This is a discussion on Russia Wants 'Red Button' Rights within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Russia, the world's greatest emerging Third-world country, has demanded “Red Button Rights” on a European missile shield. Sergey Ivanov , ...
Russia, the world's greatest emerging Third-world country, has demanded “Red Button Rights” on a European missile shield. Sergey Ivanov, Russia's deputy prime minister, made the statement during his visit to the US this week. I wonder if Clinton laughed at Ivanov when he said that.
“Negotiations commonly entail the participative parties establishing non-ridiculous positions and tend to be marked by give and take. Given that Russia has little to nothing to negotiate with (other than bluster or a U.S. desire for ongoing “reset”), staking out an absurd position perhaps reveals their powerlessness.”
US money, US technology, US political capital, and US/NATO security are at stake, and Russia wants control of the missile shield meant to protect US intrests from the country that Russia is giving nuclear fuel to?
Is the world in such a place where Russia should be given 'Red Button Rights'?
Last edited by H Nelson; April 10th, 2011 at 07:19 PM.
Reason: Fix hyperlinks
Russia has Power in the form of fossil fuels. When Lybia went off they got even more.
But yes alot of russia's actions are bluffs. Obama has been trying to "reset" american russian relation and been made a fool of. If he gives in to this its more of the same IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H Nelson
Russia, the world's greatest emerging Third-world country, has demanded “Red Button Rights” on a European missile shield. Sergey Ivanov, Russia's deputy prime minister, made the statement during his visit to the US this week. I wonder if Clinton laughed at Ivanov when he said that.
US money, US technology, US political capital, and US/NATO security are at stake, and Russia wants control of the missile shield meant to protect US intrests from the country that Russia is giving nuclear fuel to?
Is the world in such a place where Russia should be given 'Red Button Rights'?
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by H Nelson
Russia, the world's greatest emerging Third-world country, has demanded “Red Button Rights” on a European missile shield. Sergey Ivanov, Russia's deputy prime minister, made the statement during his visit to the US this week. I wonder if Clinton laughed at Ivanov when he said that.
Is the world in such a place where Russia should be given 'Red Button Rights'?
Well the current talks envision full Russian participation in the missile shield. This obviously means that Russia would have red button rights. The alternative is that Russia threatens to ramp up nuclear weapons production, and of course no participation in the program. Given Russian BMD technology, experience (the A-135 system) and the network of early warning radars around Russia and the FSU (one that they are currently heavily investing into upgrading and replacing) they have something to bring to the table. The question is whether it's worth it.
Well the current talks envision full Russian participation in the missile shield. This obviously means that Russia would have red button rights. The alternative is that Russia threatens to ramp up nuclear weapons production, and of course no participation in the program. Given Russian BMD technology, experience (the A-135 system) and the network of early warning radars around Russia and the FSU (one that they are currently heavily investing into upgrading and replacing) they have something to bring to the table. The question is whether it's worth it.
My question is, does NATO even need to combine it's missile defense systems with Russia's? I know that Russia see's it as a threat (they feel it could be used offensively correct?). Are they trying to combine it so as to calm Russian fears of NATO's system neutralizing its nuclear deterrent?
If this is so, and the dual system is implimented, I don't believe the Russians would relinquish any control of their half. So basically we still end up with two seperate systems, right?
Why bother giving them "Red Button" rights then? Why not just have some sort of information sharing/monitoring agreement where both sides retain total control of their own respective systems?
My question is, does NATO even need to combine it's missile defense systems with Russia's? I know that Russia see's it as a threat (they feel it could be used offensively correct?). Are they trying to combine it so as to calm Russian fears of NATO's system neutralizing its nuclear deterrent?
If this is so, and the dual system is implimented, I don't believe the Russians would relinquish any control of their half. So basically we still end up with two seperate systems, right?
Why bother giving them "Red Button" rights then? Why not just have some sort of information sharing/monitoring agreement where both sides retain total control of their own respective systems?
The system is a high altitude, non-nuclear, interceptor so it can not be used very effectively as an offensive weapon. But I think you were on the mark when you said Russia is worried about how it would impact their own nuclear deterrent.
Russia is also concerned about Iran's thoughts on this. Russia and Iran are in bed together, and this ABM system would nullify an Iranian IRBM.
Unless they pony up some money, we shouldn't give them information sharing rights either - we can save those as a bargaining chip for later. Frankly, I don't see how a few interceptor missiles in europe could overwhelm the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, it must be a purely political calculation to oppose the system.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by H Nelson
Russia is also concerned about Iran's thoughts on this. Russia and Iran are in bed together, and this ABM system would nullify an Iranian IRBM.
Not quite so. Actually quite not so. Russia has recently joined the UN sanctions against Iran, canceling the sale of S-300PMU missile systems. I don't think they're concerned about Iran on this.
Quote:
Unless they pony up some money, we shouldn't give them information sharing rights either - we can save those as a bargaining chip for later. Frankly, I don't see how a few interceptor missiles in europe could overwhelm the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, it must be a purely political calculation to oppose the system.
It's a question of the long-term trajectory being laid down, and of whether Russia will be part of the system, or a potential threat. If it's the latter, Russia can take steps to make the Europeans very uncomfortable. They want to be on the same side in this, an insider, an equal, a player at the table, rather then one of the outsiders. Excluding them at this point may well put them in bed (perhaps not with Iran) with unsavory regimes.
Why you would charge Russia money for an information sharing agreement is beyond me. The agreement would go both ways, and given the size and range of Russian BMD radars, it could be quite beneficial.
It's a question of the long-term trajectory being laid down, and of whether Russia will be part of the system, or a potential threat. If it's the latter, Russia can take steps to make the Europeans very uncomfortable. They want to be on the same side in this, an insider, an equal, a player at the table, rather then one of the outsiders. Excluding them at this point may well put them in bed (perhaps not with Iran) with unsavory regimes.
Why you would charge Russia money for an information sharing agreement is beyond me. The agreement would go both ways, and given the size and range of Russian BMD radars, it could be quite beneficial.
I think youre right Feanor, when you say this is a question of a long term trajectory being laid down. I have long thought (to myself) of the benefits of bringing Russia into real and meaningful military alliance with Europe and North Am. However, it seems as though there is a lingering Cold War mentality on both sides which prevents this from becoming reality. This system appears to be an fairly major attempt towards overcoming that mentality (just like the new START treaty).
Russia and the West's interests are not so disparate as they may seem at times. In fact, I dislike refering to them as seperate entities, as they share so much in common in terms of culture, history, religion, and politics. So I hope they find a way to make this thing work. The potential strategic benefits are huge.
Is there any talk of a joint command for this system? If this could be created, staffed by officers of all countries, let the "Red Button" rights be excercised there, and the Russians can be a part of it.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
That would be an awfully reasonable place for the negotiations to go. If it happens it would be meaningful progress, but I'm not sure how likely it is. There is certainly desire, however far more so on the European part, then on the US.
In terms of sharing in politics, I'll assume you mean international interests. Because national (internal) Russian politics are a jungle.
That would be an awfully reasonable place for the negotiations to go. If it happens it would be meaningful progress, but I'm not sure how likely it is. There is certainly desire, however far more so on the European part, then on the US.
I wouldn't doubt it. Western Russia is after all Eastern Europe. I'm sure many Europeans would love to have a much closer strategic relationship with Russia. With that in place, they could cease to worry about their northern border and a large chunk of the eastern one.
As for the US, the Cold War mentality still pervades their thinking just a wee bit too. If only they could get over it! If Russia and NATO joined up, think of the strategic benefits. The whole Arctic completely encircled by Allied countries. The whole Northern Atlantic surrounded by allies. In the Pacific, more friendly ports of call with the inclusion of Russia. Also, with a solid strategic relationship with Russia in place, the US could spend less money on guarding against potential threat, and perhaps even share the burden of security in some areas (the Arctic is prime example of just such an area where both could take place). With US defence expenditures being cut right, left, and center, it seems as though this could help them out a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
In terms of sharing in politics, I'll assume you mean international interests. Because national (internal) Russian politics are a jungle.
As for this part, I was trying to refer to a sort of shared political history, if you get my meaning. Russia has been interacting with Europe for a long, long time. As political systems throughout Europe have evolved over time, Russia's have evolved with them, due to the previously mentioned cultural exchange.
H Nelson: I realize that Russia definitely seems adversarial a lot of the time. I think this is due to the fact that historically, Russia has always been a major player in the European balance of power. Her armies were respected, if for no other reason than weight of numbers (though that was not always the only reason). So it seems to me as though Russia wants that respect still, even if its capacity to be a major player has been diminished lately. As the rest of Europe have shown it increasing respect, Russia has begun to come around (classic example of how when people are self confident, they tend to be easier to hang out with). Take for example what Feanor mentioned earlier about nixing the deal with the Iranians. If somehow NATO can, through a mutual build up of trust, complete this turn-around, so much the better for the West.
So I guess what I'm trying to say here is, before promoting a negative view of potential cooperation between Russia and NATO, think a little about the history behind this situation, and the ENORMOUS benefits of a strategic integration between the two.
All in all, I hope you don't take offense to this. Just my two cents....
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Well the relationship with EU NATO states is much deeper then a few diplomatic friendly gestures (such as cancelling the Iranian deal). The Germans have been getting contracts from the Russian military for rebuilding the gigantic polygon near Mulino, and iirc Rheinmetall has been selected to provide certain armor for Russian light armor vehicles. The French involvement with Catherine TIs and Damocles targetting pods is fairly well known (and of course more recently the Mistral deal). So in the defense sphere Russia has been slowly building military cooperation with Europe, though mainly in the form of allowing some European companies access to the Russian internal defence market. So when a pan-NATO BMD against third world threats is discussed, Russian participation within that context doesn't seem all that far off. On the other hand if the BMD is mainly US-built-funded-staffed, with the Europeans just along for the ride, then it's a whole different story.
Well the relationship with EU NATO states is much deeper then a few diplomatic friendly gestures (such as cancelling the Iranian deal). The Germans have been getting contracts from the Russian military for rebuilding the gigantic polygon near Mulino, and iirc Rheinmetall has been selected to provide certain armor for Russian light armor vehicles. The French involvement with Catherine TIs and Damocles targetting pods is fairly well known (and of course more recently the Mistral deal). So in the defense sphere Russia has been slowly building military cooperation with Europe, though mainly in the form of allowing some European companies access to the Russian internal defence market. So when a pan-NATO BMD against third world threats is discussed, Russian participation within that context doesn't seem all that far off. On the other hand if the BMD is mainly US-built-funded-staffed, with the Europeans just along for the ride, then it's a whole different story.
Feanor you seem quite knowledgeable about this topic, and about many things in general. I was wondering if you might be able to answer a question about this defense shield in Europe that has been floating around in my head unanswered.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the primary components of such shields the actual high tech, high powered radar systems that are on the ground? The interceptors are simply ordnance right?
Now if this is true, while in operation I imagine the shield would only have a dozen or so interceptors in normal operation, but if the ground based radar is the primary component, in theory couldn’t we, in the event of a crisis, move in another say 500 interceptor missiles overnight and just tie them into the facility for guidance kinda like plug and play?
An F22 can simultaneously track and engage up to 8 different targets at once, so shouldn’t this facility (because its bigger and ground based) be able to track and engage dozens and dozens of targets simultaneously so long as you have sufficient missiles tied into the system? And if it can in theory couldn’t it also be used to shoot down Russian ICBMs as well as Russian interceptor missiles for their defense shield?
Just curious, thinking of what my concerns would be if I was sitting in Moscow looking at this shield being built on my borders.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard45s
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the primary components of such shields the actual high tech, high powered radar systems that are on the ground? The interceptors are simply ordnance right?
Yes. I wouldn't use the word simply though.
Quote:
Now if this is true, while in operation I imagine the shield would only have a dozen or so interceptors in normal operation, but if the ground based radar is the primary component, in theory couldn’t we, in the event of a crisis, move in another say 500 interceptor missiles overnight and just tie them into the facility for guidance kinda like plug and play?
Depending on the launch platform. Simple example, the S-300 system can do just that with 1-12 launchers per command post. But it's a much smaller and mobile system. In our case it would depend on what kind of launchers we have. If they're stationary silo-based interceptors, like the A-135 around Moscow, then it would be hard to build hundreds of new interceptors overnight. But to put it simply, yes, interceptors could be added at a later date.
Quote:
An F22 can simultaneously track and engage up to 8 different targets at once, so shouldn’t this facility (because its bigger and ground based) be able to track and engage dozens and dozens of targets simultaneously so long as you have sufficient missiles tied into the system?
Yes.
Quote:
And if it can in theory couldn’t it also be used to shoot down Russian ICBMs as well as Russian interceptor missiles for their defense shield?
Depending on the nature of the interceptors, the radar coverage, etc.
Quote:
Just curious, thinking of what my concerns would be if I was sitting in Moscow looking at this shield being built on my borders.
Well the main concerns would be to make sure the ABM isn't 1) large enough and 2) oriented towards stopping the Russian strategic arsenal. One way to deal with it is to ramp up nuclear weapon production. Another one is to develop newer weapons with penetration aids, MIRV, etc. And a third one is to be part of the system, and therefore not be on the potential threat list for the system. And guess what they're doing? Yep, that's right, all three.
Well the main concerns would be to make sure the ABM isn't 1) large enough and 2) oriented towards stopping the Russian strategic arsenal. One way to deal with it is to ramp up nuclear weapon production. Another one is to develop newer weapons with penetration aids, MIRV, etc. And a third one is to be part of the system, and therefore not be on the potential threat list for the system. And guess what they're doing? Yep, that's right, all three.
Interesing, I know little of this area but your response has given me some ideas where I can do some reading to get better informed. Thank you for your insightful reply.
Russia has Power in the form of fossil fuels. When Lybia went off they got even more.
But yes alot of russia's actions are bluffs. Obama has been trying to "reset" american russian relation and been made a fool of. If he gives in to this its more of the same IMHO.
Inclusion of Russian in the north atlantic BMD would make a hell of a difference in west-russia relationships. If they are included as equal partners and develop a common BMD shield, for russians that would mean that the west no longer sees them through the cold war perspective. Forcing Russia to make its own missile shield would imply that the west still sees russia as "one of them". Integrating western and russian systems might be one hell of a political and technological headache, but it would mark a formal end of the cold war.
