Russia Tests New Wonder Weapon [Archive]

View Full Version : Russia Tests New Wonder Weapon

ullu

February 24th, 2004, 11:59 PM

Russia Tests New Wonder Weapon

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62350,00.html

MOSCOW -- Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday.

The prototype weapon proved it could maneuver so quickly as to make "any missile defense useless," Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told a news conference.

He said that the prototype of a new hypersonic vehicle had proved its ability to maneuver while in orbit, thereby making it able to dodge an enemy's missile shield.

"The flying vehicle changed both the altitude and direction of its flight," Baluyevsky said. "During the experiment conducted yesterday, we proved that it's possible to develop weapons that would make any missile defense useless."

Baluyevsky's comment followed a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said Wednesday after attending rocket launches from the Plesetsk launch pad in northern Russia that experiments conducted during the military maneuvers had proven the country could build new strategic weapons that would be unrivaled in the world.

Putin said that the development of new weapons was not directed against the United States, and Baluyevsky reaffirmed the statement, saying that the experiment shouldn't be seen as Russia's response to U.S. missile defense plans.

"The experiment conducted by us must not be interpreted as a warning to the Americans not to build their missile defense because we designed this thing," Baluyevsky told The Associated Press.

In Washington, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by reporters about the Putin statement.

"If you're in that business -- intercontinental ballistic missiles and warheads -- you want them to be survivable, and maneuverability is one way to increase their survivability against any potential defenses," he said.

Putin said that Russia has no intention of immediately deploying new weapons based on the experimental vehicle. "We have demonstrated our capability, but we have no intention of building this craft tomorrow," he said.

Baluyevsky said that Russia had informed the United States about its intention to conduct the experiment and added that U.S. officials issued no objections.

He said that the new vehicle had "ceased to exist" after the experiment -- presumably burning up in the atmosphere.

Baluyevsky refused to comment on what kind of engine the vehicle had, how long its flight lasted or how exactly it maneuvered. He said that it had been designed by several Russian companies, but refused to name them.

As part of this week's massive military maneuvers described as the largest in more than two decades, the Russian military launched a Molniya-M booster rocket with a Kosmos military satellite from the northern Plesetsk launch pad, and launched two ballistic missiles -- a Topol from Plesetsk and an RS-18 from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

Baluyevsky refused to say which of the rockets had carried the vehicle into the orbit.

as pentagon gets ready to make weapons to take war in space russia testing weapons to counter it already! another arms race? :D

Soldier

February 25th, 2004, 09:54 PM

gf0012-aust

February 25th, 2004, 11:16 PM

Soldier

February 25th, 2004, 11:33 PM

And obviously it is a slap to all those who think Russia due to economic poverty has lost the ability to show its teeth (technology). They may not make this as of yet, but they have once agian proven, that you do not want to compete with Russia. Even a dead elephant is worth millions... :D :D

If thats the case, then russia needs to go to another dentist (teeth etc). Their last 2 tests have resulted in system failures. ;)

A dead elephant is only worth millions if someone wants to buy it - its a buyers market - not a sellers market.

Russia is in trouble, India is propping up it's R&D, it needs continuing Indian and Chinese aircraft sales, it is developing more and more technical partnerships with Israel in missiles.

The elephant is far from dead, but it's bleeding a fair bit.

So India, China are the buyers. Israel is also participating to an extend. Besides GF, Russian economy is bad which is right, but it is on the right track of coming back too. They had a very respectable growth rate as far as their GDP is concerned. Also they do have technology and if felt endangered, they are capable of repulsing anyone on this earth for now.

gf0012-aust

February 25th, 2004, 11:37 PM

Awang se

February 25th, 2004, 11:38 PM

Maybe they reduce budget on aicrafts and tanks and rise spending instead on their strategic rocket forces.

virtual

March 1st, 2004, 11:59 AM

I agree with gf as Russian economy is although improveing but still in a very bad shape and they need to concentrate on it a bit more.There is no immidiate threat to Russia from any country espacially from USA.They just face small groups of freedom fighters and such extensive R&D is not required to face them.So instead of wasteing money needlessly on defence soo much they shud concentrate on their economy and invest more money in improving comercial and public products and invest in R&D of such products and improve the quality of existing products.
For war too u need money u cant use anything in war if u dont have resources and money soo its better to concentrate there.

The Watcher

March 1st, 2004, 12:04 PM

Russia needs to work towards better relations with Pakistan as pak is poised to become the trading hub for central asian countries through the port of gwadar. maybe they will have better access to warm water port and another way to export its rich oil resources. it does have a lots of oil and saveing it for the day when ME oil runs out.

virtual

March 1st, 2004, 12:04 PM

But there is no doubt that Russia does posess necessary infrastructure and human resources to compete any nation in the world.They are a hardworking nation but need to redefine their goals a bit.

The Watcher

March 1st, 2004, 12:06 PM

they need to get over the afghan war defeat issue... and try to resolve chechnya as soon as possible but then who would want to give up land like chechnya with too much oil? ;)

hollywoodnet

October 6th, 2005, 05:43 PM

People often say, maybe to often that Afghanistan has lots of OIL.
And then others say that in Chechnya there is also lots of OIL.
But what anyone fails to realize is that through all the extensive searching
in these two regions scientists have found no proof of any kind that there is
Oil in both Afghan and Chechen territory.
So why is that Afghanistan doesn't pursue black gold or Chechnya for that mater?

Any logical thinking individual would pursue Oil if they had the smallest chance of discovery for that is where money and power is!

As we speak we know that the U.S. Army is in Afghanistan.
And if the United States knew about Afghan OIL wouldn't they have started
digging by now.

Or why is it that Russia doesn't pursue Oil in Chechnya?

Any one care to answer that? And please when typing information, be specific about the time, place and people for that mater.

larryzou

November 3rd, 2005, 10:46 AM

aaaditya

November 5th, 2005, 12:54 AM

lakhani

November 5th, 2005, 02:22 PM

Russia needs to work towards better relations with Pakistan as pak is poised to become the trading hub for central asian countries through the port of gwadar.so China are the buyers. Israel is also participating to an extend. Besides GF, Russian economy is bad which is right, but it is on the right track of coming back too. :gun :gun :gun

Though my answer is political, which is not related to the thread.
sorry admin.. But I wanted to make comment.

Firstly its not Russia which has created bad relations with pakistan. Its pak who created the prob since 1950s. Even russia never refused us to sell arms, we never buy them. Recently a Russian delegate was in pak, they were really keen to import pakistani textile and to invest in Pak but.... it depends on us us how shall we promote the goods.

There is alot more to say about history and present but I dont want to drag the discussion away from the topic.

KGB

November 6th, 2005, 12:00 AM

Some political analysts assert that the russia's prioritizing it's nuclear weapons arsenal as a way to keep its status as a major power in the face of the decline in its conventional forces. However, it is true that much of russia's stategic missiles (especially its SLBM's) are apprroaching the end of their service lives and so they're obliged to upgrade and replace their rockets anyway if they want to maintain their stragetic nuclear force.

What I don't get is why russia's so alarmed at the US's anti ballistic missile program, don't they have enough nuclear bombs to swamp anything anyway?

gf0012-aust

November 6th, 2005, 12:51 AM

What I don't get is why russia's so alarmed at the US's anti ballistic missile program, don't they have enough nuclear bombs to swamp anything anyway?

I think a lot of comment is for local politics most of the time. The Russians might be down and relatively out - but they're still not to be sneezed at. Topol still keeps them in the gane.

armage

November 7th, 2005, 12:55 AM

I think a lot of comment is for local politics most of the time. The Russians might be down and relatively out - but they're still not to be sneezed at. Topol still keeps them in the gane.

So the Russians will just keep modifying th Topol and not develop a new missile? So they are not going to go for the SS-24 Scalpel and modify that? :confused:

gf0012-aust

November 7th, 2005, 01:09 AM

So the Russians will just keep modifying th Topol and not develop a new missile? So they are not going to go for the SS-24 Scalpel and modify that? :confused:

I think Topol is still their prime missile of modification as its the basis for both their land and sea based delivery systems.

aaaditya

November 7th, 2005, 06:47 AM

I think Topol is still their prime missile of modification as its the basis for both their land and sea based delivery systems.
is the bulava icbm the same as the topol-m or a completely different missile?i believe it is a submarine launched missile so what about the sea based topol-m?what are their ranges and warhead capacities?the info wil be realy helpfull.

armage

November 7th, 2005, 02:29 PM

is the bulava icbm the same as the topol-m or a completely different missile?i believe it is a submarine launched missile so what about the sea based topol-m?what are their ranges and warhead capacities?the info wil be realy helpfull.

Bulava, is a navalized version of Topol-M ICBM. Here's something interesting...

The 45 ton Bulava ICBM is slightly a slightly modified version of the Topol-M. The Bulava is a little shorter, to fit into the missile tube, and thus has a shorter range of some 10,000 kilometers. Bulava has three stages and uses solid fuel. Currently, each Bulava carries a single 500 kiloton nuclear weapon, plus decoys and the ability to maneuver. The warhead is also shielded to provide protection from the electronic pulse of nearby nuclear explosions. Take away all of these goodies, and the Bulava could be equipped with six smaller (150 kiloton) warheads. But the big thing these days is trying to defeat American anti-missile systems.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005523232351.asp

Alexandr

December 27th, 2005, 06:16 PM

About rocket "Булава"="Bulava" it is known a little. However, according to its developers from the Moscow institute heating engineers, her(it) ТТХ substantially correspond(meet) to characteristics of a ballistic missile of ground basing РС-12М2 "Poplar - m". As a matter of fact "Bulava" is a sea variant of modernized "Poplar" which in the future becomes a basis of strategic nuclear forces of Russia.

Meanwhile development "Bulava" MEATH which specialized on ground rocket complexes, has engaged not from a good life. As " the Russian newspaper " writes, to institute have charged to create a sea complex after project Ã¤-19М "Барк"="Bark" which was developed since 1986 has failed. Under the тактико-technical project of the Navy range of 34-ton rocket "Bark" should make 10-11 thousand kilometers.
Start of a ballistic missile _Topol-М_. A photo from a site

Start of a ballistic missile "Poplar - m". A photo from a site
Thus the rocket should bear(carry) the newest fighting blocks and apply new rocket fuel.

However during development and tests (under tests "Barka" the Navy has allocated all the same APL "Dmitry Donskoj") all over again it was found out, that designers have left for limits of allowable dimensions (because of it it was necessary to reconstruct АПЛ), and then, already during start-up, other lacks were opened also. In result in 1998 when the rocket was ready for 80 percent(interests), the project have closed, and MEATH in the urgent order began to create "Bulava", using the technologies developed for "Poplar".

Actually development of the sea sister of "Poplar" has one more reason - unification. Creation of a sea rocket with use of technologies overland will allow to simplify substantially their manufacture and service, and also to save on modernization. Besides the ballistic missile of distant radius of action in the future can become a basis for creation of the space carrier. In this case also it would be useful to be armed with close rockets on a design on which conversion it would be possible to throw all available resources. Manufacture of rockets "Bulava" will be developed(unwrapped) on ФГУП " Votkinsky a factory " where rockets "Poplar - m" are already made and there are all necessary capacities for the beginning manufactures.

"Poplar - m", as well as "Булава"="Bulava", possesses several unique properties. These rockets have been created in view of prospective opportunities of the American antimissile defense. First of all, they are very difficult for destroying on start. Right at the beginning of flight the usual ballistic missile is most vulnerable, as has not had time to gain speed yet.

However mid-flight твердотопливный the engine of the first step of "Poplar" (and "Bulava") is capable to disperse a rocket at once after start till such speed what to intercept her(it) at an initial stage of flight it will be impossible.

At other stages of flight these rockets also cannot be destroyed. Rockets are equipped with several tens auxiliary engines which allow them to maneuver actively during all flight. This property of "Poplar" and "Bulava" does not give an opportunity to interceptors "to aim" - to calculate a trajectory and to blow up in a point of a prospective presence(finding) of a rocket.

Actually a boundary "Poplar - m" and "Bulava" there are also differences. The starting weight of a ground rocket makes 47 tons, and sea - 30. Range of action of "Poplar" makes 10 thousand kilometers against eight thousand at "Bulava". However "Bulava" about ten hypersound nuclear blocks of individual prompting whereas "Poplar" is armed with only three warheads (plus two tens false purposes) are capable to bear(carry). Probably, the sizes of rockets (the exact data in a network it is not revealed) will differ also - dimensions of sea rockets are rigidly limited to the sizes of launchers АПЛ.

As to submarines "Bulava" it is intended for arms of the newest nuclear rocket carriers of the project 955 "Борей", capable to bear(carry) on such 12 rockets. "Borei" it is a new class of the Russian submarines which in the future should replace АПЛ projects 667 (Delta III and Delta IV) and 941 ("Shark" - Typhoon) which are deduced from structure of fleet. On the data for October, 2005, in structure of the Navy was six APL the project 667 Delta III, six modernized submarines Delta IV and two rocket carriers 941 projects "Shark" (Typhoon). Thus three Delta IV were under repair.

The first submarine of the project 955 "Jury Dolgoruky", which construction began in 1996, it will be launched at Severodvinsk factory "Sevmash" the next year. The beginning of completion of the second boat - "Alexander Nevskogo" - is planned to 2007. In total within the framework of this project it is planned to construct six submarines.

According to plans of Ministry of Defence, by 2010 in fighting structure of fleet will be 13 nuclear rocket submarines bearing(carrying) more of thousand of nuclear warheads. All nuclear АПЛ will be in structure of Northern fleet.

Dr Phobus

December 27th, 2005, 06:57 PM

More manoverable warheads and enhanced peneration aids is not real surprise. However, its unrleaistic to think in one swipe that the west's, isralie and russian ABM systems are all to be rendered ineffective.

In the short term few people seem to state that ABM systems are effective against a significant nuclear strike, but rather rouge nations with IRBM/ICBM ability. One hopes the russians will not be exporting such tecnology, rather keeping it to themselves to ensure the effectiveness of there own legitimate nuclear deterent.

To every move there is a counter-move and a counter to that.

Focus

December 27th, 2005, 07:11 PM

Russia needs to be alarmed and afraid of NATO piling up bases around Russia and arming them with offensive weapons. Baltics, Uzerberjian, Romania bases are all not needed despite the fact that some of them are NATO members. The failure of the 'orange relovution' government in Ukriane and total beggar state of Romania proves that for Easter European countries are better off looking towards Russia for economic cooperation and stablity. EU and US have done zippo for eastern european countries other than cashing in their interests only. Russia's development of Topol and Bulava type offensive weapons is very much needed to create some balance in Eurasia if not the whole world. Furthermore, while development of quality weapons is always good for defense, Russia should stop trying to act like a Superpower that it once was (only in military sense!) and throw more efforts to the internal matters.

crazypole

January 11th, 2006, 11:37 AM

I can agree with that, Russia should no longer view itself as the military superpower it once was, but should realise that it could easily become a greater economic power than even the USA. If the Russians could sort out the bulk of their internal problems, like corruption and gangs, then they could start to really grow economically, and economic power is the most significant in the world, military is almost unimportant next to economy. Russia can easily become self-sufficient in a very short period of time, it contains some of the most mineral-rich and undeveloped regions in the world, eg Siberia... even now if you really look at things Russia has a strangehold growing over Europe in terms of being a large, and growing supplier of gas to the whole of the EU. It controls a high proportion of the world's oil resources, but also large deposits of other minerals, and will extract them cheaply as the Russian economic approach is to mostly ignore effects on the environment. USA is the present superpower in the world, but I would say that this won't last another 30 years. Russia, China, India, these are the countries to watch; each has the strong possibility to really grow economically and therefore politically.

Firehorse

December 17th, 2007, 06:04 PM

Russia orders new strategic nukes
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's military has commissioned another batch of new intercontinental ballistic missiles — nuclear weapons officials boast can penetrate any prospective missile shield, reports said Sunday.
The announcement comes amid tensions between Moscow and Washington over U.S. plans for missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The three new Topol-M missiles are capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away and, mounted on a heavy off-road vehicle, are harder for an enemy to track it down, officials said.
The Topol-M missiles, which had been deployed only in silos before December 2006, are stationed near the town of Teikovo, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces said in a statement carried by the ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies.
The same unit commissioned the first batch of such truck-mounted missiles a year ago.
The Topol-M's chief designer, Yuri Solomonov, has said the missile drops its engines at a significantly lower altitude than earlier designs, making it hard for an enemy's early warning system to detect the launch.
He said the missiles' warhead and decoys closely resembled one another in flight, making it extremely difficult for a foe to select the real target from a multitude of false ones.Windfall oil revenues in recent years have allowed the Kremlin buy weapons and fund the development of new missiles. The deployment of Topol-Ms, however, has proceeded slowly and Soviet-built ballistic missiles have remained the backbone of the nation's nuclear forces.
Teikovo, a small town in the Ivanovo region, is located about about 150 miles northeast of Moscow.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...missiles_N.htm

Baluyevsky also warned that the launch of an interceptor missile by the US could trigger a Russian missile strike because it could be mistaken for a ballistic missile aimed at Russia.
"We are talking about the possibility of a retaliatory strike being triggered by the mistaken classification of an interceptor missile launch," he said, adding that Russia's defenses were controlled by an automatic system.
"If we assume that Iran does try to launch a missile against the United States ... then interceptor missiles from Poland would fly in the direction of Russia," he said.
"I don't mean to scare anyone, but this isn't a scare story ... It's a technical detail that could affect the military stability of the world," Baluyevsky said.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../17/2003392901

This is perhaps the most credible argument made thus far against placing BMD in E.Europe or anywhere near (relatively speaking, of course) Russia's borders. And, since Russia is both in E.Europe and NE Asia, no wonder they are concerned about US-Japan BMD deployment cooperation. So, if the US is not planning anything against Russia, as they insist, then there are options of deploying BMD on ships/subs at sea and in RF itself, with their cooperation. In any case, interceptors and IC/RBMs will have to either overfly Russia or pass close to it on their way to their targets. The main strategic asset Russia always had is their vast territory!

Grand Danois

December 17th, 2007, 06:08 PM

Baluyevsky also warned that the launch of an interceptor missile by the US could trigger a Russian missile strike because it could be mistaken for a ballistic missile aimed at Russia.
"We are talking about the possibility of a retaliatory strike being triggered by the mistaken classification of an interceptor missile launch," he said, adding that Russia's defenses were controlled by an automatic system.
"If we assume that Iran does try to launch a missile against the United States ... then interceptor missiles from Poland would fly in the direction of Russia," he said.
"I don't mean to scare anyone, but this isn't a scare story ... It's a technical detail that could affect the military stability of the world," Baluyevsky said.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../17/2003392901

This is perhaps the most credible argument made thus far against placing BMD in E.Europe or anywhere near (relatively speaking, of course) Russia's borders. And, since Russia is both in E.Europe and NE Asia, no wonder they are concerned about US-Japan BMD deployment cooperation. So, if the US is not planning anything against Russia, as they insist, then there are options of deploying BMD on ships/subs at sea and in RF itself, with their cooperation. In any case, interceptors and IC/RBMs will have to either overfly Russia or pass close to it on their way to their targets. the main strategic weapon Russia always had is their vast territory!

Actually the statement is utter rot, because if true then the Russian BMEWS and strategic awareness must suck unto an hitherto unknown degree.

Firehorse

December 17th, 2007, 06:14 PM

How do you differentiate an interceptor missile from S/IRBM? No EWS is fool-proof- there were several false alarms on both sides in the Cold War.

Grand Danois

December 17th, 2007, 06:25 PM

How do you differentiate an interceptor missile from S/IRBM? No EWS is fool-proof- there were several false alarms on both sides in the Cold War.

You differentiate by KNOWING that there are no nuclear tipped BMs in Eastern Europe - in fact there are no BMs there at all. They would also KNOW the purpose of a launch from that particular site is a defensive action. That's strategic awareness.

Further, any high-end SAM missile lauched into a PAAT type trajectory could then be mistaken for a BM launch.

The Russian BMEWS should know about the Iranian launch, just as the intent and purpose of the interceptor launch should be obvious. The same apply to the decisionmaking system.

There are no active doomsday devices today.

The Russian general is saying this for the purpose of intimidating Eastern Europe, and quite frankly, they should take a serious course on PR and cultural issues if they wish to have the effect they desire. However, they seem to be so swallowed up by their perception of self, that how to affect the target audience is totally missed.

Lastly, there is zero accountability to what Russians generals say. I.e. he will get away with obvious manipulations.

Conclusion: Either he is deliberately presenting a flawed analysis or he just doesn't have a clue how his command works. Also, implication of his statement, if true, is that you can conclude the Russian BMEWS and command systems must be of awful quality. Did he think before speaking out?

Mindnumbing!

Firehorse

December 17th, 2007, 07:44 PM

Yes, their EWS is not something they can be proud off- that's why they are building more radar stations in Russia itself, and there are also not enough EW SATs. So, having delapidated EWS can also be used as a valid point against BMD: you risk an accidental nuclear retaliation by using it over or near Russia against a 3rd party. Maybe the US should allocate funds to improve Russian EW&C systems in conjunction with deploying BMD on Russia's perimeter?!

Grand Danois

December 17th, 2007, 07:47 PM

Yes, their EWS is not something they can be proud off- that's why they are building more radar stations in Russia itself, and there also not enough EW SATs. So, having delapidated EWS can also be used as a valid point against BMD: you risk an accidental nuclear retaliation by using it against a 3rd party. Maybe the US should allocate funds to improve Russian EW&C systems in conjunction with deploying BMD on Russia's perimeter?!

My point was that the Russian BMEWS etc in the relevant areas are acceptable to excellent.

The general is making a bogus argument - and unintentionally states the Russian BMEWS and strategic awareness is rubbish, for that is the premise for his argument.

Chrom

December 17th, 2007, 08:31 PM

You differentiate by KNOWING that there are no nuclear tipped BMs in Eastern Europe - in fact there are no BMs there at all. They would also KNOW the purpose of a launch from that particular site is a defensive action. That's strategic awareness.

Further, any high-end SAM missile lauched into a PAAT type trajectory could then be mistaken for a BM launch.

The Russian BMEWS should know about the Iranian launch, just as the intent and purpose of the interceptor launch should be obvious. The same apply to the decisionmaking system.

There are no active doomsday devices today.

The Russian general is saying this for the purpose of intimidating Eastern Europe, and quite frankly, they should take a serious course on PR and cultural issues if they wish to have the effect they desire. However, they seem to be so swallowed up by their perception of self, that how to affect the target audience is totally missed.

Lastly, there is zero accountability to what Russians generals say. I.e. he will get away with obvious manipulations.

Conclusion: Either he is deliberately presenting a flawed analysis or he just doesn't have a clue how his command works. Also, implication of his statement, if true, is that you can conclude the Russian BMEWS and command systems must be of awful quality. Did he think before speaking out?

Mindnumbing!

Agree with all your arguments except one - ABM still shifts MAD balance in USA favor. This is of course not good, it will force russians to aquire more ICBM's and become more trigger ready due to reduced second strike capabilty.

On the other hand, exactly same arguments are true for USA - they certainly build ABM in Eastern Europe NOT becouse they want defence against Iran or NK.

Grand Danois

December 17th, 2007, 08:43 PM

Agree with all your arguments except one - ABM still shifts MAD balance in USA favor. This is of course not good, it will force russians to aquire more ICBM's and become more trigger ready due to reduced second strike capabilty.

On the other hand, exactly same arguments are true for USA - they certainly build ABM in Eastern Europe NOT becouse they want defence against Iran or NK.

Actually from a sheer practical viewpoint of intercept geometry wrt an Iranian intercept the chosen location is very good.

UK, Northern Germany, Holland and Denmark would also be approp sites.

Personally I don't think a BMD in Europe should be a counter to Russia, and I don't think the current model is that - but Europe should have a BMD. In the future there will be those that have BMD and those that don't - it is not as if there is a choice in realpolitikal terms - it's about dissuasion. I'd prefer that the Europeans built our own, but since our politicians are unable to grapple with the issue, I'm willing to let the Americans fill the vacuum that the Euro politicians leave from their inaction.

Awang se

December 18th, 2007, 04:41 AM

Let's get Russia to deploy MRBM in Cuba to defend against Mexican threat, we'll see how the White House respond.

what if you start patrolling your front yard with a rocket launcher. the question is, will your neighbour be at ease if you told them that it was intended to deter thieves?

Did US offer Russia a full access to the BMD system in Eastern Europe?

gf0012-aust

December 18th, 2007, 05:54 AM

Let's get Russia to deploy MRBM in Cuba to defend against Mexican threat, we'll see how the White House respond.

Has Mexico threatened Russia? If so, then its a fair call. I assume that they'll try and discuss the issue like america has and not emplace them first (like they tried in cuba)

what if you start patrolling your front yard with a rocket launcher. the question is, will your neighbour be at ease if you told them that it was intended to deter thieves?

Thats what the russians did with the warsaw pact... its a specious argument when its been patiently explained that the type of weapons and quantum to be emplaced would be absolutely useless to deter a russian strike.'

they're grandstanding to look tough - maybe putin is trying to recover from the embarassment of kruschev overplaying his hand during the cuban/carribean (as the russians refer to it) crisis

Did US offer Russia a full access to the BMD system in Eastern Europe?

yes - and putin rejected it

metro

December 18th, 2007, 06:55 AM

I'll cosign the points GD has made, especially the question, "Did he [Russian General] think before speaking out"?

1) "Russia" mentions in the article, "Russia's military has commissioned another batch of new intercontinental ballistic missiles — nuclear weapons officials boast can penetrate any prospective missile shield...."
-Great! Russia has proven that She has absolutely nothing to worry about when it comes any BMD, as it is completely useless against Russian missiles (Should be end of story). So what's the Russian problem or objection to Europe wanting to protect itself from a State like "Iran" who doesn't have the same advanced Russian missile technology?

The implication of the General's statement here is that, Europe is not a threat to Russia. With that point noted and "accepted" by all, Russia knows that the proposed BMD in E. Europe has nothing to do with Russia at all. Still, Europe should not be permitted to protect itself from a missile launch coming from (e.g) "Iran."

2) "If we assume that Iran does try to launch a missile against the United States [Europe]... then interceptor missiles from Poland would fly in the direction of Russia," he said."
The assumption by the General here is that Iran actually launches a missile (the exact purpose of BMD), and instead of trying to intercept the launched missile, the people in Europe who are targeted should realize that they are being sacrificed for the "greater good."

The "greater good," being that trying to protect a population from being killed, might spark a larger war with Russia.:rolleyes:

Also, why is the General not worried about the missile launch out of Iran? If Russia cannot determine its target (or even the launch for that matter), Russia has more to worry about than interceptors "flying" out of a known defensive position in Europe! Russia has been invited to participate in the proposed BMD and even have its own people at the 2 locations. This would help solve any Russian concerns regarding miscalculations of their own EWS and targeting data.

-This just turns into absurd, irrational circular logic. "Europe, with or without BMD, is not a threat to Russia (see #1)" yet, Russia fears BMD in a known location in E. Europe, because it threatens Russia?? Especially because Europe might have the audacity to try to defend itself from a missile launch coming from Iran...?? :confused:

I'm sure Europe would sign a mutual pact with Russia that neither would attack the other first. However, I highly doubt Europe would be willing to sign some kind of suicide pact with Russia (i.e. Russian reasoning for Europe not to have BMD).

-Simply, (IMO) the antithesis of the Russian/General's argument--as expressed in the articles--is not only the stronger argument, it is a rational and correct argument.

I hope this is coherent. It is difficult to bring something that is not based in reality, down to earth.

Cheers

eaf-f16

December 18th, 2007, 06:57 AM

Has Mexico threatened Russia? If so, then its a fair call. I assume that they'll try and discuss the issue like america has and not emplace them first (like they tried in cuba)

Has Iran threatened Western Europe (in an offensive sense)? Has Iran even developed missile technology to hit that far?

Thats what the russians did with the warsaw pact... its a specious argument when its been patiently explained that the type of weapons and quantum to be emplaced would be absolutely useless to deter a russian strike.'

And the Russians will do their best to make sure of this. Believe me.

yes - and putin rejected it

Really? The US was going to give the Russians full-access?

merocaine

December 18th, 2007, 09:39 AM

Thats what the russians did with the warsaw pact... its a specious argument when its been patiently explained that the type of weapons and quantum to be emplaced would be absolutely useless to deter a russian strike.'

they're grandstanding to look tough - maybe putin is trying to recover from the embarassment of kruschev overplaying his hand during the cuban/carribean (as the russians refer to it) crisis

If I was Russian I would work on the premise that at the moment BMD in europe is not a threat.
In 10 years it could be a threat.
In 15 it probobly will be a threat.
In 20 years it will be a threat.

Given the US's track record in putting emplace counter measures during the cold war, their R&D budget, there success in Thaad missile tech, there almost overwhelming dominance in surveillance and tracking technology, I think it is reasonable to expect them to be able to deploy a system that could cause a significant problem for the Russians.

It is ludicious to expect the Russians to sit by on this issue. I expect most mouthing off to be aimed at a domestic audience.
Considering the promises that NATO has renaged on in the last 15 years I believe that they should be worried about BMD and its future uses.

Agree with GD BMD is something that europe should be doing for itself. Dont agree that because were not doing it we should allow the US to provide for us, although that is something that the individual states must decide for themselves.

Chrom

December 18th, 2007, 09:44 AM

Really? The US was going to give the Russians full-access? Of course not. The USA proposal was merery to allow inspection to make sure USA didnt place ICBM's instead of ABM missiles. Of course, it is still not enouth.

Awang se

December 18th, 2007, 09:12 PM

its a specious argument when its been patiently explained that the type of weapons and quantum to be emplaced would be absolutely useless to deter a russian strike.'

do you have any article on technical aspect of this BMD and how it will not be able to threaten Russia? I wish to believe that the BMD will be harmless to the russian missiles, but my logic couldn't really grasp how is that possible, given my limited knowledge of the system. Is this inability to deter Russian strike is because of a technical limitation of the BMD system or is it base on a promise by US that they will not use it against Russian missiles?

eckherl

December 18th, 2007, 10:53 PM

Of course not. The USA proposal was merery to allow inspection to make sure USA didnt place ICBM's instead of ABM missiles. Of course, it is still not enouth.

Post deleted

Grand Danois

December 18th, 2007, 11:14 PM

Of course not. The USA proposal was merery to allow inspection to make sure USA didnt place ICBM's instead of ABM missiles. Of course, it is still not enouth.

Reagan wanted to share the SDI with Gorby and Clinton/Putin had feelers out for a shared programme and technology too. It would be quite an elaboration to go into details as to why it didn't succeed, but pointing fingers of blame is fruitless exercise. I will add though, that iirc the Russians saw it [Clinton/Putin thing] as a vehicle to replace the US in W Europe in the same way the US "replaced" the Sovs in E Europe, which of course makes it a total no go. And the US Congress hated it too.

It was part of a recent proposal to the Russians to create a joint picture (i.e. share sanitized(?) real time data) from radar sites. And permanently basing personnel from each side is also a real world confidence building measure.

So quite frankly, there has been a lot of opportunity and even though the Bush admin isn't helping here, the Russians are in a accelerating pace painting themselves into a corner.

And this is serious for Russia as she is short on real long term allies. (No, the SCO will never be like NATO - too many "alpha" countries and they are natural strategic competitors. ;))

Grand Danois

December 18th, 2007, 11:31 PM

I'll cosign the points GD has made, especially the question, "Did he [Russian General] think before speaking out"?

1) "Russia" mentions in the article, "Russia's military has commissioned another batch of new intercontinental ballistic missiles — nuclear weapons officials boast can penetrate any prospective missile shield...."
-Great! Russia has proven that She has absolutely nothing to worry about when it comes any BMD, as it is completely useless against Russian missiles (Should be end of story). So what's the Russian problem or objection to Europe wanting to protect itself from a State like "Iran" who doesn't have the same advanced Russian missile technology?

The implication of the General's statement here is that, Europe is not a threat to Russia. With that point noted and "accepted" by all, Russia knows that the proposed BMD in E. Europe has nothing to do with Russia at all. Still, Europe should not be permitted to protect itself from a missile launch coming from (e.g) "Iran."

2) "If we assume that Iran does try to launch a missile against the United States [Europe]... then interceptor missiles from Poland would fly in the direction of Russia," he said."
The assumption by the General here is that Iran actually launches a missile (the exact purpose of BMD), and instead of trying to intercept the launched missile, the people in Europe who are targeted should realize that they are being sacrificed for the "greater good."

The "greater good," being that trying to protect a population from being killed, might spark a larger war with Russia.:rolleyes:

re 1) It has been a consistent argument from Russian generals that their missile technology is able to penetrate any future BMD, while at the same time ranting over how a BMD changes the balance.

Reading such stuff from Russian officers is an absolute credibility killer and entertainign as far as contradictory logic goes. My all time favourite is (still) this one, where they actually had to retract it because the absurdity treshold had been crossed:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/missiles/No_Anti-Missile_Radars_In_Russian_Embassies160011073.php

Awang se

December 18th, 2007, 11:33 PM

Russia had to know that there would be a price to pay for her lack of responsibility in reeling in Iran

first of all, the threat from Iran, till now are a bit far from being a practical threat. all the arguments point out that if Iran posses a missile that may hit European continent, they'll PROBABLY use it, mark the word PROBABLY. there's no solid evidence that Iran will go out of their way and tempt a conflict with the combine European Military. That's a bit to much for Iran to take on alone even if their economy are 100 times better then the current one. The possibility of Iran launching missile to Europe is minimal, unless their national survival are threaten from that direction, which means it is Europe that threatens Iran, not the other way around. Iran thus far have been keen on improving relations with Europe and already made a lot of concessions lately. the only country in the world that may rightly fear Iranian missile is Israel and interceptors in Poland won't be much help.

Just who in the heck does Russia think that they are to tell Europeans that they are not entitled to a missile defense system

Who in the heck is Europe and US to tell Iran that they are not entitled to a nuclear energy program.

I find it rather amusing that Russian generals are allowed to get on national television and make threats towards other nations

have US done that and more?

it's not just the interceptor that's the problem here, there's also the encroachment of American power into Russian former sphere of influence. i believe Russia is happy to keep the eastern Europe as a neutral entity if not under their influence. the BMD bring more then just a radar and an interceptors, it's also bring US strategic influence closer to the Russian border, something that Warsaw Pact have kept at bay in West Germany.

Grand Danois

December 18th, 2007, 11:36 PM

If I was Russian I would work on the premise that at the moment BMD in europe is not a threat.
In 10 years it could be a threat.
In 15 it probobly will be a threat.
In 20 years it will be a threat.

Given the US's track record in putting emplace counter measures during the cold war, their R&D budget, there success in Thaad missile tech, there almost overwhelming dominance in surveillance and tracking technology, I think it is reasonable to expect them to be able to deploy a system that could cause a significant problem for the Russians.

It is ludicious to expect the Russians to sit by on this issue. I expect most mouthing off to be aimed at a domestic audience.
Considering the promises that NATO has renaged on in the last 15 years I believe that they should be worried about BMD and its future uses.

Agree with GD BMD is something that europe should be doing for itself. Dont agree that because were not doing it we should allow the US to provide for us, although that is something that the individual states must decide for themselves.

Considering a dozen THAAD and a couple of dozen MEADS wings would change the balance far more drastically, the discussion on the these facilities is not the core issue.

Russian perception of self is.

gf0012-aust

December 18th, 2007, 11:59 PM

there's also the encroachment of American power into Russian former sphere of influence. i believe Russia is happy to keep the eastern Europe as a neutral entity if not under their influence. the BMD bring more then just a radar and an interceptors, it's also bring US strategic influence closer to the Russian border, something that Warsaw Pact have kept at bay in West Germany.

you want to blame the erosion of russian power and influence on the americans?

one would think that the behaviour of their former warsaw pact brethren would trigger a more cautionary impulse on their part than the reversion to bellicosity - one of the endearing factors that caused the czechs, hungarians and poles to jump at the nearest opportunity.

out of all her former "allies" the few that remain are hardly examples of the success of US intrusion.

Russias emasculation is in this instance self perpetuated, the erosion of her influence is something that has been decided by states previously under her direct control. Blaming the US for ex warsaw pact countries bolting from russian influence is a bit cute.

Putins behaviour is because he only has two tools of power. nukes and petroleum. Nukes are a damocles sword, so the willingness of the russians to use them and or imply use of them against europe is seen as a dummy spit.

If I was russian I'd be more worried about iranian influence into their south western regions - and thats not something new for them.

eckherl

December 19th, 2007, 12:15 AM

first of all, the threat from Iran, till now are a bit far from being a practical threat. all the arguments point out that if Iran posses a missile that may hit European continent, they'll PROBABLY use it, mark the word PROBABLY. there's no solid evidence that Iran will go out of their way and tempt a conflict with the combine European Military. That's a bit to much for Iran to take on alone even if their economy are 100 times better then the current one. The possibility of Iran launching missile to Europe is minimal, unless their national survival are threaten from that direction, which means it is Europe that threatens Iran, not the other way around. Iran thus far have been keen on improving relations with Europe and already made a lot of concessions lately. the only country in the world that may rightly fear Iranian missile is Israel and interceptors in Poland won't be much help.

Who in the heck is Europe and US to tell Iran that they are not entitled to a nuclear energy program.

have US done that and more?

it's not just the interceptor that's the problem here, there's also the encroachment of American power into Russian former sphere of influence. i believe Russia is happy to keep the eastern Europe as a neutral entity if not under their influence. the BMD bring more then just a radar and an interceptors, it's also bring US strategic influence closer to the Russian border, something that Warsaw Pact have kept at bay in West Germany.

Post deleted

radiosilence

December 19th, 2007, 12:25 AM

Any country that advocates wiping out a race of people should not and cannot be trusted, a country that sponsors and funds terrorism that has a priority of wiping out a race of people shall not and will not be trusted,

You are kidding right ? Seems like you got on the Iran talking point without thinking. Perhaps you should look at the demographics of Isreal.

eckherl

December 19th, 2007, 12:42 AM

You are kidding right ? Seems like you got on the Iran talking point without thinking. Perhaps you should look at the demographics of Isreal.

Post deleted to prevent anti American opinions.

radiosilence

December 19th, 2007, 12:47 AM

No I am not kidding, due to Irans master plan on the destruction of Israel, Europe and the U.S should do everything in their power to help prevent this from happening, including going to war if needed. Again - if Europe wants a ballistic missile defense system then they should have it, I would not trust that Iran would not launch a missile at them either.

This is what you wrote in the previous post advocates wiping out a race of people .... which is factually incorrect.

KGB

December 19th, 2007, 01:08 AM

The russian general's statement may have a different purpose. Given the political situation in Russia, getting noticed by saying hawkish things might get you promoted. It doesn't matter how sensible the argument is, the main thing is demonstrating your support for the official party line.

metro

December 19th, 2007, 02:07 AM

re 1) It has been a consistent argument from Russian generals that their missile technology is able to penetrate any future BMD, while at the same time ranting over how a BMD changes the balance.

Reading such stuff from Russian officers is an absolute credibility killer and entertainign as far as contradictory logic goes. My all time favourite is (still) this one, where they actually had to retract it because the absurdity treshold had been crossed:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/missiles/No_Anti-Missile_Radars_In_Russian_Embassies160011073.php

Too funny!;) Well, I bookmarked that one under "Creating a credibility gap."
I'm just trying to imagine an analyst who comes into work in the morning and has a print out of a piece of material like this (or anything similar) sitting on his/her desk. Where does one even begin in attempting to assess this type of item? "Insanity at work"!

Cheers

Grand Danois

December 19th, 2007, 04:51 AM

Too funny!;) Well, I bookmarked that one under "Creating a credibility gap."
I'm just trying to imagine an analyst who comes into work in the morning and has a print out of a piece of material like this (or anything similar) sitting on his/her desk. Where does one even begin in attempting to assess this type of item? "Insanity at work"!

Cheers

"Mr. President, we must not allow a credibility gap!"

;)

eaf-f16

December 19th, 2007, 08:08 AM

-This just turns into absurd, irrational circular logic. "Europe, with or without BMD, is not a threat to Russia (see #1)" yet, Russia fears BMD in a known location in E. Europe, because it threatens Russia?? Especially because Europe might have the audacity to try to defend itself from a missile launch coming from Iran...?? :confused:

By the way, every country with military/political significance does the exact same thing. Israel does it the most though.

How many times have you seen articles with Israeli military personnel saying Israel is an unmatched and unbeatable military power in the Middle East and that no military power in the ME comes even close to it while simultaneously saying that Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Iran/Syria (take your pick;) ) "threaten it's very existence"?

