Russian General Threatens Arms Race, Again

[faheem]

A senior Russian general recently warned that U.S ballistic missile defense could spark a nuclear arms race. Speaking to Interfax on 27 February, Colonel-General Varfolomey Korobushin, vice president of the Military Science Academy, stated that “If the U.S. deploys a national missile defense, other nuclear powers may opt for increasing their nuclear missile potential, which will worsen the situation in the world.” Korobushin also warned Eastern European countries against allowing Washington to deploy missile defense interceptors within their territories, or else risk that “the balance of power in the nuclear missile domain will be shattered.”
Korobushin added that Russia’s strategic missiles now have the capability to penetrate any missile defense. “Large amounts of heavy and light fake charges in each missile that enter space simultaneously with combat elements will significantly reduce U.S. NMD intercepting capabilities.” He acknowledged that the U.S. system might intercept one or more missiles, “but it will never intercept hundreds of combat elements that would be sent as part of the retaliation strike.”

[Ths]

Who said they would leave the siloes???

[LancerMc]

What money do they have to spend? Russia's military is still suffering from major budget short falls. They are developing new ballistic missiles, but the most recent tests have been unsuccessful. Their military has made small steps in increasing their technology with new equipment including an updated Tu-160, new Su-34's, and Mi-28's. Currently these platforms are being acquired in such small numbers that do not pose any significant threat to the United States or NATO. Their nuclear submarine is slowing being dismantled, because they can't afford it. Then Russia wants the U.S., Europe, and Japan to help pay for decommissioning of these submarines.

I still don't understand why Russia & Putin are so against the U.S. missile defense program. The program was never designed to stop an all out attack from a country like Russia, but to stop a small scale attack from a country like North Korea or China. Currently the program is so young they lack the capability to even repel a small attack from the PRC.

[Ths]

I'm having problems in finding any consistency in Russian policy as well.

[Viktor]

I'm having problems in finding any consistency in Russian policy as well.

Well Topol-M is slowly being deployed with new heavy ICBM on drawing board to replace SS-18 and SS-19 heavy ICBM. In conparison with last year 3 times more ICBM is going to be produced in 2007. New Borei 4th generation SSBN went for a sea trial. I guess Russia is introducing new strategic weapons and does not mean to leave MAD doctrine.

[eckherl]

Russia is getting a little worried about our involvement with her nieghbors, at least with Putin it is written all over his face on what his intentions are, bottom line is they are pretty far behind at this point in the game, and want to resort to the old days of launching masses of missiles. We all live in a big world and it is very mean.

[Viktor]

Russia is getting a little worried about our involvement with her nieghbors, at least with Putin it is written all over his face on what his intentions are, bottom line is they are pretty far behind at this point in the game, and want to resort to the old days of launching masses of missiles. We all live in a big world and it is very mean.

True but Russia has found new partner. China. And theirs SCO organisation throw time may evolve in military organisation. US tried to applied but their potential membership was turn off forever.

[Ths]

I understand that ICBM's is pretty much what Russia has left, and they have been used in direct threats after the cold war.
The problem with that policy is:
The threatned party might behave - for the moment - but will constantly be on the lookout forwways to get away from the bully.
More important: If Russia threatnes with nukes, it leaves the USA in a different position:
Any way - short of war - will be used against Russia to hinder their ambition; but Russia is apparently ready to live with that.

[eckherl]

True but Russia has found new partner. China. And theirs SCO organisation throw time may evolve in military organisation. US tried to applied but their potential membership was turn off forever.

I wouldn`t count on this partnership for too long, both countries need each other right now, when the time is right for Russia, they will break away from China and go their own way.

[Viktor]

I understand that ICBM's is pretty much what Russia has left, and they have been used in direct threats after the cold war.
The problem with that policy is:
The threatned party might behave - for the moment - but will constantly be on the lookout forwways to get away from the bully.
More important: If Russia threatnes with nukes, it leaves the USA in a different position:
Any way - short of war - will be used against Russia to hinder their ambition; but Russia is apparently ready to live with that.

Interesting thing is that Russia has being working constantly throw out cold war and continued even after fall of SU on huuudge underground bunkers ( Yamantau mountain and others capable of sustaining multiple nuclear hits). It is also inevitable fact that 80-90% of USA people lives in cities and only 40% of Russians live in cities.
I dont think that Nulear war is option more because even nuclear stocks have decreased by several times there is more than enought of them to destroy world few times (Russia has aparently 4000 strategic nuclear weapons including 90 SS-18 first strike weapons)
Russia on the other hand is introducing all array of conventional weapons (S-300PMU-2/S-400/S-300VM/BUK-M1-2/TOR-M1/T-90V/Amour class sub/Borei clas/Oscar 2 successor class sub/2 types of 5th generation fighter/Kh-555 cruise missile/Brahmos/new strategic bomber is being developt and will come out about the same time as new US (2040), new haevy weight missile etc etc) so I think we will percipate it as a superpower for a long time.

[eckherl]

Interesting thing is that Russia has being working constantly throw out cold war and continued even after fall of SU on huuudge underground bunkers ( Yamantau mountain and others capable of sustaining multiple nuclear hits). It is also inevitable fact that 80-90% of USA people lives in cities and only 40% of Russians live in cities.
I dont think that Nulear war is option more because even nuclear stocks have decreased by several times there is more than enought of them to destroy world few times (Russia has aparently 4000 strategic nuclear weapons including 90 SS-18 first strike weapons)
Russia on the other hand is introducing all array of conventional weapons (S-300PMU-2/S-400/S-300VM/BUK-M1-2/TOR-M1/T-90V/Amour class sub/Borei clas/Oscar 2 successor class sub/2 types of 5th generation fighter/Kh-555 cruise missile/Brahmos/new strategic bomber is being developt and will come out about the same time as new US (2040), new haevy weight missile etc etc) so I think we will percipate it as a superpower for a long time.

You can dig all the underground bunkers that you want, what are you going to come out to, you cannot stay there forever. I find it disturbing that Russia feels that they have to build more Missiles in this day and age, all the more reason for my country to get our Anti missle system up and running.

[Grand Danois]

Oh, no! We must not allow a mineshaft gap!

:loony

[Aussie Digger]

Korobushin added that Russia’s strategic missiles now have the capability to penetrate any missile defense. “Large amounts of heavy and light fake charges in each missile that enter space simultaneously with combat elements will significantly reduce U.S. NMD intercepting capabilities.” He acknowledged that the U.S. system might intercept one or more missiles, “but it will never intercept hundreds of combat elements that would be sent as part of the retaliation strike.”

So in the one sentence this General states bluntly that Russia's strategic missiles can penetrate ANY missile defence (including one that has yet to be built :cool:) and then goes on to acknowledge that the USA "might" be able to intercept one or more missiles, but will never intercept the "hundred of combat elements" fired at them.

Wow, what a highly believable and credible source... So he makes a statement he would like us to believe is a fact (that Russian missiles can penetrate ANY defence), acknowledges that this in fact might not be the case (the US system might intercept one or more) but then states confidently the US could never intercept everything that Russia can shoot at them.

Call me crazy, but if you believe in statements like this, would you be offended if I offered you any snake oil???

[Viktor]

USA will in some time in the future have credibile NMD but as for now it is still unreilable/untested "shield" with only limitied capabilitiy against even IRBM. I mean not GBI/SM-3/PAC-3/ or THAAD have ever being tested against balistic missiles with the range above 3000km and efficiency of successful interception is still low. It has being upgrading successful throw out time as US keeps pouring money in but compared with the Russian S-400/S-300VM/A-135 they are roughly at the same level.

I dont know do you guys remember but during N.Korea unsuccessful test of Taepodong-2 BM did Bush said. " We would have some chances of interception"

"Some chances" does not leave mutch room for comfort and jet even if not true ( 0 % chances ) he had to said that because of the money spend on it.

Im interested what do you think, Russia about 5-6-7 years (cant remember exactly ) ago proposed US to developt and deploy togeather missile defence shield (in USA/EU/Russia) on the basis of S-500. After small time USA rejected proposal and cancelled ABM threaty/ as a response Russia pulled out of START 2 agreement from 1993 and bit by bit mutual animosity continued to influence politics and economics of both countries and world.

Do you think that development of togeather missile defence shield with the continoation of mutual understanding throw togeather military NATO-Russia exercise would make world safe and more stable place than it is now?

[Grand Danois]

Western (US in particular) ABM tech is taking off these years in a pace that leaves the prospect of what an S-500 as an ABM system has to offer in the dust. GBI and THAAD is intended to knock down ICBMs when fully developed (Little reason to base a 3,000 km BM interceptor in the US.). S-500 is still on paper and has the prospect of intercepting 3,500 km ballistic missiles - just like PAC-3 et al.

The offer Putin made in April 2001, was to Europe, in order to prevent the US from rolling its ABM out in Europe. Russia had previously rejected cooperation with the US on the S-500, which the US never saw as a basis, but rather a supplement to US systems, fullfilling a role like the PAC-3. And why would Europe fund the military research and technology base of Russia?

These kind of proposals that will never take off are everywhere in politics - because they a free, and even if they go nowhere they cost nothing, and this case imply capability and strength. That is how these things work.

There are no absolute assurances in life - except death and taxes, of course. These probabilities includes probability of intercept and kill. Claiming complete assurance of something to work for it to be justified is a strawman. Everything has its own raison d'être.

Ships have anti-air missiles despite their inability to ensure a 100% probability of kill of anti ship missiles et al. But 99% is good enough - thus they're justified.

The US TBMD is what it at this stage, and that was Bush was referring too.

[Rich]

Do you think that development of togeather missile defence shield with the continoation of mutual understanding throw togeather military NATO-Russia exercise would make world safe and more stable place than it is now?

I think that the world would be safer for all of us If the Russians hadn't given the Iranians significant help in their nuclear program, missile programs, and chemical weapons programs. Any help to Iran from Russia tends to end up in North Korea as well. I'm sure that's no surprise to whatever you call the KGB nowadays. http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/exports/rusiran/nukeovr.htm
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/exports/intro.htm

Nevertheless, Russia continues to export nuclear reactors, nuclear fuel, equipment used in the production and testing of ballistic missiles, and dual-use materials and technology to countries of proliferation concern, particularly Iran and India. The possibility that Russian exports may contribute, directly or indirectly, to the proliferation of WMD or their delivery systems therefore remains a significant concern for the international nonproliferation regime.

