# Russia working on new nuclear weapons



## 63 Delta (17 Nov 2004)

Any thoughts on this? Another cold war? 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/17/russia-missiles-041117.html


----------



## elminister (17 Nov 2004)

I don't think Russia is capable of starting another cold war. They are lets just say "afraid" of the big bad wolf. (Eagle)


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2004)

Nuclear weapons were ancillery to the Cold War, which was an ideological conflict.

Remember, the Cold War was around for 10 years before nuclear weapons began to be fielded in significant numbers.


----------



## Bert (17 Nov 2004)

I figure its all part of the game of defense and technology.  It goes beyond 
speculation that various countries or regions like the EU, Japan, the Koreas, 
Pakistan, Iran, Israel, China, the USA, Brazil, Russian are advancing their research of
missile defense, stealth technology, satellite intelligence, and orbital weaponry.
Weaponry will never stay static.  Funny, the Russians can make stealth missles, 
the US advanced missle defense, but Canada can't solve the hockey strike.  Boo!


----------



## white (17 Nov 2004)

Shouldn't Russia be trying to better it's country instead of trying to create a better missile the Cold War is over so I dont't know why they would need a missile that can go through the U.S. defence shield.


----------



## RDA (18 Nov 2004)

mwhite said:
			
		

> Shouldn't Russia be trying to better it's country instead of trying to create a better missile



We live in a world where a country's clout on the world stage is directly proportional to its portrayed military might.   The most certain method of increasing the former has traditionally been to increase the latter.   It makes perfect sense for Russia to be upgrading its old military technology.   By doing so, Russia is increasing its influence in international relations and also sending the uplifting message to its people that Russia is still a relevant world power.   
Actually, who am I kidding?   It's probably all about securing its claim on middle eastern oil...   :


----------



## winchable (18 Nov 2004)

As it is with all things, the guy with the biggest wang gets the prize.
Substitute wang for Military might and guy with Country and you get a foundation for international relations.

Yeah that's way too simplistic.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

No, that's about right.

Just picture states as men.   Aggressive and always seeking to dominate, they will improve themselves in areas which will sustain and enhance their dominance over others in the tribe, with the goal of making themselves the most successful mates.

On the international stage, translate dominant male get harem to dominant state is the hegemonic power of the world (and thus reaps whatever benefits come with that).


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No, that's about right.
> 
> Just picture states as men.  Aggressive and always seeking to dominate, they will improve themselves in areas which will sustain and enhance their dominance over others in the tribe, with the goal of making themselves the most successful mates.
> 
> On the international stage, translate dominant male get harem to dominant state is the hegemonic power of the world (and thus reaps whatever benefits come with that).



I'm feeling a bit harrassed by your generalizations Dr. Freud    Haven't you been sharpened?


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

Suck it up.   Ids the way things work....

 (Ok, that was good one, wasn't it; please say yes, I need the ego boost.  Oh shit, there I go again....)


----------



## Storm (18 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> As it is with all things, the guy with the biggest wang gets the prize.
> Substitute wang for Military might and guy with Country and you get a foundation for international relations.



... and Russia is using it's grocery money to buy Viagra.

Sure it lets them get it up for a few more years, but that won't do much good if they're starving to death.


----------



## RDA (18 Nov 2004)

Storm said:
			
		

> ... and Russia is using it's grocery money to buy Viagra.



lol
Perhaps, but don't forget that Russia is the second largest producer of oil in the world, and with recent oil prices, they've got much more grocery money to spend now!   Viagra is a wise investment because it gets you the beautiful woman, and once you've got her, you've got all her friends too...


----------



## youravatar (18 Nov 2004)

While Russias ongoing efforts for proliferations are duley noted, this new develpment, is if anything not new, this program has been running 15 years strong and there isnt much we can do to stop it. i guess its just the kremlins way of "modernizing" their Military.
out.  :skull:


----------



## Rushrules (18 Nov 2004)

;D  What's the big deal?  If the states can walk away from a treaty because of terrorism fears and develop a counter missile system,  ??? then why can't Russia develop a weapon to counter that threat.  This is the same mentality that kept the Cold War going, and Washington will use this as further justification for missile defence (I mean offence).  China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, France, UK, and Germany, S Korea, N Korea, etc... are working on their own missile defence/offence systems.  

Now, if they could invent something to find your remote, I'd be sh****ing bricks! :dontpanic:


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Nov 2004)

Upgrading their nuclear deterrent before the current one rusts out completely is probably the cheapest way to safeguard their sovereignty against acquisitive or opportunistic neighbours.  Their conventional forces aren't what they once were and would be conceivably even more costly to upgrade and maintain.


----------



## pappy (18 Nov 2004)

what chumps we Americans are, paying for the Russians to dismantle Russia's old weapons while they build new ones to threaten us.
I think they should be more afriad of the Chechnians then the US.

Oh well, hard to stop this crap...  Nukes are 60+, year old technology, everyone and thier brother wants one.

And people wonder why the US wants to build a missle shied system.  Russia, China, France, Germany old enemies are still threats.

Sometimes I wonder who's on our side? at least when our wallet's closed it's tough to tell sometimes.

But in the end Russia has to know, nuke us we nuke you.  Same goes for them, MAD is not dead is it.  The US has used them twice, maybe we need to give a refreasher course.

Sarcastic as every... time for me to get some dinner....  

Canada's on our side right?  lol  :dontpanic:


----------



## Acorn (18 Nov 2004)

Brad, their conventional forces are clearly way ahead of any aquisitive neighbours - unless you think NATO's new eastern flank is aquisitive (which the Russians likely believe, but that's another story).

Acorn


----------



## white (19 Nov 2004)

pappy said:
			
		

> Canada's on our side right? lol :dontpanic:


Or course we are... we don't have any nukes.  ;D


----------



## dutchie (19 Nov 2004)

I recently read Robert McNamara's 'Blundering Towards Disaster' which is a history of the nuclear arms race, my copy revised for the mid-80's. In it he also looks at future developments and what they mean for world security/survival. He predicted that very quickly after the US implements Star Wars 1/missile defense shield, the 'Soviets' would develop a counter to render it less potent if not useless. 

Funny, McNamara didn't predict the fall of the Soviet Empire until 2010-2020, but he was bang-on regarding the 'Soviet' response. By the way, he objected to Start Wars as it violates (arguable) the SALT(or was it the other?) treaties, allowing the Ruskies to violate it in their own chosen way, carte blanche. Tit for tat, so to speak.

Missile Defence isn't even operational, and Russia has already countered it. Even McNamara didn't predict it's superiority would end so soon.


----------



## RDA (19 Nov 2004)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Missile Defence isn't even operational, and Russia has already countered it. Even McNamara didn't predict it's superiority would end so soon.



Where on earth did you get the idea that new Russian missile technology would be able to penetrate the US BMD "shield" (assuming of course that the BMD technology becomes fully operational)?

Ahh whatever, it's all hypothetical anyways.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Nov 2004)

>Brad, their conventional forces are clearly way ahead of any aquisitive neighbours

I was thinking more along the lines of Chinese proximity to underdeveloped regions into which it is moderately difficult to deploy.  My gut feeling (which could easily be wrong) is that a scrap over the far eastern regions could very quickly devolve into a fairly basic infantry war in which technological and mechanization advantages are difficult to exploit.


----------



## pappy (19 Nov 2004)

Missle defense makes sense if you think of a small scale attack by a country with very limited capabilities, or even an accidental firing.  A wide scale thermoneclear war between the major powers (be they Russia, US, England, France, China, Israel, and the others) would likely overwhelm any missle shield.  

Some people fault the US for tossing out the ABM treaty, but the Soviets and Russia already violated that long ago and continue to develop anti-ICBM capabilities.  

As much as we hate nukes, one has to admit they have prevented a major super power war for the longest time in the last 100+ years.  The 60 year gap since WW2 is proof of that.  The "War to End All Wars" WW1 was closely followed my WW2.  Granted we had the "Cold War" but it quite possibley been worse had the nukes not been that last resort option.  

I personally think defensive systems should be developed, and I don't think we (the US) is just considering the big boomers (ICBM) only.  Would it be better is the world was free of ALL nukes, yes.  If that a rational expectation? no.  Will a nuke be going off in our future, yes.  Let's face it, it's 60+ year old technology, it's not rocket science anymore, still costly yes, but it's only going to be getting easier to build one.

