Russian Federation vs USA - ICBMs. Who has the edge?
-
As above, in ICBMs inventory technology, know how and funding, who has the edge?
I suppose except perhaps funding, the edge goes to Russian Federation.
Then again I doubt how many "kids" in this forum have knowledge of world affairs, they're more likely to be cocooned into seclusion in their cozy world of ignorance. -
24 minutes ETA from launch till detonation on target anywhere on the planet ICBM types
Fastest is 6 minutes ETA from launch to target IRBM types
ICBM each at least contain 10 one megaton warheads -
Russia has the edge because they have a functional missile defence system over Moscow and the US doesn't have an operational defence system yet.
-
Re-entering the atmosphere at super sonic speed it's almost impossible to shoot the warheads down accurately
Only need 1 nation to launch it's ICBMs then the rest will launch theirs to the preset targets
So how to the rest of the nuclear armed nations know when should they fire their nuclear weapons? By the spy satellites when they detected a launch
-
Edge doe not stop at ICBM only, Yanks are still the evilest with multiple, all dimension nuke delivery ability. Their Ohio Class SSBN is super quiet and cruises silently everywhere and can launch global striking to any given point with trident SLBM. Submarines are the most survivable platform of all the nuke delivering vehicles. Those SSBNs are protected by the world largest SSN fleet and CVGs
They maintain the only stealth bomber fleet in the world . the B-2 can sneak into your doorway without notification till the nuke is delivered faraway.
Even their ICBMs are not bad at all, Yanks are still the 1st one on the earth to feature the Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle ( MRV) in ballistic Missiles, when they revealed such ability in their Pershing II BM in 1970s-1980s. the BMs with MRV is impossible to be intercepted within atmosphere. -
You arent that better than these "kids"...Originally posted by protonhybrid:I suppose except perhaps funding, the edge goes to Russian Federation.
Then again I doubt how many "kids" in this forum have knowledge of world affairs, they're more likely to be cocooned into seclusion in their cozy world of ignorance. -
i think frankly this is at least one department where russian federation has a clear edge over usa despite whatever usa's military propaganda machine may be churning out.
however economy wise usa still leads and being a successor to the british empire and commonwealth, usa has greater 'soft power' on a global scale. that is interms of cultural influence, movies, entertainment, music, etc -
What "edge" are you talking about?
Both nations have enough nuclear weapons that in a total nuclear exchange nobody wins in the end, so what if you have more or better nukes?
It's like two men having rifles at point blank range aimed at each other heads, at that range it does not really matter if you have a .22 or .50cal. Any "edge" is simply technical and does not really play out into pratical matters.
Want to discuss at least use common sense lah. -
while your MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario MAY appear logical at first sight, it has several shortcomings. how do you explain that USA for instance would want to deploy radar stations and interceptors in poland/czech republic. but russian fed. not wanting to do the same in cuba or venezuela or mexico (hypothetically).
and no, EVEN in your case, IF you can run away to greater distance, the man with better weaponry, with greater range and accuracy has a better chance of winning. -
and no, IN THIS CASE this is the way it is. Neither side will win if there is a full, all out nuclear exchange... the fact that you are even trying to argue otherwise is actually quite laughable. There are more then enough nukes on both sides to overwhelm any defences they have on either side.Originally posted by protonhybrid:while your MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario MAY appear logical at first sight, it has several shortcomings. how do you explain that USA for instance would want to deploy radar stations and interceptors in poland/czech republic. but russian fed. not wanting to do the same in cuba or venezuela or mexico (hypothetically).
and no, EVEN in your case, IF you can run away to greater distance, the man with better weaponry, with greater range and accuracy has a better chance of winning.
Unfortunately there is no greater distance to run away from if you are talking about the sheer number of nukes involved.
Just one MIRV from a warhead breaching your defences is enough to wreck significant havoc, and there are THOUSANDS of these that will be exchanged in an all out nuclear war.
There is no antimissile system in the world that can currently be made that will be able to reduce to number of incoming warheads to a level that makes any nuclear exchange between the US or Russia survivable... at least not the kind of world we used to know anyway.
