Pavel:

What conclusions do we reach from these appointments?

Frank Shuler
USA

It is most likely that Ivanov's appointment is part of some succession arrangement for 2008. Everybody seems to be surprised that a furniture trader became the minister of defense, though. Something tells me that the military won't like it very much.

Sergey Ivanov as President of Russia? Maybe...

It will be interesting to see if Anatoly Serdyukov has been brought in as only a political appointee or specifically to reform the Russian Defense Establishment; to provide a more “business” approach to defense spending. In either event, I agree. The professional Russian military is going to hate this decision.

Frank Shuler
USA

It seems that Mr. Ivanov is gaining the Presidential race. Good. He’s not very different from Vladimir Vladimirovich. Personally I saw Medvedev as a bureaucrat, and worse with some liberal inclinations.

The meaning of this is very simple. Putin needs Ivanov as at least a potential sucessor, and the defence ministry is not a sufficiently high-profile position for a potential candidate. Serdyukov was likely chosen for his loyalty, rather than due to considerations of professional competence.

Its not that the defense ministry isn't sufficiently high profile its just that the defense ministry has seen so many disasters that the DM position is where you put people with no political future not where you keep your potential successsors. Russia may not be a perfect liberal democracy but when Russians read about conscripts being sold into prostititution and generals who utilized their sexual services the DM is not going to gain political points from such news.

I agree with Mike B. Ivanov spent 5 years as DM, but has bugger all to show for it. If anything, the military is probably in worse shape. Now that he is going to be the first vice-premier (what the hell does this position mean?), I expect hazing and sex slavery in the generic bureaucratic ranks. So it's a win-win.

I think Господин Serdyukov's job is going to be reforming the military's finances, specifically cutting down it's bloated general ranks. So yes, the military is going to despise him.

The Armed Forces in worse shape than during 90s? No way! Ivanov management capabilities may be far from good but everything was worse during the liberal decade. In fact dedovshchina (hazing) was even higher and no Human Rigth NGO were worried about. This, off course, because puppet Boris and his thieves gang were “democratic”. Now that Russia started to healing itself from the neoliberal disease, westerners and their local slaves start to cry. It seems that some people hoped some sort of new Boris (Medvedev) but this scenario start to fade. Even if Medvedev win, it will not be as catastrophic as Yeltsin. Westerners will have to accept an assertive Russia, like it or not. They are not in position to negatively influence like they did during 90s.

I would really appreciate it if people would sign their comments and refrain from cheap propaganda.

It makes perfectly sense to me. Both ministers are trusted by president Vladimir Putin. Sergei Ivanov did a great job in starting to restruct the army , after all, under his term as a defense minister, the Russian army started to receive some new weapons, could start changing the military doctrine and last but not least, the defense industries order books increased substantially thanks orders abroad. If you don’t believe this; read the speech from president Vladimir Putin in Munich. The now new minister of defense, Anatoli Serdjukow, is a financial manager who’s job is to control the finance flow to create the necessary hardware so the Russian army can achieve their objectives. To compensate for his civilian background, president Vladimir Putin enhanced the roll of the general staff.
Considering the possible retreat of the INF treaty, I understand this step in full, as long as prime ministers and presidents of European country’s act like they are chosen by the American people.

Guy Buytaert:

[Considering the possible retreat of the INF treaty, I understand this step in full, as long as prime ministers and presidents of European country’s act like they are chosen by the American people.]

I didn’t quite understand your meaning. President Putin has brought in a trusted business manager to the Ministry of Defense to provide financial oversight during this great period of change. That I understood. How does such an appointment relate to the INF Treaty or its potential demise?

Frank Shuler
USA

An assertive Russia is a panacea right now. Russia does not come out and antagonize the US, though the US does antagonize Russia. The moving of the sea radar from Hawaii to the Aleutians, the proposed missile defense system in Poland/Chezch, the withdrawal from the bm treaty, not to mention the implied threat to nuke Iran which Russia could consider a neighboor/partner. I believe as I stated in the Bulave thread that a new version of the ss-20 is in the works for Russia, whether the missile defence system gets implemented in Eastern Europe or not.
If Russia was at all assertive it would send a clear signal that a nuclear attack near its soil is UNACCEPTABLE. This is not to say the US cannot invade Iran, just not use tactical or any other type of nuclear weapons while doing it. People seem to have forgotten the nightmare that a nuclear explosion will bring, people seem to think it can be contained and the damage minimal. Nuclear weapons should do what they do best MAD and only MAD, this limited nuclear bomb engament gives me the creeps.

I'm also a little sick of the partisanship and sterotypes being thrown around here and in the world. Somehow liberal is a dirty word while the neocons are good. Give me Clinton any day over Bush, now that's just my opinion and NOT subject to change. On some issues I'm more conservative than some of this so-called neocons. So if I had a vote in Russia I would do so for Medvedev, he is so liberal he's stated that the days of subsidised oil for former Republics is OVER. This is from a liberal, way to go buddy!!!!!!!!!!

Boris Buliak:

I think what you are saying is relative to interpretation. The only way Russia can come out and antagonize the United States is if America so let’s her. For example, the sale of Sukhoi Su-30 aircraft and sophisticated helicopter-gunships to Venezuela is a case in point. Obviously, this could have been taken as a “very unfriendly act” by the United States considering our current relationship with Hugo Chávez but hardly a ripple of protest by our State Department. Any criticism to Russia’s business relationship centered on the sale of over 100,000 Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles to the Venezuelan Army that the US feared might fall into the hands of Colombian rebel groups. President Putin has publicly stated many times the S-27 Topol-M missile is unstoppable and no ballistic missile defense can defeat it. Given that, the GBI system the United States is installing to protect America from a threat down the road from an Iran or North Korea is no threat to Russia. All of this sounds like posturing for upcoming presidential election.

By the way, don’t tell Germany, Georgia, Ukraine or Belarus that Russia isn’t assertive. If you do, you just may have your natural gas supplies interrupted. (smile)

Frank Shuler
USA

Well, Putin hints for a greater role of General Staff. I think Serdyukov's appointment would help army to some extent as far as military and technical decisions are concerned. Serdyukov may look into the financial matter of army rather military affairs. The chief of the General Staff might play a vital role in future!

Frank Shuler:
Of course the other side of the coin would be like this: The current US administration was so preocupied with Asian campaigns, it slightly forget about its backyard(Latin America) Case in point all the new leftist govermnets taking root in various countries. I can accept your rebutal in here.
As for America letting Russia be assertive, this is also open to interpretation. I think both countries are on par(Russia knows its weaker, but strategically equal+/-)
I'd be more concern about China which IS acting assertive towards the US. What do you think about that?
BTW I'm a Belarussian national and I'm on the Russian side, they are still paying less than lets say Germany. Why?

Frank Shuler
Venezuela is an independent country like Russia so no matter how USA fell about their relationship since it were not illegal by international laws.
To say that missile defense system in Poland is aimed at Iran threat is incredible laughable to say the least.
Some times we can think tha whashington thinks Russia government and the rest of the world are a bunch of idiotic kids.
You have looked at the map to see where Iran is and where Russia is ???

But, talking about IRBMs i think it is good to Russia to exit the INF treaty since USA is making every thing possible to weak Russia Power.
Since IRBMs is more cheap than ICBMs so Russia can buy more medium range missiles for the price of an ICBM one.
Buth i think that cruise missiles and the Bhramos cruise missiles are the answer that Russia can effectively give to Europe and USA.
Cruise missiles already have an intermediate range capability, they are more cheap to build, more difficult to detect, you can easely put nuclear warheads on it, and Russia can be use it against Poland and Chez in any flare conflict.

Cruise missiles can be launched ever from a fighter plane with an ease adaptation.
Russia will not need to keep more launch crews that are necessary with the IRBMs since the airplanes only need one pilot to launch them.
An extend range Nuclear Cruise Missile like Bhramos launched by Su-27 or ever Su-24 with the option for launching from ground vehicles i think is the best assymetrical way to counter Europe/USA aggressive action.

Boris Buliak:

Historically, both Russian and American’s foreign policy always seems to transcend what ever political “administration” is in power at the moment. In America, whether a Republican or Democratic “government” is in power, policy never seems to more very far from the right to the left, no mater what the rhetoric. There really is no “other side of the coin”. Both Russia and America will always do what is in their best national interest and that is as it should be. Why do you think Russia is “weaker”? Why do you feel our friend China is acting more assertive? Are you speaking of trade? What real arguments do Russia and the United States have? (None I can think of.) The opportunity for Russian and the Untied States to move closer in the future is guaranteed because we have so much in common and, in time, will share common enemies.

Remember, American is never “preoccupied”. Our attention span isn’t that long.

Frank Shuler
USA

Alopes

I am in complete agreement with you on Venezuela. And, in that agreement, you have made my point. Russia is free to make whatever military trade agreements she wants, with who ever she pleases; so can the United States.

I have indeed recently checked my globe just to reassure myself on the relative world position of both Russia and Iran. It seems to me, an Iranian ICBM in the next twenty years, taking a shot at, say, a NATO-American military base in Germany would take a polar flight path. It farther seems to me, having a defense to such an occurrence might be a wise investment. Who really understands the science of ballistic missile defense? Who knows what is possible? That’s why the United States is pouring so much money into the research. All this is just a huge research & development project now. It will be interested to see in the future what’s possible.

Exiting the INF treaty and starting some big, high profile nuclear arms buildup in Europe, as with an IRBM program, is the quickest way I know to force Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. I can’t see that in Russian’s best interest.

Frank Shuler
USA

When Kvashin was in charge there was a concerted effort to weaken the genshtab by the Kremlin. It took YEARS. It is illogical for them to now reverse course and strengthen the position of the genshtab. This DM will be no pushover to the generals if for no other reason than he is Putin's man and has Putin's mandate. Baluyevsky does not want to end up marginalized and forgotten like Kvashin so he will tread carefully. Now I realize this is a very simple analysis and the story with Kvashin was much more complex, but that entire affair basically permanently cemented power with the DM and not the generals. It's hard to see things reversing in Putin's Russia.

They will continue the current "reforms" which mainly involve a doctrinal or command and control change over to 3 regional commands built on top of the current 6 federal military districts. The move to professional troops is largely vapor with a mere 70,000 in the ranks.

The strengthening of the role of the General Staff had been quite visible even before the Ivanov's departure. Baluevsky published a 'conceptual' article in Izvestia, they had a big debate on the new military doctrine in Ivanov's abscence, and it was Baluevsky who made a key statement on the INF Treaty. The astonishing appointment of Serdyukov, who is not a member of Putin's inner circle and has no idea about the military organization, is certain to put the Genshtab in the position of strength. Perhaps, Baluevsky is seen in the Kremlin as a far more controllable top brass than Kvashnin was.
But there is still this puzzling issue about the INF Treaty, and I wonder - could the attempt to cancel it be related to the failure to deploy the long-promised Iskander?
It could certainly be just a bluff, but some smart alecks in the industry could have sold Putin and Ivanov (who are both profanes after all these years) the idea about Oka being so easy to re-invent.

By Frank - "Exiting the INF treaty and starting some big, high profile nuclear arms buildup in Europe, as with an IRBM program, is the quickest way I know to force Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. I can’t see that in Russian’s best interest"

- Europe can´t blackmail Russia with Ukraine and Georgia since both are independent countries and they can join Nato anytime they want withou Russia consent.
So Europe can´t offer a thing that it don´t have.
- But Europe Missile Defence can be used to blackmail Russia deterrent.
Because nuclear deterrent is the only thing that keeps Russia safe from NATO threat or USA threat.
So logically a military threat (USA military build up) has only one answer, a counter military threat by Russia.
Why would Russia give up its equal deterrance simple as that without an answer.
This is obvious a military supremacy action to submit Russia. No argument you can give will change this reality.
This action policy is present in every word that cames out of USA and Europe that is Related to Russia.
Like Autoritarism, Interference in Georgia, Moldova, Gas price blacmail, Human Righs accusations....
Its all out there to see what they are doing and thinking to do against Russia.

Alopes:

You miss the point. There is no “blackmail”, only cause and effect. A massive, new IRBM project will only force Ukraine and Georgia to take sides for their legitimate self defense. NATO doesn’t beg countries to join, the opposite is true. Countries want the stability that belonging to NATO and the EU provide. The list of nations wanting to join is long. Still, I can’t see this as a development in Russia’s best interest. I do agree Russia already has the military capacity with its cruise missile technology to hold any NATO military target at risk, so all this IRBM talk just sounds like “politics” to me.

Again, I don’t see how ten ground-based interceptors in Poland affect the Russian deterrent. It seems you can’t have it both ways, the SS-27 Topol-M is unstoppable or this GBI system is a real technical threat. Which is it? The GBI system is designed to provide a terminal kinetic vehicle that will achieve earth orbit, track an approaching ICBM RV, determine the difference between warheads and decoys and physically strike the warhead, destroying the nuclear payload in orbit. Such a system is no threat to anyone except a nation taking a polar shot at Europe.

However, there is a practical solution to Russia’s concerns here. (if Russia really has concerns here) The United States could install a boost launch anti-ballistic missile system to counter Iranian or North Korea’s ICBM ambitions that would not only be more cost affective but technically offer a far better chance of intercepting such future ICBMs. The Untied States and Russia should negotiate the installation of American X-Band Radar systems and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries on Russian soil north of Iran and North Korea. That way the Russian ICBM deterrent would not be in the least affected and the United States would have the assurances it seeks against Iran and the government in Pyongyang. Thoughts?

I really enjoy your comments and the insights you bring to these discussions.

Frank Shuler
USA

The U.S. is the single most unreliable partner if there is ever an agreement with another country. All so called treaties with U.S. are not worth the paper they are written on. The U.S. is the only country that used atomic weapons without ever thinking of its consequences, the country that has ruthlessly killed maximum no. of human beings not necessarily because they were evil, and the most cunning dealer. Hence Russia should never fall into the mode of agreements when it comes to U.S. At the back of U.S. rhetoric is the single minded aim of domination over the whole world and its people. All its actions are aimed towards that single target. Therefore it would be stupid for Russia to believe the high sounding moralistic assertions from U.S.

KA Sharma:

I disagree but respect your opinion.

[…The U.S. is the only country that used atomic weapons without ever thinking of its consequences…] If the Soviet Union had developed the atomic bomb in 1943, would she have used it against the Nazis to bring a quick end to the “Great Patriotic War” and, thus, save over a million Russian lives?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, if you look at the present and future scenario of Russian nuclear capabilities, do you think there is any kind of realistic threat for the US so that they have to unilaterally withdraw from ABM treaty and build ABM system around Russia? You would agree that none but Russia is the real target. So called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea would never be able to build ICBM that could hit the US. And as experts are saying the US ABM system in Europe can not intercept Missiles fired from Iran or North Korea (if they ever able to build medium range ballistic missiles, no question of ICBM) because of the distance you know. As you know ABM system only can effectively intercept missiles at the boast-phase. And for that you have to place ABM system as close to the launch site as possible. And in that case ABM system should be placed near their border say in Turkey, Iraq, South Korea or Japan if you really target Iran and North Korea (as rightly mentioned by Mr. Ivanov).

Parimal Debnath:

I see no present, or anticipate any future, threat to the United States from Russia. This I have stated many times. I do disagree with you on your statement, “So called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea would never be able to build ICBMs that could hit the US.” Who is to say what is possible in the next twenty years? Thirty? It is that “future threat” the United States is building our defenses against. Remember, only Russia today has a tested, operational GBI ABM system. (Ok, I doubt it would work either!)

Actually, Iran has tested successfully an IRBM missile; North Korea’s launch of a similar system failed in its now famous, “shot over Japan” test. Give both programs 20 years of unimpeded progress and who can say what’s possible? An ICBM? Probable.

[…As you know ABM system only can effectively intercept missiles at the boast-phase…] I wouldn’t concede that point at all.

Frank Shuler
USA

Thanks Frank. Well, for the sake of debate, say Iran or North Korea could be able to build ICBM after 20 years. And if they launch any ICBM targeting the US then how Europe comes there? If you consider Geography then Iranian possible ICBM never sail over Europe if they really target America! Same apply for North Korea as well. ABM system in the Pacific (in Hawaii) makes good sense though in this regard but moving ABM radar near Russian coast doesn't match American Rogue states theory. Well, Frank I don't have much idea about space based ABM system! Do you have any idea? Is America having any concrete program for space based weapon system I mean missile killer?

Parimal Debnath:

I think the proposed “Poland-Czech Republic” system is designed to protect NATO (read American) military bases in Europe itself and, not in any way, the United States proper. Also, never forget the political gambit here. The US has no future intention replacing the existing B-61 inventory of tactical nuclear bombs now stored at various NATO airbases and tied into the NATO Command Structure. Talk about an anachronism! By building such a future ABM system in Europe, the United States can do something for NATO that the European partners themselves can’t do and, once again, demonstrate how important America is to the alliance. (Politics!)

On the contrary, the sea-based (actually a mobile platform) X-Band Radar system needs to be operationally as close to the pole as practical to help track and calibrate an inbound missile launch. This system supplements an existing Alaska-based radar system that has been in use for over 40 years and one in Greenland.

Space based interceptor systems? Yes, that is indeed the future and the subject of many American research programs. How can the United States complain when China test anti-satellite weapons? We can’t.

Frank Shuler
USA

Thanks for your explanation Frank. But I am not convinced. I still believe ABM system in Poland & Czech Republic is perfect for Russia but not for Iran & North Korea. I think they never like to suicide. America shouldn't bring new arm race by putting ABM system in Europe. Russia and NATO should work together as friend not enemy. If Russia pulls out of INF Treaty then there will be a serious arm race once again. It won't be good for anyone. You have to agree that Russia has the technological ability to build unique IRM & SRM. And this development would destabilize the security in Europe. America will be always safe but putting ABM system in Europe, America won’t do good for Europe but put Europe's security in probable great danger.

Frank Shuler:
The partnership between Russia and the US is more on par than the relationship btw China and the US.
1-From Russian partnership the US benefits by sharing space technology(engines for stage of one of Delta rockets) Here is something concret, ask yourself do you get same from China?
2-US announces intention to militarize space, the Russians oppose this initially, China response is to fire their first anti-satellite weapon. That's being assertive.
3-When US tried to level the playing field with Chinese currency, it got nowhere and indeed were told by Chinese authorities to "mind their own business". Did US punish China for its actions? Hell no, lets build more Wal Marts and lets borrow some more money from them while we're at it.
4-When Russia sells arms to someone the US would not sell(how can it possibly be otherwise?), even though it is a legal sale(The Chinese sales I guarantee you do not have any paper trail, not kosher)the US state department inmediately starts handing out punishing measures against Russian companies that are basically govermnet owned.
5-When Russia deals with its neighbors territorial disputes, they are always the bad guys. Does anybody remember Tibet anymore? How about putting some pressure on Chinese "partners" to recognize independence of Tibet? Do you start to see the double standard?

There will not be a new Armas Race. Probably will be as many Russian IRBM as American interceptors in Poland.

The game is more or less as follows: if Europeans let Americans irritate Russia, let Russia irritate Europa (smile). In fact the Russian security level will be more or less the same, but the European one will be worse. Self-inflicting hurts.

Here are yet more examples of double standards when the West dealing with Russia:
1-Spain gets threaten by FIFA to clean up their act or face suspension of futbol games in that country. Their crime? Being racist, calling a black person a monkey so loud it would bring tears to any compassionate guy.
2-Estonia in particular, but any Baltic country applies. Their crime? Racist and FACIST, that's right the re-birth of facism is taking place not in Germany but in the Baltic states. The punishment for this countries? None, indeed, they are treated as strategic partners against Russia so in this process their faults get overlooked.
3-The once stallworth support Taiwan enjoyed from the US has been curved down to appaese the Chinese. Still don't see the double standard? It would seem to me US is more concerned with China than with Russia. IMO.

Parimal Debnath:

I don’t think much will happen in any event Russia decides to end its compliance in the INF Treaty. I think this is another example of “much bluster but little change”. I honestly don’t expect any arms race between Russia and the United States and see little impact in Europe other than the possible expansion of NATO. That expansion probably has more to do with economic conditions than real security concerns and is inevitable regardless.

By the way, I think a GBI launch from Poland trying to catch up to a streaking SS-27 Topol-M ICBM launched from Tatishchevo against the United States is an impossible long-shot. I hope it’s a situation that never is put to the test.

Frank Shuler
USA

Boris Buliak:

Relations between the Untied States and Russia are no more complicated or favored than our relationship with China. Foreign relations between Russia, China, and the United States are complicated and based on many competing factors. We agree on some things; disagree on others. In some situations we are allies and in others, adversaries. However, one thing is very clear, no mater what, we are not enemies. It’s really just that simple.

At the end of the day however, our relationship with Russia and China is far less complicated than our relationship with France. Now THAT’S a complicated, exasperating friendship!

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol:

Once again, I agree completely with your assertion.

All this posturing is only conversation for the politicians and not for the generals. At the end of the day, there will be little change.

Frank Shuler
USA

The noise about the dead of the INF is more persistent than ever.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070219/60957640.html

Do someone know something about the hypothetical “ready” IRBM? May be the Skorost? Or It will be a “Pionner-M” (something like a 2-stage Topol-M in the inverse way of the Topol that was like a “3-stage Pionner”)?

I agree with Boris's opinion. America always maintains double standard, one policy for Russia and another for China. America is always voicing concerns over Russia's democracy although Russia is governed by a democratically elected president but they hardly do anything for restoring democracy in China. America is supporting China with all kind of trade concessions and special facilities on financial ground although China is a Communist country. The US is always allergic to Communists but they have no allergy for Chinese Communists. I am not against China; I always appreciate Chinese wonderful achievement in economic sectors. China is the only country which can compete with American economy in future. And they have great prospect in future. America is a great country. Their achievements are exceptional in all fronts of life. Their democracy is a model for all. But their foreign policy is biased when they talk about democracy in other countries. Well, I think America and Russia should work together in all fronts of life from military to economy. American market should be open for Russia as like China and vice-versa.

Parimal Debnath:

[…America always maintains double standard…] On this, I can’t disagree. But, I honesty don’t think the average American holds China in any higher esteem that is held Russia. Why do you think the United States’ government treats Russia different? Some leftover hostility from the “Cold War”? Could Russia be struggling to open itself to change? American trade? Joint business opportunities with America? What unique Russian goods are exported to the US? Remember, America is all about business. Perhaps that is the missing ingredient in our relationship. Thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank: Yes I fully agree with you, America is all about business. I think Russia is open these days for business. It's true that Russia is not a big market like China for America. But if you really like democracy is to be firmly established in Russia then you have to support Russia in economic front. I think a democratic Russia will ultimately help America to formulate its flexible world policy. Trade volume between Russia and the US tells what the difference is. I think in military front Russia gave huge concessions to America (by scrapping most of its unique strategic weapons!!!!). Now America has to pay back (in economic front)! Smile :)

Parimal Debnath:

As Hamlet would say, “Therein lies the rub.” By “Russian standards”, Russia is “open for business”. However, the difference between doing business in Russia and China couldn’t be more different. For example, if I decide to open a factory to make a consumer good and my choice is locating my business in China or Russia, China wins every time. Why? If I show up in Shanghai or Nanjing with a letter of credit drawn against my New York bank and a letter of introduction, I would be met at the airport by a Chinese business group empowered to make my factory happen. There would be Chinese banking officials to handle all international financing, local labor leaders to ensure my factory is staffed with the proper managers and laborers, and local civic leaders to ensure all site work by the Chinese construction groups building my factory met my specifications, including any local utilities or necessary road work. Any foreign equipment needed to be imported to support my factory would have a government official delegated to handle all details. Permits would be expedited and all local banking arrangements completed to handle employee payrolls, local taxes, and such. Within one year from the time I landed at the airport, my factory would be in production. In Russia, if I tried to open a factory in Novgorod, it would take a year just to learn what permits were even needed just to begin. That’s the difference. That is why China is running away from the world in creating a 21st Century manufacturing economy. (including the United States)

I agree completely the best way the United States can support emerging democracy in Russia is by creating business opportunities for both countries to share. However, many things will have to change in Russia for this to happen.

Frank Shuler
USA

Back on the topic, I would second the opinion that this appointment signals a strengthening of Genshtab's (currently headed by Baluevski) role.

Frank Shuler:
Lets see if I can put my point on better perspective. You say the relationship between China, Russia and the US is about the same. It is very clear to anyone that given USA's consumerism China holds more importance to the US than does Russia. After all Americans can live without space exploration, but not without Wal Mart and Co.. What China makes is stuff that any third world country can produce, Russia on the other hand can give us a hand going to space(like after the latest shuttle tragedy)In other words they have sofisticated technology just as the US, Canada, Britain, France except that none of this countries has given the assistance Russia has given to NASA. Nevertheless, NASA almost never has anything kind to say about Russia. Lets face it, there's more Russophobia than there is Sinophobia. Just my opinion. China is catching up though, no doubt, they are right now about the Vostok/Mercury type programs at this stage.

In conclusion, It seems to me(and I could be wrong) that the US-Chinese alliance is based more on a desire by the US to strategically position China against potential USA adversaries such as India and Russia. After all everything made in China can be made in the Phillipines(and probably even cheaper) So i'm not buying the China is a commercial partner of the US, that may be the case but the underlying most important reason, I've explained above.
Whats interesting about this aspect is the fact that Russia also seems to sense this, thus the raprochment they're trying to broker btw. India and China.

Boris Buliak:

Russia has a unique position in world affairs with geographical interests spanning from Europe to the Far East. No nation has such worldwide interest and responsibilities as does Russia. There is no US-Chinese “alliance”. Regardless of the influence of Wal-Mart on world affairs (smile), the United States wants better relations with Russia and hopes that includes improved commercial opportunities. It seems for all the collaboration in the space program, few other joint technical businesses have developed as a result. Perhaps in the future that will change.

