New NATO nuclear weapons

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,394
Reaction score
6,779
Now that the INF Treaty seems to have joined the Chequers Deal in the land of the Dodo, I found myself wondering whether Russia is altogether wise to pick this particular fight with the West.

At the end of the Cold War, France was deploying HADES and the US had Pershing 2s in Germany. Both were capable to hitting key decisionmaking and other targets very quickly. The Soviet Union's fear of a pre-emptive surgical strike on Moscow by Pershings played a key role in its decision to negotiate on INF.

With modern technology it should be possible to develop a high speed missile that can be launched from subs and possibly surface ships assigned to give SACEUR an appropriate level of response to a use of ISKANDER plus or whatever SS20 style nasty, Putin fields.

This would have the advantage of not having protesters camped 24/7 in NATO countries outside land bases. Given the naval superiority still enjoyed by NATO and Russia's poor shipbuilding industry this threat could easily be ratcheted up. US systems could swing between NATO, the Gulf and Far East wherever a nuclear missile threat needed a high speed counter.

What we don't need is landbased systems like LANCE/ATACMS which are easy to enmesh politically (who operates them, who has the warheads, when can they shoot)

The purpose of this system should be purely to put the same pressure of Russia that we did with Pershing 2. There need not be that many (72 Pershing?)
 
Ship-based missiles were never limited by INF.

The end of INF isn't so much relevant to nuclear-tipped missiles. It's extremely relevant regarding conventionally-tipped missiles.
A single MRBM could launch multiple precision guided submunitions that are each capable of penetrating a hardened aircraft shelter (the ~250 lbs class SDB can do it).
A couple hundred such missiles could knock out much of the European Typhoon, Rafale and F-35 fleets in minutes.
Additionally, lots of other high value targets such as warships in port, counter-battery radars, SAM battery radars, NATO and UK AEW&C aircraft, NATO HQ buildings, Oder bridges, Vistula bridges, ministries of defence, BMD radar, M3 amphibian (and equivalent French vehicles) and even hundreds of 1st rate MBTs could be knocked out with disproportionately low Russian hardware expenses (few hundred missiles costing few billion Euros total) and almost non-existing Russian operating expenses required for the capability.

The end of INF is the single most destabilising event in Europe since the attempted coup in Moscow, and it's hardly about nukes at all.
 
I would have thought building thousands of accurate MRBM in the quantity you describe with super conventional munitions and high accuracy would be easier for the US than the Russians, especially as the US already had Pershing 2
 
uk 75 said:
I would have thought building thousands of accurate MRBM in the quantity you describe with super conventional munitions and high accuracy would be easier for the US than the Russians, especially as the US already had Pershing 2
Click to expand...

Without cluster munitions and the like such missiles would be of limited use, at best. Nuclear or bust in other words.
 
IMO, it would be interesting to see if NATO could get their act together regarding 'new NATO nuclear weapons' period! For seemingly at the blink of an eye, NATO's credibility as a coherent military system seemingly dissolve the day after Gorbachev mentioned Glasnost.
NATO's adventurism in the dubious 'war on terrorism' took the majority of NATO's focus, mission and purpose right off the principle ball. On top of this has been the obvious dislocation of many a NATO members as a consequence of the GFC....

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
The trouble with launching missiles carrying conventional warheads is that the other side might not know that they are conventional warheads, and assume that they are nuclear warheads, and so retaliate in turn.
 
The Tomahawk with nuclear warhead would be a suitable response to a Russian Iskander strike.
How quickly and how could buclear tipped tomahawks be deployed?
Wish we still had Pershing
 
A nuclear delivery system should not be confuse-able with a conventional delivery system.

If you see a weapon heading your way and you suspect....just suspect it is a nuke. How can you sit there and not respond to what looks like a first strike?

This all said, an appropriate system is both achievable and perhaps desirable.
 
Last edited:
Thats the problem with the low-yield warheads on the Tridents and with SLCM-N.
 
What could be done is an MRBM system, but for accuracy in the face of GPS denial/destruction the missiles could receive fixed transmitter signals.
Granted this forces such missiles to be launched relatively close to the transmitters.
But the likes of the UK, such transmitters located on the coast open up large swathes of nearby sea to hide a SSBN in.

This does make it relocatable, but a more deliberate action in needing to set up such transmitters in the area of concern.

However in curious twist the presence of transmitters only indicates the potential for nearby SSBN. It doesn't guarantee it......

Another path is radar based image matching. I think Pershing used a primative version of this.
Satellite radar mapping, makes this very achievable. But the power of maneuver is needed, to ensure the weapon can adjust trajectory accordingly.
 