Didn't the Israelis do this with the AMRAAM/JDAM/HARM/Harpoon/F-15E (again, take your pick;) ) deals with Egypt?

Grand Danois

December 19th, 2007, 12:46 PM

Please stick to the topic - russischen Wunderwaffen.

/GD

eaf-f16

December 19th, 2007, 01:00 PM

Please stick to the topic - russischen Wunderwaffen.

/GD

Why did you delete my first reply? It was relevant. Metro was saying that the Russian complains about the ABM shield in Western Europe were absurd. I don't disagree with him but I tried to show him that other gov'ts complain when put in situations comparable to the one the Russian gov't is in right now and I thought the Israeli complaints about nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. are similar. I was trying to show that it had more to do with trying to have the greatest possible political and military advantage than anything else.

I've undeleted it, as technically you're right that I was a bit trigger happy when deleting it.

I was already close to editing when it touched upon Iran.

/GD

Firehorse

December 19th, 2007, 06:53 PM

Solovtsov, speaking hours after state television showed images of a ballistic missile being test fired from a submerged submarine at a target on the other side of Russia, said the United States was untrustworthy.
“If the Americans signed a treaty with us that they would only deploy 10 anti-missile rockets in Poland and one radar in the Czech Republic and will never put anything else there, then we could deal with this,” he said.
“However they won’t sign, they just tell us verbally, ‘We won’t threaten you’.” “They already cheated Russia once,” he said, referring to Nato expansion into former Soviet-dominated territory after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. “Verbally they already told us that when we re-unite Germany there won’t be one Nato soldier there. Now where are they?” http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=86823

And they have a point!-

Russia's early warning system is a mess. Neither Soviet nor Russian satellites have ever been capable of reliably detecting missiles launched from U.S. submarines. (In a recent public statement, a top Russian general described his country's early warning satellite constellation as "hopelessly outdated.") Russian commanders instead rely on ground-based radar systems to detect incoming warheads from submarine-launched missiles. But the radar network has a gaping hole in its coverage that lies to the east of the country, toward the Pacific Ocean. If U.S. submarines were to fire missiles from areas in the Pacific, Russian leaders probably would not know of the attack until the warheads detonated. Russia's radar coverage of some areas in the North Atlantic is also spotty, providing only a few minutes of warning before the impact of submarine-launched warheads. ..Russia's leaders can no longer count on a survivable nuclear deterrent. And unless they reverse course rapidly, Russia's vulnerability will only increase over time. ..The current and future U.S. nuclear force, in other words, seems designed to carry out a preemptive disarming strike against Russia or China.
..Washington's pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense strategy, for example. Critics of missile defense argue that a national missile shield, such as the prototype the United States has deployed in Alaska and California, would be easily overwhelmed by a cloud of warheads and decoys launched by Russia or China. They are right: even a multilayered system with land-, air-, sea-, and space-based elements, is highly unlikely to protect the United States from a major nuclear attack. But they are wrong to conclude that such a missile-defense system is therefore worthless -- as are the supporters of missile defense who argue that, for similar reasons, such a system could be of concern only to rogue states and terrorists and not to other major nuclear powers.
What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p0/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

For all these reasons, Russian military to adopt Topol-M MIRV missile soon19/12/2007 14:16 MOSCOW, December 19 (RIA Novosti) - A new multiple-warhead missile system armed with Topol-M multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) will go into service in Russia's Armed Forces soon, a first deputy prime minister said.
Sergei Ivanov said the Topol-M missile complex currently exists in two modifications - mobile and fixed-site.
"I very much hope that it will appear in its MIRV modification in the very near future," he said.
Russia will operate 48 fixed-site Topol-M (NATO reporting name SS-27) ballistic missiles by the start of 2008, a Strategic Missile Forces spokesman said on Monday.
The missile forces said previously that the system will be equipped with MIRV in the next two or three years, and that the new system will help penetrate missile defenses more effectively.
As of December 2006, Russia's SMF operated 44 silo-based and three mobile Topol-M missile systems.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071219/93134926.html

I would also add that the general isn't stupid: he's trying to convince E. Europeans that they'll have more to loose, in the long run, by having a BMD so close to RF-besides, those radars will be able to monitor Russian airspace, adding to NATO ELINT capability. The former Warsaw pact members were eager to embrace the West to feel more secure- but at Russia's expence. If they choose to become neutral states like Austria instead, the whole thing could be avoided. Indeed, the Russians never voiced any concerns about BMD radar & interceptors in Alaska- also a former Russian colony. And they did offer to use their sites in the South (Gabala & Armavir) for BMD purposes- but the US insists on the original plans.

Grand Danois

December 19th, 2007, 07:09 PM

And they have a point!-

For all these reasons,

I would also add that the general isn't stupid: he's trying to convince E. Europeans that they'll have more to loose, in the long run, by having a BMD so close to RF-besides, those radars will be able to monitor Russian airspace, adding to NATO ELINT capability. The former Warsaw pact members were eager to embrace the West to feel more secure- but at Russia's expence. If they choose to become neutral states like Austria instead, the whole thing could be avoided. Indeed, the Russians never voiced any concerns about BMD radar & interceptors in Alaska- also a former Russian colony. And they did offer to use their sites in the South (Gabala & Armavir) for BMD purposes- but the US insists on the original plans.

You are filibustering. I don't have the time to tear this apart. But there is no consistency with what is being said in the material you provide and the analysis you do.

I know this appear dismissive. Sorry about that.

I note that you consider the E European countries former Russian colonies.

Grand Danois

December 19th, 2007, 07:42 PM

The Russians went online with their new Voronezh radar near skt petersburg this year. This radar is similar to the not yet installed HAVE STARE radar in Poland.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/New_Radar_At_Lekhtusi_A_Shield_Against_Missile_Att acks_999.html

A second Voronezh is slated to go up in the Krasnodar region with will complete the BMEWS for the scenarios and regions we are discussing.

So the Russians has/will have an excellent BMEWs capability.

Yes a BMD can be considered an adjunct to nuclear primacy, however, US BMD capability is [ulitmately] not affected by the presence of of BMD in Europe, which makes it a weak deduction. They are discussing a US-Russia nuclear exchange.

The Garbala radar is not a de facto alternative as it is politically "out of area" and under decomm - i.e. not a genuine offer. The Armavir is ok, but the premise of the rest of the deal also ha to be edible. AFAIK it wasn't a genuine offer - but for show.

To make a few points... ;) ...and to avoid a 6 page essay

Firehorse

December 19th, 2007, 08:13 PM

Chrom

December 21st, 2007, 02:47 PM

Well, the Gabala could be upgraded. The main thing is, without verification mechanisms the Russians won't trust the US side no matter what arguments it uses, given the NATO expansion on Russia's west, Iraq occupation to the South, and TBMD being deployed in the Far East (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7149197.stm), which could be later upgraded to BMD, and the continued/upgraded use of the Pine Gap (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/11/65619)station. So, the arms race will go on for the foreseeble future.

USA suggests regular inspection of ABM sites to make sure they are not converted to ICBM's and generally are indeed what they are claimed.
This of course should clear some russian concerns - but the main threat remains as is. Any ABM system reduce 2nd-strike capabilty and as such force to maintain much higher numbers of strategic nukes and be generally more trigger happy in case of doubt. This is very bad for everyone and generally reduced Earth security.

The only way to avoid such ecscalation and still build ABM is allowing Russia to have direct "veto" access to ABM sites - or, in fact, to build ABM together with Russia . Of course, it is very hard for USA, allthought EU are more willing to cooperate on that matter. For EU ABM is inndeed just ABM (and much less politic and force projection) against enemy missiles from rogue states - and they have little against cooperating with anyone.

nevidimka

December 21st, 2007, 06:02 PM

shimmy

December 24th, 2007, 04:38 AM

I am sorry but I have a lot of trouble believing Russian claims especially since Putin came to power. Of course , it is better to be fooled into believing they have these great weapons that to mistakingly assume they do not have them.

Incognito129

December 25th, 2007, 03:54 AM

Putin has nothing to do with this. If he was the one making em maybe. The russians have always been the best in aerospace engineering.

Firehorse

December 26th, 2007, 08:22 PM

It seems to me, that US justifying has to stop. Its becoming rediculous.
Everything they do seems to be justifiable, even when the go back on thier words.
Who is to say then, that 10 misiles today will not become 100 in the future?
Currently the only countries that would pose a threat on a large scale to US is Russia n China, and US seems to be on a path to negate that, by using Korea in the east n Iran on the west as reasons to stage thier ABM's. They are probably taking this opportunity when Russia is weak to build up their capability in ABM and staging locations before Russia could attempt to catch up.
Considering that US promises this ABM's is targeted against Iran n not Russia, if Russia decides to launch missiles against Europe then what? these missiles will be sitting there in their silo's doing nothing? I doubt so. I know 10 missiles cant do much, but like i said it can grow fast easily, just like US previous unkept promises.

