Slightly OT: What Would a U.S. vs. Russia War Look Like Today?

[Raellus]

This article gives a nice, brief analysis.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257...-war-look-like

As many of you old forum hands remember, I'm a late Cold War Soviet military apologist (see http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897), but I can't really find too much wrong with the arguments presented in the article. The one U.S./NATO strength that I contend is overstated in the piece is overseas military bases. Insofar as a war in Eastern Europe, I this this point is somewhat mooted by Russia's interior lines of communication.

What's your take on the article? Is it as cut and dried as all that?

[pmulcahy11b]

The Russians also do not have much of a blue water navy these days.

[Olefin]

Plus the Baltic and the Black Sea are definitely not "their" seas as much anymore - not with Romania as a NATO member as well as the three Baltic Republics and Poland

and you know that the Baltics and Poland would not just roll over for the Russians - they would fight them and fight hard - the real issue would be getting our armor over there and our guys

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Do we still have the wherewithal for a "ReForGer" style sealift? And do the Russians have the ability to stop said convoys, as we feared they'd do had the balloon gone up?

[Badbru]

From what I read of it it appears to be an appropriate enough analysis from my limited knowledge base. What it missed though is what they say in the comedy business, timing is everything.
I get the impression right now that if say China invaded Japan tomorrow all the US would do is wag it's finger and say naughty China, that's a bad China. Too many wars lately, too much lost for too little gain on a whole range of fronts. I just get a sense of conflict burn out, politically, socially, militarily etc, from all facets of America and a) who could blame you guys for that, and b) maybe it's a good thing. I dunno, I'm not trying to make a judgement here, it's just a feeling.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Do we still have the wherewithal for a "ReForGer" style sealift? And do the Russians have the ability to stop said convoys, as we feared they'd do had the balloon gone up?

Unfortunately the Russians do.

NATO if it had the political will could have an army of 50,000 troops with tanks and artillery in the Ukraine in a week backed by powerful air assets by simply marching through Poland. In a month they could have at least 250,000 troops including heavy US Army forces backed by the brunt of the USAF and NATO naval power. Given the high level of capabilities and technology that NATO could assemble this force would more than hold its own against the Russians despite being out numbered and out gunned. But they won't because of Russia's nuclear arsenal. Putin won't use or threaten NATO with nuclear weapons as he is not a buffoon and thug like Saddam Hussein, but he also knows that Russia has the capability to hurt NATO anywhere in Europe and North America without using nuclear weapons.

If NATO is planning to attack Russia they will know about it. Russia has 58 active military satellites in orbit including 6 known early warning and reconnaissance systems (1x Kobalt-M ISR, 1x Lotus-S ELINT, 1x Tselina-2 ELINT, 4x Oka EW). They also have 9 major long ranged ground radar stations (The ABM engagement system at Moscow, and radars at St Petersburg, southern Russia, the northwest Arctic, the Urals and eastern Siberia, and leased radar stations in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan). They also have a huge air defence network of over 2,000 long ranged SAM launchers (32x SH-11 Gorgon (stored), 68x SH-08 Gazelle, 1,900x S-300, 64x S-400) in addition to nearly 2,000 combat aircraft.

NATO has run down its ASW capabilities over the past 20 years to the point that NATO navies are almost embarrassed to request funding for ASW systems as they can't justify them. Russia on the other hand knew its navy was never going to match the US Navy and NATO, so it kept a smaller but very capable submarine force in service.

Nuclear Strategic Ballistic Missile Submarine
3x Kalmar (Delta III) with 16 RSM-50 (SS-N-18 Stingray)
6x Delfin ( Delta IV) with 16 RSM-54 (SS-N-23 Skiff)
2x Akula ( Typhoon) in reserve awaiting refit with 40 RSM-52 (SS-N-20 Sturgeon)
1x Akula ( Typhoon) in reserve for testing with Bulava (SS-N-X-32)
2x Borey on sea trials with Bulava (SS-N-X-32) (2x vessels in build

Nuclear Attack Submarine
8x Antyey (Oscar II) (of which 3 in reserve) with 3M45 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) (3x in reserve)
2x Schuka-B (Akula II) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) (one further boat leased to India)
8x Schuka-B (Akula I) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21Sampson) (2x in reserve)
2x Kondor (Sierra II) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) SLCM
1x Barracuda (Sierra I) with 3M10 (SS-N-21 Sampson) and RPK-7 (SS-N-16 Stallion)
4x Schuka (Victor III) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) (1x in reserve)

Diesel-Electric Submarine
15x Paltus (Kilo)
4x Varshavyanka (Kilo)
1x Lada (2x vessels in build)

This fleet would make mince meat out of any merchant ship or convoy in the Atlantic or elsewhere, and even NATO warships would be under treat. During the Cold War the US Navy didn't devoted enough resources to ASW as it could always rely on its NATO allies such as the British Royal Navy to do the job. Today the British no longer have the capabilities they once had; the VTOL carriers, ASW frigates and Nimrod are gone or are in storage; and other NATO fleets are only a fraction of what they once were. NATO's diesel-electric AIP submarines are good in shallow waters and littoral chock points, but in the open Atlantic and Arctic ocean's they will be outclassed by the bigger, faster, longer ranged and better armed Russians. This will leave the hard work to the US and British (maybe French) nuclear submarines, and the Russian submarine service still remains very good.

