Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Share

    Pervius

    Posts : 247
    Points : 267
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Pervius on Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:40 pm

    Didn't WikiLeaks say the US Army Patriot Battery in Poland didn't have any Patriot missiles in its launchers?

    Due to world current events I don't think there will be any active US missile defense in Turkey. Localized AEGIS to protect surface fleet....nothing else in Turkey matters or is valuable enough to have a missile defense. Maybe there is radar plugged into the fiber optic cables to feed targeting data to places they do wish to defend.

    Then again the Saudi's financing North Korea's missile program in exchange for a few of their own to put into silo's....maybe the US would make moves to nullify Saudi's Ballistic Missile program.


    You have to REALLY admire Saudi's tactics. How they threw the US military out. Successfully financed 9-11. Told the US they weren't accepting US dollars for oil anymore. Financed the Pakistani nuclear bomb program in exchange for a few of their own. Largest Air Base in the world....Largest Dairy Farm in the world....

    They've been getting ready to live without the US for some time....AND have the means to keep the US military from striking them. I'd love to know about the Saud's assets in Space clandestinely thrown up over the decades. They've been working with MANY countries for some time to change the middle east to their favor.

    Israel's problems now are one of their pet projects as well.

    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  SOC on Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:21 am

    Pervius wrote:Didn't WikiLeaks say the US Army Patriot Battery in Poland didn't have any Patriot missiles in its launchers?

    ...and that's because the battery was there to train Polish crews, not to actually defend anything.

    Pervius wrote:Then again the Saudi's financing North Korea's missile program in exchange for a few of their own to put into silo's....maybe the US would make moves to nullify Saudi's Ballistic Missile program.

    ...except that Saudi Arabia bought DF-3A IRBMs from China, and they aren't silo launched.

    Pervius

    Posts : 247
    Points : 267
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Pervius on Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:35 pm

    Are you sure Saudi Arabia doesn't have any missile silo's?

    They've got 300-400 Israeli nukes staring them down...Plus England/US wanting Saudi oil...but neither country has anything to trade for oil. Just worthless paper.

    Saudi's weren't happy about losing hundreds of Billions in the WallStreet debacle. 2007 Saudi came out with the "We're not accepting US dollars for oil anymore".

    I'm pretty sure Saudi's got missile silo's their North Vietnamese laborers built for them with North Korean/Chinese help.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  SOC on Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:23 am

    There's never been any evidence to support a system of missile silos in Saudi Arabia. The DF-3A's are stored in hardened UGFs and pulled onto launch pads for erecting and firing, so they're still relatively survivable.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:10 am






    Ukraine ‘ready’ to join Euro missile shield project agreed with Russia
    © RIA Novosti. Mikhail Fomichev
    22:44 06/10/2011
    KIEV, October 6 (RIA Novosti)




    Ukraine is ready to contribute to the creation of the European missile shield if the program is developed in cooperation with Russia, Ukrainian envoy to NATO Igor Dolgov said on Thursday.

    “It is obvious that this project would be of a special interest for Ukraine if the NATO system is built together with Russia,” the Ukrainian Unian news agency quoted Dolgov as saying in Brussels.

    “If a system is built that would cover parts of Europe on either side of Ukraine,” the diplomat added, “this is in our natural interest.”

    Dolgov said there had been no full-fledged talks between NATO and Ukraine on the country’s participation in the project because the final configuration of the European missile shield “had not yet been defined.”

    He said, however, that “information exchange” took place between Ukraine and the alliance, which was intended to acquaint NATO officials and member states with Ukraine’s opportunities in this sphere.

    “It’s in our common interest to continue this information exchange, especially at subsequent stages,” when NATO clarifies its missile shield plans, Dolgov said.

    NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday that the European missile defense system would become fully operational by 2018. The statement came as Spain announced its decision to contribute to the project by allowing four U.S. warships equipped with Aegis interceptor missiles to be deployed at the U.S. naval base in the southern port of Rota by 2013.

    Besides Spain, Romania, Poland, the Netherlands and Turkey have agreed to host key components of the future missile defense network in their territories. Rasmussen said he would not be surprised if there will be "further announcements in the comings weeks and months as regards new inputs from other countries."

    Russia strongly opposes the deployment of NATO missiles near its borders. The Russian Foreign Ministry warned on Tuesday that by refusing to provide legal guarantees that its missile shield would not be directed at Russia, NATO could miss the chance to “turn anti-missile defense from an area of confrontation into an area of cooperation.”

    http://www.en.ria.ru/world/20111006/167449648.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:12 am

    This is a very interesting development.

    The situation has been that the Russians want a joint air defence system for all of Europe controlled by NATO and Russia together.

    NATO wants two separate systems... a NATO system and a Russian system and both will share data.

    This offer by the Ukraine wouldn't really work in the NATO model unless the Ukraine joined the NATO ABM system or the Russians ABM system or created their own and joined it with the other two.

    The offer from Ukraine would work well in the Russian model as it provides places for radars and existing radars from the soviet period that could be useful to the system.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:48 pm

    Hey GarryB, do you remember what i had foreseen in my previous message ?

    ...NATO complete its ABM "encirclement" of Russian Federation (the second phase will be placement of ABM elements in India and/or Japan)

    Well read here please :


    www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2516344.ece

    Now we have two different explanations (naturally with degrees of plausibility completely different..... Very Happy )

    1) NATO ,as a true organization of the Good and of Peace, has choiced to protect the innocent NATO European people from the ,mhhhh immense and imminent Iranian threat Laughing Laughing Laughing , starting a galactical program for high end GBI ballistic defence systems (litterally for some trillion of dollars !!!!!) to be placed in.......East Europe Suspect Suspect Suspect .
    But that is not all !!!
    Because it is a true philantropic organization ,NATO has organized a lottery : "The Great Lottery of Peace and Protection" with the names of several not-NATO nations the citizen of which would have winned the right to be defended under the great NATO's "Shield of Good"; the blindfolded godess has put down its hand and... (drum rull..)... India has been selected !!!
    Oh ,i almost forgot, naturally in this istance i have foreseen that name only thanks to my sensitive powers and the position of the stars (the same astral position which suggest to me that within some years another Lottery will be carried out and the winner will be...mhh...mhh...(concentration ) ..mhh..mh... Japan !!!!!

    2) On the basis of the technical reasons previously mentioned NATO has been forced ,by a fast widening technological gap with Russia in nuclear delivery systems,to carry out ,in a very short time window, some extrreme measures ,such as the unilateral exit from ABM treaty in 2002 and a multi-trillion dollar ABM program ,envisioning a slow "encirclement" plan of Russian Federation with high end ground based ABM interceptors and sensor bases to attempt the neutralization of Russian missile in the unique phase of theirs vulnerability : boost phase (naturally India become a crucial element also, in perspective against a fast-growing China ICBM menace).


    This provide also a good explanation to the great effort by part of USA ,in particular in open media (thanks also to self-evident "shopping" operations of several mean, mercenary Indian media operator) aimed at sabotage in any way and ,eventually, fracture the old partnership and friendship between India and Russia ,bashing anything Russia-related and promoting ,in ways sometimes even comical, any step toward Western products or economic interests.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    NATO missile shield

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:22 am

    I don't doubt they might want to do this.

    I just think that they can't follow through.
    The US includes lots of strings restricting the use of everything they sell, in fact they don't really sell weapons... they rent them.

    India would be given a lot of freedom to use US weapons against China, but China isn't really anywhere near the threat to India that Pakistan is...

    Also the creation of an ABM system that encircles Russia will actually be a very good thing... it will make it very clear to Russia that the US is a country they can do business with but that they will never be friends and that the INF treaty will likely be the first to fall followed by the Start treaty.

    We don't need a new cold war and I don't think Putin is stupid enough to drag Russia down that path, but there are plenty of cheap and easy ways to greatly increase the threat to the US and NATO without spending all their money... the INF treaty gone will make nuclear deterrence against Europe much cheaper as IRBMs are not counted by the new START treaty so all 1,500 strategic weapons can be directed at the US.
    The US might respond by introducing IRBMs and cruise missiles back to Europe... but the threat from conventional forces is already there anyway.

    Spending on ABM and IRBM systems will not be good for the wests bottom line.