There is also significant Russian footprints in North Korea's chemical weapons program. However it was, and is, the Chinese who supplied much of the know how in their missile program and nuclear programs. Much also was developed jointly by the triumvirate of North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran. Also the Russian led watering down on the UN sanctions against Iran made the entire exercise a bad joke and might even precipitate a nuclear war.
I will quote you again and see if you can figure out how to "make the world safe and more stable place then it is now".

Do you think that development of togeather missile defence shield with the continoation of mutual understanding throw togeather military NATO-Russia exercise would make world safe and more stable place than it is now?

A good start would be to "stop selling the crap"!

[Ths]

Why is it that everybody assumes that ABM will stand alone???
I - if nobody else - believe the reason the B-2 was build was to take out the Russian (maybe Chinese) missiles in their siloes. This assumption builds on the observation that the B-1 and B-52 doesn't seem to have problems solving the tasks assigned to them.

So the ABM will only have to knock out the missiles that actually leave the silo, which it might not for a number of reasons beside having to contend with a PGM bunker buster in the noodle. Rockets might misfire, be under maintainence...
This is one of the reasons behind the socalled "overkill", where there is build more warheads than needed to take out all targets - provided all missiles hit. The overkill is a ratio between what you've got and what the enemy is going to get.

If the ABM (in combination with bombers f.i.) wasn't going to work the Russians would have been heartfully contend to let the Americans waste money big time on such a scheme.

As Grand Danois so excellently points out: For the Russians the blustering is free, and it might bring some division in Nato-circles - as it did under the cold war, where the Danish opposition forced the government to ad reservations to their discussions with Nato. And with a USA-hater like Mogens Lykketoft in charge of the oppositions foreign policy it just might get some attention.

[Chrom]

For such nuclear (and rocket technology) developed country as Russia addiditional ICBM's would cost only miniscule of normal military expences. So i dont see here any problem for Russia, besides slightly increased probability of nuclear accident. But for many less developed countries such as China, India, France, and especeally for weaker contries like Iran or NK - that would indeed put economical strain to maintain nuclear deterrent against US.

[Ths]

Chrom: I think You are right in thinking that maintaining an infrastructure is vastly cheaper than to buid it from scratch.

ICBM might not be the best solution, but - in Russia's case - it is affordable.

[Viktor]

Its being a while since someone posted something here so I will continue.

1. It is now obivious that Poland and Chech will allow US GBI on its teritory.
2. It is obivious that Russia will quit 1987 INF and start mass producing SS-20 successor
3.Russia will keep its SS-18 and SS-19 missiles until 2018 when new heavy weight enters arena.

It is clear that this will further increase unthrust betwen US and Russia, but what Im asotonish with is uncopability of EU to have its opinion over this isue and to say a few words, only recently German minister of foreing affairs said tha EU will consider its own missile defence shield.
Can someone tell me how is posible that US is so worried about EU security that it decided to place missile defence shield on its teritory without consulting EU??
-- sorry for my bad english!

[Grand Danois]

Can someone tell me how is posible that US is so worried about EU security that it decided to place missile defence shield on its teritory without consulting EU??
-- sorry for my bad english!

Simple. EU has influence on world- and US policies and options. A Europe held ransom by, say, Iranian missiles will impact on US options.

Russia may quit the 1987 INF, but is not going to build any SRBM/MRBM. There is no need, as Europe/NATO is not a threat by any measure. So this would be wasted resources which are much needed elsewhere.

The SRBM statement is meant for Russian opinion making in the new EU countries, it's not a statement of actual intent.

[merocaine]

Simple. EU has influence on world- and US policies and options. A Europe held ransom by, say, Iranian missiles will impact on US options.


I think you got that right but for the wrong reasons. A European/Russian Relationship without real tensions would impact on US options, Iran is a bit of a sideshow, US, European, and Russian relations are the main event.
Europe has enough nuclear weopons aviable to turn Iran into a glass desert.
Europe would survive any nuclear exchange with Iran, the Iranians would not be so fortunate.
what interests me is the positioning of those missles, why not bulgaria and romania, or turkey, or greece? Poland and Cezh are alot further north.
If I was Russian I would see a missle shield positoned that far north as aimed at me not a potential threat out of Iran. Continuing tension between Russia and eastern europe helps keep europe as a whole divided. I still remember the old europe new europe crap. A European Russian relationship without military tension would not be perticularly helpful to the Americans, the name of the game is devide and rule.

Russia may quit the 1987 INF, but is not going to build any SRBM/MRBM. There is no need, as Europe/NATO is not a threat by any measure. So this would be wasted resources which are much needed elsewhere.

O NATO is the biggest threat Russia faces, Nato and american bases encircle the country, radically changing its security enviroment and limiting its options to stop the Russian federation fragmenting. It is not hard to imagine a missle shield that renders the Russian nuclear arsenal greatly less effective thus exposing them to Nato/US conventional military superiorty. You would have to be a fool not to react to this.

[Grand Danois]

I think you got that right but for the wrong reasons. A European/Russian Relationship without real tensions would impact on US options, Iran is a bit of a sideshow, US, European, and Russian relations are the main event.

Yes. And no. Complex subject. I have picked some of your points for now and will revisit the others later.

Europe has enough nuclear weopons aviable to turn Iran into a glass desert. Europe would survive any nuclear exchange with Iran, the Iranians would not be so fortunate.

Sure, the Europeans have deterrence, but that is not what is in at work. The US options will effectively be restricted with a "rogue state" holding European cities at risk, despite the deterrence. It may be a suicide option for the "rogue state", however, the mere possibility is enough.

what interests me is the positioning of those missles, why not bulgaria and romania, or turkey, or greece? Poland and Cezh are alot further north.
If I was Russian I would see a missle shield positoned that far north as aimed at me not a potential threat out of Iran.

I have not had a proper look at it yet, though this has also piqued my curiosity. Why in Poland/Czeck republic? On the surface it looks like a sub optimal solution.

There a many considerations done when placing such a system, here are some possibilities I can think of.

Physical geography. What kind of footprint does the GBI have and how does it work conceptually?

The GBI are not stand-alone. SM-3 on AEGIS can cover Balkan from the Med and Black Sea. Also, BM trajectories behave oddly on maps. You have to look at a oblique stereographic projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereographic_projection) with center in NW Iran to get a sense of this.

Political geography. Who does the US wish to protect? The main players - UK, France, Germany, Poland, etc.? When chosing the site, who are mature members of NATO/EU and who consider the US their guarantor of security - and thus are unlikely to take the system hostage according to political whims. Lastly, who has a political environment that allows for stationing of such a system...

This would make Poland/Czeck Republic excellent candiates.

Continuing tension between Russia and eastern europe helps keep europe as a whole divided. I still remember the old europe new europe crap. A European Russian relationship without military tension would not be perticularly helpful to the Americans, the name of the game is devide and rule.

O NATO is the biggest threat Russia faces, Nato and american bases encircle the country, radically changing its security enviroment and limiting its options to stop the Russian federation fragmenting. It is not hard to imagine a missle shield that renders the Russian nuclear arsenal greatly less effective thus exposing them to Nato/US conventional military superiorty. You would have to be a fool not to react to this.

I'll leave these for later. They have to do with how the US admin has played their cards in the recent years, and how the advocates of the multipolar world have had a field day. I have seen elsewhere on DT how easily this can go haywire...

Let me just note that Putin in München made quite clear what a multipolar world looks like in his optics, and how the world is realising that they actually don't like it at all. Now it is Putin who plays the cards poorly.

Putin's speech: Back to cold war?

By Rob Watson
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich

The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there has been talk of a new chill.

Given the tone and content of Russian President Vladimir Putin's address to the gathered defence ministers, parliamentarians and pundits, it is not, perhaps, hard to see why.

Warming quickly to his task after only the briefest of greetings, President Putin accused the US of establishing, or trying to establish, a "uni-polar" world.

"What is a uni-polar world? No matter how we beautify this term, it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," he said.

'Formula for disaster'

President Putin continued in a similar vein for some time.

"The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states," he said.

It was a formula that, he said, had led to disaster: "Local and regional wars did not get fewer, the number of people who died did not get less but increased. We see no kind of restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force."

The US has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them", Mr Putin said.

With the new US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and several US congressmen sitting in the audience, he called for the reconsideration of the whole existing architecture of global security.

'Disappointing' speech

But he did not win over his audience.

Several delegates did not like his rather brusque brushing off of questions about Russia's own commitment to democracy and his defence of Moscow's decision to sell an air-defence system to Iran.

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer described President Putin's speech as "disappointing and not helpful". And there was similar reaction from the president of Estonia and others.

But it was left to US Republican senator and presidential hopeful John McCain to lead the retort.

Today's world, he said sternly, was not uni-polar, adding that it was an autocratic Russia that needed to change its behaviour.

"Moscow must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions at home and abroad conflict so fundamentally with the core values of Euro-Atlantic democracies," he said.

"In today's multi-polar world, there is no place for needless confrontation, and I would hope that Russian leaders understand this truth," Senator McCain said.

Spotlight on Moscow

Afterwards in the corridors there were dark mutterings by some about a new Cold War.

Others were less gloomy, dismissing President Putin's performance as one of Russia's periodic bouts of letting off steam at its diminished world status.

But it has made an impression.

For the last few years, as one observer suggested, it was the former US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who was the man everybody loved to hate at this conference.

President Putin's performance has single-handedly switched the spotlight from the US to Russia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6350847.stm

The US doesn't have to do the divide and conquer. Russia is doing all the work for them.

What was it with those tactical missiles Russia is threatening with?

[Distiller]

On the GBI positioning in the Czech Republic:
To intercept a launch from somewhere in Iran against the U.S. east coast. Even better position would probably be Austria or Croatia, but that's political no-go-land.

And regarding the Russian's reactions. Of course militarily total BS, just the games people play here to get back onto the international show and feel good. Anybody thinking in such dimensions (again) knows that Russian ICBM's launched against the U.S. are on a polar trajectory that doesn't lead across Europe.

And what Putin and the Chief of Staff said is basically digging up the old SS-20.

