Russian Objections to Missile Defense System

[Ice]

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_...fense_999.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

by Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst
Washington (UPI) Feb 15, 2007
Why does Russia oppose so fiercely the deployment of U.S. ballistic missile defenses in Central Europe to protect NATO allies from any Iranian threat? A lengthy article published Tuesday in the Moscow newspaper Kommersant by Mikhail Barabanov, editor of Arms Export magazine, gives an important insight into Russian thinking.

First, Barabanov expressed skepticism that the Iranian threat is the real reason the new BMD system is going to be deployed with frontline radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Like the late Henry Ford, Barabanov argued that people have two reasons for doing what they do: a good reason and the real reason. In the case of BMD, a determination to fence Russia in is, he argued, the real reason.

"It is highly likely that the missile threat from 'problem' states is not the genuine reason for the creation of the missile defense system by the Americans," Barabanov wrote. "The real motivation of the multibillion-dollar undertaking is the desire to expand U.S. military and strategic capacities and constrict those of other states that have nuclear missiles, Russia and China most of all."

As we have repeatedly noted in these columns, the U.S. anti-ballistic missile defense system currently being developed at enormous cost is not designed to defend the Untied States against a full-scale launch of ICBMs by Russia's Strategic Missile Forces with their multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicle, or MIRV, warheads. And it could not do so.

Nevertheless, Barabanov argued that "even a limited missile defense system injects a high degree of indeterminacy into the strategic plans of other countries and undermines the principle of mutual nuclear deterrence. With Russia continuing to reduce its nuclear arsenal significantly and China maintaining a low missile potential, the Americans' ability to down even a few dozen warheads could deprive the other side of guaranteed ability to cause the U.S. unacceptable damage in a nuclear war."

Although Russian President Vladimir Putin is pouring unprecedented funds from a treasury bursting with energy-export profits into modernizing Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal, Barabanov struck an uncharacteristically pessimistic, or frank, note about Russia's long-term strategic prospects.

"If current tendencies continue, Russia will be unlikely to have the capacity to maintain more than 400-500 nuclear warheads by 2020. Russian experts have estimated that the U.S. could down half of that quantity with its missile defense system. That would be an especially heavy blow if the Americans delivered a disarming nuclear missile first-strike and the remaining Russian missiles could be eliminated almost completely.

"The first 10 U.S. interceptor missiles in Poland will not make a serious dent in Russian nuclear potential for the first few years," Barabanov acknowledged. But, he continued, "The Russian Army is buying six or seven Topol-M ballistic missiles per year. The destruction of just one of two of them by the American missile defense system would have a high price for Russia. And the placement of a strategic weapons system in Poland, even a defensive one, is a challenge to Moscow by Washington.

"Practically the only way to prevent a slow growth of the American strategic advantage is a significant increase in the purchase of new ballistic missiles by Russia. But the current Russian leadership is not prepared for that, mainly for political reasons," Barabanov said. And that is why, he continued, "Russia's reaction to the news of the possible placement of American interceptor missiles by the Russian border was loud and disorderly, both in political circles and in the press."

In line with his other frank comments, Barabanov was also remarkably outspoken in his criticisms of the Russian diplomatic reaction to the proposed BMD deployments. Russian officials, "as usual, made a number of contradictory statements that amounted to the usual vague threats to 'take adequate measures,' boasting an unconvincing justification for their helplessness," he wrote.

"The Russian leadership had the same initial reaction to the expansion of NATO and the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Everything possible has been done to convince the West that there is no need to pay attention to Russia and Moscow's loud objections."

Finally, Barabanov appeared to argue that Russia should rely much more on its strategic clout as the world's greatest energy exporter of oil and gas combined than on its traditional strategic nuclear arsenal to retain a leading role in the world.

"For an 'energy superpower,' it is more important to be able to pump its energy resources westward than to maintain any strategic balances," he concluded.

Most western analysts would disagree with most of Barabanov's analysis. But it is of great value in explaining the background to the Russian alarm over the BMD program's extension to Europe and President Putin's broadsides against U.S. policies this past week in Munich and Amman. The United States remains on a collision course with Russia on this issue.

Source: United Press International

Interesting article.

So what does everything think? I do believe the proposed defense system in Europe is a small stepping stone to a future multi country missile defense alliance.

[Furious Mental]

I expect this will be the end of INF because the Russian Army will decide the best way to neutralise the effect of the interceptors is to spam them with theatre range missiles.

[Adrian II]

I expect that the Russians will cave in once again and seek new forms and terms of cooperation with Nato and the U.S.

Go missile defence!

[Vladimir]

*sigh* Again? Can I troll the Russians?

[HoreTore]

Another arms race. Just what this world needs.

[/Irony]

[Samurai Waki]

Another arms race. Just what this world needs.

[/Irony]

I don't think this will spur on an arms race. Pessimism usually does the exact opposite, and Russia is in no condition to build up especially on nuclear weaponry. No Nuclear Armed Nation is going to War with NATO and the Russian Fed. has no interest.

[HoreTore]

I don't think this will spur on an arms race. Pessimism usually does the exact opposite, and Russia is in no condition to build up especially on nuclear weaponry.

Russia is in no condition to build up? So why is it then that they are spending billions upgrading their military?

[spmetla]

Future Iranian missile threat?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3724048.ece
he secret site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe has been uncovered by new satellite photographs.

The imagery has pinpointed the facility from where the Iranians launched their Kavoshgar 1 “research rocket” on February 4, claiming that it was in connection with their space programme.

Analysis of the photographs taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite four days after the launch has revealed a number of intriguing features that indicate to experts that it is the same site where Iran is focusing its efforts on developing a ballistic missile with a range of about 6,000km (4,000 miles).

A previously unknown missile location, the site, about 230km southeast of Tehran, and the link with Iran's long-range programme, was revealed by Jane's Intelligence Review after a study of the imagery by a former Iraq weapons inspector. A close examination of the photographs has indicated that the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea, pursuing a space programme that enables Tehran to acquire expertise in long-range missile technology.

Geoffrey Forden, a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that there was a recently constructed building on the site, about 40 metres in length, which was similar in form and size to the Taepodong long-range missile assembly facility in North Korea.

Avital Johanan, the editor of Jane's Proliferation, said that the analysis of the Iranian site indicated that Tehran may be about five years away from developing a 6,000km ballistic missile. This would tie in with American intelligence estimates and underlines why President Bush wants the Polish and Czech components of the US missile defence system to be up and running by 2013.

The Czech Republic has now agreed to have a special radar system on its soil and the Polish Government is still negotiating with Washington over the American request to site ten interceptor missiles in Poland.

The Kavoshgar 1 rocket that was launched in the presence of President Ahmadinejad of Iran was based on the Shahab 3B missile, a version of the North Korean Nodong liquid-propellant missile.

Dr Forden said that the Kavoshgar launch did not demonstrate any significant advances in ballistic missile technology. “But it does reveal the likely future development of Iran's missile programme,” he said.

At a meeting on February 25 between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Iranians, UN inspectors confronted them with evidence of design studies for mounting nuclear warheads on long-range missiles. The Iranians denied any such aspirations.

However, according to Jane's Intelligence Review, the satellite photographs prove that the Kavoshgar 1 rocket was not part of a civilian space centre project but was consistent with Iran's clandestine programme to develop longer-range missiles.

The examination of the launch site revealed that it was part of a large and growing complex “with very high levels of security and recent construction activity”. It was clearly “an important strategic facility”, Dr Forden said.

The former Iraq weapons inspector said that Iran was benefiting from the North Korean missile programme and following its designs. The Taepodong 1 consisted of a liquid-propellant Nodong (like the Shahab 3) first stage, a liquid-propellant Scud second stage and a solid-propellant third stage.

“The production and testing facility next to the Kavoshgar 1 launch site would seem well positioned to contribute to this third stage,” Dr Forden said.

While I support a missile defense I would prefer if it were located in an area that would not antagonize the Russians so much. Would our new Balkan allies such as Bulgaria or Romania be so opposed to it? What about Turkey or Greece? Surely if Iran is the threatening nation the interceptors could be located in these countries.
I sure that if we were to set up missile defense sites in Japan, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska and so on to guard against North Korea that Russia would not be as opposed as it is to the set up in Poland and the Czech Republic.

As for the Russian response, I think that they are probably well aware that our defensive set up can have very little impact on the current M.A.D. set up. Even if the US were able to conduct first strike attacks on Russia (which I could never envision the US doing) Russia would still have the formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons held in their ballistic missile subs which are regarded as the most secure method for maintaining a nuclear deterrence. Heck, they're even launching a new one of these subs this year: Borey-Class Strategic nuclear missile submarine

[Samurai Waki]

Russia is in no condition to build up? So why is it then that they are spending billions upgrading their military?

Because Russians refuse to be humbled.

[Furious Mental]

FYI the arms race is already in progress. As soon as the ABM treaty was withdrawn from Russia withdrew from START II and postponed deactivation its rail based RT-23 arsenal. It then didn't decommission them until satisfied that its Topol force had adequately compensated for them, and it continues to build up that force now.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Meh. The caveman on the east of the river objects to the rock gathering of the cavemen on the west.

[Kagemusha]

Military specialists already have serious doubts whether the missile shield can protect targets from the hypersonic missiles that Russia has been successfully testing since 2004, so in the end, this might just be another starwars program, which will only be money tossed away. If the missile shield would be deployed to protect Europe from possible strike from Iran, im sure there would be better places then Poland to deploy it.
In the end, i think the main beef with Russia is that it doesnt want the advanced radar installations which will be part of the missile shield, so close to its borders. To me this doesnt sound like US is trying to protect Europe from Iran, rather then US wants to have an forward installation near Russia, which would be good for observation for example.

[The Black Ship]

These missles are intended to intercept their target in the mid-course region, either in space or as the target re-enters the atmosphere. They are not intended to shot down their target in the boost phase. Closer proximity to the region of the world where "rogue states" proliferate is not necessary. In fact such proximity could possibly degrade intercept probablity due to reduced guidance solution processing time.

As for the Russians, well they were the only ones that deployed an ABM system (around Moscow as per the ABM treaty) since the US decided to abandon the Spartan ABM soon after testing in the early 70s. It seems silly to believe they are so scared by 10 missles and an X-band radar site, especially as the interceptor missles aren't configure or designed to handle ICBMs. Even if all ten hit an incoming target that would still leave some 99.9% of Russian missle-tipped nukes free to devastate wherever they're fired at. 10 successful Iranian missles intercepts, however, would surely eliminate the threat from THAT particulat delivery method.

This is a tempest in a tea-pot, and I believe the issues being used to validate increased Russian defense expenditure, both in strategic weapons and conventional. Not to mention it plays well at home.

[Redleg]

FYI the arms race is already in progress. As soon as the ABM treaty was withdrawn from Russia withdrew from START II and postponed deactivation its rail based RT-23 arsenal. It then didn't decommission them until satisfied that its Topol force had adequately compensated for them, and it continues to build up that force now.

FYI the arms race never really ended. Every weapon system is a continuation of improvements and leasons learned of a previos weapon system

[rory_20_uk]

I believe that the European system can shoot down 10 missiles.

I fail to imagine a situation where Russia would fire so few over Europe; a situation where they'd be fired stopping 10 would make sod all difference.

But I am sure that these bases would be very secure in Eastern Europe. Plenty of room for snooping on Russia from comparatively close.

[Fragony]

If russia wants us flat shield is not going to help but this concerns me more;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3724048.ece

Good thing we have patriots but they aren't perfect.

[HoreTore]

If russia wants us flat shield is not going to help but this concerns me more;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3724048.ece

Good thing we have patriots but they aren't perfect.

After Colin Powell's UN address before you know what, I somehow don't trust these "spy photos" anymore.

[Fragony]

Iran doesn't exactly makes a secret out of it that it's developing long range missile systems, remember the testing of 'great prophet'? I'll take their word for it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Siting choice may have been as much a question of politics as anything else.

If the goal of the shield is to defend Europe from a missile strike launched from European Russia or the Middle East, targeting missiles at the higher end of the boost phase and or in the mid phase, than anywhere in Eastern European territory would probably be about the same value in technical terms.

In political terms, any effort that degrades the effectiveness of Russia's nuclear arsenal was bound to catch grief from the Russians. We could have deployed it in Des Moines and still drawn criticism. Russia has been spending billions but has not focused most of those dollars on their strategic arsenal -- so this adds another expense and is bound to annoy.

So, why Poland? Poland has been stauch in support of the USA and the WoT throughout the Bush administration. Other things being equal, politics said it was time to give the Poles a high dollar payback. They earned it.

[Vladimir]

Siting choice may have been as much a question of politics as anything else.

If the goal of the shield is to defend Europe from a missile strike launched from European Russia or the Middle East, targeting missiles at the higher end of the boost phase and or in the mid phase, than anywhere in Eastern European territory would probably be about the same value in technical terms.

In political terms, any effort that degrades the effectiveness of Russia's nuclear arsenal was bound to catch grief from the Russians. We could have deployed it in Des Moines and still drawn criticism. Russia has been spending billions but has not focused most of those dollars on their strategic arsenal -- so this adds another expense and is bound to annoy.

So, why Poland? Poland has been stauch in support of the USA and the WoT throughout the Bush administration. Other things being equal, politics said it was time to give the Poles a high dollar payback. They earned it.

Won't they have to import labor from the UK?

[Furious Mental]

I didn't realise that becoming a target for Russian nuclear missiles was a form of benevolence.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I didn't realise that becoming a target for Russian nuclear missiles was a form of benevolence.

Oh, Eastern Europe really isn't likely to worry about Russian nuclear missile strikes. Even if Putin or a successor goes imperial again, they wouldn't hammer EE to glass -- EE is a Russian imperialist's lebensraum to the West. Any Russian missiles would be targeted further afield.

[cegorach]

I didn't realise that becoming a target for Russian nuclear missiles was a form of benevolence.

Actually we are getting such threats every 1,5 - 2 years - it started the very moment the Red Army had to leave Poland so I really don't get the argument that it 'makes Poland a target'.

Either we are the target since 1993 (first Russian threats) or became one later.

Besides in the place Poland hapens to exist we are doomed anyway - as long as nuclear conflicts between Russia and anyone to the west of it are concerned.

Sometimes I wish we took the Australian offer made in Tobruk ( during the 'morale boosting' meetings) one Desert Rat to another to move entirely to Australia and leave the cursed continent altogether, but perhaps without Russian hostility life wouldn't be the same...

[Fragony]

Besides in the place Poland hapens to exist we are doomed anyway

At least he's honest about it

[spmetla]

Well so long as the Germans and Russians don't start conspiring then Poland should be safe...for now.

[Samurai Waki]

Besides in the place Poland hapens to exist we are doomed anyway

This is why I propose that Poland Develop a massive Spaceship armed with Takyon Beams and Neutron Bombs.

[Furious Mental]

Previously there was nothing in Poland that would have been worth nuking in a full scale exchange. Now there is.

[cegorach]

Actually the best way to ensure our safety is taking Ukraine, Belorus and some caucasian states from the 'Russian zone' to Europe - I believe I will see that happening myself. The final phase of all those 150+ years of effort.
That should bring back the balance of power from mid XVIIth century.

