• Putin: Russia ‘ahead of competition’ with latest weapons
    26 replies, posted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-russia-would-only-use-its-nuclear-arms-in-retaliation/2018/10/18/18698e62-d2da-11e8-a4db-184311d27129_story.html?utm_term=.c2da647626c5
but do you have a minecraft channel?
Speaking at an international policy forum in Sochi, Putin noted that Russia’s military doctrine doesn’t envisage a preventative nuclear strike. He said Moscow only would tap its nuclear arsenal if early warning systems spotted missiles heading toward Russia. The Soviets said the same thing and then it turned out after the Cold War ended they had been lying through their teeth.
For quite a few years, Russia was incapable of a retaliatory strike due to their ICBMs being liquid fuelled, meaning they had to spend about an hour preparing, by which point the infrastructure would be destroyed. I assume they use solid fuel now though.
switched from vodka to crystalized vodka
Amusingly, the Germans actually used ethanol to power their V2s and the crew kept diluting the fuel and getting drunk on it.
I bet the SU-57 is made of Popsicle sticks and cardboard too.
Eh, not really. At the time they had cryogenic (liquid does not matter) fuelled rockets, the US didn't have weapons both fast enough and accurate enough to destroy Soviet missiles on the ground. They now have missiles using non-cryogenic hypergolic fuel and some solid fuelled rockets.
Solid-propellant rockets are preferred but it's mostly due to simplicity and ease of maintenance. Ground/submarine crew are probably also happy to not be working next to thousands of litres of hydrazines and NTO.
I knew the Russians used to use liquid fuelled SLBMs, but looking it up it seems most of their SLBMs still are liquid fuelled R-29 missiles. I don't now what they fuel it with but it probably is hydrazine and NTO.
Well, no, read 'Confessions of a doomsday planner'. It wasn't until halfway through Brezhnev's premiership in the 70s that the Soviets actually possessed the capability to commit to a first strike (i.e. a 'preventative strike' aimed at destroying the enemy's capability to launch). Everything they said until that point had been a bluff, the disparity in nuclear weapons between Russia and America was 4 to each 100. Even then, as mentioned, they used liquid-fuelled ICBMs so weren't effective. The Russians then developed the 'dead hand' technology in the 80s to ensure that America would be blown away if they ever launched first. It has never been a Russian policy to commit to a first strike because they know they'd be destroyed if they tried it (even today, American weapons far outnumber their Russian equivalents).
We also have decent enough missile interception that caused Russia to get pretty angry over the idea of Baltic states getting them.
Indeed, because it renders the entire concept of MAD as almost void if everyone gets the gucci missile interception kit- it damages international stability in that it pushes Russia further toward the edge. What you have to realise that Russia, in general, has this idea that it is the victim of the world. The idea of containment, developed by the capitalist US to hem in the communists and prevent the Bolshevik 'vanguard' of proletariat revolution was the genesis of this way of thinking (albeit preluded by the British aim at containing Imperial Russian interests way before). So this thinking has never truly gone away... and why would it? NATO is still a powerful institution and a reminder to Russia that it is seen as an outsider, a threat to the world to be suppressed. As a result, they are highly touchy when it comes to perceived threats to their country- if they feel like they are further being hemmed into a corner, they'll begin to act more and more panicked as they will feel like they have their back to a wall.
The Russian liquid-propellant engines seem to use UDMH/NTO exclusively (see this Wikipedia article on the RD-0210 and related links in the category at the bottom of the page). Some of their missiles (e.g. the Bulava) use a mix of solid propellant for the lower stages and liquid propellant for the upper stage. Hydrazine alone is not used as it freezes at too high a temperature (2°C). I guess the increased performance of liquid-propellant rockets still outweighs the simplicity of solid propellant rockets for the Russians.
even if they did, most Russian men are too brain dead to use the equipment they'd probably kill themselves first
That wasn't what was asked. The question asked was if Russia would ever use nuclear weapons first.
A 'first strike' is misleadingly named in nuclear planning. A 'first strike' is actually a 'preventative strike', i.e. launching nukes to disable an enemy's nuclear weapons (plus, if spare weapons are had, their government nervous-center, military installations, runways, radar, manufacutring centres and population centres - in that order). The entire post you quoted is showing you how Russia, until almost the end of the cold war, couldn't even have feasibly launched a decisive first strike- i.e. using nukes first- until the mid-80s. Of course, they could have used a battlefield device to win a proxy war, technically using nukes first, but they would not have been able to decisively disarm the U.S. with their entire nuclear arsenal. Reports differ, but they likely couldn't ever have disarmed the U.S. fully. Throughout the entire cold war, because they received such buckets of money, the air force consistently and purposely over-exaggerated Soviet nuclear capabilities. In writing this I don't profess to Soviet/Russo sensibilities. Far from it. But it is the reality when you look at weapons numbers, the policy of containment (the creation of NATO, a needed agency, but an agency ultimately intended to hem in Russia) and the U.S. general's bellicosity toward the Soviets, it is apparent the U.S., at the time, gave the USSR no option but to join the arms race... put simply, it was never a Russian intention to ever launch first.
Stop looking at the statement through your distorted lens of MAD. The US and Russia were and still are firm believers in tactical nuclear warfare. You do not need a decisive first strike because they intended to fight a tactical nuclear ground war until one side threw in the towel. They relied on their strategic nuclear weapons to achieve interwar deterrence and prevent their tactical war from escalating to an all out strategic war. Nuclear weapon stockpile number do not come from the US, they come from the Federation of American Scientists, an anti-nuclear weapons organisation who would have the very opposite bias you claim as they are interested in presenting the US as the bad guys. Both Russia and the US also verify the others nuclear capabilities to comply with various treaties. One book by a man who has been out of the game since 1971 does not prove your point of view. Nuclear warfare changed massively between the 1970s and 1980s, let alone between then and now. The fact you're going the "poor innocent russia didn't want a cold war boo-hoo" route suggests you do have Russian sympathies.
MAD isn't a distorted lens. Look at the contemporary 'War with Russia', a fictional account of theoretical escalation with an internationally-resurgent Russia. It is a logical conclusion, taught in military school, that tactical nuclear weaponry will inevitably lead to (or to the brink of) global thermonuclear launches. Regarding weapons numbers, the FAS 'track and estimate' weapons numbers. They are not a definitive source. Certainly not a definitive source of Russian weaponry at the least. That 'man who was out of the game' helped dictate weapons policy until the early 2000s. Your critique of him just shows that you haven't done the reading and so aren't fully informed. Again, read up the current academics, tell-all memoirs and military journals instead of going to the first page of google for your answers and you'll see that I'm right Finally, I'm not going 'boo-hoo poor Russia'. International geo-politics is a serious business and all kinds of skullduggery goes on. I'm just using the information I've read and the opinions of senior officers and civil servants I've conversed with to inform my opinion... but then I suppose they're useful idiots as well because they don't concur with your preconceived worldview?
I would suggest you read "Managing Nuclear Operations" by Carter, Zraket and Steinbruner. Carter being Ash Carter, Obama's secretary of defence. It's not a logical conclusions because interwar deterrence exists and states are not suicidal. States will not escalate to counter-value strikes unless their nation is already wiped out because doing so is suicide. Unlike the book by Shirreff, it's non-fiction and written by nuclear policy experts, discussing in detail all aspects of nuclear planing and warfighting. MAD is simply a gross oversimplification of nuclear warfighting, simplified to the point of being meaningless and only applicable to the strategic counter-value use of weapons. The US and Russia engage in verification of each other's nuclear capabilities. Russia and US strategic weapon numbers are within only a few percent of each other. Verification is not difficult; silos, bombers and submarine bases are difficult to hide. He was put on trial in 1971 and lost his security clearance. He has not worked for RAND or any other nuclear think tank since then. No one will hire a man who has demonstrated he can not be trusted with classified information. He has since then been an activist, not a policy maker. There is no evidence anything he has proposed has been taken seriously by the military establishment. Nations on Russia's border fear invasion so they sign up to Nato. You have responded by presenting this as an evil Nato conspiracy to endanger Russia's security and this it's not Russia's fault when they do something. If you actually think the current geopolitical line found in the West is that Russia is the victim and Nato is the aggressor then you are a fool. As above. Russia took most of Eastern Europe, fortified the border, oppressed the local population and oppressed any democratic overtures, invaded other nation like Hungary when they tried going democratic, and you actually have the gall to pull the "poor oppressed Russia" line.
Having briefly read Carter (published in 1981 btw, not contemporary times, so rather aged and also hence not useful in showing current opinions), I find it hard to believe you wouldn't know the terminology of nuclear strikes (demonstrated by your posts above). Stop trying to find relevant literature online and trying to use it to strengthen your argument- all books I have mentioned have been published within the last 2 years. They are FAR more up-to-date. If a nation loses on a battlefield decisively, odds are that it might choose to use a tactical nuclear weapon. This is acknowledged widely and could easily happen during a particularly important proxy conflict, for example, Syria. Shirref's book is important because it shows the layman the potential escalation and he goes to extreme lengths to explain the intricacies of available weapons systems and why tac nukes would be used. Half of the book is dedicated to his argument of how and why it could happen if we are not vigilant (more on this later). Regarding the importance of his opinion, him and other generals would be an important vocal piece in determining the use of nuclear weapons, if not more important than policy experts. It is also the latest book from high military command regarding their opinions re escalation and the usage of nuclear weaponry- this from the deputy supreme allied commander in Europe. You are right that MAD is an oversimplification however, as in a hot war between the great powers, nuclear weapons would be used on the battlefields alongside regular weaponry... before someone launched, as you say, when they got desperate. Very true that weapon numbers are within % of each other, but it is impossible to know exact numbers. The NEWSTART agreement allows each side 18 site visits a year at their own discretion. The only reason US weapons numbers are reportedly below Russian numbers is that the US started mothballing it's weapons years before the 2011 treaty was signed. You say that Ellsberg had his security clearance stripped, and this is true, but only because he whistle-blew on Vietnam and was planning on whistle-blowing what I mentioned above before his arrest- the US military lying about Russian nuclear capabilities with the aim of more funding (couched in a need to 'ensure America was adequately armed'). Read the book. Sure you can say the military didn't listen, and officially of course they won't have, but look to the policies he recommended and the ideas he espoused. Then look at what the military and the government did regarding nuclear weapons. You'll find the similarities between him and Carter easily enough (given he speaks of his interactions with the man in the book), even if they disagree on a lot of other stuff. Again, I'm not saying NATO is a big bad and Russia is a poor little guy backed into a corner. I'm saying that's what the Russians think. I'm also saying that it's well known in the West that the Russians have this 'woe is me' view of their country geo-politically. NOWHERE have I said that I, nor any analysts, think that ourselves. Again... christ... where I have pulled the 'old oppressed russia' line? Please reread my posts. All I have done is describe why the Russians think the way they do, accurately escribe their nuclear capabilities across much of the cold war and how they couldn't operate a first strike and also say that Putin's power plays are threatening stability.
Yeah, that seems to be it. The Bulava is 12.1 m long while the Trident II is 13.6 m long (12% longer).
I'm a critic of the Russian state but if we're speaking about Russia in any period between around 1940 and 1960 then it has a pretty decent case for claiming to be A victim.
Ye they had genuine grievances after WW2 that far outstripped the pain and suffering of any other nation (cept maybe China), but that sure don't justify them turning a large portion of Europe into their personal meat shield.
It doesn't matter if they have the most advanced nukes in the world, with the new fusing capabilities on the minuteman missiles making the MIRVs much more capable of punching through hardened silos, the minuteman missiles being upgraded to block 3, and the new Trident missiles on their way the US has more then enough firepower to counter whatever Russia has.
Wow good, great. That's fantastic for the world, or even your own country... ...but what about what really matters?
Is he talking about Kalashnikov Concern's Metal Gear?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.