• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
495
From >15000 Soviet/Russian warheads pointed at the US to ~1500 today (which could have been lower, but for the demise of the ABM Treaty). Not too shabby.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,010
Reaction score
2,431
From >15000 Soviet/Russian warheads pointed at the US to ~1500 today (which could have been lower, but for the demise of the ABM Treaty). Not too shabby.
I'm sure the collapse of the USSR had nothing to do with it.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
495
It didn't seem to. The vast majority of the reductions can be matched to arms control agreements (which started 20 years before the collapse), and a lot of it came from de-MIRVing (downloading or preferential retirement of highly MIRVed systems). In other words, delivery vehicle numbers (despite accounting for a bigger share of the cost) did not go down to the same extent, an expensive way of realizing a given cut. Add the very active post-USSR development of new delivery systems and it's obvious that Russia would've been perfectly willing and able to maintain a bigger arsenal.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,025
Reaction score
4,761
I would have to disagree with you there. The Soviet Union had a very poor record indeed with regards as to honouring arms control treaties and the like. Along with that, the post-Soviet development of new Russian strategic weapon systems only really began gain any traction off after Putin took over, and even then progress was relatively slow until the late 2000s onwards.
 
Last edited:

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
495
What part of the argument exactly are you disagreeing with?

That warhead numbers went down at all, or that the reductions were attributable to arms control?

If the latter, see my above post - fiscal pressures from the collapse were plainly not so severe as to preclude retaining a lot of expensive delivery systems, or the development of new ones. By maintaining a higher number of warheads per delivery vehicle, Russia could have kept a substantially larger arsenal quite easily.

If the former, well, if we assume for argument's sake that warhead numbers didn't go down in the first place, what relevance does the collapse of the USSR have at all?
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,997
Reaction score
453
Transportable?
It's somewhat of a pity that the U.S. doesn't truly live by its mantra of 'free markets'...could you imagine the effective TEL designed and built by the Russian GAZ corporation ;)

Regards
Pioneer
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
344
Reaction score
344
I think the U.S. just needs a little more spending on defense and offense, like better success rate tests with newer systems or not cancelling HGV flight tests when another country already air-launched a scramjet. weapons better than minuteman, boosting BMD capabilities back at home, don't mind ship capabilities being boosted for better offensive and defensive means.

Like I wouldn't mind if the U.S. made something more new and superior to S-500, tundra satellites, HARMONY SONAR system, A-235 systems, new Voronezh ground radars, talks of radars hitting the millimeter wave frequency or higher, etc. Don't understand why some are making it look like the country is paranoid for spending more money on new nuclear weapons for offensive means when they are spending as much or if not more for defensive means.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,025
Reaction score
4,761
What part of the argument exactly are you disagreeing with?

That warhead numbers went down at all, or that the reductions were attributable to arms control?

If the latter, see my above post - fiscal pressures from the collapse were plainly not so severe as to preclude retaining a lot of expensive delivery systems, or the development of new ones. By maintaining a higher number of warheads per delivery vehicle, Russia could have kept a substantially larger arsenal quite easily.

If the former, well, if we assume for argument's sake that warhead numbers didn't go down in the first place, what relevance does the collapse of the USSR have at all?
My point was that not only that the reduction in Russia's warheads and delivery systems mostly occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the victors boot was on her neck so to speak, but that development let alone deployment of new strategic weapons was effectively all but stillborn for quite a long time. In addition, the fact that many of the systems that were left over were at best only nominally operational and/or in the hands of successor states other than Russia certainly didn't help her strategic outlook.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
495
Topol-M went from drawing board to initial deployment before Putin came in, and much of the development work for the systems tested and mass produced on his watch necessarily happened before 2000, too. Besides, through the 1990s Russia had about 4x MORE warheads than it does now - that is precisely the point!
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,010
Reaction score
2,431
Transportable?
It's somewhat of a pity that the U.S. doesn't truly live by its mantra of 'free markets'...could you imagine the effective TEL designed and built by the Russian GAZ corporation ;)

Regards
Pioneer
No need:
3099373025_1_9_GJuysBe3.jpg

And I'm sure, if need be, Oshkosh, John Deere, or even Caterpillar would be up to the task.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,025
Reaction score
4,761
Topol-M went from drawing board to initial deployment before Putin came in, and much of the development work for the systems tested and mass produced on his watch necessarily happened before 2000, too.
I seem to recall that Topol-M only nominally entered service in 2000 and didn't really begin to enter service until 2006, despite three regiments having been stood up to operate the silo based version in the intervening period? (I think the mobile version also finally began to enter service in 2006.) Some pre-production examples were also reportedly operated on a test basis by a couple of existing missile regiments in the late '90s, though that was widely believed to be pretty much a bluff (along with badly needed PR for domestic purposes), due to the design not being perfected until the early 2000s.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,997
Reaction score
453

Similar threads

Top