Talk:R-36 (missile)

message: Ok, someone put that "who" and "dubious" on claims that SS-18 had capability to destroy Minuteman silos, ok, here is the answer to who: US MOD, here is answer to dubious: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/r-36m.htm.
Discussion over? 99.231.50.118 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I cant seem to fix the info box someone with a little more familiarity give me a hand? -LouieS
Please, who posted the funny comment that this missile gave parity to USSR with USA? IT gave advantage, parity was there already. It gave the window of vulnerability. Please do not correct back to parity, it is just laughable comment.
Also, someone posted tat it was inferior in accuracy to Peacekeeper. WHy is that? Let me guess, western estimate of SS-18's accuracy was taken and western aestimate of Peacekeeper? Right... First of all, bold comparison to US missiles is not really possible, since all we have is speculations on internet, I want to delete the whole comparison part. As far as I remmeber, SS-18 has CEP of 250 meters, as much as Peacekeeper has, unless of course someone gives me reference to opposite.
:"As far as I remember" is not a reliable source. If you have actual sources stating that it has the same CEP as Peacekeeper, then you can change it. Parsecboy 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FAS will do??? it states 250 meters, so... And some one has added that US responded to SS-18 with equal or superior systems, and as example Trident and Minuteman 3 were given.  Ok, I deleted the nonsense, for the following reason: What is the criteria of superiority? And how is minuteman superior to SS-18? I understand you can argue survivability for Trident, but I am sorry, SS-18 is superior to Minuteman in everything except CEP, where they are equal. Also, normally, criteria of superiority of ICBMs is, in my opinion, the most natural criteria: how many targets and what kind of targets can it destroy? Of course, nothing compares to Satan here. A throw weight of 8800 kg is unmatched. 99.231.50.118 (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Box 

message: I just came across this link []. I googled and sure enough his comment is true. I think in my humble opinion this article should be renamed RS-20V  or Voyevoda.  The reason i am arguing this, is this was a Russian technology, and naming it using western names is a little bit to arrogant. For example, how would you feel if someone keep calling you John, while you insist your name is William? Do we name the western technology with Russian names? To emphasis what i am saying, wikipedia call Burma Myanmar, something i only grudgingly accepted because i don't have any business in saying how people name their country. I also once came across a runt of a guy complaining of west calling Deutschland Germany once, but i have to admit i can't help doing it myself. For this reasons, i sincerely feel the above article should be renamed using the Russian name and NATO names should be redirected to the Russia name. 
Other really nice name to change are:-
Specific types of Soviet/Russian ICBMs include:
*SS-6 SAPWOOD / R-7 / 8K71
*SS-7 SADDLER / R-16
*SS-8 SASIN
*SS-9 SCARP
*SS-11 SEGO
*SS-17 SPANKER
*SS-19 STILLETO
*SS-20 SABER
*SS-24 SCALPEL
*SS-25 SICKLE
This one probabily was handled with the native name, not sure though
*Topol-M (SS-27)
: Shouldn't that be "Stiletto"? —Michael Z. 2005-03-2 17:44 Z
::I can only add that in Russia NATO classification of the missiles is known and appreciated as well. NATO enumeration of missiles was established under the situation of "iron curtain" with no information supplies. Whenever NATO experts detected launch of a new rocket, they gave it a new ordinal number and title, often reflecting its characteristic traits. ellol (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the NATO classification does represent a Western naming of Russian inventions. But, as Ellol pointed out, the Russians didn't tell the West their names for all their military platforms back then. Today, it's just become a tradition in the NATO countries to give certain types of Russian platforms a NATO designation number and, in some cases, a name. When NATO knows the Russian name of something, it generally uses it. For example, Russian surface ship classes have always been known by their Russian names; the "Sovremenny"-class, the "Udaloy"-class, and the "Kirov"-class are several examples of Russian ship classes that any NATO naval officer has undoubtedly heard a lot about, while the "Soyuz", "Proton", and "Energia" are well known Russian space launch vehicles. This is just a tradition - it isn't meant to be arrogant, though it may appear that way - just as the Russians undoubtedly have names and codes for various NATO weapons systems. Katana0182 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming

message: Does Russia still have the Mod 2 version of this missile (with a yield of 20 Mt) in their silos? It says they will have at least 40 of them left by 2020...but 20 Mts?? That's waaaayyy more than anything the U.S. currently maintains in their nuclear arsenal. Anyone else think that is messed up? 69.208.228.193 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think MOD 6 is exactly 20 MT, those are not against civilian targets like many other ICBMS in both russian and american inventory. SS-18 represents soviet thinking of using ICBMs just as very long range artillery. SS-18 Targeted military targets, like Cheney mountain and other hardened command posts, and 20 MT is exactly the yield to attack those targets with. Moreover, there are rumors of soviet old missiles with yield of 50 MT, but that I think became considered an overkill against any target, if it ever existed.99.231.46.37 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Not quite, SS-18 was very much a first strike weapon. Also, FOBS was developed on it's basis, and to say that FOBS was a retaliation system would be nonsense, it was a purely, specifically designed pathfinder system for deliberate first strike.99.231.50.118 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, to say that FOBS is first strike is nonsense. The entire point of FOBS is to assure the ability of Russian missile forces to strike past US missile shields. Missile shields do only one thing: make MAD obsolete. As such, FOBS is a MAD preservation system and obviously used exclusively for retaliation. Using it for "first strike" would have the same effect as using a SLBM for first strike, so what's the point of developing FOBS for first strike? There is no point, because it's a retaliatory weapon. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read more on FOBS and what it was developed for. US didn't have ABM shield when FOBS was being developed. Globalsecurity is a good place to start reading about FOBS, they write out pretty well what was its purpose. Here is a quote for you: 
"US planners viewed FOBS as a pathfinder system intended to precede a conventional ICBM attack and take out key retaliatory forces. The FOBS would circumvent the existing US ballistic missile early warning radars and hit SAC airfields and missile silos before the bombers could take off or missiles launched. FOBS could have also conceivably destroyed ABM radars, disrupt US retaliatory capability, destroy command posts, the White House, and the command and control network. But, due to its limited accuracy and payload, FOBS was deemed ineffective against hardened targets." --99.235.15.225 (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only FOBS ever deployed was the R-36O with a total of 18 missiles in Baikonur. The CEP of these systems was pretty poor, so even with their 5Mt warhead they were useful only against soft targets, hardened sites couldn't be attacked. Further, R-36O launches could also be detected by US early warning satellites. Therefore, FOBS was mainly intended to overcome any potential anti-missile system. That's the same reason why every Soviet missile since the late 1960's carries penetration aids. It is true that the US never had an effective ABM system, but the Cold War was driven by potential threats and the need of design bureaus for more funding. 
The single warhead version of the R-36M2 was never deployed. The single warhead missiles phased out in 2009 were R-36MUTTH (no NATO designator for them). These missiles were deployed in 1986 with a total number of 30. They replaced the single warhead version of the R-36M back then. The R-36M was still in development at the time. The total of 58 R-36M2 deployed were all MIRVed and are still in active service.
It would be also useful to split the article in two, one for the R-36 and one for the R-36M. Those are completely different missiles, having as much in common as the Tu-22 and Tu-22M or the UR-100 and UR-100N.
The Window of Vulnerability That Wasn't: Soviet Military Buildup in the 1970s
Nuclear U.S. and Soviet/Russian Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, 1959-2008
Geomartin (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A yield of 20 Mt?! 

message: Someone added that Accuracy is the decisive factor in the weapon being a first strike weapon. Please do not try to add this nonsene again. Yield is the decisive factor. And Considering the difference in CEP between Peacekeeper and SS-18, SS-18 would take out a target more efficiently than Peacekeeper (750 kt & 250 meters CEP vs 300 Kt & 120 meters CEP) AND still deliver more damage to surrounding area due to heavier yield. If someone interested, I can provide a website where estimations of yield and area of fireball, shockwave etc. coverage.--Contributions/99.231.48.138 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Accuracy is the ecisive factor in the weapon being a first strike weapon.? 

message: This is at the end of the article intro: "During the early 1970s, Team B believed that only a limited number of US ICBM silos would survive a successful first strike by missiles like the SS-18 Satan."
What's the relevance of Team B's estimate of, well, anything?  If there's a point to be made that Team B's estimate led to some specific policy decision, then it makes sense, but as a final sentence to the intro it implies that Team B's analysis was correct.  Given the fact that Team B's report has been retrospectively viewed as wholesale nonsense, that by itself is not a reliable source.
I'm removing this for now.  If someone really thinks that it needs to be there, then it should be less misleading.
Brice.timmons (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the relevance of Team B's estimate? 

message: Was the SS-18 Mod 2 the Soviet Union's first MIRV weapon?  If so, it should probably be in the article.  I haven't been able to find when the Soviets developed MIRV capability anywhere. --ChetvornoTALK 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this the Soviets' first MIRV? 

message: See Talk:Fractional Orbital Bombardment System#"Parking orbit" reversion.
These claims are unsourced here and highly dubious. They need to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOBS and "indefinite parking" orbit claims. 

message: According to Ken Alibek (who I know is considered a slightly questionable source, but very little reliable information is available), shortly before the collapse of the USSR, Biopreparat was engaged in research on biological payload options for the SS-18/R-36. The focus in his book is on anthrax, but he also mentions Y. pestis plague, smallpox and a newly-started project using Marburg virus. He also makes mention of other ICBMs tested or configured for biological warfare, including simulated dispersal tests "over the Pacific Ocean" between 1960 and 1980. FrozenSeas (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged biological warhead variant