Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans

[bobbymike]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.

 

[Airplane]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.

For the time being, yes, Russia has better ICBMs than the USA. But its useless weapon as it cannot be used... To use it, as everyone knows means "judgment day". And keep in mind my pump action shotgun I bought in 1975 will kill you just as well as a new semiautomatic.

Some of those "advanced" ICBMs were bought by Russia to counter SDI, hence we bankrupted them. They are still developing missiles to counter our ABM efforts... Hence, once again we forcing them to send money they barely have on weapons that will never be used.... The Russians did not learn the first time when The Great Ronald Reagan bankrupted them and they are not learning this time either.

Again, my old shotgun will kill just as well as a new semiautomatic.

As of today the usaf is in possession of a true first strike weapon that no one would see coming.... Just 10 b2s (imagine if we had at least 60 or 70) could deliver over a hundred nukes and decapitate Russia before they knew what happened. Once the raider comes.... Once the new cruise missile comes, then wow, what an incredible unseen first strike capability the US will have.

 

[sferrin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.

For the time being, yes, Russia has better ICBMs than the USA. But its useless weapon as it cannot be used...

If ICBMs couldn't be used, and were useless, nobody would have them. Obviously that's not the case.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22039073/russia-backfire-bomber-hypersonic-missiles/?src=socialflowTW

Russia’s oldest bombers could become platforms for firing hypersonic missiles, allowing Moscow to strike targets from long range while slipping under anti-missile radars.

According to a report in Sputnik News, the Tu-22M3 Backfire could be modified to carry four Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” air-launched ballistic missiles. Introduced in 1978, the Backfire is a large, swing-wing nuclear-capable supersonic bomber with a combat range of approximately 3,400 miles. Most of Russia’s Backfires are 30 years old or older and were recently refitted with the new SVP-24 Gefest digital sighting and navigation system.

 

[bobbymike]

Russian Nuclear Forces 2018

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2018.1462912?needAccess=true

 

[Rickshaw]

Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans? Is it allowed to feel threatened by an apparently aggressive America and Europe?

While I do not necessarily believe that the US and/or Europe have been overtly aggressive towards Russia, I do think Moscow has a right to feel threatened by the expansion of NATO and aggressive US policies in the Middle-East. Any strategic decision is rarely made in a vacuum. There are inputs which feed and fuel fears. Just as Russia's decision to modernise feeds and fuels American alarmism, so do American policies fuel and feed Russian fears. Perhaps instead of getting alarmed and fearing Russian modernisation, it might be better to talk to Putin and prove to him that America is no real threat to Russia? Or is diplomacy dead?

Questions of morality and ethics appear to be ignored all too often in these sorts of discussions. I wonder why? I suppose it is just much easier to paint one side as the "good guys" and the other as the "baddies".

 

[sferrin]

Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?

It's conventional forces suck compared to the West. Also big, powerful nuclear forces make it so you can get away with being belligerent on the world stage (see Crimea, Ukraine, the Arctic, etc.). We've certainly never given them a reason to think we want to invade. We could literally walk into Canada, and all it's resources, if that's the kind of country we were.

Is it allowed to feel threatened by an apparently aggressive America and Europe?

Is the US allowed to feel threated by an ACTUALLY aggressive Russia and China? (After all, who's got new strategic nuclear weapons in production and who doesn't?)

 

[Rickshaw]

Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?

'It's conventional forces suck compared to the West. Also big, powerful nuclear forces make it so you can get away with being belligerent on the world stage (see Crimea, Ukraine, the Arctic, etc.). We've certainly never given them a reason to think we want to invade. We could literally walk into Canada, and all it's resources, if that's the kind of country we were.

I was not asking what sort of country you believe yourself to be but rather is Russia allowed to believe what it wants about it's
"opponents" and act on those fears? After all, you are acting on your fears of Russia. Does Russia have any "rights" in this debate or are tehy to be treated merely as a terrible bogeyman which can be invoked whenever someone in America desires?

