presidency, the Abrams tanks production line was cut. That tank should've been kept in production so more developed versions could've been built. Version like the CATTB, which had a new engine, a 140 mm gun, modular armor an autoloader and other stuff.
@AndrewTubbiolo Here, you got it all wrong. Those insurgents were not "innocent people" that you put in concentration camps... (Where were those BTW?). Those insurgents were islamic extremists and fanatics that hated America long before its invaded Iraq. Those insurgents should've been foreseen before the war and tactics and strategies to counter them should've been implemented. But Bush and the morons around him didn't think about anything. They simply went ahead with a badly planned invasion
@AndrewTubbiolo without thinking at the consequences. A massive intelligence operation should've been conducted before the war to find out everything about a possible insurgency (which the generals warmed about but no one listened to them) and counter it. The insurgency should've been destroyed even before it started. But the fact is that Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld planned this invasion like monkeys. And the result was that they embarrassed America and started an anti-American feeling
@StiviGun1 Russia faces the same problems American companies face in China. A paying customer today in exchange for a competitor tomorrow. The Russians play the game like you do. They look at the world as if they were the only people on the Earth who should feel secure. Like you they derive their sense of security by compromising the feeling of security of others. To view how this works out over time look at US relations and the rest of Europe vs Russias relations with the same people.
God Bless Russian nuclear stockpile.
Some models of this missile carry 2 Thermonuclear bombs equal to 25 Mt
God Bless Russian nuclear stockpile.
aviomaster 5 days ago
its good piece of ,ilittery hardware, but can spend the money on something more important than a rocket which meant to kill people
afgviruse 2 months ago
To big and to slow; this is a complete waste of time and money. This is propaganda for the Russian masses.
PastorBrownSteve 2 months ago
@PastorBrownSteve too big and slow? you sure about that
gluepot66 2 months ago
@PastorBrownSteve too slow?its speed is 7.9km/s or 7900m/s or 28,440 km/hr.thts the fastest ever faster than trident, peacekeeper, minuteman.........tht is slow????...its mod 6 variations have 16,000km range thts the highest ever by a icbm.............thts why even the western media, nato naming called it SATAN
mrvishal1000 1 month ago
INSTEAD OF MAKING MISSILE RUSSIA NEED TO PLANT FOOD
TheJetty2007 2 months ago
GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THE US FOREVER
TheJetty2007 2 months ago
NEVER WILL DESTROY THE US NO MATTER WHAT YOU MAKE
TheJetty2007 2 months ago
anyone with a missile named "SATAN" has got to be the bad guy.
temujin0911 2 months ago
@temujin0911 Russians didn't name it SATAN the western media did
Pasashok 2 months ago
It's dick flying to Fuck USA
negatiff54 5 months ago
@negatiff54 yep, please dont send to australia. I hate americans too.
stdavross666 4 months ago
@stdavross666 Hay Jack wagon go back to screwing your Johnnie jump-ups. Geeez you people are so stupid, I sure can tell your a country of criminals.
jcsftwre 2 months ago
@jcsftwre "Jack wagon" and "Johnnie jump-ups" I think your confused with another country fuckstick. Name a country that starts with A? ummm.. fuck off dildo.
stdavross666 2 months ago
It Looks like a dick
when you get boner in it?
100kidane 5 months ago
GOD Bless Russian nuclear stockpile amazing SCIENCE.
aviomaster 6 months ago
That awkward moment when the rocket doesnt fire up after being shot out of the ground
CrazyPotatos 6 months ago
@CrazyPotatos that is how it is designed. It's driven out of the silo by a gas piston.. then the propellent takes over. Same as the US Peacemaker. ...called a cold launch
bohemiansmile 6 months ago
@bohemiansmile i realize that , i made a joke about it not firing
CrazyPotatos 6 months ago
fucking ICBMs... how do they work ? :-D
kerimil 7 months ago
after the separation of the first stage it aquire tremendous acceleration and nothing can stop it until each of the ten 150 kt warhead impact the target,most deadly weapon ever made... I LOVE RUSSIA
cogreza1 7 months ago
this is the best of the best missiles in the worl, thats why its name is Satan
cogreza1 7 months ago
Wtf is that
JoHnRyD3R 8 months ago
AWSOME! I want to see it hit something! IN REAL LIFE!! LOL
mwizard216 8 months ago
on its way to the white house
glennirish 9 months ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
where was it going
MegaZombieland1234 11 months ago
biggest dildo shaped lighter going
emilyarscott92 1 year ago
fucken weak>!
empra01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What do you mean so much for START. We traded Minuteman and Peacekeeper to retire this beast. They're almost all gone and due for final retirement in about 5 years. I'd say START worked just fine. Nice writeup, the R-36 will always be the quintessential nuclear warfighting machine in my view. A horrible yet beautiful missile by any measure.
TalksWithDirt 1 year ago
@TalksWithDirt minuteman and peacekeeper are not enough, itś must traded with a bonus of some billions US dollar with many bussiness contract approvals... 1 or 2 launch of SS-18 SATAN are enough to demolished even large countries. (1 SATAN contain 10 warhead, then it only takes 6 SATANS at most to destroyed all states in US)
sambaboy81 9 months ago
@sambaboy81 Well consider this. The USSR, which was really a phase in the saga of the Russian empire collapsed under economic forces alone. The USA has driven itself bankrupt after 9/11. I really doubt Russia or the USA can survive even one nuclear attack in one city. Even one atomic bomb detonated in either of our countries would probably drive us to self destruction.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@TalksWithDirt Nobody retired the Minuteman missile. The Minuteman is the US' land based ICBM, the US has 450 of them. And even though this "beast" will be retired, it will be replaced by the RS-24, which is just as capable.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 My comment is out of view, but I'll bet I said the Minuteman II. You are correct Minuteman III will remain on duty well into the future. RS-24 is really just a road mobile Peacekeeper class missile. Similar propellant mass, similar dry mass, similar warhead load. The R-36 had twice the lofting power of the RS-24 or Peacekeeper. Amazingly the Soviets only put enough warheads on the R-36 to engage the Minuteman silos. They stopped when they had enough. With room to grow if need be.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo I don't think the Minuteman II was retired in exchange for the SS-18. It was retired as part of the reduction in the US' arsenal treaty.
As for the RS-24, it replaces the SS-18 and it can carry 10 550 kt warheads, just like the SS-18. Little is known about its throw weigh, but since it replaces the SS-18, it's gotta have similar performances. And the RS-24 will be silo based BTW, not mobile platform based.
And BTW, responding g to missiles with treaties is something only a pussy
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Both Russia and the US reduced their arsenals. It was very much tit for tat. ICBM performance follows the performance of any rocket. It's a function of structure mass, payload mass, propellant mass and the energy density of the propellant. RS-25 and peacekeeper have similar total masses, and at best the Russians might have 10% less structure mass than the Peacekeeper did. And the energy density of the two systems fuels are the same. Thus the payloads are similar.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, the Russian say that the RS-24 can carry 10 550KT warheads, just like the current R-36M2 missile. They also say it can execute evasive maneuvers that would make it impervious to missile defense systems. So it seems pretty dangerous to me.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo would do. The biggest mistake however, was that they replaced the heavy Titan II with the light Minuteman. There could've been made more advanced and powerful Titan II variants that would've matched or exceed the SS-18's capabilities. But your sissy politicians ruined that. And then the soviets gained the advantage that they still have until this day.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Titan II and RS-36 were similar class vehicles. R-36 had twice the thrust and a much more advanced structure, prop management system and tankage pressurization. Don't worry about the size of the arsenals or the throw weights. We can bounce each others rubble plenty good enough. A city, airfiend, naval port what have you us just as destroyed with one as it is with 4 or 5. They're just as dead, you're just as dead. Even a real man dies when he takes a thermal neutron flash.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, I still believe that better, more advanced and more powerful Titan II variants or Titan II based missiles should've been built. The US would've had a much more powerful arsenal and that would've gained the Russians' respect. Today, the Russians know they have a more powerful nuclear arsenal and that gives them a sense of power and security that they shouldn't have. Too bad Kennedy didn't know what to do with them when they started the Cuban missile crisis.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Power is warheads delivered on target. Trident II D5 does plenty of destruction with 14 warheads per missile. You want to Russians to feel secure. You don't want them occupying Eastern Europe again in order to placate their sense of insecurity. If you don't like living under the cover of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces try looking down the barrel of the meat grinder that was supposed to happen between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. You've got it good kid.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, personally, I think the Russians could've been intimidated and that's how you should've dealt with them. Saying that you have to make them feel secure out of fear of not being attacked by them is laughable to me... This is the voice of fear. A nuclear war would've never started, the Russians would've never made any suicidal move. The US politicians should've acted much more aggressively against them, even from early '50s, to put them in their place. Instead, they just let
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 At what cost? Europe smashed again? Why do that when a good fraction of the Eastern Europeans wanted to try communism? Heck the Western Europeans did too. Why not wait 40 years and let the Russians bleed themselves dry. Think of all the lives saved, and the lines of NATO held. And if you don't think that was not policy look up a man called George Keannan. Read his article in "Foreign Affairs" from the late 40's. The general direction was laid out very early on.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo the bullies and the aggressors go ballsier and more powerful. Saying that you had to back down out of fear of not being afraid is just outrageous to me. It must be the enemy who should feel this, not you. And the Russians could've been made to feel this with the right attitude used against them, in specially during the '50 and early 60s when the US had the nuclear advantage over them,
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 They did feel it. And they put 65 armored rifle and heavy armored divisions in Eastern Europe poised to push into the West. There was no avoiding the Cold War. It was going to happen. Playing it your way would have required the obliteration of much of Europe (again) and the obliteration of Russia. Why all the bloodshed when the outcome we wanted most came about just by waiting them out?
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, that's the thing. If you had been more aggressive, I don't think the Russians would've started anything. This is just the impression they gave which was actually their goal with the missile crisis. They wanted to scare you, to intimidate you. And they succeeded. I don't think Europe would've been smashed again, I think the Russians could've been made to back the fuck down. Anyway, the best solution would've been to just listen to Patton and nuke Russia right after the end
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo of the WW2 when they had no nuclear weapons. That would've put an end to many things, including all the atrocities the communists committed in Eastern Europe.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 They put massive conventional forces in Eastern Europe in order to ravage Europe if the US did what you propose. That's why they build up the WP during the 50's. I'm sorry. I think it was better to let the Europeans play with Communism, and avoid killing 100's of millions of people and smashing European cities again. Was Eastern Europe left out? Sure, but there are limits to American and allied power.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo "Sure, but there are limits to American and allied power". So you're practically saying that you were weaker than them? I find this hard to believe. Yeah, they put massive forces in Eastern Europe. Your response should've been the same: put massive forces in Western Europe. US had the economic power to develop a much more powerful military than the USSR. The only thing that prevented it from doing this was your sissy politicians who were afraid of the soviets.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 No I'm not saying we were weaker. I'm saying there are limits. Allied power allowed us to take and hold Western Europe. It allowed us to surround the USSR with military bases and hold the seas. Soviet power was unable to counter or stop this. Soviet power was able to take and hold the Warsaw Pact nations. Allied power was unable to prevent this. It's a spectrum, not a switch. Not overplaying your hand is critical in avoiding the fate of the USSR.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo I don't think the US would've had the USSR's fate and I think the US had the capability to overplay it much more than it did. The fact is the US didn't use its entire potential and you let the soviets intimidate and bully you. The fact that many very powerful weapons systems were rejected out of fear that the Russians would've found out about the and attack first is something that makes me laugh. You were afraid of them up to the point that this affected your potential. This
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo never happened to them though. They felt they had the right to dominate you militarily and they did it. While you were afraid of them. That's what I'm talking about. You let yourselves being intimidated an bullied. Even during a period when you had the upper hand...
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo You say that they did feel it and they reacted in force. Well then that's exactly what you should've done. Mass large numbers of tanks and artillery at the border of the West and East Berlin. The problem is you only let them think you're weak. And that's exactly why they had the balls to start the missile crisis. BTW, destroying Russia wouldn't have been a bad thing, on the contrary.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
Respond to this video... When you consider that the Russians still don't send out regular SSBN patrols the US has quite an edge in the ability to deal a crippling first strike against the Russians. Also consider NATO is right on their front door. Russia has no real allies. To them the world looks a bit much like the 1930's for their taste. They just want everyone in Europe to know there are limits and that Russia still has a stick to make it hurt. It's their version of diplomacy.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, the SSBNs thing will soon change. The new Borei class will enter service and it will be armed with the Bulava missile, which is more capable than the Trident II. By 2020 Russia will have at least the same capability as you to deliver a crippling first strike.
As for Russia having no real enemies, don't be so sure that the Chinese won't back them up, just to see you destroyed in case a war would erupt.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 The Bori is 10 years over due. It may still not work. Probably still does not work since the Russians are not blaring at the top of their TV's that it is. And Bulava has a long way to go yet. I'm betting the Norwegians and Sweds will have a few more high altitude propellant dumps to enjoy. There was a major Bulava failure again earlier this year if memory serves. The project was halted then re-started last month.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, Borei is overdue because of the precarious economical situation in Russia in the 1990s. Otherwise, it would've been finished much earlier. But it will be more silent than the Ohio and that's very important.
As for Bulava, that missile is very complex and that's why it had so many failures. But once its bugs will be sorted out, it will be invincible. It will penetrate any missile defense system. Just like the RS-24.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 China is no ally. The 120 Million Russians are suffering a severe illegal immigration wave from 1.2 thousand million Chinese who want Siberia for themselves. The reality will be Russia joins NATO and Abrams tanks will help hold the line against the Chinese at Lake Biakal. The Russians know where their real interests lie. They're just posturing for position.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo Putin would contradict you. He said many times that Russia is much closer to China than it is to the West. Don't forget that China is also the most important customer for the Russian weapons. And they both consider America their main enemy. They may have some differences between them, but they will put them aside if they're gonna have to take you on. They both consider the US their primary enemy.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Russia faces the same problems American companies face in China. A paying customer today in exchange for a competitor tomorrow. The Russians play the game like you do. They look at the world as if they were the only people on the Earth who should feel secure. Like you they derive their sense of security by compromising the feeling of security of others. To view how this works out over time look at US relations and the rest of Europe vs Russias relations with the same people.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo That's right. In order to feel safe, the Russians feel that they need to make others feel unsafe. They're bullies. And with bullies, you need to speak on their language. Otherwise, they will grow ballsier and stronger. And this is exactly how your politicians let Russia become. And BTW, the US doesn't have such great relations with Europe anymore, most of the Europeans are anti-American. Germany being the most predominant who sold the EU countries for good relations with Russia.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 What should we have done? Russia is coming more to the fore because of oil wealth. There is nothing we can do about that other than finding an oil alternative. And just how did we "let the Germans down"? NATO will come together and fly apart depending on the times. It's the problem with any alliance. Russia has it easier as they only have to serve one sent of perceived interests. Not to mention, if you have not been watching the past decade there are severe limits to military power.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo I didn't say you let the Germans down, I said that the German people has become to be anti-American.
As for what you should have done, I told you, you should've showed the Russians that they can't have it their way. One way to do this, was to build more powerful weapons than them, not to be afraid to do so.
Yeah, I know that in the last decade there's been a limitation to military power and that's BULLSHIT. In specially when China and Russia are growing their military spending
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 The German people are mad at the US because 1) We pushed for total surrender and allowed their country to be split. 2) Many West Germans were believing communists as a recoil against fascism. 3) Regardless how friendly American occupation was, it was still occupation, and they knew it. 4) NATO was going to hold the line in their country, they knew they would pay the price for absorbing a WP invasion. 5) They feared the US would not sacrifice Chicago for Frankfurt.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo Well, I would say the Germans are right on all accounts then. The most important to me is the fact that you gave up at East Berlin so easily. That's exactly what I'm saying. You should've been much more aggressive with the Russians. Acting out of fear of not starting new war only made them stronger. They sensed this weakness and they exploited it BIG TIME. Like I said, letting a bully feeling secure and powerful is the worst idea and it will not give you safety nor peace.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Well, the Germans did invade all of Europe and killed an awful lot of Russians. I don't feel much sympathy for the Germans. The Poles yes. They got the full shaft of the 20th Century. No doubting that. The rest of Eastern Europe is also tragic. Look things now are much different. And Europe is for the most part doing quite well. If the Russians come out the play we have a much better starting position.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo O don't know why, but something tells me that if the Russians come out the play, US couldn't rely on Germany, Italy or France.
As for the Germans who killed a lot of Russians, in my opinion, they didn't kill enough of them. You should've let them exterminate the Russians.
As for the East Berlin and Eastern Europe, that was a matter of principle. It was about not letting yourselves being intimidated. You should've put the Russians in their place. Kennedy was an idiot. If he had
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Yes I'd agree we can't rely on France until the last minute. We both know that the only thing you can rely on with Italy is that you cannot rely on them. It's critical that Germany, Poland, Hungary, Scandinavia, The Baltic states The Netherlands, Belgium, and England hold. I think, if pressed, they will with the US giving what it can.
As for exterminating the Russians ... well, there's a fine place for you in the infantry where you'll get to make your wishes come true.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo I don't think Hungary will hold it either. The Baltic States maybe and Scandinavia. The UK for sure.
