Posted on 08/28/2008 5:45:39 AM PDT by maquiladora
Would you be willing to be national defence on that? The thing to note about the Russian rocket forces is this ....even when the Russians did not have funds and had rusting ships rotting on the harbor and soldiers swilling vodka and threatening new recruits with rape and murder unless they paid, the Rocket forces had all of their funding intact. With Russia now rolling in cash, those funds simply went up.
As for the Topol-M, it is not a propaganda weapon like what the Mig-25 was (when the Foxbat came out it was supposed to be a super-plane, and it caused most analysts to wet their beds at night. Only when a Russian pilot decided to flee the USSR ....using a Foxbat ....did the West actually find out that the plane was for the most part a paper-tiger. Yes it was fast, but its engines did not last for long, its avionics were not advanced, and it was not a super-killer of the skies). The Topol-M is not a fantasy, and it works. Also, if Russia's ICBMs 'never worked,' and only the barbaric weapons (I'm assuming simple stuff like Kalashnikovs and landmines) work, then why bother with a layered nuclear arsenal? If only our ICBMs work, why bother with having a three-tier approach? Simply have a much smaller number that can take care of the major Russian and Chinese (and maybe 5-10 extra for all the rogue nations) and call it a day! Why even bother with Boomers and their SBLMs ....since Russia's ICBMs are all duds, there is no need to have missile submarines prowling the oceans to ensure survivability of our nuclear forces (the subs are a very survivable component of the nuclear triad) since our land-based ICBM sites cannot be destroyed by a Russian strike (after all, their ICBMs do 'not now nor will ever work.' After all, they did not buy them from us).
Also, if the Russian ICBMs are duds, then that means that the Chinese versions must be worse. Even if they may have got W88 warhead technology from the Clintons (or so I read on FR), that was only the warhead. The missile itself should not work, meaning they cannot even take off. Thus the Chinese nuclear capability, based on your post, should not be considered a future threat.
That should also remove Pakistan's capability from the equation (which should even be worse, with Chinese/North Korean missile designs, and warheads that have a mix of Chinese and Pakistani knowhow ....goodness, maybe they are exploding right now since they are so useless). I guess Pakistani nuclear technology is also completely useless (even worse than the Russian 'duds') and should not cause anyone in Washington or Tel Aviv to worry. This should also include rogue states like Iran and North Korea, since they are even on a lower level than the Pakistanis (if the Russian nuclear devices do not work, that means that the Chinese probably only have metal and plastic mock-ups, and below that the Pakistanis just have sketches and wooden carve-outs, and hence the Iranians and N.Koreans, at the bottom of the totem, must only have wet dreams and nothing else). Thus they are no threat, and we can stop worrying about them.
Anyways, the Russian military is a collective joke. Their tanks work, but only if you are not using them against a modern military. Their guns work, but apart from a few military units with good training and combat experience (e.g. the spetznaz troops and other specialized forces that had years of experience killing Moslem Chechens) the rest of the Russian forces are indisciplined and more of a threat to themselves than to a modern army. As for their airforce, they do have some good assets (like the later versions of the Flanker), but a modern airforce is not just about a good airframe. It has to be part of a system (e.g. a totally integrated system, AWACs, top pilot training, etc). Their navy has some good weapons (primarily the top versions of their cruise missiles), and it is the 2nd largest after the USN, but in terms of capability the two cannot even be compared. It can sink most navies in the world, but against a modern opposing navy (e.g. the USN, the Japanese naval defense forces) they would get decimated!
The Russian military machine has bite, but it is more of a bully. It can chew up most militaries on earth (and when they have a leader who is more of a Putin instead of a Yeltsin, thus avoiding the blunders of the 1st Chechen war, they do not really care about razing down an entire city to achieve their objectives, and could give a damn about international outcries), but they cannot match an advanced and/or prepared military. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to the Russians.
However for their nuclear rocket forces they could not afford to rely on obfuscation. They are real, and they are capable. Their reliability and accuracy (even the Topol-M) may not be exactly the same as our latest ICBMs, but they are good enough to be relied on to do their job. While the rest of the military was rusting during the hard 90s the rocket forces had more than enough funds (some of it ironically from Uncle Sam, but that's another story), and when money started flowing in from the oil and gas spigots a good deal of it was channeled towards the rocket forces. Also note that the Russians are intelligent ....it is not a gray matter issue there, it is a leadership, bureacracy and incentive issue. They are not Iranians who are always announcing a new 'superduperfragilistic-Submarine' or 'shark-lasers with warp-drive cores' every other day.
Anyways, the day our Government believes that the Russian nuclear forces are totally not capable (and have never, do not, and will never work) is the day you will know that the takeover of the American Government by the Russian one has occurred. A Manchurian (in this case Moscovite) Government will be sitting in DC, because that is the only way one can come to that conclusion.
If osamabama is elected... that time will come shortly... but Ivan will not find Mississippi a pleasant place to visit!
LLS
The ABM sites as they are are not a threat. The tiny number of missiles is no threat to the Russian nuclear deterrent. The ABM systems are designed for a rogue launch from the likes of Iran or North Korea. There isn’t enough interceptors to physically threaten the amount of missiles and warheads that the Russians can launch.
