Will Russia really strike NATO anti-missile defenses?

[Quiller]

Two separate Russian military leaders with significant apparent influence have declared the potential need to use military force to "destroy" western anti-missile batteries if they are installed in their near-abroad. These batteries are, it is claimed, to protect Europe and, perhaps, America, from missiles launched from Iran. Russia worries they are designed to shoot down their ICBMs.

This certainly appears to be little more than posturing... but is it? Would Russia seriously consider a first-strike using their Iskander non-nuclear SRBMs merely to take out these batteries short of a planned strategic ICBM salvo?

What does Russia gain by such a threat? It seems ridiculous on its face. If they were genuinely serious, what sort of response would they expect in retaliation?

What am I missing here? Traditionally the USSR and modern Russia have been a bit more careful about military rhetoric than some other countries. And the west is unlikely to take a first-strike tactical threat like this seriously. So anybody have a notion of what is at work here?

 

[Sampanviking]

This reads like a targeted strike against public opinion in the host countries. It can be a highly effective weapon, but not always.

Still I doubt if many in the vicinity of the sites would draw comfort from knowing that they are/will be in the front line of any new cold war.

 

[PO2GRV]

Russia places a very high importance on its nuclear capability as a deterrant and the anti-ballistic missile shield is a huge threat to Russia's strategic "comfort zone" this latest tiff has a long history but is still a small slice of the US-Russian-relations pie

conditions would have to decline in many, many other areas of Russian diplomatic relations before this becomes an issue

what I do find interesting, on an unrelated note, is Russia's perceived advantage in Southwest Asia if/when the US makes its "pivot to asia" especially if/when conditions in Syria return to normalcy and Libya and Iraq go through with plans to begin arms deals with Russia. Will make for an interesting decade

 

[Beatmaster]

Two separate Russian military leaders with significant apparent influence have declared the potential need to use military force to "destroy" western anti-missile batteries if they are installed in their near-abroad. These batteries are, it is claimed, to protect Europe and, perhaps, America, from missiles launched from Iran. Russia worries they are designed to shoot down their ICBMs.

This certainly appears to be little more than posturing... but is it? Would Russia seriously consider a first-strike using their Iskander non-nuclear SRBMs merely to take out these batteries short of a planned strategic ICBM salvo?

What does Russia gain by such a threat? It seems ridiculous on its face. If they were genuinely serious, what sort of response would they expect in retaliation?

What am I missing here? Traditionally the USSR and modern Russia have been a bit more careful about military rhetoric than some other countries. And the west is unlikely to take a first-strike tactical threat like this seriously. So anybody have a notion of what is at work here?

Well if Russia really wants to do this (Just for the sake of argument) then they could.
However given the economic crisis they would gain more from waiting it out and see to it on a diplomatic level that the project perhaps gets canceled or being continued in a smaller or changed fashion then the original plan which would suit them more or could make concessions where both sides can feel comfortable with.

The alternative for them to actually use force against it will bring exactly that what Russia really does not need....A united angry Europa specially when this happens after a " first strike"

However if Russia really gets cornered then it remains to be seen if they are going to push it, for the plain and simple fact that it will unite Europa on a political level and will bring back the " cold war" spirit (which imo the EU need as at this point the EU is sort of a mess) But Russia really does not need a angry EU....infact they have been trying since the cold war to gain friendly access to the EU and such a act would nullify it instantly and might spark severe repercussions for the Russians not to mention the diplomatic storm from the US and EU side combined.....

I personally believe that Russia will try to play hard ball as they always do and that they get a middle of the road deal out of it, but if not then i think that Russia would rather swallow it as a bitter taste then go trough such storm.

 

[Knjaz]

Two separate Russian military leaders with significant apparent influence have declared the potential need to use military force to "destroy" western anti-missile batteries if they are installed in their near-abroad. These batteries are, it is claimed, to protect Europe and, perhaps, America, from missiles launched from Iran. Russia worries they are designed to shoot down their ICBMs.

This certainly appears to be little more than posturing... but is it? Would Russia seriously consider a first-strike using their Iskander non-nuclear SRBMs merely to take out these batteries short of a planned strategic ICBM salvo?

