Yes, this meeting certainly did not live up to the hype, and it appears that as far as missile defense is concerned, it was pretty much pointless. The question is then, what happens next? It seems that the system in Poland and CZ is going in no matter what happens. If this is the case, I see no alternative for Russia than to target the site- and to drive the point home, target the sites with new or refurbished? SS-20 Pioner IRBM's; US breaks the ABM treaty, so we'll break the INF treaty. Even assuming the US is genuine in its concern about threats to Europe from "rouge nations" (which by itself smacks of "Orientalism"), there is simply no remotely rational justification for this missile defense system. If Russia backs down on this, then it really will find itself encircled. Someone has got to put their foot down on unjustifiable NATO military expansion, and Russia is the only country that has any hope of doing this effectively. It amazes me how Americans have such a hard time understanding why this missile defense system, and NATO military expansion to Russia's borders, is so upsetting to Russia. Perhaps the only way to get Ameicans to understand would be for Russia to enter into a military alliance with Canada and Mexico, provide them with weapons, and install missile defense systems of their own to guard against Korea or some other "rouge threat".

There is no necessity to break the INF treaty. A new SS-20 Pioneer IRBM based on some Topol-M components with a 1.2 tn payload will have a range around 7.000 km. This fall in the category “ICBM”. Since the demarcation between a IRBM and a ICBM is quite artificial, this can be exploited in benefit to the Russian strategic position. I understand this is a quite “hawkish” answer but I seem no other appropriate option.

Jon Grams

It’s always interesting when these “Framework Meetings” happen between heads-of-state. It’s not so much what is disclosed as how much is hidden. The real substance of these conversations takes place between the professional policy makers that control foreign policy regardless who is in elective office. Those are the real discussions of substance. I suspect the weekend in Sochi was no different.

The installation of the American ABM system in Poland and the Czech Republic is not given. That decision will be made by the next President of the United States. I give it only 50% chance.

Russia doesn’t need to “break” the INF Treaty. She only has to exercise her rights, by treaty, to end compliance; I think there is a six-month waiting period after the notification. The United States exercised her legal rights to end the ABM Treaty in the same fashion.

What makes you think Poland and the Czech Republic aren’t “targeted” now by Russia? And, why do you think a new SS-20 missile system is the cure?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank,
Yes, you're right on the treaty withdrawal vs. breaking issue.
I suppose it is possible that Poland and the CZ republic are already targeted, but are there presently targets in those countries that constitute a meaningful threat to Russia? I don't honestly know on that one.
As to the SS-20, It would seem a waste of an ICBM to target facilities that close, unless they are being targeted from the other side of Russia. For now it might be OK, but when large numbers of older ICBM's are retired, I think it would be better to have the targeting of the ABM systems handled by a seperate system independent of the primary strategic rocket forces. Plus, response time would be quicker with a short range system. One could also speculate that merely by retargeting ICBM's to those ABM sites would reduce the number of available ICBM's for Russia's deterrent force - effectively "taking out" a number of Russian ICBM's by the ABM's mere presence. (another reason for Russia to not want the ABM system there)

I think America is putting Europe's security in danger by building ABM system in eastern Europe. Russia is not the enemy of Europe. I think Europe has no enemy at all. Iran can hardly be the enemy of Europe because her oil and gas industry is mostly dependent on Europe. European oil companies are working in Iran. So blaming Iran for Europe's security is unacceptable. None believe this theory but America itself. Even in worst case Iran won't dare to attack Europe. In fact Iran doesn't have any means today or in foreseeable future to attack Europe or America.

One thing is clear from American foreign and defense policy; if she decides to do something she will do. None can stop them. They will not hear anyone. What they are doing now....just keeping Russia on negotiation table and killing time. ABM system installation process is going on as per schedule. Now what Russia will do? They may take some counter measures and Europe will feel threaten once again. Whether this ABM system is effective or not, I think Russia won't digest this. Russia's aggressive response will definitely create problem for Europe. Ultimately Europe will suffer for this ABM system when America will be safe on the other side of the Atlantic where none can reach!!!

Frank, a SS-20 type missile is simply cheaper than a SS-27 type. A single rule: 2 stages vs 3 stages. Keep in mind another targets like China, Diego Garcia, and the Franch and British SSBN bases. Further optimizations are also feasible.

