Putin to Europe: Screw You! Arms Buildup! Wooo!

[Darth Raptor]

The Russian leadership is paranoid. Putin's rants about the missile defense being part of the "strategic nuclear system" is pure and utter bullshit. It's defensive, not offensive, non-nuclear weaponry. How is that threatening Sovi... Russian interests?

You don't see how a country no longer fearing nuclear retaliation could be a threat? When the only defense against getting nuked by a country used to be the knowledge that you would nuke them back? For serious?

[MKSheppard]

Link to best fucking freudian slip

Slip of the tongue as Rice speaks of Soviet missiles
ETHAN MCNERN

CONDOLEEZZA Rice, the United States' Secretary of State, spoke yesterday of the "Soviet" nuclear arsenal in a slip of the tongue as she urged Russia to abandon Cold War thinking.

Ms Rice was seeking to counter the belief that a proposed US missile shield in Europe might threaten Russia's nuclear deterrent, a view she has suggested reflects a "hangover" from the long US-Soviet standoff.


Washington has angered Russia and unsettled some European allies with a plan to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland, and radar in the Czech Republic to help shield Europe from possible missile attack by nations such as Iran and North Korea.

"The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous and everybody knows it," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a NATO meeting.

Ms Rice said Washington wanted to keep discussing the issue with Moscow based on a "realistic" assessment rather than "one that is grounded somehow in the 1980s".

A Soviet specialist, Ms Rice served on the White House National Security Council from 1989 to March 1991, during the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of communism in Europe and the waning days of the Soviet Union.

[Mange]

The Russian leadership is paranoid. Putin's rants about the missile defense being part of the "strategic nuclear system" is pure and utter bullshit. It's defensive, not offensive, non-nuclear weaponry. How is that threatening Sovi... Russian interests?

You don't see how a country no longer fearing nuclear retaliation could be a threat? When the only defense against getting nuked by a country used to be the knowledge that you would nuke them back? For serious?

One can have reservations about how useful and desirable such a missile defense system really is (and I leave that for the Americans and the nations which will host the system to make up their minds on that). And why revert back to Cold War rhetoric? The system isn't directed towards Russia and there have been feelers to include Russia.

[Resinence]

The Russian leadership is paranoid. Putin's rants about the missile defense being part of the "strategic nuclear system" is pure and utter bullshit. It's defensive, not offensive, non-nuclear weaponry. How is that threatening Sovi... Russian interests?

You don't see how a country no longer fearing nuclear retaliation could be a threat? When the only defense against getting nuked by a country used to be the knowledge that you would nuke them back? For serious?

One can have reservations about how useful and desirable such a missile defense system really is (and I leave that for the Americans and the nations which will host the system to make up their minds on that). And why revert back to Cold War rhetoric? The system isn't directed towards Russia and there have been feelers to include Russia.

If you were russia, would YOU trust an american missile defense system to protect you? Remember how batshit insane America went during the Cold War so they could be more batshit than the Soviets?

[Mange]

You don't see how a country no longer fearing nuclear retaliation could be a threat? When the only defense against getting nuked by a country used to be the knowledge that you would nuke them back? For serious?

One can have reservations about how useful and desirable such a missile defense system really is (and I leave that for the Americans and the nations which will host the system to make up their minds on that). And why revert back to Cold War rhetoric? The system isn't directed towards Russia and there have been feelers to include Russia.

If you were russia, would YOU trust an american missile defense system to protect you? Remember how batshit insane America went during the Cold War so they could be more batshit than the Soviets?

It's an open question who was the more batshit during the Cold War, but that should have no relevance for today.

[MKSheppard]

If you were russia, would YOU trust an american missile defense system to protect you?

Don't need to.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The Russian leadership is paranoid. Putin's rants about the missile defense being part of the "strategic nuclear system" is pure and utter bullshit. It's defensive, not offensive, non-nuclear weaponry. How is that threatening Sovi... Russian interests?

You don't see how a country no longer fearing nuclear retaliation could be a threat? When the only defense against getting nuked by a country used to be the knowledge that you would nuke them back? For serious?

That works both ways Raptor, considering the Russians already have an ABM system.