Moscow believes it is acting to provide protection to it's people because it believes it's interests have been threatened by American policies. I believe those fears are being manipulated by Putin but I am merely an interested observer looking on. I believe you succumbing to Cold War "Fail Safe" styles of thinking about Russian intentions. Surely the end of the Cold War and all the revelations that attended that indicated how short-sighted those thought processes were?

Is it allowed to feel threatened by an apparently aggressive America and Europe?

Is the US allowed to feel threated by an ACTUALLY aggressive Russia and China? (After all, who's got new strategic nuclear weapons in production and who doesn't?)

Ah, but their aggression is defensive - according to them. They are seeking to keep the US and it's lackeys at arm's length, further from their borders. US aggression OTOH appears to be much more aggressive - it seeks "regime change" and control of resources, along with expansion of alliance boundaries. It seeks control of regions traditionally controlled by Moscow/Beijing. While in my view, most of that is poorly thought out, it does have a certain degree of sense behind it. Whereas the American thinking doesn't.

 

[marauder2048]

Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?

It's conventional forces suck compared to the West.

That's unclear at this point. There was a recent RAND study* on this front that argued
that the Russians have, since 2008, largely closed the gap and enjoy some clear advantages
in long range fires, anti-tank munitions, IADS etc.

Quantitively it's near parity and in the Baltic it's not even close. Plus, the Russians have
been emphasizing multi-divisional level maneuver of combined arms heavy units in their
unannounced snap exercises. In comparison, NATO has mostly been, for decades,
moving around smaller, lighter units in exercises.

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

* https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2400/RR2402/RAND_RR2402.pdf

 

[Rickshaw]

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective. NATO has expanded it's borders. It now is a lot closer to Russia's borders - something they were assured was not going to happen. NATO's influence has also expanded. This is threatening to Moscow. It was why the Warsaw Pact was established - to prevent a repetition of 1812, 1914 and 1941. It was intended to keep those pesky west Europeans away from the borders of Russia.

Will it? I have no idea. They perceive NATO as an alliance against them. Coupled with apparently aggressive policies from Washington, it appears that their modernisation plans are justified. Not that I agree with them, but I can at least attempt to understand matters from their perspective.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Odd, when I said that I got shot down. I think there is a clear connection between the EU/Nato borders moving eastwards and the Ukraine war/conflict. Perhaps a world bank funding for the nations that made up the warsaw pact group would have limited opportunities for such problems.

 

[sferrin]

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective. NATO has expanded it's borders.

By invitation. Bit of a difference than what Russia did in Crimea and Ukraine. Sounds like they're projecting.

 

[marauder2048]

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective. NATO has expanded it's borders. It now is a lot closer to Russia's borders - something they were assured was not going to happen. NATO's influence has also expanded. This is threatening to Moscow.

As the figures show, NATO was for more capable in late 80's/early 90's and yet the Russians had no
problem with NATO's expansion as a result of German re-unification which moved NATO closer
to the Russian border.

And in the face of that supposed threat the Russians elected to dismantle both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union.

And the Russians did all of the above without any treaty language that formalized or codified assurances.

Since it's clear that the Russians did not view a far more capable NATO as a threat, logically a far less capable NATO
should not be viewed as a threat. Unless the Russian perspective is irrational in which case diplomacy is impossible
or the claim about an expanded NATO is just a pretext.

 

[Rickshaw]

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective. NATO has expanded it's borders.

By invitation. Bit of a difference than what Russia did in Crimea and Ukraine. Sounds like they're projecting.

In part, I agree. I am not making excuses for Russia's actions. I am merely trying to see if you can see this issue from their perspective. Just as Washington has concerns outside it's borders, so does Moscow. I would suggest that those concerns are nearly as valid as those of Washington. Both believe they are acting out of the best intentions - from their perspectives. Neither side appears to be willing to consider things from the perspective of their opponents. Without such understanding, people fall into thinking of their opponents as "evil" which is IMO a mistake.

 

[Rickshaw]

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective. NATO has expanded it's borders. It now is a lot closer to Russia's borders - something they were assured was not going to happen. NATO's influence has also expanded. This is threatening to Moscow.

As the figures show, NATO was for more capable in late 80's/early 90's and yet the Russians had no
problem with NATO's expansion as a result of German re-unification which moved NATO closer
to the Russian border.

And in the face of that supposed threat the Russians elected to dismantle both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union.

And the Russians did all of the above without any treaty language that formalized or codified assurances.

Since it's clear that the Russians did not view a far more capable NATO as a threat, logically a far less capable NATO
should not be viewed as a threat. Unless the Russian perspective is irrational in which case diplomacy is impossible
or the claim about an expanded NATO is just a pretext.

What needs to be understood is that Gorbachev represented very much a break with traditional Russian thinking. He realised that basically no one represented a major existential threat to the fUSSR/Russia. Strategic nuclear weapons assured fUSSR/Russian of it's existence. Under Gorbachev they were prepared to surrender the Warsaw Pact. They couldn't afford to maintain nuclear forces and conventional forces which were unfortunately used to keep the Warsaw Pact. Unfortunately, it lacked the funds in the end to spend sufficiently to maintain it's existing nuclear forces. It was also based on the premise that NATO would not expand significantly - which was promised to Moscow at the end of the Cold War. To Moscow, that promise was broken. Normal Russian strategy thinking, under Putin has re-asserted itself. He uses it to back his regime. Just as Trump does. When coupled with apparently (from Moscow's perspective) aggressive US policies in SW Asia, Moscow feels it needs obviously to rebuild it's aging nuclear forces. Perhaps instead of aggressive counter-policy, Russia needs reassurance about it's position in the world?

 

[sferrin]

In part, I agree. I am not making excuses for Russia's actions. I am merely trying to see if you can see this issue from their perspective.

I can see how they'd be leery of what Germany did to them in WWII (though it's difficult to summon much pity given Stalin initially allied himself with Hitler). But what evidence has the US ever given for Russia thinking we were interested in their territory? If I were Putin, I'd move their entire military East. Russia could leave it's Western border undefended and the only thing that would happen is US forces would disappear from Europe, and European militaries would fall further into decrepitude.

 

[Rickshaw]

In part, I agree. I am not making excuses for Russia's actions. I am merely trying to see if you can see this issue from their perspective.

I can see how they'd be leery of what Germany did to them in WWII (though it's difficult to summon much pity given Stalin initially allied himself with Hitler). But what evidence has the US ever given for Russia thinking we were interested in their territory? If I were Putin, I'd move their entire military East. Russia could leave it's Western border undefended and the only thing that would happen is US forces would disappear from Europe, and European militaries would fall further into decrepitude.

And NATO keeps expanding. The point is, Moscow perceives NATO as an alliance which is nearly at it's borders. The reassurances that it would not expand are now considered worthless from Moscow's perspective. Then we have the already mentioned apparently aggressive US policies in SW Asia, which appear designed to destroy Moscow's influence in the region. The point is that in both cases, Russian paranoia is reinforced, not diminished, while Washington appears unwilling to address that.

What you've said appear sensible. When is the US going to do likewise and remove it's military from it's overseas deployments? Afterall, no one is threatening the US directly, now are they? Afterall if it is good advice for Moscow, surely it is good advice for Washington? Will we see US forces depart South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Europe?

In reality both nations have interests other than their own defence and that s why they deploy their forces outside their borders and near their edges. It is why the Russians are in Syria and why the US is in Korea.

 

[sferrin]

And NATO keeps expanding. The point is, Moscow perceives NATO as an alliance which is nearly at it's borders.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more belligerent Russia gets the more Eastern European countries want to sign up to be in NATO. Also, this is by request. It's not as though NATO is forcing these countries into joining. On the contrary, Russia is driving them into NATO.

The reassurances that it would not expand are now considered What you've said appear sensible. When is the US going to do likewise and remove it's military from it's overseas deployments? Afterall, no one is threatening the US directly, now are they?

I wouldn't mind if we left Europe today. East Asia is another matter thanks to China. Also, we have allies in the Middle East, and Iran keeps stirring the pot there so. . .

 

[kaiserd]

And NATO keeps expanding. The point is, Moscow perceives NATO as an alliance which is nearly at it's borders.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more belligerent Russia gets the more Eastern European countries want to sign up to be in NATO. Also, this is by request. It's not as though NATO is forcing these countries into joining. On the contrary, Russia is driving them into NATO.