Yes, and if they really were to prevent Iran from getting nukes, as was stated on many occasions, those interceptors wouldn't be needed at all- the N Koreans are even less likely to threaten the EU/NATO.
“There appears to be no credible technical reason that the stated U.S. objective to defend against … Iranian ICBMs could not be fulfilled by other types of deployment configurations,” said Postol (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/10/23/going_postol?mode=PF), according to the AAAS press release. “It is therefore understandable that Russian military analysts might suspect that U.S. motivations are different from those that have been stated,” said Postol. ..the planned Polish-based interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic could target and catch Russian missiles, thus threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent. ..the interceptors could catch Russian ICBMs; the interceptors and the radar would be better positioned closer to Iran to counter a threat from its missiles.
Postol concluded that the MDA significantly understated the speed that their interceptors can reach when their boosters burn out and overstated how long they would need to track a missile by launching the interceptors.
While all six scientists are skeptical that the U.S. missile defense system can work, they believe that in terms of raw speed, U.S. interceptors in Poland could catch a Russian ICBM launched from western Russia at any part of the continental United States. In Postol's model, the intercept would occur at a point over the North Pole. ..Russia has expressed worries that once the bases are established, they could be expanded with more interceptors and improved capabilities.
http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/bmd/postol_on_euro_md.htm
BTW, many nations, besides Iran, located in the ME (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=11802&proj=znpp)/W Asia already have IRBMs (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0702/ijpe/cordesman.htm)- Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, India, and until recently Iraq.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has made his campaign against the deployment of US interceptor missiles in EastEast EuropeEurope the main theme of his foreign policy and confronted Washington with an ultimatum: if the US goes through with the deployment of missiles in Poland and radar stations in the Czech Republic, Moscow will develop missiles capable of busting them.
In a fresh arms race between America and Russia focusing on anti-missile interceptors, Israel as an integral component of the US system could find itself threatened by Moscow’s sales to Iran and Syria of hardware designed to knock out its own anti-missile defenses.
What Israel’s military planners fear most is the Russian Iskander E, which has a range of 200 km, pinpoint precision, and the ability to evade trackers. Its acquisition enables Syria to launch surprise attacks on Israel’s anti-missile positions and airforce bases. ..The US-Israeli missile defense network is designed not only to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles of 1,300-1,500 km range fired at Europe, but also the short-range Iskander-E short-range ballistic missiles.
This decision was taken after it was discovered that the Iskander-E is designed to outfight key Western ballistic missile defenses, particularly the Patriot Advanced Capability PAC-2/3 low-to-high altitude air-defense system.
The Iskander-E is the export version of the Kolomna-designed 9M72 short-range ballistic missile in current service with the Russian army. Its range is shorter – 280 km compared with the 9M72’s 400 km.
The weapon is essentially an improved version of the old Soviet Scud plus the latest advances in propulsion, guidance and computerized systems.
The Iskander-E’’s pinpoint accuracy and short preparation time are seen by the US and Israel as posing a greater threat than its range or payload. For the first time, Syria has a missile with a solid propellant capable of mounting an effective surprise attack on the AirAir ForceForce bases and military command centers of northern and central Israel, though not the south – a far cry from the Scud with its liquid propellant and lengthy and clumsy launch preparations.
With a CEP (Circular Error Probable: a measure of missile accuracy) of a few meters, individual aircraft shelters and high value military installations could be effectively targeted.
The Iskander might well encourage Damascus to believe that a surprise attack against US bases in Iraq, Israel and Turkey could be successful.
3. The United States and Israel therefore have more in mind than a defense system against an Iranian ballistic threat to Europe. They do not rule out Moscow’s potential for one day creating the same kind of integrated missile and missile defense system with Iran and or Syria, as the one the US has formed with Israel.
..The Juniper Cobra exercise of March 2007, the fourth of the two-yearly series, was meant as a discreet signal to Moscow, as well as to its past and future customers - especially Syria - that even before their deployment, the Russian-made missiles on sale have already been outmaneuvered by the US defense systems in position to shoot them down.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Moscow sources report that the Kremlin and top Russian brass greeted the signal with fury. They perceive the Negev maneuver as an American move to check Russia’s drive for restored Middle East status and spoil its weapons export trade.
They have responded with a threat to equip Russia’s European embassies with systems capable of following US and NATO movements in the continent. It was spelled out Monday, March 19, by Col. Gen. Vladimir Popovkin, commander of Russia’s Space Forces.
He said space monitoring systems in Russian embassy compounds in several countries would track the launches of ballistic missiles abroad. In an interview to the Pace Technology News magazine, Popovkin said quantum-optical equipment posted at the embassies would pick up launches undetectable from Russian territory and adjust the trajectories of missile “killer vehicles” to a potential threat.
The Russian general accused the Americans of seeking not just a missile shield against Iran but the means of monitoring all ballistic missile launches in the European part of Russia and from Northern Fleet submarines, and knocking them out as soon as they took off.
“If the United States genuinely wanted protection from Iranian missiles, those defenses would have been stationed in Turkey, also a NATO member,” Popovkin said.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1277

Cold-War Doctrines Refuse to Die (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatterfull031598.htm)

Russia tests ballistic missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7160082.stm)
The new old Topol (http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071225/94055121.html)

Russia’s strategic bombers trouble quite Europe (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/26-12-2007/103172-strategic_bombers-0)

Big Ivan, The Tsar Bomba (“King of Bombs”) (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html)

eaf-f16

December 27th, 2007, 02:39 PM

Yes, and if they really were to prevent Iran from getting nukes, as was stated on many occasions, those interceptors wouldn't be needed at all- the N Koreans are even less likely to threaten the EU/NATO.

BTW, many nations, besides Iran, located in the ME (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=11802&proj=znpp)/W Asia already have IRBMs (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0702/ijpe/cordesman.htm)- Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, India, and until recently Iraq.

Egypt, Syria, and Libya don't have IRBM's though, Israel accuses Egypt of trying to develop one (Project T) from SCUD designs and with North Korean help and Iraq never even had that capability.

The only people on the Middle East who have IRBM's are the Saudis who have a old Chinese missiles which need replacing and the Iranians.

kato

December 27th, 2007, 07:19 PM

The only people on the Middle East who have IRBM's are the Saudis who have a old Chinese missiles which need replacing and the Iranians.

Depends what you place MRBMs/IRBMs at. The usual MRBM definition of 1,000 km:

- Israel has the Jericho line, with the operational Jericho 2 definitely being a MRBM at 1,500 km range.
- Egypt: was involved in "Badr 2000" in the late 80s; US has alleged that development is being continued under a different project; "Badr 2000" would have a range around 1,000 km, the current project is usually classed as a MRBM with 1,000-1,500 km. "Project T" is only a Scud-B variant, btw.
- Libya: "Al-Fatah", range ~1000 km; supposedly all "MTCR-class" missile programs were dismantled in 2004.

Upper-end SRBMs (>700 km):
- Syria has North-Korean "Scud-D" missiles, range ~700 km; last test was in Jan 2007. They also - supposedly - have a M-9 variant operational with a range of ~800 km.

The Saudi CSS-2 have a range around 2,400-2,500 km and are presumably next to disfunctional by now.

Firehorse

December 27th, 2007, 07:34 PM

Well, they will eventually get them, just like NK did with its SRBMs (http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/NK/index_1667.html)- adding stages (http://www.militarypictures.info/d/1184-2/north_korea.jpg)& upgrading them. Also, long range cruise missiles may be even easier to get!
Chronology of Events: Nonconventional Weapons and Ballistic Missiles in the Middle East (http://www.fmep.org/reports/special_reports/no02-november1996/04-chronology_of_events.html)

My point is that it's not only Iranian missiles that BMD may be used against. The US tends to look at capabilities, not current intentions.

America keeps saying its anti-missile system will not target Russia and to suggest otherwise would be absurd because Russia can overcome it. Well, Russia could overcome it today but what about in 15 years' time, when it is not just two facilities but a global system?
Russia would have nothing to fear if it was just the anti-missile base in Poland and the radar site in the Czech Republic but if the idea of a global anti-missile system becomes a reality, the nuclear capability of Russia, China and other countries will be undermined.
So when the Americans say they are not targeting Russia, they are right, but when Russian generals say that the US is targeting Russia, they are also right. It is two sides of the same coin. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6984320.stm

Pakistan is next door to Iran, and India is next door to Pakistan-, not to mention China who is next door to both. So , those interceptors could engage even ICBMs launched from W/Central China. And I failed to include Sudan (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/06/01/do0104.xml) & Yemen (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20021218.asp) in that list!
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/sudan/missile/index.html

gf0012-aust

December 27th, 2007, 08:25 PM

Putin has nothing to do with this. If he was the one making em maybe. The russians have always been the best in aerospace engineering.

I'm curious as to how you believe the russians are the best at aerospace engineering?

Granted the Russians have done excellent work across a number of design fields - but why are they "the best"?

This is more of a rhetorical question as the forum policy of discouraging "best" threads is still present and applies in here.

KGB

December 28th, 2007, 09:59 PM

I'd like to know what you think about the assertion (from the article Firehorse posted)
http://www.themarketoracle.org/Article3144.html

The idea is, that Russia is actually vulnerable to a first strike option by the US, that Russia's detection capacity is not up to standard, it's SSBNS can easily be shadowed. In addition there was a post by Rich stating that the B1b had given the US first strike capacity during the Reagan era, paving the way for US diplomatic success.

If the US had nuclear superiority then, it should certainly have it now, with the advent of the B2 and the decline of the USSR, etc. Thus, (back to the quoted article), any ABM program by the US would be a significant threat, even if it can only handle a limited number of intercepts. Why?

Because after a US first strike, the ABM system be able to deal with what little remains of Russia's retaliatory capacity (if any remain at all). In the crazy logic of nuclear war, this would explain the complaints about the ABM system, the renewed bomber patrols, and the deployment of the Topol system.

This explanation does not need us to imagine byzantine politics or idiotic generals. Only to assume that they're suspicious.