I also think the western nations should band togarther to build one, for example what if the western nations built one... and leater India and Pakistain jam sticks into each others eyes, and one of them gets pissed, is loseing and figures oh well..... pushes the button....

Option one:
    The shield system shoots them down, and if need shoots down both sides missles.  Things calm down or at least nukes are going off all over.

Option two:
    mushroom clouds all over the paki-inida area.

If option one is fesible, don't you think thats money well spent?

It makes sense only if it's used to defend everyone, not just the US.


----------



## dutchie (20 Nov 2004)

Where on earth did you get the idea that new Russian missile technology would be able to penetrate the US BMD "shield" (assuming of course that the BMD technology becomes fully operational)?

That's the premise of the article.......is it not?


----------



## RDA (22 Nov 2004)

Caesar said:
			
		

> That's the premise of the article.......is it not?



Perhaps, but surely you don't believe everything you read?   I apologise if my question seemed a little aggressive; I admit I was a little irritated by the way you stated it as fact:   "Missile Defence isn't even operational, and Russia has already countered it."

Once again, I apologise for snapping at you.

Take care,
Richard


----------



## dutchie (23 Nov 2004)

No worries RDA. It takes a lot more than that to offend me. And no, I tend not to believe everything I read, but I do find this story really interesting, if not a little surprising.

ps - I've been accused of being a tad agressive in the past as well, so I can't really fault you for that.


----------



## enfield (24 Nov 2004)

RDA said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but surely you don't believe everything you read?   I apologise if my question seemed a little aggressive; I admit I was a little irritated by the way you stated it as fact:   "Missile Defence isn't even operational, and Russia has already countered it."



But Russia can easily defeat Ballistic Missile Defence. The BMD is only intended to stop a few missiles fired by a rogue state with a limited arsenal. Russia and China (UK and France too probably)  could overwhelm the system rather easily.


----------



## RDA (24 Nov 2004)

Enfield said:
			
		

> But Russia can easily defeat Ballistic Missile Defence. The BMD is only intended to stop a few missiles fired by a rogue state with a limited arsenal. Russia and China (UK and France too probably)   could overwhelm the system rather easily.



It's a work in progress.  Give it time.


----------



## RDA (24 Nov 2004)

Game theorists have used the classic "prisoners' dilemma" to explain why nations find disarmament treaties difficult to uphold.   I'm sure many of you are familiar with this analysis, so please bear with me because there is a treat at the end.   For those who are not familiar with the "prisoners' dilemma", here is the basic gist of it: 

For the sake of pretending that I'm not digressing from the topic of this thread, let us use Russia and the U.S. as players in this game.   The goal of each player is of course to win the game, which in this example translates into maximizing national security.   Each nation has two basic choices once a disarmament treaty has been signed:

*1.   Disarm* (cooperate)
*2.   Arm * (compete)

While deliberating, the U.S. asks itself what choice would be in its best interest in each possible scenario:

Scenario A - Russia Arms

(Choice 1) If U.S. Disarms: Russia = safe and powerful, U.S. = at risk and weak.
(Choice 2) If U.S. Arms: Russia and U.S. = at risk.

_Conclusion:   If Russia reneges on its commitment and arms itself, the best choice for the U.S. is clearly to also arm itself._

Scenario B - Russia Disarms 

(Choice 1) If U.S. Disarms: Russia and U.S. = safe.
(Choice 2) If U.S. Arms: Russia = at risk and weak, U.S. = safe and powerful.

_Conclusion:   If Russia upholds its commitment and disarms, the best choice for the U.S. remains to arm itself, since its goal is to maximize its national security._

The results from this analysis demonstrate how, regardless of Russia's choice to arm or disarm, the rational and best choice for the U.S. when considering its options is to arm itself.   Of course, Russia conducts a similar analysis and reaches the same conclusion.   In the end, both nations choose to arm and the treaty falls apart, leaving both nations less safe than they would have been if they had both upheld the treaty and disarmed.

