Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia's response to NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia Tells Norway To Keep Aegis BMD System off Vessels

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:24 pm

    Russia has warned Norway not to get pulled into a possible area of conflict by bowing to U.S. pressure to equip its naval vessels with Aegis ballistic missile defense system missiles. The warning came from Nikolai Makarov, commander of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

    Russia hopes to eliminate this threat through talks and greater transparency and military cooperation with Norway, said Makarov, adding that Russia will not accept U.S. vessels equipped with the Aegis system operating near its Arctic territories or in the Black Sea.

    “We are aware that the U.S. has been prompting Norway to install the missile defense system on its naval ships. Fortunately, Norway has taken a balanced position,” Makarov said on Feb. 16.

    It seems this article has generated a 7 page discussion at MPnet about bully Russia shouldn't be allowed to tell Norway what they can or cannot put on their ships.

    I put this story here in the Strategic Rocket section on purpose, because this story isn't about the Norwegian Navy or the Russian Navy.

    This story is about the US trying to get another component of its European ABM system into service.

    A Norwegian ship with AEGIS and SM-3 missiles based in the Arctic ocean could be part of an ABM shield against a Russian attack.

    But that should only be a problem for Russia trying to attack the US?

    Except that ignores the concept of MAD.

    Mutually Assured Destruction has kept the peace for half a century and it is really the only reliable peace keeper between the US and Russia. Both sides are tempered by the thought that if they cross the line the other side has the capacity to destroy them.

    With dozens of AEGIS cruisers with SM-3 missiles in the Artic ocean the US might reach a point where they think they have the capacity in a first strike to take out enough Russian strategic nukes that the remainder can be dealt with using land and sea based ABM systems around the place and then they might start being rather more reckless.

    In other words a strong ABM system makes nuclear war more likely.

    That is why the Russians oppose such things, not because they don't want to be stopped from launching lots of nuclear weapons at the US and the west, but because they prefer not to get into that situation in the first place.

    This leaves them with two real choices... to give up all their nukes and be dominated by the west, or to ensure their nuclear deterrent remains a real deterrent.

    Looking at the effects of western influence in its former colonies I would say the latter is the only real choice.

    Norway has a right to put anything they want on their ships, but if that includes strategic ABM system components then they can expect a reaction from the Russians.

    If Norway wants to be part of the problem that is totally their choice, but if they want good relations and cooperation from the Russians then they need to make very careful choices.

    The irony is that as shown in the part of the article above:

    “We are aware that the U.S. has been prompting Norway to install the missile defense system on its naval ships. Fortunately, Norway has taken a balanced position,” Makarov said on Feb. 16.

    Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120222/DEFREG01/302220012/Russia-Tells-Norway-Keep-Aegis-BMD-System-off-Vessels?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:38 am

    Of course the whole situation highlights Russias problem with NATO and its ABM shield.

    Russia says to x European country not to fit Mk41 launchers in their ships as such launchers can carry SM-3 missiles and therefore when those ships are operating in the Arctic ocean they become a strategic threat to Russias nuclear deterrence.

    Norway in particular has many claims to potential mineral and energy wealth in the Arctic waters and therefore will have its vessels spending a lot of time in that area, and with ABM capable missiles on board it becomes part of the ABM system, and therefore something the Russians need to be able to counter to retain a credible deterrence.

    Clearly the Russians need to reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons to their Navy fleet including on torpedoes and anti ship missiles... nothing would disrupt an ABM system quicker than a few nukes hitting ships carrying interceptor missiles when an enemy first strike is detected.

    In addition a withdrawl from the INF treaty will allow a range of land based options to hit targets in Europe and China without needing to waste ICBMs which could all be directed at targets more than 5-6.000km away.

    It would allow nuclear and conventionally armed cruise missiles to be land based in Europe.

    Cruise missiles are cheap and easy to make in very large numbers and in many ways are even easier to make and use than UAVs.

    It is really the only practical way to counter potentially thousands of SM-3s on most NATO vessels.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:01 pm

    I think this article sums things up nicely:

    Moscow doesn't Trust US Missile Defense
    F. William Engdahl - Dec 02, 11
    December 2, 2011
    GlobalResearch.ca

    Most in the civilized world are blissfully unaware that we are marching ineluctably towards an increasingly likely pre-emptive nuclear war. No, it's not at all about Iran and Israel. It's about the decision of Washington and the Pentagon to push Moscow up against the wall with what is euphemistically called Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD).

    Missile DefenseOn November 23, a normally low-keyed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told the world in clear terms that Russia was prepared to deploy its missiles on the border to the EU between Poland and Lithuania, and possibly in the south near Georgia and NATO member Turkey to counter the advanced construction process of the US ballistic missile defense shield: "The Russian Federation will deploy in the west and the south of the country modern weapons systems that could be used to destroy the European component of the US missile defense," he announced on Russian television. "One of these steps could be the deployment of the Iskander missile systems in Kaliningrad."1 Those would be theatre ballistic missile systems. The latest version of Iskander, the Iskander-K, whose details remain top secret, reportedly has a range up to 2000 km and carries cruise missiles and a target accuracy to 7 meters or less.

    Medvedev declared he has ordered the Russian defense ministry to "immediately" put radar systems in Kaliningrad that warn of incoming missile attacks on a state of combat readiness. He called for extending the targeting range of Russia's strategic nuclear missile forces and re-equipping Russia's nuclear arsenal with new warheads capable of piercing the US/NATO defense shield due to become operational in six years, by 2018. Medvedev also threatened to pull Russia out of the New START missile reduction treaty if the United States moves as announced.

    Medvedev then correctly pointed to the inevitable link between “defensive” missiles and “offensive” missiles: “Given the intrinsic link between strategic offensive and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the New Start treaty could also arise,” he said.2

    The Russian President didn’t mince words: “I have ordered the armed forces to develop measures to ensure, if necessary, that we can destroy the command and control systems” of the US shield, Medvedev said. “These measures are appropriate, effective and low-cost.” Russia has repeatedly warned that the US BMD global shield is designed to destabilize the nuclear balance and risks provoking a new arms race. The Russian President said that rather than take the Russian concerns seriously, Washington has instead been “accelerating” its BMD development.3

    It was not the first time Medvedev threatened to take countermeasures to the increasing Pentagon military encirclement pressure on Russia. Back in November 2008 as the US BMD threat was first made known to the world, Medvedev made a televised address to the Russian people in which he declared, “I would add something about what we have had to face in recent years: what is it? It is the construction of a global missile defense system, the installation of military bases around Russia, the unbridled expansion of NATO and other similar ‘presents’ for Russia ­ we therefore have every reason to believe that they are simply testing our strength.” 4 That threat was dropped some months later when the Obama Administration offered the now-clearly deceptive olive branch of reversing the BMD decision to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    Russia is threatening to deploy its Iskander anti-BMD missiles in Kaliningrad

    This time around Washington lost no time signaling it was in the developing game of thermonuclear chicken to stay. No more pretty words about “reset” in US-Russia relations. A spokesman for the Obama National Security Council declared, “we will not in any way limit or change our deployment plans for Europe." The US Administration continues to insist on the implausible argument that the missile defense installations are aimed at a threat from a possible Iranian nuclear launch, something hardly credible. The real risk of Iranian nuclear missile attack on Europe given the reality of the global US as well as Israeli BMD installations and the reality of Iran's nuclear delivery capabilities, is by best impartial accounts, near zero.

    Two days earlier on November 21, Washington had thrown a small carrot to Moscow. US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher said that Washington was ready to provide information about the missile's speed after it uses up all of its fuel. This information, referred to as burnout velocity (VBO), helps to determine how to target it.5 That clearly was not seen as a serious concession by Moscow, which demands a full hands-on partnership with the US/NATO missile deployment to insure it will never be used against Russia. After all, given Washington's track record of lies and broken promises, there is no guarantee the speeds would even be true.

    After the early October Brussels NATO defense ministers meeting, NATO head Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in regard to the nominally NATO European Missile Defense Program, “We would expect it to be fully operational in 2018." Spain just announced it plans to join the US-controlled missile program, joining Romania, Poland, the Netherlands and Turkey, which have already agreed to deploy key components of the future missile defense network on their territories.6

    The concerns of Russia are caused by the dramatic improvement of an entire system of missile defense by Washington, which is taking the form of a global BMD system encircling Russia on all sides.

    Full Spectrum Dominance…

    The last time Washington's Missile Defense "Shield" made headlines was in September 2009 early in the Obama Administration when the US President offered to downgrade the provocative stationing of US special radar and anti-missile missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. That was a clear tactic to prepare the way for what Hillary Clinton ludicrously called the "reset" in US-Russian relations from the tense Bush-Putin days. However the strategic goal of encircling the one nuclear potential opponent in the world with credible missile defense remained US strategy.

    Barack Obama announced back then that the US was altering Bush Administration plans to station US anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and sophisticated radar in the Czech Republic. The news was greeted in Moscow as an important concession.7 Subsequent developments clearly show that far from ditching its plans for a missile shield that could cripple any potential Russian nuclear launch, the US was merely opting for a more effective global system, whose feasibility had been proven in the meantime.

    To assuage the Poles, the Obama Administration also agreed to provide Poland with US Patriot missiles. Poland’s Foreign Minister then and now is Radek Sikorski. From 2002 to 2005 he was in Washington as a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a noted neo-conservative hawkish think-tank, and executive director of the New Atlantic Initiative, a project to bring as many former communist countries of eastern Europe into NATO as possible. Little wonder Moscow did not view US missiles in Poland as friendly, nor does it today.

    In May 2011 the Obama Administration announced that the missiles it would now give Poland consisted of new Raytheon (RTN) SM-3 missile defense systems at the Redzikowo military base in Poland (see map), roughly 50 miles from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, a unique piece of Russian real estate not connected to mainland Russia, but adjacent to the Baltic Sea and Lithuania. That puts US missiles closer to Russia than during the 1961 Cuba Missile Crisis when Washington placed ICBM’s at sites in Turkey aimed at key Soviet nuclear sites. 8

    The new Raytheon SM-3 missile is part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System that will be aimed at intercepting short to intermediate range ballistic missiles. The SM-3 Kinetic Warhead intercepts incoming ballistic missiles outside the earth's atmosphere. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors developed the Aegis BMD Weapon System. The SM-3 comes from Raytheon Missile Systems.

    The Polish SM-3 missile deployment is but one part of a global web encircling Russia’s nuclear capacities. One should not forget that official Pentagon military strategy is called Full Spectrum Dominance—control of pretty much the entire universe. This past September the US and Romania, another new NATO member, signed an agreement to deploy a US-controlled Missile Defense System on the Deveselu Air Base in Romania using the SM-3 missiles.