The only difference between the Russians and the Americans is that the Russians come to terms with this reality far better, and hence didn't really bother to make a real effort to block out any nukes. They know well enough that they can still have sufficent nukes to respond and the Yanks will be hurting for it, and of course, protecting the lives of their populace has never been exactly a top concern.
On the other hand the Yanks are more hopeful about stopping some of the nukes, if not even most of them, hence their push for Star Wars back in the Cold War. But the fact remains, and both sides knew it, that no defence system ever existed that would have made MAD survivable, so what "edge" either side has is mostly blowing hot air, they'll kill each other pretty dead. -
So what edge does either side really have? The MIRV has made the question of ABM defence no-workable and as it stands MAD is still the main thing keeping things in balance.
Certainly the ABM defence systems in Moscow are not going to keep out a real MIRV attack, and each MIRV is 25 times the power of the Hiroshima bombs. The same goes for the yanks as well.
So what edge are you talking about? -
well as noted above.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:and no, IN THIS CASE this is the way it is. Neither side will win if there is a full, all out nuclear exchange... the fact that you are even trying to argue otherwise is actually quite laughable. There are more then enough nukes on both sides to overwhelm any defences they have on either side.
Unfortunately there is no greater distance to run away from if you are talking about the sheer number of nukes involved.
[/quote]
no my friend you got it all wrong. it's like a fork and knife used as cutlery compared to ak-47. i hope you'll agree the ak-47 is decidedly more potent in 'killing' (as unfortunate as it is, that's reality of life in politics). but what does it matter to you if your eyes are gouged out by a fork by your wife while you're sound asleep and your body badly lacerated or you're gunned down by a burst from ak-47?
just because you die, doesn't mean a fork and a knife can be compared to ak-47. i hope you'll agree with me on this one.
kindly see above.
Just one MIRV from a warhead breaching your defences is enough to wreck significant havoc, and there are THOUSANDS of these that will be exchanged in an all out nuclear war.
There is no antimissile system in the world that can currently be made that will be able to reduce to number of incoming warheads to a level that makes any nuclear exchange between the US or Russia survivable... at least not the kind of world we used to know anyway.The only difference between the Russians and the Americans is that the Russians come to terms with this reality far better, and hence didn't really bother to make a real effort to block out any nukes. They know well enough that they can still have sufficent nukes to respond and the Yanks will be hurting for it, and of course, protecting the lives of their populace has never been exactly a top concern.
that difference is BECAUSE both russians and yanks knew that russian missiles were much much better. that's why russians could depend on them taking out yanks on any unforeseen scenario but yanks knew theirs weren't so reliable. and to make the MAD scenario more probable, more credible, they'd to go for some kind of ABM or other air defence or antimissile defence system to restore parity. not that they succeded but they tried nonetheless. and that's at least one area where russian bear still has considerable edge over yanks.
[quote]
On the other hand the Yanks are more hopeful about stopping some of the nukes, if not even most of them, hence their push for Star Wars back in the Cold War. But the fact remains, and both sides knew it, that no defence system ever existed that would have made MAD survivable, so what "edge" either side has is mostly blowing hot air, they'll kill each other pretty dead. -
The ABM as the US keeps saying is to keep rouge nations from using nukes.countries like N.Korea or the likes. Because let's face it, there's most likely more nukes then there are ABM missles systems. IF each warhead sucks up 3 systems (SM-3+2 PAC3 batteries) the almost 1000 warhead that Russia has would instantly means you need around 3000 systems to stop a full strike.Both Russian and US.
And ST has a point....he aint saying that the knife or fork is better then the AK47 he's saying it doesnt matter if at the end you're dead.
Anyway the US has an edge in this i believe. Because they just re-invested in new Nuclear launch systems to replace their old systems while the Russian are still stuck with 70's or 80's missles. -
MAD in a good illustration is like 2 gunmen each equips the gun which can mutually shoot each other, the missile defense system that the yanks are pursuing is like the bullet proof vest to be worn by the affordable one of the 2 gunmen, who got the edge between these 2 gunmen is obvious.