As for me in the infantry, that's not the way to do that. The soldiers don't have the power to do that, only the politicians. Which in your case were nothing but sissies. That's the truth. USSR and communism could've been eradicated right after WW2 ended, but you didn't do it. And that led to you living in fear for almost a half a century. And you also let the East European
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo peoples being oppressed. The reality is that you really could've done something about it, but your politicians were too sissies to act.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo occupied Cuba properly in 1961, then the Russians wouldn't have had any place to put their missiles on and start the missile crisis. But he had to be a pathetic sissy liberal. In my opinion, he miss managed the Cuban missile crisis too.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
You are correct the Germans do take their stance with some grounding in reality. But it was a very overbearing reality. Some of their points were right, some wrong. In the end, an awful lot of Americans would have died defending the Germans. And we now know American cities were going to take a huge beating on behalf of Europe. It would have been an ugly occasion for all with plenty of suffering and bloodshed to go around.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo You continuously say that a nuclear war would've started. That would've been suicidal for the Russians, they knew this very well and they would've never engaged in such a war. They only made you believe they would. The American cities wouldn't have taken anything, the Russians simply didn't have the capabilities to attack your cities during the '50s and the '60s. But you had, in specially at the beginning of the '60s. For instance, at the beginning of the Cuban missile crisis,
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo you had over 200 land based ICBMs and a large number of SLBMs, plus the IRBM in Europe. The Russians only had 27 more primitive ICBMs with only 10 launching sites for them and their subs at the time had to surface to launch their missiles which made them practically sitting targets for the American bombers. Kennedy was a pussy who didn't know how to use his enormous assets. The Russians should've been payed a harsh lesson then, but instead they got out of that situation with the
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo sense of power and security. Letting them feel this way was a BIG MISTAKE.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo every year. The US has become to neglect its military, and just like the European countries who made the same mistake after WW2, this may make you regret it.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 The US is broke because we adopted your approach to the Arabs after 9/11. We've neglected our military because we are running it into the ground doing operations instead of maintaing and building new systems. Will this destabilize the world? Yes it will. But we already made the poor decisions and have yet to reverse them. Sorry, but you can't force something like an economy. It's best to take the economic hit, recover, and come out the other side better than you started.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo The US is broke because of poor economic strategies in the last decade, not because you took my approach with those towel heads. In fact, you didn't take my approach with them. The war in Iraq was the worst planned ever. And that's why the war went on like it did. You didn't use your brains at all.
As for the military, I know that now it's not the time to push things. That time was during the '90s when America had a strong economy and Russia and China were much weak.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Yeah I'd say we did Iraq your way. We smashed the Iraqi military. Smashed their government. Took entire neighborhoods prisoner. Showed the rich Iraqi's that they were scum. Shut down Iraqi heavy industry. We showed them who was boss.
As for the 90's America was busy making a killing selling its industrial sector to the Chinese government.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo No, you didn't do it my way in Iraq. If you had done it my way in Iraq, you wouldn't have had the problems with the insurgents that you had. Some experts still believe that militarily, America lost that war. It was even worse planned than the Vietnam war.
As for the '90s, you are right and Bill Clinton simply ruined the US military. He could've made so powerful that absolutely no one would've had the balls to be anti-American like many people are today only because they can.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 The American Government and Military lost Iraq by alienating whole swaths of the population and then arresting them by placing them into concentration camps. Where, if they were not opposed to the occupation before imprisonment, were after. And while in prison had all the time they needed to organize the resistance once they got out. That is how America lost Iraq.
As for ruining the US military. I'm afraid you live in a fantasy world and I can't take what you say seriously anymore.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo So you're saying that US put innocent people in prison, in Iraq?
As for the US military being ruined by Clinton, even Robert Gates said this. He said that the worst periods for the US military was during the '70s and the late '90s. And he was right. The budget for defense was cut severely. A lot of powerful weapons systems could've been developed during the '90s and also, the transformation that Bush adm started for the army could've been started during the '90s and now, it
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo it would've been complete. It's just that Bill Clinton was the typical anti-American democrat who didn't give a fuck on the military. Just an example, during his presidency, the Abrams tanks production line was cut. That tank should've been kept in production so more developed versions could've been built. Version like the CATTB, which had a new engine, a 140 mm gun, modular armor an autoloader and other stuff.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo Here, you got it all wrong. Those insurgents were not "innocent people" that you put in concentration camps... (Where were those BTW?). Those insurgents were islamic extremists and fanatics that hated America long before its invaded Iraq. Those insurgents should've been foreseen before the war and tactics and strategies to counter them should've been implemented. But Bush and the morons around him didn't think about anything. They simply went ahead with a badly planned invasion
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo without thinking at the consequences. A massive intelligence operation should've been conducted before the war to find out everything about a possible insurgency (which the generals warmed about but no one listened to them) and counter it. The insurgency should've been destroyed even before it started. But the fact is that Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld planned this invasion like monkeys. And the result was that they embarrassed America and started an anti-American feeling
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@AndrewTubbiolo all around the world.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Russia faces the same problems American companies face in China. A paying customer today in exchange for a competitor tomorrow. The Russians play the game like you do. They look at the world as if they were the only people on the Earth who should feel secure. Like you they derive their sense of security by compromising the feeling of security of others. To view how this works out over time look at US relations and the rest of Europe vs Russias relations with the same people.
AndrewTubbiolo 7 months ago