    Pervius

    Posts : 247
    Points : 267
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Pervius on Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:33 pm

    """"US is considering deploying missile defense elements in Israel""""


    Before Obama even became a President, Israel had America's THAAD, Patriot, and AEGIS equipped ships in its Ports.

    The article title is rubbish. America's best Air Defense hardware has been protecting Israel, not Washington DC. Israel's the real Capitol of America and everyone knows it.

    If Obama tried to pull ANY of that hardware out...those Israeli's would give Obama some real trouble.

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:06 am

    Nice Technical Summary

    Upsetting the
    Reset :The Technical Basis of Russian Concern Over NATO Missile Defense

    By YOUSAF BUTT and THEODORE POSTOL

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Russia Concerns over NATO Missile Defense

    Post  Austin on Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:34 am

    This write up by Postal and Yousaf summarises the technical write up of Russia concerns on NATO missile defence


    Upsetting the
    Reset :The Technical Basis of Russian Concern Over NATO Missile Defense

    By YOUSAF BUTT and THEODORE POSTOL

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:26 pm

    RF to equip missiles in RVSN, Navy with MD penetration systems – Medvedev



    GORKI, November 23 (Itar-Tass) — Russia will equip missiles in the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Navy with missile defence penetration systems, President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday.

    Due to the U.S. plans to continue the missile defence construction in Europe, strategic ballistic missiles, which become operational in the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Navy, will be equipped with missile defence penetration systems and new high-efficiency units, the Russian leader stressed.

    Medvedev has called for ensuring protection of strategic nuclear forces within creating an aerospace defence system.

    President Medvedev said the U.S. had launched its missile defence programme in Europe. Thus, the Russian leader gave instructions to ensure protection of the strategic nuclear forces within creating an aerospace defence system.

    In his address to Russian citizens, Medvedev said he wanted to report on Russia’s return measures to creating missile defence in Europe.

    President Medvedev said: “First. On my instruction the Russian Defence Ministry will immediately put into operation a radar station in the Kaliningrad region to prevent missile attacks.

    “Second. Within creating Russia’s aerospace defence system we will ensure protection of strategic nuclear forces.

    “Third. Russia will equip missiles in the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Navy with missile defence penetration systems. Due to the U.S. plans to continue the missile defence construction in Europe, strategic ballistic missiles, which become operational in the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Navy, will be equipped with missile defence penetration systems and new high-efficiency units.

    “Fourth. The Armed Forces will be set the task to work out measures to destroy information and management missile defence systems,” Medvedev said.

    “These measures are adequate, effective and need minor costs,” the president said. If other measures are insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy contemporary strike systems [for example, the Iskander systems] in the west and south in order to prevent fire damage from U.S. missile defence deployed in Europe,” Medvedev said.

    “The deployment of the Iskander missile system in the Kaliningrad region will be one of such steps in this aspect,” the Russian leader stressed.

    “If it necessary we will take other measures to counter European missile defence,” Medvedev pointed out.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:27 pm

    I still think withdrawing from the INF treaty would be a better threat.

    This would allow Iskanders range to be extended to... say 1,500-2,000km which would make it much more flexible in the conventional and tactical nuclear role.

    It would be much cheaper than an ICBM.

    Obviously Russia would have to make it clear that any US missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads deployed in Europe within range of Russia would be considered strategic weapons and counted under the START treaty and that Russian would accept the same judgement of any IRBM that Russia might deploy with the range to reach CONUS.

    All the improvements in solid rocket fuel technology should allow much smaller missiles with much longer ranges to be developed and used.

    The cruise missile version of the Iskander could carry 5,500km range cruise missiles for example and cover most of europe.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:48 am

    Russian President says Russia may deploy missiles near EU borders

    IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

    Moscow, Nov 23, IRNA -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday that Russia will deploy missiles near the EU's borders if the US pursues its missile defence plans.

    In a televised statement, he said 'radar missile warning system' could be deployed in Kaliningrad if Russia, the US and Nato failed to make a deal.

    He said that Russia has the right to halt further disarmament and arms control efforts if it doesn’t reach an agreement with the US on the ABM issue.

    The Russian President said that taking into account the fact that offensive and defensive weapons are closely interconnected, Russia may have legal grounds to walk out of the START-3 and this is stipulated by the Treaty.

    'We will not participate in a program which may weaken our deterrence potential in 6-8 years. This program (European missile defense) has already been launched. Its implementation is gaining momentum in Poland, Romania, Turkey and Spain. And we are informed about it as an accomplished fact.

    'We will certainly continue the missile defense dialogue with the United States and NATO, as we agreed with President Barack Obama during our recent meeting at the APEC summit in Honolulu where I again spelled out our concerns in a precise and clear-cut way. There still is time to achieve understanding. Russia has the political will to move towards agreements that could open a new chapter in our relations with the United States and NATO.

    'If our partners are prepared to take into account Russia’s legitimate security interests in an honest and responsible way, I am sure we will manage to come to an agreement. But if we are offered to “cooperate” against our own interests, we will fail to find common ground. In this case, we will have to look for other options. We will build our actions depending on real developments at each new phase of the American plan.

    'Therefore, I have made the following decisions:

    3. I order the Ministry of Defense to deploy radar missile warning system in the city of Kaliningrad.

    4. A strategic missile facilities shield will be the first to be strengthened as part of setting up Russia’s Air and Space defense system.

    3. Russia’s Navy and strategic missiles troops will be equipped with a cutting-edge ABM penetration device and super efficient warheads.

    4. I have ordered the country’s military to develop measures enabling the troops to destroy ABM control and information systems in the event of an attack. The abovementioned measures are relevant, efficient and low-cost,

    5. If the abovementioned are not enough, Russia will deploy cutting –edge ballistic missile systems providing for total destruction of US ABMs in Europe. One of the measures will be deploying The 9K720 Iskander mobile theater ballistic missile system in a special area in Kaliningrad.

    'Russia has the right to halt further disarmament and arms control efforts if it doesn’t reach an agreement with the US on the ABM issue.

    'Taking into account the fact that offensive and defensive weapons are closely interconnected, Russia may have legal grounds to walk out of the START-3 and this is stipulated by the Treaty.

    'I would like to emphasize that Russia is not shutting the door on the ABM dialogue with the US and NATO and on practical partnership in this area. Nevertheless, this can be reached only via creating a specific legal basis for such cooperation that will provide for the protection of Russia’s legitimate interests and concerns. We’re open for a dialogue. We’re counting on a reasonable and constructive approach from our western partners, President Medvedev said in his television address quoted by IRNA reporter in Moscow.

    **1412
    Islamic Republic News Agency/IRNA NewsCode: 30678698

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2011/russia-111123-irna01.htm
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:36 am

    3. I order the Ministry of Defense to deploy radar missile warning system in the city of Kaliningrad.

    Such a forward deployed system would give advanced warning of an attack on Russia. Its position would leave it vulnerable to a first strike, but that in itself would be warning enough... NATO is hardly going to attack an ABM radar station in Kaliningrad if it has no intention to attack Russia and use its ABM system to hide behind.

    4. A strategic missile facilities shield will be the first to be strengthened as part of setting up Russia’s Air and Space defense system.

    So the S-500 will be well funded and likely fairly widely deployed and VKKO forces will also likely be well funded from the start, though the initial focus will be from ballistic missile attack.

    3. Russia’s Navy and strategic missiles troops will be equipped with a cutting-edge ABM penetration device and super efficient warheads.

    So perhaps Ironsightsnipers idea of a naval Iskander missile might become a reality. It would be the ideal missile to base an ABM system penetrating missile on. Perhaps the Kirovs might get more extensive upgrades than previously thought... 80 tubes for the UKSK might change to 64 tubes with 8 x UKSK launchers plus perhaps a 10-12 tube naval 2,000km range Iskander ABM system buster system?

    Plus of course the Redut SAM system reduced in tube numbers to allow a few S-500 tubes to defend from BM attack.

    [quote]4. I have ordered the country’s military to develop measures enabling the troops to destroy ABM control and information systems in the event of an attack.[quote]

    Which pretty much could be handled with a combination of manouvering hypersonic missiles (ie longer range Iskander) and stealthy cruise missiles that could both be land ship and air launched weapons.

    The abovementioned measures are relevant, efficient and low-cost,

    Clearly a dig at the US ABM system in Europe which is not relevant (due to Iran not having nuclear weapons or ICBMs), inefficient... because it will not stop anything but a ballistic missile they don't even have, and of course this ABM system in Europe will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and still not be guaranteed to work.

    5. If the abovementioned are not enough, Russia will deploy cutting –edge ballistic missile systems providing for total destruction of US ABMs in Europe. One of the measures will be deploying The 9K720 Iskander mobile theater ballistic missile system in a special area in Kaliningrad.

    I rather suspect this part will include a withdrawl from the INF treaty.

    'Russia has the right to halt further disarmament and arms control efforts if it doesn’t reach an agreement with the US on the ABM issue.

    And if it doesn't then this certainly means the end of the INF treaty.

    'Taking into account the fact that offensive and defensive weapons are closely interconnected, Russia may have legal grounds to walk out of the START-3 and this is stipulated by the Treaty.

    Just common sense really.

    The US can solve this largely by signing a document guaranteeing that the European ABM system will not be directed against Russia.

    They wont of course, because they are not going to limit themselves... this system will be expensive and will only grow in cost and capability.

    Personally I think naval based systems would be far more useful anyway... far more mobile.

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:34 am

    I dont think backing out from INF is a smart idea it would just mean US would deploy non-strategic weapons IRBM/MRBM in Europe.

    A better idea would be to start nuclear testing so that they could test better lighter and more powerful warhead.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:42 am

    How would resuming nuclear testing balance an ABM shield?

    You balance the other guys shield by introducing lots more "spears and arrows" for the shield to deal with.

    If the INF treaty is withdrawn from it would simply be a matter of stating publicly that any theatre or tactical weapon (ie IRBM or cruise missile) deployed in Europe by the US that can reach Russia will be considered a strategic weapon and therefore bound by the new START treaty.

    Building a few thousand Iskanders with a range of 2,000-5,000km will still be much cheaper than building their own ABM system to counter a US ABM system in Europe.

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:14 am

    Seems like Russia is developing a new solid fuel ICBM called Avangrad whose first test didnt go well.

    Russia's response to missile defense

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2011/09/what_was_the_icbm_that_crashed.shtml
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:04 am

    Most of the current ICBMs were developed under the shadow of START II which banned heavyweight ICBMs and MIRVed ICBMs.

    This means the TOPOL was designed at a time when its throw weight and warhead capacity were severely limited.

    Developing new ICBMs with much higher throw weights and larger warhead capacities means fewer missiles with more decoys and jammers and other bits and pieces can be carried. Modern manouvering warheads are much bulkier and heavier than old MIRV and MRV warheads that were simply released on target.

    New ICBMs can be designed from the start for lots of bulky MARVs plus lots of decoys and jammers and other items which will mean fewer ICBMs will be needed to be kept in service.

    Just looking at the RS-24 with 6-10 warheads that means a difference of either 500 odd TOPOLs or 50-85 odd RS-24s depending on the capacity.

    This new Vanguard missile probably adds more decoys and jammers to the mix, while a new heavyweight missile offers the potential to fire missiles over the south pole at the US... further complicating their defence.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  SOC on Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:18 pm

    Austin wrote:I dont think backing out from INF is a smart idea it would just mean US would deploy non-strategic weapons IRBM/MRBM in Europe.

    Except there aren't any to deploy. All of the Pershing IIs and BGM-109 GLCMs are all long gone. A more likely response would be to resume sticking nuke-tipped Tomahawks in SSNs and surface ships.

    GarryB wrote:If the INF treaty is withdrawn from it would simply be a matter of stating publicly that any theatre or tactical weapon (ie IRBM or cruise missile) deployed in Europe by the US that can reach Russia will be considered a strategic weapon and therefore bound by the new START treaty.

