Spew All About Politics Here

[emprworm]

Russian missle range is 20% LESS than the US. That shows you just how weaker their technology is. Even GREAT BRITAIN has a better missle range than Russia. The US has the longest and most accurate missle range in the world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/733162.stm

[emprworm]

Russian SS-19 Stiletto (RS-18)

Year Deployed: 1982

Dimensions: 27 meters length, 2.5 meters diameter

Weight: 105,600 kilograms

Propulsion: Two-stage liquid fuel plus PBV, hot launch

Throw-weight: 4,950 kilograms

Range: 10,000 kilometers

Guidance: Inertial, with onboard digital computer, and PBV

Circular Error Probable: 300 meters

Warhead: Mod 3 has 6 MIRVs (under START II, assumed to be downloaded to Mod 2 with 1 warhead)

Yield: Mod 3 - 550 kilotons, Mod 2 - 5 megatons

Locations: Tatischevo, Kozel'sk

Number Deployed: 150 missiles (105 planned)

Primary Contractor: Chelomei Design Bureau

Like the other fourth generation Russian ICBMs, the SS-19 is transported and deployed in silos within a protective canister. The SS-19s are based in silos estimated hardened to withstand 2,500-4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) overpressure, with some hardened to 6,000-7,000 psi, the hardest in the world. Even so, the days of secure silo-basing are long gone. A U.S. D-5 SLBM warhead would have little difficulty destroying such a silo

[Anathema]

Oh yes the start treaties. Recently the US and Russia agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenal but the US didn't keep their end of the bargain, while Putin did.

[emprworm]

yea, thats just how great the US is.

Putin is my favorite russian leader ever, btw.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Would you care to post a link of the Russian and American Nuclear bombs? That displays "all" the missiles, there are more types of nukes you know.

And they can be launched from different positions in the world, and be they can be launched from a submarine.

[emprworm]

i posted enough links regarding your little challenge. it wouldn't matter anyway because the moment russia tried to launch one of its weak-ranged missles, there would be a major nuclear hollacaust, which would effectively destroy the entire civilized world. there would be no winners, only losers. including you and the world.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Weak ranged missiles hmm?

*Nuclear air alert and boom goes Emperorworm by Russians and the other world's secret nuclear positions.*

Too many missiles to be intercepted, nuclear silo's launching from close locations near America. Subs launching Nuclear missiles, while being undetected by their sheer numbers.

Read my post above.

[emprworm]

there are no sheer numbers of subs.

how many subs does switzerland have? uhh...zero maybe?

there is no such "sheer number" of subs. Again, sardaukar-kirov says things he knows nothing about.

read an learn.

Russia, has very few active subs.

[RUSSIAN STRATEGIC FORCES: 1 JULY 1998]

(ICBM

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Suprising that you only show us the Info about the American goodsides and the Russian bad sides.

[emprworm]

the info is from highly accurate repositories of scientific and statistical information. no ship on earth has the destructive power of a US Trident Submarine. I cant help it if thats just a fact you have to live with.

Russian subs are in horrible shape. Go talk to Norway about it- they have to endure the threat since there are several near-leaking Russian nuclear rust-bucket subs near their coast.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

I want a link to a site and show us all about this Trident thing? It's more useful to see the site.

[Anathema]

Well you don't even need a Trident to wipe out the Netherlands :(

[Sardauker-Kirov]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/slbm/941.htm

1998? It is 2002 right now. So the info is 4 years old right now.

You're aware that Russians has already new technology?

[emprworm]

this is my last post on this particular line of discussion.

i know, Sardaukar-Kirov that it makes you angry to think how powerful the US is. You squirm in your chair, and clench your fist. You want US to be weak, and you get uncomfortable thinking about the truth: US is powerful. You hate the US because it is so strong, while your country is so weak. That makes a lot of people mad. They dont like to think that they are weaker than the US.

China in its piddly 400 nuclear weapons- short range missles (even France has longer range missles than China). Russia in 4 years will have only 3000 nuclear weapons. China has no Air Force, and no navy. Russia's subs are in horrible shape, they are sinking. Most of their subs are more than 30 years old. Antiques. Low-technology. My grandpa could make a better sub than russia out of coke cans. LOL!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/901189.stm

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/6348-15.cfm

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/naval/ff_naval.htm

1 trident submarine is high tech enough to obliterate and utterly destroy an entire nation.

I gave you numerous sources and links to prove everything I have said not only here but in my previous posts.

All you have is a large number of people carrying sticks, rocks, and molitov cocktails. With no way to get here and no high tech weapons to back you up, your little plot to invade the US will result in total annihilation.

This is my final post on this subject. I know you will be upset, irritated and you cannot resist posting again. I predict you will make more posts on this subject because you cannot control your urge and anger to post more. Thats ok. I understand you not like US power. So you can keep posting, but i will post about other things now.

bye bye.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

I asked a god damn post about a link of this Sub? If you can't post something useful, you turn your words into lies. And No, I'm not squirming in my chair, while you are praising America's strenght, while it can be beaten by the whole world united.

Maybe you should stop taking a closer look to his "antique" subs of the Russians. And go in the time of the year 2002, you're posting old news and crap it doesn't prove anything.

Other countries has already high tech subs, that can beat the trident and destroy Nations with Nuclear bombs. China has long range missiles if you didn't knew, there was rumors about it and American intelligence is already trying to find out new technology that the other countries has made.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/default.asp

Now you've messed up your little praise of America again. China does have a "NAVY" and a Airforce, now take a look with your poorly developed brains and eyes. Now take a closer look.

[nampigai]

this is truly the must stupid argument I've ever heard about why the hell should we debate who could destroy most? If a Nuclear attack happens there will be retalliation and it will end up in MAD, hooray for all nuclear powers wooohooo.

I don't trust in any form of Nuclear power it's the worst device ever developed by human mind IMO.

The only problem is that we will never get rid of the damn things we need them to restrain others from using them, it's a circle we can't brake

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Yes, but "emprworm" thinks that America is unbeatable, even if they get bombarded by hundreds of nuclear missiles. He calls other missiles weak and short ranged and US missiles long ranged and strong.

There is already new missiles developed in the world that matches with America's.

[emprworm]

this is truly the must stupid argument I've ever heard about why the hell should we debate who could destroy most if a Nuclear attack happens there will be retalliation and it will end up in MAD, hooray for all nuclear powers.

lol, yea, well Sardaukar-Kirov apparently really wanted to talk about it. Might take a few pages, but if you scroll back you will see he first proposed the idea. Of course, i wouldn't let him get away with it.

At any rate, I think it leads into a very valid discussion regarding nuclear arms and the dismantling of such. Should any country posess a nuclear weapon?

[nampigai]

as I said it wil be M.A.D. no one will ever win in a nuclear war

[nampigai]

as I said emprworm, I'm very much against nuclear weapon but we need them as "security" measures to ensure that no one will fire the damn thing at each other without the threat of retal, I just prey to god it will never happen.

[emprworm]

to be honest with you Nam, i see a small number of nuclear weapons as permissible for the reasons you said.

however, i think that all BIOLOGICAL weapons should be banned from the earth.

those, in my opinion, are far worse.

[nampigai]

I agree, but I don't think they ever will as I believe countries will keep secret stockpiles, for the same reason as the nuclear.

A weapon I'm against is landmines, a weapon that really aren't suposed to kill only wound, and criple the enemy.

[Edric O]

Hmmm, getting back to the discussion I had with Emprworm 3 pages ago...

If China is your definition of communism, then I am not a communist, and I do not want to have anything to do with it. Call me a marxist/leftist/etc.

But either way, I am first and foremost a Consiliary Dynamist.

[Anathema]

Edric, do you want to reform society based on a revolution, or based on democratic reform?

If the first is true, you're a communist.

If the latter is true, you're a social democrat.

That's the most basic defenition there is.

[emprworm]

calling you a marxist would be bad Edric. he advocated banning religion from society.