The reassurances that it would not expand are now considered What you've said appear sensible. When is the US going to do likewise and remove it's military from it's overseas deployments? Afterall, no one is threatening the US directly, now are they?

I wouldn't mind if we left Europe today. East Asia is another matter thanks to China. Also, we have allies in the Middle East, and Iran keeps stirring the pot there so. . .

And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons it’s NATO allies and commitments? Your oldest and truest friends and allies who have fought, bled and died with you, cast away?
Why would the US do exactly what one of your principal adversaries (Putin’s regime) desperately wants you to do?
Due to same hog-wash of ultra right wing conspiracy theory-laced inconsistent prejudices and pandering that sees a President viciously attack one of the US’s closest allies (Germany) but never utter so much as a negative word against one of your most implacable enemies (Putin)?
All the while you are advocating massively building up your nuclear forces against those of Russia?
A lot doesn’t add up about this position.

 

[sferrin]

And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons it’s NATO allies and commitments?

It could be argued Germany, and others, already abandoned their commitments. Platitudes and good intentions don't amount to much if you can't back it up.

Due to same hog-wash of ultra right wing conspiracy theory-laced inconsistent prejudices and pandering that sees a President viciously attack one of the US’s closest allies (Germany) but never utter so much as a negative word against one of your most implacable enemies (Putin)?
All the while you are advocating massively building up your nuclear forces against those of Russia?
A lot doesn’t add up about this position.

And here I thought TDS only affected Americans.

 

[marauder2048]

Strategic nuclear weapons assured fUSSR/Russian of it's existence.

Thus Gorbachev signed START. And the Russian's started their first round of strategic modernization
before NATO expansion (Bark, Topol-M and Bulava).

Under Gorbachev they were prepared to surrender the Warsaw Pact. They couldn't afford to maintain nuclear forces and conventional forces which
were unfortunately used to keep the Warsaw Pact.

Hence the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty that Gorbachev signed.
Ratifying its various updates over the intervening decades has been fraught. But it's an open
area for improvement.

Unfortunately, it lacked the funds in the end to spend sufficiently to maintain it's existing nuclear forces.
It was also based on the premise that NATO would not expand significantly - which was promised to Moscow at the end of the Cold War. To Moscow, that promise was broken.

Baker and Genscher both made proposals to Gorbachev on NATO expansion but those
never ended up in a treaty.

But a treaty on sub-strategic nuclear weapons that at least the Baker proposal
was in part tied-to never materialized either. NATO's military decline
and non-threat are both obvious and verifiable; Russian sub-strategic nuclear weapons
are not.

 

[kaiserd]

And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons it’s NATO allies and commitments?

It could be argued Germany, and others, already abandoned their commitments. Platitudes and good intentions don't amount to much if you can't back it up.

Due to same hog-wash of ultra right wing conspiracy theory-laced inconsistent prejudices and pandering that sees a President viciously attack one of the US’s closest allies (Germany) but never utter so much as a negative word against one of your most implacable enemies (Putin)?
All the while you are advocating massively building up your nuclear forces against those of Russia?
A lot doesn’t add up about this position.

And here I thought TDS only affected Americans.

It could be argued. Incorrectly, ignorantly or willing misleadingly so argued.
It is factually incorrect to say any NATO nation spending less than 2 percent is breaching an actual commitment.
And to put in context Germany is ramping up its spending to that figure and when it does so its defense spending will significantly outstrip Russia’s defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italy’s).

As for TDS nonsense if you think what Trump is doing is normal and wise then you are the fool drinking the Fox/ ultra right wing cool-aid, parroting the most convoluted inconsistent positions.
Rather like “good” communists trying to keep their opinions consistent with the USSRs shifting positions.

 

[sferrin]

It could be argued. Incorrectly, ignorantly or willing misleadingly so argued.

No, not really. If you've gutted your military so you can spend it on social programs that's not called "holding up your end". (How many operational tanks and fighters does Germany have? Operational mind you.)

