It's the other way around. Russia can easily afford it. They are in Abundance of cash even right now. It's just they do not want to spend it.
I disagree... their position means they cannot just piss away money like the US does, or they will be crushed and broken.
They can't afford to waste money on impractical things that Russians don't benefit from.
It wouldn't be in their interests to waste 5 billion dollars on IRBMs over the next ten years when that money could have been spent on investing in infrastructure and resource development within Russia.
Especially if all they get out of it is that the US spends five times more and builds a similar number of undoubtedly inferior missiles to "counter" the threat.
Anyone with half a brain would realise the counter to IRBMs is SAMs and an IADS with the capacity to intercept theatre ballistic missiles and IRBMs... which the Russians are already building anyway.
Building new IRBMs for the Russians would save them money because they could use cheaper smaller weapons for the job of pointing nukes at Europe and western dominated asia, and I guess China, but they are not the threat the west is... you can talk to China... you can make deals with China... what is the point with the US?
They could probably make a lot of money selling IRBMs to allies like China and Iran and North Korea, and IRBMs navalised and able to be launched from there UKSK launchers would be an excellent force multiplier too. Especially hypersonic manouvering IRBMs...
INF treaty is rubbish then why Russia is defending it?
For Russia even something as stupid as the CFE treaty was worth following because it was really the only limit on european conventional arms.
They only decided to stop applying the CFE agreement rules until all other countries that signed it agreed to it and were bound by its rules because only Russia and I think Belarus actually tried to follow the damn thing anyway.
If the Europeans had had their way the CFE agreement would have forced Russia to remove its peacekeepers from Nagorny Karabakh and also Abkhazia and South Ossetia... what might have happened in Georgia 2008 if that was the case...
Undefended South Ossetians would have been shelled into extinction and Georgia would be planning their invasion of Abkhazia...
You also post the news of Russia's budget surplus.
A surplus is not something to waste on pointless useless things.
well isnt it what is actually happening now?
No it is not.
What is happening now is that Russia is saying that any European country that has US missiles that violate the existing INF treaty based on their territory will be targeted by a Russian response that will mean nuclear explosions on their territory in the case of war.
What I am suggesting is to expand the threat to include all European countries with ANY US forces based there.
Right now the countries that would be targeted would be the ones with the AEGIS Ashore ABM system with the Mk-41 launchers with their current policy.
With my policy it would include all countries with US bases including Kosovo and Turkey and Germany and the UK and Iceland etc etc.
IMHO neutron bombs better you have clean infrastructure and lands - people hostile to Russia
Well I agree, but only in the sense that neutron bombs are more efficient at killing people... there will be no invasion or occupation of Europe and no suggestion of that possibility or else the US could say that was evidence of Russian aggression and they really just want to take over and you need to spend more on defence... buy our weapons and keep our forces in your territory so we can control your governments.
First off, figure out the cost of Iskander missile before commenting. Second, budget surplus this year of over 2 T Rubles
Again, Mike, he is not saying there is no money for this stuff... he is saying that instead of spending this money on weapons that may never be used, but need to be stored and maintained... which adds further costs to keep them operational, they could spend that extra money on infrastructure... they could pick villages throughout Russia and give them upgrades... proper sewerage and water and electricity supply... high speed internet... make country living more desirable... and comfortable and then expand that model to improve quality of life for everyone in Russia.
These are all costs within easy range for Russia. Very easy range.
Agreed, but only if they must.
It is like laser defence systems replacing Missiles... the reason they don't is because lasers are expensive and new technology that has a long way to go to approach the performance they get from missiles, and even then missiles are cheaper and effective.
If the US has hypersonic manouvering weapons that the missiles need to be fired in their thousands to deal with then lasers and energy beam weapons start to make sense for the investment and development of.
They are still developing lasers and energy weapons, but not throwing money at them, and they continue to improve missiles.
SAM against modern IRBM with MaRV ??
Easy... move A-235 to near the border and fit it with a big dirty nuke warhead... it is fast enough to intercept the target over enemy territory where the fallout wont be Russias problem.
Last but not least, ground launcher for Kalibr.
Enormous numbers of ground launched cruise missiles is cheap and would be very successful against NATO because there is no IADS there.
Anyway, this debate is pointless cause Putin already proved me right and others wrong. He stated yesterday (or day before) that if US abandons INF treaty and starts building IRBM's, so will Russia.
To prove you right Putin would have to say we will start building IRBMs even if the US does not withdraw from the INF treaty because we can afford it and they can't. (which is probably true... but still a waste of resources for Russia... america is used to waste... that is the basis of its civilisation... it is the throw away society... ironic that it is in the process of becoming the trash it is so good at creating.
Well, it seems we have professionals on this forum that thinks Russia cannot do anything correctly - We have people believe that Borei's have no missiles. They swim empty. That Borei doesn't work, blah blah blah.
It is getting to be really tiresome on this forums. This forums seems to gather a lot of morons lately. People who just spew whatever they heard and don't back it up.
I think it is more misunderstanding... those "discussing it" with you are not saying Russia is poor and bankrupt and making IRBMs will finish them... nor are they saying the Russians are too stupid or inept to make decent IRBMs...
They are saying that making a whole new range of weapons and deploying them will cost money they could better spend on other things that actually benefit Russian people instead of creating an arms race that benefits the 1% in the US from the pockets of hard working Americans that are too dumb to care.
How many missiles do you think they will need? Because they will need very few of them.
This is not some mysterious unreachable tech, this is stock stuff that needs to be tweaked. 100 of them and it's job done.
Iskanders, Zircons or even something brand new, it doesn't matter because price is rock bottom.
And with lowered nuclear threshold there will be less need for expensive conventional forces which will translate into massive savings down the road.
They need enough nuke warheads pointed at the EU so that every anti Russian dickhead realises there is a Russian nuke pointed at them personally... make my day bitches... we need a dirty harry emoticon...
US tells Russia to scrap 9M729 missile or modify it — Department of State
"Either you rid the system, rid the launcher or change the system where it doesn't exceed the range," a senior diplomat said
WASHINGTON, December 6. /TASS/. Russia should return to compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty by either scrapping its 9M729 missile system or altering it in a verifiable manner, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson said on Thursday.
- go fuck yourself - GarryB russiadefence.net
That would be one SCARY level of stupid : D
And all textbook Trump... lets face it... Tomorrow he could post a tweet saying he misspoke and Russia IS in compliance with the INF treaty...
Moving on, can anyone work out what the agenda is with the cockroaches of Washington?
If you break all the agreements then you get credit for signing the treaties that replace them.
Trump sees himself as a business man and an expert in deals... from evidence to date he is actually pretty crap... slimy used salesman you could never trust anyway.
Also they think the reason things are bad in the US is because all these treaties are holding them back from being the best.... just like it was the politicians that stopped them from winning in Vietnam and Korea etc etc.
Are they terrified that US conventional power is close to being nullified?
When the treaty was signed the Soviet Union had no conventional land attack cruise missiles at sea or in the air, and very few other long range precision weapons... now they even have them on corvettes and shipping crates and the US is pissing its pants... it thinks IRBM hypersonic glide weapons will be the solution... a development of global strike... you know... where they can hit anything anywhere on the planet within 30 minutes of making the decision... and no one else can do the same...
Is it a last gasp effort at World Domination. Bearing in mind numerous powers - China, the EU, Russia, even India are rising?
Their push to save themselves will push the Europeans away and the Europeans are their crutch they need when swinging the bat.
Ironically when the Europeans get out from under the USs shoulder they might realise they can have a bat themselves...
And they want to reduce hypersonics to a few players and in limited numbers.
Ofcourse its a huge cheek, given they are the world's biggest bullies and liars by far.
When Russia reveals fully combat ready UCAVs America will suddenly demand international rules on their use and deployment...
Is an agreement even reachable. My view is that America crossed the red line with the Ukraine and has to be considered an actively (rather than dormant) rogue state vs Russia. If I was Putin, I'd actively be seeking payback for the Russian blood on US Establishment hands.
Putin is the right man for the job.... he wont make the mistake of just pissing money away to the military, he will make sure what they do has the right effect without costing too much money.
