Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | US to ignore Russia missile fears
The US will not allow Russia to stop it from deploying anti-missile defences in Europe, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said in Moscow.

"I don't think anyone expects the United States to permit a veto on American security interests," she said after meeting President Vladimir Putin.

Earlier, they agreed to tone down the rhetoric in public exchanges.

These were the first talks since February when Mr Putin accused the US of seeking global dominance.

Washington is not seeking confrontation, but wants Moscow's co-operation over sensitive issues such as Kosovo, Iran and missile defence, the BBC's defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says.

But the agreement to tone down the rhetoric does not mask the continuing differences and the sense in Moscow that Washington has long been ignoring legitimate Russian concerns, our correspondent says.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | No breakthrough for US and Russia
Russia and the United States have defined their differences. They have not settled them.

The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, announced that Washington and Moscow had agreed to tone down the rhetoric in their public exchanges.

The recent tension between Russia and the United States has been characterised by tough, critical, statements from both sides.

This seemed to be the sum of what they could agree on.

Condoleezza Rice is still willing to make strong statements.

During the talks Russia repeated its opposition to US plans for a new missile defence system in Europe.

Afterwards, the secretary of state was dismissive.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:09:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Such result was expected as Ms Condoleeza Rice did not bring anything worthwile she could offer to her Russian hosts. Opposite she anticipated she could wring some concessions from Russians. But these times are over. And Putin showed he is not inclined to stretch helping hand for sinking Bush team which is feeling heat on all fronts. Bush probably hoped to escalate Russian-Eastern European tensions to make Kremlin more negotiable but this strategy did not bring immediate benefits. The fallout of this strategy was deterioration of Russia-EU relations and that suited Washington well.
by FarEasterner on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:55:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok..

that's more important that  it sounds..

I think I must say it again and agian no matter waht..

Russia won the arms race... period.. (punto pelota).

There is no way the delivery system of nuclear weapons can me countermeasured... russia is so far ahead on deliery plattforms  that the US can hardly see russia shadow.

This program is about a compeltely different game...it is about money and companies and infleunce in the area of Russia....

It is a dark game.. that I hope someone will one day explain me....but it is not about nuclear weaponry per se.

Russia is going to be a super power no matter what happens.. that's what happens when you have the best nuclear weaponry in the world ... with a 20-30 years advantage...

So I guess the US must ahve been thinking about a weird way to compensate...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:58:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmm, what delivery systems are we talking about here?
Russia's Current ICBMs:
  • SS-18 'Satan' (R-36M)
  • SS-19 'Stilleto' (UR-100N)
  • SS-25 'Sickle' (RT-2PM Topol)
  • SS-27 (RT-2UTTH Topol-M)
Elimination of the SS-18
In the last decade Russian armed forces have been steadily reducing the number of R-36M missiles in service, withdrawing those that age past their designed operational lifetime. About 40 missiles of the most modern variant R-36M2 (or RS-20V) will remain in service until 2020 and will be then replaced by newer MIRV version of Topol-M.
Operational history of the UR-100
The UR-100N reached initial operating capability in 1974, and by 1978 an inventory of 180 launchers were reached. In 1979, the UR-100UTTH became operational and by 1983 had replaced many older missiles and reached maximum inventory of 360 launchers. This had fallen to 300 by 1991, and with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many in Ukraine became property of that nation. 170 remained in Russia, although treaty obligations required the rearming of the missiles with single warheads. Russia retains some UR-100UTTHs in its inventory with the potential to retain as many as fifty by the end of the decade. Recent political developments have led to plans to rearm the missiles again with MIRV warheads as a response to American deployment of a National Missile Defense system.
Elimination of the SS-25
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union 81 launchers were deployed in Belarus. They were all returned to Russia by November 27, 1996. As the lifetime of the SS-25 was designed to be about 10 to 15 years, the missile will be progressively retired over the next decade. It will be replaced by the road mobile version of the Topol-M (SS-27) missile.
SS-27
According to The Washington Times, Russia conducted a successful test of their evasive payload delivery system. The missile was launched on November 1, 2005 from the Kapustin Yar facility. The warhead changed course after separating from the launcher, making it difficult to predict a re-entry trajectory.

...

On December 15 2006 Moscow reported that the Topol-M soon would be re-equipped with multiple re-entry vehicles. Later the Russian Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov said: "We will begin to equip the Topol-M mobile missile system with multiple re-entry vehicles in a few years."

Hmm, maybe installing missile interceptors as close as possible to the launch sites is a way to get around the "evasive payload delivery system" and "multiple re-entry vehicles" problem.


Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:17:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
SS27 plus SCBM plus final stages of early division-evasive delivery system.

No way the US can get that in 20 years (with the present waste of money and research in the pentagon).

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:39:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting, I didn't realise that there is this field of US lagging-behind. However:

No way the US can get that in 20 years

What is the significance of this? I would think that unless Russia (and China) develops its own missile interceptor systems, less advanced delivery systems will suffice for the USA.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well it depends..

at the present stage nothing really...you are right.

It is still MAD... but if russia would develop such systems of interception.. well it will the end of the world as we know it...besides.. would they ever work? who knows

I would expect (if russia ever gets a Dick Cheney)the goal for russia would be to achieve a delievery system where russia would get heavy casualties for a nuclear war but the US would be completely anihilited.. in this way there is still a balance of fear but russia has the heads-up. I do not know if this scenario is possible in the future.. but right now russia can clearly deliver more weapons than the US in the same period of time... so the US would be anihilited sooner than russia would do.

I am just wondering.. I have no idea what russia wants or pretends in this stupid US driven race

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:30:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You'd need a lot of missiles to prevent a significant first strike.

More than that, you'd need a lot of missiles that actually work.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:49:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It doesn't need to be prevention: reducing the effectivity of a potential first or second strike is also of strategic significance. To which Russia apparently responds.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:57:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but when you're talking about thousands of MIRV missiles, even if you reduce that by 90% - a success rate which is pure science fiction - it's still effectively game over.

Just five successful ground bursts would be enough to render huge swathes of the US uninhabitable for at least a few years, and dangerous for decades.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:29:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the significant factor is how the russians would think that it effects US psychology. With a Defensive system in place, when there is any form of alert, then the Russians have to factor into their calculations that the Americans may be thinking that they can run a successful first strike, because they have some form of missile defence.  Because this factor exists then it becomes less of an advantage for the russians not to launch, as  if they wait then  the initial impacts may reduce the number of retaliatory missiles that they can fire to a level that the US defences can manage.  

It's all fairly academic anyway due to the failure rate of the missiles. Look at the failure rate of satelite launches, they are often de-militarised ICBMs and they have been taken and had a couple of months work  done to make sure they deliver, and you still get a significant failure rate. Take the same kit, stick it in a field and let your average squaddie look after it, reliability should fall somewhat.

The last mass launch that I read about on exercise had special levels of preparation and managed to run to about 40% successful launch rate.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 08:50:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Americnas know perfectly weell that any of their present iof fiture systems is completely useless in front of the SS27 and the SCBM... not even talking about the new generation....

So the Americans know it and the Russian know it... it is just that both know soemthing else that we do not know...

but the irrelevance of the US system defense shield in front of the SS27 is.. well is like trying to destroy the moon with a pebble.... they both know....

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:21:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd say that as more countries become neuclear capable, different things are needed to give a country a comparative advantage. Preferably something that will be ludicrously expensive to create, so that  any upcoming state can't get in on the act.

Anti Balistic missile defence is ideal for that. To get it working (if you actually can) would cost ludicrous ammounts of money.  If you just (Just!!!) throw a few hundred million(!) at the problem  then run a few tests that appear to work you can announce that  you have a successful system against small values of numbers of missiles you can basically immunise yourself against small powers. whereas they have to take into account your massive retaliation.

Neither actually has to work, but if the two countries who have been long term major adversaries provide the best alibi for each other and allows their relative standinjg in the world to be maintained.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the significant factor is how the russians would think that it effects US psychology.

Do I need to point out that if it's a matter of US psychology, we're already in an eccentric polar orbit around Planet Fa La La?

The last mass launch that I read about on exercise had special levels of preparation and managed to run to about 40% successful launch rate.

Which would apply equally to the shield, presumably.

The shield doesn't make sense as a strategic issue. It's known not to work, which effectively makes it useless. And unless the US is planning to match launch numbers - which would mean huge forests of missiles, given launch failures and kill ratios - that isn't going to change just because a few Scud-missers are parked next to Krakow.

Now if - as kc says - there's a lot more going on here that we don't know about, like nuclear tipped short-range missiles being pointed at Moscow, then we have Cuba 2.0, only this time with a certifiable lunatic in the driving seat. Which is much more of a problem.

I'd hope even BushCo would be smart enough to realise that parking short range nukes in Poland is a Very Bad Idea.

But we all know that sanity isn't a consideration for these people, so we'll have to wait and see.

And my take on the psychology of the US is that Bush wants his nukular war - a small one would do, but a big one would be better - as a final 'Look at me!' tantrum that we can all remember him by.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:59:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
like nuclear tipped short-range missiles being pointed at Moscow, then we have Cuba 2.0, only this time with a certifiable lunatic in the driving seat.  

Now you are starting to get the picture.  

Polish foreign policy may not be survival-oriented, but the Russians know precisely what the stakes are.  

(Yeah, Poland is now Ground Zero.  Smart move, guys!)  

By the way, the Cuban Missile Crisis was provoked by the US placing nuclear missiles in Turkey.  Part of the deal US President Kennedy cut with USSR Premier Kruschev was taking those missiles out.  The debacle cost Kruschev his job, but it cost Kennedy his life.  

Now pResident Bush thinks he can redo the Cuban Missile Crisis and win.  But he has no clue what Putin will be coming up with in response.  I don't either, but I am sure it will be nasty.  

Putin just told Condi:  "Okay, no more talk, and I won't even publicly complain.  You will see what we do in response after we have done it."  

I am sure we will.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 06:47:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd hope even BushCo would be smart enough to realise that parking short range nukes in Poland is a Very Bad Idea.

Are there Polish blogs that you can cross-post that comment to?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 06:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is Beatroot, but on one hand, it is not too friendly to the running government (heheh), on the other hand, someone praising Barroso as great politician for defending low-cost airlines is not necessarily ET-friendly.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat May 19th, 2007 at 08:14:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm, maybe installing missile interceptors as close as possible to the launch sites is a way to get around the "evasive payload delivery system" and "multiple re-entry vehicles" problem.

I think that's exactly the point. In a few year's time, Russia will consolidate all its ballistic missiles around the Topol. The others are just too old, often fully liquid-propelled (really crappy technology which had the long launch delay and the high failure rate), and nobody understands those designs today, pretty much space-cowboys era.

Although the number of topol's will be much lower than what Russia has had in the past, it will be a useful deterrent because of the evasive manoeuvering, and the warhead hardening (the russians claim it will still detonate if it has been irradiated, as long as the ABM nuke goes off over 500 m away, which is a very very close encounter as these things go).

And then comes the boost-phase interceptor concept, with light-weight interceptors running near-parallel to their target and a very manageable relative velocity...

Beautiful in the mind of Cheney: catch the land-based topols with the interceptors after all the russian subs have been sunk by virginia-class hunter killers. Et voila ! The guy really thinks he can pull the stunt that he had no time to pull at the end of the 80's (USSR collapsed before he could nuke it, poor sod, how he must have been disappointed)

Unfortunately, I cannot help but think of the next logical step to consider for France: since the US may well turn a dictatorship and nuke the Russians on the sole ground that no other nuclear power should be allowed to exist (the UK is a vassal, it does not count here), France should be next on its list, followed by China, India-Pak, etc... Especially considering that France will appear as a colonial rival, having no oil, no gas, no uranium of itself, and needing these in proportions of the same order of magnitude as the US imports.

Pierre

by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 09:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, I cannot help but think of the next logical step to consider for France: since the US may well turn a dictatorship and nuke the Russians on the sole ground that no other nuclear power should be allowed to exist (the UK is a vassal, it does not count here), France should be next on its list, followed by China, India-Pak, etc... Especially considering that France will appear as a colonial rival, having no oil, no gas, no uranium of itself, and needing these in proportions of the same order of magnitude as the US imports.

After the US nukes Russia there's no list left to be next on.

Assume for a second that France's National Security apparatus is thinking along the same lines... What are their options?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 09:55:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Very few unfortunately: I mean, very few that could deter the US from "enlarging" the footprint of their attack to any non-obedient country sufficiently developed to oppose total military domination.

I assume that an administration determined for first-strike is also willing to suffer some direct damage (e.g. enough nukes will always get through to guarantee that "redundantly processed" targets like NY and DC will be wiped out), given that their own strike will generate enough radioactive fallout and disruption to crops (through temporary global cooling) to harm a large share of their own population.

Short of total annihilation (1000 MIRV on civilian targets in the US), there is no deterrent against a fascist America. This must be the conclusion the soviets reached 40 years ago, since it's just what they sized their arsenal. And just when they started being "sensible" and planned downsizing to a few hundred heads assuming this was a good multilateral deterrent in an era where nuclear escalation of local conflict was becoming the most plausible threat, they get Bushco to revive the cold war.

Pierre

by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Their only option is to prevent the deployment of US missile defence in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is why I think they will go mad about it, and I expect France (unless Sarko the 1st has surrendered) to help Russia retort on the offender.

Pierre
by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have also thoguht about those lines before.. but it is absolutely impossible the more I think of it.

No way you can sunk all the submarines ... it is just impossible.

Furthermore the SS27 is not the last technology in the works... there is the early evasice delievery (divission of the missiles in sub-missiles int he early stages of the launching...know guess whcih one has the nuclear device?) system... I read that it was already finished.. but the source was not completely credible.

In any case even if the next generation of SS27 is not already being built..and all the russians have is the SS27...how are they going to intercept the misssiles from Poland... ?? there is no way... the avalanche of nukes from SS27 is enormous.., very low rate of failure, divission tactics..

So the only way is to destroy them on he ground...

Are you suggesting that the US may have a way to destroy them on the spot...this would have nohting to do with missile shields but with airtstrike capacity...?

And how? I am really interested.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You would have to sink all the submarines essentially simultaneously.

In terms of intercepting ICBMs, even if the US managed to deploy countermeasures on every country that borders Russia, there would still be the possibility of launching the ICBMs over the pole from mobile launchers deep in Siberia.

To destroy the ICBMs on the ground, you'd have to do it from space.


Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, there are not so many subs to sink if you focus on SLBM. The russians have less than half a dozen left, and around 1990 the US were already pretty sure they had a 688 tracking each of them, all along their patrol, picking them at the exit of the port, because of the immense acoustic superiority of the US subs. And when I say "tracking", I mean real close: check what happened to the USS Baton Rouge.

Of course, now the Russians have the Akula-class, which is on par with the 688 (and they have more Akulas than SLBM launchers), and certainly not far enough from the Virginia to warrant safe "escort" like that. But the Akula could only fire cruise missile, with single-warhead 150kt, and to a coastal city, and not far from US waters (some would be intercepted in the week before getting in position to shoot back). It probably falls in the category of "affordable losses" for neocon planners.

Pierre

by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 11:55:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But now comes the Borei class.

Three are in the making.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't believe too much in mobile ground launchers. An ICBM is a huge beast, so it's not really so mobile, especially over the "roads" of the Tundra...

Pierre
by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 11:56:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is the rail-based launchers, but of course railways are easier to monitor as there is a much smaller length of then than of roads.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 11:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
? A Topol is not bigger than a railroad car. If largew logging trucks can traverse those Tundra roads, so can mobile launchers.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And the Bulava (next generation) is half the length of the Topol, just above 12m.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But it is a submarine-launched rocket with a shorter range (8000 km).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia claims a ground-launched version is expected.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The next generation: SS-NX-30
The Russian military developed Bulava to possess advanced defense capabilities making it nearly impervious to existing missile-defense systems. Among its claimed abilities are: evasive maneuvering, mid-course countermeasures and decoys, and a warhead fully shielded against both physical and EMP damage. The Bulava is designed to be capable of surviving a nuclear blast at a minimum distance of 500 meters.


Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I put up a new diary..

Please put ina comment.. I will update the content of the diary after that...

A pleasure


I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 11:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
20 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
112 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments

Occasional Series