Russia Successfully Test-Fires New RS-24 Yars ICBMs

Tyler Durden's picture

In a unanimous decision, the United Nations Security Council on Monday tightened sanctions against North Korea after Russia, China and the US compromised on a watered-down agreement that cut North Korean exports by 90%, reducing the refined products available to North Korea by 44% and fuel by 30% - though it did not touch the North Korean oil trade.

But while the sanctions likely won’t halt the North’s nuclear program, they will likely render the Kim regime increasingly desperate – increasingly the possibility that the unthinkable could happen. With North Korea showing no signs of being open to talks with the US - as both Russia and China have repeatedly insisted – Russia has decided to test some of its most powerful weapons to make sure they work should geopolitical events take an unfortunate turn.

According to Russia Today, Russia successfully completed a test launch of a new RS-24 Yars intercontinental ballistic missile from a silo at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northern Russia.

“The main purpose of the launch is to confirm the reliability of rockets of the same class. The warheads successfully reached their target – the Kura testing range in Kamchatka. All aims of the test were achieved,” said a statement from Russia’s Defense Ministry.

The RS-24 Yars, which is equipped with three to six warheads, can hit targets up to 12,000 kilometers away. It was first tested a decade ago, and has been in use by Russian forces for seven years. The solid-fuel rocket is an upgraded version of the Topol-M missile, and can be launched from both the ground and from a vehicle.

The testing was part of strategic drills announced earlier this month, according to Russia Today.

Previously, Russia tested a submarine-based Bulava ICBM in June, successfully targeting the same facility as in the latest test, located near the Pacific coast in Kura.

A test of its RS-28 Sarmat super-heavy thermonuclear missile could be held in October, TASS reported on Monday, citing a military source.

In the wake of the North’s repeated tests this year, Russia Today notes that tests of missile-defense systems by the US and missiles tests by both China and Russia have received unusually high levels of scrutiny, which is, of course, understandable: US ships have in recent months played chicken with their Chinese counterparts during “Freedom Operations” in the South China Sea. Not too long ago, US jets and their Russian counterparts were having dangerous near-misses in the airspace above Syria. Tensions – not just in North Korea – are rising.
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ACP's picture

Yars Revenge? What is this 1982?

giovanni_f's picture

Makes the preparation of a winnable nuclear war even more a patriotic duty. Crypto-neocon Jim Rickards will soon expound on the necessity of a preemptive strike, stressing its moral justifiability (as he did with the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) based on his huge geopolitical expertise.

jin187's picture

It was a new untested weapon used to end a war that had killed tens of millions. Back then, when you got a new weapon, you used it, right away. Now that we know the consequences, only a complete nutcase would recommend a strike of any kind.

TBH, if someone with enough nukes to destroy the whole country launches on us first, I hope we don't bother firing back. It's already over at that point. At least then only half the world will burn.

fx's picture

My fear is that some a$$hole in D.C. may speculate along exactly that way, hoping that the Russians (who have shown way more responsibility and care for the well-being of the world) may not counter-strike, because of that thought. I hope they do, becasue if everything is going to hell, at least the a$$holes who started the shit should burn there, too and shall see no reward for their crime.

The Alarmist's picture

The problem is that we've put the Russians on an even more sensitive hairtrigger than they were ever on during Cold War 1.0, and they now have less than 15 to 20 minutes to decide whether or not to retaliate to what might be perceived as a US first strike. It's much easier to make a mistake and launch when you have essentially no time to confirm what you are seeing.

One thing the Russians have learned from Cold War 1.0 is that their C3 doctrine was too inflexible, and they have likely devolved a bit of the retaliatory decision making farther down into the ranks. The neocons who cooked up all that Nuclear Primacy claptrap that hit the pages of Foreign Affairs years ago probably discounted that when deciding it was likely the US could get away with a first strike. Maybe we could have in the mid-1990s, when Russia was in tatters, but after years of Putin, I would not be so sure that the US could get away with it without serious damage.

My point is that there are plenty of neocons who think it is possible, but they also know they don't really have to care, because they already have their escape route and alternate living arrangements planned out. The annihilation of a couple hundred million of us is a feature, not a bug, because they're running out of ideas to keep many of us gainfully occupied and content with the ways things are going.

giovanni_f's picture

"used to end a war that had killed tens of millions".

This qualifies a the lie of the century and has been debunked as a myth so often and clearly that I won't bother with pointing to the abundantly available sources that prove that the US had not the end of the war in mind when the decision was taken to burn 100 thousands of civilians to death. Naturally, the doer has to rationalize his deeds with an explanation that re-establishes moral superiority. It ain't gonna work this way, though: The war was over, the US wanted to test the weapon on civilians before the wndow of opportunity would close and demonstrate to the Russians the new American might along with the message that all prior agreements are void and nil from this point on.

RedBaron616's picture

The nukes on Japan were better than the number of dead American troops it would have cost should we have had to invade the Japanese islands. As it was, the Japanese government didn't surrender after Hiroshima. I suppose, according to your way of thinking, the Japanese government owns none of the responsibility for the bombs being dropped.

The Japanese refused to adhere to the Geneva Convention. They treated our POWs worse than animals. They were fanatical with religious fervor and willing to die for the Emperor.

Which would you rather fight, the Japanese or the Germans? I would have taken on the Germans anytime. At least if you surrendered to them, you know it's not a death sentence.

This was a quick end to the war. All war is horrible.  The war against Japan was NOT over. To pretend it was is to ignore history.

NoDecaf's picture

They were bombing Japanese cities handily without the nukes. Those cities were built with matchsticks. If anything you could say the opposite that more Japanese civilian lives were saved by using the nukes which brought an end to the carpet bombing.

Japanese airforce was gone, no effective resistance at that point, an invasion would not have been necessary and as far as your war atrocities examples go, ask yourself what was the catalyst for the war? Pearl Harbor or the oil blockade of Japan?

Dickweed Wang's picture

The Japanese repeatedly indicated they were willing to surrender towards the end of the war if they could keep their emperor (which is exactly what happened AFTER the US nuked them).  The use of atomic weapons was about one thing and one thing only - to show the Soviets who had the whip hand at the end of the war.  All the crap about how those bombings "saved millions of American soldier's lives" was pure propaganda.

dirtforker's picture

I do agree, however, one could argue (as the original thread creator did) that it's better we used it then, and knew the result, than now.  Here we find the common ground of the bittersweet.

The Alarmist's picture

This might sound strange, but he's too ugly to be a Company man.

This is it's picture

What? No gold pop? 

subversion's picture

Well if America can test their MOABs on foreign land they shouldn't complaint about this.

giovanni_f's picture

that is the advantage when you suffer from a complex of superiority -

Golden Showers's picture

It kind of looks like Tom Skerrit holding a kitten.

otschelnik's picture

Hey Tyler, why not a story on the Pentagon budget for Soviet style weapons going to 'the moderate opposition' in Syria is 2.2 billion dollars?  Looks like Hersh grossly under estimated the 'rat line.' 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/12/the-pentagon-is-spending-2-billion-r...

 

Is-Be's picture

Perhaps the Russians might do the right thing and put the Swedes out of their misery.

I can smell garlic. The wound is fatal.

NuYawkFrankie's picture

Attn: Russian Strategic ICBM Command
Subj: A test of Russia's RS-28 Sarmat super-heavy thermonuclear missile in October.

Please consider Tel Aviv & Washington DC as test-targets.

tia.

WTFUD's picture

Almost sent me over the edge in the emotional stakes, that did.

jin187's picture

Does it really matter? Setting off 20,000 nuclear warheads, even if 99% of them miss the target, effectively ends civilization. Enough people would survive to eventually rebuild, but all the most likely targets are going to be the centers of trade and knowledge. We'd probably be talking 200-300 years minimum just to get back to industrialization in whatever habitable space remains.

WTFUD's picture

I'm a big eater but don't think i could handle 2 of those big boys for breakfast. Now that's what i call a deterrent!

Free Peace!

Sandmann's picture

Cutting off oil supplies is a declaration of war just as it was when the US did it to Japan and provoked Pearl Harbour. It is what OPEC did in 1973 to the US, Netherlands, UK in Oct 1973 to March 1974..........BP ensured the US 7th Fleet received oil

RedBaron616's picture

You just contradicted yourself. If cutting off oil supplies is a declaration of war, why didn't we attack OPEC in 1973? So it is NOT a declaration of war. Countries who sell oil may sell oil to whomever they choose. It is called a marketplace.

silverer's picture

Because the US chose not to? These days, the US neocons would blow up the planet for far less.

oncemore's picture

Because Israel did not give you a free pass.

USA is not allowed to fart , if Israel does not OK it.

sinbad2's picture

Russia makes the coolest missiles, they are the Porsches of missiles.

Have you seen the missile launchers built into shipping containers?

 

alphasammae's picture

Russia, China, and the USA constantly test ICBM missiles and expand weapons development budgets etc., But North Korea can't, yet they are sandwiched on all sides by these compelling forces and military exercises. Should not Russia get UN sanctions from this test?

krage_man's picture

Russia is a perm member of security council with veto power

me or you's picture

America is Israel bitch 

yogibear's picture

The Wall Street bankers are giddy about the prospects  of all that destruction and profit.

silverer's picture

Unless nobody's left to write a check.

Last of the Middle Class's picture

What no blast off on the Vid?? I got hard for nothing? You assholes!!Who the hell shows an ICBM vid without the money shot?

Jack Oliver's picture

Russia exhibited over 150 'never before seen' weapons in Syria - they have nothing left to prove !!

Jack Oliver's picture

Russia exhibited over 150 'never before seen' weapons in Syria - they have nothing left to prove !!

A. Boaty's picture

Behold the shlong of doom.

marcusfenix's picture

That is the real deal sholng of doom right there.

No need to question whether that one gets off or not, 30 minutes to kiss your ass goodbye.

A. Boaty's picture

Forget the missile. How can I get one of those way cool trucks? Could haul lotsa stuff with that.

Cochore's picture

With North Korea showing no signs of being open to talks with the US - as both Russia and China have repeatedly insisted

 

BS!!! It is the US that is refusing to talk to the North Koreans. Also, the Chinese de-escalation plan that is also supported by Russia has been rejected by the US.

silverer's picture

Yep. Escalation going up. Just like the missiles will if these fools don't back off.

gcjohns1971's picture

Russia considers itself already at war with the West, with the stakes not regime or policy change, but population elimination.

The 5th generation warfare strategy released by the Russian defense ministry calls for waging this war just below the level of aggression that traditionally results in a war declaration in response.

It is a stupid strategy guaranteed to end human civilization for millennia.  

It assumes the level of activity that will result in a formal declaration of war to be static.

It is not.

Therefore, at some point this strategy will ellicit an unexpected and disproportionate response. 

Then everyone loses.

It is Russian roulette with life itself to compete for the iron throne atop the ashes.

When you compete at production everyone wins in the end.

When you compete at destruction (war) everyone loses in the end.

The problem is that too many people cannot think beyond scoring the next point to see what the true object of the game is.

silverer's picture

Good points. At this stage of the game, I'm more likely to say "American Roulette". It sure seems to me America is more anxious to play than Russia.

silverer's picture

Russia. Winning.

onmail1's picture

Kill the dollar

kill the euro & pound

west gets decimated

& keep the H-Bomb ICBMs ready

all the time

ITS TIME TO KILL THE DOLLAR

NOW