Manouvering hypersonic weapons are coming so developing counters to them needed to come anyway... this will inject more cash into the problem.
Remember in 2002 the US pulled out of the ABM treaty... the immediate result was that S-300 was improved to the point where it could deal with IRBMs (and called S-400... the 4.8km/s target speed interception capability did not come from nowhere... just like the 7km/s intercept speed of S-500 didn't come from nowhere either), in addition to the S-500 programme that were made public and the other systems that were not until recently like nuclear powered cruise missiles, air launched Iskander, laser systems, and UUVs with nuke payloads as well as hypersonic gliders for ICBMs.
Wonder what we will see in probably 4-8 years time...
If a big conventional war starts in Europe, US will be laughing from the distance, seeing their rivals kill each other.
Till warheads start coming over the south pole at them of course...
The real purpose is to keep Russia and Europe at each others throats because then the Silk roads and energy supply come under threat... both of which exclude the US.
Thing is, the strategy of increasing provocations can succeed since there is a limit to what Russia can tolerate. But what US maybe is not so capable of controlling is whether Russia will stay conventional or go nuclear, knowing as they do US is behind the provocations and what their real aim is.
Russia has wielded power with gas supply... not by cutting it off or using it for blackmail, but by rerouting supplies around one particular problem state.
It can also do this with the rail links and waterway access over the northern route... it can determine which ports the ships go to and which direction the rail lines go and can go through the ukraine or the baltic states... or it might not...
If they want to they could turn the rail lines to their own ports instead of into the west so all traffic from Asia and China have to go through a port in St Petersberg... or even Sevastopol... over the new bridge...
Kill population or don't bother at all
And to be effective you need to make it clear to your enemy that you are not targeting their MIC or economy... you are targeting their population centres... this is not imperialism... it is genocide.
It depends on who's operating the airfields, and what assets are present there. Simple F-16's and C-130's or B-1B's and B-2 Spirits? In most cases it's simply not worth it, but in some cases a small 5-10 KT warhead would be good, plus the EMP effect would add to the 'fog of war'.
For ground strike or low airbursts the EMP is minimal and not really significant.
They only noticed the EMP effect when nukes were detonated high up in the upper atmosphere...
But you forget a major fact. None of the recent START treaties include tactical warheads, meaning no one has a real restriction on them (5-10 KT), no one has a real idea on how many each side has of them either. So using a tactical warhead on a airfield hosting strategic assets of the aerial part of the triad, that are meant to launch mass saturation attacks of tactical warheads, would in fact be par for the course in maintaining MAD.
The difference between tactical and theatre and strategic nuclear weapons is the delivery system and is completely unrelated to yield.
Take a 40kg 152mm artillery shell nuke that is a tactical weapon and put it in a 2,000km range cruise or ballistic missile and it is an IRBM, or IRCM that would be controlled by the INF treaty. Take that same warhead and put 1 or 200 of them in the nose of a ICBM and it is a strategic nuclear weapon/warhead...
There was talk of reducing tactical nuke numbers, but now they can't even agree on strategic nukes, so I suspect there will be no restrictions on the number of nukes... at least while orange boy is in charge.
Doesn't matter much... the Russias are putting into service breeder reactors.... so called fast neutron reactors... if you put DU around the nuclear pile it gets enriched by the normal operation of the reactor... so by creating electricity you also enrich more fuel to create more electricity, or you can create more enriched material that can be used to make weapons... if the US wants an arms race... Russia is in a very good position to win rather easily... all those Iskanders in service can immediately be armed with nuke warheads just for a start... an extra solid fuelled rocket stage would easily get them to the 2-3,000km range performance... it has been shown with Kinzhal that if you take it to 10km altitude at maybe Mach 2.4 then its range extends to 2,000km and its speed to mach 10...
With a solid rocket booster it might not get to 10km altitude before it burns out but it could also be moving at mach 4 or 5 when it falls away and the main rocket motor lights up...
With the ground based launcher you could make it as big as you want... it actually only needs to carry one missile truth be told... replacing two missiles with 480km range with one missile with 3,500km range and mach 15 performance is a fair trade I am sure the Army will be happy to make.