star Wars Missile Program

[Eejit]

1. It states they are standing down *some* of the missles in the system and that the radars also perform other functions, which is not to say that they dont perform the ABM function at the same time.

2. It states that they have not put in the same ammount of money in the past. This means they are not maintaining it at the same level, but it is still active.

You seriously think that stuff still works after the post-Soviet defense budget cuts and post-Cold War economy?

 

[Pogrom]

1. It states they are standing down *some* of the missles in the system and that the radars also perform other functions, which is not to say that they dont perform the ABM function at the same time.

2. It states that they have not put in the same ammount of money in the past. This means they are not maintaining it at the same level, but it is still active.

1) I never claimed that the radars cannot perform as ABMs at the same time. But the system is obviously seriously flawed, as evidenced by this quote:

Much of the early warning radar upgrade program associated with the improved system had not yet been completed, and of those radars that had been updated, several were in republics other than Russia. The sharp decline in the Russian defense budget after the break-up also effectively ended most work on the program, and the early-warning network quickly deteriorated.

2) I contest that they are not really maintaining it at all. As quoted:

However, the Defense Ministry is also unwilling to put in the amount of money necessary to keep the system operational

All that this article is saying is that they haven't pressed the 'kill switch'. The system (for all intents and purposes) appears to be decaying on it's own. There is no evidence of the missile-interceptors still being operational. In fact, there is no evidence presented from the last 6 years at all.

 

[ductonius]

You seriously think that stuff still works after the post-Soviet defense budget cuts and post-Cold War economy?

If theres one thing the Russians have mantained it's thier nuclear capability.

They're even upgrading thier nuclear capability with new missles since the fall of the Soveit Union.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pmu.htm

Notice the deployment date: 1997

 

[Pogrom]

If theres one thing the Russians have mantained it's thier nuclear capability.

They're even upgrading thier nuclear capability with new missles since the fall of the Soveit Union.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pmu.htm

Notice the deployment date: 1997

I still think Eejit was correct. To quote from the link you supplied ductonius:

large-scale serial production has not started due to a shortage of funds

They have been testing missiles - yes. So have India, Pakistan and China. But their national defence systems (including ICBMs and anti-missile technology) appear to be in decay. Or at least seriously under-funded.

 

[ductonius]

1) I never claimed that the radars cannot perform as ABMs at the same time. But the system is obviously seriously flawed, as evidenced by this quote:

The quote basically proves it has diminished capacity which is what I have stated as well. Sure, they stood down a bunch of missles, but that dosent mean it stil dosent function.

All that this article is saying is that they haven't pressed the 'kill switch'.

It also says they are deliberatly keeping it alive. If not by direct presidential decree (as in 1995) then by continued funding.

The system (for all intents and purposes) appears to be decaying on it's own.

In any case, its still operational.

There is no evidence of the missile-interceptors still being operational.

Other than the fact that the Russians have stated they are still keeping some operational, that is. The artical says they stood *some* of the missiles down, not all, some.

In fact, there is no evidence presented from the last 6 years at all.

The artical was written in 2002, if they had deactivated it by then, it would have been in there.

In any case, all the evidence points toward the fact that the Russians still maintain a functional ABM system over Moscow.

*********************************************************

I still think Eejit was correct. To quote from the link you supplied ductonius:
Quote:
large-scale serial production has not started due to a shortage of funds

Alright, so when the Russians maintain an ABM system they're not really maintaining an ABM system and when they maintain and upgrade thier nuclear missles they're not really upgrading and maintaining their nuclear missiles?

Notice they said that *large-scale* production had not started. IE. They are still producig them and upgrading thier nuclear force.

They have been testing missiles - yes. So have India, Pakistan and China. But their national defence systems (including ICBMs and anti-missile technology) appear to be in decay. Or at least seriously under-funded.

The quote you supplied also stated that they were producing new missles in limited numbers, not just testing and developing. I dont see how you can seriously say (when you agree with Eejit) that the Russian nuclear force "dosent work".

 

[Pogrom]

The quote basically proves it has diminished capacity which is what I have stated as well. Sure, they stood down a bunch of missles, but that dosent mean it stil dosent function.

Yes, it has a dimished capacity of a system that didn't work properly in the first place. Quote - Despite the improvements, US military and intelligence reports say the Moscow system would still be relatively easy to defeat.

My point is that the original system was flawed. Now they are running a flawed, easy-to-compromise system that ALSO has a dimished capacity. See my point?

It also says they are deliberatly keeping it alive. If not by direct presidential decree (as in 1995) then by continued funding.

The article also said that the only reason they haven't de-activated it already is because of the amount they have already invested. Not because of it's reliability or it's effectiveness. Or it's strategic importance.

In any case, its still operational.

Yes, this system that would do them no good in the case of a missile attack (according to US military experts in the article) is still operational.

Other than the fact that the Russians have stated they are still keeping some operational, that is. The artical says they stood *some* of the missiles down, not all, some.

The Russians stated that they were keeping some operational, in 1995. But the article also says that there is no evidence to say that any are still operational today.

The artical was written in 2002, if they had deactivated it by then, it would have been in there.

In any case, all the evidence points toward the fact that the Russians still maintain a functional ABM system over Moscow.

Where does the article say it was written in 2002? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I did actually look for a date but maybe just missed it.

And to reiterate - the word functional in your above sentence seems to be contradicted by the very article you linked to. The points:

1) The early warning system fell apart, and is not effective.
2) The system itself is easy to compromise, and thereby not truly functional.
3) The Russians lack to funds to properly maintain it.
4) There is no evidence that any missile-interceptors are still operational. The best they can come up with is that the situation is unclear.

Alright, so when the Russians maintain an ABM system they're not really maintaining an ABM system and when they maintain and upgrade thier nuclear missles they're not really upgrading and maintaining their nuclear missiles?

Notice they said that *large-scale* production had not started. IE. They are still producig them and upgrading thier nuclear force.

They are not maintaining it, as they do not have the funds to maintain it. They simply have not de-activated it. The article makes it very clear that the system is a shambles; maintaining an ABM should entail maintaining something that works, no? If they are keeping something going that doesn't work and may not even have all of it's components, then can we really call it maintaining?

By the way, the full quote stated that they had performed tests, but had not started large scale production. In fact, here is the full quote:

All the launches have been a success, but large-scale serial production has not started due to a shortage of funds.

Although they state that production has started, they only state that 10 missiles have been commissioned. I believe if more were made than the article would have been updated correspondingly.

The quote you supplied also stated that they were producing new missles in limited numbers, not just testing and developing. I dont see how you can seriously say (when you agree with Eejit) that the Russian nuclear force "dosent work".

I still stand by my statement that the Russian nuclear force is seriously underfunded. There are many designs and much testing being carried out. But it looks like precious little has been carried through out of the testing range.

P.S. These posts are getting ridiculously long, eh?

P.P.S. Although I am enjoying this, I must get to bed. It's bloody well 4:30am!

 

[Rico]

The Star Wars program has been going on since around the 80's. I believe it was cancelled due to lack of funding/importance after the Cold War began to settle down.

I had no idea it was being re-funded, link?