Firehorse

December 30th, 2007, 05:32 PM

Only to assume that they're suspicious.
They should be, and rightly so! China has even less warheads, less ICBMs, and less SSBNs. As for Russia (http://russianforces.org/current/), most of their ICBMs are in the Urals, European (Central) Russia, and the Altai region. In order to understand Russian concerns, it is useful to examine how Russian military analysts might assess the capabilities of the proposed U.S. system. They would assess both the initial technical capabilities of the U.S. system and its potential capabilities as it matures. They would look twice at U.S. decisions to site the system as the Pentagon intends and rightly conclude that the system might be designed to counter Russia’s deterrent in addition to a nuclear attack from Iran.
Current and Potential Capabilities
The clearest high-level statement with regard to U.S. missile defense programs is Presidential National Security Presidential Directive 23 (NSPD-23), signed by President George W. Bush on December 6, 2002. The directive stated that the United States would begin to deploy missile defenses in 2004 “as a starting point for fielding improved and expanded missile defenses later.” NSPD-23 was preceded in January 2002 by a memorandum from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The Rumsfeld memo directs the Missile Defense Agency to develop defense systems by using whatever technology is “available,” even if the capabilities produced are limited relative to what the defense must ultimately be able to do.
The Rumsfeld mandate and NSPD-23 would make it clear to Russian analysts that anything they see now will surely be upgraded to something far more capable as U.S. missile defense activities advance.
Russian analysts would surely know that the U.S. missile defense could be readily defeated by very simple countermeasures, such as decoys that would look much like basketball-sized balloons. The analysts and their political leaders also would rightly ask why the Americans are doing this.
What is the U.S. intent? How will Russia have to modernize its ICBMs and attack plans to keep up with the constantly changing character of the defense and the uncertainties created by it? What are the political motivations for the relentless U.S. efforts to build defenses obviously aimed at Russia? What is the relationship of the U.S. missile defense efforts to the constant push to expand NATO and encircle Russia with U.S. bases?
Russian analysts examining the system would also conclude that, at some unforeseen future time, under highly unpredictable and very specialized conditions, the European defense might be able to engage many hundreds of targets, thereby, in conjunction with other U.S. systems, threatening Russia’s nuclear deterrent. Such possibilities, however remote they would seem, would certainly conjure up apocalyptic threats to Russia’s national survival.
The source of these concerns would be basic scientific facts that could be used by the Department of Defense in the relentless and unpredictable modernization effort foretold by NSPD-23. The location of the radar in the Czech Republic and the interceptors in Poland, both close to European Russia, would make it possible, at least in principle, for the radar to track Russian ICBMs very early after a launch and to guide interceptors against them. Although the radar currently proposed for deployment will not have the capability to track hundreds of targets at long ranges simultaneously and the number of interceptors in the initial deployment would be small, Russian analysts would expect that the capabilities of the radar and interceptors could be substantially improved at a later time.
In particular, the limits of the radar’s abilities to track large numbers of targets simultaneously are determined by the antenna’s effective size and average radiated power. The Pentagon could enhance both of these variables, boosting the system’s capabilities.
Currently, the effective size and power of U.S. X-band radar antennas are limited by the number of transmit/receive modules that are mounted in their faces. Initial plans call for the EMR radar antenna to have roughly 20,000 such transmit/receive modules thinly distributed over its 100- to 120-square-meter antenna face, each capable of radiating 2 to 3 watts of average power.
Yet, the maximum number of transmit/receive modules that could be placed on an antenna face of 120 square meters is well more than 300,000. Such a modernization would require the complete replacement and reconstruction of the antenna, but it would result in a vast increase in the number of targets that could simultaneously be engaged by the radar because the “effective area” of the antenna is proportional to the number of transmit/receive modules. If the number of transmit/receive modules were to be increased by a factor of 16 to 17, then both the effective area of the antenna and the radiated power would increase by the same factor. The two factors combine to provide a nearly 300-fold (17 x 17 = 289) increase in capability.
Currently, the ability to build X-band radars is limited by the rate at which transmit/receive modules are being manufactured. The modules are also expensive, currently about $1,000 each. The current limits on manufacturing, however, can be expected to change over time as techniques improve. In addition, as the missile defense program moves forward, the manufacturing base for these modules might grow. Thus, Russia fears that the X-band radar could target 300 times more missiles when a mature capability becomes available.
Russian analysts would also be concerned that the United States might expand the number of interceptors in Poland to take advantage of such an EMR’s prodigious abilities to guide numerous interceptors simultaneously. Indeed, unless one believes Iran will stop building long-range missiles once they get to 10, such an expansion must be expected. Once interceptor manufacturing facilities are operating, additional interceptors could be obtained by extending manufacturing runs, by expanding manufacturing facilities, or both. The primary obstacle to an expansion would be political: increasing the number of interceptors would require modifications to an existing agreement with Poland. If Poland is already hosting U.S. interceptors, the biggest political obstacle would already have been overcome.
Threat to Russia’s Deterrent
The location of the radar in the Czech Republic and missile defense interceptors in Poland, close to European-based Russian ICBM installations, would raise questions among Russian analysts about the potential threat to Russian ICBMs based in European Russia.
The ground-based interceptors in some ways resemble ICBMs themselves. They are extremely large, two-stage ballistic missiles, weighing roughly 21,500 kilograms each, with the two stages derived from the Minuteman series of ICBMs. They boast the same diameter as the Minuteman III’s two upper stages and even use the same shroud. Indeed, if an interceptor were armed with a typical 1,100-kilogram Minuteman III payload of a missile bus and three nuclear warheads, it could carry that payload more than 6,000 kilometers. The interceptor would only have to carry a kill vehicle weighing 70 kilograms, allowing it to achieve a speed 40 percent faster than an ICBM on a trajectory from Russia to the United States and permitting the interceptor to catch a nuclear-armed Russian ICBM from behind.
Despite claims to the contrary, U.S. interceptors launched from a Polish site could intercept the 18 to 25 Russian SS-25 ICBMs based in Vypolzovo, roughly 340 kilometers northwest of Moscow. Furthermore, missiles launched from all of the other European-based Russian ICBM fields would be much easier to engage. The 40 percent faster speed of the defense interceptors relative to the ICBMs and the early-tracking information provided by the EMR in the Czech Republic would allow the defense system to engage essentially all Russian ICBMs launched against the continental United States from Russian sites west of the Urals. It is difficult to see why any well-informed Russian analyst would not find such a potential situation alarming.
It would also be clear to Russian analysts that the placement of the EMR and interceptor sites is not optimal for the defense of Europe. Under the current plan, part of Europe is not covered and must instead be covered by additional shorter-range defenses such as Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Aegis. A European system covering more of Europe could provide greater redundancy by using these shorter-range ground- and sea-based systems as a second layer. Ground-based interceptors positioned in Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, or Albania; Aegis sea-based interceptors; and a radar closer to Iran would be better positioned to defend Europe from an Iranian attack and would be too far from Russia to pose a threat to Russian ICBMs. To a Russian analyst, the only obvious technical reason for choosing the Czech Republic for the EMR and Poland for interceptors would be to provide interceptors close to Russia that can be guided by the nearby EMR, making it possible for the European-based radar and interceptors to be added as a layer against Russia to the already developing U.S. continental defense.
Concern about possible future U.S. missile defense capabilities would be amplified by knowledge among Russian analysts that U.S. Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), as well as U.S. Minuteman III ICBMs, are each capable of destroying Russian silo-based ICBMs. Internal documents produced by high-level technical experts in the Soviet Union during the late 1980s[1] unambiguously show that Russian technical analysts had concluded that Russian silo-based missiles could be wiped out by then-existing U.S. forces. Today’s U.S. SLBM and ICBM forces are yet more capable and pose an even more overwhelming threat to Russian ICBMs. Russia has been reducing its arsenal of ICBMs and converting those that remain to single warhead missiles, but an increasingly capable U.S. defense will create strong incentives for the Russians to reverse this process. The concern of Russian military analysts would be that a future crisis between Russia and the United States might lead to U.S. strikes on Russian ICBMs followed by the use of a mature missile defense to reduce or eliminate the consequences of Russian efforts to retaliate.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_10/LewisPostol.asp

September 26th, 1983: The day the world almost died (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=505009&in_page_id=1770)

BTW, Although Israel has never commented on it, it is accepted knowledge that the country possesses 200-400 nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear and perhaps neutron weapons. For delivering them, Israel has aircraft bombs, Jericho II missiles (similar to the US Pershing, range 1200km), and possibly an ICBM version of the Shavit space launch vehicle, with a possible range of 7,000 km and with a 300kg nuclear warhead.
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=4205&blz=1
BMD in E. Europe eventually will be able to cover N. Europe/Arctic trajectories (http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/icbm_traj.gif) those Russian & Chinese missiles (in the S/SW of the Urals/Altai) are to use before entering NORAD AOR.

Incognito129

January 16th, 2008, 01:22 AM

I'm curious as to how you believe the russians are the best at aerospace engineering?

Granted the Russians have done excellent work across a number of design fields - but why are they "the best"?

This is more of a rhetorical question as the forum policy of discouraging "best" threads is still present and applies in here.

ok possibly at the most one of the best.

nevidimka

January 20th, 2008, 03:27 PM

Its how the Soviets/Russians are able to build amazing flying machines without the computing technology of the west nor the financial capability like in the west.
Planes like Big25, Tu 160, mig21, flanker, fulcrums are no mean feat considering how they are as lethal as those coming out from US, or how they have no analogy to those coming out from Europe.

Chrom

January 20th, 2008, 03:46 PM

Its how the Soviets/Russians are able to build amazing flying machines without the computing technology of the west nor the financial capability like in the west.
. Both points are wrong premise. "Communist" block econmic was about equal to "western" block economic in size. Also computing technology, while a bit behind, wasnt completely non-existent as sometimes portrayed. So in the end, Soviets spend a lot of resources for military development and became good result from it. No wonder.

noseeum

January 21st, 2008, 12:50 AM

Chrom

January 21st, 2008, 09:03 AM

Politics aside, would it really be so bad if someone could (and would) knock down any MRBM+ before it could start its downward ballistic arc? Think it over for a minute. If Russia could build it, or China, or Pakistan, would you have the same arguments against it?

Regardless, the US is building the system. That is the reality. Placement of tracking radar can be critical, and Poland looks nice. Turkey won't work for the US because the Turkish have proven to be unreliable in the past.

Remember, ABM threaty was signed in 70x. 30 years ago. USA and USSR didnt signed threaty for nothing. Got it? ABM was already built back then, and now it is 10 times cheaper (and more dungerous from strategic POV).

Besides, the USA building NOT MRBM defence. USA building ICBM ABM. This is cruicial difference.

Dalregementet

January 22nd, 2008, 01:56 PM

our little cossacks :D . Guys, wht don´t you drop "We are the best" and making the best planes etc - it´s so ridiculous! We all know that SU27, SU30 etc can fly and that they fly good but without state of the art electronics the pilots are dead meat. Russia doesn´t have state of the art electronics, in fact they lack that industry as such if you compare with the West. Russian defence material has always lost in duels with western systems and the russians has always blamed it on the (poor) operators :) .

In Sweden, we have a good knowledge of the Russian planes and we feel confident that our plane, Gripen, can take on everything that Russia have, now and in the future. We actually "borrowed" an SU27 radar that we have evaluated at the SAAB site in Linköping - NOT impressed of the technology :onfloorl:

So, dear cossacks, keep building more aerodynamic and faster planes and leave the electronics to us ;)

Also, regarding Russias capabilities in general - the Nordic countries together have a higher GDP than Russia... :nutkick

DefConGuru

January 22nd, 2008, 02:03 PM

Dalregementet

January 22nd, 2008, 03:42 PM

I totally agree! In the cold war era, the west and Russia (Soviet Union) sort of helped each other. Russia by intimidating anf threating other countries, over exaggerating their capabilities. The west also had an interest in over exaggerating Russias capabilities because it´s soo much easier to get extra funding for new wapons if you have a scary opponent. So, we beefed up our military expenditure to a level where our cossack brothers wrecked their whole economy. Now, they are selling raw material to an extent where they actually can afford to buy something :D . But hey, conventionally, are they a threat? Nope. And if they would use nuclear weapons, they would be toasted themselves - so nukes, by definitions are not useful for more than "mutual destruction".

Right now the russkies doesn´t know how to handle the US ABM shield. On the other hand, they claim it to be a threat to their nuclear deterrent, on the other hand, they claim that they have new missiles that easily can penetrate such a shield... If so, what's the problem :confused: . I mean, if they can penetrate the shild, then it´s no big deal that the US is putting up one - right?

Chrom

January 22nd, 2008, 05:00 PM

I wouldn't worry too much about Russia, they feel the only way they can achieve international respect is through its armed forces and by staging something aggressive from time to time. Remember this is the same military that got handed by the Chechens, who initially were even less armed than Liechtenstein. While they may come out with a breakthrough here and there, implementation is a totally different story. :finger Nope, vast resources require very strong army to be protected. Without strong army the resources will do no good... As for Chechen, should we bring Vietnam here? Or, for that matter, Mogadishu vs USA (Black Hawk down)?

Also, it is very funny to hear about respect and "exaggerated" armed forces from a country which spends half world's expendure on military, while having big economical difficulties...

One thing is sure: USSR bancrupted NOT becouse of military over-expending. The military spending in USSR was constant for last 30 years, and there were absolutely no reason for any economical difficulties. USSR foreign debt was very, very small. So, there were no basical economical problems. The main problem was very wrong consumer market and very bad consumer goods distribution - not actually manufacturing.

Sure, average USSR citizen lived worse than average West EU or USA citizen. But better than for example Italy, Greece, Spain or Portugal citizen. That speaks a lot.

DefConGuru

January 22nd, 2008, 05:11 PM

Nope, vast resources require very strong army to be protected. Without strong army the resources will do no good... As for Chechen, should we bring Vietnam here? Or, for that matter, Mogadishu vs USA (Black Hawk down)?

Also, it is very funny to hear about respect and "exaggerated" armed forces from a country which spends half world's expendure on military, while having big econmocial difficulties...

Vietnam and Mogadishu are on opposite corners of the earth, unpopular wars that the public and many a soldier did not want to fight due to few clear objectives. Chechnya on the other hand is right in Russia's backyard, it literally is inside Russia and is a big slap in the face to the Russian government to have one of your own territories successfully engage the federal government on the battlefield. Much different situation, mobilization, intelligence, everything is made ten times easier for the Russians, yet it still took them a decade to establish a foothold, on their own soil.

Russia is over-rated, huge military expenditure does not mean better army, and its not even huge, 20 billion a year or so.

Chrom

January 22nd, 2008, 05:17 PM

Vietnam and Mogadishu are on opposite corners of the earth, unpopular wars that the public and many a soldier did not want to fight due to few clear objectives. Chechnya on the other hand is right in Russia's backyard, it literally is inside Russia and is a big slap in the face to the Russian government to have one of your own territories successfully engage the federal government on the battlefield. Much different situation, mobilization, intelligence, everything is made ten times easier for the Russians, yet it still took them a decade to establish a foothold, on their own soil.
"Chenchnya is on the opposite side of Russia, unpopular wars that the public and many a soldier did not want to fight due to few clear objectives." Believe me, that war was VERY unpopular. 90% soldiers couldnt understand why they should do anything when all mass-media tells Chechnya have right to indepence like, for example, Georgia or Moldavia. Corrupt generals supporting terrorists & separatists, no (zero) money for military, chaos inside russian goverement, strong foreign support for chechenian separatists... are you sure it is that much different from Vietnam? I'll say the situation with war popularity and goverement strengst was much worse in Russia back then than in USA vietnam era.

2nd war was already much different.
Russia is over-rated, huge military expenditure does not mean better army, and its not even huge, 20 billion a year or so.
Yes, yes. Many invaders thought exactly that. Did you actually learned the history?

Dalregementet

January 22nd, 2008, 06:37 PM

"Chenchnya is on the opposite side of Russia, unpopular wars that the public and many a soldier did not want to fight due to few clear objectives." Believe me, that war was VERY unpopular. 90% soldiers couldnt understand why they should do anything when all mass-media tells Chechnya have right to indepence like, for example, Georgia or Moldavia. Corrupt generals supporting terrorists & separatists, no (zero) money for military, chaos inside russian goverement, strong foreign support for chechenian separatists... are you sure it is that much different from Vietnam? I'll say the situation with war popularity and goverement strengst was much worse in Russia back then than in USA vietnam era.

2nd war was already much different.

Yes, yes. Many invaders thought exactly that. Did you actually learned the history?

We Swedes took moscow 1610 and Novgorod 1611. We made one mistake 1709 when we somewhat underrated the russian army... The swedish army, almost 16 000 men, attacked the russian army, only about 40 000 men and to the surprise of the Swedish army, the lost. At Narva, 9 years earlier, a Swedish army of 8 140 men attacked a russian army consisting of about 37 000 men. Sweden lost 667 men in the battle and russia between 12000-18000 men. Tsar Peter left the place one day earlier for more "urgent" matters in moscow...:)
Soo, yeah, the russians are known for their great fighting spirit... or... well, more for their willingness to sacrifice their countrymen in wars (not them selves). :D Brave!!!

During WWII, the politrucks and officers were running behind thieir soldiers, shooting anyone that wanted to turn back :rolleyes: Well, in my world, an officer are an example and is leading his soldiers by being in the forefront.

No one thinks that russian soldiers are first class, not even second... But with indoctrination, proganda, falsification of history, you can get a people (russians/cossacks...) to actually believe that they are a great nation and that their soldiers actually are first class :D .

Grand Danois

January 22nd, 2008, 07:40 PM

Dalregementet,

Welcome to DT. You should have a look at the rules (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php)of this forum and stick to them. I'm thinking of no 8 in particular. Also, you are welcome to discuss ancient battles & wars, but not in thread with the topic title Russia Tests New Wonder Weapon.

Thank you
/GD

Dalregementet

January 22nd, 2008, 08:04 PM

Dalregementet,

Welcome to DT. You should have a look at the of this forum and stick to them. I'm thinking of no 8 in particular. Also, you are welcome to discuss ancient battles & wars, but not in thread with the topic title Russia Tests New Wonder Weapon.

Thank you
/GD

Capice

Firehorse

January 22nd, 2008, 08:15 PM

IMO, they are real good at fighting each other- ..within months civil war broke out throughout Russia. For the next three years the country was devastated by civil strife, until by 1920 the Bolsheviks had finally emerged victorious. http://www.geographia.com/russia/rushis06.htm -that's why their ancestors invited some Swedish nobles & their troops to rule over them to stop the mutual bloodletting, and later, the Mongols quickly overrun their divided land, and in winter!

http://www.geographia.com/russia/rushis02.htm

The most effective fighting force they ever had were the Cossacks & guerillas (http://www.geographia.com/russia/rushis05.htm) (AKA "partisans"). The Russian partisan war against the armies of Napoleon began in 1812, after the defeat at the battle of Borodino and the occupation of Moscow. The partisans positioned themselves west of Moscow and fought from behind enemy lines, sometimes 200 km or more. Colonel Davidov became famous in the partisan war when he suggested to the Russian military commander Kutuzov to form a mounted unit behind enemy lines. Kutuzov authorized him 130 cavalrymen. In its first operation the unit succeeded in freeing convoys of prisoners and in taking enemy supplies, ammunition and cannon. Because of the participation of these freed prisoners and the weapons which they obtained, Davidov widened the scope of his activities against the French army and became an important factor in the war. Later, other units joined him in the fight behind enemy lines, until Napoleon’s retreat in October of 1812. http://www.thepartizans.org/History.asp?id=63&cat=history

Today's Russians are, for the most part, of mixed blood ancestry- Slavs, Tartars, and many others. The Chechens and others who fight the Russian forces are partisans, i.e. guerillas now, and many are former Soviet Army soldiers. The 1st Chechen president, Mr. Dudaev, was former Soviet AF general , and was succeded by Aslan Maskhadov, the former Soviet artillery officer who had been the main rebel military commander during the war. ..It is also doubtful whether Russia can crush the rebels by military force. They have killed a number of key rebel leaders in 2005 and 2006, but Chechnya's mountainous terrain is well-suited to guerrilla warfare.
The rebels stage small-scale attacks and ambushes on an almost daily basis. These are rarely reported outside Russia. ..
It has been known for years that Muslim volunteers have travelled to Chechnya to join the fight, reportedly after attending training camps in Afghanistan or Pakistan. ..One of the main field commanders, until his death in 2002 at the hands of Russian forces, was an Arab called Khattab - a veteran of the Afghan mujahideen war against the USSR.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3293441.stm

With such "effective" army, they will have to hide behing their Topols, Bulavas & other "wonders" & proxies for the forseeble future!

US missile plan aims to encircle Russia’ (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=95225)

“If we look at a map, it’s clear that all of it is concentrating around our borders,” he was quoted as saying. “Most likely in the near future we are going to hear about hundreds, and maybe even thousands, of interceptors in various regions of the planet, including Europe.”

Viktor

February 9th, 2008, 01:14 PM

This is well known AJAX hypersonic scram-jet manuravle nuclear delivery vehicle. Its is tested and chosen among others and Topol-M and RS-24 missiles will be equiped by it starting from 2009.

Thiese systems are not for sale obiviously.

Dalregementet

February 9th, 2008, 03:09 PM

Viktor

February 10th, 2008, 08:50 AM

Viktor,

Where does this fit in???

AJAX is nuclear delivery scram-jet propeled manuravable vehicle. It is inside this vehicle that nuclear warheads are carried .. and such vehicle is in the nose of ICBM.

Dr Freud

February 18th, 2008, 11:04 PM

Hi Grand
can you tell me where the thread ancient battles & wars is ?

Grand Danois

February 19th, 2008, 02:34 AM

Hi Grand
can you tell me where the thread ancient battles & wars is ?

There isn't one per se; General Military Defence, or even better, Military Strategy and Tactics, is are usually used for these kind of topics.

Firehorse

March 15th, 2008, 04:54 PM

Russian rocket fails to take US satellite into planned orbit (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080315/sc_afp/russiausspacetechnologysatellite_080315114610)

They may get an opportunity to their own ASAT soon! It's such a coincidence that lately quite a few satellites are