Germany is no real danger to Poland - Prussia is dead and buried, and the state of Germany lost all wars waged against us anyway. Historically they were as dangerous as Swedes or Czechs, while the eastern borders burned for five centuries without a pause.

I fact it is clearly the best time since 1635 and relationship with Russia is the best in the whole history.


The missile shield itself is of little concern - it could be anything else as long as the USA will have a strong reason to protect it and we can get substantial profit . It should help moving us from NATO 'wild borderlands' to the protected zone, something Western Germany managed to achive after it joined.

The USA as an ally is not perfect, but except our eastern and southern neighbours who are too weak nobody else is trustworthy - France is totally useless, the UK uncertain and tends to sacrifice its allies' territory and independence , while Spain, Italy and the rest is too far and too weak. Germany can be great when fighting the East - even despite this sado-masochistic love of Russia, but 'hardly useful' if itself causes the danger (unlikely, but never say never).

So basically attract the USA, keep Germany under controll and grab as many independent states from the 'Russian zone' as possible for our and its own good - they can get rich on its own and expanding to Ukraine tends to support their silly imperialism which always results in an implosion and chaos.

[cegorach]

Previously there was nothing in Poland that would have been worth nuking in a full scale exchange. Now there is.

Nonsense.

Just see the Cold War predictions - 127 nukes in time of one week would hit Poland.

We are in such place that it is perfectly reasonable - you need to eliminate the 'bridge' between western and eastern Europe.

Of course if you mean some weird nuclear conflict without any conventional war at all and no NATO involvement you are right - we receive one nuke strike we wouldn't otherwise.

The questions are
- why nuclear when it is in the range of conventional arms,
- why do you assume we aren't or weren't targeted the moment the 'warsaw' Pact dissolved as the neighbour of Russia and the best transit corridor you can get,

If the Russians aren't targeting us right now they are either stupid or... stupid and have no idea about strategy.

Besides I have memory which is long enough to remember Russian press showing nic, little pictures of missile trajectories hitting Poland in 1993 so if you think it is the first time someone threatens us this way you are wrong.

Poland has no luxury of neutrality and everyone knows that - it is either die alone if the european balance of power is changing (just like in 1772, 1792, 1795, 1815, 1831, 1863 or 1920) or make it very costly to any agressor by creatinga web of interests which makes others interested in our survival just like in 1656. Another factor is of course to find a place in a security grid which will respond to our needs - certain NOT like it happened in 1939.
That is why we not only joined the NATO and support our eastern neighbours, but also seek for a good way to make our demise directly endangering interests of at least some of our stronger allies and pushing them to respond without a delay or hesitation and our choice is limited only to the USA.
Hardly the best ally, but all others are even worse.

[Furious Mental]

Yes needless to say the Russian military has concocted scenarios calling for them to nuke Poland and indeed every other country around it. This is because Russian military officers, like those in the US, have always clinged to concepts such as limited nuclear war and counterforce, being convinced that they must have a trump card for a truly dire situation at every level. Having said this even in a SIOP style exchange a place like Poland would only have been in the third tier of targets, now it is most definitely in the first. But as policy makers in 1960's realised, limited nuclear warfare and counterforce is complete nonsense because any use of nuclear weapons would inevitably trigger a series of escalations that results in a attempt to destroy the other country completely (i.e. targeting of population centers), and so the choice to launch a nuclear strike inevitably has to be a choice to launch everything at the enemy's strategic military infrastructure and its cities. Anywhere with ABM infrastructure and, more to the point, radar installations is a must hit target in such a scenario, which as I said is the only logical one. On the same logic all this is moot because the US and Russia wouldn't be crazy enough to nuke each other anyway. However it is not completely moot because there is still the possibility of a missile being launched due to an accident or a breakdown in communications in a crisis or some other freak event. The likelihood that such a missile would be one targeted at Poland or the Czech Republic is much much higher than it was before.