Two wrongs rarely make a right, but sometimes they just might. According to the reports from the G8 summit in Germany, Russia proposed using the radar site in Gabala, Azerbaijan to deploy missile defense radars and interceptors that the United States are currently planning to deploy in Eastern Europe. This potentially opens a possibility to turn two wrongs - the U.S. missile defense and the Russian unreasonably loud opposition to it - into something of a right - a concrete joint U.S.-Russian program that would allow the two countries to establish close contacts between their militaries, which eventually is the only way to dispel all kind of suspicions and misunderstandings.
I was hoping for just this kind of an outcome of the current missile defense debate when I wrote about this issue about two months ago and I'm glad to see that Russia and the United States are getting closer to it. We are not there yet, though - although the Missile Defense Agency was thinking about a radar in the Caucasus, I don't think it would be ready to abandon it's Eastern European plans. But it's a reasonably good start.
Now, the site is question, Gabala (here it is on Google Maps), is the host of a Daryal early-warning radar, which is still nominally part of the Russian early-warning network. As I understand it, Russia is leasing the site from Azerbaijan, paying about $7.5 million a year. The current lease agreement was signed in 2002 and will expire in 2012.
But technical details are not really important today - it is unlikely that anything useful would come out of missile defense anyway. My hope is that the Russian proposal would remove the missile defense controversy from the political spotlight, helping the whole missile defense program die a natural death.
The book
Comments
Thinking that US pulled from ABM treaty and invested billions of dollars - all for something that is to "die a natural death" just a few years later, is very naive. ABM bases will be built, and they will be built in Europe. If they wanted to cover Iran, they would place the radar in Turkey, not Chezh Republic. As for Russia's Gabala offer, all it will do is make Russia look a little better and the US a little worse, but that's that.
Pavel:
This proposal is most interesting and has vast reaching political implications. Russia has given approval, with the implied permission of the Baku government, for the establishment of US military bases in Azerbaijan to host a missile defense system. I think what we will learn is the GBI system envisioned for Central Europe will not work in the proposed Azerbaijani facility because of launch restrictions; the Iranian missile would be long past such a location before the ground based interceptor (GBI) could achieve ballistic orbit to intercept. Perhaps this is only a clever gambit by President Putin to provide “the solution” that the United States must refuse to the consternation of Europe. However, the installation of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system may well serve the same intended purpose for the US from a base in Azerbaijan. Of course, the US will need basing rights from Baku, military airfields to support such an endeavor and ground security forces to guard such radar and missile complexes. I’d swap fictional bases in Poland and the Czech Republic for this “solution” everyday. It will be interesting to see how serious Russia and the US become about this proposal.
Frank Shuler
USA
Where did you see interceptor missiles mentioned in the proposal, Frank? I can see it talking about radar only. It's the radar that can scan half Russia that worries Putin, not a dozen of missiles.
Dnm:
This may be a collusion I reached in error but the “operational” Alaskan system needs an X-Band radar system to not only detect the approach but cue the actual interceptor “intercept”. So, a sea-based radar system was built to accommodate the Ft. Greely missile site. The fall back site in California at Vanderburgh Air Force Base has its own X-band Radar not dependent on the Ft. Greely site.
I’m not sure how far the actual missile site needs to be from the cueing radar site but there seems to be an operational link. I admit my conclusion was made on an assumption and would appreciate any farther information to clarify this.
Frank Shuler
USA
Actually, Russia is less worried about those radars than about the missiles, I would say. These are not early warning radars but engagement radars, and if the system truly has no capability to attack Russian missiles then they have nothing to worry about. It's not like the US hasn't already got Russia (and the rest of the world) thoroughly covered by orbital and ground based early warning assets, so in terms of early warning those Eastern European sites would add nothing that isn't there anyway.
To be honest, I don't think they are very worried about a handfull of missiles either, but about the way America approached this issue, and rightfully so I say! What on earth was the Bush administration thinking when they bypassed Russia (and the EU, but that's a different point) and started talks with Poland and the Czech Republic? Did they seriously believe Russia would stay silent? This is as much a matter of principle and not letting the US set a precedent in absence of a treaty on ABM systems as it is about the technicalities of the plans.
I find this new proposal very promising, because with Russian control over the radar segment there should no longer be any concerns over the deployment of missiles (where ever that may eventually happen, Gabala itself is certainly far from ideal) from their side. Infact, wasn't something like this proposed shortly before the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, in an attempt to replace it by what amounted to a new agreement rather than completely abandoning any regulating treaty on ABM?
This proposal is how it should have been done from the start, and it should have come from the American side as a gesture of mutual trust. Nevermind that I agree with Pavel's assessment that this idea should ideally fade away into oblivion.
Dear Frank - regarding your opinion:
> ...I think what we will learn is the GBI system envisioned for Central Europe will not work in the proposed Azerbaijani facility because of launch restrictions; the Iranian missile would be long past such a location before the ground based interceptor (GBI) could achieve ballistic orbit to intercept...
- I read the Putin's proposal in native language, so I noticed that there was just a words 'radar installations', to be proposed for placing in Azerbaijan...
- Just a radar installations in Azerbaijan, not GBIs, - it's important!
- Please note, that there was no a word said about: where interceptors Putin propose to install... ;-)
Never in a million years will that radar go there. WAY too vulnerable to political upheaval.
Just saw this little tidbit:
"Hadley told reporters later that Putin appeared to be talking about the use of radar data from a Soviet-era system. The data would be made available in "real time," meaning as it occurred, to the West to help defend against the threat of an Iranian attack."
So make that even less likely than my post above.
Scott Ferrin:
Russian:
It’s now reported that the Russian proposal is only for “radar cooperation” using Russian supplied data from the existing Azerbaijan facility. President Putin also suggested that if the United States in the future needed interceptors to confront a potential enemy, such need could be met by Aegis ships. So this is really just a gambit and not a serious offer. Quite the diplomatic coup nevertheless. Now the burden will fall on the Americans to refuse.
Frank Shuler
USA
As this plays some ... think about it ... the exitsing Azerbaijan facility may be a first part of a complete system (a triad shall we say) ... over the next decade (think of the $$$ US, Russian and European MICs are already thinking about) and to upgrade an exiting Russian facility (a coup for NATO perhaps) ... that begins with them (Russians-NATO) for early launch detection, tracking by the Russians west and perhaps even the first wave of interceptors in European Russia, the Czech site and then our bases in England for backup on an Iranian launch - Poland is a bad choice as a political EU `meat issue.' Now vs. directly on Israel ... Aegis and interceptors (perhaps even S400s or S500s) in Jordan are not out of the question for sure. This could be marketed as a regional security blanket - I still maintain that the Russians would not allow an Iranian launch to go unchallenged ... be it 5, 10 or 15 years in the future (no matter what the `tight politico' sit is. It's defnot in their geo-political or massively expanding economic interest to allow any Mideast Power to lob ICBMs westward. Thoughts ???
> President Putin also suggested that if the United States in the future needed interceptors to confront a potential enemy, such need could be met by Aegis ships.
- Yes, today the new part of information became public available: 'Putin has specified absence of necessity to solve this problem 'right now' as Teheran yet does not ballistic missiles of enough range. As one of possible variants of actions, the Russian leader has proposed to Washington to use the cruisers equipped with Aegis system' /ITAR-TASS agency/.
- So why Aegis 6.1 and SM-3s are so bad? :-)
"Actually, Russia is less worried about those radars than about the missiles, I would say. These are not early warning radars but engagement radars, and if the system truly has no capability to attack Russian missiles then they have nothing to worry about."
Radar data can be fed to something other than polish GBIs - like sea- or space-based interceptor platform(s). I also wonder if it'd be able to track Topol mobile launchers. When you can track and attack ground targets with an anti-aircraft missile complex like S-200, this doesn't see too unrealistic.
Russian:
I think you may have hit on the perfect solution. I propose a series of arsenal ships, say maybe eight, equipped with Aegis technology and armed with hundreds of SM-3 interceptors. These ships could be based with the new sea-mobile X-Band radar systems and placed in international waters to prevent an Iranian ballistic missile strike. I would base these ships in the Arctic Ocean on a line from, say; Murmansk to Provideniya all cued from the joint Russian-American radar site in Gabala, Azerbaijan and American space assets. I think this would achieve the vision of President Putin and also satisfy the defense needs of the United States.