Yanks deployed ICBM/SLBM with multiple/Maneuverable RVs as early as 1970-1980s, while Russians only just started deploying land based Topol-M with similar capability. As I said, SLBM like Trident D5 or ICBM like Minuteman-3 which feature GPS midcourse and Radar terminal guidance are in very high accuracy ( Usually CEP < 50m) and further more, because those RVs are with terminal guidance & fins, they are maneuverable, which makes the terminal phase interception by other missile within the atmosphere impossible. Russians & Yanks are well aware low tie ABM systems like S-400/PAC-3 are incapable to intercept such maneuverable RV. The most vulnerable moment of the ICBM or SLBM is during their launch stage ( now most guys should understand why Yanks are so aggressive to deploy ABMs just to the doorway of Russians that makes the latter so annoyed), to a less extent, in the midcourse of the ICBM/SLBM, while YanksÂ’ NTW anti-ballistic Missile systems at work, finally, itÂ’s the ICBM/SLBM last moment just before re entering the atmosphere, when the last defense of THAAD at work. Once the Maneuverable/Multiple RVs entered atmosphere, sorry, only God can stops the impact.
ThatÂ’s why, only furnishing a gun is not enough to give you the edge, especially your gun has no edge at all over the otherÂ’s. meanwhile, you have to figure out ways to comprise the otherÂ’s bullet proof vest, how to do it? Well, you know Yanks many ABM systems are space based, try to destruct such space asserts, say developing your ASAT ability. -
just because US has invested doesn't mean it has reaped rewards. it may take time, it may not ever materialize even. since missiles aren't really a forte of US armed forces. be it anti missile defence, anti aircraft defence, BM, CM, ICBMs etc. They may be one of the strongest in world, but that's it. not better than russian federation even today, let alone ussr in its heyday.Originally posted by |-|05|:The ABM as the US keeps saying is to keep rouge nations from using nukes.countries like N.Korea or the likes. Because let's face it, there's most likely more nukes then there are ABM missles systems. IF each warhead sucks up 3 systems (SM-3+2 PAC3 batteries) the almost 1000 warhead that Russia has would instantly means you need around 3000 systems to stop a full strike.Both Russian and US.[/quote]
your numbers seem wrong. well it's hard for general public anywhere in world to know the actual numbers possessed by usa or russian federation. only what they publicize. or based on guess-timates from 'concerned' parties.
that's a different issue. but an Ak47 is definitely a far superior offensive weapon than a fork or knife can ever be. no matter whether you die or not.
And ST has a point....he aint saying that the knife or fork is better then the AK47 he's saying it doesnt matter if at the end you're dead.
[quote]
Anyway the US has an edge in this i believe. Because they just re-invested in new Nuclear launch systems to replace their old systems while the Russian are still stuck with 70's or 80's missles.
for instance s-300 or s-400 (soon to be inducted in russian federation if my memory serves me right) is far superior to any usa made patriot or other "defences". that came up as russian federation is about to supply s-300 to iran in all probabilities. and usa's warmonger politicians' jobs are made harder, little by little.
Russian federation still has edge in quality and quantity of icbm. they just tested one in kamchatka peninsula a few days ago. USA simply has no match. Although russian federation mind you isn't quite a warmonger like usa or uk. But under mr putin it's beginning to flex its military, economic and political muscles.
BTW you're the most reasonable among the "kids" currying favours to usa. the others like singaporetyrannosors or others are a tad "imbecilic".. -
hmm...can you provide some unbiased sources for that? yanks missiles generally always lagged behind russian federation ones, as did its armed forces. only airforces generally led although gap is narrowing, and navy is another area. although russian federation has declared it's intent on leading in this area too. one move it made was in mediterranean with deployment in syrian port. Iran may be another port for deployment of naval forces of russia nfederation.Originally posted by coolant:MAD in a good illustration is like 2 gunmen each equips the gun which can mutually shoot each other, the missile defense system that the yanks are pursuing is like the bullet proof vest to be worn by the affordable one of the 2 gunmen, who got the edge between these 2 gunmen is obvious.
[/quote]
your analogy lacks a few key points. vital ones. russian federation's arsenal is far superior to usa's in penetrative ability, range, destructive ability among others. the gunmen in your case are almost equally well equipped, not in reality though!
second, the bulletproof vest (kevlar let's say) may protect your torso but not much more. A shot in the head is more than good enough, now if you've a minute or so of rapid fire from let's say SMG or some other automatic weapon with great range, accuracy and penetration, a glock owner with vest at a great range wont do much, nor can he do much.
russian defences on the other hand are not well known to public as they're quite secretive about their projects (rightly so) instaed of boastful yankees who trumpet even their failed projects in order to ratchet up support for them amongst their faithful "allies" (puppets rather).
they also trumpeted evidence of Iraq's WMD program prior to 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq. anyone?