The Russians also have 79 long ranged bombers. Their all nuclear capable and armed with long ranged cruise missiles.

Russian Bomber Fleet
16x Tu-160 Blackjack each with up to 12 Kh-55 SM (AS-15A/B Kent) nuclear ALCM
32x Tu-95MS6 (Bear H-6) each with up to 6 Kh-55/SM (AS-15A/B Kent) nuclear ALCM
31x Tu-95MS16 (Bear H-16) each with up to 16 Kh-55 (AS-15A Kent) nuclear ALCM

NATO fighters (European) including the Eurofighter are short ranged and would have difficulty intercepting them. Russia also has another 132x Tu-22M/M-3/MR Backfire bombers. The best European NATO long ranged interceptor was Britain's RAF Tornado ADV and its now gone. USAF F-15's and F-22's would be needed.


Russian Strategic Missile Forces (Ground based)
60x RS-20 (SS-18 Satan) (mostly mod 5, 10 MIRV per msl)
120x RS12M (SS-25 Sickle) (mobile single warhead)
40x RS18 (SS-19 Stiletto) (mostly mod 3, 6 MIRV per msl)
52x Topol-M (SS-27) silo-based
18x Topol M (SS-27) road mobile (single warhead)
12x RS-24 (3 MIRV per msl)

The main reason why Russia remains the power that it is. They can hit any location in Europe or North America. Their all nuclear armed, but if I was Putin I'd replace the nuclear warheads on about 50 missiles and replace them with large high explosive warheads. A few of these landing on Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris and Berlin would unnerve the whole of NATO. Perhaps Putin is already doing it as we speak!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The minute we picked up these "conventionally armed" ICBMs in flight we'd glass Russia. Oh, we'd get destroyed too, but "sending a message" by firing an ICBM - regardless of whether it's tipped with a nuke, small nuke, HE or whipped cream - at an equally well armed enemy nation is like pointing a loaded gun at your head and saying "Don't laugh, you're next" just before you pull the trigger.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

The minute we picked up these "conventionally armed" ICBMs in flight we'd glass Russia. Oh, we'd get destroyed too, but "sending a message" by firing an ICBM - regardless of whether it's tipped with a nuke, small nuke, HE or whipped cream - at an equally well armed enemy nation is like pointing a loaded gun at your head and saying "Don't laugh, you're next" just before you pull the trigger.

Yeah but what will America do if its aimed at a European capital?

[Raellus]

No half-way sane world leader would ever launch an ICBM armed with a conventional payload at his/her rival OR, its allies. It's madness of the highest order. I will endeavour to explain why.

AFAIK, current early warning systems can't differentiate between an ICBM carrying an NBC payload and one carrying a conventional munition. That said, most nuclear-armed nations have early warning systems that can detect the moment of launch. No nuclear-armed power is going to sit around and wait to see what kind of explosion an ICBM's warheads make when they impact. Therefore, according to current doctrine, any ICBM launched must be considered of the former type and an in-kind response delivered. In other words, ANY kind of ICBM launch will be treated as a nuclear attack. This means that before an ICMB-delivered conventional munitions hits its intended target, a responding ICBM armed with a nuclear payloadwill be on the way in the opposite direction. For these reasons, no one in his/her right mind would ever launch an ICBM armed with a conventional warhead. It's like pointing an airsoft gun at a cop. In either case, it's effectively suicide. I would be very surprised if actual conventional payloads for ICBMs exist in any significant numbers at all. I doubt it.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I would be very surprised if actual conventional payloads for ICBMs exist in any significant numbers at all. I doubt it.

Over the last decade there was a lot of discussion of just these types of warheads.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33067.pdf

Yes targeting them at a foe with ICBMs would be stupid, but I think they were expected to be a counter for those with MRBMs at best (DPRK and Iran). Hoping to catch one of their lower tech missiles while being fueled for example.

edit added wiki link.
Prompt_Global_Strike

[stormlion1]

Right now a first strike is all that's really needed. Something to take an opponent down before they could retaliate. My money would be on a bit of Nuclear Terror with Suitcase Nukes being set off in various citys and locations to wreck infrastructure and use EMP to knock out vital systems like communications and food shipments. Then in the resulting vacuum when every enemy the US has is busy taking advantage of the chaos striking into the Ukraine by force and taking the entire thing. The US would be overstretched in too many directions, dealing with massive damage at home and be forced to act as both peacekeepers and disaster relief at home. I would even expect the US to close down foreign bases and rush home to aid in relief efforts. Europe would have to face the Russians alone at that point as the US would be in no way able to help and various points across the globe would take each other out with no USA to step in. I'd expect Taiwan to be invaded by Mainland China, North Korea and South Korea to duke it out, etc, etc.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

No half-way sane world leader would ever launch an ICBM armed with a conventional payload at his/her rival OR, its allies. It's madness of the highest order. I will endeavour to explain why.

AFAIK, current early warning systems can't differentiate between an ICBM carrying an NBC payload and one carrying a conventional munition. That said, most nuclear-armed nations have early warning systems that can detect the moment of launch. No nuclear-armed power is going to sit around and wait to see what kind of explosion an ICBM's warheads make when they impact. Therefore, according to current doctrine, any ICBM launched must be considered of the former type and an in-kind response delivered. In other words, ANY kind of ICBM launch will be treated as a nuclear attack. This means that before an ICMB-delivered conventional munitions hits its intended target, a responding ICBM armed with a nuclear payloadwill be on the way in the opposite direction. For these reasons, no one in his/her right mind would ever launch an ICBM armed with a conventional warhead. It's like pointing an airsoft gun at a cop. In either case, it's effectively suicide. I would be very surprised if actual conventional payloads for ICBMs exist in any significant numbers at all. I doubt it.

There are no treaties binding Russia or anyone else to not develop conventional warheads for long ranged missiles. The Russians could use the same HE warheads that were on the Scud tactical missile and they could take out a city block or two. The Chinese have a whole load of conventional payload SRBM and MRBM's aimed at Taiwan, maybe Russia too.

If it got to the stage that Russia is duking it out with NATO in the Ukraine and NATO crosses into Russia Putin could just make a poker faced live broadcast on Russian TV and say: Russian ICBM with non-nuclear payload will be launched on NATO capitals of Berlin, London and Paris at noon tomorrow. Flight time 5 minutes from Urals, evacuate your government buildings!

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

Unfortunately the Russians do.

NATO if it had the political will could have an army of 50,000 troops with tanks and artillery in the Ukraine in a week backed by powerful air assets by simply marching through Poland. In a month they could have at least 250,000 troops including heavy US Army forces backed by the brunt of the USAF and NATO naval power. Given the high level of capabilities and technology that NATO could assemble this force would more than hold its own against the Russians despite being out numbered and out gunned. But they won't because of Russia's nuclear arsenal. Putin won't use or threaten NATO with nuclear weapons as he is not a buffoon and thug like Saddam Hussein, but he also knows that Russia has the capability to hurt NATO anywhere in Europe and North America without using nuclear weapons.

If NATO is planning to attack Russia they will know about it. Russia has 58 active military satellites in orbit including 6 known early warning and reconnaissance systems (1x Kobalt-M ISR, 1x Lotus-S ELINT, 1x Tselina-2 ELINT, 4x Oka EW). They also have 9 major long ranged ground radar stations (The ABM engagement system at Moscow, and radars at St Petersburg, southern Russia, the northwest Arctic, the Urals and eastern Siberia, and leased radar stations in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan). They also have a huge air defence network of over 2,000 long ranged SAM launchers (32x SH-11 Gorgon (stored), 68x SH-08 Gazelle, 1,900x S-300, 64x S-400) in addition to nearly 2,000 combat aircraft.

NATO has run down its ASW capabilities over the past 20 years to the point that NATO navies are almost embarrassed to request funding for ASW systems as they can't justify them. Russia on the other hand knew its navy was never going to match the US Navy and NATO, so it kept a smaller but very capable submarine force in service.

Nuclear Strategic Ballistic Missile Submarine
3x Kalmar (Delta III) with 16 RSM-50 (SS-N-18 Stingray)
6x Delfin ( Delta IV) with 16 RSM-54 (SS-N-23 Skiff)
2x Akula ( Typhoon) in reserve awaiting refit with 40 RSM-52 (SS-N-20 Sturgeon)
1x Akula ( Typhoon) in reserve for testing with Bulava (SS-N-X-32)
2x Borey on sea trials with Bulava (SS-N-X-32) (2x vessels in build

Nuclear Attack Submarine
8x Antyey (Oscar II) (of which 3 in reserve) with 3M45 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) (3x in reserve)
2x Schuka-B (Akula II) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) (one further boat leased to India)
8x Schuka-B (Akula I) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21Sampson) (2x in reserve)
2x Kondor (Sierra II) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) SLCM
1x Barracuda (Sierra I) with 3M10 (SS-N-21 Sampson) and RPK-7 (SS-N-16 Stallion)
4x Schuka (Victor III) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) (1x in reserve)

