Russian General Threatens Arms Race, Again

faheem

New Member
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.”
 

LancerMc

New Member
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.
 

Viktor

New Member
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

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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

New Member
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

Banned Member
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

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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

New Member
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

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
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

New Member
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

Entertainer
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

Member
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

Banned Member
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

New Member
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

Banned Member
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

New Member
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!
 
Top