I have always assumed that the introduction of the new RS-24 would signal the end of production for the Topol-M system. It didn’t make sense to me that Russia would produce both the road mobile RS-24 and the mobile single warhead SS-27 for example. Will silo Topol-M installations continue?

I’m curious as to everyone’s opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

There is no contradiction here. Since it's essentially the same missile, mobile RS-24 will be deployed instead of mobile Topol-M. Deployment of silo-based Topol-Ms will most likey continue as well - the plan was to have 60 of them in Tatishchevo and maybe some more in Uzhur.

> I have always assumed that the introduction of the new RS-24 would signal the end of production for the Topol-M system.

- It isn't so. Col-gen. Nikolay Solovtsov declared today that:

(a) Citation: 'Tempo of further deployment of both mobile and silo-based Topol-Ms will grow'.

(b) During 2008, RVSN will get 11 brand new 'Topol-Ms', - 9 mobile and 2 silo-based ones.

(c) During the few next years, RVSN 'will master absolutely new missile complexes'.

(d) To maintain the present level of nuclear deterrence, RVSN use 4 % of entire Defence Budget of the Russian Federation; at the peak of Cold War, when Soviet Union maintain 1400 ICBMs deployed, RVSN used 6 % of entire Soviet Defence Budget.

Originals are here (in Russian):

http://news.mail.ru/politics/1832944/print/
http://news.mail.ru/politics/1832938/print/
http://news.mail.ru/politics/1832945/print/

- Two days ago, Gen-Lt. Vitaly Linnik of RVSN declared also that 'RS-24 will gradually replace' existing older missile complexes:

http://www.vz.ru/news/2008/6/19/178949.print.html

So Topol-M and RS-24 will co-exist; SS-27 Topol-M will replace older SS-25 Topol ICBMs while 'SS-28' RS-24 will surely replace SS-19 Stiletto.

Indeed Russian your post is always interesting to read.

I was under the impression that SS-19 with a throw up weight of 4.2 T will be replaced by a new class of solid or liquid fuel ICBM with similar throw up weight.

Is it certain that the RS-24 will finally replace the SS-19 ?

Russian

As the RS-24 will supersede the SS-27 mobile missile, do we have a final estimate of the total number of SS-27 single warhead mobile missiles that will be produced and remain in the Strategic Rocket Forces’ inventory?

Frank Shuler
USA

> I was under the impression that SS-19 with a throw up weight of 4.2 T will be replaced by a new class of solid or liquid fuel ICBM with similar throw up weight.

- Not 'similar', Austin; I may prognose for RS-24 a throwweight of (1500 - 2000 kg), while the Pavel's estimation is 1250 kg only.

But preliminary conclusion about number of warheads (3 - 6 'middle-' or 'low-yield') give us a possibility to consider RS-24 as a replace for SS-19, - at least temporary replace, as some Russian sources told.

- As to 'inadequate change' of (6-warheads with high-yield of SS-19) on (6-warheads with middle- or low-yield of RS-24), we must always remember that RS-24 provides more accurate delivery on target ('with GPS-accuracy' on the last test, according to Sergey Ivanov's words); so there's no urgent need in 6-headed heavy missile with 550-kt warheads, but with accuracy comes from 1980s.

> As the RS-24 will supersede the SS-27 mobile missile

- RS-24 will SUPERSEDE SS-27??? Please clarify your point.

> do we have a final estimate of the total number of SS-27 single warhead mobile missiles that will be produced and remain in the Strategic Rocket Forces’ inventory?

- It depends on results of negotiations with the next US administration. But present plans are:

(a) 11 Topol-Ms achieved annual rate
(b) 12 - 14 Topol-Ms next years annual rate
(c) Citation from Solovtsov: 'Tempo of further deployment of both mobile and silo-based Topol-Ms will grow'.

Again: RS-24 will not 'supersede' Topol-M, contrary, - both missiles will be produced at the same time, to provide flexibility of Russian nuclear arsenal.

Finalized production rate could be drawn as:

16 Topol-Ms per year
14 RS-24s per year
-----------------
30 ICBMs per year total

Considering the 15 years 'warranty period' for Topol-M (and probably the same 'warranty period' for RS-24), this will give to Russia an arsenal of (15 * 30) = 450 ICBMs deployed (exactly equal to the modern fleet of Minuteman IIIs).

That's the present plan. Plan may be changed if negotiations on NMD problem as well as post-START treaty, will be productive.

Russian: I understand that you are very excited about missiles, but you clearly got carried away. You are pulling all these things out of thin air.

Hello Pavel: If it is assumed that RS-24 will replace SS-19 in some aspects does this mean a silo-deployment of this type? Or is it just intended as mobile system?

Hello Frank: After the Pentagon has coped with the shock that there is a "mirved Topol-M" so quickly do you know whether the DoD already has designated the RS-24? SS-28 or SS-29 ?
Cheers from bernd reuter

Russian

In the fifteen years or so it will take the Russian inventory of operational ICBMs to reach 450 deployed systems (your 30*15 plan), the American Minuteman III fleet will probably be down to 300 deployed, single warhead missiles. It remains to be seen if the Minuteman III ICBMs fleet will be replaced when its projected life-cycle ends in 2028. Many defense industry watchers here don’t think it will be.

Frank Shuler
USA

bernd reuter: I don't think RS-24 is a replacement of SS-19 in any imaginable way. It is possible that it might be deployed in silos, but it seems unlikely at the moment. Especially since this missile does not really make sense.

Russian: You wrote in your comment:

> ...but you clearly got carried away.

- Frank, do you really think that you know Russia better than me? By the way, - how many words in Russian you know?

[I snipped the rest]

It wasn't Frank, it was me. And I assure you that I know a few Russian words (Frank also may know more than you think). You did get carried away and I should say neither your arguments nor your calculations are convincing. I understand what you are trying to do in your estimates, but it is all based on a very flimsy foundation.

Bernd Reuter

I suspect the move to MIRV the SS-27 came at little surprise to the Pentagon. It’s something that has been well discussed in both the Russian and Western Press for years. It appears the “official NATO designation” from Brussels is the SS-X-29 (the X for experimental) and the missile when introduced for active deployment will be referred to as the SS-29. That’s just an educated guess on my part.

Not to be argumentative, but I agree with Pavel. MIRVing a land based mobile ICBM makes little operational sense. The single-warhead RT-2UTTH Topol-M (SS-27) with a single 550 kt maneuverable warhead and a short engine-burn time to minimize satellite detection on launch is a tremendous deterrent. The only purpose of the RS-24 is political; to pander to the masses and inflate the warhead count.

Just my personal opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank , there is nothing wrong in MIRVng a missile which has capability from design to do so , Topol-M was always MIRV capable with 3 Warhead and penaids.

The fact that they didn't feel the need to do so before is a different matter , now that they do , they just developed the RS-24 and MIRV'd it.

Advantage being it gives you the numbers and considering its heritage is based on Topol-M , infra exist to produce in numbers with not much additional cost ,its just more bang for buck.

Well, after all “Russian” was the only one that predicted the rise of the ICBM deployment rate (before Solovtsov statements respect to the deployment of 13-14 ICBM). Nor Pavel, nor Frank, nor I, nor everyone forecasted such an increment. So we should not flatly discard his words. Nevertheless, the more likely scenario involves a steady deployment rate of 13-14 ICBM (official statements), comprising BOTH Topol-M and RS-24 missiles. Assuming a 20-25 years lifespan, this imply a steady force around 240-300 missiles, both single warhead and MIRVed. This seems right. For me higher levels are a waste of money and lower levels would imply a weakened SRF (remember, it is the most important part of the Russian triad).

Also, I completely disagree with the opinion that “MIRVing a land based mobile ICBM makes little operational sense”. It makes very much sense because this is aimed at assuring a credible counter value retaliatory strike after a first “out of the blue” counterforce strike. In such a task will be much more effective a surviving force of around 10-20 6 warheads RS-24 than the same force of surviving single warheads Topol-M. This is a very basic issue of nuclear planning.

Kolokol: I haven't seen any official statements about deploying 13-14 missiles a year. In any event, it was known for some time that the plan is to deploy about 10 Topol-M missiles annually. I just checked - I estimated in 2005 that Russian will have about 100 Topol-Ms by the end of the decade. I don't see anything that would change this estimate.

Kolokol:

Two points of interest to reflect on.

In the past, Russian missile production, as acknowledged by the Kremlin in general pubic press releases, stated only ICBM production for the Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF). The Russian Navy never had missile production counted in such press releases. Only with the arrival of Sergei Ivanov as Defense Minister was such naval missile production added to the annual numbers of new Russian missiles declared by Moscow. I remember our conversations only in the last year or so when it was announced that Russia would be adding 24 new ballistic missiles to its inventory of nuclear systems and what conversations here on RussianForces.org that announcement generated! Later, we learned that Topol-M production would be steady at eight missiles and the remaining 16 were Sineva systems for the navy. (K-114 Tula) I think speculation of increases in Russian ICBM production rate should be viewed with a certain suspicion until confirmed. Will Russia building more than 10 Topol-M systems a year? Perhaps; but only perhaps.

On the issue of MIRVing the Topol-M fleet, I respectfully disagree. I look at the value of all these weapons from the perspective of deterrence only. Russia must have a nuclear inventory that is effective and redundant to insure she is never attacked with nuclear weapons. Once ICBMs are in the air no nation wins a nuclear exchange, none. Having an ICBM such as the Topol-M holding an American city at risk with one warhead or six smaller ones is immaterial. Russia would be better served in deterrence by having six single-warhead Topol-M missiles rather than one missile armed with six weapons. That was my point.

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel, it was a Russian written note liked by “Russian”, in one of the threads in this blog. The article quoted a Solovtsov declaration. He clearly told that the production of ICBM will increase up to 12-14 missiles/year (13-14 was my typo, sorry).

Here the quotes:

1) For this year

http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=51761&cid=25

Statements of Gen. Nikolay Solovtsov, (December 17, 2007 and of February 27, 2008)

"После 2009 года в РВСН начнётся поставка 12 - 14 ракетных комплексов "Тополь-М" в год".

"Тем самым, группировка РВСН должна пополниться одиннадцатью современными МБР "Тополь-М" в двух вариантах базирования. Ежегодно, мы ставим на боевое дежурство три пусковых установки мобильного комплекса "Тополь-М" и три - четыре шахтных пусковых установки этого типа. После 2009 - 2010 гг., эти показатели удвоятся".

> I haven't seen any official statements about deploying 13-14 missiles a year.

- Not '13-14' but '12 - 14'. Scientist must be precise with the data of his work:

http://www.novopol.ru/print-text32837.html

Pavel, this is the good specimen of the quality of your work with Russian sources of information - when you discard one sources of information (just because 'it is silly to believe to the official statements'), and simply miss other ones.

> It wasn't Frank, it was me.

- It really was not Frank, - it was you, Pavel. I apologize for any inconvenience.

> And I assure you that I know a few Russian words...

- Yes, it is so, - your English as well as Russian are fluent and probably excellent.

- But, there's a lot of irony in this situation: your Western auditory often creates a misunderstood around Russia (mostly due to the neglect of Russian informational sources), and you help them to create such a misunderstood by ignoring (or missing) some important sources of information that should be considered as vital for your scientific work.

Same point in other words: what's the use of good knowledge of Russian language, if do not use this knowledge effectively for 'fishing' some important information from the Russian sources?

> You did get carried away and I should say neither your arguments nor your calculations are convincing.

- And maybe you allow me to publish such an 'arguments and calculations' here? А то получается, как в добрые советские времена: "Пастернака не читал, но глубоко осуждаю..." :-)

> I understand what you are trying to do in your estimates, but it is all based on a very flimsy foundation.

- And finally, - a few words about 'flimsy foundation'.

The primary task for any scientist is to make a proper prediction, a trend prognosis, - sometimes on the base of a few small facts, i.e., - exactly on the base of the thing you call 'flimsy foundation'.

It's a task for journalist to tell about facts and processes that are at present or in the past; contrary to the journalist, scientist must predict and evaluate some facts and processes that will take place in the future.

'Flimsy foundations' are usual precursors of such future facts and trends; so, these foundations must be used, - together with your scientific intuition turned on.

Austin Joseph

I wouldn’t argue your point on the “right” of Russia to MIRV the Topol-M system in the least. The system was built from the beginning to support such armaments as you have alluded to and ultimately only Russia should decide how best to defend herself. However, I do question the premise of MIRVing “any” road mobile system, Russian or otherwise. If you have multiple warheads on silo missiles, the target is other silo missiles. MIRVed silo missiles are “first strike” weapons because they are the most accurate missile system in any nation’s arsenal and their target must always be their opposite number. I don’t believe mobile missile systems have the accuracy, and thus the capability, of striking silo missiles; therefore they are a counter-weapon. In that role, deterrence is built on the number of survivable launchers and not simply the warhead count. To compliment the 60 or so silo Topol-M SS-27s, I would want as many single warhead mobile systems as I could afford.

Again just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler

What constitutes a survivable system in the context of land based Missile is debatable , specially at this age and time.

But before that, it would be way of the mark to say Silo based missile are the most accurate than rest.

Accuracy of the missile has hardly to do with where it is based , then to do with the type of guidance it uses and external updates it receives ( Land Based Radio/Stellar/GPS/GLONASS ).

A combination of Inertial Gyros , Ring Laser Gyro (RLG) is the most accurate form to guide BM , and even for a range of > 10000 Km it should be capable enough to land the Warhead to ~ 100 meters CEP.

But if you supplement a IG/RLG with updates from external source like GLONASS/GPS (most modern form of accurate external navigation signal ) which the RV/Warhead can well carry if its a Active MIRV ( mini-propulsion/control/Guidance ) then you can get as close as

Coming back to the topic , I think the most survivable of all the system is a Rail Mobile System , followed by Road Mobile and finally Silo based , both Rail/Road system can constantly be on move ( rail system ofcourse can cover larger track ) and can be the most difficult to track.

Since Silo based systems position are known , they can face the burn of first strike by the enemy and Accuracy/Yeald of modern BM can take out any silo based system out of action.

A mobile MIRV like RS-24 or others offers the best bet between Survivability/Mobility/Accuracy.

The only disadvantage i see is the restriction on the weight of missile like ~ 50T , which ultimately puts restriction on its throw up weight. ( A rail mobile system can carry a missile of ~ 100 T but has a larger footprint than a Road Mobile system )

A mobile RS-24 is simply more bang for the buck and is the optimum solution.

But if you want to have a BM with large throw up weight ( 4 - 8 T ) and would like to use Megaton Warhead for counter value targets , then a silo based system is the only option

Austin Joseph

My point was lost. MIRV silo missiles are the most accurate in attacking the opposition’s silo missiles precisely because both systems are static and whose locations are exactly measured down to and calibrated within a few meters.

Just out of curiosity. What is your opinion on why the Kremlin decided to discontinue the SS-24 silo and rail mobile systems?

Frank Shuler
USA

To Frank:

Quote “Russia would be better served in deterrence by having six single-warhead Topol-M missiles rather than one missile armed with six weapons. That was my point.”

Off-course Frank, but the main bottleneck is currently the production line of Topol-M/RS-24. So, we have more warheads than launchers. Then, there is an inevitably option: to put several warheads in one carrier.
Anyway, I would prefer a balanced force with a mix of single, three and six warheads, in order to maximize the SRF flexibility. Remember Frank, we don’t have something like the Ohio/Trident-II system and the Russian land forces are more important than the sea-based leg. May be in the future the gravity center migrates from land to sea, but not in the near future.

Frank, I also have the same question; why the Kremlin decided to discontinue SS-24? SS-24 would be one of the best deterrent for Russia!

If Russia produces Topol-M, Topol-M1 (Mobile version) and RS-24 simultaneously then what will be the yearly number? 'Russian' personally predicts it could be 30 in some future time. If the number is 12-14 then what will be the combination of these three? What about the new heavy (liquid fuel) ICBM that Mr. Solovtsov hinted earlier? There could be a flight test this year!

Frank, you were comparing one 6 warheads RS-24 with 6 single warhead Topol-M. But if Russia produces 6 RS-24 (3-6 warheads) in place 6 single warhead Topol-M then what?

Frank, Can you give some lights on the latest weight and throw-weight of both Minuteman-III and Trident D5 for comparison with Topol-M and Bulava restectively!

Kolokol

Is Russia using existing warheads for the RS-24 or building new nuclear weapons? I ask that because it seems hard to match up existing warheads that might be left from the retirement of the SS-19-24-18 fleets and install those in a mobile system such as the RS-24. The design specifications just don’t seem probable. I suspect the RS-24 will use the same, or slightly modified, nuclear warhead being produced for the Bulava. I believe that warhead is new construction and not a re-manufactured warhead from earlier SLBM designs. It seems Russia will have the 550 kt warhead built for the earlier SS-25 and now installed in the silo and single road mobile SS-27 and the 100 kt weapon being produced for the Bulava and the RS-24. Is my thinking here right?

Frank Shuler
USA

I've got another question. How many Sineva missiles are being produced annually in addition to the Topol?

Frank, honestly I don’t know but I fully agree with your estimations. There is another (less likely) possibility: refurbished warheads taken from scrapped RSM-52 missiles.

Surely Pavel knows more than me and you. We should ask him. So Pavel… we are expecting your answer.

Parimal Debnath

The Lockheed-Martin Trident D-5 generally has its payload capacity listed between 2800 and 3000 kg in various publications. I suspect the 2800 kg throw weight is more accurate. As for the Minuteman III, who knows? This missile has gone through so many modifications and changes since its introduction in 1970, I’m not sure an accurate throw weight estimate of the missile today has ever been published.

Frank Shuler
USA

> MIRV silo missiles are the most accurate in attacking the opposition’s silo missiles precisely because both systems are static and whose locations are exactly measured down to and calibrated within a few meters.

- In fact, - within the centimeters. :-) But... Frank, have you ever heard a phrase 'launch from pre-surveyed position'?

- In other words: with a pair of hardware priced near $10,000 (let's say, - Trimble 4600 GPS receiver + Trimble TSC-1 controller), I'll be able to determine the coordinates of any point at Earth surface within the 0.1 metres accuracy, - in a single-session measurement with few-hours duration:

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2471/trimble4600lstsc1ec3.jpg

And these points surely could be the ones along the SS-25 Topol TEL route. Of course, RVSN do not rely on GPS: наши коллеги пользуют GLONASS... ;-)

> MIRVed silo missiles are “first strike” weapons because they are the most accurate missile system in any nation’s arsenal...
> I don’t believe mobile missile systems have the accuracy, and thus the capability, of striking silo missiles.

- After the last (December 2007) launch of RS-24, performed from the mobile TEL, vice-premier Sergey Ivanov reports officially to the President Putin about 'excellent accuracy' of this launch.

- After two launches of Sineva SLBM, performed also in December 2007, vice-premier Ivanov reports to the President Putin again that 'Sineva warheads reach their targets with GPS-accuracy'.

- For me, 'GPS-accuracy' starts with CEP near to or less than 15 metres; for example, in the 'civil' navigation when 'constellation of satellites' is visible quite clearly, my old but still good Garmin GPS-12XL shows 2.8 - 3.2 metres CEP.

Conclusion: 'static' silo missiles are NOT the most accurate in the arsenals anymore, since the 'radiocommand' systems of trajectories correction got significant progress in the last decades.

With 'radiocommand' (read, - land-radionetwork-based, as well as GPS- and GLONASS-based) navigation, ANY missile system may reach within-a-few-meters accuracy:

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/878/agm86cax9.jpg

Kolokol, Frank: My best guess about new warheads was here - How many warheads? I would be very much surprised if Russia would use old designs.

Dear Frank

As I have stated before , it is not the case that MIRV silos are more/most accurate in attacking opposition silo missile , modern mobile ICBM like Topol-M are far more accurate than any SS-18/ 19.

The heavy mobile system like SS-18 compensates for lack of accuracy by going for a larger yeald warhead , and mobile system like Topol-M whose accuracy without any external updates will be ~ 100 m for its full range does not need higher yeald warhead to take care of silos.

As long as a target is fixed , the modern missiles mobile/static can easily target it accurately , now the same missile with just single reference update from external system like GPS/GLONASS can gives you an accurcy of ~ 30-50 m, with more than one reference update systems like Topol-M can give you can accuracy/CEP in single digit.

The SS-24 Rail Mobile/Silo system was designed and developed by Ukranian based Yuzhnoye Design Bureau , so it made sense for Russia to stop dependency on other country for strategic system. I hope they continue with Rail Mobile system for their next generation ICBM , as it gives greatest flexibility and least vulnerability.

One more key point , a BM is always designed Top Bottom to get an optimium solution for range/payload/accuracy , So a missile is designed around the warhead and not the other way around.

My understanding is that RS-24 should have a new custom built warhead and not warhead of older missile or Bulava SLBM.

Austin Joseph

Given your hypothesis that any “modern” ICBM, such as the SS-27 Topol-M family of weapons has single digit accuracy in CEP, why would Russia continue to put missiles in the ground or build strategic submarines? The vast expanse of Russia provides its best defense; today and throughout all Russian history. For the price of maintaining its vast silo missile fields and trying to update the Delta IV with Sineva and building the Borey-class for the Bulava missiles, the Kremlin could have built 1000 road mobile ICBMs and loaded however many warheads on those missile it deemed necessary. Now, these guys in the Kremlin are smart folks, how did they miss this obvious mistake?

Good exchange of views.

And

[...One more key point, a BM is always designed Top Bottom to get an optimium solution for range/payload/accuracy. So a missile is designed around the warhead and not the other way around...]

The American Minuteman III and Trident missiles systems are contradictions to your statement.

Frank Shuler
USA

Hi Frank , a 1000 ICBM with a CEP of 1m is not a replacement for Nuclear Triad , only a triad can give you flexibility (employment/deployment ) and 100 % assurance of a guranteed N retaliation ( first/second strike ).

It just like saying if a Tomahawk has ~ 0 CEP why do we need aircraft , just build a million Tomahawk and that should serve the purpose.

About American Minuteman III and Trident missile , I am sorry I cannot comment on those system as I have not studied it in any detail.

Every missile designer will tell you that a missile is just a vehical to carry the warhead so if you need the optimum employment of the warhead you build a missile around it , you can always do the other way around , but then you end up with a compromise or a sub-optimum solution.

A optimum solution becomes all the more important for a single warhead active RV like Topol-M where you want to make sure that you dont compromise on it effectivness.

Any ways BM design and development has reached a very mature state in countries like Russia , US , France they will most definately try to achieve optimum solution for all the science subjects that goes into ICBM development ,mainly propulsion , control , guidance ,materials , RV and Warhead

Austin Joseph

Nuclear powers always start their nuclear arsenals with aircraft weapons because they technically are the simplest and least expensive delivery systems. From nuclear delivery by aircraft, comes the development of land based ballistic missiles. Then sea-launched missile systems follow the evolution and the “Triad” is completed. As nuclear arsenals seem to politically mature, the first system to be discarded is the land based ICBM followed by the aircraft delivery of strategic nuclear weapons. The most expensive and technically challenging deliver system, the strategic nuclear submarine, is also the most valued. It offers advantages just not available to other delivery systems; flexibility and survivability. It is the ultimate deterrent; at least in today’s world.

Most of the systems Russia is introducing today, the Bulava, Sineva, the SS-27 Topol-M, the Topol-M1 and the RS-24 will face end-of-service-life before the United States replaces the Minuteman III or Trident. It will always be interesting to speculate what the nuclear ambitions of Russia and the United States will be in the future.

By the way, I’d take the million Tomahawk nuclear missiles. (smile)

Frank Shuler
USA

> Nevertheless, the more likely scenario involves a steady deployment rate of 13-14 ICBM (official statements), comprising BOTH Topol-M and RS-24 missiles. Assuming a 20-25 years lifespan, this imply a steady force around 240-300 missiles, both single warhead and MIRVed.

- Kolokol, I think 240 - 300 ICBMs is a very modest estimation.

We must not to forget here that 12 - 14 missiles per year, - it's a production rate for Topol-M only. And RS-24 will not 'supersede' Topol-M, - but surely will be a supplement to Topol-M.

As a result, I think we need to consider the finalized production rate as (12 + x) or (14 + x), where x is the annual rate of RS-24 production.

- Considering the ratio between Topol-M and RS-24 deployed as close to 1 : 1 (just my opinion), we will have from (12 * 2) = 24 to (14 * 2) = 28 ICBMs per year finalized production rate.

That's give to us a fleet of (28 * 15 years) - 10 % = 380 ICBMs operationally deployed.

As a minimum, I think.

Russian: When you add "I think", "my opinion", etc. it is much better - at least it is clear where you get your projections.

> When you add "I think", "my opinion", etc. it is much better - at least it is clear where you get your projections.

- OK.

- New satellite of SPRN system has been launched today using Proton-K heavy-class space launcher:

http://www.vz.ru/society/2008/6/27/181629.print.html

Launch was successful:

http://armstass.su/?page=article&aid=56556&cid=25

- 'Планируется, что со следующего года система предупреждения о ракетном нападении начнет оснащаться космическими аппаратами нового поколения'.

I`ve a stupid question which is a bit of topic. What sense does it make to target silos anyway ? Would`nt those missiles launch before impact of the foreign warheads ?

Any comments to the posted article by Hans M. Kristensen (FAS) that the US has completed the removed all nuclear weapons from Great Britain? I made the comment last year that I thought the American arsenal of deployed B-61 bombs in Europe was coming to an end. I think this came out of President George W. Bush’s early 2001 review of American nuclear weapons and plans. I suspect the remaining weapons will come out of Italy, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Turkey in time. (measured in months)

Frank Shuler
USA

clemensp: This is an old discussion. A short answer is that some missiles may still be in silos.

> Any comments to the posted article by Hans M. Kristensen (FAS) that the US has completed the removed all nuclear weapons from Great Britain?

- I think it's another clumsy attempt of the USA to provoke Russia on further dismantling of Russian tactical nukes and thus it's another step on the way US need to go to make Russia vulnerable to the US and NATO 'conventional' (in fact - quasi-conventional) weapons.

But all these attempts will be failed, I assure you.

- Russia's point is quite clear:

(a) Further restrictions of strategic nuclear weapons may be considered ONLY in conjunction with limitations on NMD deployment, as well as limitations on deployment of space-based weapons;

(b) Further restrictions of tactical nuclear arsenals, may be considered ONLY in conjunction with trilateral (Russia, NATO and US) limitations on conventional and quasi-conventional weapons.

As I understand, it's Kremlin's point of view for the last years, - and this is NOT ONLY Kremlin's point of view; Frank, - you'll be surprised to know how many people in Russia share this point.

- Frank, why are you so concerned about two things:

(i) new Russian MIRVed ICBMs (I mean RS-24);

(ii) current arsenal of Russian tactical nukes?

Frank: It's a step in the right direction. I agree that U.S. nuclear weapons have absolutely no business of staying in Europe, but I'm afraid the withdrawal will take more than a few months. U.S. will most likely try to link the withdrawal with Russian tactical weapons, which would complicate things beyond what's necessary.

Russian

I have no concerns on the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal, either tactical weapons or the RS-24, in the least. Honest.

I also think the days of Russo-American arms control agreements have come to an end. In today’s world, I suspect the relevance of such agreements have little value. It’s a far bigger world today than in the past. New challenges; new perils.

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel

I honesty think the decision has been long made; it has little to do with Russia. As Hans Kristensen alluded to in his post, why didn’t the United States use this decision to press the Russians for concessions? Or, use this decision to somehow impress world opinion? The United States neither confirms nor denies... The B-61s will just fade away.

Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

> The B-61s will just fade away.

- Fade away... where? Is any warranty that in one nice day, these 110 B-61s will NOT 'appear from nowhere' on the European land again?

And, after this, you still think that 'Russo-American arms control agreements have come to an end'?

In other words: is any side may freely produce and deploy any amount of nuclear weapons, as this side want?

Direct way to the new weapon race, - and 'brand new' world divided into military camps again...

Russian

I’m not sure what kind of “warranty” you want but I honestly think once the NATO inventory of B-61-3 & 4s are relocated from Europe, they won’t be back again. They are an anachronism; weapons out of time with today’s political reality.

China and India are free to build as many nuclear weapons as they deem necessary to defend themselves. France, Pakistan, Israel... the same. Why should Russia and the United States be any different? It’s a new world.

The American nuclear arsenal will fall in numbers regardless of any arms control agreements with Russia. The US nuclear inventory will fall to the level deemed necessary to defend our country. I have always been a big fan of START, because of the counting rules and the on-site inspections, and certainly wished there had been the political opportunity to have a START II approved. SORT, the Moscow Treaty, makes no sense to me. By December 31, 2012 the United States and Russia can have only up to 2200 deployed strategic warheads but maintain an unlimited inventory of non-deployed weapons and there is no provision for inspection. The next day, on January 1, 2013, the treaty expires and there are no limits. What kind of arms control agreement is that?

Let me ask your opinion on future arms control agreements between Russia and the United States. In such negotiations, what exactly does Russia have to bargain with? What is she willing to give up for concessions from the United States? If a new arms control agreement replaces the START (2009) and SORT (2012) agreements, what does Russia want to accomplish?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, I think it's now American turn to give concession to Russia. USSR always held grater number of arsenals than that of America and so they reduced almost 2 against 1 arsenal in all strategic treaties. America only lost Peacekeeper but USSR and Russia lost everything (I mean their best arsenals). Now America has larger number of arsenals than that of Russia and it's her turn to reduce larger number of arsenals!

Smile, it seems childish but that was the case during USSR time.

Parimal Debnath

As stated, I think the American nuclear arsenal will be smaller in the future; unilaterally, no matter what Russia does. We just don’t need 4500+ nuclear warheads in today’s world. However, if Russia chooses to negotiate a follow-on arms control treaty with the US, what does she hope to gain? Post-START (2009); there are no restrictions on the 2200 warheads Russia is allowed to operationally deploy under SORT. After SORT (January 1st 2013), there are no restrictions at all on the Russian inventory of nuclear weapons. What concessions would Russia want from the United States? Why?

Let me make an arms control proposal. The United States will agree to actively deploy no more than 1500 nuclear warheads if Russia will agree to limit the total inventories of all nuclear weapons to 2500 warheads. The agreement will have verification and on-site inspection to ensure the total inventory of each country will not exceed 2500; 1500 deployed. All nuclear warheads in the arsenals of Russia and the United States over the 2500 number will be destroyed and that process will be verified and certified by the host countries and neutral third-party observers. Russia gets something she wants, limiting the number of deployed warheads to 1500 as advocated by former President, and now Prime Minister, Putin and the US gets something she wants, a world with fewer nuclear weapons and an American inventory of nuclear warheads that is more cost effective to maintain.

