Kiev admits sending cruise missiles to Iran and China

Financial Times ^

[Chode]

true as i was talking about attacks against the Navy CBG's, but, i guess i'm more concerned about somebody walking one in from mexco than i am one popping up from off shore

[sukhoi-30mki]

I think the range-threshold never came into force.The American ALCM(AGM-86??) which was used in recent conflicts has a range of over 1,500kms.

[Rockitz]

Ping!

[timtoews5292004]

The acquisition by Iran of cruise missiles, if proved, would heighten concerns about its nuclear weapons programme. Hate to be a grammar nazi, but shouldn't it be "The acquisition of cruise missles by Iran,......" ????

[Centurion2000]

Cruise missiles are like unmanned kamikaze airplanes. They fly to their target in the atmosphere either at high altitude or at low level.

Well, if we got technical we could just name these suckers ICCM InterContinental Cruise Missiles.

[jriemer]

I think the range-threshold never came into force.The American ALCM(AGM-86??) which was used in recent conflicts has a range of over 1,500kms.

AGM-86C/D Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile
"Range: Nominal: 600nm Specific: Classified"

This puts our ALCM missiles within "neighborhood" of the START I treaty ALCM specifications. Only 35 of that type were launched in GWI. The majority of the cruise missiles used in that conflict were longer range sub and ship launched missiles.

Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Range:
Block II TLAM-A – 1350 nautical miles (1500 statute miles, 2500 km)
Block III TLAM-C - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
Block III TLAM-D - 700 nautical miles (800 statute miles, 1250 km)
Block IV TLAM-E - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)

[Terpfen]

The exportation happened in 2001. They've had 4 years. I'd say that's "a while."

[sukhoi-30mki]

http://www.softwar.net/agm86.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/alcm.htm

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-86.html


All these resources put it's range at far beyond the threshhold limit!!!!

[Pussy_Cat]

" their current ICBMs are liquid fueled, and cannot be held in a fueled state for long without needing defuelling and maintenance;"

That is not true. China's latest generation of ICBMs are solid fueled.

An article about China's DF-31 ICBM:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-31.htm

[Spktyr]

The article is a little incorrect. The DF-31 has *still* not reached operational capacity that I am aware of. The last flight test in January 2002 was a failure. 2003 was thought to have been when it was supposed to reach IOC, but apparently it still has not as of Jul 2004. Here's a slightly more up to date report from globalsecurity: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/df-31.htm

Supposedly they were going to deploy 24 by the end of 2004, but I haven't seen any confirmation of that.

[Pussy_Cat]

I don't understand. The article from your link(globalsecurity) is the same as the one I posted( from fas.org). So what exactly is our difference?

A direct quote from your link:

"With an estimated range of only 8,000 km (4,300 nm), the DF-31 can only reach targets along the entire West Coast of the United States and in several northern Rocky Mountain states. Chinese incentives for deploying a missile with such limited capabilities are not self evident.

The DF-41, a 3-stage 12,000 km-range missile similar to the American Minuteman and the Russian Topol SS-25, will apparently be developed using the first two stages of the DF-31 along with a much larger third stage. The larger third stage and longer range of the DF-41 is made possible by the fact that, unlike the DF-31, the size of the DF-41 is not constrained by the requirement that it be fitted into a submarine launch tube. The cancelled 1,700km-range DF-25 ground mobile missile was developed using the first two stages of the DF-31.

In August 2001 it was reported that China was developing a longer range version of its DF-31, designated the DF-31A. The DF-31A will reportedly be able to cover targets throughout the continental U.S. from mainland China."

---

If DF-31 has not yet entered service and reached operational status, why would chinese be bothered with DF-31A and DF-41?

[Spktyr]

Simultaneous development, perhaps? The article isn't identical, by the way.

[thombo]

I follow and agree with your logic ie nuking a Russian city in retaliation would pretty much result in madd.What would be the proper response?How long for China to fit those cruise missles w/nukes?I read some time ago that China may have stolen 20 to 30 yrs of /nuclear weapons tech from Los Alamos(?)in the 90's.Was the article correct?

[spetznaz]

The Chinese did garner some nuggets from Los Alamos that aided them in warhead design, but I am not sure to what extent it brought their capabilities forward (but the compact designs are certainly going to be of great assistance to them).

One thing i do know is that their naval capabilities have been brought forward by almost 3 decades in the span of one. That is obviously not due to Los Alamos by any measure, but it is still a significant jump.

As for the need for a proper response. I personally think that the best thing to do would be to ensure that no response is necessary. By doing our best to not leave loose ends about that can come and bite us. However if worst came to worst all we could do is strike at the offender (if we can come up with a definite target since most likely that attackers will be an amorphous target like Al Queda).

The best thing is to ensure this doesn't happen in the first place. If an American city is nuked it really will not matter much what we do from there, because the result will either be bad or worse!

[thombo]

Thanks for the response.I think Iran is especially dangerous.They appear to be seeing how far they can push.Kind of like Hussein before we went into Iraq.Maybe Kiev(or France)will sell them the warheads next.

[spetznaz]

I'll bite.

In the article the Ukraine sold cruise missiles to Iran and China. In the weapons market today, virtually all ballistic missiles stem from either China and/or North Korea (and even the N.Korean ones are basically Chinese designs with different names). The nuclear material has Pakistan as a major source (the AQ Khan network that operated unabated for almost 2 decades), but even this stems from China since Pakistan's nuclear program was basically a Chinese implant.

Now, let's say there is a (again, God forbid) nuclear attack on the US. And we lose a city. And because the Ukraine sold some cruise missiles, and China sold some ballistic missiles, and the nuclear material probably came from Pakistan, you (as president) launch an ICBM/SLBM at a major Russian city.

Ok! Boom. Moscow has an ABM shield, but it would be to no avail and your ICBM/SLBM would impact, and a Russian city would be erased. Mission done.

But my question is this ....you brought up MAD. Meaning that you know it is a two-way street. The Ruskies nuke us, they are gone in 30 minutes. Same thing works the other way too though. WE nuke the Ruskies, and we are gone in 30 minutes (oh, and our ABM defenses would be useless against a Ruskie saturation attack). MAD works both ways.

So, when your missile impacts, and a Russian city is gone, do you think the Russians will just do a group hug and go for a skinny dip in the Black sea? Nope, what would happen is a counter-attack. And we would also counter-counter-attack. And that would be it. Our missiles would pass each other in space, and there would be no winner. One country might be hit harder than the other, but socially/financially/physically there would be no winner.

And try explaining to them that the reason you nuked them is because the Ukraine and China were selling weapons, weapons that most probably came from Soviet designs some decades past.

Now, the Israeli-Iran situation is a different animal. But even then Israel would never attack Russia unless there was a really pressing issue (and even then it would be virtually a suicide mission if they decided to involve nukes). Now, I see Israel pulling off an Osirak-type attack on the Iranian reactor, but it will not be launching nuclear weapons at Russia.

Again, the conventional forces in Russia have not been as well kept (although things are improving since nowadays Russia is making money up the wazoo), but even during the dire years Russia still poured billions into their missile programs.

Anyways, MAD operates both ways. What makes you think that when we nuke Russia they will not return the favor? I'm curious.

[spetznaz]

Selling fighter aircraft (however modified) and selling reliable long-range missiles are not equivalent. As you note, an aircraft is relatively easy to shoot down, a missile is another matter entirely

One more thing. The Paki planes actually have a greater chance of penetrating Indian airspace than a N.Korean ICBM has of impacting inside US territory. While the chance of the Pakistani plane actually making its way into Indian airspace is very slim (India has a significant qualitative/quantitative advantage), there is still a possibility if the planets were to allign perfectly. However the N.Korean ICBM is the target that our ABM shield was directed towards .....a small-scale limited ballistic missile attack. It would be shot down.

Also there is a far greater likelihood of Pakistan attacking India with a nuke than N.Korea attacking the US (N.Korean nukes are basically political weapons not literal ones).