Diesel-Electric Submarine
15x Paltus (Kilo)
4x Varshavyanka (Kilo)
1x Lada (2x vessels in build)

This fleet would make mince meat out of any merchant ship or convoy in the Atlantic or elsewhere, and even NATO warships would be under treat. During the Cold War the US Navy didn't devoted enough resources to ASW as it could always rely on its NATO allies such as the British Royal Navy to do the job. Today the British no longer have the capabilities they once had; the VTOL carriers, ASW frigates and Nimrod are gone or are in storage; and other NATO fleets are only a fraction of what they once were. NATO's diesel-electric AIP submarines are good in shallow waters and littoral chock points, but in the open Atlantic and Arctic ocean's they will be outclassed by the bigger, faster, longer ranged and better armed Russians. This will leave the hard work to the US and British (maybe French) nuclear submarines, and the Russian submarine service still remains very good.

The Russians also have 79 long ranged bombers. Their all nuclear capable and armed with long ranged cruise missiles.

Russian Bomber Fleet
16x Tu-160 Blackjack each with up to 12 Kh-55 SM (AS-15A/B Kent) nuclear ALCM
32x Tu-95MS6 (Bear H-6) each with up to 6 Kh-55/SM (AS-15A/B Kent) nuclear ALCM
31x Tu-95MS16 (Bear H-16) each with up to 16 Kh-55 (AS-15A Kent) nuclear ALCM

NATO fighters (European) including the Eurofighter are short ranged and would have difficulty intercepting them. Russia also has another 132x Tu-22M/M-3/MR Backfire bombers. The best European NATO long ranged interceptor was Britain's RAF Tornado ADV and its now gone. USAF F-15's and F-22's would be needed.


Russian Strategic Missile Forces (Ground based)
60x RS-20 (SS-18 Satan) (mostly mod 5, 10 MIRV per msl)
120x RS12M (SS-25 Sickle) (mobile single warhead)
40x RS18 (SS-19 Stiletto) (mostly mod 3, 6 MIRV per msl)
52x Topol-M (SS-27) silo-based
18x Topol M (SS-27) road mobile (single warhead)
12x RS-24 (3 MIRV per msl)

The main reason why Russia remains the power that it is. They can hit any location in Europe or North America. Their all nuclear armed, but if I was Putin I'd replace the nuclear warheads on about 50 missiles and replace them with large high explosive warheads. A few of these landing on Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris and Berlin would unnerve the whole of NATO. Perhaps Putin is already doing it as we speak!

Its not quite as bad as that

the RN still has seven nuke boats in service - 5 Trafalgars and 2 Astute's that would definitely take their toll of any Russian subs in a war - and given the worsening situation could probably put Turbulent back into shape and ready to deploy if need be.

the French have the six Rubis class SSN's as well

As for ASW the British still have Illustrious and Ocean that could be used as baby carriers for ASW, and they still have thirteen Type 23 ASW ships - you could see the RN delaying decommissioning Illustrious and hurrying up Ocean's refit if things continue to get worse

So its not quite as bad for the Europeans as has been painted here

And if Putin wants to start hitting US cities with conventional warheads then i cant wait to see whats left of Moscow after 20 or so B-2's drop their payloads of conventional bombs and blow the heart out of Moscow - or instead take out every AA site along the way and clear the way for a B-1 strike with F-15 and F-22 escorts to do the same

[Raellus]

SRBMs and MRBMs are a different game. They have different launch signatures and trajectories than ICBMs. They wouldn't necessarily elicit the same sort of nuclear response.

In your scenario, would NATO take Putin's warning at face value and just wait around to see what happens? I doubt it. Why wouldn't Russia use SRBMs for the sort of strike you're describing? It's been done before, many times, my a few nations, in anger. Using an ICBM would provoke a nuclear response- it's doctrine. The potential risk is too great and the potential response likely devastating.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

SRBMs and MRBMs are a different game. They have different launch signatures and trajectories than ICBMs. They wouldn't necessarily elicit the same sort of nuclear response.

In your scenario, would NATO take Putin's warning at face value and just wait around to see what happens? I doubt it. Why wouldn't Russia use SRBMs for the sort of strike you're describing? It's been done before, many times, my a few nations, in anger. Using an ICBM would provoke a nuclear response- it's doctrine. The potential risk is too great and the potential response likely devastating.

Putin is a calculating and ruthless individual, and I think you have to be to become Russian president and stay there. He is not going to go nuclear and the Americans know it, but he is not going to allow America/NATO push Russia around on its own door step. The world is looking at what Putin is doing, but Putin is more interested in what the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Serbs, Iranians and all the other dictatorships and Russian arms buyers think rather than what the Western and democratic parts of the world are thinking, and he wants to put on a good show for them. China would just love to have the military capabilities that Russia has at its disposal to rub America's nose in it in the Far East and Pacific.

The Russians still have 200 active OTR-21 Tochka (SS-21) and an unknown number of the newer 9K720 Iskander-M (SS-26) mobile SRBM with conventional HE and fragmentation payloads (and nuclear). Their designed for tactical precision strike against hostile artillery and air defence launchers, air fields, command and communications centers and troops concentrations and critical civilian infrastructure facilities, and the SS-26 was specifically designed to neutralize NATO missile defence systems. The SS-26 can be launched within 4 minutes to an altitude of 50km at a speed of Mach 6-7. But it only has a range of 500 km which means if it is launched from western regions of Russia it will barely reach the German-Polish border. They could easily use them on NATO bases and military installations in the Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and maybe parts of Turkey to the south, but to hit Western Europe they would need bombers and ICBM's with conventional warheads. The Soviets/Russians developed a series of conventional fragmentation HE and submunition warheads for the FROG, Scud, SS-21, SS-23 and SS-26 SRBM's, and I think it could be quite easy for them to retrofit an ICBM and maybe even a naval SLBM with a conventional warhead. Russian SLBM's with conventional warheads would really complicate things for NATO.

SRBMs and MRBMs have a different launch signatures and trajectories to an ICBM as an ICBM enters low Earth orbit, but the flight path and trajectory of an ICBM launched from Russia towards Western Europe would be different to one launched at North America. Also didn't the Soviets develop the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) to confuse American detection systems. It was phased out in 1983 as part of SALT II, but with all the effort that America and NATO has put into ABM systems over the past 15 years wouldn't it occur to Russia to secretly reactivate it for non-nuclear use if it was surrounded by anti-ballistic missile systems?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Its not quite as bad as that

the RN still has seven nuke boats in service - 5 Trafalgars and 2 Astute's that would definitely take their toll of any Russian subs in a war - and given the worsening situation could probably put Turbulent back into shape and ready to deploy if need be.

the French have the six Rubis class SSN's as well

As for ASW the British still have Illustrious and Ocean that could be used as baby carriers for ASW, and they still have thirteen Type 23 ASW ships - you could see the RN delaying decommissioning Illustrious and hurrying up Ocean's refit if things continue to get worse

So its not quite as bad for the Europeans as has been painted here

And if Putin wants to start hitting US cities with conventional warheads then i cant wait to see whats left of Moscow after 20 or so B-2's drop their payloads of conventional bombs and blow the heart out of Moscow - or instead take out every AA site along the way and clear the way for a B-1 strike with F-15 and F-22 escorts to do the same

NATO still has an ASW capability, but it's a shadow of its former self. Britain had the best of NATO's ASW fleet and it still is, but it's a lot smaller than it used to be. In 1990 there were 3 ASW carrier, 46 escorts, 26 SSN's and SSK's, 30 long ranged patrol aircraft. Today there is only 19 escorts, 7 SSN's and no patrol aircraft. If HMS Illustrious is decommissioned this year there will only be HMS Ocean until the two Queen Elizabeth's come into service in 2017/18.

The Nimrod was the best ASW platform in the world and its gone. This leaves 7SSN's, 13 Type 23 Frigate with 2087 towed sonar and about 40 Merlin helicopters. Its adequate but not a large enough fleet to the job right.

If Russia comes under NATO air attack Putin will do the same to Europe and America.

[Olefin]

except Putin has no stealth bombing capability - and any attack on the continental US will get spotted long before any bombers get close

whereas he will know the B-2's are there when the penetrator crashes into the bunker he is in

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

except Putin has no stealth bombing capability - and any attack on the continental US will get spotted long before any bombers get close

whereas he will know the B-2's are there when the penetrator crashes into the bunker he is in

SLBM's with conventional warheads in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans?

[Olefin]

we were talking bombers - thats why the Stealth bomber is such a terrific capability - the Russians literally dont know its there till the bombs hit - whereas with even an SLBM there is some warning

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

Putin is a calculating and ruthless individual, and I think you have to be to become Russian president and stay there. He is not going to go nuclear and the Americans know it, but he is not going to allow America/NATO push Russia around on its own door step. The world is looking at what Putin is doing, but Putin is more interested in what the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Serbs, Iranians and all the other dictatorships and Russian arms buyers think rather than what the Western and democratic parts of the world are thinking, and he wants to put on a good show for them. China would just love to have the military capabilities that Russia has at its disposal to rub America's nose in it in the Far East and Pacific.