So, what is you opinion to my suggestion?

Frank Shuler
USA

If I was the Russian gov. then you suggestion would be completely unacceptable. In reality Russia doesn't care how many strategic nukes USA has. And in reality Russia will need to preserve the tactical nuclear arsenal as much as possible.

Thanks Frank, I think it's a very good suggestion! 1500 deployed and 2500 all together should be suitable for both sides. Both parties should start talking in this regard and reach an agreement before the expiry of SORT! I also think 1500 deployed warheads are enough to maintain a credible deterrent.

> If I was the Russian gov. then you suggestion would be completely unacceptable.

- Feanor, I completely agree with you here.

> ... the total inventory of each country will not exceed 2500; 1500 deployed.

- Dream, just a dream about 'military and technological superiority above Russia'...

- Frank, you know that until Russia has enough amount of tactical and strategical nukes, all West's pretensions to great power domination doomed to be empty.

We all know it.

And news similar to ones we get from Pentagon today:

http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=191601&cid=9

will surely not help to promote your idea about '2500 warheads deployed'.

To Pavel: not only my opinion... Come to Russia and refresh your feeling of modern Russian intentions.

Russian:

If Russia wants a follow-on arms control agreement after the expiration of SORT (2013), what is your counter offer?

Or, do you believe the days of such treaties between Russia and the United States are over?

Frank Shuler
USA

An article of Mr Barbanov on the NMD issue on Russia.

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2007/ip/article1/

It is quite clear. We can agree or not but, as “Russian” told, reflects the current trends in Russia.

Kolokol

[...I also think the days of Russo-American arms control agreements have come to an end. In today’s world, I suspect the relevance of such agreements have little value. It’s a far bigger world today than in the past. New challenges; new perils...]

As reflected in my earlier post, I think arms control agreements between Russia and the United States have regrettably come to an end. Russian politicians only want to talk about “strategic” warheads and link any future arms control agreement to American conventional arms. The United States only cares about the total number of warheads (what exactly is a tactical warhead?) and don’t understand the Russian fixation with tying nuclear arms reductions to US conventional forces. Secretly, I don’t think either side really cares about future agreements and only wants to blame the “other” side for failure to reach such agreements. It makes “good press” on the world stage.

Frank Shuler
USA

I think you are rigth Frank. May be too much self-confidence in both sides. Anyway, we should wait for the new American president and his relationshios with Mr. Medvedev.

"The pronounced anti-American and anti-Western orientation among the most educated segments of the population, including among the youth, is a characteristic feature of Russian social and political life. It is precisely this class, that forms the current and future political elite, which feels the greatest hostility towards the West. The deep antipathy among the youth towards America is clear to anyone who cares to survey the Russian internet".

- And not only 'educated segments', - in fact, all classes of Russian society (except a very thin, - I think near 1 - 2 % of Russian population, - layer of pro-western 'democrats' and Kompradorenbourgeoisie).

Kolokol, thank you for the interesting link. I agree with the main problems Mikhail Barbanov describe, but I do think that we need to make some corrections to the symptoms Mr. Barbanov had described, - and to solutions he had proposed.

I'll try to write more about it tomorrow.

Russian
Kolokol
Pavel

The anti-American sentiment of the Russian youth or perhaps the entire Russian population as a whole is so amazing to me. Honestly, no one here in America has an argument with Russia; or even understands any longer the basic issues between our two countries.

Culturally, it’s the most amazing situation. How could the United States and the Soviet Union be so bitter enemies for so long and, yet, the United States so indifferent to Russia today? Honesty, Russian nuclear weapons get little press here; general press designed to impress the American citizen. The average American doesn’t think of Russia as an “enemy” or seems to care.

Pavel, please comment if your general impressions are different.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank: As I understand it, most of the current anti-Americanism in Russia is a product of internal politics - the "superpower rivalry" is an easy and convenient framework for a lot of people. Even if it has nothing to do with reality. The United States has its "war on terrorism", but to the extent anti-Russian rhetoric helps score political points people are happy to use it as well. So, I wouldn't overestimate the importance of these sentiments (which is not to say that they should be ignored).

To all participants: The discussion strayed pretty far from the topic of the original post, so I'd like to close it here.