It is factually incorrect to say any NATO nation spending less than 2 percent is breaching an actual commitment.

No, but it is factually correct to say that if they can't field a fighting force commensurate with their GDP and population that they aren't holding up their end.

And to put in context Germany is ramping up its spending to that figure and when it does so its defense spending will significantly outstrip Russia’s defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italy’s).

If only it were dollars that shot down aircraft or defended terrain. Unfortunately it's tanks, planes, and missiles. Does Germany have as many of those as Russia? Will Germany be buying as many missiles, planes, ships, and armored vehicles as Russia? Nuclear weapons? No? What was your point again?

As for TDS nonsense if you think what Trump is doing is normal and wise then you are the fool drinking the Fox/ ultra right wing cool-aid, parroting the most convoluted inconsistent positions.
Rather like “good” communists trying to keep their opinions consistent with the USSRs shifting positions.

I never said I think what Trump is doing is "normal". We didn't want business as usual. That's why we put him in power. That's why we'll do it again in 2020. This isn't rocket science.

Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US. Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe.

 

[Desertfox]

Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US. Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe.

Because it is still way cheaper than bailing them out of yet another World War...

 

[kaiserd]

It could be argued. Incorrectly, ignorantly or willing misleadingly so argued.

No, not really. If you've gutted your military so you can spend it on social programs that's not called "holding up your end". (How many operational tanks and fighters does Germany have? Operational mind you.)

I don't want a waste of time tit-for-tat exchange, I would just ask you consider different perspectives rather than the line you are getting from some very specific sources.
Germany has not gutted its military to spend on social programs; that is definitively not true.
Following the end of the Cold War Germany cut it military spending as its principal threat had collapsed and it had to pay for reunification with East Germany.
In addition was the consideration of trying to avoid tensions with the emergent Russian federation etc.
Was Germany to slow in reacting to Putin regime. Yes, but they are reacting.
An Putin knows they are and recognizes Merkel as one of his principal opponents, hence all the vitriol directed at her by Russian-influenced far right groups.
Unfortunately including by certain supporters of the current US President which he then ignorantly parrots.

It is factually incorrect to say any NATO nation spending less than 2 percent is breaching an actual commitment.

No, but it is factually correct to say that if they can't field a fighting force commensurate with their GDP and population that they aren't holding up their end. [/QUOTE]

Germany itself recognizes it needs to spend more on defense and is moving up to the 2% level.
But it can't just double its defense spending and even if it could that would hardly ease tensions with Russia.

And it is German voters that get to decide what is or is not commensurate with their GDP, not allies, particularly false friend friends like you and President Trump.
(By the way I'm not German.)

And to put in context Germany is ramping up its spending to that figure and when it does so its defense spending will significantly outstrip Russia’s defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italy’s).

If only it were dollars that shot down aircraft or defended terrain. Unfortunately it's tanks, planes, and missiles. Does Germany have as many of those as Russia? Will Germany be buying as many missiles, planes, ships, and armored vehicles as Russia? Nuclear weapons? No? What was your point again? [/QUOTE]

My point is that current and projected Russian defense spending is unsustainable apart from via authoritarian rule and it is dubious that even that can sustain it that long.
Germany, like all Western countries including the US, have different factors at play.
Germany will have smaller, generally more professional, better paid and better equipped armed forces than the likes of Russia, and it will be able to sustain the associated level of spending and not have to primarily rely on diminishing standards of living to do so.

As for TDS nonsense if you think what Trump is doing is normal and wise then you are the fool drinking the Fox/ ultra right wing cool-aid, parroting the most convoluted inconsistent positions.
Rather like “good” communists trying to keep their opinions consistent with the USSRs shifting positions.

I never said I think what Trump is doing is "normal". We didn't want business as usual. That's why we put him in power. That's why we'll do it again in 2020. This isn't rocket science.

Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US. Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe.
[/quote]

There are many many salient reasons why US forces in Europe are mutually beneficial to the defense of both the US and Europe.
I will give you one very basic reason as an example.
One of the US's principal opponents (Putin's regime) doesn't want them to be there. Hence Russia's covert support for those also looking to remove them. Including but not limited to attempts to influence the US presidential election.
In this regard President Trump is at best a dupe, and you're a dupe a few times removed.

IF a Democratic President had similar attitudes (calling it a policy or policies is suggesting more coherence than is actually the case) you know you would be screaming your head-off, calling people traitors, calling for impeachment etc.
You know you and your fellow travelers on this site already did so for on an infinitesimal less valid basis for President Obama.

I would suggest you try to consider for a moment your reaction if similar attitudes/ policies were coming from some one you didn't consider "your guy", particularly before you go parroting and promoting them.

 

[sferrin]

Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US. Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe.

Because it is still way cheaper than bailing them out of yet another World War...

If they don't think their countries are worth defending why should we? They seem to want all the benefits of large economies with none of the responsibilities. And then they complain about the US being the "World Police".

 

[sferrin]

I would suggest you try to consider for a moment your reaction if similar attitudes/ policies were coming from some one you didn't consider "your guy", particularly before you go parroting and promoting them.

Well, I was against Mr. "More Flexibility After The Election" because he was gutting US forces, and the industrial base, and setting the US up for eventual unilateral nuclear disarmament (through attrition with no replacement). I don't recall if he ever said anything about pulling US forces from Europe.

Edit: there's probably a better place for this conversation as it's OT.

 

[kaiserd]

I would suggest you try to consider for a moment your reaction if similar attitudes/ policies were coming from some one you didn't consider "your guy", particularly before you go parroting and promoting them.

Well, I was against Mr. "More Flexibility After The Election" because he was gutting US forces, and the industrial base,

That's not really answering my point.
Are you really comfortable with policies and attitude to your NATO allies that Russia would be delighted with while at the same time you yourself advocate considerable extra spending on US nuclear weapons to counter Russia's modernization of their nuclear weapons and are very focal on the threat from Russia?
That isn't consistent.

As for President Obama, for a more balanced nuanced view I can recommend the following articles:
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476048024/fact-check-has-president-obama-depleted-the-military?t=1531595627695
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/14/politifact-sheet-our-guide-to-military-spending-/

For example Republican President George Bush (the 1st) oversaw far far greater reductions in US nuclear weapon numbers than Obama ever did.

....and setting the US up for eventual unilateral nuclear disarmament (through attrition with no replacement).

This is blatantly untrue and you know its untrue because you have been repeatedly challenged on such statements on this website.
The Obama presidency instigated and/ or strongly supported all the ongoing major recapitalization of US nuclear forces, including but not limited to the B-21, new SSBN subs, ICBMs etc. Obama instigated and supported the replacements.

You are parroting untrue conspiracy theories and willfully confusing Obama's actual position with that of a minority of the Democratic Party.

I don't recall if he ever said anything about pulling US forces from Europe.

You don't remember his "NATO is obsolete" comments, comments that were debated long and hard, including on this site?
Again you are being less than truthful, or perhaps you weren't yet on message about what you were meant to believe.

I do not mean to personally attack you; I am challenging the misconceived ideas you are parroting because "your side" tells you to.

Edit: there's probably a better place for this conversation as it's OT.

Agreed and my apologies, I related my points above to the topic but agree the wider conversation has strayed and I don't intend to continue any further down this line.

 

[bobbymike]

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia-begins-sea-trials-of-nuclear-capable-poseidon-underwater-prone/

Russia has reportedly commenced sea trials of its ultimate doomsday weapon, a nuclear-capable underwater vehicle (UUV), dubbed ‘Poseidon,’ purportedly designed to deliver a 2-megaton nuclear warhead to destroy naval bases, carrier strike groups, and entire coastal cities by triggering a radioactive Tsunami wave.

The sea trials of the “Poseidon” began last week and are primarily focused on the UUVs guidance system and underwater operations in autonomous mode. Work on the “Poseidon” is reportedly progressing according to schedule, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) said in a July 19 statement.

The “Poseidon,” also known under Ocean Multipurpose System Status-6 or “Kanyon” by the U.S. intelligence community, “is a new intercontinental, nuclear armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo,” according to the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review. The UUV is thought to have been developed in reaction to the increasing sophistication of U.S. ballistic missile defense systems.

 

[bobbymike]

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/russians-arrest-nato-spy-suspects-probe-hypersonic-missile-secrets/?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=c21fb713b5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_07_26_01_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-c21fb713b5-81812733

Russian FSB security and intelligence service agents have arrested two people in the defense industry charged with passing secrets on Moscow's hypersonic missiles to western intelligence.

U.S. intelligence agencies are closely monitoring the mole hunt first disclosed July 20 in news reports in Russia.

One suspect in the case is Viktor Kudryavtsev, a 74-year-old researcher at a Russian rocket and spacecraft design plant who was arrested July 19 by FSB agents.

A second person was reported arrested for treason as part of the investigation, Russian state-run news outlets reported Monday.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_look_into_the_future_of_Russias_strategic_defenses_999.html

Furthermore, in footage released last week, the Defense Ministry confirmed that the Kinzhal, a new air-launched nuclear-capable hypersonic, maneuverable cruise missile with a top speed of Mach 10 and a range of 2,000 km, had been tested aboard the Tu-22M3. Given the Tu-22M's 5,100 km range, the Kinzhal can be effectively be said to have gained intercontinental strike capability. The missile is already deployed, and has seen extensive flight training aboard the MiG-31BM supersonic interceptor aircraft.

 

[totoro]

Considering tu22m3 combat radius is usually quoted at 2200 or 2400 km, it's highly Likely tu22m3 even with a single kinzhal can't do 3000 km of combat radius. Unless it gets its ifr probe retrofotted.

 

[litzj]

I cannot convinced that data from Russian source is right...

My post https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-official-data-of-kinzhal-missile.html referenced

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/derjava/raketa-kinjal-oficialnye-dannye-5b5f907b808eb400a9445636?from=feed

Russian said it could reach 1000~2000km

 

[bobbymike]

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-says-small-russian-satellite-space-weapon/

Russia has deployed a suspicious satellite the United States says is part of Moscow's plans to attack orbiting satellites in a future conflict, a State Department official revealed in Geneva on Tuesday.

Yleem Poblete, assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification, and compliance, made the accusation in a speech declaring Moscow is promoting a draft treaty aimed at banning arms in space while advancing an array of space weaponry.

Russia in October conducted tests of a "space apparatus inspector" that was detected by U.S. intelligence maneuvering and taking other unusual actions in space.

"Its behavior on-orbit was inconsistent with anything seen before from on-orbit inspection or space situational awareness capabilities, including other Russian inspection satellite activities," Poblete stated during a session of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament.

 

[stealthflanker]

Considering tu22m3 combat radius is usually quoted at 2200 or 2400 km, it's highly Likely tu22m3 even with a single kinzhal can't do 3000 km of combat radius. Unless it gets its ifr probe retrofotted.

What payload ?.

--

I tried doing my own estimate using data from missilethreat. and Fleeman's tactical missile design book

Found that Kinzhal itself is about 1000 Km range. with apogee of 254 km and terminal velocity of 2.8 km/s.

The assumption is as follows :

Launch Weight : 4300 Kg
Warhead : 480 Kg
Structure: 22% * 4300 Kg = 946 Kg.
Guidance, Battery and Actuators = diasumsikan 300 Kg.
Propelant load = 72% dari rocket motor weight, 2574*72%=1853 Kg.
ISP : 265 S

Launch condition :
Altitude : 15000 m
Starting Velocity : M 0.85
Motor burn : 15 detik.

During trajectory, it's assumed that the missile will have 2 minutes coast to apogee.

 

[bobbymike]

Not Just Money Constraints Facing the Russian Armed Forces

https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/DOP-2018-U-018170-Final.pdf

 

[seruriermarshal]

Russia is preparing to search for a nuclear-powered missile that was lost at sea months ago after a failed test


Moscow is preparing to recover a nuclear-powered missile lost at sea, according to sources with direct knowledge of a U.S. intelligence report.
Russian President Vladimir Putin bragged earlier this year that the new missile had unlimited range.
The missile was tested four times between November and February, each resulting in a crash, according to sources who spoke to CNBC on the condition of anonymity.



A nuclear-powered Russian missile remains lost at sea after a failed test late last year, and Moscow is preparing to try to recover it, according to people with direct knowledge of a U.S. intelligence report.

Crews will attempt to recover a missile that was test launched in November and landed in the Barents Sea, which is located north of Norway and Russia. The operation will include three vessels, one of which is equipped to handle radioactive material from the weapon's nuclear core. There is no timeline for the mission, according to the people with knowledge of the report.

The U.S. intelligence report did not mention any potential health or environmental risks posed by possible damage to the missile's nuclear reactor.

Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled the new nuclear-powered missile in March, boasting it had unlimited range. Yet, the weapon has yet to be successfully tested over multiple attempts.



Russia tested four of the missiles between November and February, each resulting in a crash, people who spoke on the condition of anonymity previously told CNBC. The U.S. assessed that the longest test flight lasted just more than two minutes, with the missile flying 22 miles before losing control and crashing. The shortest test lasted four seconds and flew for five miles. Russia has denied the missile test failures.

If the Russians are able to regain possession of the missile, U.S. intelligence analysts expect Moscow will use the procedure as a blueprint for future recovery operations. It is unclear whether the other missiles are missing at sea, too.

While the report didn't address the potential effects of possible damage to the weapon's reactor, there remain concerns that radioactive material could leak.

"It goes without saying that if you fire a missile with a nuclear engine or energy source, that nuclear material will end up wherever that missile ends up," said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

Read more: Russia's new hypersonic missile, which can be launched from warplanes, will likely be ready for combat by 2020

"If this missile was lost at sea and recovered in full, then you might hypothetically be able to do it without pollution, I would have my doubts about that because it's a very forceful impact when the missile crashes. I would suspect you would have leaks from it," Kristensen added.

The weapon, which has been in development since the early 2000s, is believed to use a gasoline-powered engine for takeoff before switching to a nuclear-powered one for flight, sources have said.



The tests apparently showed that the nuclear-powered heart of the cruise missile failed to initiate and, therefore, the weapon didn't achieve the indefinite flight Putin had boasted about.

The tests were ordered by senior Kremlin officials despite objections from the program's engineers, who voiced concerns that the system was still in its infancy, sources have said.

During a state of the nation address in March, Putin claimed the cruise missile was capable of delivering a warhead to any point in the world while evading missile defense systems. In the same two-hour speech, Putin touted an arsenal of new hypersonic weapons, which he called "invincible."

Of the six weapons Putin debuted in March, CNBC has learned that two of them will be ready for war by 2020, according to sources with direct knowledge of U.S. intelligence reports.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/russias-nuclear-powered-missile-that-putin-claimed-had-infinite-range-is-currently-lost-at-sea.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

 

[sferrin]

Heh. It's probably already in a US or Chinese lab.

 

[GARGEAN]

Heh. It's probably already in a US or Chinese lab.

It would be in case of its existence.

 

[bobbymike]

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/09/kozelsk-icbm-upgrade/

New satellite photos show substantial upgrades of ICBM silos at the missile field near Kozelsk in western Russia.

The images show that progress is well underway on at least half of the silos (possibly more) of the second regiment of the 28th Guards Missile Division from the Soviet-era SS-19 ICBM to the new SS-27 Mod (RS-24, Yars). The first regiment of ten silos completed its upgrade in late-2015. Like the SS-19, the SS-27 Mod 2 carries MIRV.

In its earlier configuration of six regiments with a total of 60 silos, the Kozelsk missile field covered an area of roughly 2,300 square-kilometers (890 square-miles). With closure of three regiments, the active field has been reduced to about 400 square-miles. That includes one 10-missile regiment (74th Regiment) that has already been upgraded to SS-27 Mod 2, a second that is being upgraded (168th Regiment), and a third (219th Regiment) that might still operate SS-19s, although the status is uncertain. It is possible that Russia will upgrade a total of 30 silos at Kozelsk. The Kozelsk missile field is located about 240 kilometers (150 miles) southwest of Moscow about 180 kilometers (115 miles) from Belarus