Russia tests new multiple-warhead missile

[Neil D]

and russia is our friend.....NOT!

Russia test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday featuring multiple warheads which can be independently targeted, Russian agencies reported.

A Defence Ministry spokesman said the missile was fired from a mobile launcher at 1420 Moscow time (1020 GMT) from the Plesetsk cosmodrome about 800 km (500 miles) north of Moscow, Interfax news agency reported.

The RS-24 missile can be armed with up to 10 different warheads, the Defence Ministry told Interfax.

It said the new missile would replace earlier generation intercontinental missiles such as the RS-18 and RS-20.

Missiles carrying multiple independently targeted warheads are more difficult to intercept and destroy completely once they have been fired.

Russia has previously said US plans to build a system in Europe to intercept and shoot down hostile missiles are a threat to its own security. Washington says the system is intended to counter rogue states and does not threaten Russia.

[Dr. Shane]

I see that as a perfectly acceptable reaction to our missile defense system. It is a good motivator for us to remain friends with Russia. I see no threat there. If we are sincere about our missile defense being protection against rogue states, then this development by the Russians should pose no threat to us.

[bevin]

MIRV is not new

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV

/Bevin

[jasd]

>>I see that as a perfectly acceptable reaction to our missile defense system.<<

You mean we really have an operable, effective, and deployed SDI? or any other sort of defense system(s) that might protect against MIRVs...

Please, link me.

Last I knew, we haven't even public or private shelters -- stocked or otherwise. Well, there are those reserved for our politicos and those needed to secure and sustain them.

The rest of us are left with only a hope and a prayer as we are atomized...

We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when

But I'm sure we'll meet again some sunny day

Keep smiling through, just the way you used to do

Till the blue skies chase the dark clouds far away

Now, won't you please say "Hello" to the folks that I know

Tell 'em it won't be long

'cause they'd be happy to know that when you saw me go

I was singing this song"

[/yikes!]

[bevin]

So long, Mom,

I'm off to drop the bomb,

so don't wait up for me,

although you may swelter,

down there in your shelter,

you can see me,

on your TV

...

Tom Lehrer

[Dr. Shane]

Why did the US decide to go to a missile defense shield instead of the "star wars" defense with satellites and lasers? I remember Reagan promising to give the star wars technology to the Russians so they could be protected from us as much as we would be protected from them. I would think a laser traveling at the speed of light would be more accurate at knocking down incoming missiles than another missile trying to intercept it in midair.

[Neil D]

And just how accurate is a laser whose intensity changes with air temperature/density and elevation and weather conditions?

Inquiring minds want to know....

[bevin]

Laser's work by a device producing the laser beam. Obviously the device is not destroyed by the production of the beam, hence it is plausible that a similar device can either reflect, deflect, or absorb the beam without significant damage.

For some of the issues, see...

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Dunn.html

The laser must (a) stay on target, ( not dissipate its energy into the air, and © dissipate it into the target.

Recognizing the target is hard - especially when the attacker uses decoys, jamming, and even nuclear explosions in the atmosphere to disrupt the tracking systems.

Staying on target requires tracking and pointing.

Destroying the target is hard - see above.

No-one really believed the Star-Wars stuff would ever work, and the actual evidence is that Patriot etc. don't really work either.

Systems such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS do have a reasonable chance of success against a low-cost attack, but can easily be swamped.

I would not bet $10 on the survivability of an aircraft carrier in 2030 against China or Russia or any other major power - imagine trying to defend against a supersonic cruise missile that drops a Shkval descendent 5 miles from the carrier... http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/...ecbccdrcrd.html, or against a hypersonic nuclear-tipped MIRV'ed SRBM.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

No-one really believed the Star-Wars stuff would ever work, and the actual evidence is that Patriot etc. don't really work either.

Such a sweeping statement like this that is obviously wrong really discredits the author of the post. Obviously some people believed star wars would work since the President of the United States went on prime-time television and sold it to the American public and the USSR insisted that the US drop the program as a condition of peace talks. Now it may be true that is was a minority of people that believed star wars would work but to say "no-one" believed it is obviously mistaken.

[bevin]

Let me be clear. No-one who understood the technology believed that Star Wars would create a defensive system that another major nuclear power could not penetrate.

Reagan did not believe it would, nor did the USSR.

You wrote:

Quote:

USSR insisted that the US drop the program as a condition of peace talks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

Quote:

The project was a blow to Yuri Andropov's so-called "peace offensive". Andropov said that "It is time they (Washington) topped... search(ing) for the best ways of unleashing nuclear war... Engaging in this is not just irresponsible. It is insane".

The USSR was going broke - they did not want to have to keep up with yet another insane round of the arms race. However the American's did not drop the program...

Quote:

SDI research went ahead, although it did not achieve the hoped result. SDI research was cut back following the end of Reagan's presidency, and in 1995 it was reiterated in a presidential joint statement that "missile defense systems may be deployed... (that) will not pose a realistic threat to the strategic nuclear force of the other side and will not be tested to... (create) that capability." This was reaffirmed in 1997.

/Bevin