[dioditto]

What money do they have to spend? Russia's military is still suffering from major budget short falls. They are developing new ballistic missiles, but the most recent tests have been unsuccessful. Their military has made small steps in increasing their technology with new equipment including an updated Tu-160, new Su-34's, and Mi-28's. Currently these platforms are being acquired in such small numbers that do not pose any significant threat to the United States or NATO. Their nuclear submarine is slowing being dismantled, because they can't afford it. Then Russia wants the U.S., Europe, and Japan to help pay for decommissioning of these submarines.


They are slowly upgrading their nuclear force from the oil and gas money they recently got.




I still don't understand why Russia & Putin are so against the U.S. missile defense program. The program was never designed to stop an all out attack from a country like Russia, but to stop a small scale attack from a country like North Korea or China. Currently the program is so young they lack the capability to even repel a small attack from the PRC.

If the NMD can work against China, it's only matter of time before it can stop even Russia. (by putting in more NMD missiles)

[dioditto]

I understand that ICBM's is pretty much what Russia has left, and they have been used in direct threats after the cold war.
The problem with that policy is:
The threatned party might behave - for the moment - but will constantly be on the lookout forwways to get away from the bully.
More important: If Russia threatnes with nukes, it leaves the USA in a different position:
Any way - short of war - will be used against Russia to hinder their ambition; but Russia is apparently ready to live with that.

Did you ever consider it's the US that's always threatening OTHERS with their nukes? (Korean war, Hong Kong (UK), Vietnam) It's always very funny to see american oblivious to their own action.

[Grand Danois]

On the GBI positioning in the Czech Republic:
To intercept a launch from somewhere in Iran against the U.S. east coast. Even better position would probably be Austria or Croatia, but that's political no-go-land.

To defend Europe from Iran.

[Grand Danois]

If the NMD can work against China, it's only matter of time before it can stop even Russia. (by putting in more NMD missiles)

The PRC has 12-18 nukes that can reach CONUS with a similar number of warheads. The Russians have 150-200 times that.

[dioditto]

You can dig all the underground bunkers that you want, what are you going to come out to, you cannot stay there forever. I find it disturbing that Russia feels that they have to build more Missiles in this day and age, all the more reason for my country to get our Anti missle system up and running.

I find it even more disturbing that you, eckherl (like the rest of the american), don't apply what you said to yourself. The US is continuely to develop, and deploy new weapon system on almost daily basis, what's other country to do? Give up arms?

The US is continuously developing new weapon of mass destruction, (X-51 Hypersonic cruise missile) B-2 stealth bomber which is nuclear capable, no other country has ever develop such weapon of mass destruction yet, let along deploy.

Just what kind of standard are you applying here?

[Grand Danois]

Did you ever consider it's the US that's always threatening OTHERS with their nukes? (Korean war, Hong Kong (UK), Vietnam) It's always very funny to see american oblivious to their own action.

Funny how a thread on Russian threats are instantly turned into how bad and double standardsy the Americans are, and how everything is ultimately their fault.

I (and Ths) is from that funny little country called Denmark - you know the one that was targeted with 50-70 nukes just so the Warzaw Pact navies could break out of the Baltic (if they could not take us in a week, then the nukes were to be let lose).

The Soviets had preemptive strikes as part of their war planning against Europe - not an American invention.

[dioditto]

The PRC has 12-18 nukes that can reach CONUS with a similar number of warheads. The Russians have 150-200 times that.

That is merely a number. If the system can work, it is far cheaper to create NMD missile than to make nuclear missiles, since there are far less uranium on earth than the materials used to make NMD missiles. Once the system prove workable, they can massively scale up the production if needed, and I am sure that's all part of the plan. Or what else is the point of making it?

[Grand Danois]

That is merely a number. If the system can work, it is far cheaper to create NMD missile than to make nuclear missiles, since there are far less uranium on earth than the materials used to make NMD missiles. Once the system prove workable, they can massively scale up the production if needed, and I am sure that's all part of the plan. Or what else is the point of making it?

Hehe. This is my argument. ;)

I cannot see the NMD work on that scale. I can see it work on "rogue nation" scale.

[dioditto]

Funny how a thread on Russian threats are instantly turned into how bad and double standardsy the Americans are, and how everything is ultimately their fault.

I (and Ths) is from that funny little country called Denmark - you know the one that was targeted with 50-70 nukes just so the Warzaw Pact navies could break out of the Baltic (if they could not take us in a week, then the nukes were to be let lose).

The Soviets had preemptive strikes as part of their war planning against Europe - not an American invention.

The ones that are constantly accusing others on the world stage, are the americans. Unless you don't know how to read, (and I am sure you do, but you are simply ignorant) you should know that.

The Russian's first strike strategy for europe was for their own protection. You do realise the americans, have bases in europe all armed with nuclear missiles; while the russians, on the other hand had none else where. It is their only strategic deterent against american invasion. I guess you won't see it in that light since you are already bias.

Let me ask you, if the Russians have numerous large bases in south america with IRBM and ICBM with significant force deployment there, to be able to critically threaten american forces, do you think the american are going to have only second strike policy? LOL. Ofcourse they won't.

[dioditto]

Hehe. This is my argument. ;)

I cannot see the NMD work on that scale. I can see it work on "rogue nation" scale.

I simply disagree. Once NMD works, the production can definitely be scale up. And once that's done, it can definitely threaten russia into submission.

The whole point of NMD is to achieve advantagous disparity in the WMD race, and why would american limit themselve on these advantages once the system is prove workable?


Why is it that everybody assumes that ABM will stand alone???
I - if nobody else - believe the reason the B-2 was build was to take out the Russian (maybe Chinese) missiles in their siloes. This assumption builds on the observation that the B-1 and B-52 doesn't seem to have problems solving the tasks assigned to them.

So the ABM will only have to knock out the missiles that actually leave the silo, which it might not for a number of reasons beside having to contend with a PGM bunker buster in the noodle. Rockets might misfire, be under maintainence...
This is one of the reasons behind the socalled "overkill", where there is build more warheads than needed to take out all targets - provided all missiles hit. The overkill is a ratio between what you've got and what the enemy is going to get.


The american have offensive advantages (look above quote) while they are building up their defensive advantages to achieve total dominance.

The whole point right now is that the american have achieve this advantagous disparity and they are threatening others actively and aggressively. This is what american hegemony all about. Just read the above quote. The american right now is hell bent on keeping this unipolarity... heaven forbid if they lose it.

[merocaine]

OK, OK, lets not refight the Cold War!

At the moment NMD is more a political statement than a military one. It's ability is a little suspect. GD in its present incarnation the US NMD system is'ent a threat to the Russian deterent, it would be quickly swamped, so the Russians are being a little disingenious in claiming it to be a threat. But going on past records the US is capible of developing robust systems quicker than anyone else on the planet. NMD might be a straw man today, tomorrow who knows.
If Europe was so concerned why is'ent it building its own NMD system (not that i think it should'ent per se), if it is Iranian missiles that we are worried about, then its our problem, they cant reach the US east coast, the americans arent threathened directly, we are.

Politically the NMD system is being used to tie key european countries tighter into a US led allience, if your like me, and see Europe, in the future, plowing a more independent course politically and military from the US, then this is a worrying development.
Already we have some 'rent a row' Russian General saying that Poland and the Cech Republic will be targeted if the NMD system is deployed on there terrirory. Posturing, maybe.
I dont like the idea of European countries being manipulated like this. This whole thing is souring our relations with the Russians, who we depend on for gas and oil to a large degree, and it is souring our relations with little visible benift to our selves.
Honestly I dont see a theat to Europe from Iran, we have the deterent to deal with the Iranians, I just dont see why they would want to pick a fight with us. The idea of a nuclear suicide threat aimed at Europe from a fanatical Iranian regime, is frankly silly.
Anyway do you really see the Americans abandoning NMD in europe if Iran
A/backs down?
B/ Has its Nuclear network bombed out?

At the end of the day I see this whole issue as a sign of continuing European weakness, political and military.

I agree with you about Putin, it was a suprising speech, but then he has been banging that drum for quite a while, just never infront of such a high profile audience. A poor reception was garranted, it is the Munich conferance after all. But I suspect some of the delegates would have agreed with number of his points. I would love to get my hands on a transcript, most of what I heard about it has been filtered through peoples reactions.

just found this in my favorite rag

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2019754,00.html

[dioditto]

OK, OK, lets not refight the Cold War!

At the moment NMD is more a political statement than a military one. It's ability is a little suspect. GD in its present incarnation the US NMD system is'ent a threat to the Russian deterent, it would be quickly swamped, so the Russians are being a little disingenious in claiming it to be a threat. But going on past records the US is capible of developing robust systems quicker than anyone else on the planet. NMD might be a straw man today, tomorrow who knows.
If Europe was so concerned why is'ent it building its own NMD system (not that i think it should'ent per se), if it is Iranian missiles that we are worried about, then its our problem, they cant reach the US east coast, the americans arent threathened directly, we are.

There are many US bases in Europe you know that? (ofcourse you do) :)
The point is, if US wants to take unilateral action against middle eastern states (Iran/Syria particular) without the backing of UN, and IF the Russian feels threaten or too close for their comfort that they decide to get involved, these bases in Europe will be directly threaten. That is why US is pushing for the NMD, as a way to unrestraining themself and attack the middle east more freely.


Politically the NMD system is being used to tie key european countries tighter into a US led allience, if your like me, and see Europe, in the future, plowing a more independent course politically and military from the US, then this is a worrying development.


That's what I see also. It increases american strategic military control in the European continent. Unless European develops its own NMD, it will have to rely on the american indefinitely. Let alone asking the American to LEAVE. (which I don't think that will ever happen).


Already we have some 'rent a row' Russian General saying that Poland and the Cech Republic will be targeted if the NMD system is deployed on there terrirory. Posturing, maybe.

I dont like the idea of European countries being manipulated like this. This whole thing is souring our relations with the Russians, who we depend on for gas and oil to a large degree, and it is souring our relations with little visible benift to our selves.



Why not? So, the Russian just going to let their nuclear missiles become obsolete piece of junk by being shot down over Poland and Czch? Ofcourse they going to take out these defense first to guarantee their missile could hit america. The americans, are essentially building speed bumps on European continent for the Russian missiles.. Europe could be destroyed for all they care, as long as the defense is put as far away from continental USA, between Russia and US, it's fine for them since it will be the Europeans who will be taking hit from Russian ICBM before the last batch reach US.



