Recent reports about the U.S. plan to deploy missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe, namely in Poland and Czech Republic, and the negative reaction to this plan from Yurii Baluyevsky, encouraged me to take a closer look at the potential capability of these interceptors.
I must admit I was too quick to dismiss them about a year ago. Although it is true that Poland is not exactly on the flight path of Russian missiles, it is close enough to give interceptors deployed there a chance to reach SS-19/UR-100NUTTH ICBMs launched from the Koselsk or Tatishchevo bases. SS-27 Topol-M missiles based in Tatishchevo, as well as SS-25 Topol in Vypolzovo and Teykovo also may be within the interceptors reach.
These are very quick estimates, which still don't present the correct picture. They are based on the results of the excellent APS study "Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense" and tell us only that an interceptor could make it to the missile by the end of the boost phase. Here we should note that the interceptors that are being deployed are not boost-phase, they seem to be mid-course GBIs (they are too far from Iran, whose missile they are supposed to counter, to work as boost-phase interceptors). This seems to make their job easier -- interceptors will have much more time to reach their targets. But on the other hand, they will have to deal with countermeasures that are deployed on all Russian missiles. Not to mention that a couple of SS-19 missiles (each carrying six warheads) would quickly overwhelm the defense with its ten interceptors.
The fact that interceptors in Poland would not be able to pose serious threat to Russian missiles does not, of course, make their deployment a good idea. Although the deployment would certainly be able to boost the U.S.-Poland ties and will give the U.S. defense industry one more project to spend money on, the military utility of the proposed system is minimal and its impact on U.S.-Russian relations will certainly be negative. It already is.
The book
Comments
Pavel, sorry about shifting the focus of the quarrel, but have you seen the article of Gerbert Efremov in the last NVO?
The great old man is positively fuming about Topol-M, and hinting that those who advocate an increase of the rate of delivery to 30 a year (like Alexei Arbatov) are hidden enemies of the people.
I particularly like his start 'Strategic nuclear forces are one of Russia's main riches together with the talent of its people and natural resources.'
It all boils down to the great future of the liquid-fuel missiles, certainly.
PB
Yes, it looks like NPOMash is busy pushing its missiles. I wrote about it about a month ago in Missile competition?. Also, there was a good piece in MK that asked questions about Topol-M and Bulava. I wouldn't be surprised if that was instigated by NPOMash people as well.
Yeah, but the will deploy "only 10 missiles" against the "Iranian threat" (ludicrous pretext, since in such a case is better to deploy in Irak), then another 10, after that another 10 and so on.
Believing US arguments is senseless. It is obvious that this deployment wants to target Russia. "Clarifying" arguments of some pro-American liberals cannot hidden this fact. SRBM and ALSO IRBM should start to target Poland.
Installing a rudimentary ballistic missile defense system in Poland, or Europe in general, makes no military sense. However, it does present an interesting political gambit. The United States needs to give NATO something unique, something no other member country can provide in order to ensure our elite status and position in the Organization. Currently, that capability is nuclear weapons. By providing NATO with a "nuclear missile shield", something no other country can do, the same need is met. Why not silo a few interceptor missiles in Poland, declare our never ending commitment to the Alliance, and pull out all the B-61s now stored across Europe? Remove these nuclear bombs now before a future political crisis in NATO forces the US to pull the weapons unilaterally. How much longer will the Italian or German left allow American nuclear weapons on their soil to defend against an enemy that no longer exists?
Just a thought...
Frank Shuler
USA
Even if we assume that the real target of the system that might be deployed in Poland is Russia (which is not the case, but it's a long argument), there is no chance it would ever be able to pose any serious threat to Russia. Ten, 20, or 30 interceptors - doesn't matter. So, no one needs to target Poland.
But again, even though the military value fo the system is nil, the damage to the U.S.-Russian relations is quite real.
Really? Installing a few interceptor missiles in Poland and pulling out our entire tactical nuclear weapons inventory in Europe would jeopardize our relations with Russia how?
Frank Shuler
USA
Well, no one is pulling out any nuclear weapons from Europe yet (unless I missed that piece of the news). As for the interceptors, the deployment creates all kind of suspicion and mistrust in Russia (even though one can argue it is not justified).
How about i.e. 100 interceptors in Poland, 100 in Ukraine and 100 in Georgia. Its value is nil? I don't think so. Then "time to pressure" as Putin correctly claimed.
Promises were made to no deploy NATO forces in eastern Germany no many years ago. After that a contrary REAL movement happened, then a new promise, again, and so on.
It is obvious that the western words are divorced from real western behavior. Again the army and the navy are the only Russian allies. As Baluyevsky suggested, it is time to increase the risk for these countries. Just a few MIRV IRBM can do the job. It's cheap.
Pavel, just postulating a theory.
If ballistic missile defense makes no military sense, why install such a system in Europe? Why spend domestic political capital trying to convince the US Congress to fund such an undertaking? If this is only about the "military industrial complex", there is opportunity for Boeing and the other supporting ABM players in Alaska or North Dakota. Is the gambit, for Russia? End MIRVing of your land-based ICMB and we'll pass on missile defense for NATO? None of this makes any sense to me at all.
Frank Shuler
USA
To Frank: Well, Alaska and North Dakota don't make much sense either.
In short, discussion of the politics of missile would be quite long. The "military-industrial complex" factor certainly plays its role (in the U.S. as well as in Russia), but things are a bit more complicated than that. You made a good point about the U.S. wanting to give something "useful" to NATO - this is a factor too. As well as Poland's eagerness to be closer to the U.S. than some other countries... There are a lot of different interests involved here. And not all of them make sense.
Quote:
"By 2010 Russia will have 1.1 million servicemen. By 2016 it is planned to achieve an Army of 1 million and to stop there: Forces any smaller than that would not be able to defend the country. And there is no doubt that Russia still has its ill-wishers. This is how Chief of General Staff Yuriy Baluyevskiy commented yesterday on the possibility of US missile defense forces being deployed in East Europe:
"The countries where forces of the third forward missile defense area may be deployed are being named openly in the press. They are Poland and Romania. They are very close to us, so all the talk about the need to strike ICBMs launched from what the United States regards as problem states, such as Iran, merely suggests poor knowledge of geography. There is no doubt that the forward missile defense area is needed in order to target Russia's strategic potential.
"What might our response be? It has already been given in the president's Address: We have already found adequate, but asymmetrical solutions. Current and future missile defense not only can be overcome today but will be overcome tomorrow and in the foreseeable future by Russian ICBMs and their warheads."
The U.S. is a paranoid country where American nationalism is as bad a fanaticism as the islamic terrorism. The American public is kept scared of Russia for umpteen reasons none of which is even worth a thought. While Russia is always reasonable in its assessment of the threats it is the U.S. which wants to dominate the world and create differences between peaceful public. Unless someone other than the U.S. acts fast, a time may come when every citizen of the world will take orders from CIA, FBI or the American Administration on what one should do each day.
If I were Russia, I would be extremely concerned about this development, even if the US removes all tactical nukes from Europe. This destabilizes deterrence by compromising Russia's (retalitory) ability to launch ICBM's. I would advocate a one-for-one placement of Russian ABM's on the border of Poland to nullify any potential threat posed by US ABM's. That would send a very clear message to the US administration. This development is to me, a US citizen, an obvious, unabashed attempt by the US to compromise Russia's strategic deterrent abilities. Possibly to compensate for the fact that the US ICBM force (500 30+ year old Minute Man III's) is inferior in almost every respect to Russia's ICBM force, epecially the Topol-M and R-36UTTH missiles.
K.A.Sharma - While I completely agree the United States is a "paranoid" country, I respectfully disagree on any fear of Russia. It just isn't there. As long as Russia continues down the path of democracy and rule of law, there will be no issues between us. We may not like the government the people of Russia always elect, but we will always appreciate the process. What America does fear is what we can not see. Islamic, or any other, non-state sponsored terrorism is the common enemy of democratic governments worldwide. How to combat such an enemy is perplexing and uncertain. That "uncertainty" is the cause of our fear. One thing I do know, building missiles won't solve the problem.
Frank Shuler
USA
Jon Gram -
"I would advocate a one-for-one placement of Russian ABM's on the border of Poland to nullify any potential threat posed by US ABM's. That would send a very clear message to the US administration."
While your remarks had certain merits, I was confused by this statement. Could you clarify? Thanks for your discussion.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank-
What I mean to say is, if US ABM interceptors in Poland pose a credible threat to Russia's ICBM force (boost phase intercept capability), then Russia could counter this by placing its own ABM's near the Polish border to intercept any US ABM's launched at their ICBM's. It would essentially mean using ABM's to shoot down ABM's, (which would actually be much easier than intercepting an RV). I am just saying that this could be an option if the US ignores potential protests from Russia on this issue.
Jon, I think none of this makes any technical (military) sense. Basing missiles in Poland, like the current "interceptors" the United States has in Alaska, wouldn't be affective in boost-launch against a Russian ICBM. My understanding is that such a system uses an inert "warhead" with a cold infrared seeker and the destruction of a ballistic missile warhead in flight is based on trajectory and path. The US interceptor simply "gets in the way" of the warhead it's intercepting with the theory both vehicles would be destroyed in the collision. The infrared seeker actually needs the cold of space to track the ICBM and determine the warhead from any decoys. The US Navy is working on boost-launched weapons to strike ICBM at launch and this program has actually been quite successful in testing. I think interceptor missiles in Poland and maneuverable SS-27 warheads are only "food for the masses". Both are simply meant for domestic (read European) public consumption.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank - You say that the U.S. is concerned about democracy and also what it cannot see such as non state sponsored terrorism. But the U.S. in the last two decades has indulged in nurturing such monsters as Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, General Noriega and several other puppet dictatorial governments, not to mention General Musharraf of Pakistan who are all not exactly democratic! The U.S. conviniently uses democracy, human rights and other such high moral grounds to find fault and interfere with other nations wherever it finds inability to dominate. The most glaring example is India who have suffered the most horrible consequences of militancy from Pakistan's state sponsored terrorism. 60,000 Kashmiri Pundits including women and children have been brutally murdered and a million people displaced from their homes in Kashmir in the last two decades. The U.S. instead of supporting the democratic India, not only provided moral but also military support to Pakistan which is ruled by military dictators. The CNN never showed a single program on Kashmiri Pundits' plight in this manmade disaster in which the U.S. played a major part. The U.S. has been always in the fore-front in development and deployment of the most varied and potent weapons of mass destruction not to speak of innumerable advanced smart weapons such as microwave weapons to destroy all electrical installations. It is due to the U.S. threat of domination through every conceivable means that other countries are forced to take defensive measures to whatever extent they could. The minor threats posed by these defensive measures are magnified several fold by the U.S. media while ignoring the most conspicuous build up of the far more threatening deployment by U.S. If the U.S. was really concerned about democracy it would not differentiate between Americanism and humanity at large.
K.A. Sharma: Insightful comments.
America is a very paradoxal country not easy to understand or define.
The United States has no friends. The United States has no enemies. There will be times when common interests bind our nation to others in the pursuit of a common cause. And in that cause, these nations will be our allies. There will be times when the political goals of other countries conflict with the perceived interest of the United States and in those times, those nations will be our adversaries. It is certainly possible for nations to enjoy both relationships with the United States at the same time. Hence, the paradox.
In America, the press is called the "Forth Estate". The role of the free press in America is likened to the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of our government. The press goes where it will and reports on what it sees. It reports the good and the bad about our society and the world in general. It holds our government accountable to the people. It defines issues and informs the electorate here. It is "uncontrollable". If America is responsible for currents events today in Kashmir, it would be a story worth telling on the front page of the New York Times. There seems to be no such story. Frankly, if we're going to "blame" someone, I suspect the discussion could begin and end with India and Pakistan. And if you want to historically put the blame on someone, I guess that would be the British in 1947.
America seems to influence all and dominate few.
Frank Shuler
USA
We don't deserve to read this naive propaganda about USA. As usual, they words go in one direction and they actions in the opposite one. They completely lack credibility, and therefore any country must build its deterrent arsenal in order to prevent amerikanisky attacks. So, please refrain to launch propaganda and limit the discussion to the aggressive deployment of interceptors in Poland.
Kolokol: Fair enough.
If America deploys 10 ballistic missile interceptors in Poland (or 1000), the balance of power will not shift between Russia and the United States. Isn't it really that simple?
And, I completely agree with you. America and Americans are certainly naГЇve on the world stage.
Frank Shuler
USA
Missile interceptors in Poland are definitely meant for threatening Russia, however much the U.S. may explain otherwise. But why is Russia not precipitating the issue like the U.S. did during the Cuban Short range missile crisis? For Russia it would be too late to wait & watch. A line has to be drawn somewhere. What is Russia planning? The alternative of deployment of Russian missiles along the border with Poland will only increase U.S. presence in Poland and the situation will be a repeat of East & West Germany during the cold war. There seam to be no 'gradual' solutions.
May be a preemptive deployment of Iskanders in Kalinigrad. So far looks enough. After the expansion of the threat, another asymmetrical step can be taken. Improving swords is almost always easier than improve shields.
Anyway, currently Russia have some "budget buffer". American defense budget is 4.3% of its economy and they are in red. Russian defense budget is 2.8% with surplus and big windfalls (stabilization fund and so on). Furthermore, Iraqi freedom fighters are bleeding invaders. So, USA is not in the best position to start an arms-race. We should wait and see.
Actually if my memory serves, President Putin offered the S-400 missile and its related command and control system to Poland, through the Rosoboronexport Company, a couple years ago when this story first broke. If NATO, or just Poland, needed a BMD system, the S-400 Triumph was clearly the best solution as it would be equally effective against cruise missiles. He simply wanted Poland to bid on the best system for her needs; give the S-400 a chance.
Given that fact, it sounds like this is more of a commercial opportunity than anything else. After all, Greece (a NATO member) is a large importer of Russian surface-to-air missile systems, radar, and such. Thoughts?
I agree with Pavel's earlier statement on this matter. Militarily, the installation of such a system is pointless but the political repercussions between Russia and the United States may be large. It makes no sense.
Frank Shuler
USA
The U.S. defence budget is around $450 billion whereas that of Russia is only about $20 billion. President Putin has said all this in his 'State of the nation' address. Hence it would be wrong to assume that U.S. cannot pursue an arms race by reducing expenditures on some other fronts. It is another matter whether Russian think tank favors an arms race or not. In my view the U.S. will act silently and surreptitiously until the situation turns favorable for them to dictate. That is where the danger to Russia lies.
1. As many have pointed out the system they want to put in Poland would be worthless in blunting a Russian attack.
2. The location is right on the path an Iranian ICBM would likely follow to hit the US (especially if it's aimed at the East Coast).
3. Iran is VERY unlikely to ever have the numbers of ICBMs Russia does so 10 interceptors would likely do just fine.
How about easing up on the paranoia that the US is secretly trying to negate Russian ICBM forces? Also the force intended for Poland isn't "militarily useless" for it's intended mission - detering an ICBM strike from Iran. Why does it seem so difficult for some people to grasp this basic concept?
If the U.S. wanted to intercept a rudimenatary ICBM from Iran and not a Russian missile, it doesn't have to place interceptors in far-off Poland. It has the most advanced missile interceptors such as Patriot and Thaad etc. It could easily do with keeping these on its own soil. Obviously in this sense it is paranoid about its own safety at the expense of others.
I would argue that US is tring to achieve the World domination. And the battle is to keep the Europe in an obedient orbit. Hence the search for a new role for NATO and a desire to keep the Europe dependent on US-controlled Midle Eastern oil rather then Russian gas. America feels the danger of loosing its grip in both of its strategic assets - Europe to Russia and Japan / south korea to China.
Trust me ,Americans are scared out of their wits of Muslim extremists.
The U.S. had a long COLD war with the Russians.This experience has produced a respect for the strategic and tactical abilities of Russian thinkers.
European and American strategists are going to fight tooth and nail to help secure themselves against the radical extreme element(not the thinking ,civilized,advanced Russian type).
And it is unfortunate that Russia feel imposed upon in any way.
And how would the US respond if Russia announced that in conjunction with Castro, it was going to build a LIMITED amount of interceptors in Cuba. As some have argued that a mere 10 interceptors would have NO reduction in Russia's ability to easily saturate such a defense, the same could be said of the US's ability to easily overwhelm such a meager defense. Of course it's another matter when it's happening on YOUR borders.
Consider this,
If Chechnya was where Argentina is,and they were developing nuclear technology, terroristically attacking your population,
and the Russians wanted to put INTERCEPTORS (not attack missiles)in Cuba,then,knowing the Russian strategic sensibilites,this
would already be done,or be on the table.
And I do believe believe the U.S. would respond very warily and negatively to Russia's plans in this scenario.I am not
under any illusions about this.
Also,as many of you keener types have realized,the U.S is going to have a HUGE goverment change in 2008.Even among his own party,there are none who will act have GWB has.The terms of this whole deal may change.
If the U.S. wanted to intercept a rudimenatary ICBM from Iran and not a Russian missile, it doesn't have to place interceptors in far-off Poland. It has the most advanced missile interceptors such as Patriot and Thaad etc. It could easily do with keeping these on its own soil. Obviously in this sense it is paranoid about its own safety at the expense of others.
[Sharma] [July 14, 2006]
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Poland was chosen purely for it's location (the optimal solution to this problem). As has been in the press, Lithuania could host this system as well. The idea is to hit the warhead in space, eliminate concerns over fallout and to do this, the system needs to be in Northern Europe. This placement protects both the US and Europe (Russia to an extent). On the other argument, Russia could easily overwhelm 10 interceptors. This was obviously proposed with the idea that 1 or 2 missiles would be launched; not several hundred.
a quick comment from a Polish point of view:
Americas military presence in Poland would be a long term one.
If you can read Polish or Russian check out some of Aleksandr Dugin's writing - Russia will always be an impreial nation and will always be pushing west.
A US army base in Poland would mean Poland is off limits, forever.
Taking into account the fact that Russia has taken part in dimembering Poland 4 times in the last 300 years, the idea that it can never happen again must be disapointing to Russian generals.