New Russian MIRVs with manoeuvring warheads

One RSM54 missile failed.

+ one that wouldn't even fire.

There will be investigation of the event
which will find the reason and fix it.

So, you can fix a missile after its been blasted to bits? Oh, sorry, you meant
the system itself is flawed and requires more work..?

Nothing special, but
new manoeuvring warheads go to service. Tell me better what
are you going to do with new manoeuvring warheads.

I'll wait and see how Russia intends to use them to save itself from the blight
of terrorism. Since the only people who have attacked Russia in over sixty
years are terrorists, it seems downright silly to pretend a MARV somehow will
help defend Russia. America is never going to attack Russia - we beat its "Big
Brother" with pure economic pressure, leaving a tired and polluted shell
behind, that can't even pull off a simple exercise that was intended to impress
the natives.

Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

From: "Ragnar"
Date: 2/20/2004 8:47 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
. com...
nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message
...
Blah, blah, blah.

"Our current weapons work ...well,... ok... they didn't work. But NEXT
year,
we're going to have the BEST weapons IN THE WORLD!"

So, Michael, tell us all how fabulous the tests and exercises went, so
we can
compare your squat with what really happened. The "largest military
exercise
in 20 years" appears to have been a gigantic flop, but in grand Soviet
tradition, the smoking ruins of the tests are used as 'proof' of
success! Cling
to those fantasies with both hands, chum, cuz they are slipping away.

One RSM54 missile failed. There will be investigation of the event
which will find the reason and fix it. Nothing special, but
new manoeuvring warheads go to service. Tell me better what
are you going to do with new manoeuvring warheads.

Nothing at all. The missiles they sit on will fail to launch.

Actually a few will launch and will self destruct.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

I see you didn't answer the question. Is a missile that goes off course
and
explodes a success?

This is because you do not deserve any answer.

But, Michael, in the text you quoted five minutes earlier - here, lets look:


"Russia says new missile will beat any U.S. defences. Russia has developed
ballistic missile technology that can outwit any defensive system, a top
Russian general said on Thursday, in a clear
challenge to the United States' planned $50 billion anti-missile shield."

(Rather hard to do that when the missile in question CATOs shortly after launch
- what was it REALLY doing, "releasing its MARVs"?)

First Deputy Chief of Staff Colonel-General Yury Baluyevsky said that
during large-scale military exercises on Wednesday, Russia had
test-launched a missile system that could manoeuvre in mid-flight, allowing it
to dodge defences."

(True - we cannot hope to track all of the debris as it rains down!)


"The test carried out yesterday *confirmed* (??????) that we can build weapons
which will render any anti-missile system defenceless against an
attack by Russia's strategic forces," he told a news conference.

(It only confirmed the self-kill button worked.)

"Russia's manoeuvres have not gone entirely smoothly over the last week. A
Russian ballistic missile self-destructed after a failed test launch from a
submarine in the Arctic north on Wednesday. On Tuesday, two ballistic missiles
failed to take off in a test on another nuclear submarine."

And all of these failures combined to prove the Russians have a confirmed
ability to make charming speeches and pretty light shows in the sky. Putin
must feel SO PROUD of his *new* nuclear forces.

Its hard to feel threatened by a toothless old bear that can only growl, and
then lie to the press about how successful he was.

[insert some of Michael's, "We'll show you! Uhh, at some later time!" comments]

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...
I see you didn't answer the question. Is a missile that goes off course
and
explodes a success?

This is because you do not deserve any answer.

But, Michael, in the text you quoted five minutes earlier - here, lets look:


"Russia says new missile will beat any U.S. defences. Russia has developed
ballistic missile technology that can outwit any defensive system, a top
Russian general said on Thursday, in a clear
challenge to the United States' planned $50 billion anti-missile shield."

(Rather hard to do that when the missile in question CATOs shortly after launch
- what was it REALLY doing, "releasing its MARVs"?)

Perhaps you do not follow the subject. one RSM54 fired by
a North Fleet submarine failed. It has nothing to do
with testing of new manoeuvring warheads on ground based RS-18
and mobile Topol missiles. This was successful.

All th rest of your jokes are skipped because given the available
data all this sounds very stipid rather than funny.

Michael


First Deputy Chief of Staff Colonel-General Yury Baluyevsky said that
during large-scale military exercises on Wednesday, Russia had
test-launched a missile system that could manoeuvre in mid-flight, allowing it
to dodge defences."

(True - we cannot hope to track all of the debris as it rains down!)


"The test carried out yesterday *confirmed* (??????) that we can build weapons
which will render any anti-missile system defenceless against an
attack by Russia's strategic forces," he told a news conference.

(It only confirmed the self-kill button worked.)

"Russia's manoeuvres have not gone entirely smoothly over the last week. A
Russian ballistic missile self-destructed after a failed test launch from a
submarine in the Arctic north on Wednesday. On Tuesday, two ballistic missiles
failed to take off in a test on another nuclear submarine."

And all of these failures combined to prove the Russians have a confirmed
ability to make charming speeches and pretty light shows in the sky. Putin
must feel SO PROUD of his *new* nuclear forces.

Its hard to feel threatened by a toothless old bear that can only growl, and
then lie to the press about how successful he was.

[insert some of Michael's, "We'll show you! Uhh, at some later time!" comments]

All th rest of your jokes are skipped because given the available
data all this sounds very stipid rather than funny.


Damn, I'm making stipid jokes again. I guess I should you wait for you to tell
us about the NEXT great Russian exercise for material on new jokes, eh?

In article ,
on 19 Feb 2004 21:28:18 GMT,
Krztalizer nt attempted to say .....


I see you didn't answer the question. Is a missile that goes off course and
explodes a success?

Michael is still off celebrating the "success" (i.e., no Russian ships were
sunk or sailors killed) and will return to post additional fantasies as soon as
he can convince himself that we somehow caused a 'minor glitch' in the
otherwise spectacular display of Russian military prominence.


I must report a successful test of HARP......


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

What has Soviet got to do with Russia?

Russia was the meat in the Soviet sandwich.

Have you got the faintest idea of how many Russians were killed by the
Jewish Soviets?

Aaaaah, tis a troll. Your country was not ruled by Jews for 75 years - it was
ruled by rascist ****s _just_like_you.

Demonizing the victims of a Satanical plot may be convenient to you but that
doesn't make it right!

Communists are now seen as satanic criminals? Wow, I guess all of our
propaganda was right after all

And yes it is quiet safe to assume that a relentless Russian hater like
Stinky is a Jew!

He didn't say he hated Russia. And your comment makes it clear that, at least
hiding behind a computer, you are a skinhead wannabe.

The only way Jews can justify the crimes committed is by convincing
themselves and the world that Russians deserved it.

You keep confusing Jewish folks with Stalinist Communists - why is that?

And no I don't need your sympathy!

No, you need medication.

First A-bomb is done and used by US.

Yeah, the USSR wasn't working on one either...

Strategic nuclear bombers, the US.

With the USSR not far behind.

Nuclear submarines, the US.

With the USSR, once again also working on them.

MIRVs, the US.

We didn't beat the USSR to this one by more than a year!

All you've shown is how the U.S. has developed weapons systems before the USSR.
Thanks for the compliment.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

First A-bomb is done and used by US.

Yeah, the USSR wasn't working on one either...

Espionage sure helped a lot.

Strategic nuclear bombers, the US.

With the USSR not far behind.

....by building a copy of the B-29.

Nuclear submarines, the US.

With the USSR, once again also working on them.

1954 for the US (Nautilus), 1958 for the Soviets (November class).

MIRVs, the US.

We didn't beat the USSR to this one by more than a year!

Actually, by three years operationally, by more if you count testing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.