Honestly I dont see a theat to Europe from Iran, we have the deterent to deal with the Iranians, I just dont see why they would want to pick a fight with us. The idea of a nuclear suicide threat aimed at Europe from a fanatical Iranian regime, is frankly silly.
Anyway do you really see the Americans abandoning NMD in europe if Iran
A/backs down?
B/ Has its Nuclear network bombed out?

At the end of the day I see this whole issue as a sign of continuing European weakness, political and military.


It is called.. American hegemony. Keep your friend weak, keep your enemy even weaker... :D

I agree with you about Putin, it was a suprising speech, but then he has been banging that drum for quite a while, just never infront of such a high profile audience. A poor reception was garranted, it is the Munich conferance after all. But I suspect some of the delegates would have agreed with number of his points. I would love to get my hands on a transcript, most of what I heard about it has been filtered through peoples reactions.

What you don't understand is this.. politics is about posturing, a country is like a very large ship.. it's hard to steer and change direction quickly, so any subtle directional change in policy is a signal of a larger change to come. For example, the recent Chinese ASAT test. They were merely testing their weapon on their own satellite, and that immediately angers and "concerned" the american. This can be seen as the same reaction the Russian has to US's NMD. It is not merely about the technology or capability, it is about the intent to which to pursue the goal. The current aggressive posturing from the American side alarms the Moscow, and I am sure Putin have far better intelligence (from SVR/GRU, although I think he is an intelligent man nontheless :)) and analysts that debrief him than you or me who only get info from the news. They know far more of what's coming, or underneath all these political posturing and implications of technological advances than all of us on this forum.

[merocaine]

There are many US bases in Europe you know that? (ofcourse you do)
The point is, if US wants to take unilateral action against middle eastern states (Iran/Syria particular) without the backing of UN, and IF the Russian feels threaten or too close for their comfort that they decide to get involved, these bases in Europe will be directly threaten. That is why US is pushing for the NMD, as a way to unrestraining themself and attack the middle east more freely.


I'm not so sure, I think there are enough US targets in the middle east for the Iranians to attack. If Europe stays out of a conflict it would not be in the Iranians interests suck Europe into to a fight. Althought those long range missles mean the Iranians have good insurence, they could certainly make the Europeans think twice about intervening. But again you come up against the fact that the would face an overwhelming nuclear response, even a proportanal response would be devastating.

By the way, we were a speed bump during the cold war! somethings dont change so quickly, the Americans are a sane bunch, why fight in America when you can fight them in europe! :)

What you don't understand is this.. politics is about posturing, a country is like a very large ship.. it's hard to steer and change direction quickly, so any subtle directional change in policy is a signal of a larger change to come. The aggressive posturing from the American side alarms the Moscow, and I am sure Putin have far better intelligence (from FSB, I think he is an intelligent man nontheless ) and analysts that debrief him than you or me who only get info from the news. They know far more of what's coming, or underneath all these political posturing and implications of technological advances than all of us on this forum.

I can only go on what I read in the papers and books on FP, and decide from there. I would'ent be so sure abot the sluthing abilites of Inteligence services, they seem to have got it wrong more often than not recently, and when they have been right havent been able to make there goverments listen.... while some on this forum seem scarily well informed!

[dioditto]

I'm not so sure, I think there are enough US targets in the middle east for the Iranians to attack. If Europe stays out of a conflict it would not be in the Iranians interests suck Europe into to a fight. Althought those long range missles mean the Iranians have good insurence, they could certainly make the Europeans think twice about intervening. But again you come up against the fact that the would face an overwhelming nuclear response, even a proportanal response would be devastating.

By the way, we were a speed bump during the cold war! somethings dont change so quickly, the Americans are a sane bunch, why fight in America when you can fight them in europe! :)

I am not talking about Iranian threatening Europe. Iranian won't have capability to threaten Europe for another 10-20 years atleast, probably longer, probably never. I am talking about Russian's backing of Iran or possible direct involvement. Russia feel uncomfortable with American's strategy of forming a ring around them with NMD. If it decided to break out that ring and start escalating conflict to wider Europe... hey, who knows.

[Grand Danois]

The ones that are constantly accusing others on the world stage, are the americans. Unless you don't know how to read, (and I am sure you do, but you are simply ignorant) you should know that.

So you think this qualify as an argument for anything? The Russians, Chinese and Americans accuse each other and other players all the time. You just try to fit the world into your particular view and focus on the Americans.

The Russian's first strike strategy for europe was for their own protection. You do realise the americans, have bases in europe all armed with nuclear missiles; while the russians, on the other hand had none else where.

Both NATO and the Soviets considered their strategies and doctrines defensive. The odd thing was that the fight would be in the rubble of NATO cities in both cases.

Before claiming others to be ignorant, you better make sure you are not patently off the facts yourself. Earlier the INF treaty was brought up, you apparently need to read up on that. Since 1991 the US has had no (zero, 0, nil) nuclear armed ballistic missiles or cruise missiles in Europe. They have 600 free fall nukes of which 450 where for delivery by NATO allies. IIRC Denmark, Belgium and Holland have not practiced delivery since the mid nineties. the same probably applies to Germany and Italy.

The purpose of these weapons was to allow frontline nations to have a nuclear option, to ensure a nuclear response to a nuclear attack on those countries, independent deterrent. Secondarily to constrain potential nuclear countries from going down the weapons path.

So the US nukes in Europe are in storage, out of range of Russia, with no procedures or infrastructure of delivery.

It is their only strategic deterent...

Deterrent against what? They are not a superpower, probably never will be again. Most countries do not have nuclear weapons - Germany, Italy, Japan. Russia has the deterrent of a great power.

The US is not gonna attack Russia. And Europe certainly isn't either.

Russia is playing politics of intimidation.

...against american invasion. I guess you won't see it in that light since you are already bias.

You mean that because I find the idea that the Americans are going to invade Russia silly, I am biased?

The Russians are *not* under threat of military attack from NATO. Why would NATO want to do that? And with what? The Polish and Baltic armies?

Let me ask you, if the Russians have numerous large bases in south america with IRBM and ICBM with significant force deployment there, to be able to critically threaten american forces, do you think the american are going to have only second strike policy? LOL. Ofcourse they won't.

See above. The Americans do *not* have bases with nuclear ballistic or cruise missiles encircling Russia. AFAIK not in Europe. I am btw, noting significant US troop reductions in Europe. And no, the reshuffle is *not* aimed at Russia.

Sorry, no "double standards".

Biased, eh?

[Grand Danois]

I simply disagree. Once NMD works, the production can definitely be scale up. And once that's done, it can definitely threaten russia into submission.

Agree that production can be scaled up, MAD will cease to exist. But Russia does not need MAD. Just a credible deterrence, like most other nuclear powers.

The whole point of NMD is to achieve advantagous disparity in the WMD race, and why would american limit themselve on these advantages once the system is prove workable?

Yes, and obviously Europe should have this advantage too.

The american have offensive advantages (look above quote) while they are building up their defensive advantages to achieve total dominance.

The US is probably able to succesfully first strike Russia right now. NMD changes little.

The whole point right now is that the american have achieve this advantagous disparity and they are threatening others actively and aggressively. This is what american hegemony all about. Just read the above quote. The american right now is hell bent on keeping this unipolarity... heaven forbid if they lose it.

I don't think the unipolarity is so unipolar as you think it is. And if so, then American unipolarity is much better than Putinesque multipolarity.

[Grand Danois]

OK, OK, lets not refight the Cold War!

At the moment NMD is more a political statement than a military one. It's ability is a little suspect.

Yes.

GD in its present incarnation the US NMD system is'ent a threat to the Russian deterent, it would be quickly swamped, so the Russians are being a little disingenious in claiming it to be a threat. But going on past records the US is capible of developing robust systems quicker than anyone else on the planet. NMD might be a straw man today, tomorrow who knows.

Yes on the upscaling. And the future credibilty. However I don't expect the US to extend such an invulnerabilty to the Europeans.

The motives for the GBI in Europe are to be able to still play a role in Europe in a "rogue state" world, where Russia has disappeared as a threat.

That is one of the reasons to why the Russian reactions are silly, they are making an enemy of themselves, which they are not really considered now.

If Europe was so concerned why is'ent it building its own NMD system (not that i think it should'ent per se), if it is Iranian missiles that we are worried about, then its our problem, they cant reach the US east coast, the americans arent threathened directly, we are.

I think it would be best if we built our own. I think the Europeans have the trust and godwill of the world to do that.

Why is it first being suggested now (by the German defmin, IIRC)? Well, we're Europeans. No single nation is big enough for the task, "why use money on a military system that will never get used?", missile defence is an American idea = bad.

Politically the NMD system is being used to tie key european countries tighter into a US led allience, if your like me, and see Europe, in the future, plowing a more independent course politically and military from the US, then this is a worrying development.

Independent future? Yes and no. Geostrategically I consider North America the strategic depth of Europe and vice versa. I don't mind the US bases in Europe, but don't see the absolute need. And in cases like missile defence, I think we should take care of our need on our own.

A case: European countries had effectively no say in wether US went for Iraq, irrespective of an independent European policy or not.

Already we have some 'rent a row' Russian General saying that Poland and the Cech Republic will be targeted if the NMD system is deployed on there terrirory. Posturing, maybe.

I believe it is posturing. Russia today, and in the future, is not capable of an arms race with even just Europe alone. The difference in population size, demography, size of economy, technology, and advantage of geography is massively in favour of the Europeans.

I also think the INF threat is a particular poor one, as the Europeans will have TBMD systems online from 2012, which are (relatively) affordable and extremely capable. MEADS, SM-3 and TBMD-Aster.

The Russian analysis is based on a 1980s concept of asymmetry.

I dont like the idea of European countries being manipulated like this. This whole thing is souring our relations with the Russians, who we depend on for gas and oil to a large degree, and it is souring our relations with little visible benift to our selves.

Putin and his succesor may be militaristic nationalists. But I can't see why the people of Russia would want to squander away their new energy wealth on big ticket military items pointed at a non threatening Europe. I don't want a confrontation with Russia. It carries needless risk and expenditure.

Manupulation it is if you disagree with it. And if we're not going to build a missile defence ourselves, then the Americans are going to move into that vacuum. Failure from our politicians.

Honestly I dont see a theat to Europe from Iran, we have the deterent to deal with the Iranians, I just dont see why they would want to pick a fight with us. The idea of a nuclear suicide threat aimed at Europe from a fanatical Iranian regime, is frankly silly.

Silly, yes. But it does not work that way in politics. The mere and faint idea is enough.

Anyway do you really see the Americans abandoning NMD in europe if Iran
A/backs down?
B/ Has its Nuclear network bombed out?

No. The future will have to kind of countries. Those that have a NMD; and those that do not.

And in that future we may see Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and who else with nukes. Don't wanna get tangled in whatever may happen. If they want to play with nuclear toys - fine. I just want to be safe.

At the end of the day I see this whole issue as a sign of continuing European weakness, political and military.

Yes. But the moment European politicians seriously go out and advocate an European MD, they will get shouted down by the same people who want the US out of Europe. :D

I agree with you about Putin, it was a suprising speech, but then he has been banging that drum for quite a while, just never infront of such a high profile audience. A poor reception was garranted, it is the Munich conferance after all. But I suspect some of the delegates would have agreed with number of his points. I would love to get my hands on a transcript, most of what I heard about it has been filtered through peoples reactions.

A transcript would be interesting, and may take some of the interpretations away. This is obviously an audience who know the nature of the Kremlin under Putin. The career path of the current crown prince and how he is groomed for his future position tells a lot on the world view.

just found this in my favorite rag

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2019754,00.html

Just saw on BBC World that the NMD upgrade to Fyllingsdale will be finished this year.

[Grand Danois]

There are many US bases in Europe you know that? (ofcourse you do) :)
The point is, if US wants to take unilateral action against middle eastern states (Iran/Syria particular) without the backing of UN, and IF the Russian feels threaten or too close for their comfort that they decide to get involved, these bases in Europe will be directly threaten. That is why US is pushing for the NMD, as a way to unrestraining themself and attack the middle east more freely.

The US doesn't need the Euro bases for that. It is not the bases that are threatened. No, Russia would not target Europe.

That's what I see also. It increases american strategic military control in the European continent. Unless European develops its own NMD, it will have to rely on the american indefinitely. Let alone asking the American to LEAVE. (which I don't think that will ever happen).

Hum. Yes. With some nuances. Except I don't mind the American bases. Everything they do with relation to European security, they have to do with the consent of the govt of that country.

Why not? So, the Russian just going to let their nuclear missiles become obsolete piece of junk by being shot down over Poland and Czch? Ofcourse they going to take out these defense first to guarantee their missile could hit america. The americans, are essentially building speed bumps on European continent for the Russian missiles.. Europe could be destroyed for all they care, as long as the defense is put as far away from continental USA, between Russia and US, it's fine for them since it will be the Europeans who will be taking hit from Russian ICBM before the last batch reach US.

Nukes from Russia to the US takes the polar route. The GBI in Europe will have absolutely no impact on a Russo-American nuke exchange.

[dioditto]

The US doesn't need the Euro bases for that. It is not the bases that are threatened. No, Russia would not target Europe.

Germany host one of of the largest US air base in Europe. B2/B1 combine with F-22 Escort with nuclear payload are very capable 1st strike and 2nd strike nuclear options. I highly doubt your assertion that US do not need those bases for foward projection to contain the Russians.



Nukes from Russia to the US takes the polar route. The GBI in Europe will have absolutely no impact on a Russo-American nuke exchange.

If that's the case, I don't understand why Russian generals are playing up this threat so vehemently as they are now for the past few months??

Surely if you put GMD closer to Russia, it gets highest chance of interception especially when you put them just outside their border.

[dioditto]

So you think this qualify as an argument for anything? The Russians, Chinese and Americans accuse each other and other players all the time. You just try to fit the world into your particular view and focus on the Americans.

Except the americans are accusing others much louder and much more frequent. :)


Before claiming others to be ignorant, you better make sure you are not patently off the facts yourself. Earlier the INF treaty was brought up, you apparently need to read up on that. Since 1991 the US has had no (zero, 0, nil) nuclear armed ballistic missiles or cruise missiles in Europe. They have 600 free fall nukes of which 450 where for delivery by NATO allies. IIRC Denmark, Belgium and Holland have not practiced delivery since the mid nineties. the same probably applies to Germany and Italy.


So the US nukes in Europe are in storage, out of range of Russia, with no procedures or infrastructure of delivery.



Oh, did I say ballistic missile?? How about nuclear armed ALCM? Does it not constitute as missile? I am certain most of the American bases in Europe are armed with them.



Deterrent against what? They are not a superpower, probably never will be again. Most countries do not have nuclear weapons - Germany, Italy, Japan. Russia has the deterrent of a great power.

The US is not gonna attack Russia. And Europe certainly isn't either.





Maybe not now, but read below :




You mean that because I find the idea that the Americans are going to invade Russia silly, I am biased?


Why not? By the time GMD system is ready and in large quantities, it would be roughly 2050, by then, most of the oil, mineral resource would probably run out or in much limited quantities. If American found they can totally overcome their cold war foe, and the Russians are full of the mineral resources they wanted... they may just make up another excuse to invade. Who knows :).
Judging from their current stance, this is highly probable.


Russia is playing politics of intimidation

Let me ask you, if Russian puts long range nuclear armed stealth bombers in say, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and also put numerous GMD systems in these countries to gurantee protection of their bases, do you seriously think that's not intimidation?

Perhaps, you should do business with me. Let's meet in the desert and I will bring an army of body guards armed with G-36 and machetes, and you come alone and naked (but with suitcaseful of cash). I am sure you won't feel intimidated at all. :D


The Russians are *not* under threat of military attack from NATO. Why would NATO want to do that? And with what? The Polish and Baltic armies?


Again, read above. Maybe not now, but in 30-40 years time, when resources are scarce, and Russia vulnerable...who knows.



See above. The Americans do *not* have bases with nuclear ballistic or cruise missiles encircling Russia. AFAIK not in Europe. I am btw, noting significant US troop reductions in Europe. And no, the reshuffle is *not* aimed at Russia.

Sorry, no "double standards".

Biased, eh?

Read the following :
"This February 2005 NRDC paper pieces together evidence from an array of sources to show that the United States is still deploying 480 nuclear weapons in Europe."
www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/contents.asp


Bias? Yes !:D

[Waylander]

NATO is a DEFENCE treaty.

It is not an offensive alliance.
And it has never been one.

Saying anything else is ridicoulus.

[Grand Danois]

Germany host one of of the largest US air base in Europe. B2/B1 combine with F-22 Escort with nuclear payload are very capable 1st strike and 2nd strike nuclear options. I highly doubt your assertion that US do not need those bases for foward projection to contain the Russians.


The shortest route for any US strategic bombers are still the polar route. It is so much shorter in distance and time. Flying to Europe first is measured in days. Direct strike is hours.

Ever seen Dr. Strangelove, btw?

Doubt away all you like. Physical geographical fact is against your analysis.

If that's the case, I don't understand why Russian generals are playing up this threat so vehemently as they are now for the past few months??

Because Russian nationalists are still hurting over their lost empire and the relegation from superpower status. Through the NMD the US will be a provider of security in Europe - not Russia. The NMD keeps their European role relevant. The Russians want US out so that they can fill the vacuum. Particularily the countries formerly part of the Russian empire fears that.

Russia can't bully the countries around when they are NATO members.

Surely if you put GMD closer to Russia, it gets highest chance of interception especially when you put them just outside their border.

Russian SSBN are patrolling the Barents and Arctic Seas. The Russian silos and mobile ICBM are outside the GBI footprint in Europe - unless they are fired directly at Europe.

[Grand Danois]

Except the americans are accusing others much louder and much more frequent. :)

That's because you know the American shitfile by heart and is blind to what other actors do. ;)

Also, you're exposed through your culture and language to what the Americans do, and much less the Russians or Chinese. Further, self-criticism (and intellectual self flagellation) is much more prevalent in some cultures, and especially in the Western ones.

My perception is that you assume that the Americans are to blame a priori.

Oh, did I say ballistic missile??

In lack of facts and focus on substance, you're now going down the path of obfuscation.

You said:

The Russian's first strike strategy for europe was for their own protection. You do realise the americans, have bases in europe all armed with nuclear missiles; while the russians, on the other hand had none else where. It is their only strategic deterent against american invasion. I guess you won't see it in that light since you are already bias.

My reply was:

Before claiming others to be ignorant, you better make sure you are not patently off the facts yourself. Earlier the INF treaty was brought up, you apparently need to read up on that. Since 1991 the US has had no (zero, 0, nil) nuclear armed ballistic missiles or cruise missiles in Europe. They have 600 free fall nukes of which 450 where for delivery by NATO allies. IIRC Denmark, Belgium and Holland have not practiced delivery since the mid nineties. the same probably applies to Germany and Italy.

The purpose of these weapons was to allow frontline nations to have a nuclear option, to ensure a nuclear response to a nuclear attack on those countries, independent deterrent. Secondarily to constrain potential nuclear countries from going down the weapons path.

So the US nukes in Europe are in storage, out of range of Russia, with no procedures or infrastructure of delivery.


This happens to be consistent with your source.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe
A review of post-Cold War policy, force levels, and war planning.
This February 2005 NRDC paper pieces together evidence from an array of sources to show that the United States is still deploying 480 nuclear weapons in Europe.

[The rest is their interpretation and agenda]

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/contents.asp

Curiously the same passage you highlighted. It confirmed what I previously said.

How about nuclear armed ALCM? Does it not constitute as missile? I am certain most of the American bases in Europe are armed with them.

Certain? Based on pure speculation? :D

I can inform you that the "M" in "ALCM" is for "missile". There are no nuclear ALCM capable US aircraft in Europe (See START I for definition of nuclear ALCM delivery capable system), no stationed units. The 480 nuclear weapons are free-fall bombs. In storage. With no delivery system. Effectively out of range of Russia. Inapprop and inefficient delivery method.

They are for all practical purposes not pointed anywhere.

Why not? By the time GMD system is ready and in large quantities, it would be roughly 2050, by then, most of the oil, mineral resource would probably run out or in much limited quantities. If American found they can totally overcome their cold war foe, and the Russians are full of the mineral resources they wanted... they may just make up another excuse to invade. Who knows :).
Judging from their current stance, this is highly probable.

Wild speculation. Sidenote, from an American perspective the Russians are already overcome. The NMD changes little.

Let me ask you, if Russian puts long range nuclear armed stealth bombers in say, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and also put numerous GMD systems in these countries to gurantee protection of their bases, do you seriously think that's not intimidation?

A proven strawman. You are regurgitating. No US nukes pointed towards Russia from Europe. European missile defence of little or no impact on a Russo-American nuke exchange.

Perhaps, you should do business with me. Let's meet in the desert and I will bring an army of body guards armed with G-36 and machetes, and you come alone and naked (but with suitcaseful of cash). I am sure you won't feel intimidated at all. :D

Obfuscating again. No relevance, but lateral displacement of discourse. Appeal for moral high ground, on the basis of presumed accuracy of your analysis and especially your perceptions, instead of discussing the topic at hand.

Again, read above. Maybe not now, but in 30-40 years time, when resources are scarce, and Russia vulnerable...who knows.

I prefer knowledgebased predictions. The alternative is to prepare for "Mars Attacks". ;)

[dioditto]

NATO is a DEFENCE treaty.

It is not an offensive alliance.
And it has never been one.

Saying anything else is ridicoulus.

Hey, "the best defense is an offense!" :D hehe.
Just when this definition becomes a reality.. who knows.
Let's look at the recent "Operation Iraqi Freedom"... the United States decided to invade Iraq because they think it is "self defense".
So, just when the "coalition of willing" becomes the "coalition of obligations".. you never know.


Most of the axis countries in WWII believe their are acting in "self defense" when they invade other country. So this definition fo "self defense" is pretty filmsy.

[eckherl]

I find it even more disturbing that you, eckherl (like the rest of the american), don't apply what you said to yourself. The US is continuely to develop, and deploy new weapon system on almost daily basis, what's other country to do? Give up arms?

The US is continuously developing new weapon of mass destruction, (X-51 Hypersonic cruise missile) B-2 stealth bomber which is nuclear capable, no other country has ever develop such weapon of mass destruction yet, let along deploy.

Just what kind of standard are you applying here?

It is not a standard that myself and alot of other Americans like, it would be great if everyone would get rid of them, along with chemical stockpiles. But with countries like China, North Korea and now possibly Iran along with Russia wanting to build more of them, they are giving my country the excuse to give to the American people a reasoning into building more.

[dioditto]

The shortest route for any US strategic bombers are still the polar route. It is so much shorter in distance and time. Flying to Europe first is measured in days. Direct strike is hours.

Ever seen Dr. Strangelove, btw?

Doubt away all you like. Physical geographical fact is against your analysis.




Oh really? I would like to see evidence to support this theory. ;)

[Grand Danois]

Oh really? I would like to see evidence to support this theory. ;)

A deployment would take days - don't play word games, focus on substance, you know what I said. Seizing on me not typing out entire novels to explain and take every insignificant caveat into account does not further anything. Substance.

Also, that it is a distant possibility does not support your absurd "US attack/invasion/submission of Russia" case as you fail the reality check on the prerequisistes of a deployment.

Sorry, but no cigar.

To the practical and technical stuff. Why do that at all, when the US has 3,000 nukes that take 15-20 min to get there and bombers that can fly directly to Russia from CONUS via more relevant flight paths?

They don't need those bases and that basing. The routes from Euro bases are unfavourable, and longer for deepstrike. The bombers would also be more vulnerable en route and on their basing.

The only purpose would be to send the political statement that Russia shouldn't attack Europe in a time of crisis. And that if Russia attacks Europe, the US will get involved. To take this further, and perhaps most importantly, I note that there are none based in Europe now.

The posture is not there!

Here is a link calculating distances of the great-circle. The great-circle is the shortest distance to travel.

http://www.acscdg.com/

The B2's are stationed in Whiteman AFB, 65 miles southeast of Kansas City, Missouri. You can type in Kansas City or Whiteman AFB and it will take you there for a starting point.

Here is an reasonable description of the layout of Russian ICBM bases.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/icbm_fac.htm

Try it out, from Whiteman AFB to the Russian nuke installations, with and without a waypoint in Europe. Btw, notice who the Russian missiles are actually facing. ;) Also note which bases are active today.

It should now become apparent why the B2's are stationed in Missouri.

Also, the northern coast of Russia is difficult to defend, easier to penetrate for the B2. This is contrasted by the heavily defended airspace facing Europe.

Shorter in time and distance and tactically/strategically more lucrative to go the polar route.

The Russian ICBM take the same route. A Europe based NMD has no chance of intercepting a Russian ICBM on its way to the US. In rough terms the ICBM will have to be headed towards Europe to enter the GBI engagement footprint.

Physics and geography.

[Grand Danois]

Actually, when studying this link:

http://www.acscdg.com/

Assuming a GBI range of 1500-2000 km and a missile coming out of Iran, it seems to be that Austria would be the optimal location, as the GBI are mid-course interceptors. But Austria is not a NATO member, and the border between Poland and the Czeck Republic is very good!

A second base in NW Italy or NE Spain should be next.

[radiosilence]

Came across this editorial from the Washinton Post and its related to whats being discussed in this thread.

Missile Fantasies

THE EMERGING debate over the deployment of U.S missile defenses in Central Europe is based on a series of false pretenses. The Bush administration pretends that it is sensible to invest $225 million next year in preparing to install ground-based interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against an attack from Iran,......

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401239.html)

[Grand Danois]

Came across this editorial from the Washinton Post and its related to whats being discussed in this thread.

Missile Fantasies
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401239.html)

The only thing I disagree with is the assessment on how mature the NMD is. However, it is somewhat unclear what they mean. In case they mean that it will be a practical and reasonably reliable system a decade from now, then I would agree with The washington Post.

From my perspective, the rest is right on the mark.

[Distiller]

Putin is using military affairs to create a Russian identity. That goes on for some time now here. E.g. looking at the TV couple of days ago, Day of the Defenders of the Vaterland, a cheesy show of the usual terrible Russian pop music in front of a huge screen with Su-27, Tu-160, Navy, and tank clips, all performers with medals and orders. Something like that haven't been shown in Western Europe or the U.S. since the 1940's. The military is pretty much the only thing that people a proud of here, the rest is just incompetence, corruption, and a clueless imitation of western lifestyle. At leat in Moscow, and the rest don't count anyway.

Putin trying to get Russia into a political position to fill those voids left all over the world by anti-americanism, and tries to be faster than the Chinese in that.

[Rich]

We yanks get a big kick out of it when Putin gets on his soapbox and blames all the worlds evils on us. Americans may be imperfect but when you look at the history, both old and current, of the types of regimes the Soviets/Russians have supported and sold arms to, well, I'm sure both the Iranians and North Koreans are thankful for the nuclear assistance Russia has given them.

And strange how silent the world is concerning the incineration of Chechnya http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=chechnya http://www.freechechnya.org/ I guess Putin never reads the newspapers and simply orates how "we" are making the world more dangerous, and "our" human rights abuses. Meanwhile whatever they now call the KGB is whacking his perceived enemies left and right. http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=55235

Whats scary is the masses tend to believe when a politician tells them something they want to hear, and not just in Russia. But, like I said, we get a big kick out of it.

Ha, ha, ha.

[radiosilence]

U.S. wants missile radar in Caucasus

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said Thursday that Washington wants to base an anti-missile radar in the Caucasus, a move that could provoke a further rift with Russia........


link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_re_eu/belgium_us_russia_missiles)




This should make things a little more interesting.

[Tasman]

U.S. wants missile radar in Caucasus


link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_re_eu/belgium_us_russia_missiles)


This should make things a little more interesting.

It certainly will make things interesting. Putin will just love it! I wonder what the Russian reaction will be keeping in mind the warning Russia has already given Poland and the Czech Republic?

Cheers

[Grand Danois]

U.S. wants missile radar in Caucasus

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_re_eu/belgium_us_russia_missiles)

This should make things a little more interesting.

What's your take?

;)

[merocaine]

U.S. wants missile radar in Caucasus


link


This should make things a little more interesting.

This whole thing is starting to sound like a bad tom clancy novel;)

On a more serious note, I'm not sure Georgia's wine industry could take anymore punishment!

[radiosilence]

Speaking to reporters after their meeting, Gonul said that Turkey would not participate in the US' proposed missile defense project. "Turkey will produce its own missile defense shield using its own resources," said Gonul...

link (http://www.dunyagazetesi.com.tr/news_display.asp?upsale_id=303909&dept_id=87)

Seems like this is the reason why a US anti-missile radar was not placed in Turkey. It would be more logical IMO to place a anti-missile radar in Turkey to track Iranian ballistic missiles.

[Awang se]

I wonder how much did Iran become a threat as to how much the west, particularly United States, provoked the threat out of Iran.

[hybrid]

I wonder how much did Iran become a threat as to how much the west, particularly United States, provoked the threat out of Iran.

Last I checked technically the US and the state of Iran COULD be in a theoretical state of war since 1979, the seizing of the US embassy and its personnel would cause that. Therefore the onus of responsibility for that threat would be on Iran first. Doesn't help that their current president who's been spouting threats of destroying Israel and the US was one of the guys involved in the embassy seizure either.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Last I checked technically the US and the state of Iran COULD be in a theoretical state of war since 1979, the seizing of the US embassy and its personnel would cause that. Therefore the onus of responsibility for that threat would be on Iran first. Doesn't help that their current president who's been spouting threats of destroying Israel and the US was one of the guys involved in the embassy seizure either.

I agree with what you have said. To be fair though, i heard that after 9/11 the Iranian government co operated with the CIA by giving them information on several al quieda operatives (thats not a fact its just what i heard), and that this did lead to arrests. And it was george bush who named Iran as part of the "axis of evil". So i can understand the Iranian government getting defencive. But having said that there is no way we can allow Iran to obtain a nuclear arsenal with decent delivery systems.

[merocaine]

Last I checked technically the US and the state of Iran COULD be in a theoretical state of war since 1979, the seizing of the US embassy and its personnel would cause that. Therefore the onus of responsibility for that threat would be on Iran first. Doesn't help that their current president who's been spouting threats of destroying Israel and the US was one of the guys involved in the embassy seizure either.

All true apart from the bit about Adaninajad being involved in the embassy seizure, I think that was based on one grainy picture of a guy who looked kind of like the iranian president.

[Rich]

I wonder how much did Iran become a threat as to how much the west, particularly United States, provoked the threat out of Iran.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/

http://www.eisenhowerseries.com/pdfs/terrorism_06/final/final_2006_09-14.pdf
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5956
http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1993/6044087-6046949.htm

I was at this "tear gas meeting" in DC. No, I was on the other side of the fence in the crowd, fighting for my life. I already told this story here , about how I ended up in DC that day, but I'll say this. We were in the crowd of peaceful Shah supporters when we saw thousands of masked students charging across the parkway carrying big sticks. They waded into our crowd and started beating people without mercy, and I'm talking woman and kids here.

I was on crutches that day and I gave one crutch to a buddy and started swinging the other one. We saved some kids these clowns were beating on with their big heavy sticks. The only thing that saved us, the army wouldn't leave the WhiteHouse, was about 20 DC park police on horseback. The horses went crazy against the demonstrators. All the coppers could do was hang on while the pissed off horses stomped, kicked, bit, and ran down the rioters. It was actually kinda funny.

There is a long, long history of Iran supporting terrorism. They were directly involved with the Khobar towers bombing and the Beirut marines barracks bombing. The only reason the Iranians ha vent supported Al Qaeda and the Taliban is because they consider these two groups to be hostile to them as well, being Persian and all.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/lifting_veil_life_revolutionary_iran.php

In November 1977 the Shah visited Washington. His meetings with Carter went well; but 60,000 Iranian students had gathered to demonstrate against him, some of them carrying pictures of Khomeini. A counter-demonstration, using military cadets, had been rather ineptly organised by the Iranian Embassy, and while the President and Mrs Carter greeted the Shah and his Empress on the White House lawn the two groups clashed. The tear gas which the Washington DC police had been using drifted across the lawn and affected the eyes of the visitors and their hosts as they stood to attention for the two national anthems. It seemed trivial enough; but in Iran, where the new mood of mild liberalization enabled the pictures of the tear-gas incident to be shown on television, it demonstrated to people what they had not previously been told: the degree of hostility to the Shah which existed outside the country. With the Persian's ready enthusiasm for detecting hidden messages, many of those who watched their televisions that night assumed that the entire incident could have been allowed only with President Carter's agreement: in other words, the television pictures were a sign that Carter had implicitly withdrawn his support from the Shah. It was a significant success for the opposition, at a time when the Shah himself believed his position had never been stronger.

[merocaine]

All roads lead to Iran those days....

we're way off topic!

[Grand Danois]

Iran is just an example or a symbol of what drives the US NMD in Europe. Iran is an example of a nation that is likely to go nuclear in the medium term. When that happens a number of states in the region is likely to follow suit. Thus the issue is not only related to Iran and the threat hyping effect that has.

To discuss if Iran is or is not a threat is a strawman, as this is not the core issue. It is of course, interconnected with the other agendas at play:


Dissuasion. BM defence reduces or negates the value of small nuclear arsenals in the 50-200 warheads category. Nuclear weapons loses attractiveness as the cost-benefit calculation both politically in peacetime and in warfighting is greatly affected. It impacts on proliferation.


US security relevance to Europe. In order to still have a relevance and a say in Euro affairs, the US has to deliver something the Europeans cannot provide for themselves.


Consolidation and freedom of choice of options. Enhances the strategic and political maneuver space of both Europe and the US as no one can hold Europe at risk/hostage for the purpose of affecting US policies. Consolidation of Eastern European entry into NATO.

[merocaine]

Iran is just an example or a symbol of what drives the US NMD in Europe. Iran is an example of a nation that is likely to go nuclear in the medium term. When that happens a number of states in the region is likely to follow suit. Thus the issue is not only related to Iran and the threat hyping effect that has.

To discuss if Iran is or is not a threat is a strawman, as this is not the core issue. It is of course, interconnected with the other agendas at play:

Dissuasion. BM defence reduces or negates the value of small nuclear arsenals in the 50-200 warheads category. Nuclear weapons loses attractiveness as the cost-benefit calculation both politically in peacetime and in warfighting is greatly affected. It impacts on proliferation.


US security relevance to Europe. In order to still have a relevance and a say in Euro affairs, the US has to deliver something the Europeans cannot provide for themselves.


Consolidation and freedom of choice of options. Enhances the strategic and political maneuver space of both Europe and the US as no one can hold Europe at risk/hostage for the purpose of affecting US policies. Consolidation of Eastern European entry into NATO.


Well said GD.

Is it a safe conclusion to draw that it is continuing european military weakness as much the threat from the middle east that is driving US NMD. Or am I just being eurocentric;)

In the short term Iran is the focus of the NMD system in Europe, in the longer term this system could have a serious effect on Russia deterrent. And possibly its ablity to act in a convential confiict in the event of the fragmentation of the Russian Federation.
With the current state of its conventional military, Russia, if its deterent is degraded enough, could find itself the victim of foreigin intervention in its border regions.

[Rich]

Dissuasion. BM defence reduces or negates the value of small nuclear arsenals in the 50-200 warheads category. Nuclear weapons loses attractiveness as the cost-benefit calculation both politically in peacetime and in warfighting is greatly affected. It impacts on proliferation.

Then again enhanced targeting packages on BMs negates the value of ABMs. I'm talking MIRVed warhead buses capable of pre-programed changes in course. Also on the table are other masking techniques, such as dummy warheads, window....ect. Another fly in the ointment is stealthy cruise missiles.

As a psychological tool nuclear weapons are peerless. The evolution of Israels arsenal is what, in large part, brought peace and stability to it. Forcing their enemies to supporting asymmetrical/terror warfare against her instead attack by organized armies. Sometimes in the '70s the Arabs simply became terrified of Israelis nukes. The Yom Kippur war itself was a last ditch attempt to destroy Israel before its arsenal became to large.

Then, with her initial forces over-run, the Israelis leak it out that they have assembled a dozen nukes and is considering using them. This announcement forced Americas hand and thus a huge Yank resupply of Israels conventional arsenal started, and has never really stopped. The leverage these nukes gave Israel was, Im sure, noticed by her other neighbors in the region.

The fact is a Israel type nuclear capability would give all kinds of leverage to the Iranians. No doubt they also noticed what happened to Pakistan, India, and North Korea. While initially treated as pariahs, and economic sanctions put on them, both Pakistan and India have been accepted as members of "The Club" and have garnered a lot of prestige and security from their nuke programs. North Korea has used "its" program to leverage and shake down its richer neighbors and even the USA.

And the UN has showed what a true gelding it is with its watered down, meaningless sanctions against Iran. So really? If I were an Iranian I would continue with the program too.

US security relevance to Europe. In order to still have a relevance and a say in Euro affairs, the US has to deliver something the Europeans cannot provide for themselves.

Iran might, all on its own, keep NATO viable and prevent our Euro-allies from straying to much. The reason? Our nuclear umbrella of course. ABM systems might limit the damage from a concerted BM attack but I dont think it can prevent one 100%. The biggest deterrent to such an attack would be the power of Americas strategic arsenal and the surety any enemy who tried such a move would be punished in the most horrible way.

So yes, the new ABM structure in Europe, especially east Europe, not only strengthens NATO but also has some leverage power against the Russians. Who really dont want to see a high technology ABM mechanism in Europe. This reality might give the Russians reason to join in the INTL pressure against Iran.

[dioditto]

A deployment would take days - don't play word games, focus on substance, you know what I said. Seizing on me not typing out entire novels to explain and take every insignificant caveat into account does not further anything. Substance.

Also, that it is a distant possibility does not support your absurd "US attack/invasion/submission of Russia" case as you fail the reality check on the prerequisistes of a deployment.

Sorry, but no cigar.

To the practical and technical stuff. Why do that at all, when the US has 3,000 nukes that take 15-20 min to get there and bombers that can fly directly to Russia from CONUS via more relevant flight paths?

They don't need those bases and that basing. The routes from Euro bases are unfavourable, and longer for deepstrike. The bombers would also be more vulnerable en route and on their basing.

The only purpose would be to send the political statement that Russia shouldn't attack Europe in a time of crisis. And that if Russia attacks Europe, the US will get involved. To take this further, and perhaps most importantly, I note that there are none based in Europe now.

The posture is not there!

Here is a link calculating distances of the great-circle. The great-circle is the shortest distance to travel.

http://www.acscdg.com/

The B2's are stationed in Whiteman AFB, 65 miles southeast of Kansas City, Missouri. You can type in Kansas City or Whiteman AFB and it will take you there for a starting point.

Here is an reasonable description of the layout of Russian ICBM bases.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/icbm_fac.htm

Try it out, from Whiteman AFB to the Russian nuke installations, with and without a waypoint in Europe. Btw, notice who the Russian missiles are actually facing. ;) Also note which bases are active today.

It should now become apparent why the B2's are stationed in Missouri.

Also, the northern coast of Russia is difficult to defend, easier to penetrate for the B2. This is contrasted by the heavily defended airspace facing Europe.

Shorter in time and distance and tactically/strategically more lucrative to go the polar route.

The Russian ICBM take the same route. A Europe based NMD has no chance of intercepting a Russian ICBM on its way to the US. In rough terms the ICBM will have to be headed towards Europe to enter the GBI engagement footprint.

Physics and geography.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/missiles/Russia_US_missile_shield160011358.php

US doesn't have to place nukes in Europe. Europe already have 2 nuclear states that's close allies to US. France (maybe not so close) and Britain (pretty much client state of USA LOL). The missile shield is for them, as a strategic check against Russians. The US does not have to directly attack Russia in the event of war, the russians have to deal with France and Britain's nuclear attack first if this is a nuclear war. By placing missile shield there, it gives the NATO a first strike option and minimise the damage from retaliatory strikes from Russia.

[Waylander]

And those ten missiles are going to be europes defense against some thousand russian warheads in a nuclear war?
This is for sure not a first strike option for europe/NATO.

BTW, the US still have nukes stationed in europe which are also going to be delivered by other NATO countries in case of war.

[Grand Danois]

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/missiles/Russia_US_missile_shield160011358.php

US doesn't have to place nukes in Europe. Europe already have 2 nuclear states that's close allies to US. France (maybe not so close) and Britain (pretty much client state of USA LOL). The missile shield is for them, as a strategic check against Russians. The US does not have to directly attack Russia in the event of war, the russians have to deal with France and Britain's nuclear attack first if this is a nuclear war. By placing missile shield there, it gives the NATO a first strike option and minimise the damage from retaliatory strikes from Russia.

If you read that article, you'll notice the Russian General uses a simple psychological grip.

He cries foul foul play and deception. As if Russia is being decieved and somebody has been going behind its back. That it has been slighted.

Basically, he is presenting Russia as a victim.

You should be too clever to fall for such a trick.

Russia was told what this is about all the way. Russian nationalists are just unhappy that it does not control its client states anymore, cannot veto (because it is not their prerogative), and they're also showing that tint of paranoia permeating the Russian psyche.

That everybody is out to get them.

Now, I showed you how that US posture in Europe has been altered, reflecting detente. Just like every other nation in Europe has no threatening posture towards Russia. You do not care for this. Rather you come up with this impossibly absurd first strike theory.

And if a conventional war should ever break out, it would not be on account of the Europeans attacking. And Europe is perfectly capable of handling a conventional war with Russia. In such a case, the BMD would be even more warranted and legitimate.

You totally fail to provide a plausible reason to why UK or France would do such a thing. Particularily as the posture is not there!

The Russians, as I've already argued, do not have the clout to take on neither Europe nor US in an arms race. It is in their interest not to precipitate an arms race. That is an area where they do have the initiative. ;)

Lastly, if you want to draw conclusions from Russian statements you should try to decode them. Who is talking; why; what is the argument; what are the tools being used to get the message across?

Apparently much is being taken by face value. I always enjoy reading statements from the Russian generals (and the Duma), as they're made to work perceptions and because they use the perception creation tools of the Soviet times on the audiences of the West. Poor spin.

My favourite so far is the BMEWS capability that was threatened to be installed in embassies in the West. The funny part was that it would never be able to detect any missile launch. The Western ballistic missiles are either out to sea or delivered by a method that such a system would not detect. Absolutely useless. It is also in breach of conventions surrounding embassies.

It was a lame attempt at intimidating Western populations, without having nothing to show and losing credibility at the same time. Actually, it was such a piece of crap, that they had to publicly renounce it soon afterwards. Read on:

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

Now, these kind of statements are about preaching to the choir and herding the sheep.

You need to apply reasoning, moderation and context in order to figure out what is being said.

Only sheep would accept these statements at face value. They're meant to work perceptions. And as the arguments themselves are being debunked, there are only irrational threats and "concerns" left.

Cheers

[Grand Danois]

Forgot to answer this one.

Well said GD.

Is it a safe conclusion to draw that it is continuing european military weakness as much the threat from the middle east that is driving US NMD. Or am I just being eurocentric;)

To be more accurate I would call it political weakness. The military weakness follows from this. However, it is an illusion to think that a BMD vacuum can be maintained. Thus the European politicians fail and let the Americans in. A BMD is a natural part of a military if you wish to assure allies. If Europeans cannot provide this assurance - then the US will. A Germany, France, UK, etc, who do not provide the full security package, including BMD, for the Eastern allies do not have the credibility.

They will get bypassed. This is what is going on.

And trying to create a vacuum is an illusion.

In the short term Iran is the focus of the NMD system in Europe, in the longer term this system could have a serious effect on Russia deterrent. And possibly its ablity to act in a convential confiict in the event of the fragmentation of the Russian Federation.
With the current state of its conventional military, Russia, if its deterent is degraded enough, could find itself the victim of foreigin intervention in its border regions.

I see no reason for intervention. Too many 'ifs'. If Europe is protected from nuclear madness from Russia in case of a breakup - that's just good.

NATO won't get into Russia.

And the main effect it has on the wider world, like Iran, is to dissuade development of nuclear weapons, as their value is severely degraded and they are still horribly expensive. Makes the 'developing nuclear weapons cost-benefit calc' go into red. ;)

It is primarily a political tool.

[KGB]

T

The fact is a Israel type nuclear capability would give all kinds of leverage to the Iranians. No doubt they also noticed what happened to Pakistan, India, and North Korea. While initially treated as pariahs, and economic sanctions put on them, both Pakistan and India have been accepted as members of "The Club" and have garnered a lot of prestige and security from their nuke programs. North Korea has used "its" program to leverage and shake down its richer neighbors and even the USA.

And the UN has showed what a true gelding it is with its watered down, meaningless sanctions against Iran. So really? If I were an Iranian I would continue with the program too.


You've hit the nail right on the head. Isolation means they have less to lose, and more to gain, from getting the bomb. Even if they don't get the bomb soon, they NEED the west to make a fuss over it, why? Their economy is in such disarray that they need their string of foreign policy sucesses to distract the public.

[Waylander]

One problem I see is that it is much easier for Iran to put a bomb into a container and ship it to New York, Hamburg, Rotterdam, etc.

Using a rocket is the hardest way to deploy a warhead if they want to wipe out a city by surprise.

[Schumacher]

.............
The fact is a Israel type nuclear capability would give all kinds of leverage to the Iranians. No doubt they also noticed what happened to Pakistan, India, and North Korea. While initially treated as pariahs, and economic sanctions put on them, both Pakistan and India have been accepted as members of "The Club" and have garnered a lot of prestige and security from their nuke programs. North Korea has used "its" program to leverage and shake down its richer neighbors and even the USA.
...........

I disagree where NK, India, Pakistan has got today is due mainly to their nukes.
India has got nuke for a long time but it only quite recently became accepted as a part of 'The Club' due to its usefulness as counterweight to China. As for NK, the fact that it's managed to milk as much as it has from the situation there has more to do with China & SK not wanting to be too tough on it rather than its nuke program.

[Rich]

I disagree where NK, India, Pakistan has got today is due mainly to their nukes.
India has got nuke for a long time but it only quite recently became accepted as a part of 'The Club' due to its usefulness as counterweight to China. As for NK, the fact that it's managed to milk as much as it has from the situation there has more to do with China & SK not wanting to be too tough on it rather than its nuke program.

I read this 10 times in a row and still cant figure out what it means. Maybe someone can translate.

[Grand Danois]

NATO Allies Back US Missile System

(Source: Deutsche Welle German radio; issued April 19, 2007)

NATO allies have given their backing to controversial US plans to set up a missile defence system in eastern Europe. At a meeting in Brussels, NATO member states also agreed that any future NATO missile shield should complement the US system to ensure that all of Europe was covered.

However, Russia's government remains opposed to the idea of having a strategic US defence system on its doorstep, and has even accused Washington of targeting Russia.

The US insists that installing the system in Poland and the Czech Republic will not pose a threat to Moscow and can be used to shelter parts of Europe from any missiles launched from the Middle East.

link (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.25648733.1177362919.KpiRaX8A AAEAAA2vfggAAAAR&modele=jdc_34)

[Schumacher]

I read this 10 times in a row and still cant figure out what it means. Maybe someone can translate.

No problem. Basically saying there's much more than just nukes, which I think is what you claimed in your previous post, that gave Pakistan, India & NK the 'status' they now have.

[dioditto]

"The Fact Sheet attempted to substantiate the main US arguments in the missile defense controversy, which are: (a) the European missile shield is meant to counter possible attacks from Iran or North Korea; (b) the US is puzzled by Russia's anxiety, since the rockets to be deployed in Central Europe are no match for Russia's arsenal; (c) Russia itself should be worried about the missile threat from "rogue states"; (d) the US is prepared to cooperate with Russia on missile defense; (e) the US is open to the idea of merging the missile shield with the Russian system; (f) Washington would like Moscow to take part in research and development, though it is unlikely the Russians will consider such cooperation; and (g) the US has endeavored to be "transparent" and is prepared to hold consultations with Russia to explain its case for the deployments in Central Europe.

Prima facie, the US stance sounds eminently reasonable and conciliatory. But the Russians point out that ever since December 13, 2001, when President George W Bush announced that the US was unilaterally pulling out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Washington has followed a consistent pattern of deploying along Russian borders radars capable of spotting missile launches and sending targeting data to interceptors. (The first such radar, code-named Have Stare, was stationed in Norway.)

Russia says these deployments by far predated Bush's "axis of evil" thesis or the threat perceptions of "rogue states" such as Iran. Russian experts explain that neither Iran nor North Korea could possibly have the scientific or technical capability within the next 20-30 years to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching the US. Thus Moscow concludes that the real purpose of the US deployment is to cover the European part of Russia as far as the Urals. "

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/ID28Ag01.html


"With site preparation at classified overseas operational deployment location planned to beginn in 1996, HS deployed in mid-1999 as a dedicated space surveillance sensor to support the mission of space object catalog maintenance of deep space objects and mission payload assessment. HS retained its original design features and their inherent potential to support other missions. The "classified" location is the Norwegian military intelligence facility in Vardo in Northern Norway (close to the Russian border). Norway and USA jointly financed the project ehich is called "Globus II." Work on the 132-foot-tall radar dome started in April 1998 and be completed in late 2000. It will be operated by Norway's Military Intelligence Service."

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/havestare.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/havestare.htm

I wasn't aware of the "Have Stare" project nor the fact it was installed on Norway. The implication of such radar (and interceptor sites) to be put even closer to Russia, I can see why Russians would be worried. Also, if US is really worried about Iran's ballistic missile threat over Europe, why not deployed the radar and interceptor on Turkey, Iraq and Afganistan? I would like to hear your take on this Grand Danois. :)

[IMPEREC]

Russian General Threatens Arms Race, Again
You dont understand it is a question not that Russia threatens with race of arms what it was in cold war.Russia is compelled to do reciprocal courses of the actions of the USA. Besides similar applications are supported in people, and up to elections not long.

[robsta83]

A couple of interesting articles in Defense news today:
Britain’s RAF Intercepts 2 Russian Military Jets
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2750517&C=europe

Russia To Upgrade Topol-M ICBM in Coming Years
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2749511&C=europe

I'm no dooms sayer but just interesting stuff, would fo been a bit of excitement for the RAF I bet they haven't had much to do in Scotland compared to the bad old days.