The U.S. has some decrepit nukes of its own, and Brandon has just announced a $6 billion rescue package for the troubled U.S. nuclear power industry, funded from the $1 trillion Infrastructure program that was enacted in November.
"Decrepit this," said one Vladimir V. Putin today, after the first test launch of Russia's new "Sarmat" nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.
quote
Russia's defence ministry said the Sarmat was fired from a silo launcher at 1512 Moscow time (1212 GMT) and the training warheads reached a test range on Kamchatka, nearly 6,000 km (3,700 miles) away in the Pacific.
"Decrepit this," said one Vladimir V. Putin today, after the first test launch of Russia's new "Sarmat" nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.
The new system will incorporate low risk, technically mature components, feature a modular architecture that can easily incorporate emerging technology to adapt in rapidly evolving threat environments, and will be easier to maintain than the Minuteman system – all of which will enable cost-savings and ensure relevancy as the Sentinel operates well into the 2070s.
This is a brief press release with three interactive photo images.
Russia's Sarmat vs U.S. Sentinel—what are the similarities? What are the differences? Who can provide a bullet point-style presentation? Not me. Not at this moment.
The U.S. and NATO have an anglicized name for Russia's new Sarmat missile: "Satan 2".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-21-2022).]
The U.S. and NATO have an anglicized name for Russia's new Sarmat missile: "Satan 2".
You wouldn't know a NATO reporting name from a plate of Nachos
..
quote
Originally posted by randye:
LEFTISTS and their media know NOTHING about the military, military weapons, or history.....and as shown in this thread they keep demonstrating their ignorance.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-21-2022).]
Fighting a troll with truth doesn't make a dent in their habits, but it's the only way to hammer the point home. And I'm not talking about who you just put on probation.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 04-22-2022).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: Fighting a troll with truth doesn't make a dent in their habits, but it's the only way to hammer the point home. And I'm not talking about who you just put on probation.
He quotes my words, and then responds, starting with "That is absolute horseshit..."
What is that? Forum member "randye" could have had something coherent in the back of his mind when he posted that idiotic remark. Forum member "randye" might have been thinking that an article in the NYT that I had just referenced was overstating Obama's personal interest and enthusiasm for the U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons modernization program that Obama had green-lighted when he was the President. (That's what forum member "randye" is referring to in that post.)
But when "randye" enters the conversation using this astonishingly fat-headed and accusatory temperament or tone (the radically rude language that he uses), then how could I possibly have responded? How could I discuss this with him any further? How could I even acknowledge that he (possibly) has a valid point?
This where this last remark from "olejoedad"—the remark that I quoted at the beginning of this post—falls flat on its face.
For "olejoedad", a TROLL is someone that expresses one or more opinions or ideas that "olejoedad" doesn't agree with.
Really?
That's what I get from "olejoedad's" latest remark.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-24-2022).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: Thank you for your input, rinse.
You're so welcome. Here's something to top off my previous reportage on Russia's new long-range, nuclear doomsday weapon. Summary information.
Russia's new RS-28 Sarmat is a liquid-fueled Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of carrying nuclear charges. This missile has been under development in Russia since 2000s. The Sarmat is designed to replace the R-36M2 Voyevoda ICBM, which has been Russia’s only ICBM since 1988.
The name "Sarmat" is derived from the nomadic Sarmatian tribes that lived some centuries before the Christian Era in what are now the lands of Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Dubbed "Satan 2" by the U.S. and NATO, the Sarmat is designed to overcome U.S. missile defense systems. Sarmat has a shortened initial boost phase, which reduces the window of time that U.S. and NATO missile surveillance systems would have to detect it upon launch and calculate its trajectory.
Sarmat can be configured with "more than 10" Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles or MIRVs. That means "10 or more" MIRVs descending onto U.S. or NATO targets. At least some of these MIRVs would be nuclear bombs in an actual doomsday scenario. Some of the MIRVs might be decoys, meant to divert the capabilities of any U.S. missile defense and improve the odds that the real "nukes" would reach their targets.
Russia will be able to launch the RS-28 Sarmat towards the U.S. on trajectories that would take it directly over the North Pole.
If he doesn't get a response, he makes another post in the same thread. Perhaps he is just desperate for attention. Most people have the need for feeling relevant.
The reason that noobs like "olejoedad" and "Hudini" believe horseradish like that is because they know nothing about Trolling or Trolling tactics and strategy, and nothing about anything else.
The reason that noobs like "olejoedad" and "Hudini" believe horseradish like that is because they know nothing about Trolling or Trolling tactics and strategy, and nothing about anything else.
Words of wisdom from the Trollmaster?
You heard it here first, folks, right from the horse's mouth...er...keyboard.
Our Pennocks Purveyor Of Perjury and CONSTANTLY WRONG legal prognosticator has already assured us that any possible civil case in the matter of the ambushed and murdered Ashli Babbitt is "frivolous"
As usual, he is
And it's not even as though this particular post stands out from the rest of his submissions. This is just a random post from a random thread. There are so many other examples I could've chosen... but this one was more than enough to stomach.
Perhaps some members here should understand the difference between an instigator and a respondent.
I do, and I'm sure many others do as well.
The difference is only lost on a few, who have very recently posted in this thread.
And there's no better place to look, for "some members" who want to understand the difference between the instigator in this thread (and in general) and everyone else, than right here: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/...L/000072-4.html#p128
It's one of my messages, back closer to the top of this thread page. The one that includes the color-highlighted text: That is the first time that "randye" showed up in this thread. Back on page 2.
Where was the ugliness in this thread, before the instigator first appeared with his customary ugliness, back on page 2..? Can you find any? What was the reason for the instigator's ugly outburst on page 2, and why couldn't he have made his point (if he actually had one) in line with the first admonition in the Posting Guidelines, to keep the discussions "civilized"..?
It's easy to read "olejoedad" between the lines. He thinks there should be two kinds of behavior on this forum. Civilized behavior, for the forum at large. And Radically Rude behavior, which "olejoedad" is ready to accept from certain forum members that "olejoedad" particularly likes, such as the instigator in this case—the "forever instigator" who has just been hit with a 24-hour probation.
I call that "horseradish."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-24-2022).]
It started with a question: Are Russian nukes as decrepit as their conventional weapons?
After three pages of "thread" (going on four), I think the answer is "No."
Would anyone say otherwise? ...
Taken at face value, it would appear that you are correct. But I suspect that, as in anything else, there may be more to the story. (Not an argument. Just an observation.) They can launch, and target a missile. Let's hope that they don't feel the need to repeat it, under "working conditions". The warhead/re-entry capability is still an unknown. The "Arabs", as a rule, are full of bluster, fire and brimstone. ("The mother of all... whatever"). I wonder if Putin is much - or any - different.
As I am fond of saying... I suppose that we shall see. Or (hopefully) not.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 04-24-2022).]
It might be illuminating if he would tackle the question that I just posed:
Where was the ugliness in this thread, before the instigator first appeared with his customary ugliness, back on page 2..? Can you find any? What was the reason for the instigator's ugly outburst on page 2, and why couldn't he have made his point (if he actually had one) in line with the first admonition in the Posting Guidelines, to keep the discussions "civilized"..?
It's not a long article. Here are three paragraphs that I found of particular interest:
quote
Scariest of all, Moscow has a Doomsday Device, called Perimeter — and dubbed “Dead Hand” by the West — which reportedly can destroy the US homeland in 30 minutes.
This highly complex system is designed for a retaliatory strike, following an initial attack on Russia by the US. Designed by the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, if switched on, it would launch Russia’s entire nuclear arsenal directly at this country. The system remains semi-dormant until activated by a high-ranking official in a crisis.
If activated, it can still launch even if the Russian regime is wiped out and Putin or his alternates are unable to authorize a nuclear strike through a standard process. After the initial multi-step verification that communication links to Putin’s war room are not working, in about 15-60 minutes, the autonomous computerized system would send signals to nuclear weapons silos, directing all remaining Russian nuclear missiles to launch.
If it weren't for the nuclear threat, I would be wholly enthusiastic about a direct and violent U.S. and NATO intervention in this Russo-Ukraine war. Especially, if Russia goes after the Ukrainian seaport city of Odessa in a big way, or if Russia, after hiving off the eastern part of Ukraine, turns back west again and threatens Kharkiv, or Kyiv, or tries to push all the way across Ukraine and into neighboring Moldova. I think Biden and the NATO leaders should be ready to consider jumping in, guns blazing, if Russia isn't satisfied with just hiving off that Donbas region in the east and the city of Mariupol. (Or what remains of it.)
I fear a delusional Putin, who thinks he can do significantly more damage to the U.S. using nuclear weapons, than the U.S. would do to Russia.
I fear a nihilistic Putin, who is thinking to himself, "I really screwed up. Now I'm going to be pushed aside in a Russian military-orchestrated coup and extradited to face trial for war crimes in the Hague. I might as well just go out in a nuclear blaze of glory and take the rest of the world with me."
Putin has said "What good is the world if it doesn't include Russia?" And in Putin's mind, "Russia" and "Putin" are just two words for the exact same thing.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-24-2022).]
CNBC is an American [based] cable business news channel owned by NBCUniversal News Group, a division of NBCUniversal, with both indirectly owned by Comcast. Headquartered in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, the network primarily carries business day coverage of U.S. and international financial markets.
~ Google.
Could there be a war between Russia and the U.S.-led NATO alliance?
That's the question that CNBC reporter Holly Ellyatt was pondering as she opined in today's online edition of CNBC. For guidance, she turned to what she describes as "strategists."
Here's a chance to see how your own thoughts line up with, or contrast with the thinking of these strategists.
Maybe not. Two subject matter experts and university scholars weigh in on how the U.S. could best react if Putin were to use a nuclear weapon in some way during Russia's war—excuse me, "special military operation"—in Ukraine.
U.S. and NATO respond, but not with nuclear weapons, targeting the Russian naval base in Sevastopol and other Russian military facilities and infrastructure in Crimea. Cut to the chase
Logically thinking, one would deduce that the Western countries would not escalate a nuclear attack by responding in kind, and a conventional strike on a Russian military installation would be appropriate. The obvious choice for a target would be the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, as it is being used to conduct operations against Ukraine.
Was that line of logic not apparent to you some weeks ago when Putin threatened the use of tactical nukes against Ukraine?
Edited to correct a misspelled word.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 05-02-2022).]
