9 ms·

Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile

61 points by IntronExon 9y ago

s3nnyy 9y ago
Is there seriously some new cold war going on? I read in other media how some new American weapons can fight certain Russian tanks etc, and now I read about Putin bragging about his new weapons. My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.
- aluhut 9y ago
  Remember Bushs Missile Defense Shield in East Europe? Either the cold war never ended or it's not the cold war anymore. I'd say it's the second. The superpower game never ended but even with the sanctions, trade, travel and politics are not that locked. On the other hand there are those 2.0 war technologies like drones, trolls, cyber warfare...
  - bitL 9y ago
    I think he wanted to use time when Russia was weak and disorganized to contain it. I was thinking that better would have been incorporating Russia to EU back then, but that's not something strong EU countries wanted (being outnumbered by Russians in EU governance) - historically Russia was always trying to become a part of Europe and Europe was always looking at those attempts nervously. I guess now that game is over, Russia seems to have decided it is no longer meaningful to aspire becoming a part of Europe and they will rather go with China, even if they really don't like each other that much. I don't think this is going to end well and we will see some major conflicts.
    - aluhut 9y ago
      I never thought anyone wanted to have Russia seriously in the EU. I don't think the EU (or anyone) would be able to handle Russia. NATO however was another topic.
- sexydefinesher 9y ago
  Russias ruling elite need external threats to keep their reign secure, otherwise russians would start looking inwards rather than outwards.
  - s3nnyy 9y ago
    I understand the negative media coverage in Russia about threats from outside (US, Europe) but not the Russia coverage in the American media. I think there was less Russia coverage about in American news some years ago but it seems to increase.
  - primitur 9y ago
    The same is true of Americas' ruling elite, yo. Stop blaming Russia - start blaming Lockheed Martin ($29.4 billion), Boeing ($14.6 billion), Raytheon ($12.3 billion), General Dynamics ($11.8 billion), Northrup Grumman ($9.5 billion), and so on .. ($number in brackets represents value of war-related contracts awarded and currently under obligation...) These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
    - aerostable_slug 9y ago
      >These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence. Not really. China works just as well. Fun fact: the US Navy response to Russia's unilateral abrogation of the INF treaty (IMHO one of the greatest achievements in modern diplomacy & arms control) is to build INF-range missiles - to counter the Chinese. There's a reason there's an SS-20 and Pershing II next to each other at the NASM. INF was a really big deal. It should be worrying to more people that it is being abandoned with such haste.
    - ende 9y ago
      The military-industrial complex will certainly leverage any international conflict it can in order to expand its existence - and I wouldn’t put it past nefarious activities - but some underlying geopolitical conditions must exist to exasperate conflict and in the case of Russia that its natural aggressive and expansionary nature towards its neighbors. There countries naturally turn to defensive collectives such as NATO to protect their sovereignty from Russian aggression.
- primitur 9y ago
  I've always considered the idea that the Cold War was "over" to be nothing but propaganda designed to prevent people from wondering why their nation is spending $Trillion on their military. Of course the Cold War is still happening: America has been exporting war wholesale for decades. Just because Russia hasn't been doing it at the same scale as well, doesn't mean squat. The US and Russia have had plenty of opportunities to leave each other in peace over the last 30 years. The trouble is, they're not the only parties to this farce. Incredibly powerful, massively entrenched super-power-like military industrial multinational corporations are involved as well, and there is no way in HELL they are going to let their number one revenue source dry up just because we all want peace. Its quite simple: stop assuming that its sovereign nation states doing all the fire-lighting. We are way, way beyond that point now. If you want to get a grip on war economy you have to stop allowing your politicians to push you - the people - into more and more heinous debt, for more and more heinous reasons (imperialist warfare against innocents), without repercussion. This is going to be a tough sell. Pretty much everyone using computers to establish themselves in the technology markets today is going to have to deal with a multinational, war-mongering, mega-corporate military-industrial giant. We're well and truly being dominated by those who are quite happy having us all in the abyss, trembling in fear at what would happen if we stopped buying from General Electric, Samsung and co.
  - s3nnyy 9y ago
    Don't you think rather than an invisible, evil hand, it's all just a big ouhpsi (see Hanlon's razor: "Never assume/attribute the intention to do evil that which is adequately explained by stupidity.") or just deterrence theory-based? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory)
    - primitur 9y ago
      No, I truly think we are beyond that at this point: it is pure, profit-driven, hatred-based evil. In fact I am positive that the culture of war-mongering is SO entrenched that it has reached a pitch akin to religious fervor among America's (and Russias) elite, who utterly worship death, its instruments, and its application in driving us all into fear. The reason I think that is because there is so much GOOD technology out there that would solve our crises of cultures in a heartbeat; we are being prevented from applying this, with every $billion-dollar bomber we build in the heartland, instead of schools, hospitals, universities, infrastructure. EDIT: btw, I don't think its a "big invisible hand", but that's because I pay attention. I think its more of a "the people are cowards and cannot face up to the facts of their own complicity in the death cult".
- mtgx 9y ago
  > My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace. But they didn't. Or at least the U.S. didn't. Russia has warned for years that the US shouldn't be installing rocket shields so close to its borders. So the US has continued to antagonize Russia pretty much since the cold war was "over". Now, Russia has started to interfere in US politics, possibly as a consequence of that, and it has also started showing its "might" in Europe. This won't end well, if the two countries continue to antagonize each other.
- Animats 9y ago
  Is there seriously some new cold war going on? Yes. Russia wants their empire back. They've already taken back a piece of Georgia, Crimea, and a piece of Ukraine.
  - rdiddly 9y ago
    What a tidy explanation. It might surprise you to learn the US destabilized Ukraine in the first place, when the Ukrainian president put the brakes on their joining NATO and it looked as though they might instead join CSTO, the Russian version. This is all documented. Also Crimea IS the piece of Ukraine.
    - fuckyouzilla 9y ago
      > Also Crimea IS the piece of Ukraine. Was.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - woodandsteel 9y ago
      Putin has been perfectly clear about this, at least when he is talking to his own public. He says the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet block was one of the great tragedies of the 20th century, and he says that Russia will be under grave threat of being invaded and occupied by the US until it gets back its old territory. He also says that Russia has a right to intervene in any country that has a substantial number of citizens of Russian decent that he believes are being ill-treated.
    - Animats 9y ago
      Crimea was the first piece. Much more than that now. See [1]. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_war_in_Donbass.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_war_in_Do...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Is there seriously some new cold war going on? Yes, since the late 90s. Hillary Clinton's whole “reset button” thing in 2009 was about reversing the escalation in that cold war associated with the Russian invasion of Georgia. > My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace. That prediction was proven wrong less than a decade into the post-Soviet era.
  - dqpb 9y ago
    This is where everything went wrong - they incorrectly labeled the button. The English text said "reset" but the Russian text said "overload" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset
- torstenvl 9y ago
  So long as Russia has territory it doesn't control inside what it views to be its natural geological boundaries, there will always be Russian aggression. Russia very much wants to "never get involved in a land war in Asia." To that end, it wants a solid mountain boundary from the Carpathians to the Tien Shan, and the Gobi desert from there to the Pacific. Until then, you can expect continued encroachments on Ukraine, the Caucuses, and steppe Central Asia, and continued buildup of its military capabilities. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5497331ae4b0148a6141bd47/t/58b90e18a5790aeaef8f8c91/1488522788730/ https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5497331ae4b0148a6141b...
  - rocqua 9y ago
    How does Ukraine ensure there will not be a war in asia? Ukraine is firmly the border between Russia and Europe. Due to the black sea, Ukraine means nothing for the border between Asia and Russia. Similarly the Russian border already runs through the Caucuses. That border is already secured by that mountain range. Meanwhile, to get decent natural borders around Kazakhstan you need to either see that expanse as a natural border, or take over the entirety of Khazakstan. Further east than that, and Russia's borders again seem to follow natural obstacles.
    - woodandsteel 9y ago
      Part of the problem is that Russia's total territory is way too large for its population and economic strength to adequately defend militarily. That didn't matter so much during the two centuries when China was flat on its back, but now it is back to its normal superpower status.
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    >So long as Russia has territory it doesn't control inside what it views to be its natural geological boundaries, there will always be Russian aggression. Quite true. The problem is that in order to gain the territory, it takes aggressive actions that provoke the very hostility it fears. Russia's basic problem is it thinks we are still in the pre-nuclear era where great powers regularly invaded each other, and the pre-industrial era where that was the main road to economic wealth.
- jwtadvice 9y ago
  The post-Soviet era is and was not the end of history. Geopolitical competition exists as a human condition. Much of the "communist versus capitalist" competition that "justified" the Cold War, was actually just a result of two powers that were going to compete anyway pushing competing views of global economic-political organization. The competition was not itself about economic philosophies. Rather competition of economic philosophies was the result of conflict. The United States today is a waning power relative to the rest of the world. However, it's still the de facto superpower. The American strategy is to keep its foot on Russia's neck and while containing the possible rise of China's power (seeking to keep it to a regional, rather than global setting). Yes, the Cold War is still going. There's less of a chance of an immediate nuclear exchange, but the US and Russia continue proxy warfare (e.g. Syria, Ukraine, Iran) and propaganda warfare (e.g. US and Russia's interference in one another's elections)
- cynusx 9y ago
  There are elections on March 18 in russia, this is just Putin rallying his base.
twic 9y ago
> All this begs the question is this missile actually an air-launched ballistic missile system? Like Skybolt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt The Iskander is a bit smaller (7.3 metres long, 3.8 tonnes) than the Skybolt (11.7 metres long, 5 tonnes), but that fits with the idea that this is a tactical/theatre weapon rather than a (not quite) strategic one.
danbruc 9y ago
How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba? Cuba is closer to the US border than the site in Poland to the Russian border, on the other hand Washington is further away from Cuba than Moscow from the site in Poland. Both capitals would be in range of the interceptors. I do not really know enough to judge whether Putin's statement that one could easily replace interceptors with offensive weapons is true or not but I do not really see why you could not do that. So would the US be okay with Russian interceptors in Cuba if they promised that it is only for defensiv purposes and can not be repurposed? Putin certainly is not the nice guy but I can to some extend unterstand that he might be rather unhappy with the actions of the USA and NATO more generally since the end of the Cold War. EDIT: This comment was meant to be as a response to [1] asking about a new Cold War. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16511248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16511248
- s3nnyy 9y ago
  > "How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba?" I think that was the trigger for the Cuba crises?
  - djrogers 9y ago
    No, you’re mixing up missile defense and missile silo/launch site.
    - danbruc 9y ago
      While this is absolutely true in this case, one should not ignore the fact that an interceptor can be just as big a missile as an ICBM and they can even have nuclear warheads to blow up incoming missiles. There are of course really important differences, but those things are powerful weapons on their own and one should not think of a missile defense site as a harmless thing firing little rockets towards incoming reentry vehicles.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    That were offensive weapons right from the start but that is of course why I picked Cuba together with the similar distances. It is only a bad example because I can not easily come up with a justification for Russia needing a missile defense site there that is as good or bad as NATO justifying the need with Iran and North Korea.
bitL 9y ago
I wish we could have continued with much better relations with Russia, instead of seeing polarization escalating and going from the possibility of humanity becoming extinct within 1 hour into the possibility of becoming extinct within 20 minutes. At some point some mad person is likely going to push the button, all just because we are programmed to compete and win by all means with help of misguided philosophies.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  Even with an all out nuclear war, humanity would not go extinct. In fact, the United States as a government and people would survive just with severe economic and human losses.
- Theodores 9y ago
  This is the sentiment that our Russian friends have. When the USA decided to quit the ABM treaty in 2002 the old doctrine of 'MAD' was no more and the arms race was fully back on, with the USA doing most of the spending and all the sabre-rattling. I am amazed at how this story has not been covered by the mainstream media in the UK (and presumably the USA). This Russian capability upgrade has rendered the already useless UK nuclear deterrent into a very expensive joke, however, the penny has not dropped and we are in denial about it. My 'friends' in the doughnut (GCHQ) do know that Trident is useless, the problem being undersea drones. From my casual chats I know this has been a problem for a few years now and that some changes are having to be made, Ascencion Island being the quiet little place where things happen. Such as last year when a test firing resulted in a missile heading towards Florida (which nobody really cared about). Since there is only one UK nuclear armed submarine at sea at a given time it is imaginable that this crusty white elephant can be stalked by a deeper diving and faster nuclear tipped and nuclear armed drone across the oceans and back to its base in Faslane at all times. Therefore the anonymity of the oceans is no more, the 'deterrent' therefore is in Emperor's New Clothes territory, but we can pretend and we can ignore what Moscow has to say. Trident never made any sense to the UK, there is no money left for the conventional fleet, operations such as the Falklands really are not possible any more. Crazy politicians from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair and Theresa May have been the decision makers, wasting money on war preparations that go against the ethos of the UN and the rule of law. Meanwhile, in Russia they have actually clued up politicians in Putin and his chums that play far better chess than what our 'ruling elite' are capable of. Neither the UK or the USA have been repeatedly invaded as has happened in Russian history. Our weapon systems are primarily offensive, the Russians may have plenty of hypersonic nuclear missiles pointed at the dreaded imperialists (!) but there is no evidence that the goals in the Cold War era or even now were to obliterate and invade the USA or Western Europe. More money, human potential and precious materials wasted on war preparations is not a good thing, however, by investing in their military-industrial-complex the Russian government has restored a multi-lateral world. It was not so fun in 2001-2003 when Bush and Blair were able to commit their war crimes with it being a 'unilateral world', so progress has been made towards a safer world by having these deadly new weapons pointed at us and able to destroy life on earth so quickly.
coldcode 9y ago
It doesn't matter what it is or does. As soon as anyone fires off a nuclear missile/device civilization ends. Some tiny remnant of people will start over, in a mostly destroyed planet. Some day their descendants will wonder what kind of complete idiot(s) would start a nuclear war.
- ben_w 9y ago
  Half of them would probably refuse to believe civilisation had ever been this grand or the weapons so devestating.
- shdh 9y ago
  Fermi's great filters
woodandsteel 9y ago
This whole thing is a scam on Putin's part. Putin claims that the US is rapidly building a huge anti-ballistic missile defense system that could stop every single present Russian warhead. And that it is doing this in preparation for invading Russia and turning it into a brutally-oppressed colony, or at least threatening Russia with nuclear destruction to get it to do all sorts of important things that would be damaging to Russia. This is all nonsense. The US is building only a modest number of ABM missiles, and there are no plans beyond that. And the US has no interest whatsoever in invading Russia. Not even over-the-top hawks like John Bolton or the neoconservatives, even mention that idea. As far as nuclear threats to Russia, the US is content to stick with the MAD balance of terror that has kept the peace for over half a century. So why is Putin saying these crazy things? I think it is a combination of two things. One is that he is a Russian, and so as a consequence of Russian history, he believes that the country is always under imminent threat of invasion, no matter what the facts are. The other is that, as authoritarian leaders so often do, he is trying to divert his public's attention from domestic ills that he knows he will not solve. Does anyone want to disagree with me? Does anyone want to lay out all that would be involved in invading Russia (a review of Napoleon's attempt would be helpful here) and also in occupying it, and argue that yes, the US leadership sincerely thinks it would be a great idea, and the US leadership furthermore has good reasons to think the invasion and occupation would be successes?
j1vms 9y ago
As long as the US continues winning the economic/political game it doesn't matter what country builds X weapon that (perhaps) the US doesn't have (yet). It doesn't really make sense for China/Russia to try and compete with the US militarily - need only ask the Soviet Union how that turned out. They need to compete on the economic/political level and they are still half a century away from having the clout the US has, regardless of who might occupy the Executive.
woodandsteel 9y ago
I have a number of comments for this article. I thought it would be helpful to explain where I am coming from. A good place to start is what happened after WWII ended. The world was divided between two great powers, and what you would expect to have happened, given the past history of the world, is for this to lead in a decade or two to a massive war between them. So why didn't that happen? Basically because of some extraordinary economic, technological and governmental changes that had happened over the preceding several centuries. For thousands of years tribes and states had engaged in regular warfare. This was because they were based largely on agriculture. Even in empires, most of the people still were peasant farmers. This lead to warfare in two ways. One is that populations would often grow too large for agricultural output, the other was that the wealth was in the land and so the way to gain more wealth was through conquest. The industrial revolution, based on modern science and technology, and operating under free market economics, lead to some radical changes. Radical increases in agricultural productivity, and in addition health advances lead to lower population growth. In addition, the main source of wealth was now industry, rather than land. And one consequence was the rise of democracy. Nonetheless, warfare persisted. But nuclear weapons radically changed the logic of warfare, and made it suicidal, rather than an often-rational choice. And so we have had a remarkable 70 years of peace. The problem is that Russia has never really adopted to the new era. Politically, it is authoritarian, rather than democratic. Economically it practices crony capitalism, and one consequence is it is very poor at technological advancement, and depends far too much on natural resources for wealth. And with respect to international affairs it thinks we are still back in the old era where great powers continually try to conquer each other, both for wealth and to eliminate military threats. And so it is pursing a policy of trying to gain back every part of the empire it lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. I feel sorry for the Russians. Putin is taking them down a path that will lead to stagnation and maybe violent conflict. And, alas, Trump doesn't see this at all. That's because he is himself very out of touch with the realities of the modern, post-war era, and mistakenly thinks Putin is an excellent leader.
sAbakumoff 9y ago
I wish someone competent commented on the Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile that Putin announced. There are a lot of posts in Russian social media that say that it's total BS.

61 points by IntronExon 9y ago

Is there seriously some new cold war going on? I read in other media how some new American weapons can fight certain Russian tanks etc, and now I read about Putin bragging about his new weapons. My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.

aluhut 9y ago
Remember Bushs Missile Defense Shield in East Europe? Either the cold war never ended or it's not the cold war anymore. I'd say it's the second. The superpower game never ended but even with the sanctions, trade, travel and politics are not that locked. On the other hand there are those 2.0 war technologies like drones, trolls, cyber warfare...
- bitL 9y ago
  I think he wanted to use time when Russia was weak and disorganized to contain it. I was thinking that better would have been incorporating Russia to EU back then, but that's not something strong EU countries wanted (being outnumbered by Russians in EU governance) - historically Russia was always trying to become a part of Europe and Europe was always looking at those attempts nervously. I guess now that game is over, Russia seems to have decided it is no longer meaningful to aspire becoming a part of Europe and they will rather go with China, even if they really don't like each other that much. I don't think this is going to end well and we will see some major conflicts.
  - aluhut 9y ago
    I never thought anyone wanted to have Russia seriously in the EU. I don't think the EU (or anyone) would be able to handle Russia. NATO however was another topic.
sexydefinesher 9y ago
Russias ruling elite need external threats to keep their reign secure, otherwise russians would start looking inwards rather than outwards.
- s3nnyy 9y ago
  I understand the negative media coverage in Russia about threats from outside (US, Europe) but not the Russia coverage in the American media. I think there was less Russia coverage about in American news some years ago but it seems to increase.
- primitur 9y ago
  The same is true of Americas' ruling elite, yo. Stop blaming Russia - start blaming Lockheed Martin ($29.4 billion), Boeing ($14.6 billion), Raytheon ($12.3 billion), General Dynamics ($11.8 billion), Northrup Grumman ($9.5 billion), and so on .. ($number in brackets represents value of war-related contracts awarded and currently under obligation...) These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
  - aerostable_slug 9y ago
    >These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence. Not really. China works just as well. Fun fact: the US Navy response to Russia's unilateral abrogation of the INF treaty (IMHO one of the greatest achievements in modern diplomacy & arms control) is to build INF-range missiles - to counter the Chinese. There's a reason there's an SS-20 and Pershing II next to each other at the NASM. INF was a really big deal. It should be worrying to more people that it is being abandoned with such haste.
  - ende 9y ago
    The military-industrial complex will certainly leverage any international conflict it can in order to expand its existence - and I wouldn’t put it past nefarious activities - but some underlying geopolitical conditions must exist to exasperate conflict and in the case of Russia that its natural aggressive and expansionary nature towards its neighbors. There countries naturally turn to defensive collectives such as NATO to protect their sovereignty from Russian aggression.
primitur 9y ago
I've always considered the idea that the Cold War was "over" to be nothing but propaganda designed to prevent people from wondering why their nation is spending $Trillion on their military. Of course the Cold War is still happening: America has been exporting war wholesale for decades. Just because Russia hasn't been doing it at the same scale as well, doesn't mean squat. The US and Russia have had plenty of opportunities to leave each other in peace over the last 30 years. The trouble is, they're not the only parties to this farce. Incredibly powerful, massively entrenched super-power-like military industrial multinational corporations are involved as well, and there is no way in HELL they are going to let their number one revenue source dry up just because we all want peace. Its quite simple: stop assuming that its sovereign nation states doing all the fire-lighting. We are way, way beyond that point now. If you want to get a grip on war economy you have to stop allowing your politicians to push you - the people - into more and more heinous debt, for more and more heinous reasons (imperialist warfare against innocents), without repercussion. This is going to be a tough sell. Pretty much everyone using computers to establish themselves in the technology markets today is going to have to deal with a multinational, war-mongering, mega-corporate military-industrial giant. We're well and truly being dominated by those who are quite happy having us all in the abyss, trembling in fear at what would happen if we stopped buying from General Electric, Samsung and co.
- s3nnyy 9y ago
  Don't you think rather than an invisible, evil hand, it's all just a big ouhpsi (see Hanlon's razor: "Never assume/attribute the intention to do evil that which is adequately explained by stupidity.") or just deterrence theory-based? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory)
  - primitur 9y ago
    No, I truly think we are beyond that at this point: it is pure, profit-driven, hatred-based evil. In fact I am positive that the culture of war-mongering is SO entrenched that it has reached a pitch akin to religious fervor among America's (and Russias) elite, who utterly worship death, its instruments, and its application in driving us all into fear. The reason I think that is because there is so much GOOD technology out there that would solve our crises of cultures in a heartbeat; we are being prevented from applying this, with every $billion-dollar bomber we build in the heartland, instead of schools, hospitals, universities, infrastructure. EDIT: btw, I don't think its a "big invisible hand", but that's because I pay attention. I think its more of a "the people are cowards and cannot face up to the facts of their own complicity in the death cult".
mtgx 9y ago
> My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace. But they didn't. Or at least the U.S. didn't. Russia has warned for years that the US shouldn't be installing rocket shields so close to its borders. So the US has continued to antagonize Russia pretty much since the cold war was "over". Now, Russia has started to interfere in US politics, possibly as a consequence of that, and it has also started showing its "might" in Europe. This won't end well, if the two countries continue to antagonize each other.
Animats 9y ago
Is there seriously some new cold war going on? Yes. Russia wants their empire back. They've already taken back a piece of Georgia, Crimea, and a piece of Ukraine.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  What a tidy explanation. It might surprise you to learn the US destabilized Ukraine in the first place, when the Ukrainian president put the brakes on their joining NATO and it looked as though they might instead join CSTO, the Russian version. This is all documented. Also Crimea IS the piece of Ukraine.
  - fuckyouzilla 9y ago
    > Also Crimea IS the piece of Ukraine. Was.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    Putin has been perfectly clear about this, at least when he is talking to his own public. He says the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet block was one of the great tragedies of the 20th century, and he says that Russia will be under grave threat of being invaded and occupied by the US until it gets back its old territory. He also says that Russia has a right to intervene in any country that has a substantial number of citizens of Russian decent that he believes are being ill-treated.
  - Animats 9y ago
    Crimea was the first piece. Much more than that now. See [1]. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_war_in_Donbass.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_war_in_Do...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Is there seriously some new cold war going on? Yes, since the late 90s. Hillary Clinton's whole “reset button” thing in 2009 was about reversing the escalation in that cold war associated with the Russian invasion of Georgia. > My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace. That prediction was proven wrong less than a decade into the post-Soviet era.
- dqpb 9y ago
  This is where everything went wrong - they incorrectly labeled the button. The English text said "reset" but the Russian text said "overload" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset
torstenvl 9y ago
So long as Russia has territory it doesn't control inside what it views to be its natural geological boundaries, there will always be Russian aggression. Russia very much wants to "never get involved in a land war in Asia." To that end, it wants a solid mountain boundary from the Carpathians to the Tien Shan, and the Gobi desert from there to the Pacific. Until then, you can expect continued encroachments on Ukraine, the Caucuses, and steppe Central Asia, and continued buildup of its military capabilities. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5497331ae4b0148a6141bd47/t/58b90e18a5790aeaef8f8c91/1488522788730/ https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5497331ae4b0148a6141b...
- rocqua 9y ago
  How does Ukraine ensure there will not be a war in asia? Ukraine is firmly the border between Russia and Europe. Due to the black sea, Ukraine means nothing for the border between Asia and Russia. Similarly the Russian border already runs through the Caucuses. That border is already secured by that mountain range. Meanwhile, to get decent natural borders around Kazakhstan you need to either see that expanse as a natural border, or take over the entirety of Khazakstan. Further east than that, and Russia's borders again seem to follow natural obstacles.
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    Part of the problem is that Russia's total territory is way too large for its population and economic strength to adequately defend militarily. That didn't matter so much during the two centuries when China was flat on its back, but now it is back to its normal superpower status.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  >So long as Russia has territory it doesn't control inside what it views to be its natural geological boundaries, there will always be Russian aggression. Quite true. The problem is that in order to gain the territory, it takes aggressive actions that provoke the very hostility it fears. Russia's basic problem is it thinks we are still in the pre-nuclear era where great powers regularly invaded each other, and the pre-industrial era where that was the main road to economic wealth.
jwtadvice 9y ago
The post-Soviet era is and was not the end of history. Geopolitical competition exists as a human condition. Much of the "communist versus capitalist" competition that "justified" the Cold War, was actually just a result of two powers that were going to compete anyway pushing competing views of global economic-political organization. The competition was not itself about economic philosophies. Rather competition of economic philosophies was the result of conflict. The United States today is a waning power relative to the rest of the world. However, it's still the de facto superpower. The American strategy is to keep its foot on Russia's neck and while containing the possible rise of China's power (seeking to keep it to a regional, rather than global setting). Yes, the Cold War is still going. There's less of a chance of an immediate nuclear exchange, but the US and Russia continue proxy warfare (e.g. Syria, Ukraine, Iran) and propaganda warfare (e.g. US and Russia's interference in one another's elections)
cynusx 9y ago
There are elections on March 18 in russia, this is just Putin rallying his base.

twic 9y ago

> All this begs the question is this missile actually an air-launched ballistic missile system? Like Skybolt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt The Iskander is a bit smaller (7.3 metres long, 3.8 tonnes) than the Skybolt (11.7 metres long, 5 tonnes), but that fits with the idea that this is a tactical/theatre weapon rather than a (not quite) strategic one.

danbruc 9y ago

How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba? Cuba is closer to the US border than the site in Poland to the Russian border, on the other hand Washington is further away from Cuba than Moscow from the site in Poland. Both capitals would be in range of the interceptors. I do not really know enough to judge whether Putin's statement that one could easily replace interceptors with offensive weapons is true or not but I do not really see why you could not do that. So would the US be okay with Russian interceptors in Cuba if they promised that it is only for defensiv purposes and can not be repurposed? Putin certainly is not the nice guy but I can to some extend unterstand that he might be rather unhappy with the actions of the USA and NATO more generally since the end of the Cold War. EDIT: This comment was meant to be as a response to [1] asking about a new Cold War. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16511248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16511248

s3nnyy 9y ago
> "How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba?" I think that was the trigger for the Cuba crises?
- djrogers 9y ago
  No, you’re mixing up missile defense and missile silo/launch site.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    While this is absolutely true in this case, one should not ignore the fact that an interceptor can be just as big a missile as an ICBM and they can even have nuclear warheads to blow up incoming missiles. There are of course really important differences, but those things are powerful weapons on their own and one should not think of a missile defense site as a harmless thing firing little rockets towards incoming reentry vehicles.
- danbruc 9y ago
  That were offensive weapons right from the start but that is of course why I picked Cuba together with the similar distances. It is only a bad example because I can not easily come up with a justification for Russia needing a missile defense site there that is as good or bad as NATO justifying the need with Iran and North Korea.

bitL 9y ago

I wish we could have continued with much better relations with Russia, instead of seeing polarization escalating and going from the possibility of humanity becoming extinct within 1 hour into the possibility of becoming extinct within 20 minutes. At some point some mad person is likely going to push the button, all just because we are programmed to compete and win by all means with help of misguided philosophies.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Even with an all out nuclear war, humanity would not go extinct. In fact, the United States as a government and people would survive just with severe economic and human losses.
Theodores 9y ago
This is the sentiment that our Russian friends have. When the USA decided to quit the ABM treaty in 2002 the old doctrine of 'MAD' was no more and the arms race was fully back on, with the USA doing most of the spending and all the sabre-rattling. I am amazed at how this story has not been covered by the mainstream media in the UK (and presumably the USA). This Russian capability upgrade has rendered the already useless UK nuclear deterrent into a very expensive joke, however, the penny has not dropped and we are in denial about it. My 'friends' in the doughnut (GCHQ) do know that Trident is useless, the problem being undersea drones. From my casual chats I know this has been a problem for a few years now and that some changes are having to be made, Ascencion Island being the quiet little place where things happen. Such as last year when a test firing resulted in a missile heading towards Florida (which nobody really cared about). Since there is only one UK nuclear armed submarine at sea at a given time it is imaginable that this crusty white elephant can be stalked by a deeper diving and faster nuclear tipped and nuclear armed drone across the oceans and back to its base in Faslane at all times. Therefore the anonymity of the oceans is no more, the 'deterrent' therefore is in Emperor's New Clothes territory, but we can pretend and we can ignore what Moscow has to say. Trident never made any sense to the UK, there is no money left for the conventional fleet, operations such as the Falklands really are not possible any more. Crazy politicians from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair and Theresa May have been the decision makers, wasting money on war preparations that go against the ethos of the UN and the rule of law. Meanwhile, in Russia they have actually clued up politicians in Putin and his chums that play far better chess than what our 'ruling elite' are capable of. Neither the UK or the USA have been repeatedly invaded as has happened in Russian history. Our weapon systems are primarily offensive, the Russians may have plenty of hypersonic nuclear missiles pointed at the dreaded imperialists (!) but there is no evidence that the goals in the Cold War era or even now were to obliterate and invade the USA or Western Europe. More money, human potential and precious materials wasted on war preparations is not a good thing, however, by investing in their military-industrial-complex the Russian government has restored a multi-lateral world. It was not so fun in 2001-2003 when Bush and Blair were able to commit their war crimes with it being a 'unilateral world', so progress has been made towards a safer world by having these deadly new weapons pointed at us and able to destroy life on earth so quickly.

coldcode 9y ago

It doesn't matter what it is or does. As soon as anyone fires off a nuclear missile/device civilization ends. Some tiny remnant of people will start over, in a mostly destroyed planet. Some day their descendants will wonder what kind of complete idiot(s) would start a nuclear war.

ben_w 9y ago
Half of them would probably refuse to believe civilisation had ever been this grand or the weapons so devestating.
shdh 9y ago
Fermi's great filters

woodandsteel 9y ago

This whole thing is a scam on Putin's part. Putin claims that the US is rapidly building a huge anti-ballistic missile defense system that could stop every single present Russian warhead. And that it is doing this in preparation for invading Russia and turning it into a brutally-oppressed colony, or at least threatening Russia with nuclear destruction to get it to do all sorts of important things that would be damaging to Russia. This is all nonsense. The US is building only a modest number of ABM missiles, and there are no plans beyond that. And the US has no interest whatsoever in invading Russia. Not even over-the-top hawks like John Bolton or the neoconservatives, even mention that idea. As far as nuclear threats to Russia, the US is content to stick with the MAD balance of terror that has kept the peace for over half a century. So why is Putin saying these crazy things? I think it is a combination of two things. One is that he is a Russian, and so as a consequence of Russian history, he believes that the country is always under imminent threat of invasion, no matter what the facts are. The other is that, as authoritarian leaders so often do, he is trying to divert his public's attention from domestic ills that he knows he will not solve. Does anyone want to disagree with me? Does anyone want to lay out all that would be involved in invading Russia (a review of Napoleon's attempt would be helpful here) and also in occupying it, and argue that yes, the US leadership sincerely thinks it would be a great idea, and the US leadership furthermore has good reasons to think the invasion and occupation would be successes?

j1vms 9y ago

As long as the US continues winning the economic/political game it doesn't matter what country builds X weapon that (perhaps) the US doesn't have (yet). It doesn't really make sense for China/Russia to try and compete with the US militarily - need only ask the Soviet Union how that turned out. They need to compete on the economic/political level and they are still half a century away from having the clout the US has, regardless of who might occupy the Executive.

woodandsteel 9y ago

I have a number of comments for this article. I thought it would be helpful to explain where I am coming from. A good place to start is what happened after WWII ended. The world was divided between two great powers, and what you would expect to have happened, given the past history of the world, is for this to lead in a decade or two to a massive war between them. So why didn't that happen? Basically because of some extraordinary economic, technological and governmental changes that had happened over the preceding several centuries. For thousands of years tribes and states had engaged in regular warfare. This was because they were based largely on agriculture. Even in empires, most of the people still were peasant farmers. This lead to warfare in two ways. One is that populations would often grow too large for agricultural output, the other was that the wealth was in the land and so the way to gain more wealth was through conquest. The industrial revolution, based on modern science and technology, and operating under free market economics, lead to some radical changes. Radical increases in agricultural productivity, and in addition health advances lead to lower population growth. In addition, the main source of wealth was now industry, rather than land. And one consequence was the rise of democracy. Nonetheless, warfare persisted. But nuclear weapons radically changed the logic of warfare, and made it suicidal, rather than an often-rational choice. And so we have had a remarkable 70 years of peace. The problem is that Russia has never really adopted to the new era. Politically, it is authoritarian, rather than democratic. Economically it practices crony capitalism, and one consequence is it is very poor at technological advancement, and depends far too much on natural resources for wealth. And with respect to international affairs it thinks we are still back in the old era where great powers continually try to conquer each other, both for wealth and to eliminate military threats. And so it is pursing a policy of trying to gain back every part of the empire it lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. I feel sorry for the Russians. Putin is taking them down a path that will lead to stagnation and maybe violent conflict. And, alas, Trump doesn't see this at all. That's because he is himself very out of touch with the realities of the modern, post-war era, and mistakenly thinks Putin is an excellent leader.

sAbakumoff 9y ago

I wish someone competent commented on the Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile that Putin announced. There are a lot of posts in Russian social media that say that it's total BS.