Putin claiming Russia has new nukes?

[question]

Putin makes bizarre claim of new nuclear weapons

CHRIS STEPHEN IN MOSCOW

KREMLIN watchers could be forgiven for thinking they had woken up back in the USSR during a particularly tense moment of the Cold War.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, yesterday announced, out of the blue, that Moscow has developed a new, secret and terrible nuclear weapon unequalled elsewhere in the world.

In language laced with Cold War rhetoric, he told Russians that the country was on the threshold of a mighty new security doctrine with, as its centrepiece, new nuclear weapons which "will be put into service in the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have".

His announcement was all the more bizarre because the speech was aimed primarily against terrorists - the one group of enemies who are, by their nature, not best dealt with by nuclear weapons.

"We are conducting research and are testing the most up-to-date nuclear missile systems, which, I’m sure, will be supplied to the armed forces in the near future," Mr Putin was quoted as telling news agencies.

It left defence experts outside Russia scratching their heads.

Duncan Bullivant, director of the London-based defence consultancy Henderson Risk, said: "Nukes are only useful against area targets, there’s nothing tactical about a nuclear weapon.

"From a military point of view it’s illogical to be looking to deploy new nuclear weapons when the threat comes from terrorists."

The announcement is also puzzling because it is hard to see how much more effective nuclear weapons can become. The good old fashioned H-bomb already seems to be a weapon at the top of its evolutionary tree: a single bomb can devastate an entire city, so increasing the yield would make little difference to its effectiveness.

True, a new mobile launcher for Russia’s Topol-M ballistic missile was announced earlier this month, making the weapon much easier to hide. But the basic nuclear equation remains the same: if one side uses them, the other side can launch devastating retaliation.

If Mr Putin’s unexpected statement had the ring of a Soviet era pronouncement it fits into a pattern of recent Kremlin communiqués.

The Moscow Times reported that equally stern language had been used by the head of the Physical Culture Agency, Vyacheslav Fetisov, last week when he demanded that the government fire any national team coach who failed to bring glory for his team.

In the same article, the emergency situations minister, Sergei Shoigu, spoke admiringly of the former KGB chief Yuri Andropov’s love of hockey and how the hockey team had performed so well under his tenure.

Europe’s football governing body UEFA has already criticised Moscow for pressure put on the coach of its ailing football team following its poor showing in this summer’s European Championships. The coach had reportedly been told by Mr Fetisov that Mr Putin was not best pleased with the team’s performance.

Both announcements stem from the same roots - a quest for the greatness and pride enjoyed under the USSR. A decade ago, ordinary Russians would have laughed at such announcements. Now, having seen democracy turn into chaos, they grasp for the old certainties.

Mr Putin has popularity ratings a western leader would die for. Under the banner of rebuilding the nation, the Kremlin is putting the country ever more under its thumb: all national TV news is now controlled by the state and elections for regional governors are being scrapped - Mr Putin will in future appoint them himself. And in parliament, Mr Putin’s United Russia reigns supreme, following his lead without question.

Russians tell pollsters they are happy to see the state rediscovering some of the habits of the old USSR.

But abroad, yesterday’s announcement is likely to ring alarm bells among fellow nuclear powers who, until now, had assumed they were partners, not rivals to Moscow.

Likewise, international sports bodies will be furious with a return to state control of sport as practised in communist times, when state-funded athletes were able to beat their amateur western foes.

But Mr Putin gives every indication that he is on a mission to restore Russian strength and pride, and his message to the rest of the world is likely to be - watch out.

[taken from: The Scotsman]

This can't be good.

[Adam D]

Welcome to Bush's new nuclear arms race.


We said, Bush...don't get rid of the ABM Treaty, it will start an arms race. Conservatives chose not to listen, and as it turns out, once again we were right.

[Funkenstein]

That would make all of this moot point:

From Whitehouse.gov

Recent Arms Treaty

PRESIDENT PUTIN:

"It's the statement of our countries to reduce our nuclear arsenals and the joint work for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

Cold War Part 2?

Never mind, Adam D beat me to the point I was going to lead to. . .

[MysteryMeat]

Originally Posted by question

The announcement is also puzzling because it is hard to see how much more effective nuclear weapons can become. The good old fashioned H-bomb already seems to be a weapon at the top of its evolutionary tree: a single bomb can devastate an entire city, so increasing the yield would make little difference to its effectiveness.

It's not really all that difficult if you handle the equations a little differently than they're so rigidly constructed. I've actually fiddled with the mathematics behind it, and was able to come up with a solution that produces a much more efficient yield with a smaller payload, but it's nothing I'd ever publish*



*this being because I vowed to never work on, produce, publish, or design anything that could possibly cause the death of another human being. Having a father that worked for and managed defense programs for 27 years solidified that point of view.

[Adam D]

In the past year Russia has been openly discussing that it was developing nuclear weapons of a more powerful pedigree. So it really should not come as a surprise. I'm sure anybody interested could search AP news reports and find more specific statements from the Russians.

Originally Posted by Adam D

Welcome to Bush's new nuclear arms race.


We said, Bush...don't get rid of the ABM Treaty, it will start an arms race. Conservatives chose not to listen, and as it turns out, once again we were right.

You're serious?

You're blaming Russian nukes on Bush?

that's tinfoil hat territory


What if the Russian's had violated the treaty? How is it enforced? The treaty was abandoned because we are no threat to one anther.

You really think the US and Russia are going to go toe to toe with another arms race - they can't afford it.

[Adam D]

Here's a link to a slightly more in depth story: http://www.cdi.org/russia/331-1.cfm

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

You're serious?

You're blaming Russian nukes on Bush?

that's tinfoil hat territoey

I am serious. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union Russian leaders have maintained that the ABMT was a "cornerstone" of US-Russian relations, nuclear deterrence, and the prevention of a post-Cold War arms race. This isn't my conjecture, these are the words of Yeltsin, his closest advisors, and even Putin.

When the ABMT was unilaterally abandoned by Bush to advance plans for the militarization of space and the implementation of a nationwide BMD system, it began a new arms race, although one likely more muted than the Cold War. Russian defense officials, like our own, still see the nuclear capabilities as the cornerstone of their own defense posture, and a powerful "diplomatic" tool. But if the US can make itself defended against the existing nuclear weapons, then Russia, along with others in the nuclear club, will have to develop anti-BMD weapons or BMD-avoiding nuclear weapons.

Again, that's not my conjecture, that's the position of many defense analysts.

For other nations who fear US attacks, such as Iran and North Korea, deterring such an attack will mean developing nuclear weapons. If the US is two steps ahead in the game with nuclear weapons and BMD, it increases the fear of brazen US action. So in order to up the ante, nuclear weapons must be developed (see North Korea and Iran).

Again, not my contention, but the contention of many defense analysts.

It is not accidental that North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, even in the face of intense US scrutiny. Nor is it accidental that Iran was seeking to develop them, with US and Israeli forces on their border. Nor is it accidental that Russia, a nation inches away from bankruptcy, found the money to develop more nuclear weapons. A great deal of the nation views its own national strength in terms of its nuclear capabilities in relation to our own. And with the ever rising tide of nationalism and calls for a return to communism in Russia, it is hard to imagine that causation exists.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

What if the Russian's had violated the treaty? How is it enforced?

During the Cold War it would have meant the buildup of BMD systems, just like with nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Likely it would have extended the Cold War for decades.

If they had abandoned it after 1992, it would have given approval for the US to have done it too, and who knows what effect that would have had, whether it would have plunged us back into the Cold War or just merely another arms race.

But the Russians never wanted to abandon the treaty. Not during the 1980s when Reagan threatened them with Star Wars, and not after the Cold War. It was enforced by risk of the consequences, like any treaty or contract.

The treaty was abandoned because we are no threat to one anther.

The treaty was abandoned because Bush wanted to build a BMD system. The Russians were very adamant about it not happening, so obviously they felt there was a valid reason for it to remain.

You really think the US and Russia are going to go toe to toe with another arms race - they can't afford it.

They couldn't afford it for decades, yet that didn't stop them. The communist system was never designed to take on such costs, but they did it anyway. And they continue to do it. Although the country has been near bankrupt for about a decade (actually considered bankrupt at one point) it continues to be one of the greatest spenders on defense while social services (like education) remain severely underfunded.

And no doubt as long as Russian politicians can serve up images of the BMD system as a threat to their constituents, the people will continue to support it whether the money is there or not. And there's empirical proof of that. Just look at this country.

[Johnny Funk]

Who cares? What can a NEW nuclear weapon do that the old ones can't? The end result is the same. We both can mount enough weapons in one submarine to destroy the world. More than that is just showboatin'.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by Johnny Funk

Who cares? What can a NEW nuclear weapon do that the old ones can't? The end result is the same. We both can mount enough weapons in one submarine to destroy the world. More than that is just showboatin'.

Arms races are little more than deadly games of oneupsmanship.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally Posted by Johnny Funk

Who cares? What can a NEW nuclear weapon do that the old ones can't? The end result is the same. We both can mount enough weapons in one submarine to destroy the world. More than that is just showboatin'.

I'm guessing that the 'new' weapons concentrate more on the end result. Imagine something that did the same damage but without the ensuing fallout. Or the other end of the spectrum: a bomb that intentionally increases the fallout, thereby poisoning a great many more people and lands after the fact.

[steve-o]

on a side note. i just developed and detonated a new type of nuclear BM. The fallout is flushable but the aftermath is dominant.

Seriously though, does this mean that we are going to start the "i've got more stones and arrows than you..." situation again?

Sad world we live in.

[Johnny Funk]

Originally Posted by MysteryMeat

I'm guessing that the 'new' weapons concentrate more on the end result. Imagine something that did the same damage but without the ensuing fallout. Or the other end of the spectrum: a bomb that intentionally increases the fallout, thereby poisoning a great many more people and lands after the fact.

It's still lame. It's like trying to add more stink to your shit or making your shit's stink more powerfull but not last as long.

In the end, it's all crap.

Originally Posted by Adam D

They couldn't afford it for decades, yet that didn't stop them.

Adam - it bankrupted the Soviet Government into collapse.


Your suggestions that we're going to enter a news arms race to compete with Russia begs the question.... why?


They are no threat to us and we none to them.


This is not to say that the announcement that they're going to be producing these massive yield weapons isn't bizarre. It is bizarre.