(smile)
Frank Shuler
USA
It is very stupid Putin's offer!
US will deploy NMD bases in Eastern Europe regardless of Russian objections and additionally Americans can mistake Putin's proposal as a Russian tacit approval to build new NMD base in South Caucasus! ROTFL!
Instead of empty twaddling about "very dangerous to Russia anti-missile systems in Europe" Russia should act by building and deploying its own new IRBMs.
Not words but deeds...
Actually this seems like a Putin PR move. First, it is clear that the Iranian ICBM are just as real as the Galactica battlestarship. Second, lets assume that the Iranian ICBM are real (:-)). Then we have 2 scenarios:
1- If the ABM site is built in Azerbaijan, it will need not only the Gabala LPAR but also an illuminator radar and boost-phase interceptors. Something like the KEI or even faster. And this can be left whiteout a chance if the missile is launched from a deeply mainland located site.
2- If the ABM site is built in Poland, this is a suboptimal location. The warheads will be near the apogee (around 800 km altitude) and the interceptors should be directed to some point more or less in the Hungarian airspace to collide with the warheads. A bad geometry. It will be better to place them somewhere in the Balkans to catch the threat in the ascent phase after the boost or somewhere in the Atlantic to catch warheads diving to N.York.
Conclusion: Two bad solutions to a non-existent problem. The problem is again… politic.
This still has some legs, Pavel's early assess on the Azerbaijan site is an optimal one, studied earlier and pre-existing, Russia may be already on the market to build a massive line of interceptors (think of the economics ... Boeing, Raytheon, Roland, Almaz TsKB, MKB Fakel and perhaps a more modern version of the A-135 anti-ballistic missile system which completed development in 1989, 1995 operational for use production for Moscow blanket - was it not? This system is supposedly capable of intercepting any incoming rocket of whatever nature at altitudes of 5 to 30 km, using nuclear warheads for the kill. Also trials supposedly demonstrated substantial reserves in all parameters compared to the specification with 2.5x greater range and triple the velocity capability required. The A-135 in principle could also destroy low earth orbit satellites ... a two-tier Russian (could be international) anti-ballistic missile system with both endoatmospheric and exoatmospheric interceptor missiles. Thoughts ???
Ozzy:
When Russia joins NATO, many things will be possible.
Frank Shuler
USA
The A-135 system is in a scrapping process. Large exo-atmospheric 51T6 have been retired. Fast 51T6 supposedly have been refitted with conventional warheads and a new “soft”, but its ABM capabilities are doubtful in its current configuration. The Don-2NP radar remain active but mostly fulfilling early-warning tasks. It was claimed that have an unsurpassed discrimination and tracking power. This is the most important part of the system and probably the only one that is properly maintained. Supposedly, in the long term, 51T6 will be replaced by more modern, cheaper and manoeuvrable missiles, coming from the (now in design stage) S-500 system
> I would base these ships in the Arctic Ocean on a line from, say; Murmansk to Provideniya...
- No, the better place for NMD / EuroABM ships, - in the international waters near 'friendly' to US (and 'pacified' by US), - Iraq...
:-)
Frank ... the cogs of progress - but I do think if Russia gets an incentive on this deal via hi-tech crossover and economics than a Russia-NATO convergence in the military sense is just around the corner. BUT and a big BUT ... the US must move from its natural position of unilateral action ... getting all or nothing from NATO, whining, etc. or the Russians will work in the system like the French and out when they so choose. In ... would make Europe feel much more at ease. Please keep talking - a lot may come from such dialogue !!!
Re: SM-3 and ICBMs: it has NO capability there. SM-3s would be worthless against an ICBM attack by Iran. The Block II? Maybe some there as it can apparently carry a bigger KKV for more divert capacity. No, if you wanted to go that route the way would be with a sea-based version of KEI.
Russian:
Touché. (smile)
Frank Shuler
USA
Ozzy:
There are a lot of political dynamics playing here. The expansion of NATO is not exactly an American ploy to extend its influence across Europe as it is a European attempt to minimize America’s influence in Europe by increasing the numbers. The Alliance today is so unwieldy and cumbersome that few decisions can be made in a timely manner; if at all. I do expect overtures to be made to Russia in the future by NATO, led by the French and Germans. Just makes sense from the European perspective.
Frank Shuler
USA
Scott Ferrin:
In my earlier post, I jested on the installation of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on a US base in Azerbaijan to confront any Iranian missile ambitions. Would this system installed in Azerbaijan have any real capabilities in intercepting missile launches from Iran? ICBM or IRBMs?
Frank Shuler
USA
The NATO assess is exactly what I am thinking - economics will sow the seed ... somehow MNCs will need to make money evenly (and a lot of it) ... from DC to London, from Brussels to Paris, from Berlin to Moscow for this to work. Why does Bush have himself so far up the Polish site - its way worse than this scenario, I mean Czech Radar is one thing BUT ??? Thoughts ???
Ozzy:
I think the US is trying to defend itself from one adversary it thinks may well be a threat in the next 15 years or so. Perhaps, the Polish-Czech Republic site for this system is actually optimum for this endeavor. Or perhaps, this is all politics. The United States is trying to regain influence in NATO (read Europe) by providing something no other can. I continue to believe building BMD systems is preferable to simply building more nuclear weapons to hold adversaries at risk. I think President Putin has placed his “Azerbaijan Initiative” on the table to stall the process. Russia looks forward to the change in American presidents (our 2008 Presidential Elections) in hopes it changes American policies. Make no mistake; the building of a GBI system today to “protect” the US from nuclear missile attack is only the beginning of a very long-range and broad based approach. In the future, such a national defense system will be space based. That is where all this is ultimately going. In any event, will ballistic missile defense actually work? I honestly hope we never find out.
Frank Shuler
USA
GBIs and IRBMs will be built massively by both sides if failure to coincide policy takes place - no matter what, economics will be decisive and an opportunity to work with Russia openly will be lost, if Pavel suggests ... as you are suggesting now ... then this is all a `ruse' then talk is cheap ... and actions will speak louder than words - 2008 will be a decisive year in Strategic Policy (East and West)!
Frank:
As I understand it THAAD in Europe would be able to hit just about anything Iran might throw at it as it is suppose to be effective against up to 5500km-range missiles. The problem is it's range isn't anything like GBI so you'd need significantly more of them to cover the continent. The problem with using THAAD or SM-3 against an ICBM headed for the US is that by the time the ICBM is in range it is too high up. THAAD has a max altitude (well published anyway) of around 70 miles and SM-3 around 100 miles. Now the Block II, full-caliber version of SM-3 might be another story. It's planned to be able to use either of two KKVs, the current, light-weight one for higher speed, or a heavier KKV with more divert capability. I don't know when you'd want to use one over the other as as I understood it you need more divert capability against the faster targets. If you want an excellent read on the whole Boost-Phase scenario try here:
http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/boost_phase.pdf
(It's that 500-page report on boost phase defense put out a couple years ago.)
Putin is calling Bush's bluff. If the ABM system is dependent on Russian-run radar, then there is no chance the interceptors, no matter how great the number, could be used against Russian ICBM's without it being allowed by Russia. If the U.S. refuses, it proves that the ABM interceptors are indeed meant to be used against Russia to upset the strategic balance in favor of the U.S. Since the threat of a ballistic missile attack on Europe from Iran is so rediculously absurd, Bush will refuse the offer, and if he goes ahead with the system, will prove Putin right.
Jon Grams:
Actually after an intense inspection of the facility at Gabala, a thorough review of the Russian radar hardware technology, painstaking study of the supporting Russian computer systems designed to handle data and Russian communication systems to ensure this data reaches US Strategic Command in a timely manner, President Bush will announce to the world the Russian “system” is hopelessly antiquated and literally unusable in the modern American GBI system. Of course, the Czech-Poland effort will continue in parallel in the event such a conclusion is reached. In the end, the “shield” will be built somewhere; there is just too much politics evolved.
Frank Shuler
USA
Dear Mr. Podvig,
I hold your opinions in high regard, but this posting borders on the simply ridiculous. Russia's opposition to ABM systems is clearly exclusively sourced in concerns about its waning geopolitical power. The Gabala offer is purely a PR ploy meant to split the EU away from the US on this issue by enabling Russia to claim that it is cooperating.
What the world, rather than an imperialist Russia, needs is a working ABM system which can defend Europe against a limited IRBM attack from Iran. Mid-course interceptors for such a system are clearly best sited in central Europe.
How do you propose to defend Europe from Iranian ballistic missiles in the absence of an ABM system?
Yours sincerely,
Karl Schenzig
Karl Schenzig:
You are probably right about the Gabala offer being a PR ploy, but what is ridiculous here is the notion that missile defense would protect anyone from Iranian or any other missile threat. Besides, the system that the United States wants to deploy in Poland and Czech Republic was never intended to defend Europe.
Mr. Podvig,
Regarding "what is ridiculous here is the notion that missile defense would protect anyone from Iranian or any other missile threat."
Clearly missile defense DOES work as numerous tests have shown. Is it 100% effective? Of course not. Does that make it less effective than NO defense? I've never been able to wrap my brain around the notion that an 80% solution is worse than no solution when it comes to missile defense. The US ABM system is not designed with Russia or even China in mind. They both have so many warheads that even if every ABM hit it's target enough would get through as to make no practical difference and everybody knows that. Also they both have reasonably rational governments so MAD works with them. The desire for a US missile defense system is to deal with those cases where MAD does not work. As has been shown time after time destruction is seldom a deterrent to a suicide bomber. I think also in the back of their (the US) mind is the idea that radical Islam could come into a position of power in the Middle East and have access to nuclear weapons. Granted an ABM will not stop a nuke in a shipping container but why give someone a free shot with a missile by NOT deploying an ABM system?
I think Frank is right ... look at the CIS economic forum in St. Pete. - Putin is already calling for an alternate organization to the WTO ... all because of `little Georgia's' bad manners (a country run by oligarchs and the Georgian mob). It's all politics ... too bad, I think if militant Islam or the Jihadis and sponsoring governments had found the US/Russia in joint ops against them worldwide ... then they would have had to come to the bargaining table with the major powers a lot quicker - including Iran. I think Mr. Bush will deliver a death blow to `trust w/Russia' with a Czech/Poland system and play directly into the hands of the `Russophobes' or shall we say the old `Sovietphobes' of Eastern Europe, the Baltics and Georgia ... also shaping the politics ... setting the course of EU policy towards Russia - what a waste of time! I think Russia will now pursue a separate course - with China, India, CSTO, SCO and the CIS. This time everyone is Capitalist ... East vs. West, all over again - like I said talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words ... Mr. Bush’s allies and advisers like Mr. Cheney are true enemies to `US-Russia’ convergence unless we dictate the terms! This is a sad comment - but true!
Scott Ferrin:
A short answer is that when it comes to the kind of threats this missile defense is supposed to counter - from, say, Iran or North Korea - then an "80% solution" is as useless as a zero percent one. (And that's assuming that it is in fact an 80% solution.)
Ozzy, I will be no pesimistic about an economic East-West clash. Nobody will win. Clearly the West is much bigger than Russia in economic terms. But if wants to put economic pressure on Russia it will be self-damaged. This risk must be computed in their geopolitical ganes. The world has noticed about the fading western economical clout (i.e. see the behavior of the South American Nations) and its fragil position in the “energy front”, where Russia have the upper hand.
So is the the best interest of the West to contain the “Russophobes” and engage in a constructive dialog. I Think Russia will be ready to both cooperation and confrontation. Lets NATO decide.
Pavel Podvig:
If Iran or NK launched a missile or two and the ABM system knocked them out I'm not sure I'd agree that saving Washington D.C. or L.A. versus them getting nuked would be considered useless. There's no reason several ABMs couldn't be launched at each incoming missile to increase the percentages. Also, how is having the ability there equally as ineffective as NOT having the ability? With all due respect it's almost like saying "what's the point of seatbelts and airbags in cars as they are useless". People still die in car accidents so they're not 100% effective and yet they are still FAR more effective than having nothing. Moreover consider the following: if Iran or NK launched a missile at the US and it was shot down what do you think the response would be? Now consider what the response would be if a nuke went off in Washington or L.A. ABM defense gives you options in that killing that missile before it lands is going to reduce the likelihood of things escelating drastically. I think that is something that many fail to realize.
Scott Ferrin:
It's an old debate. In brief, if is wrong to pretend that missile defense gives you any additional options in dealing with an attack against population. The only real option is to make sure that this kind of attack never happens. Missile defense just makes the latter task more difficult.
What's that ... to the Board ... et al ... `I hold your opinions in high regard, but this posting borders on the simply ridiculous.' `Russia's opposition to ABM systems is clearly exclusively sourced in concerns about its waning geopolitical power.' ... What type of ridiculous notion is that ... this talk is why there will be NO accommodation AND NO agreement (East joining West) vice-versa. Pavel's great original dossier on the Azerbaijan possibility was `right down the middle and totally accurate.' The ridiculous notion that NK and Iran will have ICBM sneak attack vs. the Continental US or its allies w/o Russian or Chinese power to potentially knock down those birds before they hit something of value `like Tokyo or Tel Aviv' is an insurance policy I would want to keep as this chatter moves forward - I would rethink Georgia's and Poland's opposition to Russian entry into the WTO and the new Russia-EU Accord. Eastern Europe and the Baltics = about 1/10 combined of the EU's total GDP. Their voice should be tiny at best! Kolokol ... I think you are on the money also - let's wait and see ???
Pavel:
I agree with Scott Ferrin’s comments. I like his analogy of air bags and seatbelts in the context of this discussion. And, I agree that an 80% solution is better than none in this situation. I am puzzled by your contention that BMD makes the task of “preventing” nuclear war more difficult. The Soviet Union, and now of course Russia, has had an operational ABM system protecting Moscow for years. I doubt such a system has ever influenced Pentagon war planners in the least. I won’t argue the effectiveness of the Russian A-135 system nor would I either argue of the effectiveness of the US Minuteman III ICBM, two military weapons never used in combat. Both are an unknown. What I do believe is without the “promise” of ballistic missile defense in the future, we will need many more nuclear weapons to maintain our deterrence. The United States will need weapons to face Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda just to mention the perceived current players. Will BMD work? Work as in protect an entire country? Prevent loss in the event of a nuclear exchange? Nope. It’s just one weapon system among many that will be a tool in American’s national defense. Is it worth the investment? Or, do we just need to have Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory crank up production of the new Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) and build 10,000 or so?
Frank Shuler
USA
> The Soviet Union, and now of course Russia, has had an operational ABM system protecting Moscow for years.
- Correction: Soviet Union, and now of course Russia, has had an ABM system, installed on Russian territory.
- In other words, - if US wants to deploy NMD system without any confrontation and possible threat to Russia, - why they not follow the above (Russian) example?
- Really, placing US NMD units & facilities inside US borders (or at least in the international waters) could be really less confrontational, that the decision to place NMD units on another continent, I mean Europe.
Russian:
The US Missile Defense System (USMDS) is no threat to Russia unless the Kremlin launches an ICBM strike on America. In that event, I sincerely hope the USMDS is extremely “confrontational”.
Frank Shuler
USA
> The US Missile Defense System (USMDS) is no threat to Russia unless the Kremlin launches an ICBM strike on America.
- It's not possible. Soviet Union, even in the times of high 'ideological' confrontation with US, does not made it... So why Russia should?
I think if we are all moving towards all out ABM ... then as economic global powers ... the US, Russia and China better come to some understanding shortly that is not `confrontational' or overtly nationalistic ... tone down the rhetoric and make sure no nuke rogue state or entity lofts anything at anyone. That my friends is called détente and an ABM verification protocol – just like we have now on US, Russia nuke platforms and systems. We did it before and we can make it happen again!
> That my friends is called détente and an ABM verification protocol – just like we have now on US, Russia nuke platforms and systems.
- Such a new treaty between US, Russia and (possibly) EU and China, - a new treaty about NMD boundary conditions, - should be really welcomed.
I think a US strike on Russia is, albeit low likely, more likely than a Iranian ICBM strike on US. Compare hardware available to both scenarios.
Anyway, it seems that nobody will ear the other side. So Russia-China will have to live with a much bigger nuclear arsenal targeting them and encircled by a western ABM mechanism. Consequently all NATO countries will have to live targeted by mobile Russian ICBM/IRBM and CM. That’s where the things are going on.
On the other side, SRF seems to be confident enough to minimize the shield potential to almost a zero level. So in the end, if the west want to spend lots of dollars on it, well, lets them. Russia must assure her own economic grow and develop enough influence in the energy sphere to be able collaborate in a constructive atmosphere but to also manage prices just in case the west turn “economically aggressive”. It is better to made the west feel the risk of their own behaviour to moderate them.
Russian:
I completely agree. There simply is no issue that would ever cause Russia and the United States to begin a nuclear war. None. That taken into consideration, the US must shift defenses to 21st century threats; Al Qaeda and rogue nations that do not fear, or perhaps understand, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). That being said however, I suspect Russia will always see any American initiative at her expense.
Frank Shuler
USA
> 'rogue nations'...
- I do not recognize such a term. There are no 'rogue nations' - there's just a few countries that are really 'assigned', by US elite, as 'hostile to American Empire', states...
- Frank, please ask yourself: why only US prefer to confront with these, so called, 'rogue nations'?
- Why all other world prefer to have a political negotiations with these 'rogue states'?
- May be the simplest answer is: the military control on these, so called, 'rogue nations / states', - are important for American Empire, as these 'rogue' states, are:
a) rich by natural resources (Iran, Iraq);
b) have a good geopolitical 'place on the globe' - accidentally, :-) just along the Russian borders (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea)?
Just another look at the question... :-)
Russian:
Fair enough; no more "rogue nations". In the future I will refer to political organizations such as Al Qaeda and countries that are hostile to the American Empire as present &/or future advisories. (P&ORFA) And why are these P&ORFA always just along the Russian border and always armed with Russian weapons? And, what make you think these P&ORFA have a good geopolitical “place on the globe”? Personally, I would take the French Mediterranean given a choice. (smile)
Frank Shuler
USA
Russian, Kolokol ... my mistake - `I used rogue not in Mr. Bush's sense' but in a unilateral sense ... Russia, the US and China will need to work together in some sense - just as `the Kremlin-DC hotline' exists now. There should be a tacit understanding that no nuke lofted by third parties can `damage' the territorial integrity of any nation ... including Russia, China and the US. The word détente is used in the sense of that understanding - I am not a fan of such terms, just using what is out there and I am suggesting it as a forward mechanism if we insist on having `mini-ABM' systems popping up everywhere, all hypothetical! Пожалуйста помилование любое оскорбляет мой друга, я только хочу самое лучшее для России и мира ... наша страна не поступает рационально и американцы знают то!
> And why are these P&ORFA always just along the Russian border...
- Just because they are our neighbours. :-);
> ... and always armed with Russian weapons?
- These countries has a sovereign right to have a small quantities of defensive weapons;
- Russia only sold the weapons, strictly in the consent with international treaties.
Russian:
Sell a nation a SCUD today, they build ICBMs tomorrow. Seems like a reoccurring pattern. Perhaps that is a lesson we all need to learn.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Sell a nation a SCUD today, they build ICBMs tomorrow.
- They build ICBMs anyway, if they want... Even if you don't sell them anything.
- This is a technical progress, my friend... Too much information is in the 'free access'...
Russian:
Perhaps, my friend. But taking a quick inventory of American P&ORFAs, it always seems to start with a SCUD.
Frank Shuler
USA
Gentlemen, calm down. Frank and Russian, both have very valuable opinions. I suggest to avoid tit-for-tat exchanges. At least in this blog we should keep a constructive atmosphere.
By Frank Shuler
- I completely agree. There simply is no issue that would ever cause Russia and the United States to begin a nuclear war. None. That taken into consideration, the US must shift defenses to 21st century threats; Al Qaeda and rogue nations that do not fear, or perhaps understand, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). That being said however, I suspect Russia will always see any American initiative at her expense.
- Frank, is allways good to read your analysis as you try to put realism on the situation been treated.
But again i have to disagree :) (smiley)
-- I think "rogue" nations can understand and fear (MAD), but the case is that these nations, NK and Iran, are not
in a position of MAD with USA or USA/NATO or USA/Israel.
One can say that Pakistan has a MAD situation with India and, in my personal view, in fact Pakistan don´t fear a MAD confrontation)
But when North Korea developed one warhead for deterrence, USA had thousands of nuclear weapons.
USA had military bases in South Korea, so that NK fear of USA using nuclear weapons against them is real.
NK can´t destroy USA, NK can´t even threat to use nuclear weapons against USA.
Why not??? Because NK can´t win a war, they start, by, first launching a surprise nuclear attack on USA, without been devastated so that
there is no win situation for NK against USA.
North Korea nuclear weapons serves only as a deterrent against a USA invasion/bombardment (very weak deterrent if you look at USA power) and as
bargaining tool to make a better deal with USA.
The same applys to Iran, Iran can´t get in a MAD situation with USA because
- Iran don´t have nukes,
- Iran don´t have missiles,
- A first strike by Iran, with a missile or not, will not destroy USA but will destroy Iran totally.
- Even if, one day, Iran get a nuclear weapon, and if, one day, they have an ICBM, it will not have the ability to use this nuclear weapon because
Iran will not gain any war at all, since it will be destroyed by retaliation.
So that the same for Iran applys, the only possible reason for Iran havin a nuclear weapon is as a deterrent against a USA attack.
And even that possibility, that is Iran making a nuclear weapon as a deterrent will not work because USA has the power to attack Iran
with or without Iran having nuclear weapons and destroy all Iran missiles or bases before they are launched or after they are launched (Aegis ships).
And, if USA knows that Iran has a nuclear weapon and USA will intend to attack Iran, by any reason of war, USA can and have plans to use nuclear
weapons against Iran so that Iran will have no chance of using its imaginary nukes against USA, once its own bases are destroyed with nukes.
If you are talking of terrorists with black market nuclear weapons, that risk already exist with Pakistan Nuclear weapons and Russia nuclear weapons.
Anyway, no missile deffence will protect USA or Europe from a terrorist with a backpack tactical nuclear warhead, no matter if
these missile defences are in Poland or Azerbaidjan or in Aegis Cruisers.
So the logical conclusion of the threats against whon the USA missile deffence are intended are In Fact, Russia and China.
Yes people have proofs that NMD against Russia will not work and will maybe, maybe not worlk against China.
But as people also stated, don´t matter if the system works 80% or 90 %, it matters that system puts military and political pressure on the possibly
adversaries and thats power pressures, over the possible adversaries, empower USA power over the world.
And that empowerment over the world is just the target of that system at all.
Finally isn´t true, in my view, that MAD worked with USA and Soviet Union.
When USSR have few ICBMs USA generals had some real plans to attack Soviet Union, as the B-52 armed bombers flyed over USSR borders ready to attack it.
When USSR have missiles to have MAD over Europe but don´t over USA, USA was not so affraid of attacking USSR with nuclear weapons.
In the Crisis of Cuba, USA would had taked a chance of being nuked in some cities if that will stop USSR from have nuclear weapon on Cuba territory.
USA had, in the cold war, plans to create the Strategic Defence Initiative (earlier NMD). Of course one can say it was a ploy to bankrupt USSR but, anyway, it was a plan
to overcome the MAD and that could also had started a war by miscalculation if the cold war had keep going on.
> But taking a quick inventory of American P&ORFAs, it always seems to start with a SCUD.
- Or, more precisily, - may be with 'V-2' technology:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
- Here the good example of the guide 'How to build a SCUD':
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Rocket_engine_A4_V2.jpg
:-)
> Gentlemen, calm down.
- Kolokol, Ozzy, - I think we are calm. I really appreciate Frank's opinion, and we are just in exchange our points of view.
Kolokol:
No worries my friend. “Russian” and I have developed respect and each of us value the opinion of the other. Actually, our little tit-for-tat is very insightful as to the topic. The United States respects Russia and values her achievements. The United States admires and respects Russian military prowess. The United States does not fear Russia. Russia is not an enemy. At times, Russia may be an ally. But, Russia will never exactly be a friend. The US and Russia will always have an adversarial relationship. A joint U.S.-Russian missile defense site in Azerbaijan? Never will happen.
Just my opinion.
Frank Shuler
USA
> North Korea nuclear weapons serves only as a deterrent against a USA invasion / bombardment (very weak deterrent if you look at USA power) and as bargaining tool to make a better deal with USA.
- Really, that's my point of view, too.
Очень хорошие камрады, препятствовали нам всем понимать. Диалог важн! And with that good night from New York, and I hope the Boeing/Aeroflot/Sukhoi deal happens and is good for both companies !!!
> President Bush will announce to the world the Russian “system” is hopelessly antiquated and literally unusable in the modern American GBI system.
- President Putin also officially declared that, citation: 'If needed, the Gabala radar station could be totally re-equipped, according to the wishes of American side'.
> I hope the Boeing/Aeroflot/Sukhoi deal happens and is good for both companies !!!
- You mean the Sukhoi RRJ project?
Can anyone tell me, how probable is that radar in Chezh republic will be able to track Topol mobile launchers?
Russian:
Boeing will deliver 22 of the new 787 Dreamliner commercial jets by 2014 to Aeroflot in multi-billion dollar deal with Sukhoi Group set to receive some off-set production work from Boeing. Order secured by the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Preliminary agreement signed June 9th.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Boeing will deliver 22 of the new 787 Dreamliner commercial jets by 2014 to Aeroflot in multi-billion dollar deal with Sukhoi Group set to receive some off-set production work from Boeing. Order secured by the U.S. Export-Import Bank.
... and also there's some cooperation between Boeing and Sukhoi, within the frameworks of Sukhoi Russian Regional Jet (RRJ) program.
> Can anyone tell me, how probable is that radar in Chezh republic will be able to track Topol mobile launchers?
- It'll be able to track launches from virtually all Russian ICBM sites, as well as from one of two bases of Russian SSBNs; please see the picture:
v.foto.radikal.ru/0706/31/71c9505e36d1.jpg
(please copy-paste the link to the 'address line' of your browser, starting with 'v.foto...' characters; it seems that Pavel blog's filter don't like direct links starting with 'h-t-t-p' prefix...)
People who drew the cartoon forgot about the curvature of the Earth. But who cares in this debate?
Links should work without problems. In fact, if a link starts with http it should be automatically recognized.
> Links should work without problems. In fact, if a link starts with http it should be automatically recognized.
- Yes, the direct link is appeared now at:
v.foto.radikal.ru/0706/31/71c9505e36d1.jpg
...but, when I press this link, I get the message:
404 - The page is not found
...so 'Copy-Paste' is more reliable... ;-)
Russian:
Actually, the Aeroflot agreement with Boeing involving Sukhoi is for 787 parts and support equipment for Aeroflot. The Regional Jet program between Boeing and Sukhoi is covered by another “agreement”.
Frank Shuler
USA
Is there any remote technical possibility to use interceptors based in the North Caucasus, let alone Azerbaijan to deal with intermediate range Iranian missiles?
> Is there any remote technical possibility to use interceptors based in the North Caucasus, let alone Azerbaijan to deal with intermediate range Iranian missiles?
- And not only remote... :-) Modern interceptors, has significant more chances to intercept SRBM or IRBM, than to intercept ICBM.
Maybe Russia and the US could even agree on protecting the base with s-300PMU air defense system against IRBM or SRBM, and the THAAD or larger interceptor missles against the imaginary ICBM'c.
But then, where would it be stationed, the interceptors...
> But then, where would it be stationed, the interceptors...
- Putin proposed Turkey.
"> But then, where would it be stationed, the interceptors...
- Putin proposed Turkey."
Sounds like Putin needs to get educated in the concepts of geography and shot geometry. The US didn't just pull a name out of a hat when they decided on Poland.
> Sounds like Putin needs to get educated in the concepts of geography and shot geometry.
- I do think that Putin, as a president, has an access to all the necessary information.
- And I do believe, - he has enough information for 'not to say a nonsense'... ;-)
Opinions on possible NMD countermeasures for Russian Territory, Belarus, etc. ... could not the Russian military use advanced techniqies as the Soviet Union was trying to do ... to jam any sweep by enemy radar (Czech System). Is not one common modern jamming system(semi-sophisticated enough) ... to use electronic systems that analyze enemy radar, then send out false radar echoes that mask the actual target echoes or deceive the radar about a target’s location. Could Russia not deploy a system that defends its territorial integrity or threaten to deploy such a system vs. Bush's proposed system for Europe.
"Could Russia not deploy a system that defends its territorial integrity or threaten to deploy such a system vs. Bush's proposed system for Europe."
To what end? To hear people talk it sounds like advocating that Russia prevent the US from defending itself. Would you jam the missile defense radars so they wouldn't be able to defeat an Iranian attack? Would you attack the ABM site preemtively without provocation? There is a lot of talk about "we will defeat your ABM site" but for what? Okay so you're going to demolish 10 ABMs and then what? Get nuked back to the stone age by starting WWIII? Supposedly Russia also has the means to detect missile launches around the world. Are you saying that if Russia saw a missile rising from Iran on a trajectory towards the US they should prevent the US from shooting it down? Let's hear some thought behind the saber-rattling rhetoric.
> Are you saying that if Russia saw a missile rising from Iran on a trajectory towards the US they should prevent the US from shooting it down?
- I think if Russia saw a missile rising from Iran on a trajectory towards the US, the radar jamming must be switched off, as soon as possible. :-)
- As to Russian objections to US 'EuroABM' program, - I think that this:
v.foto.radikal.ru/0706/31/71c9505e36d1.jpg
and this:
russianforces.org/blog/2007/04/irresponsible_rhetoric.shtml#comment-71150
explains the situation very good.
"- I think if Russia saw a missile rising from Iran on a trajectory towards the US, the radar jamming must be switched off, as soon as possible. :-)"
So jamming a defensive radar located in another country as a matter of course is legitimate behavior in your book is it? I'd assume you'd also feel that if the US were to jam air defense radars located in Russia it would be equally justified?
> I'd assume you'd also feel that if the US were to jam air defense radars located in Russia it would be equally justified?
Dear Scott:
- The previous phrase about 'radar jamming' was just a joke - please see the [smile] attached.
- Anyway, radar jamming is ineffective and rather expensive tech, so this is just a theoretical discussion...
" Silo-based missile with 19.5 tonns start weight;
- Max range 5000 km;
- 8.3 km per second max speed (Trident II has 6.6 km per second max speed);
- Payload at least 64 kilograms (now EKV - Exoatmospheric Kinetic Kill Vehicle as a payload; tomorrow, it could be a nuked 'Kill Vehicle').
- Now, replace the 64-kg EKV to the 100-kt range nuclear warhead, and reprogram the missile behaviour... And you'll get a modern IRBM!
- Again, it seems, that the behaviour of GBI could be easily reprogrammed; as it is verymanouvreavle, it can be programmed to hit the targets 'in the sky', as well as it could be programmed to hit the targets 'on the ground', - i.e., it can be used as IRBM."
Actually I think even Hollywood would have trouble coming up with a more fancifull yarn ;-) No offense, but it's clear you don't really have a grasp of what you're talking about. You can't just "reprogram" a missile and have it do something it was not designed to do. Well not successfully anyway. That'd be like saying I'm going to swap a chip in my Mitsubishi Eclipse and go win the Indy 500 with it. You also mention swapping out the KKV for a nuke and that because it is very manueverable it would be effective. Yet somehow missing the fact that by removing the KKV you remove the only particularly manueverable part of the entire missile. The real nail in the coffin of this whole conspiracy theory though is why would the US spend a LOT of money to deploy 10 missiles UNTESTED in a surface to surface role, have to keep the whole "real" role (wink wink) an air tight secret, and proke all the contention the subject has when all they'd have to do to have something even better is to drop one more D-5 in a missile tube that nobody would know about? Your arguement is pretty much a house of cards built on wild fantasy, a lack of knowledge of the way things work, along with a heavy dose of paranoia.
> Your arguement is pretty much a house of cards built on wild fantasy, a lack of knowledge of the way things work, along with a heavy dose of paranoia.
- No, this is not a 'Hollywood scenario'... :-) And not a 'paranoia'.
- By the way, unfounded accusations in 'paranoia' cannot serve as an arguement... ;-)
> You can't just "reprogram" a missile and have it do something it was not designed to do.
- Easily, my friend... Flying at ballistic trajectory is not a problem for such a sophisticated system, as GBI. I think the hard-predictable quasi-ballistic trajectory, is not a problem for GBI, too... In short: anything thrown to the skies out, will return to the ground in a ballistic way... ;-)
(Just until you'll give to this 'anything' a 'first space speed' of 8 km/s at least, with a proper vector of movement)...
- And even more - the ballistic trajectory is native for GBI...
> That'd be like saying I'm going to swap a chip in my Mitsubishi Eclipse and go win the Indy 500 with it.
- Your analogy isn't suitable. You can't compare seriously the weak 'Eclipse' hardware (engine) with the hardware (engines) of 'Indy 500' speed vehicles.
- But, - do you know, - that the first GBIs was constructed on the base of second and third stages of 'Minuteman' ICBM? So 'in missile engine hardware', GBI is a ballistic missile, and GBI's flight trajectory is at least partially ballistic, even when GBI is trying to hit ICBM (i.e. when it's perform it's native task).
Please don't forget about it.
- Also, I do believe that there's no need 'to swap' any chips (i.e. computer hardware) inside the GBI unit, - there's only need to load a new program of flight to GBI's electric-erasable and reprogrammable memory (EEPROM or flash-memory).
- Do you know that such an antique processor, as third-gen i80386 CPU, is suitable for ICBM navigation? And a few i80386s, working in a small net onboard, are able to navigate the MIRVed ICBM?
- Do you seriously think that up-to-date GBI has a 'chip' hardware with less capabilities that old-fashioned ICBMs of 1980s??? :-D
> ...a lack of knowledge of the way things work
- You better read the 'Report of the American Physical Society Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defence', of July 2003, Chapter 16.4 'Summary of the Interceptor Models', and see especially the figures 16.5 and 16.6 - and you'll really knew, 'the way this thing work'... :-D
- Again: reprogram the GBI behaviour and change it's payload to a nuke, - and you'll get a modern IRBM.
- Technically speaking, - you can have an 'universal rigs' on the third stage of GBI (yes, simple electromechanical rigs), to change the GBI payload to a nuke, - easily and quickly, - if this nuke will have the same, as KKV, form-factor, and similar to KKV, weight.
- So, the 'EuroABM' program could be just a 'double-game' of US militaries and political elite... Of course, you can say that this conclusion is just a 'conspiracy theory' and 'paranoia', - but, actually, - there are all the technical possibilities for US to go this way.
And that's the problem.
"Chapter 16.4 'Summary of the Interceptor Models', and see especially the figures 16.5 and 16.6 - and you'll really knew, 'the way this thing work'... :-D"
Read it years ago (when it was new). Nothing in there supports your claims. So GBI is a big missile. Everybody already knew that. I suppose we should all be worried about Russia secretly using S-300Vs as IRBMs because, you know, they're as big as Pershing IAs and those were ballistic missiles with 450kt warheads 40 years ago and imagine what the Russians could do with todays' technology? It doesn't wash. However you still haven't answered the core problem with your whole arguement and that is why would the US go through all the cost, effort, and uncertainty (because they can never test GBI in a surface to surface role or the "game" would be up) for something that could be done BETTER by adding one or two more (literally) D-5s to the fleet?
> I suppose we should all be worried about Russia secretly using S-300Vs as IRBMs...
- Mistake again. S-300V has a flight range near 100 (ONE HUNDRED) kilometers, and GBI has a flight range of 5000 (FIVE THOUSANDS) kilometers.
- So, the presumption that S-300V can be used as an IRBM, is very inadequate, and very funny. :-)
> So GBI is a big missile.
- Again: not 'big missile'. Have a look at the shape of trajectories.
> However you still haven't answered the core problem with your whole arguement and that is why would the US go through all the cost, effort, and uncertainty...
- A 'core answer' to the 'core question', - have a look at the trend:
Afghanistan >> Iraq >> Iran >> India >> China >> Russia.
- Where the machine will be stopped?
Russian:
Scott Ferrin:
Reported this morning by Associated Press (AP) that Russia has already pulled its offer of the Gabala radar station after pressure from the Iranian Foreign Ministry. Iranian spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Sunday that Russian officials had indicated to Tehran that Putin would not allow the plan to go through. “It seems Russia does not plan to make decisions that may cause instability and insecurity in the region, where it (Russia) is located," said Hosseini. Azerbaijan shares borders with both Russia to the north and Iran to the south.
Why make the gambit if you weren’t going to give it the time necessary to achieve your political goals? At the end of the day, all this accomplished was to push a united NATO into agreeing with the US plan for missile defense in the Poland-Czech Republic and farther deciding to establish a short-range system in the Balkans to cover NATO territory not “defended” by the American system. What did Russia gain?
Frank Shuler
USA
"> I suppose we should all be worried about Russia secretly using S-300Vs as IRBMs...
- Mistake again. S-300V has a flight range near 100 (ONE HUNDRED) kilometers, and GBI has a flight range of 5000 (FIVE THOUSANDS) kilometers."
We're talking S-300V / Pershing IA. Both similar size and weights. And a SAM goes WAY further when used in the surface to surface role. SM-4 would have had about three times the range SM-2 Block I did. RIM-67C (Terrier-derived Standard) had a 100nm range as a SAM and a 330nm range when used as a target. Also how about those 400km S-400s Russia is building? Those would be good enough for a 1200km range missile with a warhead of several hundred kilotons. Should be be worried Russia is secretly going to build hoards of MRBMs?
- So, the presumption that S-300V can be used as an IRBM, is very inadequate, and very funny. :-)
> So GBI is a big missile.
- Again: not 'big missile'. Have a look at the shape of trajectories.
And? Is it any surprise that missiles designed for maximum range would have similarly-shaped trajectories? Have a look at any SAM designed for maximum range and you'll see the same thing. They all go WAY up and come down on their targets from above.
> However you still haven't answered the core problem with your whole arguement and that is why would the US go through all the cost, effort, and uncertainty...
- A 'core answer' to the 'core question', - have a look at the trend:
Afghanistan >> Iraq >> Iran >> India >> China >> Russia.
Maybe you could decipher this code?
> Also how about those 400km S-400s Russia is building? Those would be good enough for a 1200km range missile with a warhead of several hundred kilotons.
- Again, again, again... By the way, what is PAYLOAD for 'those 400km S-400s Russia is building'??? Please tell us...
- And how do you place a 'several hundred kilotons'-nuke to this S-400 payload... I'm really intrigued... :-)
- And what three type of missiles 'those 400km S-400s' are able to use? :-)
- And what are the payloads for S-300V (your previous arguement) and Pershing 1A/B?
:-))))))
- When you consider a possibility 'to install a nuke on S-x00', you ignore completely the correlation between the payloads of these missiles and their maximal ranges. That's why your arguments can't be considered as serious...
- In short, - please compile a small table:
(a) payloads of S-300P / S-300V / S-400 / Pershing IA / Pershing IB / Pershing II / GBI / THAAD / SM-3 / PAC-3
(versus)
(b) maximal ranges for those missiles, with these payloads,
and then we can discuss the problem using the facts, not fables...
> Those would be good enough for a 1200km range missile with a warhead of several hundred kilotons.
- Again: wrong. 'Those 400km S-400s' has a small payload of 25 kilogramms... That's the payment for increased range!
- You can't install a serious nuke to a missile with payload of 25 kgs... Practically, you can install NO NUKE to the missile with a such payload.
> Is it any surprise that missiles designed for maximum range would have similarly-shaped trajectories?
- If you're still not understand: just stop GBI engine on any point of those trajectories, - and you will get a ballistic missile, - in case of GBI, with more than 5000 kms range and more tnan 60 kgs payload.
- Or you'll say again that GBI is unable to perform such a primitive command, as stopping the engine of any stage? :-)
- The classic inertial system, can be used for 'rough' ground-targeting; precision ground-targeting, may be performed by a system of self-targeting with a compact optical, infrared or radar sensor, placed in the nose of re-entry vehicle with nuclear warhead, in a 'Pershing II'-manner.
> Maybe you could decipher this code?
- It's not a code, it's a trend... So no additional comments are needed.
- A rhetoric question: by the way, 'nm' is 'nautical mile' or 'nanometer'? :-) Nanometer-range missiles... Really, the new class of weapons! :-)
> Reported this morning by Associated Press (AP) that Russia has already pulled its offer of the Gabala radar station after pressure from the Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Dear Frank:
- Let's wait for a real finish of this story with 'Gabala proposal'... As I know, this proposal still under consideration of US, and even Embassy of Iran in Azerbaijan declares recently that:
- 'We do not have any concern [about Gabala radar] as this question is Azerbaijan's internal affair'.
And what are the payloads for S-300V (your previous arguement) and Pershing 1A/B?
S-300V has about a 300lb warhead. Easily enough for a 200kt weapon. As for the 25kg warhead that would be enough for a couple kilotons, certainly enough to knock out most targets with GPS guidance.
"Or you'll say again that GBI is unable to perform such a primitive command, as stopping the engine of any stage? :-)"
Well I must say your knowledge of ballistic missile is impressive if that's all you think is involved in creating a ballistic missile.
"It's not a code, it's a trend... So no additional comments are needed."
Of course it is. The question is why would they go through all the hassle and cost of developing and deploying 10 missiles that they can never test in their "true" role instead of deploying one or two more D-5s. Explain how in the world "Afghanistan >> Iraq >> Iran >> India >> China >> Russia." answers that question.
- A rhetoric question: by the way, 'nm' is 'nautical mile' or 'nanometer'? :-)
Nautical mile.
Here is another theoretical ... if jamming radar is out of the question - Russian territory would obviously be involved in the boost phase interception of the `much-hyped ghostly Iranian ICBM' anyways. If it is to hit the US ... I would think Russia would knock it down on principle - but she equally has the right in that scenario to knock down ANY boost phase interceptors over Russian territory. Why should Russia allow a NATO radar system to sweep half of European Russia and not have any options. Get away from the `much-hyped ghostly Iranian ICBM' hitting the US - I thought it was Europe ... if there is any `sabre rattling it started with Mr. Bush and NATO members.' Putin and Russia's obvious fears of a system they do not control is legitimate ... it could be deployed over Russian territory `in the `much-hyped ghostly Iranian ICBM' attack scenario on the US - which is baloney! Would Russia ask the US to allow it put an ABM system in Central America to stop a `mythical launch of ICBMs' from Brazil! Look at both sides before we talk about such systems ... as Pavel suggests, creating the `son of Star Wars' in Europe will cause more problems with tactical missile defense in Europe and for NATO than its worth. This is not Pro-Russia vs. USA ... it's just fact!
Ozzy:
A couple of thoughts, if a “mythical launch” of ICBMs' from Brazil were aimed at Russia the shot would be taken over the South Pole. Perhaps Australia or somewhere in Africa would be a better launch site for Russian ABM efforts? And, no Russia wouldn’t “ask America’s permission” to defend itself. Why should it?
Secondly, the United States could simply hold Russia accountable for any Iranian ballistic missile launch over Russian territory as an “unfriendly act” subject to an American military response. That way we would never have to worry about Russian interference in our Missile Defense System (MDS) trying to defend ourselves over Russian “outer-space” and Russia would never be faced with the political-military decision to interfere or not. No European (Poland-Czech Republic) MDS would be needed. An Iranian missile not engaged by Russia, allowed to attack the United States, would bring on total nuclear war. Russia knows an Iranian launch will bring the destruction of both Russian and the US, to say nothing of Iran. That way MAD still works between Russia and the United States and Russia has a real incentive in keeping the Persian’s in check.
Do you begin to see how dangerous all this is? How events can lead to tragedy? These issues between Russia and the United States must be resolved.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Perhaps Australia or somewhere in Africa would be a better launch site for Russian ABM efforts? And, no Russia wouldn’t “ask America’s permission” to defend itself. Why should it?
- I hope US wouldn't mind, if Russia will place some (I guess between 10 and 100) mobile GBI-class and THAAD-class interceptors, like future S-500s, and XBR-class radar, to defend our friends and allies, I mean Republic of Cuba and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela?
- Together with S-500s, enough amounts of S-400 and Pantser S1 systems should be deployed there - I guess, 50 or 100 divisions...
:-)
> Secondly, the United States could simply hold Russia accountable for any Iranian ballistic missile launch over Russian territory as an “unfriendly act” subject to an American military response.
- And Russia, of course, could simply hold the US accountable for non-stop tryings to effective control of Russian Strategic Forces, with the final aim to change the world's military balance.
> Do you begin to see how dangerous all this is?
- No danger at all. Please show to me at least one of those mythical 'Iranian ICBMs'.
- What I hear??? Iran has no missiles of such class? Well, then show me at least one Iranian IRBM... No again? It's so strange...
US people 'under a spell' of White House' and mass-media propaganda, believes that 'those insidious persians' has a 'silver dream' - to build an ICBM and to strike on US with this ICBM, as soon as this ICBM will be built...
:-D
Russian:
Russia has every right installing “defensive military equipment” in the Republic of Cuba or the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as the US will do in future NATO countries like Georgia and Ukraine. However, I wouldn’t spend too many rubles in Cuba. I don’t think your investment would survive Castro. (smile)
And Russia, of course, does hold US “accountable” for trying to change the world's military balance. That’s why you’re building Topol-M SS-27s and Borey submarines and the US is only building anti-ballistic missiles in response.
The danger I refer to is the vast lack of trust between Russia and the United States today and seeing that gap only widen in the future. Will Iran have nuclear weapons and missiles capable of striking countries a continent away in 15 years? I think they will. By the way, that’s my opinion; it didn’t come from The White House.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Russia has every right installing “defensive military equipment” in the Republic of Cuba or the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela...
- Even when we all understand that the missile of GBI class, with at least 5000-km flight range, could be easily and quickly re-equipped with a self-targeting, re-entry nuclear warhead? :-)
- Does US / NATO want a kind of modern 'Pioneers' (SS-20 Saber / S-500) at Cuba, Venezuela, and at Eastern Ukraine?
- Does Russia want 'Pershing-3 / GBIs' at Poland, Georgia or at Western Ukraine?
> That’s why you’re building Topol-M SS-27s and Borey submarines and the US is only building anti-ballistic missiles in response.
- The Topol-M's and Borey's are only a replacement of 'rusty iron' (really 'rusty' and outdated) in Russian arsenal. Anyway, - these programs cannot be considered as a serious threat to US / NATO, because:
a) the tempo of such replacing is very slow;
b) the total amount, as well as nomenclature, of Russian strategic weapons, is in full accordance with present treaties;
c) the total amount of the Russian strategic weapon steadily decreases, with the final aim to be in accordance with a '2200 warheads restriction', according to latest bilateral treaty.
- In short: most of present Russian strategic weapons are very old, and thus need renewal, - within the frameworks of international and / or bilateral treaties.
> By the way, that’s my opinion; it didn’t come from The White House.
- But may be that's the opinion formed by a mass-media, and these mass-media, after 9/11, are under 'self-censorship'?
- Would you please to consider the possibility, that this 'mass-media self-censorship', is inspired by US elite and White House?
Whether long-range weapon or suicide bomber, -
Wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction.
Whether your soar away Sun or BBC 1, -
Misinformation is a weapon of mass destruction.
You could a Caucasian or a poor Asian, -
Racism is a weapon of mass destruction.
Whether inflation or globalization, -
Fear is a weapon of mass destruction.
Whether Halliburton or Enron or anyone else, -
Greed is a weapon of mass destruction.
Russian:
“Inspiration” in America never comes from the US elite or The White House, it always comes from individual American citizens that make up our country that value change and renewal. I don’t think we’re as led by the “Media” as you think; our attention span is too short.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank I agree ... but I started something again ... I see ... I am playing the `devil's advocate' ... Pavel's original analysis is right on in my opinion - why start the `Son of Star Wars' in Europe - when we all know that this only brings back MAD as the only viable option to fall back on to protect the interests of NATO/US and Russia? This is what Mr. Putin was rightfully referring to ... in my estimation ... of a new arms race. I hope this NMD concept goes away from the scene, but you know the MIC will push for its creation on both sides, Iran is not really the issue here - nor is NK ... if you really think about ... we are actually talking about troop and ballistic missile movements in Russia that relegate the CFE to the ash heap - I think it's very dangerous.
> I don’t think we’re as led by the “Media” as you think; our attention span is too short.
- When mass-media, from year to year, tell people that 'This small country is a danger', - people start to believe that this small country is a danger.
- When mass-media, from year to year, tell people that 'Our country is the most just country in the world', - people start to believe that their country is the most just country in the world.
- When mass-media, from year to year, tell people that 'Black color is a white color', - people start to believe that black color is a white one.
- It's not an 'US-specific' problem, it's a common civilizational problem.
Ozzy:
One important thing to remember when trying to really understand the American character at this time in our history seems to always get lost in these discussions. American is at war. We are just as much at war today as was the Soviet Union in 1942 against an enemy that is just as totally committed to our destruction as a nation and as a society as were the Nazi’s. And in this war for our survival as a nation, as a society, countries will either support our efforts or aid our enemies. This war is a long one; it will transcend George W. Bush, his successor and his successor’s successor. This war will be fought militarily, financially, and diplomatically. We’re at the beginning of this war and we have a long way to go with many difficulties ahead. There’s no plan; no blueprint on how to fight this war and we’re learning as we go. We will make mistakes in our conduct of this war and at times there will be confusion and indecision on our part but don’t count us out. Russia is not America’s enemy and that is why the US doesn’t care about Russia’s opinions or her paranoia. We’re just too busy trying to defend our nation. In the latest public opinion polls by ABC News, a majority of Americans believe Al-Qaeda will acquire a nuclear weapon in the future and use such a weapon against American soil. That is our reality. Who’s to say Iranian nuclear weapons and mobile ballistic missile technology won’t be made available to Al-Qaeda in the next 15 years? It all boils down to trust; we simply don’t trust Tehran. If we don’t begin the process of developing defensive systems to counter this potential threat, agreed this is only one type of threat among many we face, then we are only left with the option of building even more nuclear weapons as a deterrence to hold even more of the world at potential risk. This is a new world we live in. That is the legacy of 9-11.
Frank Shuler
USA
Russian:
That’s exactly my point. Our attention span is so short, nobody listens “from year to year”. Honest.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank ... I am a PoliSci major, I have two degrees in Eastern European/Russian Studies, Third World Policy and International Relations ... no offense ... but I know all that you say !!! That does not mean you ignore all other International Systems and Norms because of 9/11. Iraq and Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. Saudi Arabians attacked us, not Iraqis, not Iranians and CIA blowback from our support of the Arab-Afghan fighters that WE as in the US helped train and send with the Saudis and Pakistan, w/the `Big Bad Paranoia' to defeat the `Evil Soviet Empire' in Afghanistan … it jumped back and bit us in the mouth – that’s all !!! Look back in history and tell me what Vietnam was - a disastrous effort carried on by President after President. Trust me, this Orwellian 1984 scenario you paint has more to do with overreaching Neo-Con interpretation of usurping those International Systems, Norms and Traditional Alliances - I happen to totally disagree - that's all! Russia matters ... and so does China ... just as much as the USA does or we would not be having http://russianforces.org/blog/ to go to for all these interesting discussions! Still your friend from NY - Ozzy !!!
> American is at war.
- Is it NOT a paranoia? Sounds exactly like a well-known specimen of White House propaganda, a 'ritual spell' of modern US elites:
'They're pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind
They wanna sap your energy, incarcerate your mind...'
> We simply don’t trust Tehran...
- Does it mean also:
'We need to bomb Tehran'...
or may be:
'We need to nuke Tehran before they'll nuke us'?
> If we don’t begin the process of developing defensive systems to counter this potential threat...
- You are already in this process, while 'hostile ICBMs' still NOT on the horizon... :-)
>...developing defensive systems to counter this potential threat...
- So Russia's don't mind; the only wish of Russia, - whether it's possible to place this 'defensive systems' in such a manner that it can't directly affect the Russian defense potential?
- Why do not organize the US missile defence against 'those mythical Iranian ICBMs', for example, in such a way:
(a) Joint missile defence site, based at totally renewed Gabala station, equipped with THAAD-class interceptors, as a first tier of such defence;
(b) Russian radars and future Russian interceptors, placed at Russian territory, as a second tier;
(c) An XBR-class radar with a couple of dozens of GBI-class interceptors, placed at Newfoundland and / or at Northern Canada, as a third tier;
(d) the XBR-class radars with GBI-class interceptors and 'improved THAADs', placed at the west coast of US, - as a fourth tier?
- In short: why don't have a 'four-tier' defence, instead of single Polish site?
Русско ... I think you have a system there that could politically correct ??
> I think you have a system there that could politically correct ??
- What system, Ozzy? And where?
My typo ... that could BE politically correct, the system you describe and its geographic position - it sounds good !!!
Ozzy:
I could lecture on the success of America’s war in Viet Nam for hours but I’ll hold that for later. I see no Orwellian scenario here but honestly hope the recent changes in our basic American civil liberties are only a short-term inconvenience in the prosecution of this war. The United States will never be the same after 9-11; it’s a new, uncertain world for us all. America has always thrived with a challenge and I feel certain we will best this too. I’m very optimistic.
Understand also, I don’t mean to suggest Russia doesn’t matter. I do suggest however that Russia opinion here on missile defense doesn’t matter in relationship to our ability to defend ourselves from this perceived future threat. Russia will adjust and the world will continue on.
Frank Shuler
USA
> I think you have a system there that could politically correct ??
- I hope so. In the recent years, Russia always demonstrates a readiness to a dialog with US and NATO;
- If Russian opinion on EuroABM site will be taken into account, a great possibility to cooperation opens.
I think Pavel's blog has been a great way to dance between Russia - America relations and dialogue. It seems it appears to be an expanding discourse on `real politique' and moved way beyond a simple discuss of strategic forces … thanks to us Internationalists. These chats are enlightening !!!
> However, I wouldn’t spend too many rubles in Cuba. I don’t think your investment would survive Castro. (smile)
- Really, I do not think that Castro needs Russian roubles to survive. Castro is not just a person, Castro is a symbol. :-)
And, as a symbol, Castro will live forever...
Actually, the stupid America behaviour was the one that made Castro a legend.
Russian:
Kolokol:
Remember my friends that Stalin and Lenin were once heroes too; they had great cities named for them in honor. Today, to some, they are still heroes. To others…
Time usually cures all.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Time usually cures all.
- And time will tell... :-)
Hello gentlemen ! I know the party is well over now by a full 12 months but I just came across this discussion and feel that one VERY important point has been missed by all.It is not about Iran launching ICBM's at Europe - this is a conclusion extended from the fact that Iran has a nascent nuclear industry that MAY become a weapons development program in 5 or more years time, and that such a warhead MAY be deployed on a ICBM or IRBM sometime thereafter.A lot of if's and maybe's! If any prospective Iranian nuclear-tipped missile is developed and pointed anywhere it would be at Israel to CREATE a situation of MAD to constrain Israeli aggression in the region!!! Rarely mentioned in media discussions and reports is that Israel has between 300 and 500 nuclear weapons.Disarm Israel of nukes,then ABM's in Europe will not be needed.By not recognizing Iranian fears in the discussion, Israel slips under the "radar" and keeps their nukes unbeknown to most and rest of Middle east lives in fear, Iran is painted as Rogue nation, and Russia is pushed back into a Cold War stance of suspicion of their West European neighbours. It is all about Israel !!!