    That doesn't work either. New START specifically describes the types of weapons it covers. To incorporate anything that is not an ICBM, SLBM, or bomber would pretty much require a new treaty. Even cruise missiles by themselves aren't really covered at all, except when they are carried by bombers. A BGM-109 unit that magically reappeared would not be regulated by New START, but by the INF treaty. Pull out of the INF treaty and your options become far more interesting. Plus, it would significantly alter the threat to the US by allowing ICBMs tasked to hit places like England or France to be retasked to CONUS targets. That gives you far more targeting options while denying the same ability to the US, as any current US nuke system directed at Russia at this moment is by nature something that will be START accountable. Dropping INF right now is about the smoothest move Russia could make. But it has to be right now, or at least in the near future. With the US making defense cuts and the economy still trying to recover despite Congress, the chances of getting a new nuclear delivery system for European basing funded are not very large. And then, where are we going to put it? What European nations are eager to host US nuclear arms on that scale again? Someone like Poland might be willing to host ABM bits, but are they willing to host actual nuclear weapons? OK, so you can build them and keep them in CONUS until needed. But at that point, if they're actually needed, that's just a huge incentive for a pre-emptive strike.

    I forsee things becoming very interesting once Putin is re-elected.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:31 am

    Another option of course would be to block all US and NATO traffic through Russia to Afghanistan.

    I am sure Pakistan will fold over its threat to stop traffic through Pakistan but I am sure there are plenty of Pakistanis who would happily blockade such convoys on their own.

    Lets face it... Afghanistan is going to become a shthole when the US leaves anyway... the infighting will likely go on for years... decades if Pakistan does not support one side or another...

    Russia just needs to work on its border controls and those of its southern neighbours between it and afghanistan.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  SOC on Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:41 am

    GarryB wrote:Another option of course would be to block all US and NATO traffic through Russia to Afghanistan.

    Sure, that'd be awesome. We could switch to moving cargo into Mumbai and flying it into Afghanistan through Kashmir. Then we can use increased cooperation to build India an anti-Pakistan missile shield and see how that one gets spun.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:38 am

    Except India has no border with Afghanistan... to run a land route through India would require crossing into Pakistan or China to get to Afghanistan.

    Their best bet would be through the med to the black sea, across Georgia and azerbaijan, over the caspian sea to Turkmenistan to Afghanistan... Lots of transfers from rail to boat and back again, but should be a fairly safe route in terms of attack by hostile opponents.

    Air transport is not a useful component... if it can be all rail and ship then it can be efficient.

    Of course the fact that they wont sign a piece of paper saying the European ABM... sorry... the US ABM system in Europe will not be used against Russia suggests the whole purpose of the system is for use against Russia... which makes sense because Russia has plenty of BMs while Iran has very few.

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:44 pm

    Medvedev's Missile Threats Are His 'Plan B'

    By Ruslan Pukhov

    On Nov. 23, President Dmitry Medvedev — who, by the way, is still president — announced the measures with which Russia would respond if the United States deploys its missile defense system in Europe. Many commentators in the West and Russia agreed that there was nothing new in his threats to withdraw from the New START treaty with the United States and deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, saying his rhetoric was aimed primarily at Russian voters during a national election season.

    That is largely true. Medvedev is clearly doing everything he can to avoid looking like a political lame duck or being eclipsed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s vigorous election campaign. The “firm” and “patriotic” foreign policy stance is needed as a counterweight to the Kremlin’s vague economic agenda, the growing popular discontent over the ruling tandem’s return to power and the never-ending dominance of United Russia.

    But that is only an initial and very superficial analysis. It would be a mistake to explain the Russian leadership’s most important strategic foreign policy and defense decisions purely on the basis of domestic policy considerations. In emphasizing those particular factors, observers tend to underestimate Russia’s real national security concerns. In fact, Russian history demonstrates that the foreign policy picture heavily influences the internal dynamics of this country. In fact, the Western forces’ cynical and colonialist foray into Libya, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s banal “wow” upon hearing of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s death, or the bloodthirsty comments made by U.S. Senator John McCain for the benefit of U.S. voters have done more to ensure Putin’s return to the Kremlin than could Central Elections Commission head Vladimir Churov.

    It would be wrong to focus on the propagandistic aspect of Medvedev’s statements while ignoring the underlying message — namely that they denote the beginning of a crisis with the United States on nuclear arms and the overall strategic relationship between the two countries. This crisis has many dimensions, and the disagreement over missile defense is only its most striking manifestation.

    The fundamental reason behind Washington’s activity in the field of missile defense is its desire to achieve complete security for the entire continental United States. That goal drives all of Washington’s national security policy and thinking.

