Talk:Strategic Rocket Forces

message: What could it be? There are only RPKSNs () - strategic cruiser-class missile-carrying submarines. They nevere were separated as "fleet". More over, there are Baltic (KBF), North (SF), Black Sea (ChF), and Pacific Ocean (TOF) fleets. And no more. --jno 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Strategic fleet" 

message: Is "стратегического" really pronounced "strategicheskogo"?  Or is it more like "strategicheskovo"? Sushi Tax 00:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration/pronunciation 

message: This page appears to be largely copied from http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/agency/rvsn.htm, and in accordance with the instructions at WP:Copyvio, I am posting this talk notice. If there are no comments within a reasonable amount of time, I intend to start removing the copyrighted material. Update: I will revert to the earliest version without mass copying from the FAS page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_Rocket_Forces&oldid=34214109. Buckshot06(prof) 10:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: *Only ICBMs are mentioned. Weren't Strategic Rocket Forces also responsible for MRBMs like SS-20? --129.187.244.28 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MRBMs?

message: Why is the section entitled "weapons used"? I don't recall any ICBMs getting "used"...Smallman12q (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons Used 

message: According to a 1980 TIME Magazine article citing analysts from RAND Corporation, Soviet non-Slavs were generally barred from joining the Strategic Rocket Forces because of suspicions of loyalty of ethnic minorities to the Kremlin.[7]
Guessing aside whether this article was motivated by propaganda or simple misunderstanding / lack of context on behalf of the reporter, my father, who at the height of his career commanded a quad of silos, says that it is simply not the case. He had several people under his command from the "southern republics", including one from Chechnya. What is true however, and perhaps sheds light on where TIME may have gotten their impression, is that excellent command of spoken and written Russian was a prerequisite for having anything to do with the nukes. Many Soviet folks with non-Slavic backgrounds spoke Russian with thick accents, and/or slowly. I do not think I want to contemplate the consequences that a misinterpreted or mispronounced command could have had during a stressful or time-pressured RVSN exercise or a real emergency, and I sincerely hope, for everyone's sake, that NATO nuclear forces likewise demand good knowledge of English from their troops in the same line of service. Sometimes the reality is simpler and less sinister than what propaganda or cold war inertia would have one guess. Alex.K.NY  —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well quite. Secretlondon (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet non-Slavs were generally barred ... because of suspicions of loyalty

message: They are still through test as far as open sources stated...SO - why the claim about 3 missiles on duty? What the source  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussianTrooper (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you not see the footnote above the list (1)? It's about the most accurate source there is - Pavel Podvig. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS-24s 

message: So in related articles US Strategic Commmand isn't really related since Stratcom deals with the whole Triad. SRF only deals with the land based missiles.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't include Russian SSBNs? 

message: The references are a bit of a mess. Lots of bare links and no citation templates. I would love to move this article to list defined references as it makes it much easier to edit. This would take all the references and templates and stick them at the end of the article out of the way. We could find them all easier and correct them as appropriate. It would make it easier to reuse references too. Can I get agreement to do this? Secretlondon (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Strategic Missile Troops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101111015232/http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/ukraine/forasst/fundukr.htm to http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/ukraine/forasst/fundukr.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Strategic Missile Troops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630105540/http://en.rian.ru:80/mlitary_news/20120606/173873812.html to http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120606/173873812.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *Anthem
* Manhattan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuong lu kim (talk • contribs) 12:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Media 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved - No actual oppose !votes at this point and some agreement with the nom, who has provided evidence that the new title passes WP:COMMONNAME. Splitting the article will require a new discussion.(non-admin closure)  FOARP (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Strategic Missile Forces →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME, strategic rocket forces seems much more prevalent than strategic missile forces (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Strategic+missile+forces%2Cstrategic+rocket+forces&year_start=1960&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true), as well as in a number of other WP:RS Garuda28 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 April 2021