Neutron Bombs

[Serb]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

seen the shape of the equipment nowadays , ....

most of the older versions , and even the new ones are not , repeat not hardened in order to save money , .....

the pics , pffff , old stuff , they cant post new pics

What kind of equipment are you talking about?
...I believe it was one of your typical "blah...blah...blah" bullsh!t posts, mister.
Because it's obvious that you have no idea what are you talking about. This hardened euipment is hardened against EMP, not because of some kind of special protecting system, but because of how its made- because of its construction and because of its parts. If you want to make it not hardened, as you said- "even the new ones are not , repeat not hardened in order to save money", you should create absolutely new equipment of absolutely different construction, from absolutely different parts and it will be MUCH expensive than previous hardened equipment.
So I believe, that it was another "Russians steal rocket fuel and sell it on markets" bullsh!t posts of yours.

they think in european and american terms , .....

not in Israeli terms , .....

Yeah, right...I forget that Israelis have a special relationships with God.

example , they work 8 hours a day , if we need something we work 24 hours a day , thats the difference , ......

have a nice day

If we really need something we work 168 hours a week, that's the difference, ......

Have a nice day

[Az]

If we really need something we work 168 hours a week, that's the difference, ......

Not without Stalin forcing you, you don't.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by UberKruX
as a proponent of genocide i demand 5,000 of these bombs immediately.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Azazel

If we really need something we work 168 hours a week, that's the difference, ......

Not without Stalin forcing you, you don't.

As Propaganda always says...
POWER TO SOVIETS!!!

[Panag]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Panag, your neighbours aren't the ones in breach of UN resolutions, are they?

But maybe you are right. First check the countries that are unlikely to have nukes.

Then you have no excuse not to let them in, do you?

hi ,

so bio chemical weapons that fall under such and such treaty , some even have signed and ratified this btw should not be checked , ..... intresting , .....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Serb

What kind of equipment are you talking about?
...I believe it was one of your typical "blah...blah...blah" bullsh!t posts, mister.
Because it's obvious that you have no idea what are you talking about. This hardened euipment is hardened against EMP, not because of some kind of special protecting system, but because of how its made- because of its construction and because of its parts. If you want to make it not hardened, as you said- "even the new ones are not , repeat not hardened in order to save money", you should create absolutely new equipment of absolutely different construction, from absolutely different parts and it will be MUCH expensive than previous hardened equipment.
So I believe, that it was another "Russians steal rocket fuel and sell it on markets" bullsh!t posts of yours.

Yeah, right...I forget that Israelis have a special relationships with God.


If we really need something we work 168 hours a week, that's the difference, ......

Have a nice day

hi ,

bs , no facts , ......

as for the rest , keep your sarcasm to yourself , talk about the topic , not about the individual , ....

g-d and Israelis as a whole have nothing to do with us , ....

imagine how you would feel as a catholic orhodox and your faith comes under attack , .....

half of russia mobile launcher are not protected , why , cause the new chips dont have emp protection thanks to budget cuts and thanks to a view of the russian chief of staffs , they say that 50 of the missiles proteced against emp is more then enough , two they believe thet shall be able to move them either out of a possible blast radius or would have launched them before hand , ....

that is standard russian military doctrine that anyone who is a mil rep at a foreign embassy shall tell you or anyone from the strategic troops , ......

have a nice day

[Panag]

R-36M / SS-18 SATAN
The R-36m / SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missile is a large, two-stage, tandem, storable liquid-propellant inertial guided missile developed to replace the SS-9 ICBM. Housed in hard silos, the highly accurate fourth generation SS-18 ICBM is larger than the Peacekeeper, the most modern deployed US ICBM. The SS-18 opened a "window of vulnerability" of Minuteman silos (at 300 psi) by 1975, so that some analysts aregued that few Minuteman could be expected to survive a Soviet attack by 1980. The "window of vulnerability" of U.S. land based strategic missiles opened on schedule, and became one of the major issues in U.S. strategic debates in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The R-36M (15A14) was a two-stage missile capable of carrying several different warheads. The basic design is similar to the R-36 missile modified to include advanced technologies and more powerful engines. This missile, using dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and heptyl (a UDMH [unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine] compound) has a first stage powered by a 460-ton-thrust motor with four combustion chambers, and the second by a single-chamber 77-ton-thrust motor. The first stage uses four closed-cycle single chambered rocket motors. The second stage was equipped with a closed-cycle single chambered sustainer motor and an open-cycle four chambered control motor. The second stage sustainer is built into the fuel tank's toroidal cavity. The flight control of the first stage was conducted through gimbaled sustainers. The sustainers used asymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetraoxide. The missile was equipped with an autonomous inertial command structure and an onboard digital computer.

The R-36M used a gas-dynamic method for the first and second stages whereby special ports are opened through which the propellant tanks are pressurized. This obviated the need for the use of pressurant gases from tanks and the so-called chemical tanks pressurization (by injecting small amounts of fuel in the oxidizer tank and oxidizer into the fuel tank). The improved design and more effective engines allowed an increase in the total liftoff weight from 183 tons to 209.6 ton and the throw weight from 5.8 tons to 8.8 tons, while maintaining the overall dimensions of its predecessor missile.

The SS-18 was deployed in modified SS-9 silos, and employed a cold-launch technique with the missile being ejected from the silo prior to main engine ignition. The rocket was placed in a transport-launch canister made of fiberglass composites. The container was placed into an adapted R-36 silo. The specially hardened silo was 39 meters deep and had a diameter of 5.9 m. Prior to main engine ignition the missile was ejected from the container with the help of a solid-propellant gas generator located in the lower unit of the transport-launch canister. According to Western estimates, the SS-18 was deployed in a silo with a hardness of at least 4,000 psi (281 kg/sq. cm; 287 bar), and possibly as high as 6,000 psi (422 kg/sq. cm; 430 bar).

The development of the two stage heavy liquid-propellant ICBM R-36M intended to replace the R-36 SS-9 Scarp was accepted on 02 September 1969. The preliminary design was completed in December 1969 by the design bureau was KB Yuzhnoye. The system was designed by the M. K. Yangel OKB Yuzhnoye at Dnepropetrovsk (Ukraine) during 1966-1972, with testing beginning in November 1972. It was deployed in January 1975, and integrated with the weapons arsenal in December 1975.

There are six variants that have been deployed, while others were tested but not deployed:

SS-18 Mod 1 - R-36M The SS-18 Mod 1 carried a single large reentry vehicle, with a warhead yield of 18 to 25 MT, a distance of about 6,000 nm. In January 1971 pop-up tests, began during which the mortar launch was perfected. The actual flight tests for the single-RV Mod-1 began on 21 February 1973, though some sources suggest that testing began in October 1972. The testing phase of the R-36M with various different types of warheads was finished in October 1975 and on 30 December 1975 deployment began [though some Western sources suggest that an initial operational capability was reached in early 1975]. A total of 56 were deployed by 1977, though all were replaced by Mod 3 or Mod 4 missiles by 1984. These high-yield weapons were assessed in the West as possibly developed to attack American Minuteman ICBM launch control centers.

SS-18 Mod 2 - R-36M The SS-18 Mod 2 included a post-boost vehicle and up to eight reentry vehicles, each with a warhead yield estimated at between 0.5 to 1.5 MT, with a range capability of about 5,500 nm. The MIRVs were placed in pairs, and a post boost vehicle with a command structure and a propulsion system were contained in the nose cone of the R-36M. The flight tests of the MIRVed Mod-2 began in September 1973 [though some Western sources suggest that the initial flight test of the Mod 2 MIRV version occurred in August 1973], with IOC in 1975. Approximately 132 were deployed by 1978, but the post-boost vehicle design was seriously flawed, and the Mod 2 missiles were all replaced by the Mod 4 variant by 1983.

SS-18 Mod 2x - R-36M Between July 1978 and August 1980 a MIRVed missile with an improved nose cone was tested but not deployed. The fact of the existence of this system is reported by Russian sources, but not attested by unclassified Western literature.