[K. A. Pital]

That works both ways Raptor, considering the Russians already have an ABM system.

Hey, you know - what the fuck is this now? The ABM system we had was around our capital. The ABM treaty reserved the right to have 1 ABM system didn't it?

The system isn't directed towards Russia and there have been feelers to include Russia.

The system IS directed at Russia, just as it is directed at ANY country with nuclear ballistic missiles. Ask Shep or Stuart, who actually have a clue about ABM systems and missiles. Once this system is ready, it will work against ANY missiles, including Russian missiles. We know that perfectly, that's why we try to make supersonic maneuvering missile heads - and this costs us shitloads of money, should you know.

It's pretty fucking obvious that this system is a clear shot for nuclear primacy - especially since it's not located in America proper, but in Europe. As far as I know, the ABM treaty allowed for defense of ONE city on your own territory, not putting ABM systems on the border of your potential adversary!

So frankly, we're not paranoid (1) our fears are totally justified (2)

[MKSheppard]

As far as I know, the ABM treaty allowed for defense of ONE city on your own territory, not putting ABM systems on the border of your potential adversary!

The problem is, we want to protect our NATO allies against Ballistic missile threats; but it's really hard to get them to agree to allowing the basing of ABMs. If poland is the only country which says "okay!" then that's where they go. Blame the NIMBYs in the rest of NATO if you want.

[K. A. Pital]

The problem is, we want to protect our NATO allies against Ballistic missile threats

We are a ballistic missile threat, to you, NATO and everyone else. And we need to remain a threat for the sake of our own safety. Europe is too close to our borders. The origina ABM treaty did not allow that IIRC.

[Starglider]

We are a ballistic missile threat, to you, NATO and everyone else. And we need to remain a threat for the sake of our own safety.

You've already got a working ABM system. Surely it would be cheaper to just deploy that on a wider scale (enough to match the currently very thin NATO system) rather than try to upgrade your entire missile force with enhanced RVs?

[MKSheppard]

We are a ballistic missile threat, to you, NATO and everyone else.

It's not just you that Europe needs to worry about. ICBM tech is proliferating, with various regimes obtaining ever increasingly longer ranged missiles; like Iran.

Anyway, it's not like you guys have violated the spirit of the treaty before; what with your SA-5 mass deployments with rudimentary ABM capability

That would have been a surprise to our Navy; they'd most likely have lost a fair portion of their RVs to your SA-5 hoard.

[K. A. Pital]

You've already got a working ABM system. Surely it would be cheaper to just deploy that on a wider scale (enough to match the currently very thin NATO system) rather than try to upgrade your entire missile force with enhanced RVs?

Don't you understand? The basic concept of a strategic nuclear force, especially one wielding MRBM, ICBM or SLBM, is the assured destruction of the enemy should he twitch his fucking finger on the nuclear launch button. This basic concept is going to hell now, since destruction is no longer assured. So it's not a question of having/not having your own ABM system, it's a question of the assuredness of destruction - and the ability to prolong the stalemate indefinetely.

No regime, ever, should have his hands untied to use nuclear weapons without the fear of total destruction and unacceptable loss in retaliation.

It's not just you that Europe needs to worry about. ICBM tech is proliferating, with various regimes obtaining ever increasingly longer ranged missiles; like Iran.

For Christ's sake, to protect from someone like Iran you don't need to come out of the treaty, just deploy something like the aforementioned SA-5. That's not to mention Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and will not have them in ages - and should it gain any, the basic idea holding them in tie would be the annihilation of Iran, not an ABM system.

[Vehrec]

Why not build a ABM system with a low saturation level to defend agains 'rouge states' with only a bare handfull of missiles? I mean, the last time I checked, most of the major sites on the cold war era launch lists were targeted multiple times. What if the system could only target and destroy a small number? That way one keeps MAD (for whatever reason you might want to. . .) and avoids having your city burned by a tinpot dictator with enough slaves banging rocks together to make his own nukes.

[K. A. Pital]

Why not build a ABM system with a low saturation level to defend agains 'rouge states' with only a bare handfull of missiles?

Because it doesn't matter how many missiles per EW system you place. What was eventually started as a small system can be racked up to a full-scale AM shield in the course of several months. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That way one keeps MAD (for whatever reason you might want to. . .)

There's no other way. It's that simple. Either we have MAD, or we enter a very real possibility of nuclear war. I hope everyone understands that clearly enough. If someone wields unrestricted nuclear primacy, what exactly prevents him from using nukes?

[Starglider]

Why not build a ABM system with a low saturation level to defend agains 'rouge states' with only a bare handfull of missiles?

Give how relatively tiny China's arsenal is, and its history of conflict with both Russia and the US, I would not be surprised if the US and Russia made a deal to allow ABM deployment to a level sufficient to neutralise China's ballistic missile threat. That makes Russia's option to nuke away China's army if they're ever stupid enough to try a ground invasion more credible, and lets the US defend against any dictators who manage to acquire a handful of ICBMs.

[K. A. Pital]

Give how relatively tiny China's arsenal is, and its history of conflict with both Russia and the US, I would not be surprised if the US and Russia made a deal to allow ABM deployment to a level sufficient to neutralise China's ballistic missile threat. That makes Russia's option to nuke away China's army if they're ever stupid enough to try a ground invasion more credible, and lets the US defend against any dictators who manage to acquire a handful of ICBMs.

Um... are you adequately looking at reality? Hello? Russia would be booted from the SCO which we were working so hard to make a powerful bloc - and looked upon as a pariah by all CIS states. Wonderful perspectives there, for a "deal with the US" we totally screw up ourselves! Thanks, but we'd rather strengthen our missile systems and build MRBMs than risk to cause the ire of China - one of our strategic partners (for now).

[Ace Pace]

Because it doesn't matter how many missiles per EW system you place. What was eventually started as a small system can be racked up to a full-scale AM shield in the course of several months. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I know that is correct, the problem is the initial steps, of setting up radar, communication and control bases. Once that is done, adding more missle locations to the system seems to be a rather simple task.

[K. A. Pital]

Once that is done, adding more missle locations to the system seems to be a rather simple task.

Well then just as Stuart said, our ire is perfectly explainable. And the MRBM too. We don't want our nuclear arsenals to become a paper tiger somewhere in the future - the system was designed to operate through ages, _never_ to allow anyone to invade Russia.

[Ace Pace]

Once that is done, adding more missile locations to the system seems to be a rather simple task.

Well then just as Stuart said, our ire is perfectly explainable. And the MRBM too. We don't want our nuclear arsenals to become a paper tiger somewhere in the future - the system was designed to operate through ages, _never_ to allow anyone to invade Russia.

I'm not sure an ABM system is so bad. It prevents full-scale nuclear war from accidental launching of ICBMs. The current situation is that(on the U.S end at least), if a single ICBM is launched, there is no time to find out what is going on before the government must retaliate.

ABM gives you redundancy, you are not forced to react immediately and giving leaders more time to think things through is critical.

[Vympel]

Frankly, I don't think there will ever be a sufficient level of confidence in the US ABM system to ever lull the US leadership into thinking they could launch a nuclear strike against Russia and be a: completely defended against the retaliation or b: suffer acceptable damage from same.

As for expanding the number of interceptors and thereby make it a credible defence against an all-out Russian attack, I have no idea how long it would take, but it would be enormously expensive and would be telegraphed from a mile away, figuratively speaking.

[Mange]

The system isn't directed towards Russia and there have been feelers to include Russia.

The system IS directed at Russia, just as it is directed at ANY country with nuclear ballistic missiles. Ask Shep or Stuart, who actually have a clue about ABM systems and missiles. Once this system is ready, it will work against ANY missiles, including Russian missiles. We know that perfectly, that's why we try to make supersonic maneuvering missile heads - and this costs us shitloads of money, should you know.

It's pretty fucking obvious that this system is a clear shot for nuclear primacy - especially since it's not located in America proper, but in Europe. As far as I know, the ABM treaty allowed for defense of ONE city on your own territory, not putting ABM systems on the border of your potential adversary!

