It will look to the north or to the south? It will be interesting and useful to test the honesty of the American claims. If looks north, it will not be doubts about real intentions anymore.

Since it's relocatable, it can be deployed looking north as well as south.

Kolokol
Pavel

Gentlemen, I continue to be only confused by these publicly announced "plans". We've got American X-Band radar systems beginning to populating the world! Would such a radar system, for the sake of argument based in Baku, catch the launch of ballistic missiles from either Iran or Russia equally? I guess I'm struggling to understand the significance of such an installation in the Caucasus.

Frank Shuler
USA

An interesting comment from an MDA person posted on Armscontrolwonk.com:

Rick Lehner, Missile Defense Agency says:

Please note that the briefing is from April 2005. Lots of old info in it, including possible locations for foward-based X-band radars. Remember that these radars are designed not to be permanent, but can be air-lifted to wherever they are needed to support missile defense. As such, there are no plans for possible locations. The only radar that is built so far is currently in Japan. Also, briefing notes use of early warning radars at Clear, AK and Otis AFB, MA. These are no longer planned in the missile defense architecture.

Rick Lehner's comments seem legitimate. The FBX-T X-band system is designed to be "portable" and we have discussed at length here the logistics of moving such an installation. Besides, this radar system seems to be more geared to a theater-missile defense using the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. The US 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) recommended the closure of Otis Air Force Base, and the recommendation was accepted, so that installation as a major ballistic missile defense site in the future didn't seem exactly right. In addition, building some 30 additional interceptor missiles in Alaska in a year's time, without any Congressional funding, also seemed a little farfetched.

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel and everyone,

I guess I am asking out of my personal ignorance on the matter: What's in this for Aliyev? He seems to only be adding tension to the already tense relationship with Tehran.

In addition, what is Moscow's exact position on missile defense in Europe? It's seems that there is generally opposition to it, but there are all these rumblings about "cooperation" with Russia on the matter from the US side. What's the status of cooperation between Moscow and the US in the missile defense area?

I think Russia should talk with America in this regard. I really wonder who is the target of this missile defense system. I don't see any realistic chance that no other countries but Russia and China could be able to build any ballistic missile that could hit America or Western Europe in near future!

Well, if conversations with Azerbaijan about this radar did take place (I still favor the Georgia scenario), one can understand Aliyev - he wants to be friends with the United States. Nothing wrong with that, of course. And Azerbaijan has a Russian early-warning radar on its territory, so Aliyev can say he is even.

I don't think the radar itself would be a problem from any point of view - military in particular. But it probably won't help make U.S.-Russian relations any better.

Iran is as far from making an ICBM that can reach U.S. as a spider in Florida is from biting someone in California. Hence there is no doubt that the U.S. is making silent plans to encircle Russia with radars to gain some control over what Russia can do. If Russian missiles are proof against laser weapons as they claim it is worth understanding what the U.S. is upto. Perhaps multiple interceptors at a time to crowd out the Russian missiles which will be small in nos as time passes and the existing missiles reach the end of their life.

Sharma: I fully agree with you. There is no doubt. America is just planning to gain control over Russia. Missile defense system is just aiming Russia, no other country.

Be calm. Current developments are more than enough to defeat this publicized shield. Even a MIRVed Topol-m will be capable to do it (by saturation). In the future no just single "shield-penetrating" warheads can be developed. Multiple-maneuverable-warheads should be the correct asymmetric answer. The bottleneck right now seems to be the total throw weight. Probably because this, the future development of a liquid-fuel ICBM is in carpet.

How many nuclear weapons does Russia need to deter an adversary from a first strike? How many nuclear weapons does the United States need to accomplish the same? China? France? How do they need to be based? Isn't that really the issue? How does Russia defend herself by making an attack on her so costly to any attacker that a first strike is unimaginable? It is that number that Russia and the United States need to move to and I'll wager that number is somewhere around 1000 weapons.

For the last twenty years, China has targeted 20 ICBM at American cities with no American counter balance. Those missiles sit in "unhardened" silos without liquid fuel loaded. The accompanying nuclear weapon, a warhead estimated at 5 MT, does not arm the missile but remains nearby in a nuclear depot. The Chinese are clearly saying we have no ability to strike first but if politics demand we can arm these weapons and create such devastation on America that it clearly outweighs any reason to go to war. If China goes to single warhead mobile missiles or elects to arm its silo missiles with multiple warheads to render an ABM system irrelevant, that is what she will do to maintain the balance of power. She just wants to hold those 20 cities at risk. That is China's nuclear policy.

What is Russia nuclear policy?

Frank Shuler
USA

The difference between U.S. on the one hand and Russia or China on the other is that U.S. has the ability to flood the vicinity of any country with the most advanced electronic detecting devices and nuclear and other interceptor weapons as no one else can and that too without batting an eyelid. The economic power and military stockpile of weapons with U.S. is prohibitive for any other country. The economic power comes from being the no. one arms seller and supplier of the most extensive general purpose technological equipment and machinery in the world not to speak of a variety of supercomputers and other high end equipment. Thus no other country can ever be anywhere near as threatening as the U.S. when it comes to confrontation. Russia needs to take firm action when it comes to threatening them from as close quarters as Georgia, Poland or Caucasus. Russia also need to extend the life of other missiles such as SS-18,19 & 25 and keep adequate nos. as safeguard. There is no need for the U.S. to show their mussle to other much poorer and deprived nations.

Sharma:

I value your opinion and respect your comments.

However, you missed one of my main points. You can not group Russia and China together. Chinese nuclear-political policy is well stated and she has the nuclear weapon arsenal to match her needs. Do you see America "pushing around poorer; deprived" China?

What is Russia's nuclear policy? With that understanding, the number of weapons and how they need to be based will be easily understood.

Frank Shuler
USA

Target warheads: 2000 for the decade 2010-2020 acording Baluyevski.

The operational doctrine go from MAD (mutual-assured-destruction) to MAD (minimum-assured-deterrence), that mean to ride a massive counterforce strike and even produce unacceptable damage to the aggressor, even in presence of NMD.
Thus one should expect a higher percentage of mobile systems with only a few (less than 100?) silo-based ICBM.

No aim to match the enormous US offensive potential, but forces tailored to survability.

Kolokol:

This “naïve” American agrees with your assessment completely. Now we need a new START treaty for compliance and verification and to get the United States to like numbers. We need to take away the first strike option from any country.

Frank Shuler

USA

Frank, sorry but Mr. Bush doesn’t want to give up the first-strike option. They are talking now about non-nuclear SLBM, that are useless as a counter-value strike weapon. They are improving accuracy of Minuteman too. Definitively they are not interested in START or treaties like this.
In the other hand, Russia loosed its LIMITED first-strike option with retirement of many number of “SS-18” and will no recover it. Strategic forces will go to a “survivable morphology” with no fist-strike capability.

I agree that likelihood of a Russo-American nuclear exchange is much much lower than 20 years ago but the “optimal size” of 2000 nukes, I think, is not groundless. Putin claimed that it was ready to go to 1.500 without NMD. The additional 500 seems to be minded on NMD + first strike. Probably planners think that NMD will substantively grow in the future.
The rest (1500), I assume comes from the combination country size + low population. Maybe after 2015 while forces gain more survability, numbers can fall.

Dear Frank, I assum you know this but take a look.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ma06norris#3

Anonymous:

Agreed.

However, the same source, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, estimate the nuclear balance today (2006) as follows:

Total Warheads

US – 10,104
Russia – 16,000
United Kingdom – 200
France – 350
China – 200

Given the Moscow Treaty of 2012, the United States will have approximately 6,000 nuclear warheads. As per the “treaty”, only 2200 or less will be “operational” weapons. Russia is expected to have a nuclear weapons inventory of over 10.000 devices.

I like the term used by Kolokol, MAD (minimum assured deterrence). Let’s work for those numbers in a new START treaty. This is an historical opportunity. If arms control fails post 2009, end of existing START, I fear it will never return.

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol:

I think the number of American nuclear weapons will drop significantly in the same 2016 timeframe based on politics and economics. Minuteman and Trident today still has future upgrade potential that puts off their replacement well into the 2020s. The US Air Force has been trying for years to cut the number of B-52 bombers and downsize the Minuteman force with little success in Congress. I honestly think the need for vast Cold War nuclear inventories, and the billions of dollars necessary to support them, will have ended.

Frank Shuler
USA

Well this is an interesting discussion...just wanted to add a non-specialist's 2 cents: I assume there are now ways of making a 50 and 100 mt warhead without any significant weight increases - Russia has always made heavy/high throw weight missiles anyhow. One can orbit a dozen of such warheads and have them circle around waiting for command...one can simply launch them from Russia - does it matter that an "expected" radar in Azerbaijan detects it(what if it is launched from Yakuts region), it only matters if they can stop it? approx. 50-100 of such warheads would be enough to cool any hotheads...also, will the new Borey class SSBN have the same ability to break through the ice and launch a salvo that Akula could?

From Lenta.ru

Атомный подводный крейсер "Юрий Долгорукий" готовится к спуску

This would change a bit the composition of the triad. 48 more warheads may be placed in Borei.

Re: Previous comment. Please, don't post news messages here - a link would be quite enough. And keep in mind that not everybody speaks Russian.

As for the discussion itself, I think we should all realize that the bean-counting of the kind "we have 50 (or 500) more warheads than you" is pretty much meaningless. The cold war arsenals serve no purpose anymore, whether military or political.

Leon Rozmarin:

Interesting observations.

Actually the old Soviet Union deployed such a system back in 1980’s. The Kremlin developed the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOB) from somewhere around 1968 until 1983. Using this system, a nuclear warhead could be placed in low orbit and later de-orbited to hit any location on the Earth's surface. While the Soviet Union deployed a test version of the system, they were forbidden by the OST (Outer Space Treaty) to place live warheads in space. The FOB system was phased out in January 1983 in compliance with; I think, one of the SALT agreements. Interestingly, orbital bombardment systems with conventional warheads are permitted under the terms of these agreements and the United States is very interested in such technology for its “Global Strike” project. This development is generally referred to as the “Falcon Project” and is receiving funding under current Defense Budgets.

I have only seen basic published drawings of the RS Yuri Dolgoruki but I have every confidence it will be “ice capable”. The fairweather and diving planes are positioned for work under the ice and I suspect the boat will be strengthened like the previous Delta IV and Typhoons’ for such tasks.

Frank Shuler
USA

I can't understand why America is always looking for first-strike capability? Russia is not a threat for the US now. China doesn't have the real capability to attack America with nuclear arsenal, they won't like to suicide that's sure! I think China never be a threat for America. We have to understand that China is one of the major trade partner of America and they even enjoy special trade facilites. It is really ridiculous that some people in Washington DC still bear the ghost of cold war. I think the USA could hardly gain anything by deploying Missile Defense System in around Russia. It will just destablise the relation between them. I thought, after disintregation of Soviet Union, cold war era has ended. But we now see America is treating Russia more badly than they treat Soviet Union. WTO is a real example. When Russia is substantially reducing their nuclear arsenal, America is keeping its first-strike capability intact. About 150 Topol M versus 500 Minuteman III ICBM will really show the fact someday in future.

debpc:

I would caution anyone that the mythical “first strike capacity” isn’t an American invention. Every nation wants to be able to defend herself from aggression. Every nation wants to be able to strike an enemy first before that enemy can harm.

On December 6, 1941, what would have happened if an American naval task force on routine patrol north of Hawaii had encountered the Imperial Japanese Navy on route to Pearl Harbor? Would we have felt the need to attack this powerful collection of Japanese aircraft carriers and surface warships, not in a time of war and in international waters? Would the United States have fired the first shot?

Governments are programmed to defend whether their capitals are in Washington DC or Moscow. The Cold War has ended and both Russia and the United States are continually adjusting to that fact. That adjustment continues.

In 2016, Russia will have the most modern nuclear arsenal in the world. She will possess the SS-27, the very latest in ICBM development, equipped with a powerful maneuverable warhead that will defy any missile defense system. The Andreevsky Flag will fly from the decks of the latest built nuclear ballistic missile submarines equipped with the latest Bulava missile. And America will have an aging Trident submarine fleet and 60 years old Minuteman ICBMs. Today, Russia has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. I fear the future will be no different.

Frank Shuler
USA

debpc,
USA will have the most potent nuclear arsenal like it or not. Although in numbers would have 2200 operational warheads, the combination of a higher number of vectors and a large “rapid redeployment stockpile” will mean that can upload to near 4000 in a few weeks.

Russian aim should not be to match this potential. It will be ruinous. It should and apparently is focusing on a compact, survivable and “all-azimuth” force minded also in Chinese, British and French potential, that as number of warheads fall, become relatively more important.

Apparently target warheads have been set at 2000 but with an undisclosed number of launchers, probably no more than 200 ICBM and only a grand total of six SSBN (of any type) plus Tu-95 plus Tu-160. Conversely, the operational level should be raised.

Frank,
Most of Russian nukes are on inactive stockpile. Rigth now there are about 3.300 strategic warheads plus around 3000 tactical warheads. The rest doesn’t matter because there are not delivery vehicles.

Yes Frank, every nation has the right to possess first strike capability and America isn't different, I agree. You may have studied the two recent articles are written by Keir Liber & Daryl Press and Pavel Podvig. We really see the sorry state of Russian Strategic Forces in 1916 if their policy will not be changed in future. I really like both the US and Russia should work together for a much more stable and safe world and don't confront with each other.

Kolokol:
The United States and Russia should start negotiation for further reduction of nuclear arsenals.

Kolokol:

The American Government is probably spending as much money helping Russia dismantle and safeguard existing old nuclear weapons and nuclear components than Russia is spending to build new systems. No propaganda; just truth.

Again, I think politics and economics will get both Russia and America to your “MAD” levels in the next ten years or so. If we can agree to a new START treaty, we can get to these levels more openly and with greater transparency. The simple truth is that Russian and the United States have no reason to quarrel; there just aren’t fundamental issues that divide us. We just have to set history aside and bury the Soviet past. If we can’t reach an agreement on a post- 2009 START, so be it. The number of nuclear weapons will fall unilaterally. The Cold War is truly over.

Frank Shuler
USA

Well, Putin ordered to explore the start of talks around a follow-on of START. I cant remember the article link. May be the Moscow “treaty” in a START framework or in a slightly low level (perhaps 2000 USA vs 1500 Russia). But, I guess, both sides will no want to go to much lower levels because of in such a case arsenals of third countries start to weight (specially for Russia).

debpc:

I have read the Lieber & Press publication, “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”. Frankly, I disagree with some of their conclusions. The United States is stuck with an aging nuclear weapons inventory and conflicting policy needs. It has only just been announced here that the last of the W-56 warheads associated with the old Minuteman II missile program, a weapon long gone from service, have been finally disassembled. Just because the United States still has the W-84 warhead left over from the 1980s Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) systems in storage doesn’t mean those “weapons” are of any threat. With the end of live nuclear testing, the focus has been on “replenishing” the nuclear stockpile rather than building new warheads or disassembling obsolete ones. It just is going to take time to whittle these numbers down. It’s a frustrating slow process.

I do think Russia is very wise concentrating on developing a modern command and control system to support her national defense at the expense of just building vast numbers of nuclear weapons that look impressive in some report. I don’t see “the sorry state of Russian Strategic Forces in 2016”. I see a much smaller, newer, better organized, better controlled and supported force that will meet Russia’s national security needs.

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol:

The agreed numbers in any new START treaty need to be beyond the grasp of any other country. That’s not arrogance on our part, just common sense. I believe the political process in the United States will move toward seeing the benefits of START in the coming years. I remain optimistic that a new agreement can be reached.

