Putin and the ABM

[Bongopete]

From the Glittering Eye;
Comparisons Are Odious (http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=3255)

Saturday, October 27th, 2007
Russian President Vladimir Putin sees a comparison (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9b106c92-83f3-11dc-a0a6-0000779fd2ac.html) between the Soviet Union’s installation of missiles in Cuba in the 1960’s and the planned installation of a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic:

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, on Friday compared US plans to build a missile defence shield near Russia’s borders to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Mr Putin quickly qualified his remarks, made after a summit with European Union leaders in Portugal, by saying that US-Russian relations had moved on since the Cold War and that he and George W. Bush, the US president, had a good personal relationship.
But Mr Putin’s deliberate evocation of one of history’s most dangerous episodes did little to soothe the nerves of his European hosts who, like their US allies, are struggling to stabilise a relationship with Russia that has more points of friction than at any time since the Soviet Union’s demise in 1991.
Mr Putin has never disguised his hostility to the US proposal to station a missile defence system in the Czech Republic and Poland, a plan that he says threatens Russia but which the US says is intended to counter a possible missile threat posed by Iran.
“Analogous actions by the Soviet Union, when it deployed missiles in Cuba, led to the Caribbean crisis. For us today, from a technological viewpoint, the situation is very similar. Such a threat is being set up on our borders,” Mr Putin told a news conference after Friday’s summit.
Outside of the facts that

The defense shield has no real offensive use while the missiles installed in Cuba had little defensive use—specifically, secret missiles aren’t deterrents.
The defense shield isn’t particularly useful against an imagined Russian attack. It would take one heckuva defense shield to protect against the amount of force that Russia could apply in the case of a Russian attack (which I consider incredibly unlikely as, I suspect, does Washington).
The USSR was openly hostile to the U. S. at the time.
The USSR had installed puppet governments in most of its immediate neighbors. If Canada’s and Mexico’s governments are U. S. puppets, they’re lousy ones.
The USSR had active subversive intelligence organizations within the United States at the time (and in many other countries throughout the world).
The Cuban tyrant was openly hostile to the U. S. (and still is).he may have something. Mr. Putin himself was apparently aware of how feeble the comparison was:

However, he added: “Happily, we don’t see this as a new Caribbean crisis – nothing of the kind . . . With President Bush, this is a relationship of trust. I think I have the right to call him a personal friend, as he calls me.”
The real comparison is that the USSR was flexing its muscles just as Russia is trying to re-assert some sort of influence now. I don’t think that evoking the bad old days is productive but I suspect that Mr. Putin’s comments were meant for domestic consumption: Soviet nostalgia is one of the few things that Russian nationalism has going for it right now.


http://theglitteringeye.com/?cat=16

The author actually makes some interesting points about Kosovo and why the US was wrong, etc.

[KillerBD]

Oct 27 2007, interesting. But I think ur gonna catch some flak cuz its a bit old news....

[Kak]

Russia is not afraid of what Bush is planning with these 10 interceptors, it's afraid of what comes after that, please check out these very short posts of mine, it will only take 1 minute of reading:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3023785&postcount=92
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3023921&postcount=94 (not my post but read it anyway as it strengthens my point)
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3024148&postcount=100
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3076190&postcount=16

Also, the missiles in Cuba can be argued to have "little defensive use", but the same could be said of our missiles in Turkey, which bordered the Soviet Union.

[GazB]

The defense shield has no real offensive use while the missiles installed in Cuba had little defensive use—specifically, secret missiles aren’t deterrents.


Of course a defence shield has a use. Having radars looking directly at your enemies ICBM launch fields gives you excellent information as to when they are firing weapons. Second a defence shield is something to hide behind as you make an attack... the better the shield the more likely you are to try to attack.
The Missiles deployed to Cuba were secret as they were being deployed but would have been revealed to the US when they were operational. The purpose of the missiles there was to have missiles as close to the US as US missiles in Turkey were to Moscow. When the US wet its pants about how short a warning time they would have between launch and impact they would be happy to negotiate for both sets of missiles to be withdrawn and everyone is happy again. The only fly in the ointment was that the US spotted the missiles before they were fully deployed. But the result was more than what Krushchev initially wanted. (he got the missiles out of Turkey and a US agreement to never invade Cuba again.)


The defense shield isn’t particularly useful against an imagined Russian attack.

I would say the imaginary nuclear missile in my pocket would be the ideal defence shield to use against an imagined Russian attack.


It would take one heckuva defense shield to protect against the amount of force that Russia could apply in the case of a Russian attack (which I consider incredibly unlikely as, I suspect, does Washington).


Except that its position in Poland means it wouldn't be intercepting the ICBMs
the Russians would be firing at the US... which would go straight over the north pole. The ten interceptors in Poland would however be ideally placed to stop ICBMs the Russians would be firing at the rest of NATO... no point in obliterating the US only to have French and British missiles hitting you and NATO ground forces climbing over the rubble to claim Russia as theirs when the smoke clears.


The USSR was openly hostile to the U. S. at the time.


Yet they are not friends enough to even consider joining NATO or the EU...


The USSR had installed puppet governments in most of its immediate neighbors. If Canada’s and Mexico’s governments are U. S. puppets, they’re lousy ones.

What difference does that make? You just have to see how quickly the rats left the Warsaw Pact ship to see how much better Soviet Puppet states were...


The USSR had active subversive intelligence organizations within the United States at the time (and in many other countries throughout the world).

Who says they still don't... and also that the US doesn't still do the same... colour revolutions dont just happen by accident you know...


The Cuban tyrant was openly hostile to the U. S. (and still is).

The leader of Poland (wont call him a tyrant but really don't see how that makes it any different... the missiles in Cuba were Soviet troop controlled and the radar and missiles are US controlled) stated that this deal would move Poland from the Russian Sphere of Influence to the US Sphere once and for all... if that wasn't openly hostile I don't know what is...


However, he added: “Happily, we don’t see this as a new Caribbean crisis – nothing of the kind . . . With President Bush, this is a relationship of trust. I think I have the right to call him a personal friend, as he calls me.”

Then Putin is a bigger fool than I thought he was... Gorbachev also had a good relationship with the west and the promises given to him that NATO wouldn't expand east, that there would be no new US bases in former WP states, that the former Soviet republics would not join NATO, etc etc were not honoured... I wouldn't call them lies because the people saying such things might have believed them but the actions of NATO and the EU since have made a liar of them now.

At the end of the day the US will build missile stations and the Russians will probably adjust their military so that they compensate for the US stations. What the Russians have learnt is that the west will do as it pleases and will not take Russian concerns into consideration. Fortunately the Russians have obviously learnt that lesson as shown by their disregard for the wests concerns and wants. If the west doens't like it... tough.

BTW if you think the 10 interceptor missile in Poland are not threat to Russia... the Moscow treaty limits the US and Russia to between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic warheads each. Assuming the Russians want to keep their forces small to reduce costs with 1,700 warheads between the land, sea and bomber fleet that means about 560 warheads each for land, sea, and air forces. With SS-18s carrying 10 warheads each (and RS-24s to replace them) plus a few TOPOL-Ms the future Russian ICBM fleet will probably look a lot like 50 SS-18s with ten warheads each and maybe 20 TOPOL-Ms with 3 warheads each. That is 70 missiles to shoot down! 10 in Poland will likely be more than enough to deal with few sent to hit Europe because they also have to hit the US and China... and because Israel now has nukes they might allocate a few that way too. Japan might decide now that Europe is getting ballistic missile defence (considering their proximity to north korea and the possibility that a malfunctioning BM might actually land on their territory then they probably have more claim of need than the US or Europe... so they might have 10-20 interceptors. There are currently 60 interceptors in the US, 10 more going to Europe add 10-20 more for Japan and Russias nuclear deterrence is not looking so secure... Interceptor missiles hit ICBMs before they deploy their warheads so they are not dealing with 556 warheads but less than 100 missiles.
Of course the design of the missile warheads will be changed and they might decide to have closer to 2,200 warheads than 1,700 warheads...


Russia is not afraid of what Bush is planning with these 10 interceptors, it's afraid of what comes after that

Indeed... the NMD was supposed to have 50 interceptors but they decided at the last minute to make 60. The number of interceptor missiles in Poland can be changed on a whim to 50 and Russia can do nothing to stop it. Of course despite not being able to do anything to stop it there is plenty they can do to counter it... but the western media likes to jump up and down and claim Russia is trying to assert itself and become relevant in the modern world... or some such bollox. The reality is that NATO is a military organisation and represent a military threat to Russia. Any change in NATO represents a change in that threat and Russia will adjust appropriately to that threat... and the western media will whine at the reaction... the important point is that it is a reaction to an action by the west... but the west blames the reaction and ignores the action that caused it.

[Afro-European]

Of course a defence shield has a use. Having radars looking directly at your enemies ICBM launch fields gives you excellent information as to when they are firing weapons. Second a defence shield is something to hide behind as you make an attack... the better the shield the more likely you are to try to attack.
The Missiles deployed to Cuba were secret as they were being deployed but would have been revealed to the US when they were operational. The purpose of the missiles there was to have missiles as close to the US as US missiles in Turkey were to Moscow. When the US wet its pants about how short a warning time they would have between launch and impact they would be happy to negotiate for both sets of missiles to be withdrawn and everyone is happy again. The only fly in the ointment was that the US spotted the missiles before they were fully deployed. But the result was more than what Krushchev initially wanted. (he got the missiles out of Turkey and a US agreement to never invade Cuba again.)



I would say the imaginary nuclear missile in my pocket would be the ideal defence shield to use against an imagined Russian attack.



Except that its position in Poland means it wouldn't be intercepting the ICBMs
the Russians would be firing at the US... which would go straight over the north pole. The ten interceptors in Poland would however be ideally placed to stop ICBMs the Russians would be firing at the rest of NATO... no point in obliterating the US only to have French and British missiles hitting you and NATO ground forces climbing over the rubble to claim Russia as theirs when the smoke clears.



Yet they are not friends enough to even consider joining NATO or the EU...



What difference does that make? You just have to see how quickly the rats left the Warsaw Pact ship to see how much better Soviet Puppet states were...



Who says they still don't... and also that the US doesn't still do the same... colour revolutions dont just happen by accident you know...



The leader of Poland (wont call him a tyrant but really don't see how that makes it any different... the missiles in Cuba were Soviet troop controlled and the radar and missiles are US controlled) stated that this deal would move Poland from the Russian Sphere of Influence to the US Sphere once and for all... if that wasn't openly hostile I don't know what is...



Then Putin is a bigger fool than I thought he was... Gorbachev also had a good relationship with the west and the promises given to him that NATO wouldn't expand east, that there would be no new US bases in former WP states, that the former Soviet republics would not join NATO, etc etc were not honoured... I wouldn't call them lies because the people saying such things might have believed them but the actions of NATO and the EU since have made a liar of them now.

At the end of the day the US will build missile stations and the Russians will probably adjust their military so that they compensate for the US stations. What the Russians have learnt is that the west will do as it pleases and will not take Russian concerns into consideration. Fortunately the Russians have obviously learnt that lesson as shown by their disregard for the wests concerns and wants. If the west doens't like it... tough.

BTW if you think the 10 interceptor missile in Poland are not threat to Russia... the Moscow treaty limits the US and Russia to between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic warheads each. Assuming the Russians want to keep their forces small to reduce costs with 1,700 warheads between the land, sea and bomber fleet that means about 560 warheads each for land, sea, and air forces. With SS-18s carrying 10 warheads each (and RS-24s to replace them) plus a few TOPOL-Ms the future Russian ICBM fleet will probably look a lot like 50 SS-18s with ten warheads each and maybe 20 TOPOL-Ms with 3 warheads each. That is 70 missiles to shoot down! 10 in Poland will likely be more than enough to deal with few sent to hit Europe because they also have to hit the US and China... and because Israel now has nukes they might allocate a few that way too. Japan might decide now that Europe is getting ballistic missile defence (considering their proximity to north korea and the possibility that a malfunctioning BM might actually land on their territory then they probably have more claim of need than the US or Europe... so they might have 10-20 interceptors. There are currently 60 interceptors in the US, 10 more going to Europe add 10-20 more for Japan and Russias nuclear deterrence is not looking so secure... Interceptor missiles hit ICBMs before they deploy their warheads so they are not dealing with 556 warheads but less than 100 missiles.
Of course the design of the missile warheads will be changed and they might decide to have closer to 2,200 warheads than 1,700 warheads...



Indeed... the NMD was supposed to have 50 interceptors but they decided at the last minute to make 60. The number of interceptor missiles in Poland can be changed on a whim to 50 and Russia can do nothing to stop it. Of course despite not being able to do anything to stop it there is plenty they can do to counter it... but the western media likes to jump up and down and claim Russia is trying to assert itself and become relevant in the modern world... or some such bollox. The reality is that NATO is a military organisation and represent a military threat to Russia. Any change in NATO represents a change in that threat and Russia will adjust appropriately to that threat... and the western media will whine at the reaction... the important point is that it is a reaction to an action by the west... but the west blames the reaction and ignores the action that caused it.

A very clear and detailed analysis GazB.Big props to you.

[FelixA9]

Of course a defence shield has a use. Having radars looking directly at your enemies ICBM launch fields gives you excellent information as to when they are firing weapons.

More so than a missile launch warning satellite that is STARING at those missile fields?



Second a defence shield is something to hide behind as you make an attack... the better the shield the more likely you are to try to attack.

Please. Hiding behind ten missiles when someone has hundreds to throw at you is like hiding behind a wet paper bag when someone is coming at you with a .50 caliber Desert Eagle.





Except that its position in Poland means it wouldn't be intercepting the ICBMs the Russians would be firing at the US... which would go straight over the north pole. The ten interceptors in Poland would however be ideally placed to stop ICBMs the Russians would be firing at the rest of NATO... no point in obliterating the US only to have French and British missiles hitting you and NATO ground forces climbing over the rubble to claim Russia as theirs when the smoke clears.

Again, ten missiles. That are useless against a plethora of weapons Russia could throw at that site.




At the end of the day the US will build missile stations and the Russians will probably adjust their military so that they compensate for the US stations. What the Russians have learnt is that the west will do as it pleases and will not take Russian concerns into consideration. Fortunately the Russians have obviously learnt that lesson as shown by their disregard for the wests concerns and wants. If the west doens't like it... tough.

When has that NOT been Putin's attitude?



BTW if you think the 10 interceptor missile in Poland are not threat to Russia... the Moscow treaty limits the US and Russia to between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic warheads each. Assuming the Russians want to keep their forces small to reduce costs with 1,700 warheads between the land, sea and bomber fleet that means about 560 warheads each for land, sea, and air forces. With SS-18s carrying 10 warheads each (and RS-24s to replace them) plus a few TOPOL-Ms the future Russian ICBM fleet will probably look a lot like 50 SS-18s with ten warheads each and maybe 20 TOPOL-Ms with 3 warheads each. That is 70 missiles to shoot down!

roflroflroflroflrofl



The number of interceptor missiles in Poland can be changed on a whim to 50 and Russia can do nothing to stop it.

And Russia could jack up SS-18 production to a million and the US can do nothing to stop it. So what?

[GazB]

More so than a missile launch warning satellite that is STARING at those missile fields?


A missile launch detection satellite uses IR sensors to detect a launch based on the IR signature of an ICBM... which is pretty distinct and hard to hide. The problem of course is that a satellite is moving and as it takes only about 1 1/2 hours to circle the earth it can only watch any one point on the earth for about 5-6 minutes as it passes over it. For full coverage of a country the size of Russia you woud need hundreds of satellites in low earth orbit to ensure 24/7 coverage of the ICBM sites in Russia... any gaps in that coverage of course could be exploited and a 30 minute gap would mean the first warning the US got of a launch was warheads coming over the north pole. The radar base in the Czech republic for the missiles in Poland means they will get a nice view of European Russia... where the truck mounted ICBMs would be launched from. Using a radar instead of IR means that not only can they detect an ICBM being launched but can also plot its trajectory and therefore also work out the target area. Putting radars up in space would mean the radar was much less powerful unless they were nuclear powered.


Please. Hiding behind ten missiles when someone has hundreds to throw at you is like hiding behind a wet paper bag when someone is coming at you with a .50 caliber Desert Eagle.


How many ICBMs do you think the Russians will fire at Europe? Do you think, from an arsenal of less than 100 missiles they will bother to do more than hit 100 targets in Europe? If they fire 15 and all the Polish missiles work perfectly that is a maximum of 50 targets hit, but 100 targets protected...
The point is that setting up the system in Europe means that they have the sensors and the battle management systems in place for a ballistic missile defence. Adding more interceptor missiles once the system is operational is the matter of a stroke of a pen.


Again, ten missiles. That are useless against a plethora of weapons Russia could throw at that site.


Ten missiles designed to bring down ICBMs. Are you suggesting that the Russians don't need ICBMs to defeat NATO? The current conventional balance in Europe is more skewed than it has ever been in history.
The only advantage the Russians have over European NATO is its ICBMs... these ten interceptor missiles reduce that advantage and there is no limit that restricts it to ten interceptors.


When has that NOT been Putin's attitude?


What did you expect. Do you think he was asleep during the Yeltsen years?


And Russia could jack up SS-18 production to a million and the US can do nothing to stop it. So what?

Russia never produced the SS-18... it was made in the Ukraine. They have made a deal with the Ukrainian government and various Ukrainian manufacturers to overhaul the existing SS-18s so they will last a little longer, but building more is not an option.

Even if it was as I mentioned above the Moscow Treaty limits the US and Russia to between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic warheads a piece. Producing a million heavy ICBMs would violate that treaty. There is no equivelent treaty limiting or restricting the number of BM interceptor missiles Russia or the US could have. Nor is there any restriction on the number of ICBMs the UK, France, China, or Israel can have.

[FelixA9]

A missile launch detection satellite uses IR sensors to detect a launch based on the IR signature of an ICBM... which is pretty distinct and hard to hide. The problem of course is that a satellite is moving and as it takes only about 1 1/2 hours to circle the earth it can only watch any one point on the earth for about 5-6 minutes as it passes over it. For full coverage of a country the size of Russia you woud need hundreds of satellites in low earth orbit to ensure 24/7 coverage of the ICBM sites in Russia... any gaps in that coverage of course could be exploited and a 30 minute gap would mean the first warning the US got of a launch was warheads coming over the north pole.

Wrong. There are all kinds of altitudes one can orbit at. Your example is at one extreme and geosync orbits are at the other. In the case of those they can literally "hover" over an area because the period of their orbit is the same as the rotation of the earth. Missile launch warning satellites are somewhere in between and yes, the US does have 24/7 coverage of Russia when it comes to launch warning.


Using a radar instead of IR means that not only can they detect an ICBM being launched but can also plot its trajectory and therefore also work out the target area.


Again, the US doesn't need a radar in Czechoslovakia to determine where ICBMs destined for the US are going to land. Or do you think they can't figure that out right now?



How many ICBMs do you think the Russians will fire at Europe? Do you think, from an arsenal of less than 100 missiles they will bother to do more than hit 100 targets in Europe? If they fire 15 and all the Polish missiles work perfectly that is a maximum of 50 targets hit, but 100 targets protected...

1. Russia has WAY more ICBMs than 100 and 2. where is it written they couldn't take out the ABM site with cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles or even aircraft before launching any ICBMs?



The point is that setting up the system in Europe means that they have the sensors and the battle management systems in place for a ballistic missile defence. Adding more interceptor missiles once the system is operational is the matter of a stroke of a pen.

Again, so what? Where is it written the base couldn't be attacked with other weapons? And who's to say Russia couldn't build more ICBMs "at the stroke of a pen"? :roll:


these ten interceptor missiles reduce that advantage and there is no limit that restricts it to ten interceptors.

Nor is there a limit to how many ICBMs Russia could build. Putin is doing whatever he wants remember? (And please, don't be so naive as to think he won't still be pulling the strings on the puppet.)



Russia never produced the SS-18... it was made in the Ukraine. They have made a deal with the Ukrainian government and various Ukrainian manufacturers to overhaul the existing SS-18s so they will last a little longer, but building more is not an option.

Whatever. Doesn't change the fact that Russia can build however many ICBMs it wants.



Even if it was as I mentioned above the Moscow Treaty limits the US and Russia to between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic warheads a piece. Producing a million heavy ICBMs would violate that treaty.

Which Russia could withdraw from at the stroke of a pen.

[GazB]

Wrong. There are all kinds of altitudes one can orbit at. Your example is at one extreme and geosync orbits are at the other. In the case of those they can literally "hover" over an area because the period of their orbit is the same as the rotation of the earth. Missile launch warning satellites are somewhere in between and yes, the US does have 24/7 coverage of Russia when it comes to launch warning.

For a geostationary orbit a satellite has to be 64,000km above the equator. I live in New Zealand, more specifically at about 45 degrees south... about half way between the south pole and the equator and our sky satellite receiver dish points very low to the horizon to the north. Russian ICBM fields would be much further north than NZ is south and would not be visible. Equally at that range and at that angle you are looking through a huge amount of atmosphere... I doubt IR satellites could detect even an ICBM launch. Suffice to say there are no IR satellites in Geo Sync Orbit.

And yes the US does have 24/7 coverage... but as I said it is IR coverage, not radar coverage, which means a delay before they know where the missiles are going... fine if you are not planning a preemptive strike... you get enough warning from multiple satellites (which means you get confirmation that it is not just one faulty signal etc). If however you are planning an attack you need to know where each enemy missile is going as soon as possible to plan and impliment your defence. That is another way it becomes part of an attack system rather than just a "defence".


Again, the US doesn't need a radar in Czechoslovakia to determine where ICBMs destined for the US are going to land. Or do you think they can't figure that out right now?


If you are refering to the little radar bases springing up in the baltic states that have joined NATO... which one of those has a large X band radar designed to see for 1,000kms including right out into space? I'd say none of them... the radar in the Czech republic is specifically for tracking objects in space and in the atmosphere and for calculating trajectories of space or in air based targets.


1. Russia has WAY more ICBMs than 100 and 2. where is it written they couldn't take out the ABM site with cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles or even aircraft before launching any ICBMs?


By 2012 the MOscow Treaty requires that both the US and Russia have only between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads apiece. The Russians are already withdrawing their TOPOLs with 3 warheads each and are making their TOPOL-Ms at a low rate (each has one warhead). They have retired their SS-24 rail mobile missiles and are graduall retiring their SS-18s (10 warheads each) and their SS-19s (6 warheads each). They are introducing the new RS-24 ICBM which is expected to carry 10 warheads to replace the SS-18s on a one for one basis. When 2012 arrives they are only allowed x number of strategic warheads. They have in service SS-18s with ten warheads each and are introducing at a slow rate RS-24s with 10 warheads a piece to replace the SS_18s and TOPOL-Ms with one warhead each. It takes 10 Topol-Ms to replace one SS-18 or 1 RS-24 to replace 1 SS-18. Some SS-18s will be scrapped and not replaced to get down to the limit figure. It is very likely due to cost that the Russians will go for closer to 1,700 warheads than 2,200.
(The SS-18s that are to be scrapped will likely be used to launch satellites to earn some cash.)


2. where is it written they couldn't take out the ABM site with cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles or even aircraft before launching any ICBMs?

Cruise missiles are even easier to intercept today than ballistic missiles. A subsonic cruise missile would take quite some time to get to Poland from anywhere Russia could launch it from and would be vulnerable to interception and provide even more warning of an attack.
Short range ballistic missiles would not get past the THAAD missiles based with the system to defend the base. (If you needed further evidence that the base is designed for use against Russia this is it. How could Iran or NK target a base in Poland with anything less than an ICBM? Therefore the THAAD would be rather pointless... except to stop the Russians using short range BM to target it.). What aircraft would you use to penetrate NATO airspace?


Again, so what? Where is it written the base couldn't be attacked with other weapons? And who's to say Russia couldn't build more ICBMs "at the stroke of a pen"?

There is no treaty limiting how many interceptor missiles you can build. Not only could they put 1,000 interceptors in Poland, they would not even be obliged to tell anyone about it. ICBMs on the other hand are limited by treaty, and they are treaties with no exit clauses.
To start another arms race would be stupid and a race Russia could not win.


Nor is there a limit to how many ICBMs Russia could build. Putin is doing whatever he wants remember? (And please, don't be so naive as to think he won't still be pulling the strings on the puppet.)

Ha! I wish he was the next president. I would be happier if he was still able to pull strings. There is a limit as to how many strategic warheads the Russians are allowed to deploy. Having 1,000 SS-18s in silos armed with nuclear warheads would violate the START I treaty. The START I treaty includes the ability of the other side to inspect each others weapons to make sure they are not cheating. The only way to avoid such a violation of START I is to make them but not deploy them to silos or fit them with warheads. AS such however they would be useless as ICBMs because it would take days or weeks to prepare them for launch.


Whatever. Doesn't change the fact that Russia can build however many ICBMs it wants.

It could ignore the START I treaty and the Moscow Treaty, sure... but when its enemy has far more economic muscle who do you think will benefit from Russia spending all its oil wealth on missiles?


Which Russia could withdraw from at the stroke of a pen.

There is no exit clause for the START I or Moscow Treaty agreements.

[9mmRifle]

So I guess Putin will still hold on to power after the last election ?

[MZKT]

By 2012 the MOscow Treaty requires that both the US and Russia have only between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads apiece. The Russians are already withdrawing their TOPOLs with 3 warheads each

Topols have just one warhead, same with Topol-M


They are introducing the new RS-24 ICBM which is expected to carry 10 warheads to replace the SS-18s on a one for one basis.

RS-24 don't carry 10 warheads. Being a modification of Topol-M it has the same throw weight of 1200kg. It's impossible to fit 10 warheads on such a small missile, it more likely carries 3 warheads like the related Pioneer IRBM.
They will never be capable to replace SS-18, the warhead number will just shrink. It also didn't entered production yet and nobody known when or if it will do.
At current production and decomissioning rate Russia will have 99 single warhead Topol-M by 2015. Plus 6x16 Sineva missiles on 667BDRM subs (capable of 10 warheads each). Maybe even 1-2 Dolgorukij boaats with those crappy Bulawa (far far worse than Sineva).

[FelixA9]

For a geostationary orbit a satellite has to be 64,000km above the equator.

35,786 km actually.


Russian ICBM fields would be much further north than NZ is south and would not be visible. Equally at that range and at that angle you are looking through a huge amount of atmosphere... I doubt IR satellites could detect even an ICBM launch. Suffice to say there are no IR satellites in Geo Sync Orbit.

Actually:

"Today's DSP satellite weighs 5,200 pounds, requires 1250 watts of power, and is approximately 33 feet long, 14 feet in diameter, Recent technological improvements in sensor design includes above-the-horizon capability for full hemispheric coverage and improved resolution. Increased on-board signal-processing capability improves clutter rejection enhancing reliability and survivability.

The DSP-I (Improved) satellites, of which spacecraft 14 through 25 were on order in early 1989 with options for 26 through 28 under consideration,(5) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/dsp.htm#N_5_) will incorporate the upgraded sensors of the SEDS satellites, as well as improved resistance to laser attack.(6) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/dsp.htm#N_6_) The DSP-I satellites will also carry a laser communications (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/dsp.htm#) package that will enable the satellites to relay warning information to each other.(7) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/dsp.htm#N_7_) This will greatly reduce the vulnerability of this system to attacks on its ground stations, since all the satellites will be able to communicate with any of the system's ground stations. However, the June 1989 DSP-I (F-14) did not incorporate this laser communication systems, due to technical problems.(8) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/dsp.htm#N_8_) Instead, DSP F-14 carried an experimental sensor package for the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization to assess the utility of ultraviolet sensors for tracking missiles. The sensor and the spacecraft, which together comprise the satellite, are placed in geosynchronous-equatorial orbit so that the telescope is pointed toward the earth and rotated at six revolutions per minute. To provide a scanning motion for the infrared (IR) sensor, the satellite is spun about its Earth-pointing axis. The axis of the satellite's rotation is normal to the earth's surface."


which means a delay before they know where the missiles are going... fine if you are not planning a preemptive strike... you get enough warning from multiple satellites (which means you get confirmation that it is not just one faulty signal etc). If however you are planning an attack you need to know where each enemy missile is going as soon as possible to plan and impliment your defence. That is another way it becomes part of an attack system rather than just a "defence".

That doesn't make sense. What do preemptive strikes have to do with needing missile defense radars?




By 2012 the MOscow Treaty requires that both the US and Russia have only between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads apiece. The Russians are already withdrawing their TOPOLs with 3 warheads each and are making their TOPOL-Ms at a low rate (each has one warhead). They have retired their SS-24 rail mobile missiles and are graduall retiring their SS-18s (10 warheads each) and their SS-19s (6 warheads each). They are introducing the new RS-24 ICBM which is expected to carry 10 warheads to replace the SS-18s on a one for one basis. When 2012 arrives they are only allowed x number of strategic warheads. They have in service SS-18s with ten warheads each and are introducing at a slow rate RS-24s with 10 warheads a piece to replace the SS_18s and TOPOL-Ms with one warhead each. It takes 10 Topol-Ms to replace one SS-18 or 1 RS-24 to replace 1 SS-18. Some SS-18s will be scrapped and not replaced to get down to the limit figure. It is very likely due to cost that the Russians will go for closer to 1,700 warheads than 2,200.
(The SS-18s that are to be scrapped will likely be used to launch satellites to earn some cash.)

And as Putin has demonstrated with CFE, treaties can be withdrawn from at the stroke of a pen.




Cruise missiles are even easier to intercept today than ballistic missiles. A subsonic cruise missile would take quite some time to get to Poland from anywhere Russia could launch it from and would be vulnerable to interception and provide even more warning of an attack.

A sea launched missile only need fly 250 miles or less. And who says it needs to be subsonic? AS-4s, AS-6s, SS-N-12s, and SS-N-19s would all do just fine and never mind supersonic attack aircraft such as Su-24s, Backfires, and Blackjacks.



Short range ballistic missiles would not get past the THAAD missiles based with the system to defend the base.

So don't use ballistic missiles. THAAD is worthless against aircraft and cruise missiles.



(If you needed further evidence that the base is designed for use against Russia this is it. How could Iran or NK target a base in Poland with anything less than an ICBM?

Well I don't know what map you're using but on mine Iran is only about 1500 miles away from Poland and missiles designed for that range are exactly what THAAD is designed for. Using a GBI would be a waste on one of those.



There is no treaty limiting how many interceptor missiles you can build. Not only could they put 1,000 interceptors in Poland, they would not even be obliged to tell anyone about it.

LOL!. Are you saying the Russians are so inept they wouldn't notice a thousand missile silos being dug in Poland?



ICBMs on the other hand are limited by treaty, and they are treaties with no exit clauses.

Exit clauses mean squat. All a country needs to do to exit a treaty is to decide they don't want to honor it anymore. CFE comes to mind.

[GazB]

So I guess Putin will still hold on to power after the last election ?

Where does that assumption come from?


Topols have just one warhead, same with Topol-M

TOPOL was designed before the START II treaty that banned MIRVs was created. The original TOPOL was first tested in about 1983 and could be fitted with up to 6 warheads buy would normally have been fitted with three warheads plus decoys. The TOPOL-M was created after START II was written and has only one warhead. (START II was signed by Russia but not the US and has since been scrapped... it also banned heavyweight ICBMs like the SS-18).


RS-24 don't carry 10 warheads. Being a modification of Topol-M it has the same throw weight of 1200kg. It's impossible to fit 10 warheads on such a small missile, it more likely carries 3 warheads like the related Pioneer IRBM.


The Bulava is based on the TOPOL-M and can carry 6 warheads. I suspect the RS-24 is a modified TOPOL-M with a new double teir warhead bus for carrying a large number of warheads. The express purpose of the RS-24 is to replace the SS-18 and SS-19 in service. It is said to be both larger than the TOPOL-M and capable of carrying 10 MIRVs. We will find out for sure later this year when official data is to be released for START I exchanges. Some have looked at the RS-24 and described it as a TOPOL-M missile... this wouldn't make much sense as if it was why the new designation and "new Missile testing" for what is basically a TOPOL-M which is currently entering service.


They will never be capable to replace SS-18, the warhead number will just shrink. It also didn't entered production yet and nobody known when or if it will do.


Have read recent reports that state there will be two more RS-24 tests in 2008 and if they go well the missile will start production in 2009. This suggests perhaps the RS-24 is largely based on the TOPOL... perhaps adding a more powerful stage somewhere with a new warhead bus design and perhaps smaller warheads to accomodate 10 warheads where previously a max of 6 could be fitted.


That doesn't make sense. What do preemptive strikes have to do with needing missile defense radars?


There is a natural order of attack with a defensive force... The ICBMs will hit first with the SLBMs hitting some time after, followed a few hours later by cruise missiles launched from bombers. With preemptive strikes you are trying to surprise your target so stealthy bombers might go in first along with SSNs to get the other guys SSBNs before they launch. ICBMs will go last but there is not much point in firing your ICBMs at empty silos... direct radar views of the other guys assets means you know what has been used and what is still in the holster. It also means you can prime the relevant defence systems to be ready to look for incoming targets... all those hundreds of metal objects coming over the north pole could be hollow steel balls the size of soccer balls launched from a proton launcher for the NMD to waste interceptor missiles on.
Radar will tell you the source of the launched targets and their trajectory.


And as Putin has demonstrated with CFE, treaties can be withdrawn from at the stroke of a pen.


The CFE is a joke, but all Putin did was "unsign it" till everyone else signed. The situation was that only Russia had signed and only Russia was actually being limited in its deployments of its own forces in its own territory. They haven't withdrawn from the CFE as such, they are just waiting for everyone else to sign before they do.


A sea launched missile only need fly 250 miles or less. And who says it needs to be subsonic? AS-4s, AS-6s, SS-N-12s, and SS-N-19s would all do just fine and never mind supersonic attack aircraft such as Su-24s, Backfires, and Blackjacks.


The point is not that the ABM base can't be defeated. The point is that it is a destabilising strategic base in the middle of eastern europe.


So don't use ballistic missiles. THAAD is worthless against aircraft and cruise missiles.


And there wont be any aircraft or long range SAMs in Poland... ever.


Well I don't know what map you're using but on mine Iran is only about 1500 miles away from Poland and missiles designed for that range are exactly what THAAD is designed for.

And how far to NK? The Iranians don't even have a reliable missile able to reach Poland... one that would reach the US is no where on the horizon... let alone a nuclear weapon small enough to fit in any missile.


LOL!. Are you saying the Russians are so inept they wouldn't notice a thousand missile silos being dug in Poland?

No I am saying the US and Poland are not obliged to tell anyone how many interceptor missiles they are deploying and if they chose to build and install 1,000 missiles there is no treaty or international law Russia can point to and say they can't. Russia would then have the option of building a ridiculous number of ICBMs, which would be expensive, break the Moscow Treaty, and be a total waste of resources... which is probably what the US wants... or they could drop out of the INF treaty and fit tactical nuclear warheads onto short range and medium range missiles. The latter sounds most sensible to me.


Exit clauses mean squat. All a country needs to do to exit a treaty is to decide they don't want to honor it anymore. CFE comes to mind.

CFE treaty has exit clauses, clauses that the Russians have not used. They have not withdrawn from the treaty... they have just "unsigned it". No body else signed it either so they can hardly complain.

[GodlessAmerica!]

Of course a defence shield has a use. Having radars looking directly at your enemies ICBM launch fields gives you excellent information as to when they are firing weapons. Second a defence shield is something to hide behind as you make an attack... the better the shield the more likely you are to try to attack.
The Missiles deployed to Cuba were secret as they were being deployed but would have been revealed to the US when they were operational. The purpose of the missiles there was to have missiles as close to the US as US missiles in Turkey were to Moscow. When the US wet its pants about how short a warning time they would have between launch and impact they would be happy to negotiate for both sets of missiles to be withdrawn and everyone is happy again. The only fly in the ointment was that the US spotted the missiles before they were fully deployed. But the result was more than what Krushchev initially wanted. (he got the missiles out of Turkey and a US agreement to never invade Cuba again.)



I would say the imaginary nuclear missile in my pocket would be the ideal defence shield to use against an imagined Russian attack.



Except that its position in Poland means it wouldn't be intercepting the ICBMs
the Russians would be firing at the US... which would go straight over the north pole. The ten interceptors in Poland would however be ideally placed to stop ICBMs the Russians would be firing at the rest of NATO... no point in obliterating the US only to have French and British missiles hitting you and NATO ground forces climbing over the rubble to claim Russia as theirs when the smoke clears.



Yet they are not friends enough to even consider joining NATO or the EU...



What difference does that make? You just have to see how quickly the rats left the Warsaw Pact ship to see how much better Soviet Puppet states were...



Who says they still don't... and also that the US doesn't still do the same... colour revolutions dont just happen by accident you know...



The leader of Poland (wont call him a tyrant but really don't see how that makes it any different... the missiles in Cuba were Soviet troop controlled and the radar and missiles are US controlled) stated that this deal would move Poland from the Russian Sphere of Influence to the US Sphere once and for all... if that wasn't openly hostile I don't know what is...



Then Putin is a bigger fool than I thought he was... Gorbachev also had a good relationship with the west and the promises given to him that NATO wouldn't expand east, that there would be no new US bases in former WP states, that the former Soviet republics would not join NATO, etc etc were not honoured... I wouldn't call them lies because the people saying such things might have believed them but the actions of NATO and the EU since have made a liar of them now.

At the end of the day the US will build missile stations and the Russians will probably adjust their military so that they compensate for the US stations. What the Russians have learnt is that the west will do as it pleases and will not take Russian concerns into consideration. Fortunately the Russians have obviously learnt that lesson as shown by their disregard for the wests concerns and wants. If the west doens't like it... tough.

BTW if you think the 10 interceptor missile in Poland are not threat to Russia... the Moscow treaty limits the US and Russia to between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic warheads each. Assuming the Russians want to keep their forces small to reduce costs with 1,700 warheads between the land, sea and bomber fleet that means about 560 warheads each for land, sea, and air forces. With SS-18s carrying 10 warheads each (and RS-24s to replace them) plus a few TOPOL-Ms the future Russian ICBM fleet will probably look a lot like 50 SS-18s with ten warheads each and maybe 20 TOPOL-Ms with 3 warheads each. That is 70 missiles to shoot down! 10 in Poland will likely be more than enough to deal with few sent to hit Europe because they also have to hit the US and China... and because Israel now has nukes they might allocate a few that way too. Japan might decide now that Europe is getting ballistic missile defence (considering their proximity to north korea and the possibility that a malfunctioning BM might actually land on their territory then they probably have more claim of need than the US or Europe... so they might have 10-20 interceptors. There are currently 60 interceptors in the US, 10 more going to Europe add 10-20 more for Japan and Russias nuclear deterrence is not looking so secure... Interceptor missiles hit ICBMs before they deploy their warheads so they are not dealing with 556 warheads but less than 100 missiles.
Of course the design of the missile warheads will be changed and they might decide to have closer to 2,200 warheads than 1,700 warheads...



Indeed... the NMD was supposed to have 50 interceptors but they decided at the last minute to make 60. The number of interceptor missiles in Poland can be changed on a whim to 50 and Russia can do nothing to stop it. Of course despite not being able to do anything to stop it there is plenty they can do to counter it... but the western media likes to jump up and down and claim Russia is trying to assert itself and become relevant in the modern world... or some such bollox. The reality is that NATO is a military organisation and represent a military threat to Russia. Any change in NATO represents a change in that threat and Russia will adjust appropriately to that threat... and the western media will whine at the reaction... the important point is that it is a reaction to an action by the west... but the west blames the reaction and ignores the action that caused it.

Good point, GazB. I definitely need you in my buddy list.

[FelixA9]

There is a natural order of attack with a defensive force... The ICBMs will hit first with the SLBMs hitting some time after, followed a few hours later by cruise missiles launched from bombers. With preemptive strikes you are trying to surprise your target so stealthy bombers might go in first along with SSNs to get the other guys SSBNs before they launch. ICBMs will go last but there is not much point in firing your ICBMs at empty silos... direct radar views of the other guys assets means you know what has been used and what is still in the holster. It also means you can prime the relevant defence systems to be ready to look for incoming targets... all those hundreds of metal objects coming over the north pole could be hollow steel balls the size of soccer balls launched from a proton launcher for the NMD to waste interceptor missiles on.
Radar will tell you the source of the launched targets and their trajectory.

Ten missiles. Ten. That would be worthless against a Russian attack.



The CFE is a joke, but all Putin did was "unsign it" till everyone else signed. The situation was that only Russia had signed and only Russia was actually being limited in its deployments of its own forces in its own territory. They haven't withdrawn from the CFE as such, they are just waiting for everyone else to sign before they do.

That's a new one. How does one "unsign" a treaty? What's to keep Russia from "unsigning" any other treaty they're involved in or just ignoring it outright? That's right - nothing.



The point is not that the ABM base can't be defeated. The point is that it is a destabilising strategic base in the middle of eastern europe.

No more destabilizing than Russia's ABM system.



And there wont be any aircraft or long range SAMs in Poland... ever. Oh, so now Poland isn't allowed to have SAMs either huh? :roll:



And how far to NK?

What the hell do missiles in NK have to do with missiles in Poland?



The Iranians don't even have a reliable missile able to reach Poland... one that would reach the US is no where on the horizon... let alone a nuclear weapon small enough to fit in any missile.

Funny, the same could be said about the US and USSR in 1950. Guess we saw how that ended huh?


No I am saying the US and Poland are not obliged to tell anyone how many interceptor missiles they are deploying and if they chose to build and install 1,000 missiles there is no treaty or international law Russia can point to and say they can't.

Just as there is no way to MAKE Russia abide by any treaties it doesn't want to.


Russia would then have the option of building a ridiculous number of ICBMs, which would be expensive, break the Moscow Treaty, and be a total waste of resources... which is probably what the US wants... or they could drop out of the INF treaty and fit tactical nuclear warheads onto short range and medium range missiles. The latter sounds most sensible to me.

I thought you've been busy telling us how it's unpossible for Russia to ever break a treaty? :roll:

[GazB]

Ten missiles. Ten. That would be worthless against a Russian attack.

Considering the Iranians don't even have a working nuclear warhead let alone one small enough to fit into an ICBM... an ICBM they don't have either what other point is there to these interceptor missiles?

There is an agreement limiting the number of ICBM warheads the Russians and the US can have. With the US withdrawl from the ABM treaty the next agreement on limiting strategic weapons will be much more interesting... if this interceptor system in Poland goes ahead I think you will find the Russians will not be going any lower and may increase the number of warheads they are allowed to have.


That's a new one. How does one "unsign" a treaty? What's to keep Russia from "unsigning" any other treaty they're involved in or just ignoring it outright? That's right - nothing.

The Russians have said they will abide by the treaty when all the other states sign it. They also signed the START II treaty and stopped making TOPOL missiles and developed the TOPOL-M missile with only one warhead and started withdrawing heavyweight ICBMs like the SS-18 and SS-19. The US never signed the START II treaty and it has been dissolved by mutual agreement. The US on the other hand withdrew from the ABM treaty, whereas the Russians would have been happy to modify it to prevent the situation we have now.

The reality is that although it is now ridiculous the CFE treaty is the only treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe. Without it the Russians could easily be overwhelmed by NATO forces greatly increasing production of tanks and APCs etc... an arms race they couldn't win and don't want to fight.
THe CFE was supposed to create balance... 20,000 tanks for each side... right now it is something like 6,000 tanks for Russia and 34,000 for NATO...


No more destabilizing than Russia's ABM system.


Russias ABM system around Moscow is not designed to defend the whole country... just delay the destruction of Moscow long enough for the launch order to get to everyone.
This US system could be part of a world wide system that can only get bigger and more capable.
10 interceptors in Poland, 60 in the US... how many AEGIS class cruisers are there? Each is to be fitted with PAC-3... 13 carrier groups means there are at least 26...


Oh, so now Poland isn't allowed to have SAMs either huh?

What for? What is the threat that requires Poland to spend money on SAMs instead of education and health?


What the hell do missiles in NK have to do with missiles in Poland?


Every news release I saw on the interceptor missiles in poland named specifically that they were to stop ICBMs from Iran and NK from reaching the US.


Funny, the same could be said about the US and USSR in 1950. Guess we saw how that ended huh?


Yeah, that is right... Iran is going to pour the energies of the worlds greatest scientists and trillions of dollars into making nuclear warheads and ICBMs. The fact that they export their own crude oil because they can't refine it themselves and have to import fuel and refined oil is not important I guess... :)


Just as there is no way to MAKE Russia abide by any treaties it doesn't want to.

Yeah, cause the West would never impose a crippling trade embargo or economic sanctions... that just doesn't happen.


I thought you've been busy telling us how it's unpossible for Russia to ever break a treaty?

Anybody can withdraw from any treaty, but at the end of the day they signed treaties for a reason. Russia doesn't need the economic burden of 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads... but it seems the US is happy to build as many NMD interceptors as it can.

[perdurabo]

The reality is that although it is now ridiculous the CFE treaty is the only treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe. Without it the Russians could easily be overwhelmed by NATO forces greatly increasing production of tanks and APCs etc... an arms race they couldn't win and don't want to fight.
THe CFE was supposed to create balance... 20,000 tanks for each side... right now it is something like 6,000 tanks for Russia and 34,000 for NATO...
it is maximum tanks numer allowed by CFE but you forgot that moust of european NATO countries lowered their tank numbers to 3digits in time of WP we had like 1500 tanks or more now we will have ~500 Germany with 3000 tanks will have less than 1000, tank divisions ain't cheap you know?

[GazB]

it is maximum tanks numer allowed by CFE but you forgot that moust of european NATO countries lowered their tank numbers to 3digits in time of WP we had like 1500 tanks or more now we will have ~500 Germany with 3000 tanks will have less than 1000, tank divisions ain't cheap you know?

That would be important if the WP still existed and there were two basic factions in Europe that were largely balanced. At the moment there are two factions... Russia and NATO plus those who want into NATO. Even if NATO maintains less than half of what it is allowed under CFE it will still have more than 5 times more than Russia is allowed.