Jon Grams

I wonder if Russia would have more to lose for ending the INF Treaty that she would gain. Yes, she could then legally develop and deploy an IRBM to target such sites as the proposed American ABM system in Poland and the Czech Republic but at what cost? How soon before the United States deploys a NATO counter IRBM in response?

Jon, remember the definition of a “deterrent force”. It is a force so powerful and survivable that any attack would be met by a devastating counter-strike rendering war in the first place unthinkable. Having missiles targeting the European ABM site would only diminish the Russian deterrent. At that point, Russia’s targeting ballistic missiles become a first strike weapon. The simpler, less politically risky solution is a couple Kh-102s in a Tu-22M2. Russia already has a solution.

Frank Shuler
USA

Parimal Debnath

Trying to get NATO to agree on just about anything is impossible. There is so much internal politics and deal-making to every decision. After forty years, NATO hasn’t agreed on the simplest military weapon, a common radio for joint battlefield communications. Yet, NATO unanimously agreed to pursue ballistic missile defense and is establishing the steering groups necessary to study the options and make recommendations to Brussels. There must be some truth here; more than simple American folly.

Remember, the proposed sites in Poland and the Czech Republic are not NATO facilities at all. These sites will be under the direct control of the Pentagon. If the proposed interceptors in Poland ever have to fly an operational mission, the US won’t ask permission from anyone in Brussels or Moscow.

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol

I certainly understand the economics of building an IRBM in place of an ICBM. Perhaps two or three could be purchased for the cost of a single ICBM. Yet, I can’t keep from thinking Russia would not be best served by embarking on yet another missile program. The Kremlin is struggling to get the Sineva to the fleet and the introduction of the R-30 Bulava has not gone well. Topol-M deliveries are steady but in far lower quantities than either of us would have expected by this time in the procurement cycle. The new RS-24 mobile MIRV missile is uncertain. How many? When? There is talk of a new liquid fueled “heavy” ICBM. (???) Production of the new cruise missile, the MKB Raduga Kh-102 has been delayed by a decade. Does Russia really need yet another missile project? The Topol-M may be the best ICBM in the world today. I’d build more.

Frank Shuler
USA

The ABM sites were supposedly threatened by Iskander tactical missile complexes which Putin threatened to deploy to Belarus for exactly that purpose.

Jon Grams:

"Someone has got to put their foot down on unjustifiable NATO military expansion, and Russia is the only country that has any hope of doing this effectively."

Who is Russia to dictate who can an can't join NATO? The only justification necessary is someone wanting to join. And you might want to ratchet down the hysteria a few dozen notches. Poland is already targeted by Russia, and 10 ABMs are hardly anything for Russia to worry about, particularly as any imbecil could negate their effect against Russian weapons completely simply by not flying them within range of the site.

The problem for Putin is not the ABM system; it's permanent American bases in Eastern Europe.

Frank, I am not talking about a new “in parallel” project. I am talking about a “short ICBM” based on the reliable Topol-M technology and the Pioneer configuration AFTER the completion of the Bulava. There is certainly time to successfully complete the development on the Bulava and so to start the one on the “so called” Pioneer-M.
Respect to the “new liquid fueled” ICBM, I think Russia has one already in production: the Sineva. It is small, it has the highest payload/total-weight ratio of a missile ever deployed in the world and since it can be launched from a surfaced 667BRDM, its placing into a silo is straightforward.
I.e. it weights 40 tn and can deliver 2.8 ton to a 8.300 km range, so it can deliver 2 ton to a 11.000 km range. So with two Sineva (80 ton) you can deliver the same payload of a RS-18 a.k.a.SS-19 (100 ton). We can save fuel, we can save money and we can save design and development efforts just by simply land deploying Sinevas.
Off-course that’s just “my vision”: a balanced force optimized both in range and efficiency that can render useless any threat to mother Russia. In addition further optimizations are still feasible.

Scott Ferrin
"...Poland is already targeted by Russia..."
Scott,ain't you working in the Rus general staff to talk this way?

Why develop short range ICBMs at all? Wouldn't cruise missiles do? They are harder to detect and cheaper to maintain.

I like this frame from Jon Grams about "Canada and Mexico".
The US would only understand if a second Cuba Crisis would arise: Russia deploys an A-135 successor with an 5000km range right on the island...of course to protect Cuba from future missile threats from unpredictable states like Venezuela...which are undoubtedly at the edge of acquiring WMD stuff.

The GBI System is of no advantage for Europe! Iran's missiles are aiming to Israel...and that's why Israeli missiles are aiming since a long time at Iran.
It makes no sense for Iran to fire missiles to Europe or the US.
So the US uses some feelings of a secret revenge still present in Poland and Tschechia due to the iron hand politics praticed for decades by the Soviets and are going to create a situation were we (not only in private forums) have to consider a new cold war scenario seriously. That's how we define progress (at least for the arms industry and military circles).
Damned...why????

JF Cooper, of course CM can do the job but I referred just to the SRF. Cruise missiles are on the aerial part of the triad. You know, there must be at least two neutralization options.

Frank,
I agree that the Kh-102 would probably work fine, butit wouldn't send the "message", or have the same impact as a new system. Maybe if Russia specifically threatened to build a Pioner system to target the ABM sites, the US would decide not to build it after all?

Kolokol
I agree, Maybe an SS-20/Topol-M combo would work for this situation. Also, with all the extra range, this missile could be flown on a depressed trajectory and increasing its chances of success.
I also like your Sineva idea; in fact, a heavy ICBM could be created by using the Sineva as the second and third stages, and building a new, super efficient liquid fuel first stage.

Kolokol:

I can’t fault any of your logic. However, I do think adapting the Sineva for land service would be more of an engineering feat than you would think. You would have to redesign the system to resist EMP interference, something present in land combat that is not an issue at sea. As always, I enjoy our conversations and the opportunity to exchange views.

Frank Shuler
USA

Bernd Reuter

Remember, the GBI system proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic is not designed to defend Europe. The location of this system is on a direct interception path for missiles launched from the Middle East that would strike American cities on the US East Coast. While Iran certainly isn’t in the position to launch an ICBM at the United States, can we say the same in ten years? Twenty? It seems a fair investment to me.

I also read the post about Mexico and Canada with amusement. Russia is a victim of its geography in the same way that America has been blessed. The US-Canadian border is the longest undefended border between two nations in the world. By the way, I certainly wish Russia would sell the S-400 air defense system or the A-135 successor to Mexico. I’m sure our defense experts would love to get a close look at their capabilities.

Frank Shuler
USA

Bernd Reuter,

Because of the curviture of the earth, if Iran wanted to hit the US, it would be easier to do so if it fired over Europe. This way, it doesn't have to contend with Russian overflight concerns by launching north over the pole. Firing West is too far and too difficult to do for their fledgling ICBM development.

ASTUTE:

I suppose you also think one needs to be an astrophysicist to understand that the sun rises in the east?

Frank, Jon. I know Russia is very busy now. I was talking about a post 2012 time-line. Now a lot of work must be done: First, make the Bulava work; second, continue with the deployment of Topol-M on increasing quantities; third complete the development tests of RS-24 and start its deployment; fourth, continue with the production of Sineva. A quite busy list.
Now, IF its decided to go ahead with the liquid fuel missile and IF the American NMD plan continue along the guidelines forecasted by Gen Baluyesky, my opinion is that the so-called "Pioneer-M" and the adaptation of the Sineva to silos is the best and cheapest option. I know the shielding against EMP effects is not the same of i.e. a Topol-M. Nevertheless, I thing some type of shielding is carried out by i.e. Trident-II and Bulava and likely by Sineva. Increasing the hardness, although no trivial, should be not very problematic.

> Who is Russia to dictate who can an can't join NATO?

- And why Russia should not 'to dictate who can and can't join NATO' with an open diplomatic tongue, - while, in the same time, - 'the most democratic in the world' empire, - do dictate how people overseas must live, with a tongue of everyday bombing and mass killing?

If I was the Russian president I would want Russia to join NATO. NATO is already losing all meaning as more and more Eastern states are accepted into it. Russia joining NATO would be the death of the organization as a meaningful military alliance.

A clear explanation

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080410/104778874.html

Kolokol: I wouldn't say so. The author gives missile defense too much credit.

Pavel, you are right if the system have a likely low effectiveness percentage. But if the system is there, it will be considered in the plans irrespectively of it effectiveness. You know the nuclear war fighting planning work in such a way.
I mean the logic of the author is the same logic used in war fighting planning.

Feanor:

Somewhere around 2001 Putin openly hinted at the possibility of Russia joining NATO. But rumor has it that when he did so in a private discussion with some top-level US official, he was told that Russia, like all other countries, must go through a normal application process. Putin said that Russia is no ordinary case and can't wait in line. There was no meaninful response and there the conversation ended. Draw your own conclusions.

Apparently Putin wanted Russia to have more influence then regular NATO member states, and was hoping to use NATO against expanding US interests, or possibly to consolidate Russian interests in the post-Soviet sphere. When he realized that this was not possible, the meaningful conversation ended. I'm thinking of entering the alliance the normal way, through the application process. The result would be pointlessness of NATO as a military alliance because conflicts would be as likely to arise between member states, as between other powers.

I have a standing wager ten years after Ukraine joins NATO, so will Russia. The economic and social integration of Europe will pull Russia into the Western Alliance. We must all understand NATO is no longer a mutual-defense organization. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization today is changing into a global security alliance; it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Australia and Japan were not also future members. I think this is one reason we are seeing the rise of the EU as a defense organization as well. Existing NATO European countries, as well as nations not associated with the NATO (Sweden, Ireland for example), are joining the military component of the European Union to provide a “European Solution” to European security as NATO looks global. For example, Kosovo is being turned over to the EU; it is their “problem” to be solved.

If Russia has no fear of the EU, it should have no fear of NATO.

Frank Shuler
USA

Russia would be in NATO already if the US wanted it. Which they don't because it defeats the main purpose NATO has been having from its very inception. Which is understandable on the end of the US.

As for Ukraine in NATO, I wouldn't take it for granted just yet. It looks like if all else fails, Yuschenko will have to choose between NATO membership and keeping Ukraine's newly-acquired territories (Crimea, and a few eastern areas that were assigned to Ukraine by Khruschev.) Not sure he'll choose the first, though he might.

The U.S. was always aggressively directing its efforts to cause maximum economic harm to Russia.

The U.S. had its military strategy fully Russia-centric in Seventees and Eightees. It was the U.S. who created international terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and Taliban calling them freedom fighters to oust Najibullah the President of Afghanistan of that time through whom Russia was keeping the country peaceful and whom the U.S. called a puppet of Russia. Just look at the present status. Is Afghanistan better or worse? Now they are attacking them in the name of "war or terror" and even want Russia's co-operation! The same was plotted against India using ISI of Pakistan and using its terrorist organizations like Hizbul Mujahideen who have brutally massacred 60,000 Kashmiri Pandits including thousands of women and children. The U.S. never fliched when it came to using arms including nuclear. It is the only country that goes about clinically executing its plans of domination without batting an eye-lid. For such a country to talk about treaties and agreements does not generate any confidence.

The attack or Iraq served double purpose for U.S. Firstly and more important was to dislodge Russia's and France's economic interests there and secondly to end Saddam Hussein's rule. These had nothing to do with the 9/11 terror attacks. It certainly did good by removing Saddam but it was the first purpose which was more important.

Why is U.S. interested in Ukraine and Georgia joining Nato which is a military alliance? If U.S. was interested in democracy, then let it limit to promoting only that. More than 70% of Ukrainians do not want Ukraine to join Nato. Why isn't the U.S. talking about democracy. The intention of Bush admn. is clearly to create trouble spots all around Russia. The only way Russia can counter them is to set up bases in Mexico and Canada with its most advanced missile bases set up there.

Who knows? Given their unstable political situation Yuschenko might not be president in 2 years.

Kolokol,
Very interesting article. I agree with the premise, although the statement made at the end I would dispute. Although current warheads are much smaller than in the 60's, they are also much "dirtier" (80%+ fission percentage) and for the most part are programmed for ground bursts, which would still result in huge amounts of collateral human deaths from fallout and increased global radiation levels. I am doing my senior thesis paper on high-yield "clean"(98%+ fusion percentage) thermonuclear weapons (5 Megatons or more, up to 100 MT) and how converting current asenals to these types of weapons could solve a multitude of problems (so long as ABM's are held in check or better yet, eliminated entirely). "Tactical" or "anti-terrorist/rouge nation" use of nuclear weapons (the greatest nuclear threat in the post-cold war world) would no longer be an option- very high yields ensure that the only use can be strategic targets. Far fewer weapons would be required, meaning less chance of "losing one" and the larger size would make it extremely difficult to "steal". Switching targets from military targets to large cities, where airbursts would be used, further reducing the very small amounts of residual radioactivity. Finally, if all out war ever did occur, the human race would still have hope of survival because radioactive fallout from even a 10,000 megaton exchange would essentially be a non-factor, as total fallout would be only 10% that of all atmospheric testing done between 1945 and 1963.(I've done the research on resultant fallout levels from 99% clean weapons detonated as airbursts) An exchange with only 5000 Megatons of current weapons would result in fallout levels 40 times greater for air bursts and over 100 times greater for surface bursts. (can you say "mine-shaft gap"?)
This is all based of course onn Mutual Assured destruction, which is the only proven way of preventing the use of nuclear weapons. The abrogation of the ABM treaty by the U.S. is inexcusable in this regard.

Jon, I have no doubts on your knowledge. Unfortunately, the development of nuclear devices goes in the opposite direction: Small “usable” nukes. This jointly with a number of nuclear devices BELOW a certain threshold lead to a dangerous scenario: some people will start to think that nuclear wars are “winnable” increasing the likelihood of a nuclear exchange and of nightmare scenarios like the ones you described.
Contrarily to Pavel’s thoughts, I think a decaying number of vectors and nukes INCREASE the likelihood of a nuclear war. I am not saying, we must return to the insane levels of the 80s. I want to say that stabilizing around 2.000 strategic nukes will be the most “safe” option.

Jon,

I will disagree with Kolokol and question your analysis of modern nulcear arsenals. In fact, Russian, British, French, and American weapons are extremely 'clean' in contradiction to the 1960's models. North Korean, Pakistani, and Indian warheads are likely closer to the original atom bomb and 'dirtier'.

Almost no country has weapons in the 'megatons' anymore because there is no point. Its is far cheaper and easier to make accurate weapons with lower yields to destroy targets. This increase range and lowers collateral damage.

Weapons on all sides are designed to destory the intended target which could be airburst, ground burst, or sub-surface.

I agree with Kolkol that at some point, too FEW nuclear weapons becomes destablizing. What that number is, is a mystery.

I disagree. Weapons in the megaton range are realistically needed to sink American super carriers. They're the only reasonable way.

> There is no necessity to break the INF treaty. A new SS-20 Pioneer IRBM based on some Topol-M components with a 1.2 tn payload will have a range around 7.000 km. This fall in the category "ICBM".

- It will be possible in the future, when (and if) US NMD bases along Russian borders will grow in size and numbers.

Of course, such a system, let's say - on a twelve-wheeled SS-20 TEL, - could be very effective and impressive weapon... But we also need to consider political reasons: it seems that Kremlin do interested in close economic and political integration with the 'Old Lady Europe', and do not want to make Europeans worried about 'Pioneer' reincarnation.

Anyway, we already have all we need to resolve the problem of Polish / CZ site, - at any time we want.

To answer what a weapon system could be used to resolve the problem of first two EuroAMD sites, - we need to see the topic 'Arctic launch of a R-29RM Sineva missile':

http://russianforces.org/blog/2006/09/arctic_launch_of_a_r29rm_sinev.shtml

This topic reports: The K-84 Ekaterinburg strategic submarine of the Project 667BDRM / Delta IV class of the Northern Fleet conducted a successful launch of a R-29RM Sineva / SS-N-23 missile at 15:20 MSK (11:20 UTC) on September 9, 2006. The missile was launched from a surfaced submarine from an ice-covered polar region toward the Chizha test site at the Kanin Peninsula. The three warheads that the missile was reported to carry successfuly reached their targets.

- If we will trace the possible trajectory of this 'Sineva' flight (from the point of launch L1, somewhere near the North Pole, toward the target point T1 at Chizha test site), - we will see that this was a very 'short-range' launch, performed on a range somewhere between 2000 - 2500 km, in (North - South) azimuthal direction:

http://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chizha1zu7.png

- It's interesting to note that almost the same trajectory (2000 - 2500 km range, North-East to South-West azimuthal direction), will take place during the possible launch of Sineva from the Western Litsa ('right from the pier', - L2 launch point) to the target point T2 somewhere on the Polish or CZ territory:

http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chizha2iu6.png

As I understand that was the clear demonstration of the present Russian capabilities on resolving the problem of EuroAMD sites (a hit with a multiple warheads in a short-range attack directly from the pier of SSBN home base or from the any point at Northern fleet's home waters).

As I know, soon after this demonstration, Poland required an additional $20 billion support from the USA 'to improve the Polish defence capabilities' (yes, - it's not my typo... $20,000,000,000 - it's a cost of 'Polish Army rearming' that Poland required from the USA additionally to the cost of EuroAMD site installations).

- So, it's quite possible that one test shot of Russian Strategic Navy will cost to the USA 20 billion dollars...

'Nice shot', really!

;-)

Russian, you know I am in “your side”. Remember the main points of Baluyevsky forecast respect to the American ABM plans (Dec 07): After the deployment of the sites in Czech and Poland, will follow:
- A new radar in Turkey (there are already talks on the issue)
- Deployment of a new base of interceptors in Norway managed by the Vardo Radar.
- Deployment of a new base of interceptors in Scotland supported by radar sites in Thule (Greenland) and the one also in Scotland (Feinnglades or some name like this)
- Providing anti-ICBM capabilities to SM-3 (work already started).
If the forecast continue to become reality, the “so-called” Pioneer-M will be unavoidable. Sineva launch shows the current neutralization procedures but to confront a more dense net, Russia will need something more adequate. This must be cheap and with high effectiveness. My opinion is that a “SS-20” in the short ICBM range with MIRV or multiple MARV is such a cheap and effective option. The “'Old Lady” and USA must know that threaten Russia have a price: the degradation of their overall security. On the other hand Russia showed some “hard balls” but with good faith respect to trade with the Old Lady. I think Europe should also demonstrate good faith. Pole meat and other examples don’t seem to indicate this.
PD: I expect to see this message. My last two messages are currently missing of the blog.

Kolokol:

I found your comments interesting regarding the future deployment of American ABM systems in Norway and Scotland. The installation of an X-Band radar system in Turkey or perhaps Gabala, Azerbaijan is a given and has been discussed. Your comments about Norway are the first I’ve heard. Scotland was mentioned years ago by the press as a prospective ABM site but was rejected early in the planning by the Pentagon in favor of Poland and the Czech Republic. Do you think this is a serious proposal or just speculation?

As I have previously stated, I think the likelihood of the installations in Poland and the CR going forward is only 50% at best. President George Bush will push for approval in Warsaw and Prague in the last few months of his presidency, but the real decision to move forward will come from the next American President.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, it was a forecast quoted by Gen. Baluyevsky some months ago

Kolokol

I’m certainly not an expert in the field of ballistic missile interception but it seems to me ABM systems located in Scotland and/or Norway would be of little benefit in defense against a Russian attack on the United States. Given the location of Russian ICBM silo fields and SS-25/27 garrisons, wouldn’t it make more sense to have additional interceptors in Alaska to catch the Russian ICBMs over the pole? Perhaps interceptors in the far north of Norway make some tactical sense but I don’t see the real advantage as this would be one of the first Russian targets in a nuclear war. I will not accuse Gen. Baluyevsky of hysteria but is it possible his comments were mere posturing in the Kremlin for budget purposes?

Your thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

The forecast is becoming reality:

Quote: The construction phase of the improvements to the Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Thule Air Base in Greenland has now been completed. The Missile Defense Agency awarded Raytheon the project in April 2006. In a press release dated March 20, Raytheon vice president for National & Theater Security Programs Pete Franklin was quoted as saying, "The UEWR at Thule builds on the radars that we've already deployed to Beale Air Force Base, Calif., and Royal Air Force Fylingdales, U.K., and will add significantly more surveillance coverage for the U.S. missile defense mission."

Kolokol

These radar systems are all apart of the Alaska-based GBI system designed to track a missile launch over the North Pole and are not new in scope. The progress of these updates have been widely published and reported by the US, British and Danish governments. The US is also scheduled to deploy a new command & control satellite system in the next ten years or so to cue the ABM system in early detection and interception. All this is known.

I guess my original question is how do interceptors in Scotland or Norway help in America’s defense? I would surmise that any Russian ICBM launch against the US would mathematically pass interceptors located in those locations too quickly for them to be of any assistance in defending American cities. The SS-27 is just too fast. Even in the proposed European site, Poland and the Czech Republic were chosen because of their specific location in relation to a missile launch from the Middle East. For example, such a base in Turkey was deemed too close to the potential launch points, let’s say in Iran, for the GBI interceptors to track and destroy a missile launch.

I guess I’m continually surprised by the reaction of the Kremlin to these developments. Russia seems to have far greater confidence in the American GBI system, or US ABM systems in general, than the US Government. The Pentagon has poured billions of dollars into a system that hasn’t been tested against the simplest of ICBMs equipped with decoys. This whole concept is far away from being a battlefield weapon. It’s all still a big research & development project right now.

Frank Shuler

> Russian, you know I am in “your side”.

- Kolokol, you know that I am 'in your side', too.

> Remember the main points of Baluyevsky forecast respect to the American ABM plans (Dec 07).

- I always remember this. And I glad that our officials start to talk about it openly:

http://news.mail.ru/politics/1599977/print/

'Is someone really thinks that Russia will easy look, - how the US strategic potentials on Russian borders are consistently increased, and to wait, - while critical for our national security antimissile potential will be created?'

- US and NATO must clearly understand that their original plan on encirclement of Russia to the accompaniment of 'sweet words' about 'freedom', 'democratic nations' and 'no threat to Russia', - this plan is practically RUINED.

But I still hope that until such a 'heavy caliber' as Sergey Lavrov is 'working' ;-), we not need 'Pioneer-Ms' deployed.

As I understand, Kremlin still trying to have an agreement with West 'for good'; maybe with the next US administration, the situation will have some positive shift (if only John Sidney McCain III will not be the incoming fate of 'USS America', in 'USS Forrestal' incident manner).

- Kolokol, I am not in opposition to your idea about Topol-M as a prospective ICBM/IRBM; but, I think that this system should be deployed EXACTLY when (and if) necessary.

Also, I always remember that Russia is able to answer in other ways, both in 'symmetrical' and 'unsymmetrical' manner; and who knows, maybe a few dozens of RPG-32 Hashims in the hands of Iraqi freedom fighters, would be the more politically and cost-effective answer than a few dozens of Pioneer-Ms.

Another good answer is emerging a new Union State; I hope we will 'entertain' ;-) our Western partners with this good news, in the next few years.

> The SS-27 is just too fast.

- Frank, you had not provided any facts and NUMBERS to prove this statement.

We MUST always remember that NMD program is now 'the game without rules', so it's hardly predictable and potentially dangerous game.

To Frank:

You now the way war-planning work. If there is a possible threat to the national security, the threat must be tackled (independently of its likely effectiveness) and it is preferably to have two neutralization options. So respect to your opinion that “Russia seems to have far greater confidence in the American GBI system, than the US Government” this confidence will no affect war planning.
In such a case, it is more logical to expect bigger protests from the US citizens because the US government is bleeding the American budget in a system that in practice (almost) doesn’t work just in a time of economical woes.

To Russian:

Quote: “I am not in opposition to your idea about Topol-M as a prospective ICBM/IRBM; but, I think that this system should be deployed EXACTLY when (and if) necessary”

I completely agree.

Quote: “…'the game without rules', so it's hardly predictable and potentially dangerous game.”

Yeap. That’s the things are now. No rules no codes. The XXI century seems to be the century of the “asymmetrical” war & politics. Quite chaotic.

J.F. Cooper,

I suggest you look at the Nuclear Weapons Archive (online). It is the most comprehensive and accurrate storehouse of information on the technical aspects of the western nuclear arsenals. The current top technology warheads such as the W-87 and W-88 are in fact so "dirty" and rely so heavily on fission reactions to attain the compact size required for mirving on small ICBM's and SLBM's that they are in reality akin to "boosted" fission weapons, and arguably not true thermonuclear weapons. The last "clean" weapon in the US arsenal, (or any western arsenal for that matter) was the 5 megaton W-71 Spartan ABM warhead, all of which were dismantled by 1995.

Jon Grams,

I'll refer you to:
http://www.isanw.org/facts/weapons.html

Its probably the best primer out there on the differing types of nuclear weapons, effects, etc.

I'll also refer you to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_design)...it is surprisingly accurate when it comes to nuclear weapons design. Modern Russian and US warheads are all thermonuclear. This is necessary in order to create small warheads with big bangs that must be able to reach halfway around the world....note the W87 on the webpage...this is a classic thermonculear device with a fission trigger prompting a fusion reaction; much cleaner than a fission only device.

Fusion weapons, in and of themselves, do not exist. A fusion reaction can only occur with a fission driver. There are no clean weapons, only 'cleaner' ones.