[quote]
Yanks deployed ICBM/SLBM with multiple/Maneuverable RVs as early as 1970-1980s, while Russians only just started deploying land based Topol-M with similar capability. As I said, SLBM like Trident D5 or ICBM like Minuteman-3 which feature GPS midcourse and Radar terminal guidance are in very high accuracy ( Usually CEP < 50m) and further more, because those RVs are with terminal guidance & fins, they are maneuverable, which makes the terminal phase interception by other missile within the atmosphere impossible. Russians & Yanks are well aware low tie ABM systems like S-400/PAC-3 are incapable to intercept such maneuverable RV. The most vulnerable moment of the ICBM or SLBM is during their launch stage ( now most guys should understand why Yanks are so aggressive to deploy ABMs just to the doorway of Russians that makes the latter so annoyed), to a less extent, in the midcourse of the ICBM/SLBM, while YanksÂ’ NTW anti-ballistic Missile systems at work, finally, itÂ’s the ICBM/SLBM last moment just before re entering the atmosphere, when the last defense of THAAD at work. Once the Maneuverable/Multiple RVs entered atmosphere, sorry, only God can stops the impact.
ThatÂ’s why, only furnishing a gun is not enough to give you the edge, especially your gun has no edge at all over the otherÂ’s. meanwhile, you have to figure out ways to comprise the otherÂ’s bullet proof vest, how to do it? Well, you know Yanks many ABM systems are space based, try to destruct such space asserts, say developing your ASAT ability. -
Well, I think I have elaborated enough so far and indeed should be your turn to provide your “unbiased” backup of your persist calling” Russian ICBM is more advanced than that of Yank’s” ?
Never mind, I just like to remind a piece of history how an edge on Ballistic missile technology let Yanks win the missile treaty in 1980s.
The Pershing II is an advanced middle range BM with terminal guidance and maneuverable RV, refer to the below video clip, you can see “fins” are presented on the warhead of Pershing II,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K6Zfc8Xy-k
obviously, fins are for aerodynamic control, do you agree, or you think itÂ’s biased? If itÂ’s for aerodynamic control, so the fins are only workable in the air, do you agree, or think itÂ’s biased? The fins on the warhead( RV) are the evidence that the RV is maneuverable ( via finsÂ’ aerodynamic control). Obviously, the Russians were convinced such terminal guided/maneuverable BMs are no match for their own counterpart: the SS-20. thatÂ’s why they willing to give in their number superiority and signed the MRBM ban accordingly -
Double post, deleted
-
I agree so far the RussiansÂ’ offensive nuke force are far superior than the current YanksÂ’ BMD system, but donÂ’t sit idly, Yanks are spending big chunk of money to improve it, furthermore, the better offensive ability than the defensive ability doesnÂ’t downgrade that the YanksÂ’ offensive nuke force are even more "far superior " than RussianÂ’s zero BMD ability towards main Nuke arsenal of US.Originally posted by protonhybrid:your analogy lacks a few key points. vital ones. russian federation's arsenal is far superior to usa's in penetrative ability, range, destructive ability among others. the gunmen in your case are almost equally well equipped, not in reality though!
second, the bulletproof vest (kevlar let's say) may protect your torso but not much more. A shot in the head is more than good enough, now if you've a minute or so of rapid fire from let's say SMG or some other automatic weapon with great range, accuracy and penetration, a glock owner with vest at a great range wont do much, nor can he do much.
russian defences on the other hand are not well known to public as they're quite secretive about their projects (rightly so) instaed of boastful yankees who trumpet even their failed projects in order to ratchet up support for them amongst their faithful "allies" (puppets rather).
US maintains a modern SSBN fleet with all Ohio class, some even got excess to be converted to Tomahawk launch platforms, while, Russians? Sorry, most their SSBNs are no money to be proper maintained, a few can be on duty. For ICBMs, most US missiles are minuteman-3 standards, while how many Topol-M( SS-27) are even deployed NOW? -
Putin have resurect the Satan ICBM recently and boasted it has ability to evade missile.
-
Well my numbers seem wrong, true i'll admit i pulled that out of my ass (truely i did) And yes they will never admit to the number of nukes the actually have though i believe some old treaty did state that they did have to declare.Whether the number they declared is the truth or not is anyone's guess. But you have to admit that it takes AT LEAST 3 missle systems to confirm that you can stop 1 nuke. Which means that you need at least a 3 to 1 ratio of ABM to Nukes. And let's face it it's far cheaper to deploy 1 nuke.
Also the thing about the knife and rifle is not that the rifle is a far better weapon but a proof of the concept of MAD.Which is that both side loses/dies.
Ahh yes the US has invest more and while it is true that they may not have reaped the rewards you cannot say that they havent because like you've saidonly what they publicize. or based on guess-timates from 'concerned' parties.
(yes i know that's selective quoting but still you're guessing here as much as i am)
However it costs money to maintain the nukes and there was a report i read a few years ago that states that because of funding cuts the US actually was having problems trying to maintain their nuclear arsenal because those nukes do have a life span after which they need to be replaced/repaired.
It is true that during the 50's right through the 70's the US was at a disadvantage to the USSR because the USSR took most of the German rocket scientists while the US if i'm not mistaken ended up with their plane designers.
So what makes you say that the S-300 and S-400 is better then the SM-2,SM-3,Patriot systems?
The fact that they have been through combat and failed or at least performed poorly?Well let me ask you, has the S-300 or S-400 been to combat and performed better?I'm not talking about contorlled tests i'm talking about actual war's or battles.
Proof me wrong and i will humbly admit that i was wrong.And hey i would have learnt from you
-
mate that was around a few decades ago. the soviets signed that treaty because they made a mistake DIPLOMATICALLY, they lost the war in diplomacy and politics not in actual weaponry or anything else.Originally posted by coolant:Well, I think I have elaborated enough so far and indeed should be your turn to provide your “unbiased” backup of your persist calling” Russian ICBM is more advanced than that of Yank’s” ?
Never mind, I just like to remind a piece of history how an edge on Ballistic missile technology let Yanks win the missile treaty in 1980s.
The Pershing II is an advanced middle range BM with terminal guidance and maneuverable RV, refer to the below video clip, you can see “fins” are presented on the warhead of Pershing II,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K6Zfc8Xy-k
obviously, fins are for aerodynamic control, do you agree, or you think itÂ’s biased? If itÂ’s for aerodynamic control, so the fins are only workable in the air, do you agree, or think itÂ’s biased? The fins on the warhead( RV) are the evidence that the RV is maneuverable ( via finsÂ’ aerodynamic control). Obviously, the Russians were convinced such terminal guided/maneuverable BMs are no match for their own counterpart: the SS-20. thatÂ’s why they willing to give in their number superiority and signed the MRBM ban accordingly
in fact it can be argued that overall ussr was more powerful than usa in weaponry while diplomatically usa was obviously more aggressive posing and positioning weapons systems close to soviet borders as close as turkey italy and germany etc. while the crisis of global destruction broke out when cowboy yankees showed their natural traits by crying foul when soviets deployed missiles in cuba.
and the missiles you mentioned pershing II and RS10 or ss-20, still ss-20 has longer range, greater firepower. can you tell me what you're talking about? it was still seen to be and really is a case of political failure by likes of gorbachev or other soviet leaders. and recall that mr putin is ditching the INF treaty amidst a spree of other such ditching of treaties. -
Originally posted by coolant:
Yanks' economy is going down teh drain while russian federation is bouncing back to be a superpower in military and economy too. russian federation spends money wisely whereas yanks waste them on useless wars. they got no money for development.
I agree so far the RussiansÂ’ offensive nuke force are far superior than the current YanksÂ’ BMD system, but donÂ’t sit idly, Yanks are spending big chunk of money to improve it, furthermore, the better offensive ability than the defensive ability doesnÂ’t downgrade that the YanksÂ’ offensive nuke force are even more "far superior " than RussianÂ’s [b]zero BMD ability towards main Nuke arsenal of US.
which yankee offensive nukes are far superior to russian ones mate? i can't think of any. be it defence or offense, my friend, russians have the clear edge. they're not just as bloodthirsty warmongers as yanks.
Tomahawk, mate you probably haven't heard of s-400, how can they hit russian federation. and russian federation always lagged behind usa in naval power since usa has abundant natural resources and warm water port, which russian federation lacks. but with deployment in syria in mediterranean patrol, and revival of strategic patrol of tupolev bombers, we can surely see mr putin is in with a mission. yes they may seem archaic now, but can you say the same about russian s-400, even s-500 systems that some speculate may well have been developed already in secret.
US maintains a modern SSBN fleet with all Ohio class, some even got excess to be converted to Tomahawk launch platforms, while, Russians? Sorry, most their SSBNs are no money to be proper maintained, a few can be on duty. For ICBMs, most US missiles are minuteman-3 standards, while how many Topol-M( SS-27) are even deployed NOW?
[/b]
and russian federation is indeed the leader in this field i'm afraid my friend, no matter who leads in stealth planes or who leads in carriers. -
well mate LATEST weaponry's superiority can only be proven to general public in warfare and i hope that doesn't happen. but being realistic, it'll probably happen. and one reason why usa despite so much sabre rattling hasnt' yet attacked iran is open backing of russian federation. tells you a lot about overstretched and downtrodden yankee economy/military's ability vis a vis russian federation, doesn't it mate?Originally posted by |-|05|:Well my numbers seem wrong, true i'll admit i pulled that out of my ass (truely i did) And yes they will never admit to the number of nukes the actually have though i believe some old treaty did state that they did have to declare.Whether the number they declared is the truth or not is anyone's guess. But you have to admit that it takes AT LEAST 3 missle systems to confirm that you can stop 1 nuke. Which means that you need at least a 3 to 1 ratio of ABM to Nukes. And let's face it it's far cheaper to deploy 1 nuke.
[/quote]
thank you for being upfront. yes it' far cheaper to deploy 1 nuke, BUT anyside whichever has the funds and tech, will ensure it has proper defense in ABM form, life is precious. while also develop means to avoid opposition's ABM defense.
we're just stressing on different aspects of the same issue.
Also the thing about the knife and rifle is not that the rifle is a far better weapon but a proof of the concept of MAD.Which is that both side loses/dies.
Ahh yes the US has invest more and while it is true that they may not have reaped the rewards you cannot say that they havent because like you've said (yes i know that's selective quoting but still you're guessing here as much as i am)
thank you.
However it costs money to maintain the nukes and there was a report i read a few years ago that states that because of funding cuts the US actually was having problems trying to maintain their nuclear arsenal because those nukes do have a life span after which they need to be replaced/repaired.
not true my friend. ussr took german scientists and cue from early german designs but usa it was in fact that copied wholesale from nazi designs. wernher von braun (of moon landing design, v2 etc) is one celebrated such person.
It is true that during the 50's right through the 70's the US was at a disadvantage to the USSR because the USSR took most of the German rocket scientists while the US if i'm not mistaken ended up with their plane designers.
no none of them have been combat tested (russian federation). however let's look at even nato procurement trends. greece has bought s-300 and will probably go for s-400 once it's released for sale. why would a nato country do that? even turkey typically anti russian proyankee wants russian air defence.
So what makes you say that the S-300 and S-400 is better then the SM-2,SM-3,Patriot systems?
The fact that they have been through combat and failed or at least performed poorly?Well let me ask you, has the S-300 or S-400 been to combat and performed better?I'm not talking about contorlled tests i'm talking about actual war's or battles.
and please dont even bring sm-2, sm-3 to the picture.
[quote]
Proof me wrong and i will humbly admit that i was wrong.And hey i would have learnt from you -
Ok i'll make this quick because i just operated on my arm n i dont feel like typing much.
NATO countries might buy them because of cost factors and delivery timelines.
There is no conclusive data that has proven that russian sytems r better or even that US systems are better.So this remains inconclusive until heaven forbid those systems get used in a war.
The US is over stretched both militarily,economicly AND politically thats y they arent attacking not because they are technologically deficient.
my point is, it donest matter much but i think both sides are equal in ICBMs because of simply the numbers of nukes.
no ABM can stop that now.