With the widespread use of missiles in Ukraine NATO's lack of such weapons other than the slow and modestly armed Tomahawk would seem to be a major gap.
At the end of the Cold War we had developments of Lance and Pershing as well as the ATACMS for MLRS launchers. France had developed HADES.
Even if Putin has been humiliated by Ukraine Russia and China have shown how far behind the West has become.
Germany is now looking at a system similar to Iron Dome to defend itself. But NATO needs to be able to match Russian strikes with its own. South Korea and Japan (also Taiwan) need similar weapons.
Reliance on Trident is not an option.
 
Don’t understand your last post.
Russia has used some conventionally armed “tactical” ballistic missiles to hit some fixed targets because its airforce is proving far less effective and survivable when trying to do so than they had hoped/ expected.
It’s a really expensive and wasteful way of doing so and is product of the weaknesses / relative failure of the Russian airforce.
Trying to extrapolate that onto NATO forces that don’t have the same weaknesses is deeply misguided, while any attempts to try to turn this very specific use of these very specific non-nuclear weapons into an argument for new US/ NATO “intermediate” range nuclear weapons would just be dishonest.
 
kaiserd said:
Trying to extrapolate that onto NATO forces that don’t have the same weaknesses
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Actually, I'm more inclined to conclude, that the whole modern military thinking made the same mistake as in 1914; everybody assumed that firepower increase helped offensive. While in fact, it helped the defense...
 
zen said:
A nuclear delivery system should not be confuse-able with a conventional delivery system.

If you see a weapon heading your way and you suspect....just suspect it is a nuke. How can you sit there and not respond to what looks like a first strike?
Click to expand...
And yet both Russia and China (and others) have many such systems. It should not be a reason for the US not deploying them.
 
I have
kaiserd said:
Don’t understand your last post.
Russia has used some conventionally armed “tactical” ballistic missiles to hit some fixed targets because its airforce is proving far less effective and survivable when trying to do so than they had hoped/ expected.
It’s a really expensive and wasteful way of doing so and is product of the weaknesses / relative failure of the Russian airforce.
Trying to extrapolate that onto NATO forces that don’t have the same weaknesses is deeply misguided, while any attempts to try to turn this very specific use of these very specific non-nuclear weapons into an argument for new US/ NATO “intermediate” range nuclear weapons would just be dishonest.
Click to expand...
So NATO should not deploy its own missiles and rely on its aircraft to penetrate the massive layered Russian air defence system?
 
Is anyone sensible advocating for NATO needing conventionally armed IRBMs to successfully penetrate Russian tactical/ theatre air defenses?
There’s a potential argument for greater numbers of air launched stand-off missiles (JASSM and equivalents) in this context but conventionally armed IRBMs are likely not as accurate and represent not a lot of bang for a lot of buck.
And in the nuclear context a sub launched trident missile (or French equivalent) would do the job given zero interest by anyone who would be needed to host new ground based nuclear armed IRBMs or cruise missiles to do so.
So from many perspectives this appears to be advocates desperately seeking a justification for a “solution” that doesn’t actually match up to the actual problem.
 
And in relation to pointing to the current Ukraine conflict as a justification/ proof of the need for IRBMs - that doesn’t really check out.
The issue is that the Russian airforce doesn’t appear to have airborne weapons systems that combine the necessary accuracy and survivability. This can be largely chalked up to poor Russian targeting systems (even the Su-34 appears sub-par in this regard) plus under performing jamming/ neglect of SEAD and wider planning/ execution failures.
Hence rather like NATO in Kosovo decades ago it appears to be a choice to exposing your self to defenses by going lower/ slower to try to compensate for the poor targeting systems or not taking the risk and going for “close enough” far less accurate delivery from higher altitudes with associated reluctance to do so anywhere near your troops or particularly public-accessible civilian population centres where mistakes become very embarrassing very quickly.
The Russian ballistic missile strikes are a version of this in that presumably those targets weren’t seen as particularly risking civilian casualties while the missile was seen as still more accurate than whatever air launched cruise missile or Su-34 available could do while not risking a Su-34.
Apologies to moderators - on the back of other related closed topics I’m very much not looking to get into the detail of the Ukraine conflict, merely trying to give an indication of why trying to use it as evidence/ “lesson” for the need for “Pershing 3’s” or equivalent is so wrong-headed and unconnected to actual reality.
 
uk 75 said:
I have
kaiserd said:
Don’t understand your last post.
Russia has used some conventionally armed “tactical” ballistic missiles to hit some fixed targets because its airforce is proving far less effective and survivable when trying to do so than they had hoped/ expected.
It’s a really expensive and wasteful way of doing so and is product of the weaknesses / relative failure of the Russian airforce.
Trying to extrapolate that onto NATO forces that don’t have the same weaknesses is deeply misguided, while any attempts to try to turn this very specific use of these very specific non-nuclear weapons into an argument for new US/ NATO “intermediate” range nuclear weapons would just be dishonest.
Click to expand...
So NATO should not deploy its own missiles and rely on its aircraft to penetrate the massive layered Russian air defence system?
Click to expand...
The good thing about missiles, particularly supersonic/hypersonic ones, is short time of flight. And you avoid putting pilots at risk. (But some people are more than happy to keep the US at a disadvantage. You see them crawl out of the woodwork whenever to topic comes up.)
 