What does Russia gain by such a threat? It seems ridiculous on its face. If they were genuinely serious, what sort of response would they expect in retaliation?

What am I missing here? Traditionally the USSR and modern Russia have been a bit more careful about military rhetoric than some other countries. And the west is unlikely to take a first-strike tactical threat like this seriously. So anybody have a notion of what is at work here?

I think many misunderstood what has been said. In short - yes, there can be scenarios in which Russia will launch a pre-emptive strike on those installations. All (or most?) of those scenarios include the pre-war state of relations between Russian and NATO, in one form or another, and level of threat posed by those installations.

 

[Quiller]

I think many misunderstood what has been said. In short - yes, there can be scenarios in which Russia will launch a pre-emptive strike on those installations. All (or most?) of those scenarios include the pre-war state of relations between Russian and NATO, in one form or another, and level of threat posed by those installations.

The problem seems to be though, a pre-emptive strike against such anti-missile bases MUST be viewed by Europe and the US as a preliminary to a strategic missile strike against Europe and/or America. Why else take out defensive missiles unless you intend to launch the offensive ones moments later? That is what logic dictates.

I guess the question is.... for the sake of analysis (not argument)... if in say 1962 the USSR launched a pre-emptive srike against anti-missile installations in Europe. (There was a time some Nike-Ajax anti-missile batteries were secretly stationed there.) In 1962 the American defense establishment probably would have viewed that as a several-minutes preamble to the anticipated Soviet nuclear missile salvo against the United States upon which the Cold War pivoted. Would the NCA (National Command Authority) and the President have ordered bombers into the air? Absolutely. Would they have waited for confirmation of launch tracks from the Soviet Union before launching ICBM's?

Well I don't know. I guess that is a scenario for writers of fiction about past possibilities.

I would expect such a strike would be waited out by the US....to see if in fact there was going to be some sort of strategic attack by Russia. But I don't know what the military response from the west would be. I don't know what sort of "graduated" military response from the west could be.

Hopefully this is all rhetoric and nothing will come from it.... just as the Cold War never materialized into the conflagration we all feared.

It is possible the rhetoric is aimed an the political home fires, and not at the US or Europe at all. Kind of a saber-rattling assuring the Russian populace... or at least the Politburo and military... that Russian Sovereignty reigns supreme.

 

[the concerned]

Whats the capabilities of the latest Russian sam's ,aren't they just as capable of degrading Nato's missiles. Why are we taking advice on our defence from a country that think's it can threaten us. Do they really think that with US soldiers at these sites that there just going to strike at them without creating a huge response.No US politician is going to allow Russia to attack without its citizens demanding action.What would be wrong with basing these missiles at the Raf base on Cyprus surely that could help counter Iran's intentions against Nato plus provide a solution to its stand off against Israel.

 

[macman]

Two separate Russian military leaders with significant apparent influence have declared the potential need to use military force to "destroy" western anti-missile batteries if they are installed in their near-abroad.

Do you have some links for these statements?
The statements that I've seen from Russian officials have said that they will deploy assets targeting the anti-missile sites in Poland/Romania etc. if the US goes ahead with their deployment.

I have seen nothing stating that they would actually launch a strike on the facilities if they are deployed.

 

[Quiller]

The threats came form General Nicolai Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of Russia's armed forces and was published on or about May 3, 2012 in several places including the New York Times. This was the first time there was mention of a "pre-emptive strike." Now to be accurate HIS particular statements referred to installation of these missiles in Poland....which has now been abandoned by the US at this point. Perhaps his suggestions had some sway, to whatever extent, with American policymakers. Who knows?



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/w...emptive-attacks-on-missile-defense-sites.html

Russia threatens Nato with military strikes over missile defence system - Telegraph

 

[Quiller]

As an aside, I haven't seen similar threats to pre-empitvely attack US Naval ships that will be carrying anti-missile assets and are to be deployed in the same vicinity. Perhaps the Russians don't view those as effective a threat as land-based ABM's on their doorstep.

 

[USAF77]

Pretty much sounds like posturing. Russia has been turning up the heat on the Baltics and Poland with deployments, threats, and exercizes. I'd like to believe people there "Russia" are smart enough to see what a small threat to their strategic forces this NATO ABM system actually is that such belligerency isnt really a credible threat but more a diplomatic ruse. They are experts at getting concessions over most everything they can.

they will deploy assets targeting the anti-missile sites in Poland/Romania etc

What does that really mean? NATO has "assets" that can be easily target their "assets" aimed at our "assets".

I think as well they see NATO leadership weakened compared to NATO of the past. Weakened militarily, focused on economic problems, and not on the same page policy-wise. Frankly an already weak American leadership is right now mostly worried about retaining their tax payer funded lifestyles. What time could be better to drive wedges further?

You have to look 4 moves down the board with the Russians. They are worried about a minimum NATO ABM capacity? Well HELLO! WE are worried about a 100% Domestic Iranian WMD/Delivery system Industrial complex.

 

[Knjaz]

You have to look 4 moves down the board with the Russians. They are worried about a minimum NATO ABM capacity?
.

RVSN officers express... different opinion on that matter, especially when talking about long-term scenarios.

Also, as I mentioned before in this thread - it wasn't a threat, it was a statement of fact that these installations will be a high priority target in case of conflict, especially in case of nuclear conflict, and nations willing to field those thing should understand the risks.

Well HELLO! WE are worried about a 100% Domestic Iranian WMD/Delivery system Industrial complex.

Well, tbh, it's pretty damn hard to imagine a scenario, except for one, under which Iran decides to send a missile with chem/bio (or even nuke, IF it'll get them in some future, which isn't too likely) warhead to the US. Especially a nuke. Due to obvious reasons that do not require explanation, I guess?

The only scenario where it becomes real is if USA decides to attack Iran like it did with several other nations, and retaliation with WMDs will be seen as a "strike from the grave" by Iranian leadership.
Taking into account the history of USA's military interventions, that's quite... possible.

 

[macman]

This is as close to an official statement of what Nikolai Makarov said from what I could find on the net:

“The placement of new strike weapons in the south and northwest of Russia against [NATO] missile defense components, including the deployment of Iskander missile systems in Kaliningrad region is one possible way of incapacitating the European missile defense infrastructure,” Chief of the General Staff Nikolai Makarov said.

Taking into account the “destabilizing nature of the missile defense system... the decision on the pre-emptive use of available weapons will be made during an aggravation of the situation,” he said.

Russia Does Not Rule Out Preemptive Missile Defense Strike | World | RIA Novosti

Hopefully some-one can find something that goes into a little more detail...

---

And this is from Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev outlining the Russian concerns in the same article:

“By 2018-2020 - that is the third and fourth phases of the deployment of the Euro-missile defense in Europe – the continent should have enough anti-missile defense to be able to intercept part of Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine launched ballistic missiles,” Patrushev said at an international conference on Euro-missile defense in Moscow.

“The geographical regions and technical characteristics of these missile defense systems create the foundations for additional dangers, especially considering the current and future levels of high-precision armament of the United States,” he said.

“Our experts say other targets, which could require serious missile defense against it, do not really exist,” he said.

PS. Looking at the article index of NYT's Andrew Kramer, he seems be an anti-russian propagandist from one of the dodgy Washington neo-con thinktanks, & the tabloid Daily Telegraph was actually an improvement information-wise.

Accurate reporting in english language papers these days is genuinely appalling.

 

[the concerned]

Why can't both sides sit down and decide that Nato has a capability to intercept nuclear missiles just as Russia has the same capability. So with that in mind both sides embarking on expensive nuclear replacement programs seems stupid when the money could go on other things.Aren't the S-400 and S-500 missilie systems ABM capable if so how come we are not threatening to strike them.

 

[Knjaz]

Why can't both sides sit down and decide that Nato has a capability to intercept nuclear missiles just as Russia has the same capability. So with that in mind both sides embarking on expensive nuclear replacement programs seems stupid when the money could go on other things.Aren't the S-400 and S-500 missilie systems ABM capable if so how come we are not threatening to strike them.

S-400 is a SAM system with limited ABM capability, and is not capable of intercepting ICBMs (7+ km/second ballistic targets), only the ones with speeds up to 4.8km/s.

S-500 didn't see the light yet, but it's indeed a dedicated ABM system with ASAT capability. Specifications largely unknown (yet, there're some speculations). rumored to be enough to intercept ICBMs.

 

[USAF77]

Also, as I mentioned before in this thread - it wasn't a threat, it was a statement of fact that these installations will be a high priority target in case of conflict, especially in case of nuclear conflict, and nations willing to field those thing should understand the risks.

Semantics. I remember their "statements of facts" back when we put in Pershing-ll's and GLCMs. Back when the nations we are putting ABM in were under their jackboot. Heres a statement of fact. The Russians need a conflict with NATO even less then we need a conflict with them. But Russian Leadership doesnt like being seen as "weak" by their own people. Thus the "statement of facts".

Well, tbh, it's pretty damn hard to imagine a scenario, except for one, under which Iran decides to send a missile with chem/bio (or even nuke, IF it'll get them in some future, which isn't too likely) warhead to the US. Especially a nuke. Due to obvious reasons that do not require explanation, I guess?

I respectfully disagree. I was in the neighborhood when the bunch running Iran now, as teenagers, over ran our embassy "Legal US territory", back in '79, in a scenario that was pretty hard to imagine a few years before. The place is ran be religious zealots and we cant expect them to think like us, "would we send thousands of children barefoot to clear minefields"?

Ive read to much History to not take threats from such regimes seriously. Going from a 1 stage device and an IRBM, to a 2 stage device and a ICBM, is not undoable for a country that has spent the $$ to develop an entirely Domestic special weapons Industrial complex. Even if they dont make that jump in our lifetimes a 1 stage device on a IRBM is bad enough due to our forces in theater and our legal obligations to Allies.

Of course they always have the option of giving a weapon to a 3rd party.................

And eventually Iran, if unchecked, will reach a thresh hold where they will be able to deliver a devastating first strike on Israel and the only possible surviving Israeli response will come from a few submarines with SLCMs. The Iranians may consider their losses from the retaliation "acceptable".

An American led first strike against this complex, before it becomes operational, is making more and more sense. In Nov '77 I was at a peaceful assembly of Pro-Shah supporters in front of our White House during a Carter/Shah meeting, "No Im not Iranian its a long story". Out of nowhere thousands of masked Iranian fundamentalist students came running across the parkway and started beating innocent people within an inch of their Lives. Im talking woman and Kids here. I was on crutches and my buddy and I brained a bunch trying to save kids and get the heck out of there. We all got tear gassed. Right in front of the Whitehouse!

Its very dangerous to assume what, or what not, regimes of that type will do. I think we have to be ready for any and all scenarios. I couldnt even begin to count the number of times that regime has threatened America.

Aren't the S-400 and S-500 missilie systems ABM capable if so how come we are not threatening to strike them.

NATO doesnt generally make threats , or "statements of facts", of the obvious for domestic public consumption. How did that statement go? "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?

 

[Pendekar]

The problem seems to be though, a pre-emptive strike against such anti-missile bases MUST be viewed by Europe and the US as a preliminary to a strategic missile strike against Europe and/or America. Why else take out defensive missiles unless you intend to launch the offensive ones moments later? That is what logic dictates.

It's not really that straightforward. It's the same reason why Israel don't want Iran to buy S-300 from Russia even though if you look at it, Iran S-300 will not in a slightest threaten Israel in any way.

The need to maintain strategic parity mean's each side must have the equal opportunity to destroy each other or a term MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). The missile shield will tilt this balance in favor of NATO.

Sure you can argue that it's a defensive missile and can't be use offensively. But look it this way, with the missile in place, Russian Missiles will have less chance of reaching their target then the NATO Missiles. Knowing this, NATO, or some of it's members, maybe tempted to use strategic weapons against Russia to resolve conflict.

 

[USAF77]

The bottom line is the NATO ABM system simply is not a credible threat to Russia's ICBM Deterrent. They are the wrong type of ABM, positioned at the wrong place, in fat to low numbers, and capable of only intercepting offensive missiles of far less sophistication then what the Russians field.