    However, today’s technology and economic situation make it impossible to create a missile defense system capable of guaranteeing protection against a massive nuclear attack. That is why the United States has chosen to work toward this goal in stages, first creating a “limited” missile defense system to stop missiles fired by “rogue states.” However, it is obvious that any “limited” missile defense system would be no more than an interim step toward building a full-scale missile defense system to provide guaranteed protection of U.S. territory against any nuclear missile attack. A lack of desire is not stopping the United States from creating and deploying a full-scale missile defense system now, but technological and economic constraints make it infeasible at present.

    Thus, any “limited” versions of a U.S. missile defense system — provided it really is directed against missiles coming from Iran or North Korea — would essentially be “experimental trial runs” designed to perfect the technology needed for the later deployment of a full-scale missile defense system to protect the continental United States.

    Of course, Washington’s missile defense goal is to achieve complete and unassailable national security. But as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger aptly said, “Absolute security for one means no security for the rest.” And that is the concern underlying Russia’s position regarding any configuration of the U.S missile defense
    system.

    At the same time, it is clear that Russia has no realistic way to stop or delay Washington’s plans to pursue its missile defense program. There is a strong consensus among U.S. lawmakers and the public on the need to achieve the greatest possible protection of the nation’s territory against any foreign missile attack, including possible strikes from Russia or China. For its part, Russia has nothing to offer in return for Washington’s belief that absolute invulnerability is attainable. Recall that when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met with U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Reykjavik in 1986, he offered complete nuclear disarmament in return for a U.S. promise to abandon its Strategic Defense Initiative. That proposal was rejected. Washington’s missile defense program is closely linked to the idea of global hegemony that underlies all U.S. foreign and defense policy.

    As a result, negotiating with the United States on missile defense is entirely futile — a conviction that negotiations in recent years have only reinforced in the minds of Russian leaders. Every attempt to draw the United States into an agreement on some form of restriction has proven completely fruitless. In effect, all interactions with the United States on this question have only confirmed the nature of Washington’s “long-term” missile defense policy — one that ultimately threatens the basis of nuclear deterrence and, consequently, the very foundation of Russia’s national security.

    Under such circumstances, Russian leaders are faced with a choice: either continue making futile attempts to negotiate with Washington on missile defense or resort to a contingency plan. As experienced leaders with a realistic grasp of world affairs, Medvedev and Putin should have had a “Plan B” all along — and they did. It was that plan that Medvedev disclosed on Nov. 23. Of course, domestic policy considerations played some role, but the main significance of the speech was that Russia is officially putting Plan B into action. It would be very unwise for anyone to ignore that clear signal.

    Not surprisingly, Medvedev said nothing new in those statements, and the measures he announced are already being implemented. Russia’s Plan B has been under development for a long time. Development and testing have long been conducted on new nuclear warheads and upgraded missiles to carry them. These include the Lainer, Avangard and Yars missiles — with the Yars already in production. A network of new long-range early warning radar stations is under construction, one of which is the station being built in Kaliningrad. Systems are also being developed for the “destruction of the information and control apparatus of missile defense systems.” In this regard, recall that the Sokol-Echelon program for destroying U.S. early warning satellites was renewed in 2010. Also under way is the scheduled replacement of Tochka-U missiles systems with the new Iskander-M missiles in Russian army brigades. And of course, those upgrades will eventually be applied to the 152nd missile brigade in Kaliningrad as well.

    And now, thanks to the increase in Russian defense spending through 2020, many of those programs can be accelerated and moved toward serial production and deployment. With that in mind, Medvedev was able to put Plan B into action. Russia continues to focus on the military and technical means required for countering the U.S. missile defense system. At the same time, the resources needed for implementing Russia’s Plan B are realistic and relatively modest. What’s more, the gradual and rather slow way that the U.S. missile defense system is being developed makes it possible for Russia to implement the program Medvedev has announced.

    Ruslan Pukhov is director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies and publisher of the journal Moscow Defense Brief.

    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Viktor on Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:50 am

    Shooting down US elements of US ABM system in EU by placing S-500 in Kaliningrad to make way for Russian ICBM on its way to EU or US.

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:09 am