Russia Tests New Wonder Weapon

[Grand Danois]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Grand Danois]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...sile_Radars_In_Russian_Embassies160011073.php

 

[Awang se]

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

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

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

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

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

have US done that and more?

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

 

[Grand Danois]

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

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

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

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

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

Russian perception of self is.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[eckherl]

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



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



have US done that and more?

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

Post deleted

 

[radiosilence]

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

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

 

[eckherl]

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

Post deleted to prevent anti American opinions.

 

[radiosilence]

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

This is what you wrote in the previous post

advocates wiping out a race of people ....

which is factually incorrect.

 

[KGB]

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

 

[metro]

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

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

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...sile_Radars_In_Russian_Embassies160011073.php

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

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

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

Cheers

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

 

[eaf-f16]

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

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

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

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

 

[Grand Danois]

Please stick to the topic - russischen Wunderwaffen.

/GD

 

[eaf-f16]

Please stick to the topic - russischen Wunderwaffen.

/GD

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

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

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

/GD

 

[Firehorse]

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

And they have a point!-

Russia's early warning system is a mess. Neither Soviet nor Russian satellites have ever been capable of reliably detecting missiles launched from U.S. submarines. (In a recent public statement, a top Russian general described his country's early warning satellite constellation as "hopelessly outdated.") Russian commanders instead rely on ground-based radar systems to detect incoming warheads from submarine-launched missiles. But the radar network has a gaping hole in its coverage that lies to the east of the country, toward the Pacific Ocean. If U.S. submarines were to fire missiles from areas in the Pacific, Russian leaders probably would not know of the attack until the warheads detonated. Russia's radar coverage of some areas in the North Atlantic is also spotty, providing only a few minutes of warning before the impact of submarine-launched warheads. ..Russia's leaders can no longer count on a survivable nuclear deterrent. And unless they reverse course rapidly, Russia's vulnerability will only increase over time. ..The current and future U.S. nuclear force, in other words, seems designed to carry out a preemptive disarming strike against Russia or China.
..Washington's pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense strategy, for example. Critics of missile defense argue that a national missile shield, such as the prototype the United States has deployed in Alaska and California, would be easily overwhelmed by a cloud of warheads and decoys launched by Russia or China. They are right: even a multilayered system with land-, air-, sea-, and space-based elements, is highly unlikely to protect the United States from a major nuclear attack. But they are wrong to conclude that such a missile-defense system is therefore worthless -- as are the supporters of missile defense who argue that, for similar reasons, such a system could be of concern only to rogue states and terrorists and not to other major nuclear powers.
What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060...-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

For all these reasons,

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

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

 

[Grand Danois]

And they have a point!-



For all these reasons,

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

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

I know this appear dismissive. Sorry about that.

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

 

[Grand Danois]

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

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/New_Radar_At_Lekhtusi_A_Shield_Against_Missile_Attacks_999.html

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Firehorse]

Well, the Gabala could be upgraded. The main thing is, without verification mechanisms the Russians won't trust the US side no matter what arguments it uses, given the NATO expansion on Russia's west, Iraq occupation to the South, and TBMD being deployed in the Far East, which could be later upgraded to BMD, and the continued/upgraded use of the Pine Gap station. So, the arms race will go on for the foreseeble future.

 

[Chrom]

Well, the Gabala could be upgraded. The main thing is, without verification mechanisms the Russians won't trust the US side no matter what arguments it uses, given the NATO expansion on Russia's west, Iraq occupation to the South, and TBMD being deployed in the Far East, which could be later upgraded to BMD, and the continued/upgraded use of the Pine Gap station. So, the arms race will go on for the foreseeble future.

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

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