Oh the Russian sites were extremely well monitored. U.S. and European taxpayers money even contributed to the destruction of many of the delivery platforms. The money paid for U.S. teams to go in and dismantle bombers and missiles. It was a very strict monitoring process.
For example the heavy strategic bombers on both sides are limited to what bases they use and are based at. The elimination of whole missile systems by type. Types that the Russians couldn’t field again as the silos were destroyed along with the missiles etc. All backed up with inspections and sat verification.
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/forasst/nunn_lug/overview.htm
http://www.armorgroup.com/globalreach/eurasia/eurasiacasestudies/russia/
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab14.asp
The Russians simply can’t hide the purpose of a site the same as the U.S. can’t either. The ICBM silos, their infrastructure, security etc all stand out via sat imagery.
http://geimint.blogspot.com/search/label/ICBM
Sat imagery of the Russian ABM system.
http://geimint.blogspot.com/search/label/ABM
The current START treaty ends next year. Whether each side will re-sign or present another treaty only time will tell.
I said we have to draw the line at Poland. We can’t (logistically) do much about Georgia and probably can’t do much about the Ukraine (they will have a civil war first, and then Russia will move in).
But we can defend Poland, and we must.
That is something worth thinking about.!
“The current START treaty ends next year. Whether each side will re-sign or present another treaty only time will tell.”
What is your prediction given recent event?
It is a difficult one. Nuclear weapons are expensive things to own and maintain. I don’t think that any side, even with current tensions, wants to go back to the old un-checked days with no limits. I believe that certain things will still be agreed. I don’t think that any side wants to go back to the days of no-notice test launches. There is just too much room for misinterpretation.
START I was the main treaty because it involved physical verification procedures and inspections. SORT is more of a gentleman’s agreement. I don’t believe that either side wants to go back to the old days of a nuclear arms race involving strategic weapons. Both sides realise that their current strategic arsenals are more than sufficient for their respective nuclear deterrent.
START I expires December 5,2009.
SORT expires December 31st, 2012.
An excellent summary can be found at the following link.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/sort-glance
Thanks. Some light reading for me to catch up on!
So we agree about Poland. The problem with ceding Georgia is that it also cedes control of Afghanistan to Russia. No way to get too our troops there without overflying Russian airspace or Iranian or Pakistania. Could use the route over Armenia and through Azerbaijan, but how long will that remain with Azerbaijan being isolated ?
Such a treaty is meaningless in a World where Iran has nuclear weapons and missiles that can deliver them to Europe. Not too mention North Korean missiles targeting the West Coast of the US. Note you did not answer my question. Why is Russia complaining about the Polish deployment if they do not perceive the system as a threat ? And tell the Israelis how good Sat imagery did for them when they provided evidence of a nuclear site within Syria to the US. The US demanded further verification. The Israelis eventually said, screw that, and bombed the site when they thought a suspicious shipment was destined to the nuclear site (cement delivery from North Korea).
That is the problem that ever power has had with Afghanistan. They are to far from just about every where to supply. Even the Soviets had issues, and it was on their borders!
Armenia will probably side with Russia. Azerbaijan fought a very bloody war with them and we didn't (and really couldn't) give them much help. They are culturally and religiously close to Russia, and with Georgia going down they know that the muslim republics in the area are just looking for an excuse.
Such a treaty between the U.S. and Russia was not meaningless. Both sides realised that the race was spiralling out of control. All the agreements and treaties reduced both sides nuclear arsenals to levels that were agreeable to both sides. Whole delivery systems have been and were taken out of service and destroyed with verification systems in place. Those various treaties covered everything from intermediate nuclear forces all the way up to strategic. It limited the numbers of heavy strategic nuclear bombers, etc each side could have in the inventory and put a cap on what each side had. After decades of an arms race and distrust the destruction and verification procedures in place put both sides at ease.
The treaties between the U.S. and Russia worked and both sides know it. No doubt you’ll believe that Russia has secretly doubled its nuclear arsenal and delivery platforms while watching the U.S. reduce theirs?
Take a step back. Think how many nuclear warheaded ICBMs Iran would need to threaten anybody outside of Israel? Do you honestly think that Iran is going to start launching nuclear warheads the minute it gets them into service? Iran would cease to exist if it started firing ICBMs at any NATO nation. The same would happen if Iran launched a nuke carrying ballistic against Israel. Just having nuclear weapons is not enough. Take a look at North Korea. Even when it announced that it had nuclear weapons what did that change in the world? Nothing. Even North Korea knows that it would cease to exist if it launched one at either South Korea or against the U.S. Pakistan was the firt Islamic nation to obtain the bomb. What happened when Pakistan obtained the bomb? What did Israel do? What could they do?
Russia is only complaining because they like to and want to. They hate the fact that NATO is now on territory that they once controlled and influenced. The ABM systems can’t threaten any of their systems. There simply won’t be enough interceptor missiles deployed to threaten the Russian nuclear deterrent. There will only be a limited number of interceptor missiles deployed to counter the threat from a rogue state such as Iran. Russia can easily defeat such a limited ABM system and its interceptors by swamping the targets. All it would take would be a few missiles with decoy warheads in an initial strike to use up the interceptor missiles. It would take the deployment of hundreds of ABM interceptor missiles in Poland and Czech Republic to threaten and degrade Russias nuclear deterrent.
No probs.
Regards
TJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.