NATO Concerned about Russian Cruise Missiles

Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Russia's problem, Todjaeger, is not the present day missile shield, but the long term implications of the missile shield both political and military. The missile shield is a club, an exclusive one. It's a club of developed countries against 2nd/3rd world powers with missiles. And when the shield was being negotiated, before the conflict in Ukraine, Russia had reasonable expectation to be included in this club. However it wasn't. Remember the success of US foreign policy vis-a-vis Germany and Japan? It was by including them in the security framework, and Russia was seeking a similar accommodation (minus the occupation, and military government). Russia is politically and economically not too different from many other Eastern European countries that not only are part of the EU and NATO but are unquestioningly regarded as democracies despite their corruption and oligarchical government. Being excluded from this showed Russian political leadership that they were still regarded as outsiders, and they likely drew the same conclusion that I have. They're outsiders because they're powerful. The Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians, are allowed to have their corrupt local czars run things, because they're weak, and as long as they play along in foreign policy, the west can ignore their domestic problems. Russia can't get the same arrangement because Russia is powerful and wants to pursue an independent foreign policy. Therefore, no club membership.

On the military side it's not present day capabilities, but the future ones. If Russia is part of the missile shield then the shield can't even covertly be aimed at Russia. But if Russia is not part of it, then even if it's not aimed at Russia today, what's to stop it from being aimed at Russia 50 years from now? Let's say the Russia arsenal shrinks further, and at some point when Russia is temporarily weak again, and the west decides that it's within reach to upgrade the BMD to stop the now much smaller Russia arsenal. It's not inconceivable. It's not unrealistic. Hence the massive Russian nuclear buildup, the rush to replace older Soviet-era assets, and the constant chest thumping. Technology moves very quickly, and it's not inconceivable that, unless the Russian nuclear arsenal is vigorously advanced and upgraded, new technology makes it much easier to deal with. And if Russia is not part of the exclusive western club, then what guarantees Russian sovereignty, if not it's nuclear arsenal?
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Lcf said:
I have some questions so I hope someone can answer them. There are a lot of theories here in Serbian media regarding the shield. A lot of them just copy, translate and paste from Russian sources and people mostly take them at face value. One of the theories is that the system could easily be turned into a weapon, that is, an offensive weapon which could launch a nuclear tipped missile at Moscow, a missile that could reach its target withing 2 or 3 minutes, a time-frame too narrow for the Russian side to react, thus, effectively decapitating their high command, causing a system-wide breakdown due to an EMP blast and limiting their capacity to counter-react.
So, can the shield really become a weapon that easily? How realistic is this scenario? If not, why are the Russians opposing it that much, because clearly it doesn't have enough interceptors to match their ICMBs?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Plus the Aegis Ashore system features SM 3s. Most likely 1a/B series. All of which are kinetic, meaning hit to kill, vs A fragmentation style warhead rendering the idea of arming them for offensive ops highly illegitimate.


Don't believe everything on Sputnik News. Pure Soviet Style propaganda.
 
G

Goknub

Active Member
Feanor said:
Russia's problem, Todjaeger, is not the present day missile shield, but the long term implications of the missile shield both political and military.
Click to expand...
This might be a bit late but here's my 2c...

I think both of these are accurate but for additional reasons as well.

Militarily, if Russia wants to maintain its deterrent it now needs to be large enough to overcome any BMD. This means a much larger force than would otherwise be necessary. This will cost billions for weapons that have no conventional use that could otherwise be spent to maintain/expand the Russian military. This will not be an insignificant cost considering the existing arsenal was put together by the combined might of the Soviet Union. Every new nuke equates to a few less stealth fighters.

Politically, it casts Russia adrift on its own when it can see the Chinese will be vastly more powerful in the future. The scales are not in Russia's favour and will likely only be getting worse so long as the Chinese keep things steady. Being in the Western camp would be useful.

I've thought for a while that a longer term goal may be to force Russia into an unequal partnership with China. Basically, the Chinese see themselves as a historically civilised, well-ordered and advanced society. This is similar to how the West see's itself. In the interests of long term peace it is in the interests of both China and the West that Russia's "wild" nature be brought under control.
If the West can't tame the bear then perhaps it's best to shackle it to China.
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Goknub said:
This might be a bit late but here's my 2c...

I think both of these are accurate but for additional reasons as well.

Militarily, if Russia wants to maintain its deterrent it now needs to be large enough to overcome any BMD. This means a much larger force than would otherwise be necessary. This will cost billions for weapons that have no conventional use that could otherwise be spent to maintain/expand the Russian military. This will not be an insignificant cost considering the existing arsenal was put together by the combined might of the Soviet Union. Every new nuke equates to a few less stealth fighters.

Politically, it casts Russia adrift on its own when it can see the Chinese will be vastly more powerful in the future. The scales are not in Russia's favour and will likely only be getting worse so long as the Chinese keep things steady. Being in the Western camp would be useful.

I've thought for a while that a longer term goal may be to force Russia into an unequal partnership with China. Basically, the Chinese see themselves as a historically civilised, well-ordered and advanced society. This is similar to how the West see's itself. In the interests of long term peace it is in the interests of both China and the West that Russia's "wild" nature be brought under control.
If the West can't tame the bear then perhaps it's best to shackle it to China.
Click to expand...


Well said

As for those discussing revisiting nuke tipped ALCM/GLCM back into Europe, my 2c is there's no need Politically, physically, and financially there's a very high price to pay with little or no gain V current assets.

A single SSGN in theatre can have the same results without the Politcal fallout(no pun intended)
 
W

Waseb Al-Qisuin

New Member
I would like to know if this proliferation of Missile Shields worldwide has'nt set off an unnessary spiral with the opposing side eager to deploy weapons to defeat these shields. These weapons are mostly of the theater type which come in a conventional and a nuclear variant. There was a large trend of phasing out more and more tactical nuclear weapons, I dont know if infact making these forces leaner led also to a modernisation of these but this big spiral still may lead to reversing this trend. And that leaves a very bitter taste.
 
Last edited:
gazzzwp

gazzzwp

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
Waseb Al-Qisuin said:
I would like to know if this proliferation of Missile Shields worldwide has'nt set off an unnessary spiral with the opposing side eager to deploy weapons to defeat these shields. These weapons are mostly of the theater type which come in a conventional and a nuclear variant. There was a large trend of phasing out more and more tactical nuclear weapons, I dont know if infact making these forces leaner led also to a modernisation of these but this big spiral still may lead to reversing this trend. And that leaves a very bitter taste.
Click to expand...
It certainly has sparked off an escalation. Russia is now showcasing the RS-28 Sarmat with a warhead weighing 100 tons. The replacement for the old SS-18 'Satan'. Russia is gloating that one missile could wipe out an area the size of France or Texas and capable of beating the missile shield. Russia is saying that the procurement and deployment is in direct response to the missile shield.

Russia unveils 'Satan 2' nuclear missile - CNN.com

On the other hand is it good policy for the West to have no defence at all against missiles from rogue states or Russia for that matter?

Cold war 2 is 'hotting up' big time and one wonders what NATO's response will be. I can forsee old treaties being ripped up and the return of short and intermediate range missiles being deployed by NATO in Eastern Europe. What other option is there?
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
gazzzwp said:
It certainly has sparked off an escalation. Russia is now showcasing the RS-28 Sarmat with a warhead weighing 100 tons. The replacement for the old SS-18 'Satan'. Russia is gloating that one missile could wipe out an area the size of France or Texas and capable of beating the missile shield. Russia is saying that the procurement and deployment is in direct response to the missile shield.

Russia unveils 'Satan 2' nuclear missile - CNN.com

On the other hand is it good policy for the West to have no defence at all against missiles from rogue states or Russia for that matter?

Cold war 2 is 'hotting up' big time and one wonders what NATO's response will be. I can forsee old treaties being ripped up and the return of short and intermediate range missiles being deployed by NATO in Eastern Europe. What other option is there?
Click to expand...
100 tons :rotfl How the hell are they going to lift a 100 ton warhead into orbit?
 
Sandhi Yudha

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I don't think that Putin will be happy if Lukashenko start to use or even threat with these advanced hypersonic semi-ballistic cruise missiles against Polen.

And maybe Belarus will only get the Iskander-E with a limited range of 280 km.

www.defensenews.com

Belarus eyes Iskander missiles amid border crisis with Poland

The authoritarian leader’s request comes as ties between Poland and Belarus have become increasingly strained over the past weeks.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sandhi Yudha said:
I don't think that Putin will be happy if Lukashenko start to use or even threat with these advanced hypersonic semi-ballistic cruise missiles against Polen.

And maybe Belarus will only get the Iskander-E with a limited range of 280 km.

www.defensenews.com

Belarus eyes Iskander missiles amid border crisis with Poland

The authoritarian leader’s request comes as ties between Poland and Belarus have become increasingly strained over the past weeks.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
I really wonder how much the current crisis between Belarus and Poland has to do with Russia-EU relations and how much of it is a move by Belarus itself.

As for the range, so far Lukashenko stated that the 300km range of their current Polonez MLRS/IRBMs is insufficient, so presumably he wants the longer range version. Whether he'll get it or not is an open question. Iskanders are expensive and Belarus isn't well off. On the other hand the Russian military has finished re-arming itself with Iskanders and the factory probably wants the orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top