True, and, in addition to what you've pointed out here, western Europe is dependent on Russian oil and natural gas exports and so, in all likelihood, will not join in on the stringent economic sanctions which will be necessary to prompt a Russian withdrawal from the Crimea. Putin is a canny fellow, to be sure and he's probably going to get away with annexing the Crimea.

Originally Posted by RN7

The Russians still have 200 active OTR-21 Tochka (SS-21) and an unknown number of the newer 9K720 Iskander-M (SS-26) mobile SRBM with conventional HE and fragmentation payloads (and nuclear). Their designed for tactical precision strike against hostile artillery and air defence launchers, air fields, command and communications centers and troops concentrations and critical civilian infrastructure facilities, and the SS-26 was specifically designed to neutralize NATO missile defence systems. The SS-26 can be launched within 4 minutes to an altitude of 50km at a speed of Mach 6-7. But it only has a range of 500 km which means if it is launched from western regions of Russia it will barely reach the German-Polish border. They could easily use them on NATO bases and military installations in the Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and maybe parts of Turkey to the south, but to hit Western Europe they would need bombers and ICBM's with conventional warheads. The Soviets/Russians developed a series of conventional fragmentation HE and submunition warheads for the FROG, Scud, SS-21, SS-23 and SS-26 SRBM's.

Exactly, so why use a strategic asset like ICBMs to do job for which capable operational-level platforms already exist?

As soon as U.S./NATO member spy satellites detect the launch signature of a Russian ICBM, it's game over. We know where nearly all of their fixed launch sites are and we're still watching. We'll be compelled to launch a nuclear counterstrike. It would take an incredible- some would say, suicidal- degree of self restraint not to. "There may or may not be a nuclear weapon or three on the way towards us and/or our allies but let's wait and see before responding." AFAIK, that would go against Cold War nuclear warfare protocols.

Yes, conventional-armed ICBMs are an asset that Putin has at his disposal, but he'd have to be daft to use it in the capacity that you are describing, especially, as you just pointed out, since he has alternative platforms which can serve the same purpose (i.e. deliver conventional warheads on targets in East & Central Europe.)

Also, can an ICBM designed and built to hit targets a continent away even be reconfigured to hit much closer targets? I would think not- that's why SRBMs and MRBMs exist, right?

[Olefin]

hell if he really wanted to cause chaos with conventional explosives just use good old fashioned truck bombs using intellgence and Special Forces operatives - and leave a conveniently dead Muslim driver to be found - so that no one suspects Putin did it while maximum disruptions occur

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

we were talking bombers - thats why the Stealth bomber is such a terrific capability - the Russians literally dont know its there till the bombs hit - whereas with even an SLBM there is some warning

Not much!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Exactly, so why use a strategic asset like ICBMs to do job for which capable operational-level platforms already exist?

They only have a range of 100-500 km.

Originally Posted by Raellus

As soon as U.S./NATO member spy satellites detect the launch signature of a Russian ICBM, it's game over. We know where nearly all of their fixed launch sites are and we're still watching. We'll be compelled to launch a nuclear counterstrike. It would take an incredible- some would say, suicidal- degree of self restraint not to. "There may or may not be a nuclear weapon or three on the way towards us and/or our allies but let's wait and see before responding." AFAIK, that would go against Cold War nuclear warfare protocols.

What about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines? These days Putin doesn't need the hotline between the White House and the Kremlin to contact Obama and let him know his intensions. He could use E-mail, text message, Skype! But seriously if NATO attacked Russia then the gloves would be off wouldn't they as Russia has every right to retaliate. So what about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines?

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yes, conventional-armed ICBMs are an asset that Putin has at his disposal, but he'd have to be daft to use it in the capacity that you are describing, especially, as you just pointed out, since he has alternative platforms which can serve the same purpose (i.e. deliver conventional warheads on targets in East & Central Europe.)

What about targets he wants to hit in Western Europe and North America?

Originally Posted by Raellus

Also, can an ICBM designed and built to hit targets a continent away even be reconfigured to hit much closer targets? I would think not- that's why SRBMs and MRBMs exist, right?

On 4 March 2014 Russia test fired an RS-12M Topol (SS-25) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Kapustin Yar testing ground near the Caspian Sea, successfully hitting its target at a test ground in Kazakhstan. Although the United States had received advanced notice about the test it had coincided with the crisis in the Ukraine. The SS-25 has an intercontinental range of 10,500 km, but the distance the test missile (non-nuclear) travelled roughly corresponds to the distance from Western Russia to Western European countries such as Britain and France.

And what about targets in North America?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

What about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines? These days Putin doesn't need the hotline between the White House and the Kremlin to contact Obama and let him know his intensions. He could use E-mail, text message, Skype! But seriously if NATO attacked Russia then the gloves would be off wouldn't they as Russia has every right to retaliate. So what about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines?

And Obama is going to take Putin's word that the missiles are armed with conventional warheads? I guess I'm just a lot more cynical about this point.

Originally Posted by RN7

What about targets he wants to hit in Western Europe and North America?

I don't know how he'd hit W. European targets. Belarus might allow the Russians military overflight permission. In my understanding, Belarus is still pretty tight with the Russians. The Soviets have some pretty capable strike aircraft but I don't think very many of them could get through NATO's air cover. Assuming the Russians would have taken Ukraine, their SRBMs could at least hit targets in Poland. I feel like I sound like a broken record but I just don't see Putin using conventional weapon-armed ICBMs because it could very well provoke a nuclear response.

As for hitting targets in the U.S., don't the Russians still have some submarine-launched cruise missiles that can carry conventional explosive payloads? That would be a safer option because it likely wouldn't set off the same kind of alarms that an SLBM would.

As far as NATO vs. Russia war in Eastern Europe, I think that with all of the Cold War baggage that both the U.S. and Russia still have, neither side is going to want to start slinging ballistic missiles. Now, if the war escalated to a full-blown WWIII-type scenario with fighting spreading across the globe, perhaps that reluctance would diminish. But for a war in Eastern Europe, I don't think so.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

And Obama is going to take Putin's word that the missiles are armed with conventional warheads? I guess I'm just a lot more cynical about this point.

Putin could also use Facebook or Twitter and if he lies to Obama or becomes abusive he could have his account suspended

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't know how he'd hit W. European targets. Belarus might allow the Russians military overflight permission. In my understanding, Belarus is still pretty tight with the Russians. The Soviets have some pretty capable strike aircraft but I don't think very many of them could get through NATO's air cover. Assuming the Russians would have taken Ukraine, their SRBMs could at least hit targets in Poland. I feel like I sound like a broken record but I just don't see Putin using conventional weapon-armed ICBMs because it could very well provoke a nuclear response.

As for hitting targets in the U.S., don't the Russians still have some submarine-launched cruise missiles that can carry conventional explosive payloads? That would be a safer option because it likely wouldn't set off the same kind of alarms that an SLBM would.

As far as NATO vs. Russia war in Eastern Europe, I think that with all of the Cold War baggage that both the U.S. and Russia still have, neither side is going to want to start slinging ballistic missiles. Now, if the war escalated to a full-blown WWIII-type scenario with fighting spreading across the globe, perhaps that reluctance would diminish. But for a war in Eastern Europe, I don't think so.

Raellus I'm just playing devils advocate here and throwing out a few hypotethical facts. I could not see any of this happening either. But Russia has the capability to hurt Europe and North America if it wanted to without using its nuclear forces and I think most don't realise that fact. In the post-Cold War years we have become used to America blitzing its enemies with its military capabilities, but have forgotten the fact that Russia also remains a formidable military power.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

Russia also remains a formidable military power.

On that, we are in agreement. It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next few years as the U.S. downsizes its military while Russia continues to modernize and expand its own. I've read that Putin misses the Cold War and would like to see something similar- he's certainly doing his darnedest to bring it back to life!

[stg58fal]

The US has neither the stones nor the endurance for a fight with Russia. Sure, we've got all kinds of technological toys....which have done us a lot of good in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our military is primarily the guinea pigs for whatever social experiments the monkeys in Washington want to try out. The American people don't have the patience for a war of that magnitude, either. They've put up with the Iraq-Afghan wars as long as they have because a) they don't have a choice (no one has seriously listened to anyone who's been against the war for ANY reason, not just the typical loons who protest ANY use of the military), b) the body bags are, for the most part, coming home in twos and threes, not hundreds every day, and c) unlike Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the "We're Winning!" portion of the second war with Iraq, these aren't on the news every night, unless something happens that the media can trumpet about how evil the US military is or how they got their asses handed to them by cave-dwellers with Enfields, the stories don't make the front page of the newspaper.

Our so-called 'leadership' is so weak, if Russia WERE to launch an ICBM at us, they'd sit on their thumbs until after impact, and then protest loudly to the Useless Nitwits.

Russia is making the Ukraine their bitch, and our 'leaders' are asking them nicely to please stop. Not that it's really any of our business in the first place, and I have a real issue with young American men who are too naive to know any better getting their limbs blown off or losing their lives so that a bunch of banksters and speculators won't lose their asses on natural gas futures (follow the money and pipelines in that area of the world) at the behest of a society that considers them to be nothing more than pawns, workhorses, cannon fodder, and ATMs. So this is one time I actually am glad for such weak sisters as we have in Washington right now.

From a purely military standpoint, I wouldn't want to tangle with Russia. Once you factor in the other things that contribute to losing a war, we REALLY need to not mess with Russia.

But you know what? At the end of the day, it is, as the Russians would say, "Ne moya problema".

[Targan]

Stg58fal, I completely understand you not wanting to see American troops killed in a war half a world away over a conflict that has little to do with America. Most of the rest of your post seemed like a thinly-veiled rant against the side of American politics that you don't like. Suggesting that any US President, whether they're Democrat or Republican, would wait for an already-launched Russian ICBM to hit American soil before taking any retaliatory action, beggars belief.

Then when you have a little dig at the UN too (having a go at the UN seems to be a pretty popular passtime on this forum), it makes my objective reading of your more reasonable statements that much more difficult. Many forum members have made their disdain for the UN abundantly clear. You don't like the UN, fine. What's the alternative? No organisation of its kind? Or some new organisation that can somehow magically get set up and funded and have enough global representation to make it something less than a rich players club or a corporate lobby group?

I doubt many forum members here think that the US should go head-to-head (militarilly speaking) with Russia over the Crimea, but there are reasons other than prestige and money for the world to try and stop what's happening in the Ukraine. How about knowing when the actions of a major power are fundamentally wrong? How about standing up for the oppressed underdog? I remember when the US and its allies were into that. I guess money and national interests will always trump knowing right from wrong in this new age of enlightenment huh?

[stg58fal]

Originally Posted by Targan

Stg58fal, I completely understand you not wanting to see American troops killed in a war half a world away over a conflict that has little to do with America. Most of the rest of your post seemed like a thinly-veiled rant against the side of American politics that you don't like.

I didn't think it was veiled at all, I thought I was pretty clear. Let me make it abundantly clear, then: our leadership is a bunch of weak-kneed scumturds who care only about pandering to the parasite classes, because that's what will get them re-elected.

Suggesting that any US President, whether they're Democrat or Republican, would wait for an already-launched Russian ICBM to hit American soil before taking any retaliatory action, beggars belief.

I have a hard time believing that any president since Reagan, and most of CONgress if they were to be elected president, would respond to almost any aggression against this country without first getting a couple of opinion polls, seeing what Wall Street thinks, and asking everyone else for permission. There was a time when we got things done. Now? Not so much. Maybe that's a good thing. It could be, I guess, if it means we finally start minding our own business instead of doing things all over the world that make people hate us.

You don't like the UN, fine. What's the alternative? No organisation of its kind?

Sounds good to me.

I doubt many forum members here think that the US should go head-to-head (militarilly speaking) with Russia over the Crimea, but there are reasons other than prestige and money for the world to try and stop what's happening in the Ukraine. How about knowing when the actions of a major power are fundamentally wrong? How about standing up for the oppressed underdog? I remember when the US and its allies were into that. I guess money and national interests will always trump knowing right from wrong in this new age of enlightenment huh?

Except this is really boiling down to prestige and money. Russia isn't thrilled about the idea of NATO bases on their doorstep, and I can't say that I blame them. Somebody pissed in someone else's Cheerio's about a gas pipeline, and now there's a military conflict going on.

Yeah, we've stood up for the underdog...and what has it gotten us? Hated throughout the world, massive debt, out of control spending, and watching our sons get blown to bits in someone else's wars. And for what? Ultimately, for what? So some fat bastard in Washington can make another million, and some rich bankster can afford a new private jet instead of flying around in one that's a year or two old.

I don't like seeing how the vets of Iraq and Afghanistan are treated. They bleed for this society, and when they ask for something in return, it treats them like uppity slaves. They risk their lives, and come home to find out not only has their wife been sleeping with every guy she could find, she's divorced them while they were gone, and they're making payments to her for the rest of their life, and the court just say "Lulz, datz da LAW". They watch their friends die, and they come home to no jobs and no one gives a crap about the demons that they are dealing with on a daily basis.

I'm glad that I got out when I did. And with all the things I've learned in the past year, I'm ashamed that I was ever stupid enough to volunteer to risk my life for a society that views me as nothing more than a utility and whatever resources someone else can harvest from me.

I don't want to see ANY more young men throw their lives away so someone else can get rich, in the name of a society that views them as nothing. I don't care if they're American, British, German, Russian, Ukrainian, what-have-you. Even Australian.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by stg58fal

I didn't think it was veiled at all, I thought I was pretty clear. Let me make it abundantly clear, then: our leadership is a bunch of weak-kneed scumturds who care only about pandering to the parasite classes, because that's what will get them re-elected.

Ok then, let's skip past hints and be clear about this: the admin of this forum has indicated many times in the past that while he'll accept OT discussions about current events, he'd prefer we didn't voice overtly political opinions on domestic politics that are likely to result in bad blood on this forum. We don't have any Russians or Ukrainians on this forum but we do have a majority of American members.

I reckon the UN is fair game though. You can pretty safely put the boot into them