Cold war 2.0

User avatar
Romiros
That was soooo easy
Posts: 2623
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 23:37
Location: Russia
Contact:

Cold war 2.0

Postby Romiros » Fri 5 Jun 2015 06:31

Jun 4, 2:50 PM EDT

US MIGHT DEPLOY MISSILES IN EUROPE TO COUNTER RUSSIA
BY ROBERT BURNS
AP NATIONAL SECURITY WRITER


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is weighing a range of aggressive responses to Russia's alleged violation of a Cold War-era nuclear treaty, including deploying land-based missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons.
This "counterforce" option is among possibilities the administration is considering as it reviews its entire policy toward Russia in light of Moscow's military intervention in Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea and other actions the U.S. deems confrontational in Europe and beyond.
The options go so far as one implied - but not stated explicitly - that would improve the ability of U.S. nuclear weapons to destroy military targets on Russian territory.
It all has a certain Cold War ring, even if the White House ultimately decides to continue tolerating Russia's alleged flight-testing of a ground-launched cruise missile with a range prohibited by the treaty.
Russia denies violating the treaty and has, in turn, claimed violations by the United States in erecting missile defenses.
It is unclear whether Russia has actually deployed the suspect missile or whether Washington would make any military move if the Russians stopped short of deployment. For now, administration officials say they prefer to continue trying to talk Moscow into treaty compliance.
In public, administration officials have used obscure terms like "counterforce" and "countervailing strike capabilities" to describe two of its military response options, apparently hoping to buy time for diplomacy.
The Pentagon declined to make a senior defense policy official available to discuss the issue. A spokesman, Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, said, "All the options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from their violation."
<...>
The Associated Press was given an unclassified portion of a report written by the office of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that examines weapons the U.S. could develop and deploy if freed from INF treaty constraints.

It identified four such weapons that "could assist in closing ... a capability gap."

Among the four are ground-launched cruise missiles deployed in Europe or Asia, and ground-launched intermediate-range ballistic missiles equipped with technology that adjusts the trajectory of a warhead after it re-enters Earth's atmosphere and heads for its target.

The prospect of returning U.S. medium-range missiles to Europe recalls some of the darker days of the Cold War when Washington's NATO allies hosted U.S. ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing 2 ballistic missiles, countering Soviet SS-20 missiles. The U.S.-NATO response prompted a Europe-wide protest movement, followed by U.S.-Soviet negotiations leading to the INF treaty, the first to ban an entire class of missile.


There is several problems about INF treaty. One of them is that it's only US-Russia. China and other countries o nuclear club do not regulate their nuclear weapon like US and Russia do. Another are violations
Whatever the nature of the Russian actions prompting the U.S. charge, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s August 1 response included three “serious concerns” of its own about the “liberties” taken by the United States in applying the terms of the treaty:

U.S. use in missile defense tests of target missiles, “which have similar characteristics to intermediate-range missiles;”
U.S. use of armed drones, which are “covered by the definition of ground-launched cruise missiles in the Treaty;” and
U.S. intention to deploy in Poland and Romania Mk-41 launch systems, which “can be used to launch intermediate-range cruise missiles.”

http://armscontrolnow.org/2014/09/05/mo ... ce-issues/
US from their side worried about R-500 and Rubezh missiles.
R-500 has range of 500km but it looks very-very similar to Rilief (SSC-X-4 SLINGSHOT) cruise missile with range of 2600km. Rubezh missile
The "circumvention" relates to a new long-range missile that the Russians named the RS-26 Rubezh (Russian for "frontier"). Though the first test failed in September 2011, the Russians have successfully tested this missile three times since. In May 2012, the Rubezh flew from Plesetsk to Kura. That’s 5,800 kilometers — just enough to qualify the missile as an ICBM, which is not prohibited by the INF Treaty. But for the next two tests in October 2012 and June 2013, Russia added multiple warheads (a "new combat payload"), and then flew the missile a much shorter distance, around 2,000 kilometers.

Technically, Russia can count the Rubezh as an ICBM: They tested it once at an ICBM range and counted it under New START. But the subsequent tests and other information suggest the missile’s real range and payload are similar to the SS-20 Saber (known in Russian as the RDS-10 Pioneer) — the weapon that was the whole reason for negotiating an INF ban in the first place. In fact, there are a number of resemblances between the Rubezh and the Pioneer, which was based on the first two-stages of an older ICBM, the SS-16 Sinner. (Yes, Washington called it the Sinner. Moscow called it the Temp-2S.)

Russian officials have said the two-stage Rubezh was developed "on the basis" of another ICBM, the three-stage RS-24 Yars (called the SS-27 Mod 2 in the United States). My educated guess is that the Rubezh is the first two stages of the Yars, just like the Pioneer was the first two stages of the Temp. Even the transporter-erector launchers (TEL) for the Rubezh and the Pioneer are about the same size, each weighing about 80 tons.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/25/an- ... ther-name/

Will we see new Cuban missile crisis? Who knows.

User avatar
Bollywood Baloney
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu 7 May 2015 21:32
Contact:

Re: Cold war 2.0

Postby Bollywood Baloney » Fri 5 Jun 2015 06:34

This is what happens when you violate arms control treaties.

User avatar
rex88
Lieutenant
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015 12:18
Location: Land of Iced Cappuccino. Why buy a mattress anywhere else?
Contact:

Re: Cold war 2.0

Postby rex88 » Fri 5 Jun 2015 07:43

The US is looking for an excuse anyway to erase the intermediate missile ban they've had with Russia. Why not do it. No one can stop them if they wanted to, but they're damned wrong if they think anybody cares. They can already spam tomahawks so what difference does it make.

Intermediate range missile spam will only guarantee strategic advantage into the 2020s, when the defender will still have to intercept volleys with their own missiles instead of directed-energy weapons. After, say, the 2030s when directed-energy weapons become mature, the attacker can no longer enjoy a 1-to-10 cost ratio which allows saturation attacks. If anyone is dumb enough to start a big war in this timeframe then they deserve to lose.

After that point IRMs will be a questionable choice for fire projection. After 2030 IRMs can only threaten opponents without a sizable deployment of lasers. But if that's how they predict their opponents will be, I certainly have no objections.
Image
Thanks to kiheerSEDMAN for making this signature.

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: Cold war 2.0

Postby Yakhont » Fri 5 Jun 2015 09:21

Bollywood Baloney wrote:This is what happens when you violate arms control treaties.


It sounds alot more complicated than that, with both sides having legitimate concerns about evolving technology, capability and other external threats.s

Although the RS-26 is legally an ICBM, it may be that the demonstrated range of 5 800 km is close to the maximum range of the missile. It is worth noting that missile demonstrated this range with a single warhead. It is possible that it may not demonstrate ICBM range with multiple warheads. In this case this missile falls into the class of Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs). It is worth noting that medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a range of up to 5 500 km are banned by INF Treaty. So the Russians found a way to field an intermediate-range ballistic missile and to fill the gap that was once covered by the RSD-10 Pioner (SS-20 Saber) IRBMs. Also since 2007 Russia declares that the INF Treaty no longer serves its interests. In 2012 United States accused Russia of violating the treaty by covertly developing new ballistic missiles.
From http://www.military-today.com/missiles/rs26_rubezh.htm

If you are a lawyer, how would you argue for one side or the other?

I wonder where these US missiles would be though. Poland? Czech Republic?
Image

User avatar
LoneRifle
Major-General
Posts: 3569
Joined: Wed 3 Jul 2013 17:11
Location: Cackalacky
Contact:

Re: Cold war 2.0

Postby LoneRifle » Fri 5 Jun 2015 15:56

The key to arms controls treaties is a level of transparency and trust, both which are nonexistent at this point in time.
Image

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Cold war 2.0

Postby Fade2Gray » Fri 5 Jun 2015 17:13

LoneRifle wrote:The key to arms controls treaties is a level of transparency and trust, both which are nonexistent at this point in time.


Indeed, the days of Reagan/Gorbi being buddy-buddy are long since over sadly.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Cold war 2.0

Postby Mike » Fri 5 Jun 2015 17:35

Bollywood Baloney wrote:This is what happens when you violate arms control treaties.

And violate borders. And how are you sure it got updated to version 2.0? That sounds like a serious update.
Last edited by Mike on Fri 5 Jun 2015 17:49, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
frostypooky
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4334
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 14:12
Contact:

Re: Cold war 2.0

Postby frostypooky » Fri 5 Jun 2015 17:36

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-x ... 0864_o.jpg

obama revealing his true form

only putin and xi can stop this madness

Mike wrote:
Bollywood Baloney wrote:This is what happens when you violate arms control treaties.

And violate borders.


syria, pakistan, lybia, you pindos just call it some cross border airsoftings ))))))

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Cold war 2.0

Postby Killertomato » Fri 5 Jun 2015 17:47

Iskanders in Kaliningrad are peaceful defensive missiles))))
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Romiros
That was soooo easy
Posts: 2623
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 23:37
Location: Russia
Contact:

Re: Cold war 2.0

Postby Romiros » Fri 5 Jun 2015 17:57

Killertomato wrote:Iskanders in Kaliningrad are peaceful defensive missiles))))

We must hope, that this will not escalate to our peaceful defensive missiles in Central America or Cuba again. I don't think that there is people reasonble like Kennedy in White house nowadays.

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests