Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 76 to 83 of 83

Thread: During missile defense talk, Obama tells Medvedev he'll have 'more flexibility' after

  1. #76
    Senior Member artjomh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    There are just 58 SS-18! That's barely enough to cover the US Air Force missiles. How can something be a first strike weapon when it CANNOT ACHIEVE FIRST STRIKE? Do you even know the definition of first strike?!?

    If Russian forces have a first strike posture, why do their bombers NEVER patrol with nuclear weapons on-board? Why do their submarines NEVER sail with nuclear armed cruise missiles or torpedoes on-board?

    These are simple questions. If you can't answer them, either you are being disingenuous, or you simply don't understand what the hell we are talking about here.

  2. #77
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Leading maxima10 around by the nose.
    Posts
    23,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artjomh View Post
    There are just 58 SS-18! That's barely enough to cover the US Air Force missiles. How can something be a first strike weapon when it CANNOT ACHIEVE FIRST STRIKE? Do you even know the definition of first strike?!?

    If Russian forces have a first strike posture, why do their bombers NEVER patrol with nuclear weapons on-board? Why do their submarines NEVER sail with nuclear armed cruise missiles or torpedoes on-board?

    These are simple questions. If you can't answer them, either you are being disingenuous, or you simply don't understand what the hell we are talking about here.
    The SS-18 BY THEMSELVES can cover the US ICBM force, as you've admitted. That leaves the much vaunted TOPOLS and any deployed SSBNs to clean up. And it's not THAT difficult to load bombers and sortie more SSBNs. You sound as though you think unless forces are on patrol 24/7 it is forever impossible to launch a first strike. Might I suggest you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

  3. #78
    Senior Member [WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Making people mad...
    Posts
    7,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artjomh View Post
    That's a false premise. Russian strategic forces are not aligned for first strike.

    - Lower submarine operational tempo
    - Open ocean targeting
    - Road-mobile missiles being locked into garrisons under START (changed under New START)
    - Military doctrine that officially eschews nuclear first strike strike policy
    - Nuclear armed ALCM decoupled from strategic bombers
    - Nuclear armed SLCM kept in central storage away from naval vessels

    If you think this is a first strike posture, you are an ignoramus.
    Submarines are a second strike weapon.
    Road mobile missiles are a second strike weapon.
    Nuclear armed bombers are a second strike weapon.
    SLCM's are a tactical weapon.

    No, the fact that Russia is keeping their second strike weapons locked up and not readily deployed while their first strike weapons are at the ready isn't really comforting.

    Instead, we see this:

    Russian strategic force relies on ICBM.
    Russian air defense system is massive to repel a second strike from bombers.
    Russian missile defense system is set up to protect major cities (Moscow) from retaliatory strike (if it were aligned against a first strike, it would be deployed to protect Siberian missile fields).
    Maintained a launch on warning policy until very recently, and may still do so.
    Tactical nuclear weapons still have a major role in Russian warfighting doctrine.

    Meanwhile in the USA:

    Backbone of nuclear ****nal are SLBMs.
    ICBM force is cut to the bone.
    Stealth nuclear cruise missiles were given up.
    No launch on warning policy.
    Tactical nukes were given up, except for ~500 gravity bombs.
    Missile defense based in Alaska, too small to adequately protect anything against a second strike from a major power. Missile defense in Poland will have no effect on Russian ability to target the USA.

    I'm not saying that Russia is planning a first strike, but they should look at their own posture before they start reading into other nations' intentions.

  4. #79
    Senior Member artjomh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [WDW]Megaraptor View Post
    I'm not saying that Russia is planning a first strike, but they should look at their own posture before they start reading into other nations' intentions.
    I still don't get how any of the above signals a first strike posture?

    Russian nuclear forces cannot outright destroy or overwhelmingly attrite US nuclear forces due to significantly higher US SSBN OpsTempo. Hence, Russian forces don't possess first strike capability. That's the freaking definition. I don't get how you can argue with this.

    Russia relies on ICBMs because it is a land power and has a wealth of expertise in lang-based missiles. This has nothing to do with nuclear posture. And the ability to defend Moscow is hardly equal to first strike capability. Since US forces would still be able to massively retaliate against the rest of Russia, the second strike option is always maintained on both sides.

  5. #80
    Senior Member [WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Making people mad...
    Posts
    7,626

    Default

    "In the future, Russia will frankly acknowledge its nuclear first strike policy. It is obvious that, for the new military doctrine to call for nuclear deterrence of conventional war, implies abandoning the 'no first use' pledge, since logically this requires readiness to use nuclear weapons first...Russia may acknowledge the possible pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons at an early stage of conventional war."--Alexei Arbatov, Russian MP, Committee for Defense, June 11, 1993.

    First strike posture is different from first strike capability.

    How does it signal a first strike posture? There is a saying in nuclear strategy: Offense is defense, defense is offense. Weapons that kill weapons are bad, weapons that kill people are good. This is simple, yet complex. Any questions?

  6. #81
    Senior Member artjomh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against her and (or) her allies, and in a case of an aggression against her with conventional weapons that would put in danger the very existence of the state.
    Military Doctrine of Russian Federation, Feb 5 2010, http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/461

    Quote Originally Posted by [WDW]Megaraptor View Post
    Offense is defense, defense is offense. Weapons that kill weapons are bad, weapons that kill people are good.
    No questions, except that this is an argument against missile defense.

  7. #82
    Senior Member [WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Making people mad...
    Posts
    7,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artjomh View Post
    No questions, except that this is an argument against missile defense.
    To answer your unspoken question, yes US missile defense is designed to preserve US first strike capability against small nuclear states such as North Korea.

  8. #83
    Not Goat Roping Shermbodius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    16,803

    Default

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...le_634772.html

    Obama just got Pravda's endorsement.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •