Russia tests secret missile after Nato shield launched
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18172726

Note: 23 May 2012 Last updated at 12:44 GMT

sounds like a "Bulava" ICBM or have the Russians come up with something newer?

I had heard the "Bulava" had many teething problems. It's not just the US that has problems with new weapon systems. :D

I'd have said it was more likely to be a variant of the Yars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-24_Yars

It can penetrate Nato's European missile defence shield shield? That's...interesting...

This thing being related to the Yars seems likely. The Bulava is an SLBM and the article specifically mentions that this one was fired from a mobile launcher.

IIRC most ABM shield shields (:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:) at the moment rely on intercepting the missile at launch or boost phase? So, the answer is surely to launch from TELs outside of Patriot or SM-2 intercept range so that the warhead seperation stage occurs at a safe altitude, thus giving the warheads a clear path down into wherever in Europe you're aiming the things. Since the warheads themselves will be hundreds in number (if not thousands) with each one containing countermeasures and manoeuvring capability then the only way you're going to intercept them is to go Moscow ABM on them and detonate a few nukes in orbit...and pray.

It would be really interesting to see the result if Russian agreed to test fire those (preferably dummy warheads) against NATO defences to see what the results are. Agreed upon with no fixed launch time to make it more realistic. :hmmm:

The Bulava is also designed to avoid NATO's missile defence shield.

This fits in to the Cold War MAD concept. As long as both sides are assured of mutual destruction, each side is supposedly safer.

The missile shield upsets that equation since, in theory, NATO could launch a nuclear first strike against Russia while being protected from retaliation. Bulava/Yars restores the MAD equilibrium.

In theory, NATO should have no issue with this since the missile shield is only supposed to protect against Iranian/NK missiles. :D

Indeed :yep:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//images/smilies/4.gifindeed. Does anyone really believe NATO's propaganda on this subject, that this is not a anti-Russian measure as well (or perhaps the real primary target)?

If you follow the "news" of the last years, the "defence shield" was primarily intended to protect Israel and the US, against iranian long range missiles - some people here have a short period of remembering.
So when you look at any map, if this shield was initially planned to protect Israel and the USA (one cannot say this often enough), the location as we see it now makes perfect sense, doesn't it ?
:rotfl2:

Ah, yes, to protect Europe. Good they got this idea at last, otherwise it would not make NO SENSE at all.
This positioning indeed undermines the "equilibrium of terror", so the russian response is only logical.
It also seems the Russians are not quite as brainwashed as us. I do not know whether i should like that or not, though.

And, b.t.w.: http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/2012/...r-with-the-us/

:yawn: Keeping the threat alive while there is none.

HunterICX

^ you know we urgently NEED a new threat to have a reason to fund all those non-existing agencies, and have a reason for wars of aggression which then can be fought in the name (sic) of world freedom :yawn:

^
No those are for show that we they're ''doing something'' about the threat but it's the fear the governement likes to abuse to keep control over the masses and have things shuffed down our throats in name of national security.

HunterICX

Someone has managed to clone the Russians of the old days or else when Russians die they don't go to heaven they just get into the next person in charge available and therefore they never change.

Chess move is all this is :yep: