Re: A letter that I lifted from.....

martin wrote:
On Jun 25, 11:23 am, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
martin wrote:
On Jun 25, 10:13 am, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
vello wrote:
On Jun 24, 9:48 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
vello wrote:
On 24 juuni, 13:11, MTRP™ <Mir.Topol...@xxxxxx> wrote:
vello wrote:
MTRP™ wrote:
vello wrote:
Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
Henry Alminas wrote:
A letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal:
[flush]
We want no more Yaltas
Bella Litak
Stamford, Conn.
The letter and Henry are full of crap. Wow, what a surprise!
Chuck Schumer is a cold blooded realist besides he doesn't suggest in
any way "to sell" anybody's interests or security.
Are you sure, Vladimir? Read again: " The antimissile system
strengthens the relationship between Eastern Europe and NATO,
with real troops and equipment on the ground. It mocks Mr. Putin's
dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe."
By me, there is some point for East Europeans to be avare?
It makes 0 sense to quote provincial "Balkan" crap. The point is
global picture. Russian military regards it as reverse Cuban crisis
and not as antimissile system (still a sci fi delusion). Actually it's
more dangerous than then back in the 60s because Russia has no decent
strategic early warning system anymore (even before Ukraine goes to
NATO). Plus former US - SU relations used to be very careful and
trustful on the "highest" level, that's why Cold War remained cold.
Such trustful relations between USA and Russia don't exist anymore.
These two facts could trigger Russian automatic "preemptive" nuclear
response to any error message originating from suspicious US bases
right aroud the corner. Because there will be no time left for
"highest" verification. The world could slip into computer game beyond
human control ... actually Russian nuclear roulette. This danger is
real in 100%.
Well, russia don't have a time to think if some missile will start
from Polish base - but Russia do knows what missiles are there - AA
missiles are of no harm to any country. It's not a military but
political case.
LOL. Russian (and other) military knows that AA missiles don't exist
and US gov is a bunch of liars. And that Eastern clowns will have
nothing to say about US bases on their soil (once they're installed).
And that nonexistent AA missiles can be replaced by existing US anti-
silo nuclear missiles and increase temptation to start and win
blitzkrieg (against Russia, of course, for nobody on earth really
believes in US official Iran-NK tales) à la Israel's 6-day war. The
rest is computer game ... if you trust russkie computers then good
luck (I'd say good night). Some time ago I reposted Russian top
Clausewitz who presented this scenario.- Peida kommenteeritud tekst -
- Näita kommenteeritud teksti -
Tell to your Clausewitz that modern short and medium range nukes don't
need bases to be launced, they start from mobile platform from any
suburb backyard. So AA base in Poland gives nothing in terms of
nuclear strike.
That is all correct - theoretically: as you know under the medium range
missile zero treaty there are no such weapons in Euro zone. So AA base
in Poland (which will never happen) would have changed the situation
dramatically.
VM.-
AA missiles are not medium range nukes so what connection Polish base
would have to nukes and what would it change, even dramatically?
A half an hour time to change warhead and flight program.
That's all what is required to make a full blown medium range nuke from
AA missile.
No, a nuclear warhead is significantly heavier than an AA warhead, so
the solid rocket motor and flight control surfaces for an AA missile
would be significantly under powered and dimensioned for use with a
nuclear warhead.
Now we are in the rocket science. OK.
As a matter of fact one always can pick up AA configuration to meet
requirements of warhead replacement.
Secondly, at least as far as I know, for reasons unknown, the term
"motor" is not used while speaking about rockets - it is always "engine".

VM.

Also, you can't throttle back solid rocket motors, so if you design
one to launch a nuclear warhead, the motor would be too powerful for
an AA warhead.

Cruise missiles have jet engines which can be throttled, thus it is
easier to change warheads.

I suppose one could argue making the AA warhead the same weight as a
nuclear warhead, but that would compromise the AA mission, since it
would add to momentum and thus make it less agile for mid course
corrections if it is to intercept an incoming missile traveling at
Mach 4.

Martin

AA missiles is too big topic to go there. One thing is clear: it is easy to mount a nuke on such a supercharged missile as AA.

Nobody in Russian Strategic Forces will take any other considerations. That is an area of national security where nobody takes any chances.

Anyway it's all theoretical discussion anyway. As I said to Vello it is a money milking system not anti missile.

VM.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Russia seeks new missiles due to U.S. shield plans
    ... missile system in Europe, Interfax news agency quoted a top Russian ... would install Iskander short-range missile systems near the Polish ... You do realize that the idea behind the warhead is to hit something, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: There is a news channel in the U.S.....
    ... I haven't heard any Russian metal that stands out. ... Topol will be free of charge. ... The Topol SS 27 is the fastest missile ever ... can be taken down by detonating a nuclear warhead from as far as 10 ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Russkie Super Weapon
    ... One russian guy was positively gloating to another about some new ... "Russia's SS-27 Makes Bush's Missile Defense A Fantasy ... launch of a ballistic missile called the Topol RS 12 at 8:10 pm Moscow ... The high thrust-to-weight ratio allows the warhead to ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program
    ... Without the ability to destroy incoming missiles, the missiles will hit their target. ... If that missile carries a nuclear warhead, whereever it lands it will most likely detonate. ... So, the question is, is it better to be able to destroy some or all of them or knock them off course, or is it better to have no way to stop them. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • I for one welcome our alien overlords:
    ... Norway, where this mysterious light display baffled residents yesterday. ... The Bulava missile was test-fired from the Dmitry Donskoi submarine in the ... This emerged despite earlier reports denying a missile launch yesterday. ... Even early today there was no formal confirmation from the Russian Defence ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)