*In the disarmament game, the dominant strategy*, i.e. the strategy that is best for a player regardless of the strategies chosen by other players, *leads to a less than optimal result*.

Here is where it gets interesting.

If we apply the "prisoners' dilemma" to a game of defensive armament, the analysis yields a very different result. Check this out:

The goal of each nation is still to maximize its national security.   Each nation has two basic choices once the ABM Treaty is signed:

*1.   Don't build shield*   (cooperate with ABM Treaty)
*2.   Build shield* (compete)

While deliberating, the U.S. asks itself what choice would be in its best interest in each possible scenario:

Scenario A - Russia Builds Missile Defence Shield

(1) U.S. does not build shield: Russia = safe and powerful, U.S. = at risk and weak.
(2) U.S. builds shield: Russia and U.S. = safe.

_Conclusion:   If Russia reneges on its commitment and builds a shield, the best choice for the U.S. is clearly to also build a shield._

Scenario B - Russia Does Not Build Shield  

(1) U.S. does not build shield: Russia and U.S. = at risk.
(2) U.S. builds shield: Russia = at risk and weak, U.S. = safe and powerful.

_Conclusion:   If Russia upholds its commitment and does not build the shield, the best choice for the U.S. remains to build the shield, since its goal is to maximize its security._

The results from this analysis demonstrate how, regardless of Russia's choice, the rational and best choice for the U.S. when considering its options is to build the shield.   Of course, Russia conducts a similar analysis and reaches the same conclusion.   In the end, both nations choose to build shields and the ABM treaty falls apart, only this time, both nations are safer than they would be if they upheld the treaty!

*In the defensive armament game, the dominant strategy*, i.e. the strategy that is best for a player regardless of the strategies chosen by other players,* leads to an optimal result*!!!   

CAVEAT:   This only holds if other countries choose to respond to the U.S. defensive armament with their own defensive armament, rather than with offensive armament.   One last quick game shows that responding with a defensive armament strategy is in fact the rational and best choice if the goal is to maximize national security:

Each nation has two basic choices:

*1.   Offensive Armament
2.   Defensive Armament*

While deliberating, the U.S. asks itself what choice would be in its best interest in each possible scenario:

Scenario A - Russia Responds with Offensive Armament

(1) U.S. Goes Offensive:   Russia and U.S. = at risk
(2) U.S. Stays Defensive: Russia and U.S. = at risk

_Conclusion:   If Russia responds with Offensive Armament, the U.S. has no incentive to change its strategy, as neither strategy has an advantage over the other._

Scenario B - Russia Responds with Defensive Armament  

(1) U.S. Goes Offensive:   Russia and U.S. = at risk
(2) U.S. Stays Defensive: Russia and U.S. = safe

_Conclusion:   If Russia responds with Defensive Armament, the best choice for the U.S. if to stick with Defensive Armament, since its goal is to maximize its security._

The results from this analysis demonstrate how, regardless of Russia's choice, the rational and best choice for the U.S. when considering its options is to stay the course with its defensive strategy and build the BMD shield.   Of course, Russia should conduct this same analysis and come to the conclusion that responding to the U.S. lead with a defensive strategy of its own is the rational and best choice to maximize its national security. This also applies to China, Japan, Israel, European nations, and anybody else who can afford to play.


I just came up with this theory "on the fly", so feel free to tare the argument apart, it's not like it's my life's work or anything.

Take care,
RDA


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2004)

Theory seems fancy, but I don't get how you are correlating a defence system that can knock down a few missiles to "safe and powerful" against Russia's inventory of a couple thousand warheads with various delivery systems.


----------



## RDA (24 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Theory seems fancy, but I don't get how you are correlating a defence system that can knock down a few missiles to "safe and powerful" against Russia's inventory of a couple thousand warheads with various delivery systems.



I completely agree with you, the current system is far from being a sophisticated defence system.  For the strategic designers though, it is only a pilot project for a much grander future capability.  They've learned that they have to break it up into small bite size pieces in order to get political approval for the project.

The whole game theory idea I presented is intended more as an argument in support of the concept of defensive armament as a sound strategy, with the goal of reaching a safer state of MAD-ness, i.e. safer from "Rogue" states.


----------

