Russian General Threatens Arms Race, Again

[Grand Danois]

OK, OK, lets not refight the Cold War!

At the moment NMD is more a political statement than a military one. It's ability is a little suspect.

Yes.

GD in its present incarnation the US NMD system is'ent a threat to the Russian deterent, it would be quickly swamped, so the Russians are being a little disingenious in claiming it to be a threat. But going on past records the US is capible of developing robust systems quicker than anyone else on the planet. NMD might be a straw man today, tomorrow who knows.

Yes on the upscaling. And the future credibilty. However I don't expect the US to extend such an invulnerabilty to the Europeans.

The motives for the GBI in Europe are to be able to still play a role in Europe in a "rogue state" world, where Russia has disappeared as a threat.

That is one of the reasons to why the Russian reactions are silly, they are making an enemy of themselves, which they are not really considered now.

If Europe was so concerned why is'ent it building its own NMD system (not that i think it should'ent per se), if it is Iranian missiles that we are worried about, then its our problem, they cant reach the US east coast, the americans arent threathened directly, we are.

I think it would be best if we built our own. I think the Europeans have the trust and godwill of the world to do that.

Why is it first being suggested now (by the German defmin, IIRC)? Well, we're Europeans. No single nation is big enough for the task, "why use money on a military system that will never get used?", missile defence is an American idea = bad.

Politically the NMD system is being used to tie key european countries tighter into a US led allience, if your like me, and see Europe, in the future, plowing a more independent course politically and military from the US, then this is a worrying development.

Independent future? Yes and no. Geostrategically I consider North America the strategic depth of Europe and vice versa. I don't mind the US bases in Europe, but don't see the absolute need. And in cases like missile defence, I think we should take care of our need on our own.

A case: European countries had effectively no say in wether US went for Iraq, irrespective of an independent European policy or not.

Already we have some 'rent a row' Russian General saying that Poland and the Cech Republic will be targeted if the NMD system is deployed on there terrirory. Posturing, maybe.

I believe it is posturing. Russia today, and in the future, is not capable of an arms race with even just Europe alone. The difference in population size, demography, size of economy, technology, and advantage of geography is massively in favour of the Europeans.

I also think the INF threat is a particular poor one, as the Europeans will have TBMD systems online from 2012, which are (relatively) affordable and extremely capable. MEADS, SM-3 and TBMD-Aster.

The Russian analysis is based on a 1980s concept of asymmetry.

I dont like the idea of European countries being manipulated like this. This whole thing is souring our relations with the Russians, who we depend on for gas and oil to a large degree, and it is souring our relations with little visible benift to our selves.

Putin and his succesor may be militaristic nationalists. But I can't see why the people of Russia would want to squander away their new energy wealth on big ticket military items pointed at a non threatening Europe. I don't want a confrontation with Russia. It carries needless risk and expenditure.

Manupulation it is if you disagree with it. And if we're not going to build a missile defence ourselves, then the Americans are going to move into that vacuum. Failure from our politicians.

Honestly I dont see a theat to Europe from Iran, we have the deterent to deal with the Iranians, I just dont see why they would want to pick a fight with us. The idea of a nuclear suicide threat aimed at Europe from a fanatical Iranian regime, is frankly silly.

Silly, yes. But it does not work that way in politics. The mere and faint idea is enough.

Anyway do you really see the Americans abandoning NMD in europe if Iran
A/backs down?
B/ Has its Nuclear network bombed out?

No. The future will have to kind of countries. Those that have a NMD; and those that do not.

And in that future we may see Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and who else with nukes. Don't wanna get tangled in whatever may happen. If they want to play with nuclear toys - fine. I just want to be safe.

At the end of the day I see this whole issue as a sign of continuing European weakness, political and military.

Yes. But the moment European politicians seriously go out and advocate an European MD, they will get shouted down by the same people who want the US out of Europe.

I agree with you about Putin, it was a suprising speech, but then he has been banging that drum for quite a while, just never infront of such a high profile audience. A poor reception was garranted, it is the Munich conferance after all. But I suspect some of the delegates would have agreed with number of his points. I would love to get my hands on a transcript, most of what I heard about it has been filtered through peoples reactions.

A transcript would be interesting, and may take some of the interpretations away. This is obviously an audience who know the nature of the Kremlin under Putin. The career path of the current crown prince and how he is groomed for his future position tells a lot on the world view.

just found this in my favorite rag

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2019754,00.html

Just saw on BBC World that the NMD upgrade to Fyllingsdale will be finished this year.

 

[Grand Danois]

There are many US bases in Europe you know that? (ofcourse you do)
The point is, if US wants to take unilateral action against middle eastern states (Iran/Syria particular) without the backing of UN, and IF the Russian feels threaten or too close for their comfort that they decide to get involved, these bases in Europe will be directly threaten. That is why US is pushing for the NMD, as a way to unrestraining themself and attack the middle east more freely.

The US doesn't need the Euro bases for that. It is not the bases that are threatened. No, Russia would not target Europe.

That's what I see also. It increases american strategic military control in the European continent. Unless European develops its own NMD, it will have to rely on the american indefinitely. Let alone asking the American to LEAVE. (which I don't think that will ever happen).

Hum. Yes. With some nuances. Except I don't mind the American bases. Everything they do with relation to European security, they have to do with the consent of the govt of that country.

Why not? So, the Russian just going to let their nuclear missiles become obsolete piece of junk by being shot down over Poland and Czch? Ofcourse they going to take out these defense first to guarantee their missile could hit america. The americans, are essentially building speed bumps on European continent for the Russian missiles.. Europe could be destroyed for all they care, as long as the defense is put as far away from continental USA, between Russia and US, it's fine for them since it will be the Europeans who will be taking hit from Russian ICBM before the last batch reach US.

Nukes from Russia to the US takes the polar route. The GBI in Europe will have absolutely no impact on a Russo-American nuke exchange.

 

[dioditto]

The US doesn't need the Euro bases for that. It is not the bases that are threatened. No, Russia would not target Europe.

Germany host one of of the largest US air base in Europe. B2/B1 combine with F-22 Escort with nuclear payload are very capable 1st strike and 2nd strike nuclear options. I highly doubt your assertion that US do not need those bases for foward projection to contain the Russians.

Nukes from Russia to the US takes the polar route. The GBI in Europe will have absolutely no impact on a Russo-American nuke exchange.

If that's the case, I don't understand why Russian generals are playing up this threat so vehemently as they are now for the past few months??

Surely if you put GMD closer to Russia, it gets highest chance of interception especially when you put them just outside their border.

 

[dioditto]

So you think this qualify as an argument for anything? The Russians, Chinese and Americans accuse each other and other players all the time. You just try to fit the world into your particular view and focus on the Americans.

Except the americans are accusing others much louder and much more frequent.

Before claiming others to be ignorant, you better make sure you are not patently off the facts yourself. Earlier the INF treaty was brought up, you apparently need to read up on that. Since 1991 the US has had no (zero, 0, nil) nuclear armed ballistic missiles or cruise missiles in Europe. They have 600 free fall nukes of which 450 where for delivery by NATO allies. IIRC Denmark, Belgium and Holland have not practiced delivery since the mid nineties. the same probably applies to Germany and Italy.


So the US nukes in Europe are in storage, out of range of Russia, with no procedures or infrastructure of delivery.

Oh, did I say ballistic missile?? How about nuclear armed ALCM? Does it not constitute as missile? I am certain most of the American bases in Europe are armed with them.

Deterrent against what? They are not a superpower, probably never will be again. Most countries do not have nuclear weapons - Germany, Italy, Japan. Russia has the deterrent of a great power.

The US is not gonna attack Russia. And Europe certainly isn't either.

Maybe not now, but read below :

You mean that because I find the idea that the Americans are going to invade Russia silly, I am biased?

Why not? By the time GMD system is ready and in large quantities, it would be roughly 2050, by then, most of the oil, mineral resource would probably run out or in much limited quantities. If American found they can totally overcome their cold war foe, and the Russians are full of the mineral resources they wanted... they may just make up another excuse to invade. Who knows .
Judging from their current stance, this is highly probable.

Russia is playing politics of intimidation

Let me ask you, if Russian puts long range nuclear armed stealth bombers in say, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and also put numerous GMD systems in these countries to gurantee protection of their bases, do you seriously think that's not intimidation?

Perhaps, you should do business with me. Let's meet in the desert and I will bring an army of body guards armed with G-36 and machetes, and you come alone and naked (but with suitcaseful of cash). I am sure you won't feel intimidated at all.

The Russians are *not* under threat of military attack from NATO. Why would NATO want to do that? And with what? The Polish and Baltic armies?

Again, read above. Maybe not now, but in 30-40 years time, when resources are scarce, and Russia vulnerable...who knows.

See above. The Americans do *not* have bases with nuclear ballistic or cruise missiles encircling Russia. AFAIK not in Europe. I am btw, noting significant US troop reductions in Europe. And no, the reshuffle is *not* aimed at Russia.

Sorry, no "double standards".

Biased, eh?

Read the following :
"This February 2005 NRDC paper pieces together evidence from an array of sources to show that the United States is still deploying 480 nuclear weapons in Europe."
www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/contents.asp


Bias? Yes !

 

[Waylander]

NATO is a DEFENCE treaty.

It is not an offensive alliance.
And it has never been one.

Saying anything else is ridicoulus.

 

[Grand Danois]

Germany host one of of the largest US air base in Europe. B2/B1 combine with F-22 Escort with nuclear payload are very capable 1st strike and 2nd strike nuclear options. I highly doubt your assertion that US do not need those bases for foward projection to contain the Russians.

The shortest route for any US strategic bombers are still the polar route. It is so much shorter in distance and time. Flying to Europe first is measured in days. Direct strike is hours.

Ever seen Dr. Strangelove, btw?

Doubt away all you like. Physical geographical fact is against your analysis.

If that's the case, I don't understand why Russian generals are playing up this threat so vehemently as they are now for the past few months??

Because Russian nationalists are still hurting over their lost empire and the relegation from superpower status. Through the NMD the US will be a provider of security in Europe - not Russia. The NMD keeps their European role relevant. The Russians want US out so that they can fill the vacuum. Particularily the countries formerly part of the Russian empire fears that.

Russia can't bully the countries around when they are NATO members.

Surely if you put GMD closer to Russia, it gets highest chance of interception especially when you put them just outside their border.

Russian SSBN are patrolling the Barents and Arctic Seas. The Russian silos and mobile ICBM are outside the GBI footprint in Europe - unless they are fired directly at Europe.

 

[Grand Danois]

Except the americans are accusing others much louder and much more frequent.

That's because you know the American shitfile by heart and is blind to what other actors do.

Also, you're exposed through your culture and language to what the Americans do, and much less the Russians or Chinese. Further, self-criticism (and intellectual self flagellation) is much more prevalent in some cultures, and especially in the Western ones.

My perception is that you assume that the Americans are to blame a priori.

Oh, did I say ballistic missile??

In lack of facts and focus on substance, you're now going down the path of obfuscation.

You said:

The Russian's first strike strategy for europe was for their own protection. You do realise the americans, have bases in europe all armed with nuclear missiles; while the russians, on the other hand had none else where. It is their only strategic deterent against american invasion. I guess you won't see it in that light since you are already bias.

My reply was:

Before claiming others to be ignorant, you better make sure you are not patently off the facts yourself. Earlier the INF treaty was brought up, you apparently need to read up on that. Since 1991 the US has had no (zero, 0, nil) nuclear armed ballistic missiles or cruise missiles in Europe. They have 600 free fall nukes of which 450 where for delivery by NATO allies. IIRC Denmark, Belgium and Holland have not practiced delivery since the mid nineties. the same probably applies to Germany and Italy.

The purpose of these weapons was to allow frontline nations to have a nuclear option, to ensure a nuclear response to a nuclear attack on those countries, independent deterrent. Secondarily to constrain potential nuclear countries from going down the weapons path.

So the US nukes in Europe are in storage, out of range of Russia, with no procedures or infrastructure of delivery.

This happens to be consistent with your source.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe
A review of post-Cold War policy, force levels, and war planning.
This February 2005 NRDC paper pieces together evidence from an array of sources to show that the United States is still deploying 480 nuclear weapons in Europe.

[The rest is their interpretation and agenda]

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/contents.asp

Curiously the same passage you highlighted. It confirmed what I previously said.

How about nuclear armed ALCM? Does it not constitute as missile? I am certain most of the American bases in Europe are armed with them.

Certain? Based on pure speculation?

I can inform you that the "M" in "ALCM" is for "missile". There are no nuclear ALCM capable US aircraft in Europe (See START I for definition of nuclear ALCM delivery capable system), no stationed units. The 480 nuclear weapons are free-fall bombs. In storage. With no delivery system. Effectively out of range of Russia. Inapprop and inefficient delivery method.

They are for all practical purposes not pointed anywhere.

Why not? By the time GMD system is ready and in large quantities, it would be roughly 2050, by then, most of the oil, mineral resource would probably run out or in much limited quantities. If American found they can totally overcome their cold war foe, and the Russians are full of the mineral resources they wanted... they may just make up another excuse to invade. Who knows .
Judging from their current stance, this is highly probable.

Wild speculation. Sidenote, from an American perspective the Russians are already overcome. The NMD changes little.

Let me ask you, if Russian puts long range nuclear armed stealth bombers in say, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and also put numerous GMD systems in these countries to gurantee protection of their bases, do you seriously think that's not intimidation?

A proven strawman. You are regurgitating. No US nukes pointed towards Russia from Europe. European missile defence of little or no impact on a Russo-American nuke exchange.

Perhaps, you should do business with me. Let's meet in the desert and I will bring an army of body guards armed with G-36 and machetes, and you come alone and naked (but with suitcaseful of cash). I am sure you won't feel intimidated at all.

Obfuscating again. No relevance, but lateral displacement of discourse. Appeal for moral high ground, on the basis of presumed accuracy of your analysis and especially your perceptions, instead of discussing the topic at hand.

Again, read above. Maybe not now, but in 30-40 years time, when resources are scarce, and Russia vulnerable...who knows.

I prefer knowledgebased predictions. The alternative is to prepare for "Mars Attacks".

 

[dioditto]

NATO is a DEFENCE treaty.

It is not an offensive alliance.
And it has never been one.

Saying anything else is ridicoulus.

Hey, "the best defense is an offense!" hehe.
Just when this definition becomes a reality.. who knows.
Let's look at the recent "Operation Iraqi Freedom"... the United States decided to invade Iraq because they think it is "self defense".
So, just when the "coalition of willing" becomes the "coalition of obligations".. you never know.


Most of the axis countries in WWII believe their are acting in "self defense" when they invade other country. So this definition fo "self defense" is pretty filmsy.

 

[eckherl]

I find it even more disturbing that you, eckherl (like the rest of the american), don't apply what you said to yourself. The US is continuely to develop, and deploy new weapon system on almost daily basis, what's other country to do? Give up arms?

The US is continuously developing new weapon of mass destruction, (X-51 Hypersonic cruise missile) B-2 stealth bomber which is nuclear capable, no other country has ever develop such weapon of mass destruction yet, let along deploy.

Just what kind of standard are you applying here?

It is not a standard that myself and alot of other Americans like, it would be great if everyone would get rid of them, along with chemical stockpiles. But with countries like China, North Korea and now possibly Iran along with Russia wanting to build more of them, they are giving my country the excuse to give to the American people a reasoning into building more.

 

[dioditto]

The shortest route for any US strategic bombers are still the polar route. It is so much shorter in distance and time. Flying to Europe first is measured in days. Direct strike is hours.

Ever seen Dr. Strangelove, btw?

Doubt away all you like. Physical geographical fact is against your analysis.

Oh really? I would like to see evidence to support this theory.

 

[Grand Danois]

Oh really? I would like to see evidence to support this theory.

A deployment would take days - don't play word games, focus on substance, you know what I said. Seizing on me not typing out entire novels to explain and take every insignificant caveat into account does not further anything. Substance.

Also, that it is a distant possibility does not support your absurd "US attack/invasion/submission of Russia" case as you fail the reality check on the prerequisistes of a deployment.

Sorry, but no cigar.

To the practical and technical stuff. Why do that at all, when the US has 3,000 nukes that take 15-20 min to get there and bombers that can fly directly to Russia from CONUS via more relevant flight paths?

They don't need those bases and that basing. The routes from Euro bases are unfavourable, and longer for deepstrike. The bombers would also be more vulnerable en route and on their basing.

The only purpose would be to send the political statement that Russia shouldn't attack Europe in a time of crisis. And that if Russia attacks Europe, the US will get involved. To take this further, and perhaps most importantly, I note that there are none based in Europe now.

The posture is not there!

Here is a link calculating distances of the great-circle. The great-circle is the shortest distance to travel.

http://www.acscdg.com/

The B2's are stationed in Whiteman AFB, 65 miles southeast of Kansas City, Missouri. You can type in Kansas City or Whiteman AFB and it will take you there for a starting point.

Here is an reasonable description of the layout of Russian ICBM bases.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/icbm_fac.htm

Try it out, from Whiteman AFB to the Russian nuke installations, with and without a waypoint in Europe. Btw, notice who the Russian missiles are actually facing. Also note which bases are active today.

It should now become apparent why the B2's are stationed in Missouri.

Also, the northern coast of Russia is difficult to defend, easier to penetrate for the B2. This is contrasted by the heavily defended airspace facing Europe.

Shorter in time and distance and tactically/strategically more lucrative to go the polar route.

The Russian ICBM take the same route. A Europe based NMD has no chance of intercepting a Russian ICBM on its way to the US. In rough terms the ICBM will have to be headed towards Europe to enter the GBI engagement footprint.

Physics and geography.

 

[Grand Danois]

Actually, when studying this link:

http://www.acscdg.com/

Assuming a GBI range of 1500-2000 km and a missile coming out of Iran, it seems to be that Austria would be the optimal location, as the GBI are mid-course interceptors. But Austria is not a NATO member, and the border between Poland and the Czeck Republic is very good!

A second base in NW Italy or NE Spain should be next.

 

[radiosilence]

Came across this editorial from the Washinton Post and its related to whats being discussed in this thread.

Missile Fantasies

THE EMERGING debate over the deployment of U.S missile defenses in Central Europe is based on a series of false pretenses. The Bush administration pretends that it is sensible to invest $225 million next year in preparing to install ground-based interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against an attack from Iran,......

link

 

[Grand Danois]

Came across this editorial from the Washinton Post and its related to whats being discussed in this thread.

Missile Fantasies
link

The only thing I disagree with is the assessment on how mature the NMD is. However, it is somewhat unclear what they mean. In case they mean that it will be a practical and reasonably reliable system a decade from now, then I would agree with The washington Post.

From my perspective, the rest is right on the mark.

 

[Distiller]

Putin is using military affairs to create a Russian identity. That goes on for some time now here. E.g. looking at the TV couple of days ago, Day of the Defenders of the Vaterland, a cheesy show of the usual terrible Russian pop music in front of a huge screen with Su-27, Tu-160, Navy, and tank clips, all performers with medals and orders. Something like that haven't been shown in Western Europe or the U.S. since the 1940's. The military is pretty much the only thing that people a proud of here, the rest is just incompetence, corruption, and a clueless imitation of western lifestyle. At leat in Moscow, and the rest don't count anyway.

Putin trying to get Russia into a political position to fill those voids left all over the world by anti-americanism, and tries to be faster than the Chinese in that.

 

[Rich]

We yanks get a big kick out of it when Putin gets on his soapbox and blames all the worlds evils on us. Americans may be imperfect but when you look at the history, both old and current, of the types of regimes the Soviets/Russians have supported and sold arms to, well, I'm sure both the Iranians and North Koreans are thankful for the nuclear assistance Russia has given them.

And strange how silent the world is concerning the incineration of Chechnya http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=chechnya http://www.freechechnya.org/ I guess Putin never reads the newspapers and simply orates how "we" are making the world more dangerous, and "our" human rights abuses. Meanwhile whatever they now call the KGB is whacking his perceived enemies left and right. http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=55235

Whats scary is the masses tend to believe when a politician tells them something they want to hear, and not just in Russia. But, like I said, we get a big kick out of it.

Ha, ha, ha.

 

[radiosilence]

U.S. wants missile radar in Caucasus

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said Thursday that Washington wants to base an anti-missile radar in the Caucasus, a move that could provoke a further rift with Russia........

link




This should make things a little more interesting.

 

[Tasman]

U.S. wants missile radar in Caucasus


link


This should make things a little more interesting.

It certainly will make things interesting. Putin will just love it! I wonder what the Russian reaction will be keeping in mind the warning Russia has already given Poland and the Czech Republic?

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

U.S. wants missile radar in Caucasus

link

This should make things a little more interesting.

What's your take?

 

[merocaine]

U.S. wants missile radar in Caucasus


link


This should make things a little more interesting.

This whole thing is starting to sound like a bad tom clancy novel

On a more serious note, I'm not sure Georgia's wine industry could take anymore punishment!