Frank Shuler
USA

General Yury Baluyevsky's article on American National Missile Defense program is very interesting. One very interesting point made in the article is 'NMD silos can be easily converted to launch ballistic missiles.' Let's see how Russia reacts in futre!

There is no use talking about a clear Nuclear policy. Chinese missiles which held a threat to US some time ago, cannot at present penetrate the multilayer US defence through space based lasers(in deployment stage), thaad, patriot and the most recent chemical laser technology tested at Edwards Air Force base. The economic, military, political and technological scenario is dynamic and intimately inter-related. Thus, to sit back and relax having declared its nuclear policy is not possible for any country. Russia is the only country that has the potential technology and originality to survive a future holocaust. The aim of min. 2000 warheads stated by President Putin is the closest one can get to the required figure to safeguard Russia at present. Unfortunately U.S. statements and actions are far removed from each other. Therefore entering into treaties with U.S. has no use. You cannot call the biggest arms seller in the world "Champion of Democracy". Russia is honest in the fact that it doesn't indulge in such rhetoric.

Sharma:

You do realize that, with the exception of the PAC3 version of the 1970s Patriot missile system, none of these other systems exist today. In fact, the satellite systems design to command & control such a “multilayered defense system” are still on the drawing boards and decades away from any operational status. I can assure you a Chinese DF-5a (CSS-4) missile aimed at Los Angles would destroy the city.

China and the United States have an interesting relationship. It is very symbiotic; each needs the other. Besides the economic dependency between out two countries, China needs the United States to serve as a counter weight to the resurgence of a militarist Japan.

My position on the need for a new START treaty between Russia and the United States is well known. However, even without such a treaty the numbers of nuclear weapons in both countries’ arsenals will fall. The balance will fall to a number that is affordable and meets each countries military/political need.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank -
I accept that you guys may be better informed about the nature and type of missiles.
But there are some basic questions that arise. U.S. is actively engaged in development of NMD.
Sooner or later it will achive the goal of interception of all types of missiles as it has no limitations on funding research.
If China does not possess a first strike capability as you stated in your postings and the fact that Russia is fast loosing its ability for first strike, why does the U.S. stalk the two countries and promote NATO into Russian satellite countries. The reason for this is that U.S. wants to deny a second strike option to them. This is not to say that U.S. once having achieved the goal of NMD will carry out an attack. The real reason for this is to create dominance in world economic decisions through political pressure and to create a U.S. monopoly.
U.S. has in the past repeatedly interfered in economic decisions of other countries that are not in its own interest. Prez. Putin has rightly said that Russia must stay strong enough to deny U.S. putting political pressure under military threat.

Sharma, I completely agree.

The United States has been pouring 10 billion dollars a year into Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and that funding is only continuing. The approach has been both broad based and long term. Many different technologies have been tested, both in lab environments and in the field with varying results. People said it was impossible to launch a missile from the ground and hit a jet aircraft in flight. The Soviets spent many a ruble to field such technology and the “experts” said it wouldn’t work. The result was the SA-2 Guideline system and you didn’t have to convince Gary Powers in 1960 it didn’t work. He saw it first hand when his U-2 was shot down. No defensive weapon system will ever be able to achieve 100% accuracy, but I think the United States will have BMD systems that are affective.

The key point I was trying to make regarding China is that the Chinese have made a rational decision not to pursue a first strike capability. The Chinese have not added a single long range ICBM to their arsenal in the past 20 years. That’s a political decision because we know it is not a technical or manufacturing one. They choose to freeze their inventory at that level. If in the future the Chinese decide to place multiple warheads on their existing missiles or replace them with a road mobile system it is only to keep the same capability as they now enjoy. China may well have to MIRV their missiles, increasing their warhead inventory from, say 20 to 100, only to overcome American BMD and hold the same 20 targets hostage.

America has this undeniable desire to make the world “American”. It doesn’t seem to make a difference who’s President or what political party holds sway in our Congress. It’s logical to assume that the goal is all economic in scope, Wall Street, but that’s not easily recognized here nor do I think a real given. The United States is a new country; Russia had a millennium on us before our Declaration of Independence (1776) from Britain. We are an impatient country; brash and sometimes too bold and reckless. No one in America really cares if Ukraine joins NATO or not. Most Americans can’t even find Azerbaijan on the map if their life depended on it. Yet, we reject these independent countries are under anyone’s “sphere of influence”. We will develop our ties with these countries and ask permission from no one to do so. I don’t know a single country that has ever been begged to join NATO or the EU.

Russia will remain a world power and strong in its own right. She will be an ally to America on some issues and an adversary on others. It’s just how “great nations” deal with each other today. There is no single overwhelming issue that separates our nations and many things that bind us together. It will be a maturing process worth watching.

Frank Shuler
USA

Baluyeski claimed that REAL targets of NMD are China and Russia. He also stated that Russia have the technical potential and resources to render this system useless.
I agree with him, so no matter to worry, … it is just necessary to deploy adequate countermeasures and let them spend bucks on its “shield”.

Kolokol:

Would Bulava with six warheads have the same technical advantage that Topol-M ICBMs with one warhead have against American NMD system?

debpc:

Interesting question for Kolokol. I would be interested in his insights too.

I would also be curious to Pavel and Kolokol reaction to the following:

In Pavel’s “Risk of Accidental Launch” document, the Bulava missile, with six 100kt warheads, has an accuracy of 400 (CEP) per meter and the single 550kt Topol-M missile corresponding an accuracy of 350 (CEP),m. In his Kill percentage against a silo missile, the Bulava rates .249 and the Topol-M .665. That would suggest to me the Topol-M is clearly superior attacking a silo ICBM. Nothing comes close to the SS-18 (M2 version) with ten 750kt warheads and an accuracy of 400 (CEP),m and a kill percentage of .946. What was not immediately clear to me was the lesser kill percentage of the Bulava missile measured against its ability to attack six different targets or targeting only one silo? In other words, are we attacking a single silo with a 550kt. Topol-M (.665) or attacking a single silo with a SS-NX-30 Bulava missile (.249) with a payload of 600kt.? Does the SS-18 have a .946 chance of destroying a silo or the same percentage against ten?

All this assumes no BMD at all.

Frank Shuler
USA

These are single kill probabilities (just for a single warhead). You can improve the PK by assigning more than one warhead to a single silo. The PK calculus is straightforward (Bayes rule). But, this mind in a counterforce scenario. On countervalue strikes, CEP are more than enough.

debpc:
As far as is known, there will be just two dispensers: one with one MARV and one with six warheads. They may be both deployed in Topol-m and in Bulava. Mix percentage remain unknown. And clearly the MIRV dispenser will have considerable less penaids than the single one.

Kolokol:

Thanks!

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank -
The term 'great' should be used for a nation only when it is committed to doing good to all humanity, not to itself alone. If the U.S. coundn't care less when it sees billions suffering in the world and adds to the suffering by military support to puppet govts. to cause mayhem, or to dissident groups to destabilize other countries by judging through their own colored vision, all only to gain dominance, we can only call it self-centred and callous.

Sharma:

OK, you’ve convinced me that the United States isn’t a “great” country.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank-
I meant no offence to America or Americans as I didn't consider national feelings to be above those of humanity. Pardon me all the same.

Sharma:

No apologies are necessary, my friend. I sincerely respect your opinion and the honest expression of that opinion is always necessary. When referring to the United States and Russia as “great” countries, I meant “great” as in “world power great”. Greatness measured by bullets and missiles; bombs and warships. Perhaps a poor measure of greatness indeed!

Every nation, Russia, the United States, France, South Africa, Chile, Mali, China, or New Zealand always approach the world from a position of national interest. This is not selfishness. This is the charge of government; the collective representation of its citizens on the world stage. Americans are the most generous of peoples. Each year, the American people donate more money, per person, to charity than any other country on earth. While Americans are great humanitarians, the United States itself is indeed self-centered and callous at times.

There is no “greatness” there.

Frank Shuler
USA