Comments on: Intercontinental SLBMs - Russian Bulava vs American Trident

By: Yoyo

Yoyo — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:42:37 +0000

I vehemently disagree with you, Aby. Hitler did underestimated Russia, but this does not mean Nazi Germans will lose the war to Russia. During in WWII, When the Nazi Germans invaded Russia, nearly whole Russia were occupied by the Germans, except for Stalingrad. The Russians were struggling to hold on the Stalingrad, where the Nazi Germans were heavily storm in. The Russians were scared to hell and ran off from their mother land to hide from the ambitious Nazi Germans. It is almost impossible for the Russian to turn it over to repel the Nazi Germans. However, thanks to the Italians soldiers were weak and have once and again delaying the footsteps of Nazi Germans marching on. Loses many battles in the middle-east, forced the Nazi Germans, especially Hitler had decided to withdraw his men from Russia to fight in middle-east. With the withdrawal of Nazi Germans, the Russians were able to regroup and prepared to fight and ambushed the return Germans troops. Hence, I do agree Hitler made mistake for underestimated the Russians in certain extent, there is high possibilities the Germans to win the war nonetheless.

By: RedRussian

RedRussian — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:40:54 +0000

Yo guys if you compare 1 vs 1 it looks like the Bulava might be a bit better because of its range. No one knows if the missle however exploded 3 times because of taht they have been abel o solve soem of the problems or if it is a seriose design flaw. no one knows. However if you look at the number of them in operation you have to see that the americans missle has teh advantage because of its numbers. even though it has a tiny disatvantage in reach it seams to me that the Trident program is on top.

By: rex

rex — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:44:12 +0000

After second world war america attacked only those nations which arent able to hit back at american mainland. vietnam, libiya, iraq, sudan, yugoslovia, afganistan, now pakistan…..the americans are really clever to avoid a hit from the so called enemies. They won’t dare to do stunts against russia or china or not even north korea. One funny thing i’ve seen is that mr. bush attacked iraq becoz it had sought/intentions to make WMD!! First time in the history of the world someone (a nation) is punished for its evil intention, not deeds. Great work done by world cop-Mr.Bush.
But on the other side of the world a crazy stupid guy kim ill of korea declared that they had all kinds of weapons and even threatened american slaves like south korea and japan. But nothing happened becoz american knew if they try to attack north korea they find themselves at least half barbecued!!. And even with Iran they are scared to do anything becoz of iran’s powerful relations with russia and china.
Another thing my country india was threatned by america several times when we went to war with pakistan. Rememeber india is a democratic country and pakistan is ruled by some or the other dictator who are american stooges. It was russia’s support to us which made americans think again of attacking us. Even they persuaded china to attack india during these times.
Americans always want war which they are sure to win….something like Mike tyson vs a common man. They don’t want a real fight with a real fighter like Fedor emelianko( world mma champion).
Hope a decent and sensible guy become uncle sam’s leader.

By: Dub

Dub — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:40:29 +0000

Its a shame we gotta keep developing weapons to keep up with each other and maintain peace, aw well, thats life.

Something Aby said caught my eye though, “They should be used in situations like fighting against ETs”….I wonder how the world would react if that ever happened.

By: dj_cool

dj_cool — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:27:37 +0000

it is absolutely foolish 2 compare any items of millitary parahernalia of russia with that of u.s.a. inspite of russia being overwhelmingly superior 2 u.s.a in all millitary aspects,as a full fledged war between this 2 titans would mean the end of human race in almost no time.
i fully agree with Aby that although Bush or any u.s. presidents r known world wide 4 their foolishness they hav been clever enough 2 avoid their self destruction by avoiding invading u.s.s.r. or russia thus avoiding what Hitler and Napolean did.evil fascist u.s.a. must bow down b4 russia and get rid of their ridiculous air of sueriority.
but i would like 2 contradict Aby that fighter jets by no means r useless in this century in any kind of battlefield. i am a communist and naturally hate war, BUT any large scale war in the future will sure b rattled by the sonic booms of Su 47 and Mig 1.44 (My top 2, dear Xero).
so let us all hope for a future full of true peace away from the danger of any sort of apocalypse.

