New Nuclear Missiles Launched Friday!!!!!!

[Mad Man]

Russia successfully tested on Friday its two new Bulava intercontinental missiles, which experienced several failures in the past.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-test-fires-two-nuclear-missiles-184415286.html

Should China be worried that Russia is developing new long range ballistic missiles? For some reason I thought development of new ICBMs were banned in the 90's, but apparently I was wrong. What sort of ramifications do you think will come of this seemingly new arms race? Oh and one more thing


Link to video.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Please read the OT Additional Rules thread, specifically rule 6b, and PM me a replacement OP for this to be reopened.

Moderator Action: And reopened.

 

[MantaRevan]

We have nukes that could destroy the world several times over, and so do they. This worries me, because the act of building more seems a little aggressive.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

China ? They're next door neighbours. Why should they be worried about new ICBMs ?
Why should anyone be particularly worried for that matter ?
The only negative I have to say is that Russia has many, much better uses for the money that went into the development of new ICBMs.

 

[timtofly]

They are probably just making sure they can reach South America instead of failing and only hitting the middle east.

 

[Ayn Rand]

We have nukes that could destroy the world several times over, and so do they. This worries me, because the act of building more seems a little aggressive.

It's open to debate whether there are enough nuclear weapons in the World to destroy it.

Also, the nuclear weapons have to be delivered if they are to do their good work. There are all sorts of details that need to be considered - such as concealment and protection before launch, technical reliability, expense of maintenance, rapidity of launch, evading counter-measures and so on.


I don't think China needs to be worried by this development, or anyone else. The Russians could adopt far more serious nuclear capabilities if they were serious.

 

[Winner]

China ? They're next door neighbours. Why should they be worried about new ICBMs ?
Why should anyone be particularly worried for that matter ?
The only negative I have to say is that Russia has many, much better uses for the money that went into the development of new ICBMs.

IIRC Bulava is a SLBM.

I totally agree with the last sentence though.

We have nukes that could destroy the world several times over, and so do they. This worries me, because the act of building more seems a little aggressive.

Don't take what follows personally, I don't mean to attack you.

But I am allergic to this claim. It's rubbish - what does "destroying the world" mean? We surely don't have nukes strong enough to blow Earth to pieces, we don't have enough nukes to even wipe out all humanity. The present day arsenals are probably big enough just to cause a collapse of industrial civilization and a high-degree of short-term environmental damage in the worst hit countries.

---

In the light of this, I don't care what the Russians build instead of hospitals, schools, roads, research centres, and other useful things that could actually help them become something else than an eastern backwater that's heading down the road to perdition.

 

[red_elk]

For some reason I thought development of new ICBMs were banned in the 90's, but apparently I was wrong.

Bulava is an SLBM, designed for using in a new Borei class submarines. It had several test failures in previous years, but in 2011 tests were finally successful.

The only negative I have to say is that Russia has many, much better uses for the money that went into the development of new ICBMs.

The thing is that military industry is one of a few competitive and advanced hi-tech industries which were not completely destroyed after collapse of the USSR. Closing such projects (and some others, such as space industry) will mean that Russia will gradually become nothing more than oil-pumping appendix for world economy. Of course we should develop in new directions too, but IMO we should not just throw away all the experience of previous years. And yes, I think that Russia also needs modern army, including strategic nuclear forces.

Here is pretty good video of test launch of "Topol" ICBM which happened a few weeks ago.

Link to video.

 

[GoodGame]

In a way all of the oil-pumping countries are backed by nuclear missiles.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The thing is that military industry is one of a few competitive and advanced hi-tech industries which were not completely destroyed after collapse of the USSR. Closing such projects (and some others, such as space industry) will mean that Russia will gradually become nothing more than oil-pumping appendix for world economy. Of course we should develop in new directions too, but IMO we should not just throw away all the experience of previous years. And yes, I think that Russia also needs modern army, including strategic nuclear forces.

That might be true, but developing missiles that are designed to carry nuclear warheads still seems wasteful. Tanks, aircraft, ships, guns can be exported without many complaints, it's a bit more difficult with ballistic missiles. The potential market just isn't that large. Sure, they can sell those to Iran, but it will cost them credibility and political capital in the rest of the world.
Even if Russia desperately wants to spend the money on new weapons instead of education or healthcare, they'd be better off developing new conventional weapons.

 

[Ayn Rand]

That might be true, but developing missiles that are designed to carry nuclear warheads still seems wasteful. Tanks, aircraft, ships, guns can be exported without many complaints, it's a bit more difficult with ballistic missiles. The potential market just isn't that large. Sure, they can sell those to Iran, but it will cost them credibility and political capital in the rest of the world.
Even if Russia desperately wants to spend the money on new weapons instead of education or healthcare, they'd be better off developing new conventional weapons.

That would be true if nuclear weapons were a static technology that never changed, but existing weapon systems are constantly being outdated by new technologies and new missile have to be developed to keep the deterrent updated and credible.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Because the ones that exist now are so easily intercepted ? Because there is a missile defense system that can cope with MIRVs ?
I'm not convinced.

 

[Jouzou]

I've had the impression that Russia and China have good diplomatic relationships. Is this not the case? I have not been following world news very actively, so it is well possible that I've missed something. But even if the relations were tense, remember that China has nukes as well. This should - at least in theory - discourage other nations from attacking them.

Personally, I think it's regrettable that more nuclear weapons are being manufactured, but I'm trying to maintain an optimistic viewpoint: The Soviet Union never iniated a nuclear war, so why would today's Russia?

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

At this point in time, would any of Russia's missiles even WORK, considering they just recently suffered a launch failure in their Space Program? How many of their nukes, if launched, would actually reach their target instead of exploding on the launch pad?

It might be useful to mention the actual state of their equipment before assuming they'd all reach their targets successfully.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Because the ones that exist now are so easily intercepted ? Because there is a missile defense system that can cope with MIRVs ?
I'm not convinced.

There are far more considerations than just these two factors. A wide range of weapons with different properties and launch platforms is necessary to maintain an effective deterrent.

 

[Winner]

At this point in time, would any of Russia's missiles even WORK, considering they just recently suffered a launch failure in their Space Program? How many of their nukes, if launched, would actually reach their target instead of exploding on the launch pad?

I find this American sneering at the quality of the Russian space programme pretty lame, to be honest. How many people did the Russians lose in the last 30 years? How many did Americans lose? When you find out, maybe you'll stop laughing.

Soyuz has suffered two failures recently, but otherwise it's a very reliable rocket. It's just launched so much more often than its American counterparts that inevitably there will be failures.

 

[red_elk]

That might be true, but developing missiles that are designed to carry nuclear warheads still seems wasteful. Tanks, aircraft, ships, guns can be exported without many complaints, it's a bit more difficult with ballistic missiles. The potential market just isn't that large. Sure, they can sell those to Iran, but it will cost them credibility and political capital in the rest of the world.
Even if Russia desperately wants to spend the money on new weapons instead of education or healthcare, they'd be better off developing new conventional weapons.

This is the question of strategic development and military doctrine. Russia's current goals is to retain its huge territory and natural resources. It doesn't need to prioritize development of projection capabilities or try to compete with China in conventional forces (because soon it will be pretty much impossible). Also, Russia wants to keep its current status of great power and independence in international affairs. The simplest and cheapest way of doing all this is to have modern and reliable strategic nuclear forces. Conventional weapons are not being neglected - IIRC, Russia is the second arms seller in the world.

Selling modern military technologies, especially nuclear and missile technologies, to Iran is not an option, since it is not in Russian interests to arm neighboring Islamic state.

 

[Patroklos]

Missiles get old and have useful lifespans. Even if you are maintaining or reducing your force levels, what you do maintain has to be serviced and replaced on a schedule.

Now whether Russia had to go and develop two wholly new missile systems is debatable. They could have refurbished/modernized old designs like the US died recently.