SS-18 Mod 3 - R-36UTTh The SS-18 Mod 3 carried a single large reentry vehicle that was an improved version of the SS-18 Mod-1. On 16 August 1976, a few months after the R-36M entered service, the development of an improved modification of the R-36M (15A14) and MR UR-100 (15A15) was approved. This missile subsequently received the designation R-36M UTTh (15A18) and was developed by KB Yuzhnoye (OKB-586) through December 1976. Its increasing accuracy made it possible to reduce the yield of the warheads. The R-36M UTTh was capable of carrying two different nose cones. The version with a divided nose cone [Mod-4] allowed an increase the numbers of warheads from 8 up to 10 and the single-RV version [Mod-3] had a maximum range of up to 16,000 km. The flight-design tests of the R-36M UTTh began on 31 October 1977. On 29 November 1979 deployment of the SS-18 Mod-3 with a single reentry vehicle carrying a warhead with a yield of 24-25 MT began. The P-36MUTTh was introduced into the inventory on 17 December 1979. A total of 24 were deployed in 1977, and all were replaced by the Mod 4 variant by 1984.

SS-18 Mod 4 - R-36UTTh The SS-18 Mod 4 carries at least 10 MIRVs and was probably designed to attack and destroy ICBMs and other hardened targets in the US. According to some Western estimates, evidence suggested that the Mod 4 may be capable of carrying as many as 14 RVs [this may reflect observation of the deployment of countermeasures intended to overcome a ballistic missile defense, or to confuse American attack characterization systems]. In November 1979 the flight tests of the MIRVed missile were completed. The first three regiments were put on alert on 18 September 1979. During 1980 a total of 120 SS-18 Mod 4 missiles were deployed, replacing the last remaining R-36 missiles. In 1982-1983 the remaining R-36M missiles were also replaced with the new R-36M UTTh and the total number of deployed missiles reached a maximum operational launcher reached 308, ceiling established in the SALT-1 treaty. The SS-18 Mod 4 force had the estimated capability to destroy 65 to 80 percent of US ICBM silos using two nuclear warheads against each. Even after this type of attack, it was estimated that more than 1,000 SS-18 warheads would be available for further strikes against targets in the US. After 1988 the SS-18 Mod 4s were partially replaced by the new R-36M2 "Voivode".

SS-18 Mod 5 - R-36M2 "Voivode" The newer, more accurate version (the SS-18 Mod 5) placed in converted silos allowed the SS-18 to remain the bulwark of the SRF's hard-target-kill capability. The Mod 5 carries 10 MIRVs, each having a higher yield than the Mod 4 warheads. The Mod-5 warheads have nearly twice the yield of the Mod-4 (approximately 750 kt to 1 megaton) according to Western estimates, though Russian sources suggest a yield of 550-750 Kt each. The increase in the Mod 5's warhead yield, along with improved accuracy, would, under the START treaty, help allow the Russians to maintain their hard-target-kill wartime requirements even with the 50 percent cut in heavy ICBMs the START agreement required. The technical proposals to build a modernized heavy ICBM were made in June 1979. The missile subsequently received the designation R-36M2 "Voivode" and the industrial index number 15A18M. The design of the R-36 M2 "Voivode" was completed in June 1982. The R-36M2 disposed of a series of new engineering features. The engine of the second stage is completely built in the fuel tank (earlier this was only used on SLBMs) and the design of the transport-launching canister was altered. Unlike the R-36M, the 10 warheads on the post-boost vehicle are located on a special frame in two circles. The flight tests of the R-36M2 equipped with 10 MIRVs began in March 1986 and were completed in March 1988. The first regiment with these missiles was put on alert on 30 July 1988 and was deployed on 11 August 1988.

SS-18 Mod 6 - R-36M2 "Voivode" The flight tests of a the R-36M2 missile (Mod-6) carrying a single warhead with a yield of 20 MT were completed in September 1989 and deployment began in August 1991.
The only deployed versions of the SS-18 are the R-36M UTTh and R-36M2. In 1997 there were 186 deployed launchers for of these missiles in Russia. The dismantling of 104 launchers located in Kazakhstan was completed in September 1996.

The Reagan and Bush administrations respected the SS-18 to such a degree that they made it the main focus of their arms control initiatives. The START II Treaty specifically banned land-based MIRV systems, in part, because of the threat the SS-18 posed to the balance of power. It was seen as a first-strike weapon and a very destabilizing presence in the bilateral relationship.

US negotiators allowed the Russian Federation to retain 90 of the SS-18 silos. After complying with the START II silo conversion protocol, the Russian Rocket Forces will be permitted to replace 90 of the SS-18s with a smaller, single-warhead missile. The protocol requires Russia to place a 2.9-meter restrictive ring near the top of the retained SS-18 silos and to fill the bottom five meters of the silos with concrete. These measures make the silos too small to hold an SS-18.