Oh please. This system (from what's known at the moment) can deal with only a very limited number of ballistic missiles (and not MIRVs at all) so MAD is still assured (there's also the question is MAD is a viable concept today). And what is it you're going on about anyway? Are the U.S. and Russia enemies? Your argumentation belongs in a different time. And you're forgetting that there are other means of delivery than surface delivery (and since the Russia is a vast country, you can't expect ABMs to be efficient against ballistic missiles fired from other locations).

So frankly, we're not paranoid (1)

If the Russian leadership employs the same thinking as you do (which is evident as you refer to 'we') then you are more than paranoid.

our fears are totally justified (2)

Absolutely ridiculous and laughable.

[Ace Pace]

This system (from what's known at the moment) can deal with only a very limited number of ballistic missiles (and not MIRVs at all) so MAD is still assured (there's also the question is MAD is a viable concept today).

MIRV complicates itself only in the latter stage of the flight, if you have interceptors that can shoot down the MIRV early on(rather then in the dropm phase) then it is effectively just a normal ICBM.

On MAD, Stuart, The nuclear game, part 1.

What this also suggests is that large, secure nuclear arsenals are inherently safer than small, vulnerable ones. A large arsenal means that the owner can do appalling damage to an enemy, a secure arsenal means that no matter how the enemy attacks, enough weapons will survive to allow that destruction to take place. Here we have the genesis of the most misunderstood term in modern warfare - MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. (Another point of elaboration here - MAD is not a policy and has never been instituted as a policy option. It's the effect of policies that have been promulgated. This is a very useful touchstone - if people mention the US Policy of MAD, they don't know what they are talking about). Its widely believed that this suggests that both sides are wide open to unrestricted destruction by the other. This is a gross over-simplification. What the term actually means is that both sides have enough nuclear firepower to destroy the other and that the firepower in question is configured in such ways that no pre-emptive strike can destroy enough of it to take away the fact that the other country will be destroyed. MAD did not preclude the use of defensive systems - in fact it was originally formulated to show how important they are - but its misunderstood version was held to do so - with catastrophic results for us all. One implication of this by the way is that in spite of all the fuss over the Chinese stealing the W88 warhead design, the net beneficiary of that is the United States; it allows the Chinese to build a much more secure deterrent and thus a more stable one. Also, looking at things purely ruthlessly, its better for one's enemy to make small clean bombs than big dirty ones.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh please. This system (from what's known at the moment) can deal with only a very limited number of ballistic missiles (and not MIRVs at all)

MIRV is only a slight complication. The trajectory is ballistic. Do you think Russian MoD spends money on a maneuvering re-entry vehicle because it's just feeling like it?

...so MAD is still assured (there's also the question is MAD is a viable concept today)

Is not. And yes, the U.S. goverment has been taking all steps to throw the balance in the rubbish bin.

And what is it you're going on about anyway? Are the U.S. and Russia enemies?

For the strategic nuclear forces, ONLY ENEMIES exist. It's not I'm who's in a different time - I actually have friends who work in the SNS - but you. You're in the fluffy bunnies time. This time also is totally disconnected from reality. Nuclear forces are meant to protect the country ALWAYS, regardless of the political situation in the world, even in a hundred years from now.

And you're forgetting that there are other means of delivery than surface delivery

Yes, there are. Nuclear fixed wing aircraft which is now barely being kept in-flight, and several submarines which have a ridiculously low patrol intensity - and an uncertain future ahead for both of them.

(and since the Russia is a vast country, you can't expect ABMs to be efficient against ballistic missiles fired from other locations).

Actually you can. That's why the system would be efficient for ANY BM fired over Europe, be it Iran, Russia, China or whoever else decides to send their missiles over the European territory.

Stuart who is a military analyst working for the complex since 1960 can vindicate most of what I said here, I think. So no, it's not me who is "ridiculous", it's the "fluffy bunny" rethoric of the ABM builders.

[MKSheppard]

Right now, if a Missile is launched, and unless it catastrophically fails en route, a city's going up in a flash of light. This also locks us all into a "use them or they die" mindset, which leads us to "if one flies, they all fly."

Quite frankly the world would be better off with 10,000 nuclear armed gravity bombs and attack missiles fired from strike aircraft like the Tu-95, Tu-160, B-52, and B-1, than 1,000 warheads on 1,000 ICBMs.