    As well Washington has signed an agreement with NATO member Turkey to place a sophisticated missile tracking radar atop a high mountain in the Kuluncak district of Malatya province in south-eastern Turkey. Though the Pentagon insists its radar is pointed at Iran, a look at a map reveals how easily the focal direction could cover key Russian nuclear sites such as Stevastopol where the bulk of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet is stationed or to the vital Russian Krasnodar radar installation.9

    The Malataya radar will send data to US ships equipped with the Aegis combat system that will intercept “Iranian” ballistic missiles. According to Russian military experts, one of the main aims of that radar, which targets at a range up to 2000 kilometers, will also be the surveillance and control of the air space of the South Caucasus, part of Central Asia as well as the south of Russia, in particular tracking the experimental launches of the Russian missiles at their test ranges.10

    Further, the US-controlled BMD deployment now also includes sea-based “Aegis” systems in the Black Sea near Russia’s Sevastopol Naval Base, as well as possible deployment of intermediate range missiles in Black Sea and Caspian region.11

    But the European BMS deployments of the US Pentagon are but a part of a huge global web. At the Fort Greeley Alaska Missile Field the US has installed BMD ground-based missile interceptors, as well as at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. And the Pentagon just opened two missile sites at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. To add to it, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force has joined formally with the US Missile Defense Agency to develop a system of so-called Aegis BMD deploying the SM-3 Raytheon missiles on Japanese naval ships.12 That gives the US a Pacific platform from which it can hit both China and Russia’s Far East as well as the Korean Peninsula. These are all a pretty long and curious way to reach any Iranian threat.

    Origins of US Missile Defense

    The US program to build a global network of ‘defense’ against possible enemy ballistic missile attacks began back in March 23, 1983 when then-President Ronald Reagan proposed the program popularly known as Star Wars, formally called then the Strategic Defense Initiative.

    In 1994 at a private dinner discussion with this author in Moscow, the former head of economic studies for the Soviet Union’s Institute of World Economy & International Relations, IMEMO, declared that it had been the huge financial demands required by Russia to keep pace with the multi-billion dollar US Star Wars effort that finally led to the economic collapse of the Warsaw Pact and to German reunification in 1990. With a losing war in Afghanistan, collapsing oil revenues caused by a 1986 US policy of flooding the world market with Saudi oil, the military economy of the USSR was unable to keep pace, short of risking massive civilian unrest across the Warsaw Pact nations.13

    This time around the US BMD deployment is designed to bring Russia to her knees as well, only in the context of a US creation of what military strategists call “Nuclear Primacy.”

    Nuclear Primacy: Thinking the Unthinkable

    While the Soviet era armed forces have undergone a drastic shrinking down since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Russia has tenaciously held on to the core of its strategic nuclear deterrent. That is something that gives Washington pause when considering how to deal with Russia. The potential for Russia to deepen its military and economic cooperation with its Central Asian partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, above all with China, is something Washington has gone to great lengths to frustrate. Such a strategic cooperation is becoming increasingly a matter of life-or-death for both China and Russia. China’s nuclear arsenal is not yet strategic as is Russia’s.

    What the Pentagon is going for is what it has dreamed of since the Soviets developed intercontinental ballistic missiles during the 1950’s. Weapons professionals term it Nuclear Primacy. Translated into layman’s language, Nuclear Primacy means that if one of two evenly-matched nuclear foes is able to deploy even a crude anti-ballistic missile defense system that can seriously damage the nuclear strike capacity of the other, while he launches a full-scale nuclear barrage against that foe, he has won the nuclear war.

    The darker side of that military-strategic Nuclear Primacy coin is that the side without adequate offsetting BMD anti-missile defenses, as he watches his national security vanish with each new BMD missile and radar installation, is under growing pressure to launch a pre-emptive nuclear or other devastating strike before the window closes. That in simple words means that far from being “defensive” as Washington claims, BMD is offensive and destabilizing in the extreme. Moreover, those nations blissfully deluding themselves that by granting the Pentagon rights to install BMS infrastructure, that they are buying the security umbrella of the mighty United States Armed Forces, find that they have allowed their territory to become a potential nuclear field of battle in an ever more likely confrontation between Washington and Moscow.

    Dr. Robert Bowman, a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the US Air Force and former head of President Reagan’s BMD effort of the 1980’s, then dubbed derisively “Star Wars,” noted the true nature of Washington’s current ballistic missile “defense” under what is today called the Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency:

    "Under Reagan and Bush I, it was the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO). Under Clinton, it became the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). Now Bush II has made it the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and given it the freedom from oversight and audit previously enjoyed only by the black programs. If Congress doesn't act soon, this new independent agency may take their essentially unlimited budget and spend it outside of public and Congressional scrutiny on weapons that we won't know anything about until they're in space. In theory, then, the space warriors would rule the world, able to destroy any target on earth without warning. Will these new super weapons bring the American people security? Hardly."14

    During the Cold War, the ability of both sides—the Warsaw Pact and NATO—to mutually annihilate one another, had led to a nuclear stalemate dubbed by military strategists, MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction. It was scary but, in a bizarre sense, more stable than what Washington now pursues relentlessly with its Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe, Asia and globally in unilateral pursuit of US nuclear primacy. MAD was based on the prospect of mutual nuclear annihilation with no decisive advantage for either side; it led to a world in which nuclear war had been ‘unthinkable.’ Now, the US was pursuing the possibility of nuclear war as ‘thinkable.’

    Lt. Colonel Bowman, in a telephone interview with this author called missile defense, “the missing link to a First Strike.” 15

    The fact is that Washington hides behind a NATO facade with its deployment of the European BMD, while keeping absolute US control over it. Russia's NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin recently called the European portion of the US BMD a fig leaf for "a missile defense umbrella that says 'Made in USA. European NATO members will have neither a button to push nor a finger to push it with.” 16

    That’s clearly why Russia continues to insist on guarantees - from the United States - that the shield is not directed against Russia. Worryingly enough, to date Washington has categorically refused that. Could it be that the dear souls in Washington entrusted with maintaining world peace have gone bonkers? In any case the fact that Washington continues to tear up solemn international arms treaties and illegally proceed to install its global missile shield is basis enough for those in Moscow, Beijing or elsewhere to regard US promises, even treaties as not worth the paper they were written on.


    Notes:

    1 David M. Herszenhorn, Russia Elevates Warning About U.S. Missile-Defense Plan in Europe, The New York Times, November 23, 2011.

    2. Ibid.

    3 Ibid.

    4 Misha, Medvedev: Russia will Deploy Iskanders in Kaliningrad to Neutralize New US Missile Threat, Misha’s Russian Blog, December 30, 2008, accessed in
    http://mishasrussiablog.blogspot.com/2008/11/medevev-russia-will-deploy-iskanders-in.html.

    5 RIA Novosti, US ready to provide Russia with missile shield details, Moscow, November 21, 2011, accessed in http://en.rian.ru/russia/20111121/168883920.html.

    6 RIA Novosti, NATO's missile defense program to be fully operational in 2018 – Rasmussen, 5 October, 2011, accessed in http://en.rian.ru/world/20111005/167417252.html.

    7 CNN, U.S. scraps missile defense shield plans, September 17, 2009, accessed in
    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index.html

    8 Kenneth Repoza, Obama's Cold War? Raytheon Missiles On Russia's Border By 2018, Forbes, September 15, 2011, accessed in
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/09/15/obamas-cold-war-raytheon-missiles-on-russias-border-by-2018/

    9 Missile Defense Agency, News and Resources various press releases and program descriptions, accessed in http://www.mda.mil/news/news.html

    10 Sergey Sargsyan, Turkey in the US Missile Defense System: Primary Assessment and Possible Prospects, 13 October, 2011, Center for Political Studies, “Noravank” Foundation, accessed in
    http://noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6051

    11 Ibid.

    12 Missile Defense Agency, op. cit.

    13 F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, Wiesbaden, 2010, edition.engdahl, p. 145.

    14 Robert Bowman, cited in F. William Engdahl, op.cit., p. 161.

    15 Ibid., p. 162

    16 RIA Novosti, Nato Is Figleaf, November 1, 2011.

    Source: http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/moscow-doesnt-trust-us-missile-defense-4548

    The European ABM system has nothing to do with Iran and it has nothing to do with Europe, it is just a game the US is playing to make Russia spend money on things it wouldn't otherwise need.

    The amusing thing is that these ABM systems will not be cheap and at some stage China will wise up and start dumping the US debt it owns before the US can do to China what it did to the Soviet Union.

    The huge irony is that US relations with Communist China show they never had a problem dealing with a communist country, the problem was that the Soviet Union was a potential economic rival to US global domination plans...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:57 pm

    BTW have you looked at the video taken when Hilary Clinton offered Lavrov the reset button.

    The body language says it all doesn't it?

    A small box with a button on it the size of your hand and for the photo both hold the reset box and while Lavrov reaches in with two fingers to press one side of the reset button old hillary puts one whole hand covering his under the box to control him holding it and with her other hand all four fingers over the top of the box covering both the button and both of Lavrovs fingers...



    What does that tell you about the reset... a change for the US to take control of US/Russian relations.

    In other words where both sides agree Russia will cooperate with the US, and where Russia and the US do not agree the US will do as it pleases... I can see why they suggested it. Mad

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2011-10-14

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

    Post  Firebird on Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:50 am

    GarryB wrote:BTW have you looked at the video taken when Hilary Clinton offered Lavrov the reset button.

    The body language says it all doesn't it?

    A small box with a button on it the size of your hand and for the photo both hold the reset box and while Lavrov reaches in with two fingers to press one side of the reset button old hillary puts one whole hand covering his under the box to control him holding it and with her other hand all four fingers over the top of the box covering both the button and both of Lavrovs fingers...



    What does that tell you about the reset... a change for the US to take control of US/Russian relations.

    In other words where both sides agree Russia will cooperate with the US, and where Russia and the US do not agree the US will do as it pleases... I can see why they suggested it. Mad

    I sort of see it like this." I'll take this silly box, and decide when I use it. Now you clear off, love. Do some housework, cook some cakes, maybe Bill wont play around so much".

    She's just Mrs "I could have been president if we'd won in Iraq and decided we'd go for Iran too".

    The perfect example of silly American "democracy". "You can have anyone you want provided their dad or the husbnad was president, or they do exactly as 200 people tell them to do"

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:11 am

    Some analyst had said this and I agree.

    US and Russia cannot be real friend in true sense because their relationship are based on purely MAD concept , its like two people pointing guns at each other and wanting to be best buddies.

    At best of times their relations will be good and at worst it would be a working one.

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2011-10-14

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

    Post  Firebird on Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:34 pm

    I just cant understand why we haven't seen new Ru bases in Venezuela and Cuba etc.
    I'm sure the US Mil-Industrial Complex is saying "if there aint a threat, lets make one"

    I think America is nervous that the EU is realising they dont really need the US so much anymore, atleast not unless there's a global mega crisis. All too often the US feeds on fear and mischief making. Europe is big enough to stand on its own feet. And no reason why Russia couldnt become a closer ally at some point.

    America wouldnt be too chuffed about Chavez or Castro planting ABM bases next door to America would they?

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2011-10-14

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

    Post  Firebird on Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:38 pm

    Austin wrote:Some analyst had said this and I agree.

    US and Russia cannot be real friend in true sense because their relationship are based on purely MAD concept , its like two people pointing guns at each other and wanting to be best buddies.

    At best of times their relations will be good and at worst it would be a working one.

    I think its all about America trying to hang onto the Washington Consensus economic system. They used to be WAY ahead of Europe in living standards, but over 20 or 30 yrs, they dont much better off than many other places. I genuinely believe their debt situation will trouble them once we see a more multipolar financial system. It looks a lot like Britain in the 20s, the waning superpower.

    Militarism is their hope of staying as a key power. But it is utterly delusional.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:06 pm

    America has already stated it doesn't have friends... it has interests.

    Look at the extradition treaty the US has with the UK.

    The UK has to provide evidence of guilt to the US, the US just needs to ask...

    Trying to be buddies with the US is a waste of time for any country.

    Normal balanced trade links is the best you can hope for, but you will need to fight hard to make sure they are balanced.

    For instance here in New Zealand some medications are very very expensive, so we have a program where the government subsidises the cost for those that need them.

    In negotiating a free trade agreement with the US the US companies making the pills want this to stop and they want everyone to pay full price.

    Who wants a free trade agreement under those sort of conditions and how can the result be called "free".

    I want good trade relations with all countries but not at any cost.

    (Note the US drug companies don't object to the subsidies as such, they object to the process where our government decides which drugs get subsidies and which do not.)

    I just cant understand why we haven't seen new Ru bases in Venezuela and Cuba etc.
    I'm sure the US Mil-Industrial Complex is saying "if there aint a threat, lets make one"

    As Russia expands and restores its navy it is going to need foreign bases to minimise the costs of that Navy operationally. Having a base in Cuba or Venezuela means it could keep ships and subs operating near the US for much longer periods because instead of heading all the way back to Murmansk or the Black Sea or Baltic sea ports the trip to sunny Cuba or Venezuela will be much shorter and cheaper.

    Buy some local food and fuel to stock up and then head back, you will be sailing for days instead of weeks to get back to port... and shore leave... Smile

    I am sure they will want a base in Brazil too... just for shore leave with those women! censored

    Corrosion
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 196
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2010-10-19

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

    Post  Corrosion on Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:23 am

    GarryB wrote:BTW have you looked at the video taken when Hilary Clinton offered Lavrov the reset button.
    Actually that thing looks like an Emergency stop button. Reset button is usually green under most standards around the world. Maybe there was some secret message given by the Americans. Suspect

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:45 am

    Too much is being said and made in media as to what they did with the button or what was written over or or what colour it was and what did the leader say while pressing reset button.

    What really matters is what did they do in past 4 years that can be termed as reset , its been a mixed bag , Russia and US agreeing in New Start and WTO entry of Russia has been positive , Missile Defence and usual politicking by US against Russian interest like Georgia , Syria has been negative.

    I think Obama was still better then George Bush Jr who promised a lot to Putin post 9/11 but did nothing on ground but was hawkish towards Russia typical Republican style.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:19 pm

    Well I think the result if the US refuses to sign anything binding to either limit the ABM system or to promise not to use it against Russia is that Russia has fairly limited choices to retaliate.

    They will need to make the west think using it against Russia in a surgical pre emptive strike would be counter productive.

    That means they undermine the capabilities of the system, or they make the west think the consequences of building the ABM system will result in Russia doing something that will be even worse for the west than the minor, almost non existent threat from Iran.

    The huge irony is that this is all a self fulfulling prophecy because external pressure on Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program it doesn't have will most likely have the effect of making them realise the only real protection they will get from the international community (ie the west) is to actually have nuclear weapons.

    The second irony is that the reaction by Russia to a US ABM system in Europe will make the US rather less safe than it is now, and will certainly include the likely upgrade of the two Akula (NATO TYPHOON) subs into arsenal ships carrying large numbers of anti ship missiles like Onyx and Klub and eventually Brahmos II plus the likely retrofitting of Onyx to all previous Granit platforms, but more importantly the likely withdrawl from the INF treaty and the range extension of the Iskander family of ballistic missile.

    The current situation with potential missile sites in former Soviet republics means that the INF treaty doesn't make sense because a 500km range NATO missile in Latvia is a strategic missile that can hit much of western Russia while a Russian ballistic missile with a 500km range barely covers eastern europe let alone threatens the US.

    I would also suspect they will withdraw from the new Start Treaty and start producing more ICBMs to regain the parity that document is supposed to achieve by adding ICBM warheads to compensate for the number that could potentially be intercepted.

    gloriousfatherland
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 99
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2011-09-30
    Age : 24
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

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

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:42 pm

    I just listened to NATO's commander in chief President Obama, it seemed he was very unaware of Russia's serious stance of pulling out of START...He mentioned ABM once and said that he seeks "cooperation"{we know how that goes} but :
    NEVER once made it clear that the shiled in to protect against the non existant threat of a "nuclear armed Iran"

    I have a few question for my amerikanyets firends on here.
    1. If Iran is attacked, would ABM still go through as this threat no longer existant even though it is non-existant atm.. THIS WAS YOUR STATED AIM FOR THE SHILED. Shouldn't it be halted and reversed as it would cease to exist?
    2. Or Would you call the shiled nescessary to protect against rogue threats as North Korea?


    I hope our amerikanyets comrades answer the question. It would be really interesting to hear their response.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:34 am

    You make an excellent point there...

    If the US will take action to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapon or ICBM capability then why do they need an ABM system too... except the obvious excuse to move US troops from western european countries to eastern european countries?

    Equally we are told Israel needs nuclear weapons to defend itself in case its hostile neighbours get nuclear weapons or choose to use WMDs which many actually already have.

    If they are going to attack Iran to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapon capability why would Israel need nukes herself?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:42 am

    US missile shield branches into Asia, Middle East

    The Pentagon has revealed plans to deploy elements of its global antiballistic missile defense system in Asia and Middle East.

    Those silly paranoid Russians... the US can have joint ABM systems with Japan and Australia and South Korea and poland and the czech republic and turkey and even georgia, but with Russia it has to be separate but connected...

    And they wont sign a piece of paper promising not to use it against Russia...

    I look forward to seeing the modified Oscar IIIs each equipped with 72 Oniks missiles... and the two Typhoon class subs with 20 UKSK launchers and 160 Oniks missiles... sunny

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-20
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

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

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:31 am

    A live microphone has captured U.S. President Barack Obama telling Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev he will have more room to negotiate on missile defense after the November election.

    The unusually frank exchange between the two leaders took place on Monday on the eve of a global nuclear safety summit in Seoul. Neither president appeared to be aware the conversation was being picked up.

    According to a transcript of the recorded conversation carried by ABC News, Obama told Medvedev: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."

    "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you," Medvedev responded.

    The U.S. president then said: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

    Medvedev replied: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."

    The slip-up was quickly jumped upon by Obama's Republican rivals, who accused him of secretive deal-making on U.S. national security.

    White House hopeful Mitt Romney said the unscripted moment shows Obama has a hidden agenda. “President Obama signaled that he’s going to cave to Russia on missile defense, but the American people have a right to know where else he plans to be ‘flexible’ in a second term,” he said in a statement.

    Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich called the exchange an "extraordinary moment caught on tape where the president basically said to a Russian leader, 'Please wait until after the election so I can sell out.'"

    The White House later released a statement playing down the importance of the remarks. "Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough," said deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

    On Tuesday, Obama said he was not “hiding the ball” and is “on record” in a past speech as saying he wants to make a deal with Russia.

    Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on a European missile defense system at the NATO-Russia Council Summit in Lisbon in November 2010.

    Russia believes that the development of the concept and architecture of European missile defense should be implemented on an equal basis and provide adequate confidence-building measures and transparency in terms of defense.

    U.S. officials have repeatedly said the missile defense system would not be directed against Russia and that the U.S., NATO and Russia would benefit from its strategic capacity and cooperation.


    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120327/172416118.html

    gloriousfatherland
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 99
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2011-09-30
    Age : 24
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

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

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:19 pm

    Russian Patriot wrote:A live microphone has captured U.S. President Barack Obama telling Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev he will have more room to negotiate on missile defense after the November election.

    The unusually frank exchange between the two leaders took place on Monday on the eve of a global nuclear safety summit in Seoul. Neither president appeared to be aware the conversation was being picked up.

    According to a transcript of the recorded conversation carried by ABC News, Obama told Medvedev: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."

    "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you," Medvedev responded.

    The U.S. president then said: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

    Medvedev replied: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."

    The slip-up was quickly jumped upon by Obama's Republican rivals, who accused him of secretive deal-making on U.S. national security.

    White House hopeful Mitt Romney said the unscripted moment shows Obama has a hidden agenda. “President Obama signaled that he’s going to cave to Russia on missile defense, but the American people have a right to know where else he plans to be ‘flexible’ in a second term,” he said in a statement.

    Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich called the exchange an "extraordinary moment caught on tape where the president basically said to a Russian leader, 'Please wait until after the election so I can sell out.'"

    The White House later released a statement playing down the importance of the remarks. "Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough," said deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

    On Tuesday, Obama said he was not “hiding the ball” and is “on record” in a past speech as saying he wants to make a deal with Russia.

    Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on a European missile defense system at the NATO-Russia Council Summit in Lisbon in November 2010.

    Russia believes that the development of the concept and architecture of European missile defense should be implemented on an equal basis and provide adequate confidence-building measures and transparency in terms of defense.

    U.S. officials have repeatedly said the missile defense system would not be directed against Russia and that the U.S., NATO and Russia would benefit from its strategic capacity and cooperation.


    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120327/172416118.html
    They should not trust one word from our amerikanyet drug. Trust caused the expansion of HATO,Trus caused the collapse of russian society during the 90's, trust caused those events we see in the middle east.Never trust anyone except yourself.

    victor7
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    Join date : 2012-02-27

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

    Post  victor7 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:36 pm

    Obama said he was not “hiding the ball” and is “on record” in a past speech as saying he wants to make a deal with Russia.

    Deal or no deal, it would be stupid for Russia to sit and wait until US develops a technology to counter and defeat any deal made with Russia.

    Romney says Russia is #1 GeoPolitical enemy..........is that why NATO is feeding its troops via the NDN supply network starting from North Russia and all the way to Afghanistan? Hate for Russia is paramount in the US-UK circles, they are working on their goals that they have tried time and again to achieve in the last 200 years, albiet unsuccessfully.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:42 am

    Talk about destabilising...

    Faster, higher, deadlier: US plans nuclear drones

    The United States is planning on building nuclear-powered drones. The innovation will allow an increase in flying time "from days to months," leaving more power available for operating equipment.

    ­Research for the project was conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, the US government's principal nuclear research and development agency, and defense contractor Northrop Grumman, the Guardian reports.

    The technology is to deal with three problems facing the US’ current drone arsenal: insufficient flying time over a potential target, lack of power for running surveillance and weapons systems, and lack of communications capacity.

    The team looked at numerous different power systems for large- and medium-sized drones before settling on the nuclear solution.

    The research summary deems the technology as highly efficient, saying the results of the research are “to be used in the next generation of unmanned air vehicles used for military and intelligence applications."

    However, there is a big concern over safety as drones have a tendency to crash – and should a nuclear-powered drone fall into the hands of terrorists or unfriendly powers, the consequences could be devastating.

    http://rt.com/news/us-plans-nuclear-drones-058/

    Now there are a few ways you can make a nuclear powered aircraft... most fall over because the radiation shielding to protect the crew will weigh about 90 tons so you have an enormous bomber the size of a B-52 that can stay in the air for years without running out of fuel, but only has the capacity to carry 5 tons of weapons and can only fly at 600km/h.

    The problem is the weight of the shielding.... which makes the unlimited range rather pointless because it is too easy to shoot down and its payload is pathetic... plus there is the risk of it crashing.

    Take out the crew and then you have three real options... the option I expect them to apply is to have a small reactor generating a current that can be used to both power an electric motor to keep the aircraft in the air, and run the electronics.

    The other two nuclear engine options are clean and dirty jet engine.

    Very simply a jet engine is a tube where air is sucked in one end, the air is compressed by making the tube narrow, and fuel is added and burned generating even more heat and expelled out the back generating thrust.

    You can connect a nuclear power plant to such a system directly so the air is heated by the core of the reactor in which case the air coming out the back of this jet engine is radioactive and very dangerous.

    Or you can set up an indirect connection where the heat from the reactor core is used to heat the air going through the reactor by heating something else and then letting the air flowing through the engine get heated by that other thing. In a bomber you want to fly around friendly territory for a bit before it enters enemy airspace then you want the safer two options, but in a single use cruise missile the dirty option is also the simplest and the cheapest.

    Rather than making a turbojet with lots of blades and sections, you can make the simplest jet... the ramjet. Air is sucked in and heated and released out the rear. Very simple and relatively cheap and easy.

    A solid rocket booster to get it airborne and it could fly a low altitude for years.

    Load 20-30 small nuclear bombs like 152mm artillery shell sized bombs that can be released every once in a while and the exhaust and very high speed at low level will do enormous damage while the nukes will ensure certain targets are definitely destroyed.

    The Russians could use the Typhoons to carry two of them... they could launch them in the south atlantic and they could fly all the way up to the US and just zig zag over the countryside for 10 years or more...

    With their work on scramjets these missiles could fly at mach 5 or 6 at very low altitude or much faster at higher altitudes... ABM systems would be useless.

    The US developed such a cruise missile in the 1950s but felt it was too provocative to be made... with modern materials and capabilities it could easily be made now... talk about opening pandoras box...

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

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

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:41 am


    Clinton offers Gulf states joint AMD shield against Iran No

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has proposed improved collaboration with Gulf Arab states on maritime security and missile defense to counter potential threats from Iran.

    Clinton told a security conference in Saudi Arabia on Saturday that US commitment to the Gulf is "rock-solid and unwavering." She stressed the US and Gulf governments share concerns about Iran's nuclear activity and that partnership with the US has "enormous potential'' to advance common interests.

    Raising security ties from a bilateral to a multilateral level, Clinton is breaking new ground by taking part in the first strategic cooperation forum between Washington and the six-country Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

    She said the US and Gulf States should take "practical and specific steps to strengthen mutual security, such as helping militaries improve interoperability, cooperate on maritime security and missile defense, and coordinate responses to crises." US officials have said it is a US "priority" to help the GCC build a "regional missile defense architecture" against what they see as a looming ballistic missile threat from Iran.

    Earlier, the Pentagon unveiled plans to deploy elements of its global antiballistic missile defense system in Asia and the Middle East. American plans for the Middle East include the promotion of "interoperability and information-sharing" among members of the Gulf Cooperation Council as they acquire greater missile-defense capabilities. The countries involved are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

    On Friday, Clinton met with Saudi King Abdullah to discuss regional military strategy, primarily coordination among the Arab Gulf states on how to unite their defensive capacities into a cohesive regional strategy.

    The United States is already planning to sell defensive missile technology to the UAE, which along with Saudi Arabia ranks among the more militarily advanced. But Washington wants the big and small Gulf governments to reconcile their distrust of each other and develop a united long-term missile defense architecture.

    Clinton has also announced Saturday that talks aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon would resume on April 13 in Turkey. She stressed, however, that time is running out for diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program, saying Iran's "window of opportunity'' for a peaceful resolution "will not remain open forever.''

    She also expressed doubt about whether Iran has any intention of negotiating a solution that satisfies the US, Israel and other countries that believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

    "We enter into these talks with a sober perspective about Iran's intentions. It is incumbent upon Iran to demonstrate by its actions that it is a willing partner and to participate in these negotiations with an effort to obtain concrete results,'' she said.

    Iran and the six nations, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, met in Istanbul fourteen months ago. But the talks ended after two days with the sides unable to agree on what to talk about. New round of talks will take place amid increased international concern over Iran's uranium enrichment activity and speculation that the US or Israel may be gearing up for military action. The US, Israel and some Arab countries accuse Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons, but the Islamic republic insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and research purposes.

    Saturday's talks have also covered ways to pressure Syrian President Bashar Assad to end a crackdown on the uprising against his rule. Before heading to Turkey for a 60-nation 'Friends of Syria' meeting Sunday, Clinton said that attacks on rebels have continued despite Assad's acceptance of UN mediator Kofi Annan's plan to end the crisis. That plan includes an immediate cease-fire and an eventual democratic transition.

    Clinton said officials meeting in Turkey would discuss "additional steps to increase pressure on the regime, provide humanitarian assistance despite the efforts of the regime to block access and advance plans for an inclusive, democratic and orderly transition that addresses the aspirations of the Syrian people.'' She has also stressed that US position on Assad remains unchanged and "must go".

    http://rt.com/news/gulf-states-missile-defense-933/



    Corrosion
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 196
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2010-10-19

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

    Post  Corrosion on Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:42 pm

    GarryB wrote:Talk about destabilising...
    I agree GarryB. What if your enemy shoots it down. What are the consequences when the debris fall on ground. What if people are killed or radiation poisoned? Wont that equal to a sort of nuclear/chemical attack. You would definitely put your enemy in dilemma, how to strike back at you? What if your enemy is nuclear weapons state. More of the reason for more countries to have nuclear weapons and strong defenses and form alliances. Talk about destabilizing....

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:16 pm

    A cruise missile flying at mach 3 at low level would be an enormous task to hit efficiently and even if you hit it it would need to be before it gets to your territory.

    Both Russia and the US have directions from which the likelyhood an ICBM attack is very very low so there are not many defences pointed in that direction... the obvious example for the US is its southern border where drug filled cessnas penetrate US airspace at will.

    Another aspect is that the old 1950s system was huge... with modern electronics and materials and nuclear power technology a modern missile could be a small fraction of the size of the old missiles... in fact they could probably base the design of the weapon on Granit or enlarged Onyx. In fact Onyx already uses ramjet propulsion... a nuclear powered scramjet version would have a heat speed limit only... a normal jet engine chokes on supersonic speed air so even at supersonic flight speeds the intake narrows and restricts the air coming in to the engine to make it subsonic by the time it enters the engine. With a scramjet the fuel is burnt supersonically so no need to reduce the speed of the air going into the air intake and therefore flight speed can go as high as orbital speed... it would be an efficient way to get into space.

    In fact as there are two options for nuclear powered engines... one being dirty direct drive and the other being clean indirect drive if scramjet technology could be perfected then a nuclear powered indirect drive scramjet powered aircraft might be the future of getting to space stations,,, large amounts of slush (ie very cold) hydrogen could be stored on board and pumped through the front skin of the aircraft to cool it as it accelerates to leave the atmosphere and then outside the atmosphere close the intake and use the slush hydrogen superheated by the nuclear reactor to blast out the rear of the space craft like a rocket... actually no... liquid nitrogen instead of hydrogen. 70% of the earths atmosphere is nitrogen and it is totally inert so it is totally safe even when mixed with oxygen inside the atmosphere. The reason to use hydrogen is to burn as fuel but with the nuclear heat source you don't need to burn the hydrogen with oxygen to create rocket fuel... which means all the oxygen on board can be kept for breathing. The slush nitrogen will cool the aircraft skin just as slush hydrogen would and when superheated in the reactor it would expand into a gas inside the engine which would blast out the back in space as thrust. Nitrogen is a heavier element so the exhaust velocity will be lower than with hydrogen but it should still do the job of manoeuvring in empty space...

    You could even unify the reactor and have an ion engine to leave earths orbit... and go to the moon or mars or whereever.

    The point about the nuclear armed nuclear powered cruise missile is that the enemy will not start a war with you if you have them because his ABM shield will not stop such weapons and the radiation they leave in their wake just from the engines will be devastating to the human population and these things could fly for decades... and a mach 3 shockwave at ground level would have the effect of an explosive bomb... it could destroy buildings and kill people... 24/7 and of course you would never hear it coming as it would be traveling at almost a kilometre a second.

    As an anti ABM concept I think even the US will realise that given a choice between protection from Iranian ICBMs that don't exist and Russian development of such technology, or vulnerability to non-existent Iranian ICBMs and no nuclear powered super doomsday cruise missiles... I rather suspect they will choose the latter.

    The most important thing is the Russians don't need to spend a cent in development and it will actually save the US taxpayer trillions of dollars, though I am sure the US military will find another way to spend that money...

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

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

    Post  Sujoy on Wed May 23, 2012 11:04 am

    Last month Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev had said that NATO"s Missile defense could intercept Russian ballistic missiles by 2020 .

    With today's successful launch of the next generation ICBM , Russia it seems has made the NATO Missile shield irrelevant . According to Russian military sources this missile substantially upgrades the technology used by its already feared Topol-M and Yars systems.This missile is using a new type of fuel that helps reduce the time required to operate the propellants in the active stage of the rocket's trajectory . This makes it more difficult to detect and easier to manoeuvre. Interfax said the weapon is also equipped with individual warheads that can change course to avoid being shot down.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 24, 2012 4:18 am

    An ABM shield might be irrelevant for this new missile, but what percentage of Russias nuclear deterrent will this missile make up in 2020, and how will further growth of the US ABM systems effect this situation.

    The US is now in talks with ME countries... that means a potential UK US system, a system in Europe, a system in the ME, they have suggested a system with India... and of course the talks with Japan and South Korea for a system there...

    At what point do the Russians say enough... you can have your ABM systems all over the place, but in the interests of preventing a nuclear war they want their deterrent to be effective and they will now position a nuclear warhead in all their future satellite launches with a small deorbit rocket motor that can be triggered when needed to shower the whole world with nuclear explosions as a deterrent so they never have to worry about nuclear war.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

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

    Post  Sujoy on Thu May 24, 2012 6:56 am

    An ABM shield might be irrelevant for this new missile, but what percentage of Russias nuclear deterrent will this missile make up in 2020, and how will further growth of the US ABM systems effect this situation.

    The US ABM system is at best - a dark horse . Simulations after simulations carried out by individuals/organizations in the US have clearly proved that present day US SAM's will "nudge" an incoming warhead but will not be able to destroy it completely. So there has to be a quantum leap in ABM technology in the US for it to effectively field an ABM system that can intercept incoming Russian ballistic missiles. In the guise of stationing ABM systems in foreign countries the US is actually looking for more funding for it's ABM system . A few gullible states in the Gulf might well fall into this trap .

    And by 2020 Russia will be able to fine tune all it's ICBM's to penetrate any NATO missile defense shield . I would hope that Russia increase it's defense budget significantly over the coming years . Even China spends close to $150 billion in defense annually . The Russian defense budget should therefore be in the vicinity of $150 billion - $200 billion . With the exception of China only Russia can afford a huge defense budget because it does not run a huge current account deficit like India .


    At what point do the Russians say enough... you can have your ABM systems all over the place, but in the interests of preventing a nuclear war they want their deterrent to be effective and they will now position a nuclear warhead in all their future satellite launches with a small deorbit rocket motor that can be triggered when needed to shower the whole world with nuclear explosions as a deterrent so they never have to worry about nuclear war.

    If push comes to shove , Russia will activate missile sites in Greece , Venezuela and possibly even in Cuba . "Old Europe" does not have the stomach for this or maybe they have grown wiser . Hopefully , sense will prevail in "New Europe" or else they might well be turned by Russia into a "parking lot " for ABM systems

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:51 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:51 pm