Putin, before vote, unveils 'invincible' nuclear weapons to counter West

[webfact]

Putin, before vote, unveils 'invincible' nuclear weapons to counter West

By Andrew Osborn

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin stands on the stage as he addresses the Federal Assembly, including the State Duma parliamentarians, members of the Federation Council, regional governors and other high-ranking officials, in Moscow, Russia March 1, 2018. Sputnik/Mikhail Klimentyev/Kremlin via REUTERS

 

MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin announced an array of new nuclear weapons on Thursday, in one of his most bellicose speeches in years, saying they could hit almost any point in the world and evade a U.S.-built missile shield.

 

Putin was speaking ahead of an election on March 18 that polls indicate he should win easily. He said a nuclear attack on any of Moscow's allies would be regarded as an attack on Russia itself and draw an immediate response.

 

It was unclear if he had a particular Russian ally, such as Syria, in mind, but his comments looked like a warning to Washington not to use tactical battlefield nuclear weapons.

 

His remarks were greeted with scepticism in Washington, where officials cast doubt on whether Russia has added any new capabilities to its nuclear arsenal beyond those already known to the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

 

The Pentagon, which recently announced a nuclear policy revamp based partly on the bellicose posture from Moscow, said it was not surprised by Putin's presentation.

 

"We've been watching Russia for a long time. We're not surprised," Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said.

 

"These weapons that are discussed have been in development a very long time," she told a news briefing, without addressing any of Putin's specific claims of new capabilities.

 

John Rood, U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, declined to comment on U.S. intelligence on Russian capabilities.

 

But, addressing a forum in Washington, Rood generally played down Putin's presentation, saying: "I think it's broadly consistent with things that have been stated before (by) Russian officials."

 

The Trump administration accused Moscow anew of violating a Cold War-era treaty which banned nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles).

 

"President Putin has confirmed what the United States government has known all along, which Russia has denied: Russia has been developing destabilising weapons systems for over a decade in direct violations of its treaty obligations," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said.

 

Putin has often used militaristic rhetoric to mobilise support and buttress his narrative that Russia is under siege from the West. His 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea boosted his ratings to a record high and he has cast his military intervention in Syria as a proud moment for Moscow.

 

On Thursday, he sought to back his rhetoric with video clips of what he said were some of the new missiles. The images were projected onto a giant screen behind him at a conference hall in central Moscow where he was addressing Russia's political elite.

 

"They have not succeeded in holding Russia back," said Putin, referring to the West, which he said had ignored Moscow in the past, but would now have to sit up and listen.

 

"Now they need to take account of a new reality and understand that everything I have said today is not a bluff."

 

Among weapons that Putin said were either in development or ready was a new intercontinental ballistic missile "with a practically unlimited range" able to attack via the North and South Poles and bypass any missile defence systems.

 

Putin also spoke of a small nuclear-powered engine that could be fitted to what he said were low-flying, highly manoeuvrable cruise missiles, giving them a practically unlimited range.

 

The new engine meant Russia was able to make a new type of weapon - nuclear missiles powered by nuclear rather than conventional fuel.

"Nothing like it in the world exists," Putin told the audience. "At some point it will probably appear (elsewhere) but by that time our guys will have devised something else."

 

Other new super weapons he listed included underwater nuclear drones, a supersonic weapon and a laser weapon.

 

In one of his video clip demos, a weapon appeared to be hovering over what looked like a map of the state of Florida.

 

"It was certainly unfortunate to have watched the video animation that depicted a nuclear attack on the United States," State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert told a news briefing. "We don't regard that as the behaviour of a responsible international player."

 

Putin's audience, made up of Russian lawmakers and other leading figures, frequently stood up and applauded his presentation, which culminated with the Russian national anthem being played.

 

Earlier in the speech, he had struck a very different tone, ordering officials to halve the number of Russians living in poverty by sharply boosting social and infrastructure spending in an obvious pre-election pitch to voters.

 

NATO MEASURES "USELESS"

 

Putin, who has dominated his country's political landscape for the last 18 years, said the technological advances meant that NATO's build-up on Russia's borders and the roll-out of a U.S. anti-missile system would be rendered useless.

 

"I hope that everything that was said today will sober up any potential aggressor," said Putin.

 

"Unfriendly steps towards Russia such as the deployment of the (U.S.) anti-missile system and of NATO infrastructure nearer our borders and such like, from a military point of view, will become ineffective."

 

Steps to contain Russia would also become unjustifiably expensive and pointless, he forecast.

 

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said in a statement after the speech that the new weapons Putin had unveiled meant that NATO's missile defence shield, in Poland, Romania and Alaska and planned elements in South Korea and Japan was like an umbrella that was full of holes.

 

"I don't know why they would now buy such an 'umbrella'," Shoigu said, referring to Seoul and Tokyo.

 

NATO declined immediate comment.

 

The United States has long asserted that U.S. missile defence are incapable of halting a large-scale attack by a major nuclear power, like Russia or China, due in part to the limited number of U.S. missile interceptors.

 

Instead, the technology is aimed at what the United States views as "rogue" states, such as Iran or North Korea.

 

"They know very well that it's not about them. Our missile defence has never been about them," White said.

 

She added that the U.S. focus in addressing Russia's nuclear modernization was strengthening America's own nuclear forces to serve as a deterrent.

 

Lisbeth Gronlund, senior scientist and co-director of the Global Security Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Putin's announcement of a missile with a nuclear-powered engine, even if true, would change little when it came to the Russian threat since Russia already has large numbers of ICBMs.

 

Putin also voiced concerns about a new U.S. nuclear doctrine, saying Russia's own doctrine was defensive and only envisaged the use of nuclear weapons in response to an attack.

 

Russia has repeatedly said it is keen to hold talks with the United States about the balance of strategic nuclear power and Putin put Washington and other nuclear powers on notice.

 

"We will view any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it of small, medium or any force, as a nuclear attack on our country," he said.

 

"Our response will be immediate. Nobody should have any doubts about that."

 

Putin said that Russia did not plan to attack anyone, however. Russia's growing military might was a guarantee of world peace, he said, designed to preserve a strategic balance of power on the planet.

 

(Additional reporting by Andrey Ostroukh, Polina Ivanova, Maria Tsvetkova, Vladimir Soldatkin, Polina Devitt, Katya Golubkova, Polina Nikolskaya and Denis Pinchuk in Moscow, Robin Emmott in Brussels, Phil Stewart, Arshad Mohammed and Lisa Lambert in Washington and Scot Paltrow in New York; Writing by Andrew Osborn and Phil Stewart; Editing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-03-02

[Guest]

Nuclear powered engine sounds cool. US tried to add it to airplane, but the plan was scrapped at the time.

 

However the idea of ever increasing nuclear arsenal and the global pressure towards nuclear war is not a cool at all. This applies to both sides, which are lead by power hungry selfish morons.

 

Both sides should well know that any defence, during full scale nuclear war, is absolutely useless. Even if only one side sends their missiles, all societies around the world are going to be destroyed due the nuclear winter that follows. 

 

The Clock is at 23:58 and that's way too close to the midnight. 

 

 

[grumbleweed]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Putin was speaking ahead of an election on March 18 that polls indicate he should win easily

Which election would that be, the US or Russian. It would appear he controls both

[Emster23]

Hopefully this is all just bluster and Putin has the smarts to know that use of nuke bombs is like setting off bomb in your own house.  The fallout, nuke winter, etc etc would lead to billions dying around the world

[smutcakes]

19 minutes ago, Emster23 said:

Hopefully this is all just bluster and Putin has the smarts to know that use of nuke bombs is like setting off bomb in your own house.  The fallout, nuke winter, etc etc would lead to billions dying around the world

Of course it is all bluster, they know it, the US know it, everyone knows it.

 

In any respect history tells us it is not Russia we need to be wary of with respect to the use of nuclear weapons.

[Jack Mountain]

I guess he was lying when he (Putin) told Oliver Stone that he had never seen the movie Dr. Strangelove ... 

[pedro01]

Damn dinosaurs running countries...

[coulson]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

and a laser weapon

 

[connda]

A nuclear war reset may not be such a bad thing.  The world would be back to nation-states struggling to survive, the ecosystem would be the first to adapt and heal, the pesky human species wouldn't be so pesky anymore, and as Einstein aptly noted, WW4 would be fought with rocks and sticks. 
So with the US pulling out of the ABM treaty among others, and Russia developing a nuclear deterence strategy to counter a US military machine that has 10 times the funding as Russia, we're back to Cold War 2.0 and MAD 2.0.  Not only have I been there before (I lived on a SAC base and did 'duck and cover drills' at school during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but basically, I'm too old to care anymore.  Bring it on!  Nuclear Armageddon would solve a lot of the world's problems, although, I'm not necessarily talking about humanity in general. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by connda

[boomerangutang]

Saber rattling between the US, Russia, NK, and other nuclear powers, ....what could go wrong?!

[baboon]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

Saber rattling between the US, Russia, NK, and other nuclear powers, ....what could go wrong?!

Scum. A tiny minority of global 'elites' swinging their dicks around and threatening one another with spilt blood. OUR spilt blood, not theirs.

The real enemies of us all are not pushy Chinese tourists, American rednecks, European football hooligans... No. It is these bastards who don't care if 1914 happens all over again. We should, we MUST not keep falling for their attempts to divide us and sow mutual hatred so that THEY can claim the bragging rights over OUR dead bodies.

[bendejo]

17 hours ago, Jack Mountain said:

I guess he was lying when he (Putin) told Oliver Stone that he had never seen the movie Dr. Strangelove ... 

 

Yes, that's what I thought of when I first heard this, the "doomsday machine."

On one hand with the US gov't coffers being weakened by deficit-financed tax cuts, the US may not be able to handle another arms race.  On the other hand DT has been calling for an increase in nukes;for those of us old enough to remember it sounds like a Cold War replay.

 

 

[Kiwiken]

The endless cycle Continues. Hope you keep your conflicts to the Northern hemisphere. We don,t want a bar of the phallic games

[Jack Mountain]

12 hours ago, connda said:

A nuclear war reset may not be such a bad thing.  The world would be back to nation-states struggling to survive, the ecosystem would be the first to adapt and heal, the pesky human species wouldn't be so pesky anymore, and as Einstein aptly noted, WW4 would be fought with rocks and sticks. 
So with the US pulling out of the ABM treaty among others, and Russia developing a nuclear deterence strategy to counter a US military machine that has 10 times the funding as Russia, we're back to Cold War 2.0 and MAD 2.0.  Not only have I been there before (I lived on a SAC base and did 'duck and cover drills' at school during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but basically, I'm too old to care anymore.  Bring it on!  Nuclear Armageddon would solve a lot of the world's problems, although, I'm not necessarily talking about humanity in general. 

Reset ok but not as in the movies where there are survivals and the whole shit starts in the middle instead of zero. Starting at zero is my favorite. Nature will do the same trick again and hopefully better ...

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, bendejo said:

Yes, that's what I thought of when I first heard this, the "doomsday machine."

On one hand with the US gov't coffers being weakened by deficit-financed tax cuts, the US may not be able to handle another arms race.  On the other hand DT has been calling for an increase in nukes;for those of us old enough to remember it sounds like a Cold War replay.

It was money problems which, as much or more than any other issues, collapsed the Soviet Union. They've got giant abandoned state projects, such as their never-flown space shuttle, sitting like gargantuan corpses on their large landscapes. They lost the arms race in the late 20th century, ...now they're rebuilding to gain dominance. Could similar happen with the US?  Yes.  Particularly with Don 'I'm great with debt' Trump, who spends other peoples' (taxpayers') money as easily as he takes a pee.

 

They US spends many times more for arms - than any other country, but get less 'bang for the buck' (sorry to use that phrase for this issue).  Heck, the US spends nearly $200,000 per day just to have a few guys walking around with geiger counters - checking whether old nukes are leaking.

 

Added note about how nukes damage people:  The main way:  burning.  Secondarily, it's all the other ways bombs kill people: building collapse, concussion waves, shrapnel, etc.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Added note about how nukes damage people:  The main way:  burning.  Secondarily, it's all the other ways bombs kill people: building collapse, concussion waves, shrapnel, etc.

If big powers go to war against each other and it escalates to the nuclear war, it's cold and lack of food which kills majority of the population. 

 

Burning causes lots of small particles to fly up to the stratosphere, over the troposphere, where it can't be cleaned fast by weather / rain. This particles block the sunlight, like it happens during the massive volcano eruptions. Only this time the amount of small particles are much higher. 

 

Few years of nuclear winter and we have very little to eat, even in the places which were very far away where to bombs were dropped. 

 

Oh.. and after the sky clears.. we have left with very little ozone layer as it burned away. Once again, crops and us humans are not well adapted to extra UV-radiation.

Fun times when the power hungry nutters have their own nuclear buttons... 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, bendejo said:

Yes, that's what I thought of when I first heard this, the "doomsday machine."

 

Apparently there were ideas of real life doomsday machine. 

 

One of the craziest ones was idea of a large ship, filled with enriched uranium and couple of hydrogen bombs. Creating a gigaton nuclear device. 

 

This autonomous ship would sail somewhere on Russia's waters, listening to active "No, don't launch" messages, which prevents the bomb to go off. 

 

In case the ship fails to receive the messages, it would mean that Russia has been destroyed, and the bomb would practically kill everyone in the world (Nuclear winter). 

Fortunately this was too crazy idea to be implemented, even during the coldest cold war.  

[boomerangutang]

5 minutes ago, oilinki said:

If big powers go to war against each other and it escalates to the nuclear war, it's cold and lack of food which kills majority of the population. 

 

Burning causes lots of small particles to fly up to the stratosphere, over the troposphere, where it can't be cleaned fast by weather / rain. This particles block the sunlight, like it happens during the massive volcano eruptions. Only this time the amount of small particles are much higher. 

 

Few years of nuclear winter and we have very little to eat, even in the places which were very far away where to bombs were dropped. 

 

Oh.. and after the sky clears.. we have left with very little ozone layer as it burned away. Once again, crops and us humans are not well adapted to extra UV-radiation.

Fun times when the power hungry nutters have their own nuclear buttons... 

Probably true for the longer term, but for the hour after a nuke explodes, ...it's burning which kills most people, animals and plants.  Radiation is another long term curse which we've all heard about, but oddly, it's the smaller nukes which cause the most radiation sickness/deaths - than the larger nukes.

Meanwhile, Thai officials haven't officially called off their quest for nuclear power plants for Thailand.  Power plants produce weapons grade U.  Connect the dots.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

Probably true for the longer term, but for the hour after a nuke explodes, ...it's burning which kills most people, animals and plants.  Radiation is another long term curse which we've all heard about, but oddly, it's the smaller nukes which cause the most radiation sickness/deaths - than the larger nukes.

Meanwhile, Thai officials haven't officially called off their quest for nuclear power plants for Thailand.  Power plants produce weapons grade U.  Connect the dots.

There is also theory of so called salted nuclear device, which have Cobolt-60 added to cause more radiation hazard. Rendering the area it was detonated as no-go zones for centuries. It's theory as it has not known to be tested anywhere. 

 

Nuclear power plants actually use the weapon grade uranium U-235, which is slightly enriched to allow controlled chain reaction to happen in the reactors. Splitting these U-235 atoms releases energy, creates other atoms and reduce the number of weapon grade uranium. 

 

Nuclear plants however can produce Plutonium, which is both extremely toxic and can be used to made Fat man type of plutonium based atom bombs. These bombs require a lot more technical knowhow than U-235 bombs does. 

 

I'm very much against nuclear bombs and very much for nuclear power as it's the only feasible clean energy to meet the demands of the modern world. I know, we have all kind of alternative methods of creating electricity, but in reality we are still very far from the time, those can replace coal and oil. Therefore nuclear power is the only way to go for now.

[simple1]

59 minutes ago, oilinki said:

If big powers go to war against each other and it escalates to the nuclear war, it's cold and lack of food which kills majority of the population. 

I was listening to some Uni professor specialising in this topic on a radio broadcast a few weeks back. What he claimed is 'nuclear winter' would be generated by a minimum nuclear exchange of approx 100 detonations. He claimed at the level of exchange a nuclear winter would mean crop harvesting timelines would be reduced by about 10 days leading to animal and human food crops being insufficient and death by starvation for some would occur (don't recall the number of years). Obviously if there was a MAD level exchange a very different scenario.

Edited March 3, 2018 by simple1

[boomerangutang]

47 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm very much against nuclear bombs and very much for nuclear power as it's the only feasible clean energy to meet the demands of the modern world. I know, we have all kind of alternative methods of creating electricity, but in reality we are still very far from the time, those can replace coal and oil. Therefore nuclear power is the only way to go for now.

We agree on most things, but I can't agree that nuclear "....is the only feasible clean energy to meet the demands of the modern world."

I've been using solar - to power water and sump pumps, and other things, since the 1970's. I've also used passive solar to heat water for showers.  Solar's potential has been partially reached, but it's only a tiny % of its potential.  Parts of Europe are over 50% clean alternatives, as we speak. Passive solar has, in my view, even bigger potential than PV. Nearly everyone uses forms of passive solar every day.  One, of 1,000 examples:  to dry clothes.  Passive is also necessary for all plant growth, and is essential for all other living things.   

 

I see nuclear power akin to letting your kids play with balloons filled with ammonia.  It's fun for awhile, but (like Chernobyl and Fukushima) one or more are going to pop - and all the talk about how cost-saving and clean nuclear is (by its promoters) ....is shown to be BS. 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

We agree on most things, but I can't agree that nuclear "....is the only feasible clean energy to meet the demands of the modern world."

I've been using solar - to power water and sump pumps, and other things, since the 1970's. I've also used passive solar to heat water for showers.  Solar's potential has been partially reached, but it's only a tiny % of its potential.  Parts of Europe are over 50% clean alternatives, as we speak. Passive solar has, in my view, even bigger potential than PV. Nearly everyone uses forms of passive solar every day.  One, of 1,000 examples:  to dry clothes.  Passive is also necessary for all plant growth, and is essential for all other living things.   

 

I see nuclear power akin to letting your kids play with balloons filled with ammonia.  It's fun for awhile, but (like Chernobyl and Fukushima) one or more are going to pop - and all the talk about how cost-saving and clean nuclear is (by its promoters) ....is shown to be BS. 

 

I'm a big fan of development of solar and other renewable energy forms. I'm expecting a lot from thin film solar panels. The real problem there still is the energy storage, which has not yet been resolved. 

 

That's why wind/solar etc. requires a steady form of power plant to support the downtimes. There are coal, gas and nuclear power plants, which can do the job.

 

Abundant energy is a great factor for us going forward. It allows us to turn seawater to fresh water, which then allows us to make even deserts green.. which then means more biomass to suck the co2 from the air. Recycling different raw materials also require a lot of energy. This applies to plastics and metals. 

 

Renewable energies are still very expensive, even if the energy storage issue had been resolved. This means that it takes us longer to find solutions to clean our nature and our air. Not a green thing to do in the long run.

 

Currently we only use huge Uranium-235 based fission reactors. Those are working well and don't mess with the nature. Of course there has been the 3 nuclear accidents, which have received a lot of media coverage. It's like when an airplane falls to the ground or to a building (Chernobyl), there is lots of talk. Few people die on those accidents, but the numbers are very miniscule compared to the numbers of people who die of radiation from coal plants. Yes, coal causes more radiation to the atmosphere than nuclear power does. 

For the future there is the everlasting study and building of fusion reactor. I'm not holding my breath it to finish in the next decades. 

Another, much more interesting nuclear power is using Thorium as fuel. It has some advantages over Uranium based reactors. Let's see what the Chinese come up with the development. They are the ones who are leading the future of energy creation in anyway. 

Here is a good talk about the real costs of different energy production methods. It also talks about the Thorium reactor. I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

 

 

 

 

Edit: I forgot to say. I'm cool with agreeing and disagreeing on different topics. If I'm wrong about something, it means that I have learned something new.. which makes the time spend talking worthwhile :) 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Guest

[Srikcir]

On 3/3/2018 at 8:20 AM, boomerangutang said:

Power plants produce weapons grade U.

Nope.

Power plants use uranium enriched to a nominal 4% U-235. A power plant itself does not enrich uranium. Nuclear weapons require 90% U-235.

Uranium in its natural state of about 0.7% purity intended for a power plant is enriched by centrifuges. To enrich U-235 from 4% to 90% more centrifuges are required but not in proportion to scale up of enrichment. Nuclear bombs require far less U-235 than a power plant.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/25/michael-morell/odd-reality-irans-centrifuges-enough-bomb-not-powe/

 

 

[Srikcir]

On 3/2/2018 at 6:17 AM, webfact said:

President Vladimir Putin announced an array of new nuclear weapons

This may be in part in response to the US ongoing modernization of its own nuclear weapons program started before Trump. One of the new US products is the B61-12 300ktn gravity nuclear bomb whose testing began last year. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/640919/us-tests-b61-12-nuclear-bomb-nevada-donald-trump-war

 

 

[Justgrazing]

He does like to big-up Russian arms capability does Comrade Vlad' .. It is nowt new for them to state they have the newest , biggest and baddest kit on the planet .. The reality though sometimes does not match the bluster .. Much is made for the T14 Armata tank due to replace the T90 .. Over 2000 would be in service by 2020 they said .. But ' fiscal ' and ongoing ' trial and testing ' issues are gonna restrict the number in service to 100 by 2020 .. Bit of a shortfall that .. Read same for latest generation fighter aircraft SU57 which is a derivative of SU35 itself a derivative of the SU27 which is over 40 yrs old .. Again numbers available for service do not match claims made for it .. The aircraft carrier Admiral Kusnetzov ( only one anywhere near the American Nimitz class carriers of which the U S has 10 ) pride of the Russian fleet has to be escorted by tugboats wherever it goes because of ongoing engine issues .. Not to mention aircraft it has lost due to arrester wire problems failing to halt planes landing on it .. Russia back in the 50's made much of having the largest nuclear bomb ever created .. So big in fact it proved to be wholly impractical to actually use as the only one ever test detonated nearly took out the bomber that dropped it .. And what brought about in part the collapse of the Soviet Union near 30 yrs ago was the realisation by then topman Gorbachev that the Russians simply could not afford financially to stay engaged in an arms race against the U S .. The latest claims that they have kit able to hit the U S unchallenged can be seen as just that .. A claim ..

[ilostmypassword]

42 minutes ago, Justgrazing said:

He does like to big-up Russian arms capability does Comrade Vlad' .. It is nowt new for them to state they have the newest , biggest and baddest kit on the planet .. The reality though sometimes does not match the bluster .. Much is made for the T14 Armata tank due to replace the T90 .. Over 2000 would be in service by 2020 they said .. But ' fiscal ' and ongoing ' trial and testing ' issues are gonna restrict the number in service to 100 by 2020 .. Bit of a shortfall that .. Read same for latest generation fighter aircraft SU57 which is a derivative of SU35 itself a derivative of the SU27 which is over 40 yrs old .. Again numbers available for service do not match claims made for it .. The aircraft carrier Admiral Kusnetzov ( only one anywhere near the American Nimitz class carriers of which the U S has 10 ) pride of the Russian fleet has to be escorted by tugboats wherever it goes because of ongoing engine issues .. Not to mention aircraft it has lost due to arrester wire problems failing to halt planes landing on it .. Russia back in the 50's made much of having the largest nuclear bomb ever created .. So big in fact it proved to be wholly impractical to actually use as the only one ever test detonated nearly took out the bomber that dropped it .. And what brought about in part the collapse of the Soviet Union near 30 yrs ago was the realisation by then topman Gorbachev that the Russians simply could not afford financially to stay engaged in an arms race against the U S .. The latest claims that they have kit able to hit the U S unchallenged can be seen as just that .. A claim ..

Don't think that they need new weaponry to make the claim that they can hit the US. I suppose since you do use "unchallenged" what you said is literally true. But since that challenge would be ineffective against any serious attempt at a strike, the qualification doesn't amount to much.