NATO has also offered the establishment of NATO/Russian joint controlled ABM centers so we can work in tandem to defend each other, using both ABMSs, in a atmosphere of openness. We know our ABM systems couldnt stop a devastating Russian strike ; They know it. We've said it ; They have said it. We removed , unilaterally , our seaborn nuclear SLCMs. We removed our theater IRBMs and GLCMs. What the heck more can we do to reassure them and still maintain a credible defense against a growing 3rd world threat?

Its reached a point where their statements and threats have become irrelevant. Just cause a brick wall comes down doesnt mean they arent table pounding Bullies anymore. NATO better get it thru its head that, still, strength and resolve is all they respect. This is just another ruse to fracture NATO solidarity.

It's not really that straightforward. It's the same reason why Israel don't want Iran to buy S-300 from Russia even though if you look at it, Iran S-300 will not in a slightest threaten Israel in any way.

The need to maintain strategic parity mean's each side must have the equal opportunity to destroy each other or a term MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). The missile shield will tilt this balance in favor of NATO.

Sure you can argue that it's a defensive missile and can't be use offensively. But look it this way, with the missile in place, Russian Missiles will have less chance of reaching their target then the NATO Missiles. Knowing this, NATO, or some of it's members, maybe tempted to use strategic weapons against Russia to resolve conflict.

 

[Knjaz]

Semantics. I remember their "statements of facts" back when we put in Pershing-ll's and GLCMs. Back when the nations we are putting ABM in were under their jackboot. Heres a statement of fact. The Russians need a conflict with NATO even less then we need a conflict with them. But Russian Leadership doesnt like being seen as "weak" by their own people. Thus the "statement of facts".

NATO doesnt generally make threats , or "statements of facts", of the obvious for domestic public consumption. How did that statement go? "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?

Implying that they have to deploy means to guaranteely destroy those installations (and I guess it's easy to imagine what is required to kick out missile silos, if we take different factors into account that can make destruction of the radar not enough) just to "not to look weak in eyes of local population" is pretty incorrect. These statements were not aimed at Russian population, nor they provided any lasting effect. They were aimed at European population and politicians.

Russia is in no way interested in situation where it has to take additional steps to guarantee it's strategic safety, especially in long-term worst-case scenarios (which are main scenarios that are taken into account by military planners) where ABM system becomes a threat.

Statements that were aimed at Russian population were the ones about ABM penetration capabilities of Russian ICBMs.

I respectfully disagree. I was in the neighborhood when the bunch running Iran now, as teenagers, over ran our embassy "Legal US territory", back in '79, in a scenario that was pretty hard to imagine a few years before. The place is ran be religious zealots and we cant expect them to think like us, "would we send thousands of children barefoot to clear minefields"?

Ive read to much History to not take threats from such regimes seriously. Going from a 1 stage device and an IRBM, to a 2 stage device and a ICBM, is not undoable for a country that has spent the $$ to develop an entirely Domestic special weapons Industrial complex. Even if they dont make that jump in our lifetimes a 1 stage device on a IRBM is bad enough due to our forces in theater and our legal obligations to Allies.

Of course they always have the option of giving a weapon to a 3rd party.................

<...>
Its very dangerous to assume what, or what not, regimes of that type will do. I think we have to be ready for any and all scenarios. I couldnt even begin to count the number of times that regime has threatened America.

Well, I'd say I see significant difference between all kinds of hostile acts, or "sending barefoot children to clear out minefields", and initiating conflict with Nuclear Superpower by sending them a missile with Chem/Bio/Nuclear warhead.

Those sitting in the Iranian leadership are not shahids or suicide bombers. They won't end Persian history just for the sake of dealing some damage to USA.

The only scenario where it becomes possible is the "strike from the grave", being attacked by USA. That's, btw, another instance where ABM works as a component of fist strike scenario.

As for Israel, USA land-based ABM system is not aimed to protect it in any form. That's a whole different story, and so far it seems it's Israel who'll initiate a conflict, not Iran.


As for the second post, I'll answer after I'll get some points cleared by the people who got more insight on these talks between Russia and NATO/US. Didn't hear about that "common ABM system proposal", at least not in the form you described.

 

[USAF77]

Its been kicked around for a few a while now. A short synopsis Missile Defense in Europe: Cooperation or Contention? | Brookings Institution
Nothings been settled. Election years arent good years to do defense deals in the USA.