You still have not answered the question why NATO should leave an entire class of useful weapons systems to their opponents.
Despite the efforts of CND and others NATO maintained a full spectrum nuclear arsenal throughout the Cold War. It has regrettably become necessary thanks to Russia and China to do so again.
Let us agree to differ on our view of history. However, if you try to no platform me for my arguments I will not take it lying down.
 
NATO simply doesn’t have the same need for them and on that basis there are better more urgently required pieces of kit to spend defence budgets on.

If they are nuclear armed there will be likely be few if any NATO takers to have them based on their territories (ineffective if you can’t base them close enough to likely targets).

If conventional they are equally a waste of resources and largely just duplicate existing capabilities of NATO larger superior airforces (versus Russian airforces).

The NATO members that allow B61s to be based on their territory are few and while there will be greater focus on defence spending and forces post the Ukraine crisis it is extremely hard to see that including greater appetite by populations and their politicians for more nuclear forces based in NATO countries (indeed a push for more may just highlight and undermine existing nuclear forces like the B61
sharing scheme).

Populations of NATO members may accept the need to boast conventional military forces but their views of nuclear weapons are very different and being seen to try to force the later on them may risk delegitimising any conventional build up (while also eating up funding needed for that build up).

If there is a demonstrated need for nuclear hypersonic weapons wouldn’t that be more efficiently and robustly/ survivably provided by arming UK and French (and US) SSBNs with a small number per boat on a small percent of their existing missiles?

If there is a demonstrated need for conventional hypersonic weapons wouldn’t that be more flexibly provided by air launched weapons?
There doesn’t currently appear to be an especially strong case for such NATO/ Europe-based “Pershing 3”.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are Pershing type self guiding ballistic missiles inaccurate?
Strictly with onboard radar image mapping and power to manoeuvre this seems a false statement.
 
kaiserd said:
If there is a demonstrated need for nuclear hypersonic weapons wouldn’t that be more efficiently and robustly/ survivably provided by arming UK and French (and US) SSBNs with a small number per boat on a small percent of their existing missiles?
Click to expand...
No it detracts from their mission.
 
zen said:
Are Pershing type self guiding ballistic missiles inaccurate?
Strictly with onboard radar image mapping and power to manoeuvre this seems a false statement.
Click to expand...
Supposedly Pershing 2 with radar DSMAC had a CEP of 75 feet. (That's what was published. I'd be surprised if it weren't better.)
 
sferrin said:
zen said:
Are Pershing type self guiding ballistic missiles inaccurate?
Strictly with onboard radar image mapping and power to manoeuvre this seems a false statement.
Click to expand...
Supposedly Pershing 2 with radar DSMAC had a CEP of 75 feet. (That's what was published. I'd be surprised if it weren't better.)
Click to expand...
I'm sure we could improve on that ;)
 
uk 75 said:
You still have not answered the question why NATO should leave an entire class of useful weapons systems to their opponents.
Despite the efforts of CND and others NATO maintained a full spectrum nuclear arsenal throughout the Cold War. It has regrettably become necessary thanks to Russia and China to do so again.
Let us agree to differ on our view of history. However, if you try to no platform me for my arguments I will not take it lying down.
Click to expand...
Simple, different nations have different needs and no one has an infinite military budget. A dollar you spend on one thing is a dollar you can't spend on another thing. A great example is the Ukraine War, Russia spent all their money on they Strategic Nuclear Forces and their Air Defenses and you can see how badly it impacted their ground forces.

Now if you want to argue that SRBMs should replace tactical strike aircraft, that is a different question and a valid one to ask. But you cant just add SRBMs without cuts elsewhere.
 
We already spend more on defense than the next ten countries combined...
 
I don't think the UK spends ten times what France does.
That is an American perspective.
 
Last edited:
The US is developing conventional intermediate ranged weapons. To what extent they will be built and where they will be deployed remains to be seen. Given the current situation, it seems unlikely that Russia will be a near term conventional threat to US/NATO.
 
sferrin said:
Do you have a better, realistic, alternative?
Click to expand...
This is very good question

Is there alternative to nukes ?
not yet, so MAD is only solution, even with ABM system.
But sooner or later some maniac politician will push the red button.

For my part, gather those maniac politicians and trow them in Fight pit and let them fight like...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO1HC8pHZw0

I'm sorry for last comment, but since 24. Februar 2022
My Cold War cynicism from 1980s resurface
while i look nervously north West were is the NATO AFB Geilenkirchen...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom