# Russian warhead alters course midflight in test



## syscom3 (Nov 21, 2005)

Dont know if this should be under this forum........ if not, I apologize in advance.

Since the end of the cold war in the early 90's, many people have forgotten about the still vast ICBM/SLBM arsenals the US and Russia still possess.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051120-115514-2217r.htm


----------



## elmilitaro (Nov 21, 2005)

wow, your correct.

The article to me means that the russians are trying to build better missles than the United States. Everybody knows what happened the last time this was tried, the United States built a missle and the russians would build it too or the Russians built a missle and the United States would copy it. Of course this almost led to Worl War III.

If it just starts out like this, we may be looking at super-sophisticated weapons of destruction that can't be stopped by anything.

Meaning....


World War III.


----------



## elmilitaro (Nov 21, 2005)

Hey, I don't want any criticism about my thoughts. Its just my theory.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 21, 2005)

i guess sdi will have to move to the mk2 version but they are probably working on the mk 5


----------



## elmilitaro (Nov 21, 2005)

you have a point.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 21, 2005)

I would think that a huge ammount of money and assetts is being wasted on the whole combined nuclear arsenal each side has.

The Russians would be far better off to spend money on conventional forces, not strategic nukes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

elmilitaro said:


> Hey, I don't want any criticism about my thoughts. Its just my theory.



Why do you expect critism for your thoughts?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 23, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The Russians would be far better off to spend money on conventional forces, not strategic nukes.


Given their current financial situation, they probably see just the opposite. They probably see nukes as their "ace in the hole" against foreign aggression. To them, it's likely far better in the long run to spend money on a few missiles as opposed to having to build up and support a large conventional force. It's all in your point of view, and I think that's how they're looking at it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

Just like it was in the Cold War. It is a deterant against war.


----------