Much is always made of America holding the “China Card”. Somehow this means we are always trying to play Russia and China off each other to our advantage. I don’t see it. The United States, Russia, China, India, Chile, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, France, Mali, Cuba, etc. all follow their own needs. I see little grand collusion in world affairs. Adversaries today are allies tomorrow, if national need requires. The days of “Triple Entente” alliances no longer exist. Even NATO today is more of a political organization than a true military alliance. That’s just the way it is.

Frank Shuler
USA

China card?

By Frank "There is no “blackmail”, only cause and effect. A massive, new IRBM project will only force Ukraine and Georgia to take sides for their legitimate self defense. NATO doesn’t beg countries to join, the opposite is true. Countries want the stability that belonging to NATO and the EU provide.. I do agree Russia already has the military capacity... to hold any NATO military target at risk, so all this IRBM talk just sounds like “politics” ..., I don’t see how ten ground-based interceptors in Poland affect the Russian deterrent...you can’t have it both ways, the SS-27 Topol-M is unstoppable or this GBI system is a real technical threat. Which is it? The GBI system is designed to provide a terminal kinetic vehicle that will achieve earth orbit, track an approaching ICBM RV, determine the difference between warheads and decoys and physically strike the warhead destroying the nuclear payload in orbit.. system is no threat to anyone except a nation taking a polar shot at Europe"

Frank, you may be right in the level of threat the NMD presents to Russia today, but i think the problem isn´t that.
The problem, is that it is a threat in the political sphere and the financial sphere for Russia.
Politicaly USA secretary of Defense Gates say that USA must be ready for any problem in Russia and China, then there is the Colour Revolutions, NATO enlargment, political accusations against Russia like (authoritarism, imperialism, interference in Georgia and Ukraine, Moldova)
When we see this pattern, we see that USA and Europe do think Russia as an adversary to be weakened and neutralized.
So if you add a NMD base in Russia front it creates a whole picture that threatens Russia.
It isn´t only the NMD it´s the whole way that USA and Europe are doing against Russia that makes the NMD a problem and a threat.

Frank -
About the problem of cause and effect with Ukraine and Georgia i disagree with you that they will be safe with NATO if Russia make new IRBM missiles.
But the opposite. If Ukraine and Georgia go to NATO side in a new cold war they will only be new targets for Russia nuclear weapons with the problem that Ukraine and Georgia will never be safe from Russia short range nuclear weapons unlike West Europe that may have a chance to resist with the NMD.

Further to that i can add if the USA and NATO intentions are good intentions so there is no problem if Russia make some IRBM missiles for its own defence against Pakistan and Iran IRBM threats as USA makes to defend against these threats.
Since boths NATO and Russia are friends so their both weapons NMD and IRBMs will only be intended against other threats and there is no problem do you agree.

Frank the anonymous comment above also are my comment.

The third part of my answer is a follow of that phrase.
The problem, is that it is a threat in the political sphere and the financial sphere for Russia.

Assuming that NMD is a threat to Russia deterrent, and it is a threat, long term threat but a threat.
You can´t forget the question of firts strike decapitation.
If a real nasty conflict arises between Russia and NATO, Russia must be prepared for all possible threats as well as USA is , if not, there is no reason at all to spent money in costly nuclear deterrent only to see it fail,
and for Russia to be ready for any conflict and any threat it must consider the possibiity of a NATO decapitation first attack to decimate Russia deterrent.
If that happens, and only some Russia missiles survives and USA has the NMD it could, in fact destroy all Russia second strike response.
That is a risk that will make Russia weaker and take of the reason for Russia to have a nuclear deterrent in first place.
And this feeling of powerless is just what USA wants to impress on Russia and China for it to achieve total power domination.
This is just what Revolution in Military affairs try to get don´t, to break the will of an adversary to fight. Applyng impossible relative force comparisons.

Following the above stated i add that, by facing this NMD threat in its Europe front,
Russia wil need to spent money in, buiding cruise missiles, training its air force to use it against Europe, put cruise missiles in ground launchers, train ground crews to operate and launch cruise nuclear missiles. Doing these same thing with IRBMs if that is the choice of response.

The thing is that Russia is much more poor than the Soviet Union.
Russia has already difficult to have money mantain its existing nuclear deterrent so it will be more difficult ever to expand this deterrent with more cruise or IRBM missiles.

A choice, to spent money on more detterent, that Russia don´t want to make since it needs the scarce money to develop its conventional weapons that need badly to be replaced with new generation weapons of Fifth generation and UAV revolutionary weapons.

If Russia really was to answer in kind to USA moves in Europe so it
could give some strategic military technologies to China for free so to face USA pay i price for wanting to achieve total supremacy domination.

If i was a Russian leader i will counter threat USA NMD moves with the threat of given China all cruise missile technologie, nuclear submarine technologie, submarine technologie, sattelite technologie, anti-missile and anti-satellite technologi for free to China.
For each move that USA would do so will be a strategic technologie that China will get for free.

Further a promise that any conflit with taiwan will have a military support from Russia.
So that Russia could gave a powerfull strategic counter blow to USA domination strategy.
But of course, this is only my imagination because national interests don´t allow this to happen.

Technically a GBI in Europe violates the INF because have a Range of 4.000 km. Its “mission” is unimportant. Is a missile of intermediate range. Period.
If it is a real or distant threat is unimportant. If it is deliberately constructed against Russia or not is also unimportant. It is a real thing that can be use to degrade the Russian deterrence potential. This therefore deserves a real answer. What’s the cheapest and more effective answer? Hold on nuclear risk the host countries via IRBM. Aggressive entities deserve to feel the risk produced by their own behaviour.

Frank, i like your comments too and they are very informative and reasonable Take may statements only as a political analysis because Geopolitics is all about a power game don´t.
My analysis is to see what possible opponets of the superpower can or can´t do to defend themselves.

Very good point Kolokol, i haven´t thinked on that.
The Missiles of GBI are with IRBM range so they are also a violation of IRBM.
I agree with your analysis.

Very good point Kolokol, i haven´t thinked on that.
The Missiles of GBI are with IRBM range so they are also a violation of INF treaty.
I agree with your analysis.

I don't have much idea about GBI. But if it is within IRBM range then it's a clear violation INF treaty.

Alopes:

I agree completely the perceived threat to Russia is more in the political sphere than the military security sphere. And I also would agree any threat to Russia in the political sphere has an economic (financial) impact. I farther agree that Russia is held captive by its geography. If American has issues with Iran, China, North Korea, Ukraine, etc. Russia also has an interest because all these countries are neighbor states to Russia and share common borders. The United States has shown little understanding of this fact. But, historically because of its vast geography and interest, Russia has seen threats behind every corner. Perhaps, history has taught Russia justifiably to fear such. Only with open dialog and time can America really understand modern Russia’s (1992) situation and perhaps build trust on each side. I don’t think the United States thinks of Russia as an adversary to be “weakened and neutralized.” I do think the United States wants Russia to be a real partner in world security but old “cold war” habits are hard to break; on both sides.

If Russia goes the IRBM route, I don’t see any real change in the “strategic balance”. I do think enlargement of NATO is inevitable and has little to do with security. How would Ukraine feel more threatened by Russia if it was a member of NATO than it does now? New Russian nuclear weapons aimed at Europe will only result in a response. I suspect that “response” will be political and not some new arms program, return to GLCMs for example. As I have said many times, Russia will do what is in its best national interest. If she needs IRBMs to defend herself against Pakistan and Iran or Poland or the Czech Republic, that is what she will do.

The “first strike option” is something so foreign to American thinking. But, we must understand this is something that preys on Russian defense officials and is a risk they must prepare for. Again, either the SS-27 Topol-M is unstoppable or the American GBI system is a threat. It has to be one or the other. No matter if America strikes first, and hits your submarines at sea, and we stopped 90% of your nuclear arsenal with our ballistic missile defense systems, we would still lose 20 cities. Understand this; no argument with Russia is worth 20 American cities. None.

I’d be careful what you “give” China. You have to live next to them, we don’t. (smile)

Frank Shuler
USA

Alopes:
Kolokol:
Parimal Debnath:

Interesting points on INF Treaty and the proposed GBI system. Just curious, are the French and British nuclear submarine missiles covered under the INF Treaty?

Frank Shuler
USA

Thanks for your analysis Frank. Let's back on military affairs. Can you give some more idea about GBI missile system?

Parimal Debnath:

Ballistics missile defense is obviously in its infancy now. The current Alaska and California based GBI system is designed to provide a terminal kinetic vehicle that will achieve earth orbit on launch, track an approaching ICBM RV over the North Pole, determine the difference between warheads and decoys and physically strike the warhead, destroying the nuclear payload in orbit. Currently, an X-Band radar system on the ground is designed to cue the GBI system but future plans call for a constellation of satellites in both high and low orbit to both detect the launch of hostile ICBMs and direct the ground launch weapons. The number of interceptor missiles in Alaska seems to be around 14 (and growing in numbers) with 4 additional units at Vanderberg AFB, California USA to act as a final hope. The ground interceptors are constantly being updated and there is an active research & development program underway to build yet another new kinetic vehicle and future rockets. Today, I would categorize the system as highly experimental with a potential combat role in extreme necessity. The satellite system to detect and cue is ten-fifteen years away from launch. The communication & command satellite system to control all this will follow even later. All in all, I’d say we’re about 20 years away from a complete system that is “combat ready”. (what ever that exactly means)

Frank Shuler
USA

Thanks Frank. What's the basic difference between this GBI system and the ABM system around Moscow?

If Russia withdraws from INF Treaty and start building IRBM with range 5000 km then both the ABM facilities in Alaska and Europe would be in great threat. In war like situation these facilities could be destroyed by Russia with IRBM. It is believed that these IRBMs are hard to detect. In that scenario how America protect their ABM system from Russian IRBM? I read one of Russia’s military experts views; he said if Russia pulls out of INF Treaty and build IRBM then American will do the same and if NATO place IRBM in Baltic states ( say Estonia) then Russian ICBMs would be in great danger; Russian Strategic Forces won’t afford such deployment near their border. Your thoughts please.

Parimal Debnath:

The Soviet A-35 ABM system was designed to use two different ground-launched nuclear-tipped interceptors to knockdown incoming ICBMs in the defense of Moscow. The US copied the same general idea with our Safeguard system based in North Dakota, USA. The evolved Russian system is the A-135 and is currently operational using only, it seems, the short-range SH-08 Gazelle endoatmospheric interceptor missile with a conventional warhead.

I guess the basic fundamental difference in the American system and the Russian A-135 is the coverage area. The US system is attempting to cover the entire country while the Russian complex only shields Moscow. Interestingly, during the Clinton Administration when the decision to implement an American ABM system was made, the original thought was the existing Soviet (Russian)-American ABM Treaty could be retained and all radar and interceptors could be based in North Dakota, USA as was Safeguard. Here science changed history. It was determined by the “curve of the earth”, such a North Dakota installation, in the center of the United States, could not protect all 50 US States. The far reach of Alaska and western Hawaii would both be left unprotected by such a shield. Both Alaska and Hawaii have strong Congressional delegations that intervened in the process and the decision was made in the Clinton White House to seek an amended ABM Treaty with Moscow to permit such an American system. That agreement proved impossible and so during the Bush Administration the US exercised its legal obligations and gave notice its intent to end compliance in the 1972 ABM Treaty.

Frank Shuler
USA

Well, is this ABM system working against SLBM? How America respond against incoming SLBM from Barents Sea? Shouldn’t they need ABM facilities in the North Atlantic?

Parimal Debnath:

[…If Russia withdraws from INF Treaty and start building IRBM with range 5000 km then both the ABM facilities in Alaska and Europe would be in great threat…]

I would suggest Russia holds these “targets” at risk now. What would be the difference in being hit by a new Russian IRBM or an “old” SS-27 Tobol-M mobile missile? Certainly none for the poor guy that is getting “hit”!!!

The United States isn’t going to build nuclear IRBMs.

Unless another NATO country decided to build IRBMs, there will be no installation of such in Estonia. (or anywhere else)

On the SLBM question, that is one reason you need the new cueing and detection satellites that are years away. Submarine-launched missiles have a much shorter flight and it’s imperative that detection of such a launch occurs as soon as possible to cue the interceptors. To the system, a polar shot is a polar shot, whether the missile is a Bulava, Topol-M or some kind of IRBM.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank. It will be a difference: the building cost (smile). Anyway, I repeat, I hardly doubt about a new “arms race”. Nobody is interested in. Probably some GBI will be deployed in Poland, so the INF will die and a few Russian IRBM will be deployed. But in the end both arsenals will park near 2.000 warheads. The Americans will have its “shield” because they want it and Russia will have a sort of Pionner (probably declared as “strategic”) to target nearer threatening spots in China or in Iran or in Poland.

Off-course the “Treaty-era” will be over. I see this in the near future. Just an opinion.

Thanks for your clear thoughts Frank.

Kolokol:

Agreed. Building cost and potential target coverage is a big justification for IRBMs in the Russian arsenal based on the geography issues we’ve discussed. For the cost of one ICBM, you may be able to build two or so IRBMs that could be used to cover targets both in Europe and the Far East. I also agree the “age of arms treaties” has also come to an end. START will die in 2009. Perhaps by 2012 and the arrival of the Moscow Treaty, we’ll begin to see what is possible in the future.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, you really need a reality check if you think that "“first strike option” is something so foreign to American thinking."

Just off the top of my head:

There are declassified plans of first-strike aerial nuclear bombings of the USSR in the 50s. One plan I recall was called "Dropshot".

Kennedy seriously explored the first strike option during Cuban Missile crisis (Athlantic Monthly magazine, subscription-only, sorry)

During Cold War, Soviet Union vowed to never use nuclear weapons first. The US didn't.

According to former Chezh spy Karl Koecjer (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Koecher ), in the 80's, the US were planning a preventive nuclear war against the USSR (more details in Russian: http://nvo.ng.ru/spforces/2001-10-26/7_lessons.html ) USSR countered with extensive surveilance program designed to dectect the inevitable preparations, no matter how covert.

Parallel History Project (can't recall the URL, Google for it) has declassified NATO documents that talk about first all-out nuclear strike as a viable option in conventional war in Germany.

Foreign Affairs magazine has recently published an article arguing that the US is capable of completely destroying Russia's nuclear arsenal with the first strike.

The US declined to rule out the possibility of use of nuclear weapons in Iran.

Still think it's such a "foreign" idea to the US top brass?

In the end the situation is not dramatic a all. Several dozen Iskander-M with all its anti-BM-defence stuffs deployed in Kalingrad can neutralize the “hot spots” even with conventional warheads. The pole site can be engaged SRBM. To target the Czech site, may be a “modified” Iskander-M with enlarged range may be necessary. I don’t know if a Oka type rocket can be extracted from a slightly modified Iskander-M or if it is necessary to build from scratch. In such a case I will go to a Skorost type creature.

Dnm:

[…The “first strike option” is something so foreign to American thinking…] my quote

I was referring to the “average American” in my quote and not necessarily the Pentagon. Generals are charged with our defense and I suspect there is a plan for everything. I would however make a wager. Since the end of World War II, in the 62 years the United States has had the atomic bomb, with many opportunities to release such a weapon, it has not. In the future, I bet for all the threats and posturing, we won’t. Unless, America is attacked with such weapons herself, in which all bets are off.

I’ll leave all the Dr. Strangelove scenarios to others.

Frank Shuler
USA

Hello, I'd like to ask the ppl on the forum, what makes the Topol-M "unstoppable" by "any current or future NMD system" ? And most important is it true ?Or is it just an exagerration on the part of our leaders to reassure us that everything is ok ? And I'd like to ask if our Topol-Ms are invincible why are we so worried by it ?
And if it's the case why are the americans building such a system that is so "ineffective" against our Topol-Ms ? Are they stupid ? Is it the defense lobby that is pushing such an ineffective project or what ?I'd like an objective and balanced answer especially from Frank who seems to know A LOT on that.
P.S.:at last, how many Topol-Ms do we plan to have in our RVSN in 2016 ? 120 ? 150 (70 mobile and 80 silo based ) ?Does anybody have a definitive answer ?
Thanks to all.

As far as the data provided by the open literature, we can say that Topol-M have some anti-ABM features that increase its penetration chances. Not anymore. It have a shorter boost phase, some pitch and jaw controllers for the mid-course trajectory and can have an air-breathing warhead for the terminal stage (that may not be deployed yet).
“Unstoppable”? Sure, like the “invisible and invincible” B2!! Pure boasting in both cases. Off course its penetration likelihood vis-à-vis the GBI is increased against the BGI, but nothing is “unstoppable”.
And, why the worrisome? I suspect that no just the NMD but the whole trend is worrisome: Conventional warheads in ICBM plus intermediate range SLBM plus encirclement plus west-induced colour revolutions… Technically the answer can be feasible and effective but it have a cost (that’s many bucks).
Nevertheless I feel the Russian leadership lacks some confidence in their own capabilities. A decided research and development program on asymmetric answers and its deployment in ICBM, IRBM and SLBM could confidently overcome the NMD coercion potential. In fact, if the US really want nuclear dominance, it will be forced to launch a new and very expensive R&D round just when it is bogged down in Iraq and threatening Iran. A not good business.

Read this in Russian very objective piece and very worrying, I agree with the author many questions are left unanswered.

http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2007-02-16/6_otvet.html

Yakov:

[…And I'd like to ask if our Topol-Ms are invincible why are we so worried by it ?
And if it's the case why are the americans building such a system that is so "ineffective" against our Topol-Ms ? Are they stupid ? Is it the defense lobby that is pushing such an ineffective project or what ?I'd like an objective and balanced answer especially from Frank who seems to know A LOT on that…]

I’m not such what I can add to the discussion that hasn’t already been presented. The GBI system the United States is installing is twenty years from being a mature weapon system, awaiting the arrival of all the satellite systems that will be used to cue and control the missiles. In fact, this system is developmentally in the same place time wise as the North Korea ICBM program it is intended to counter. This system today is no match for a SS-27 Topol-M missile. When the American GBI is fully operationally in 20 years, the SS-27 will be in the process of being replaced anyway. Russia will always have the technical ability to stay ahead of this. I think Russia’s anger over the GBI system is more politics than military concern.

Yakov, I don’t think I know LOTS about all this but I am well read on the subject and like to share opinions. (smile)

Frank Shuler
USA

Yakov, the article is excellent, but hints the right issue: why to get rid of cheap liquid-fuel rockets in order to fulfil a total transition to solid fuel rockets? No answers. Right.
It implicitly says that with enough throw weight we can always overcome any forward deployed shield. So, the error lies in Russia.
I assume that the correct answer is “to develop a 100 tn liquid fuel class ICBM after 2010”. But this option is not discarded yet. Hard decisions will have to be made soon.

Kolokol:
The only answer to the convertion from cheap liquid-fuel to solid-fuel rockets is purely enviromental. Think about it, in past heavy rockets such as Proton could explode but would not worry much Russians since it blasted in Kazahkastan. Ditto for some silo based BM's such as Satans. All this rockets must now operate within the confines of Russia, thus the enviromental concern. Hmm....still I wonder

Yakov:
Here's my 2 cents on the Topol-M capabilities. This is a layman assertion, but until more qualified military expert steps in thats all we got.
Firstly, one of Topol-M great advantage(hit probability) is that it is a SINGLE warhead BM. This allowes it to carry decoys thus improving hit probability not to mention its present range. By adding MIRV's(multiple independent re-entry vehicles) the hit probability slightly goes down as does the range. It is therefore NOT intended for MIRV,s but reactively it has found itself on such role. The reasons for that are many. The solution IMO would be to either re-start construction of proven MIRV,s such as Satan (ss-18 i belive)or, build version of new Angara system coming into line 2010-2011.
BTW Bulava does not outperform Sineva(which could re-start production )in range or payload, nor does the Topol-M outperform the Satan in range and payload. What gives? I truly hope their new warheads offer some kind of technical/tactical advantage. Otherwise, whats the point of modernization?

Boris. If you need to use ICBM, I can assure you that environmental concerns about UDMH and nitrogen oxide will be nothing compared to "real problems". Payload weight still matters and a silo-based liquid fuelled is not much more dangerous than a solid fuel one. Ip advantages of liquid fuels are obvious.
Nowadays, it can not be necessary to design a ICBM from scratch. An old article (3 or 4 years) suggested that a land deployment of Sinevas can be feasible after minor modifications. It sound very interesting.

I have a curiosity! Can America feel that they are safe with ABM system in case of any kind of first strike? Thoughts please.

Parimal Debnath:

I don’t think the United States could ever “feel safe” under any ABM System, present or future. Ballistic missile defense is only a component of national defense, a tool if you will. No defense is 100% effective and American’s loss in a nuclear exchange would be massive. I think an ABM system is really a defense of last resort.

Frank Shuler
USA

Well Frank think about the situation after 2015, Russia would have merely 150 ground based launchers, 50 old fighters and probably 6 old submarines (new submarines still not in scene). By that time America would have 450 ground based launchers, 14 state of art submarines and at least 100 fighters. I am not sure if America will go with that 2200 upper limit. With so many delivery systems (more than double of Russia) and ABM system protection, America can do anything! I don’t say that America will exercise their first strike capability in tense situation but they would have psychological advantage over Russia and that’s enough for America to keep Russia under belt. Smile:)

Parimal Debnath:

I’m beginning to think the 2200 warhead limit in the Moscow Treaty the United States pushed for has meaning. I think the US “thinks” that is how many future warheads it will need in total when the new Reliable Warhead program begins to deliver new weapons to the American arsenal post 2020. I also think the number of US delivery systems will stabilize in 2012 to coincide with the Moscow Treaty and then decline through the decade. Russia and America’s defense capabilities will remain relative to today in the years ahead. I guess my conclusions would be if you feel the United States enjoys a military “advantage” over Russia today, that advantage will continue in the future.

Frank Shuler
USA

Well Frank, if both parties keep their words and stick to 2200 upper limit that will be good for everyone. I think Russia is almost there, now America has to act accordingly! And I do hope America will fulfill their obligation. I always hope for a stable and safe world.

Frank can you give any detail how America calculates that 2200 limit? How many delivery systems they would like to retain to make up that number (2200), any idea, prediction?

More data: seens that the target number for 2016 is 142 Topol-m. Not a mention of IRBM,... so far.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070222/61111273.html

Kolokol:
By withdrawing from Start I believe(some would argue this) the US did Russia a huge favor. As of now Russia does not have to completely scrap its Satan and Scalpel BM, this could prove a huge help for Topol. I also read somewhere re-start of production of Sinevas could be a reality(if only op. on Delta IV) The ground based variant you speak about sounds interesting but I have not read anythingt on it. Any links?

Parimal Debnath:

Actually, I have given a great deal of thought to this number 2200. By 2012, the United States will have 2200 “operational” warheads, 2400 additional responsive warheads and 1400 or so awaiting “denuclearization” and disposal. That is a total of some 6000 devices of which 4600 could be made “operational” and 2200 are actually kept in active inventory and deployed. The US inventory, just like Russia’s, is old and based on designs perfected by nuclear testing. The Pentagon feels the need to keep such a large inventory of backup warheads (the responsive force) because of reliability concerns in these old weapons. The decision to build a fleet of these new “reliable warheads” should allow the US arsenal to drop to an absolute 2200 number, the justification for the program is such a lower, modern inventory of weapons. I suspect by 2012, the US will have 12 Trident submarines with 96 warheads each, 600 warheads on the Minuteman III force and the remainder 448 weapons on our bombers. As the Russian inventory of SS-18 & 19s ends, the Minuteman IIIs will be downloaded to a single warhead unless the silo-based Topol-Ms are rearmed with MIRV weapons. Given that, the replacement American ICBM in the 2020 timeframe, a force numbering no more than 150 missiles, will be a single warhead weapon too. Just my guess.

Frank Shuler
USA

Boris: According to

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/slbm/r29rm.htm

"In late 1999 Russia announced plans to resume production of the SS-N-23. he state missile center Design Agency named after V. P. Makeev received a state order from the Russian government to resume the manufacture of naval missiles, including the most advanced RSM-54 system developed by the Agency when Victor Makeev was its general designer. While deployed with four warheads for the START I treaty, it was originally tested with 10 warheads and might be deployed with that number in the absence of such arms control agreements. It has been suggested that some of these liquid-fuel missiles could be deployed on land in the absence of the START agreements"

Thanks Frank for your idea! I think your calculation is sensible.

(In Russian) Very complete piece on the ABM issue and the seriousness of the situation for the russian nuclear deterrent. This system is global and assuming that it's only designed to stop "rogue" Iran and NK is absurd, why deploy GBIs in Poland ??? and not in Turkey that is much closer to Iran.Why deploy in Alaska and not in South-Korea??? A must read.

http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2007/02/23/mildef/

Kolokol:
Thanks for link.

Yakov:

Remember, the concept of the GBI system now in Alaska and perhaps one future site on the US East Coast is to defend North America from a nuclear strike. An installation in Poland is designed to protect Europe (read American military bases). The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is being built to serve as a boost-phase anti-missile system and will, in time, supersede the Patriot IIIc missiles now stationed in Incirlik AB Turkey and Osan AB South Korea. Both systems serve different needs.

Frank Shuler
USA

Yakov:

Is there any English version of that article(link)?

[frank shuler]:
In Pavels recent ABM Thread I was just told that GBI in Poland is a "Midcourse" Defence System. :-) "Midcourse" obviously in the sense of "in between Iran and US Eastcoast". So there is no intended Defence of Europe. Because Norway and UK are not willing to allow deployment on their territory the US obviously choose countries from the "new europe" to defend the USA.
So pls don't speak about a "Europe Defence" when you mention GBI in Europe. Best Regards, bernd reuter

Bernd Reuter:

While I respect your opinion, of course I disagree. The term “midcourse” is not relevant to where the interceptor is based or where the target ICBM is launched from but refers to the ability to intercept an ICBM itself in “midcourse”. For example, after the ICBM has “separated” and is in RV mode. I think the ability of this GBI system to intercept any attack on the East Coast of the United States is beyond problematic. ICBMs just travel too fast and the distance is too far.

Frank Shuler
USA