By: Aby

Aby — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:19:45 +0000

@ Xero - "There is absolutely no point in determining which nuclear ICBM/SLBM is the best.."

Which would you rather have, a very expensive bomber like B-2 Spirit that carries less than 25% chance of hitting a highly defended target or a cheaper new generation ICBM that has 100% chance of hitting the target?

@ Xero - "Only a foolish Dictator (apparently, someone like Hitler) would use such weapons of mass destruction rather than something like a Tommahawk Missile or some of the 21st Century Jets like Su-47s and F-22s (My Top 2)."

In fact it is the opposite. Only a mentally insane would attempt to secure his nation from United States using cruise missiles and fighters, if he could afford nuclear weapons. Maintaining and developing expensive weapons like these would drain the resources of China or Russia when they could spend much less and ensure foolproof security for at least a decade using nuclear missiles. If you were to protect yourself from thugs, it would make better sense to equip yourself with a gun rather than spend considerable amount of time, effort and money to build up your body that needs constant maintenance and diet. Nuclear weapons work on the same principle, they are cheap, effective and deadly like a gun.

@ Xero - "Nuclear Missiles are so 20th Century, don’t you think?"

Nuclear weapons are actually 25th century weapons that were built a few centuries ahead due to a few breakthorough researches by Europeans. Fighters and bombers are 20th century weapons that make sense only in use against militarily impotent nations like Iraq. The only weapons that can ensure a nation's sovereignty and protection from a foreign attack are nuclear weapons.

@ Bharat - "Hitler was a dictator, yes, but he wasn’t foolish."

Agreed. If Hitler was a stupid man as Xero claims, he wouldn't have had the two superpowers of the time - Great Britain and United States on their knees trying to make a truce with him. His biggest mistake was that he didn't learn from history. He unestimated Russia and attempted to invade the nation that no one could successfully invade. Fortunately for Americans, their governments didn't make this mistake that would have brought about its self-destruction and anihilation like Hitler or Napoleon.

By: Bharat

Bharat — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:45 +0000

@ Xero

Just one comment: Hitler was a dictator, yes, but he wasn’t foolish. He made some strategic mistakes that not many can dispute, which led to Germany’s defeat and his suicide, but he was a smart, carefully calculating man. You probably meant that he was an “evil asshole,” to put it without much creativity, which is fine; I don’t think many will dispute that, either. A discussion of stupidity starts with George W. Bush, and it ends with him; there isn’t much left in between, either.

By: Donovan

Donovan — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:15:20 +0000

It is amusing to watch Russia flex its muscles with nuclear missiles when they know as well as US, these missiles will never be used unless a suicidal self destruction is under way. We do not want another Cold War, it will only bring unnecessary tensions and drain our resource trying to match up each other on such destructive weapons.

By: Xero

Xero — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:03:22 +0000

Well….There is absolutely no point in determining which nuclear ICBM/SLBM is the best….That cannot let The U S or The Russians win a war….Only a foolish Dictator (apparently, someone like Hitler) would use such weapons of mass destruction rather than something like a Tommahawk Missile or some of the 21st Century Jets like Su-47s and F-22s (My Top 2). Nuclear Missiles are so 20th Century, don’t you think? They should be used in situations like fighting against Extra-Terrestrials….hehe…It would be more sensible to develop better non-atomic weaponery….so, lets forget about the plutonium nucleus…..

By: Aby

Aby — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:01:16 +0000

You are right, we do not want any of these missiles flying around. A full scale war between USA or Russia would not only destroy the two nations but destroy the human race along with it. As sane people, it would be naive for us to envision a nuclear war where these missiles are used. The objective of these missiles is ‘credible deterrance’ which again boils down to politics. If an enemy has nuclear weapons, delivery systems and defence systems which are far more better than ours then it would create a strategic imbalance in the favour of the enemy. This could create political, economic or military subjugation of one by the other and possibly lead to a war. Countries like Russia, China, France, etc. who have faced the might of the enemy and wished they had better defence know these facts best….