The Nunn-Lugar program is assisting in the reduction of the SS-18 missile threat to the United States. The Russian Federation must eliminate 100 SS-18s by December 2001 and an additional 154 SS-18s by January 2003. In recent years, Nunn-Lugar has played a role in SS-18 dismantlement. It provided the equipment necessary to help destroy the missiles. A total of 204 of these missiles were deployed on Russian territory and 104 in Kazakhstan. The elimination base at Surovatikha, near Nijny-Novgorod, destroyed 32 missiles in 1993 with the remaining 44 destroyed in 1994.

The SS-18 was manufactured in Ukraine, while Russian enterprises provide maintenance for SS-18s which are currently in inventory. Manufacturing of SS-18s in Russia would be expensive, and could require 5 to 7 years of design work to begin at least tests at a cost of 8-10 billion rubles.

[Panag]

Mod
Mod-1
Mod-2
Mod-3
Mod-4
Mod-5
Mod-6

DIA
SS-18
SS-18
SS-18
SS-18
SS-18
SS-18

NATO
Satan
Satan
Satan
Satan
Satan
Satan

Bilateral
RS-20A
RS-20A
RS-20A
RS-20B
RS-20V
RS-20V

Service
R-36M
R-36M
R-36M

UTTkh
R-36MU

UTTkh
R-36M2
R-36M2

OKB/Industry
15A14
15A14
15A14
15A18
15A18M
15A18M

Design

Bureau
OKB-586

Acad. V. F. Utkin
OKB-586 Acad. V. F. Utkin
OKB-586

Acad. V. F. Utkin
OKB-586

Acad. V. F. Utkin
OKB-586 Acad. V. F. Utkin
OKB-586 Acad. V. F. Utkin

Approved
9/2/1969
9/2/1969
9/2/1969
8/16/1977
8/9/83
6/1979 ?12/17/

1980 ?

Years of R&D
1969-1973
1969-1973
12/ 76 - 78
1983-1988
1979-1982

Engineering and Testing
1973-1974
1973-1975
1978-1980
1977-1979
1986-88
1986-1990

First Flight Test
1 / / 72 1St. failure

2/21/1973 success 1 & another derivation 11-29-79
9/ /73,

08/ /73 & another derivation

07/ /78
7/ /1978
7/31/1977

or 10-31-1977
3/21/86

two failures in the flight test program
1986

IOC
12 /25 / 1974
1975
1980
9/1979 ? 11-27-1979?
12/1988
1990

Deployment Date
12/30/

1975
12/30/

1975 or 11/20/78
11/29/

1979
12/17/

1979, or 1980?
12/1988
9/1991

Type of

Warhead
Single
MIRV
Single
MIRV
MIRV
Single

Warheads
1
8
1
10
10
1

Yield (Mt)
Russian sources
18-20
0.5-1.3
24-25
0.55
0.55-0.75
20

Yield (Mt)
Western sources
18-25
0.6-1.5
18-25

0.75-1.0


Payload (t)
7.2
7.2 - 8.8
7.2 - 8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8

Total length (m)
33.6
33.6
33.6
34.3
37.25
36.3

Total length w/o warhead (m)
28.5
28.5
28.5
28.5 -29.25
29.25
29.25

Missile Diameter (m)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

Launch Weight (t)
209.6 -210
209.6 -210
209.6 -210
211.1
211.1
211.1

Fuel Weight (t)
188
188
188
188
188
188

Range (km)
11200
9250-10200
16.000
16000

11500
11000

15,000
16000

CEP (m)

Russian Sources
1000
1000
1000
920
500
500

CEP (m) Western Sources
400-550
400-500
350
220-320
250
?250


Number of Stages
2

Canister length (m)
27.9

Canister diameter (m)
3.5

Booster guidance system
Inertial, autonomous



1st stage
2nd stage

Length (m)
22.3
7.0

Body diameter (m)
3.0
3.0

Fueled weight (t)
Total 161.5

Dry weight (t)
Total 48.1 ? 48.5

Engine Designation
RD-263 x 4 = RD-264 (11D119) for the

R-36M
RD-0228 = RD-0229 one main engine and RD-0230 four verniers for the R-36M

Engine Designation
RD-273 / RD-274 for the R-36MU
RD-0230 verniers for the R-36M

Engine Designation
N/A
RD-0255 = RD-0256 one main engine & RD-0257 four verniers for the R-36M2.

