« | »

Russia To Develop ‘Invincible’ Missiles

From Russia’s Izvestia, via Pravda:

Russia and India To Develop Supersonic Missile Invincible to Interception

16.10.2009

Russia and India will start the development of a new supersonic missile nearly invincible to interception. No army in the world has anything similar to it. The sum of the investment has not been defined yet, but it can be expected to reach billions of dollars.

The missile is to become a successor of the supersonic missile BrahMos (known as Yahont in the Russian army) that is now installed on ships, land missile complexes and may soon be installed on Su-30 MKI fighter jets and submarines. This possibility was discussed on Tuesday at the meeting of an intergovernmental committee on military and technical collaboration that took place in Moscow and was chaired by Russian and Indian Defense Ministers, Anatoly Serdyukov and Arackaparambil Kurien Antony…

It is unique since it’s the only cruise missile in the world that can be launched both as a single unit and a group. Its highly intelligent operational system allows the missile to reach the speed of Mach 3.0, which is three times faster than the speed of the subsonic American Tomahawk cruise-missile). BrahMos can engage any sea target, and a group of these missiles can destroy an entire ship formation.

The missiles are so clever that they not only detect a target but develop a plan of attack based on the enemy’s air defense. They know exactly which target is the primary one, which of them is an attacker and which is a defender. When the main target is destroyed, they re-prioritize and continue with the attack. Now even more advanced missile is on the way…

Er, what was the supposed benefit of dropping the missile defense shield for Europe again?

Isn’t this one of the weapons that would no longer be built?

And of course we were to get increased co-operation from the Russians in our efforts to stop Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

Lies. All lies.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, October 16th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

18 Responses to “Russia To Develop ‘Invincible’ Missiles”

  1. proreason says:

    This will even things up between Russia and the US, and make the world safer.

    And even if it doesn’t, we meant well.

    • RightWinger says:

      Don’t forget the news that Barry is going to give some more missle technology to the Chinese, who will then parse it out to the North Koreans for some more proxy sabre rattling. That will somehow trickle down to the Iranians for better missle guidance.

      I’m just wondering when Barry will finally get around to saying we are going to completely disarm in the name of “world peace”.

  2. Reality Bytes says:

    Hey! Where’s The Love?! Doesn’t a Peace Prize mean anything anymore?!

  3. MinnesotaRush says:

    Well .. those naughty Russians and Indians will probably be getting a call from the Nobel Committee. After all .. didn’t their boy, o-blah-blah, envision and call for a nuclear free world (???).

    Apparently they weren’t listening. Uh huh.

  4. Tater Salad says:

    The Russians and B.O. are so full of it!

  5. GetBackJack says:

    PsyOps

    Exactly the same plan that Reagan’s White House developed to pressure the Soviet bloc into choosing to collapse rather than attempt spending themselves blind trying to keep pace with American technology development. Payback. An attempt to further derange Obama’s peeps and make them go crying into a corner.

    The hare now chases the fox. Or, in this instance, the sloth.

    If these ‘missiles’ can fly faster than the speed of light, then by all means they’re invincible. Since you’ve recently heard of airborne laser weapons platforms you would be well advised to bet every dollar you can get at the Big Window in Vegas that what’s allowed to seep out into the public domain is … in a phrase … Old News. Let alone the electro-magnetic wave front weapons systems we ALREADY possess.

    This attempt at Russian PsyOps is aimed at the vulnerable nanny stater wet-pants pu**ified oatmeal for brains American press, academics, their political fellow travelers and Keith Olberman. In other words, the fools on the Left …. so they’ll go rigid in their bunk beds with fear imagining all over again the Great Terror of Russian Nukes during the height of the Cold War. (olberman peeing himself in his roy rogers bunk bed at night)

    Heads of mush.

  6. Liberals Demise says:

    Why would Russia build a “SUPERMAN” missile when dingleBarry and Hildabeast are selling us down the river Styx?

    They must be worried about Iran. We certainly don’t pose a threat to them

  7. canary says:

    Obama wrote Reagan’s star wars was a complete failure. Obama has repeatedly tried to cut down our defense budget. Town Hall in Missouri he said in 2 years if we pay out social security there won’t be funds for troops; and national parks will have to be closed(his future mega lands he scoped out on his campaign vacation)

    Obama blames America for Indonesia’s problems (terrorist muslims wiping out moderate muslims that’s been going on for centuries only esculating to murder in the streets) After we wiped out the communist Japanese and Dutch who took over Indonesia; Obama is angry because while Indonesia itself worked at destroying communists in their country, America did not stop it. But, Obama claims Vietnam was a mistake. And Obama writes questions, why Iraq? Why not N. Korea, instead. (duh. we saved S. Korea, and N. Korea wasn’t bombing and destroying the entire globe)

    Another example of how Afganistan war is different than the Vietnam war?

    In Vietnam our soul purpose was to kill the communist North who were slaughtering the South, like the Korea war.
    Afganistan is different because our soldiers are living in the belly of the most dangerous terrorists in the present world, and instead of focusing on destroying them, our soldiers have to be careful and protect their goats, build their wells, and compounds, bring them supplies, education, medical supplies, etc. Our soldiers can not shoot a woman who points a rifle at them. They can only point their rifle back and play Russian Roulet.

    Obama wrote he had no ideas or answers in how to fight the terrorists, but was open to ideas. (2006) Over all, he believes in Truman’s Cold War policies. (might explain that statement respecting Churchill ?) Unbelievably, no one pointed this admittance of Obama that he did not have the answers for this war.
    Americans voted for an ignorant bottom of the barrel 2-bit lawyer who admitted he knows nothing about fighting a war.
    Obama only knows how to fight a war against the U.S. of America, choosing his Bill Ayers, Marxist, & communist friends as his mother taught him.

  8. canary says:

    Brahmo Samaj was one of the most prominent religious groups in India during the eighteenth century. The eminent Bengali educationalist and social reformer, Raja Ram Mohan Roy founded the Brahmo Sabha in 1828 and it became famous as Brahmo Samaj later. The Brahmo Samaj was actually a community of people, who gathered on a regular basis to discuss or worship the Eternal, Immutable Supreme Being, Author and Preserver of the Universe. The motto of the Brahmo Samaj was not to worship the Eternal under any name, designation or title. The literary meaning of the word `Brahmo` is “one who worships Brahman” and the word `Samaj` means a “community of men”.
    http://www.indianetzone.com/3/brahmo_samaj.htm

    Wikipedia has somewhat different interpretation of Brahmo (Hebrew) that is being “disputed”. Must be real important word worth fighting over.

  9. joeblough says:

    Obambi

  10. pdsand says:

    I thought any development in American nuclear missile technology or missile shield technology was a threat to Russia and destabilized world peace. How come Obama’s not out their criticizing the Russians for being a threat to the U.S. and world peace? Oh silly me. I forgot they just want the U.S. to have poor nuke technology and the Russians to have superior power so that they can defeat us.

  11. beautyofreason says:

    How many foreign policy foibles can one President rack up in a year?

    I’ll take ‘we’re screwed’ for 1000, Alex.

    1. Effort: Invite Iranian diplomats to fourth of July celebrations in Washington.
    Result: Ouch! Declined – oh, and a couple hundred Iranian kids got shot for protesting a fake election.

    2. Effort: Remove missile defense system plans from a European ally to please Russia, and exert pressure on Iran.
    Result: Ouch, Russia is the kind of girl who strikes your heart when you’re vulnerable. No push for Iranian sanctions, a new missile system, AND a new policy allowing nuclear war for small-scale conflicts. But at least we’re lowering our defenses. Drop trow – Score!

    3. Effort: Outreach to the Muslim world
    Result: Bow to the Saudi King, ignore Islam’s political branch, splurge to cover Fatah’s budget shortage and choose a Muslim adviser who calls Shariah law “misunderstood.” Bing.

    4. Effort: The world must love us
    Result: Well, you’ve at least got compliments from Castro and Chavez (it takes a lot of heart to go from “big Satan” to “read this”). Keep trying, soon Iran will love you too!

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Beauty……that was inspired.

      Sometimes I wonder if barry, the wooden puppet, really does hope to someday be a real boy.

    • proreason says:

      One can’t look at these actions and conclude anything other than that the Moron and his puppet-masters are intent on destroying the United States of America.

  12. canary says:

    Russia Officially Declares Right to Nuke Potential Aggressor
    Russia / News from the Kremlin 14.10.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru
    A new version of Russia’s military doctrine will contain details of using nuclear arms when repelling aggression with the use of conventional means of destruction in both large-scale and local armed conflicts.

    Breaking News
    Russian defense complex may show USA its place

    Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper that Russia would consider an opportunity of using nuclear arms depending on circumstances and intentions of a potential enemy.

    “In situations critical for national security, a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor is not ruled out,” he said.

    The section of Russia’s military doctrine about the opportunity to use nuclear weapons was formulated to preserve the status of a nuclear power for the Russian Federation. The document states that Russia can apply nuclear deterrence against potential enemies to prevent aggression against Russia and its allies.

    Mr. Patrushev said that the edited version of the military doctrine would be prepared until the end of the year.

    “It will be a transparent military doctrine, to let everyone know which security measures we elaborate in Russia and abroad, which goals we have and how we are going to achieve them,” Patrushev said.

    The current military doctrine was approved in 2000. It particularly says that Russia is entitled to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or an act of a large-scale war against Russia.

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station that the USA did not permit a nuclear first-strike under its own military guidelines.

    Speak the truth and shame the devil on Pravda.ru forum
    http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/14-10-2009/109884-russia_nuclear-0

  13. canary says:

    The Audacity of Hope Barack Obama 2006

    page 311 Obama: Finally, by engaging our allies, we give them joint ownership over the difficult, methodical, vital, and necessarily collaborative work of limiting the terrorists’ capacity to inflict harm. That work includes shutting down terrorist financial networks and sharing intelligence to hunt down terrorists suspects and infiltrate their cells; our continued failure to effectively coordinate intelligence gathering even amoung various U.S. agencies, as well as our continued lack of effective human intelligence capacity, is inexcusable. Most important, we need to join forces to keep weapons of mass destruction out of terrorists hands.
    One of the best examples of such collaboration was pioneered in the nineties by Republican Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana and former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, two men who undestood the need to nurture coalition before crises strike, and who applied this knowledge to the critical problem of nuclear proliferation. The premise of what came to be known as the Nunn-Lugar program was simple: After the fall of the Soviet Union, the biggest threat to the United States – aside from an accidental launch – wasn’t a first strike ordered by Gorbachev or Yeltsin, but the migration of nuclear material or know-how into the hands of terrorists and rogue states, a possible result of Russia’s economic tailspin, corruption in the military, the impoverishment of Russian scientists, and security and control systems that had fallen into disrepair. Under Nunn-Lugar, America basically provided the rescources to fix up those systems, and although the program caused some consternation to those accustomed to Cold War thinking, it has proven to be one of the most important investments we could have made to protect ourselves from catastrophe.
    In August 2005, I traveled with Senator Lugar to see some of this handiwork. It was my first trip to Russia and Ukraine, and I couldn’t have had a better guide than Dick, a remarkably fit seventy-three-year-old with a gentle, imperturbably manner and an inscrutable smile that served him well during the often interminable meetings we held with foreign officials.
    Together we visited the nuclear facilites of Saratov, where Russian generals pointed with pride to the new fencing and security systems that had been recently completed; afterward, they served us a lunch of borscht, vodka, potatoe stew, and deeply troubling fish Jello-O mold. In Perm, at a site where SS-24 and SS-25 tactical missles were being dismantled, we walked through the center of eight-foot-high empty missile casings and gazed in silence at the massive, sleek, still-active missles that were now warehoused safely,

    but had once been aimed at the cities of Europe.

    And in a quiet, residential neighborhood of Kiev, we received a tour of the Ukraines version of the Centers for Disease Control, a modest three-story facility that looked like a high school science lab. At one point during our tour, after seeing windows open for lack of air-conditioning and metal strips crudely bolted to door jambs to keep out mice, we were guided to a small freezer secured by nothing more than a seal of string. A middle-aged woman in a lab coat and surgical mask pulled a few test tubes from the freezer, waving them around a foot from my face and saying something in Ukrainian.
    “That is anthrax,” the translator explained, pointing to the vial in the woman’s right hand. ” That one,” he said, pointing to the one in the left hand, “is the plague.”
    I looked behind me and noticed Lugar standing toward the back of the room.
    “You don’t want a closer look, Dick?” I asked, taking a few steps back myself.
    “Been there, done that,” he said with a smile.
    There were moments during our travels when we were reminded of the old Cold War days. At the airport in Perm, for example, a border officer in his early twenties detained us for three hours because we wouldn’t let him search our plane, leading our staffs to fire off telephone calls to the U.S. embassy and Russia’s foreign affairs ministry in Moscow. And yet most of what we heard and saw – the Calvin Klein store and Maserati show-room in Red Square Mall; the motorcade of SUVs that pulled up in front of a restaurant, driven by burly men with ill-fitting suits who once might have rushed to open the door for Kremlin Oifficals but were now on the security detail of one of Russia’s billionaire oligarchs; the throngs of sullen teenagers in T-shirts and low-riding jeans, sharing cigaretts and the music on their iPods as they wandered Kiev’s graceful boulevards – underscored the seemingly irreversible process of economic, if not politcal, integration between the East and West.
    That was part of the reason, I sensed, why Lugar and I were greeted so warmly at these various military installation. Our presence not only promised money for security systems and fencing and monitors and the like; it also indicated to the men and women who worked in these facilities that they still in fact mattered. They had made careers, had been honored, for perfecting the tools of war. Now they found themselves presiding over remnants of the past, their institutions barely relevant to nations whose people had shifted their main attention to turning a quick buck.
    Certainly that’s how it felt in Donetsk, and industrial town in the southeastern portion of Ukraine where we stopped to visit an installation for the destruction of conventional weapons. The facility was nestled in the country, accessed by a series of narrow roads occasionally crowded with goats. The director of the facilty, a rotund, cheerful man who reminded me of a Chicago ward superintendent, led us through a series of dark warehouse-like structures in various states of disrepair, where rows of workers nimbly dismantled an assortment of land mines and tank ordnance, and empty shell casings were piled loosely into mounds that rose to my shoulders. They needed U.S. help, the director explained, because Ukraine lacked the money to deal with all the weapons left over from the Cold War and Afganistan – at the pace they were going, securing and disabling these weapons might take sixty years. In the meantime weapons would remain scattered across the coutnry, often in shacks without padlocks, expose to the elements, not just ammunition but high-grade explosives and shoulder-to-air missiles-tools of destruction that might find their way into the hands of warlords in Somalia, Tamil fighter in Sri Lanks, insurgents in Iraq.
    As he spoke, our group entered another building, where women wearing surgical masks stood at a table removing hexogen – a military-grade explosive – from various munitions and placing it into bags. In another room, I happened upon a pair of men in their undershirts, smoking next to a wheezing old boiler, flicking their ashes into an open gutter filled with orange-tinted water. One of our team called me over and showed me a yellowing poster taped to the wall. It was a relic of the Afghan war, we were told: instructions on how to hide explosives in toys, to be left in village and carried home by unsuspecting children.
    A testament, I thought, to the madness of men.
    A record of how empires destroy themselves.

    THERE’S A FINAL DIMENSION to U.S. foregin policy that must be discussed – the portion that has less to do with avoiding war than promoting peace. – pg 314 continues.

    Sorry to post this entire excerpt from his foreign policy chapter to sway people to elect him as president. But, this part is different than the other jumpy, difficult to understand, senseless, b.s.
    This reminds me of the style of his Dreams movie script book, where he quotes people before he was even born, and the discriptive, one paragraph sentence. I started thinking of Bill Ayer’s style, and when I got to the explosives part,….hm. Why would someone running for President describe unimportant things like misbehaving Jello? Maybe that Russian Vodka clouded his perfect memory.

    • canary says:

      OBAMA: gazed in silence at the massive, sleek, still-active missles that were now warehoused safely, BUT HAD ONCE BEEN AIMED AT THE CITIES OF EUROPE.

      Is the 6 2’04 digits at the bottom of the OBOMBUS missle picture a countdown. 6 days 2 hours 4 minutes. Strange, so many religious scholars John Hagee “Jerusalem Countdown”, Joel C. Rosenberg “EpiCenter”, (appearing on FOX, other news, most recently Fox Huckabee) and others who have written books all believe the scriptures from Ezekiel about the Gog and Magog, as in Russian destroying much of the earth. Rosenberg and Hagee said when they met with Reagan once, he was really interested, but that Colin Powell, felt very uncomfortable. They said that some in the recent Bush administration were interested in what they said.

  14. Liberals Demise says:

    Yeah, yeah, yeah ……….
    They too said that the H.M.S.Titanic was unsinkable!


« Front Page | To Top
« | »