Design Bureau
Acad. V. P. Glushko (OKB-456)
Acad. S. A. Kosberg

(OKB-154)

Configuration
Four RD-263?s Engines = RD-264
1 Main Engine + 4 Verniers

Years Of R & D
1969-1973 = RD-263 x 4=RD-264
1967-1975 = RD-0228 / RD-0229

Years Of R & D
1975-1980 = RD-273
1967-1975 = RD-0230

Years Of R & D
1983-1989 = RD-0255

1983-1987 = RD-0256

1983-1987 = RD-0257

Propellants
Liquid Storable
Liquid Storable

Fuel
UDMH
UDMH

Oxidizer
Nitrogen Tetraoxide
Nitrogen Tetraoxide

Burn Time (sec.)

Main Engines Thrust Sea Level/Vacuum (Tonnes)
424 / 450-461
77

Verniers Engine Thrust Sea Level/Vacuum (Tonnes)
N/A
?

Main Engines Specific Impulse Sea Level/ Vacuum (sec.)
293 / 312-318


MIRV Bus Third Stage Engine Designation for the R-36M2
RD-869

Design Bureau (Bus)
Yuzhnoy SKB

Years Of R & D (Bus)
1983-1985

Propellants (Bus)
Liquid Storable

Fuel (Bus)
UDMH

Oxidizer (Bus)
Nitrogen Tetraoxide

Thrust Vacuum (Tonnes)
2.087- 0.875

Engines Specific Impulse (sec.)
313 ? 302.3

Burn Time (sec.)
700



Basing Mode
Silo

Hardness

Launching Technique
Cold and Solid motor

Deployed boosters

Test Boosters

Warheads Deployed

Training Launchers

Space Booster Variant
Yes- SL-21?/Dnipr SS-18 derivation




Deployment Sites

START
Locale US-Designation

Aleysk in Altai (30)
Aleysk

Derzhavinsk near Akmolinsk (52)
Imeni Gastello

Dombarovsky-3 near Orenbourg (64)
Dombarovskiy

Kartaly-6 near Chelyabinsk (46)
Kartaly

Uzhur-4 near Krasnoyarsk (64)
Uzhur

Zhangiz-Tobe near Seminpalatinsk (52)
Zhangiz Tobe

hi ,

at least 45% is out of service thanks to lack of spare pieces or because of security reason , .....

have a nice day

[Serb]

The Reagan and Bush administrations respected the SS-18 to such a degree that they made it the main focus of their arms control initiatives.

Good job Panag. Your article just proved once again the fact I've already know. The fact that Yanks never had and still do not has something equal to our SS-18.

It's good for you that now you can launch satellites (btw, we made it 44 years ago), but Israel still playing in absolutely different league. You're out of class.
have a nice day

[Serb]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

at least 45% is out of service thanks to lack of spare pieces or because of security reason , .....

have a nice day

The rest 65% is more then enough to wipe-out life from Earth. Ten is enough to wipe-out life from Europe. A single Satan is more then enough to wipe-out life from Israel.
Knowing this I really hope you will have a nice day.


btw, you article don't says how many false targets and jamming equipment carry SS-18. Gotta check my book, but one thing I can tell you for sure- you're 30 years behind us in terms of ICBM technology. Just face it.

[Serb]

hi ,

bs , no facts , ......


You said:

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

seen the shape of the equipment nowadays , ....

most of the older versions , and even the new ones are not , repeat not hardened in order to save money , .....

the pics , pffff , old stuff , they cant post new pics

I said:
[/QUOTE] What kind of equipment are you talking about?
Now you are saying that it was bs, no fact. I made a question. What kind of equipment you was talking about? What kind of pictures of this equipoment you was talking about? Can you answer those 3 simple questions?

as for the rest , keep your sarcasm to yourself , talk about the topic , not about the individual , ....

I thought I was attacking your argument, not you personaly, because I think you have no idea what I meant in my post. Tell me do you know the difference between semicondactors and lamps? Is p-n-p tells you about something/ Do you know the reson why EMP destroys electroics? What do you know about protection from electromagnetic impulse? about EMP sheilds?
Please, go ahead...
You said that modern Russian equipment isn't protected from EMP, because we want to save money. I'm telling to you that this is COMPLETE and TOTAL BULLSH!T. Plesase prove me wrong. It will be very interesting.

g-d and Israelis as a whole have nothing to do with us , ....

imagine how you would feel as a catholic orhodox and your faith comes under attack , .....

I'm not a Catholic Orthodox. Furthermore I don't know such religion as Catholic Orthodoxy (if only you don't call regular catholics a catholic orthodox to separate them from protestans). Russians are Orthodox Christians not Catholics. It's huge difference.

half of russia mobile launcher are not protected , why , cause the new chips dont have emp protection thanks to budget cuts and thanks to a view of the russian chief of staffs , they say that 50 of the missiles proteced against emp is more then enough , two they believe thet shall be able to move them either out of a possible blast radius or would have launched them before hand , ....

Blah...blah...blah....
Another complete bs. Where the hell did you get this/ I bet it's your own fantasies.
When the hell you will understand that to make some kind of our our military equipment less resistant to EMP we should completely re-design it.

that is standard russian military doctrine that anyone who is a mil rep at a foreign embassy shall tell you or anyone from the strategic troops , ......

blah...blah...blah...
You are talking about absolutely different thing. Now you're talking about MOBILE launchers. As I understand your blabbing properly- you heard somewhere that some Russian generals said that aproximately 50 silos is enough for Russia, while the rest of warheads should be placed on mobile launchers that can escape blast radius or strike first because its mch easier to hide mobile ICBM launcher than immobile silo.
And how the hell it's realted to your claim that Russians makes their equipment less resistant to EMP to save the money?

have a nice day

Yeah, have a nice day to you too. See you after a couple of days.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Serb


The rest 65% is more then enough to wipe-out life from Earth. Ten is enough to wipe-out life from Europe. A single Satan is more then enough to wipe-out life from Israel.
Knowing this I really hope you will have a nice day.

And it's not going to happen with the 2nd strike capabilities of Europe and Israel. Putting missies onto subs kind of removes this option, doesn't it?

Despite how much you seem to enjoy the prospect of a nuclear holocaust.

Originally posted by Serb
btw, you article don't says how many false targets and jamming equipment carry SS-18. Gotta check my book, but one thing I can tell you for sure- you're 30 years behind us in terms of ICBM technology. Just face it.

All currently deployed anti-missile systems are limited to the intercept limit specified in the ABM treaty from the 70s. I suspect most if not all of them could be quickly modified to break treaty rules. I strongly suspect that the advocates of MIRV are in for a shock when their babies get blown out of the sky.

As for the EMP arguments, one thing all of you have overlooked is that by the time EMP was understood as a weapon, the testing of air burst nukes had been outlawed. All of the current hardening and protection systems and ideas are based on simulation, not actual field tests.

I suspect the majority of such shielding has been done with the idea of protecting against nearby detonations, not deliberate targetting of the individual unit. Complete hardening against such deliberate targetting is almost impossible - too many variables (HOW big is the nuke, HOW close does it detonate, atmospheric conditions, etc etc - all without a single field test).

So this arguing about EMP protection is waste of web space as far as I'm concerned.

As far as being 30 years behind in satellite launch tec, all I can say is the Israelis are not competing for a slice of the commercial market. They are just developing for their own needs. As such, any comparison is futile and childish.

[Az]

panag said:

at least 45% is out of service thanks to lack of spare pieces or because of security reason , .....

Serb said:

The rest 65% is more then enough to wipe-out life from Earth.

maybe Russia should invest less in ICBMs and more in math lessons for it's kids.

[Kramerman]

If it was 150 American nukes, then fine. 150 American nukes can pretty well destroy Russia, but yours...

USA! USA! USA!

[Panag]

Originally posted by Azazel
panag said:

at least 45% is out of service thanks to lack of spare pieces or because of security reason , .....

Serb said:

The rest 65% is more then enough to wipe-out life from Earth.

maybe Russia should invest less in ICBMs and more in math lessons for it's kids.

hi ,

they ought to learn russian also

some russians cant read the russian thats posted at www.topol.ru or at www.armscontrol.ru , ......

not to mention they should be thought the meaning of the word "internet search machine"

furthermore , nah , its not worth it , ....

have a nice day