7 ms·

The Russian counter is that the "missile shield" being deployed by NATO in Europe, to knock out russian missiles before they reach their intended target, can al

The Russian counter is that the "missile shield" being deployed by NATO in Europe, to knock out russian missiles before they reach their intended target, can also be modified from their "defensive" use to also attack (as regular missiles). Thus, they feel that the US has already violated the treaty by using a loophole (anti-missile defences were never considered when the treaty was made). Moreover, some analysts are suggesting that this move is more directed towards China, then Russia. The treaty makes it difficult for US to deploy missiles targeted at China in that region as these missiles could, in theory, also target Russia. So maybe some of the criticism is justified, if it is indeed the US that is trying to come up with excuses to wiggle out of this treaty.

justin66 8y ago
> The Russian counter is that the "missile shield" being deployed by NATO in Europe, to knock out russian missiles before they reach their intended target, can also be modified from their "defensive" use to also attack (as regular missiles). Are you sure that's what has been said? That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Their use in assisting a US first strike would be to help neutralize Russia's offensive threat, making whatever retaliatory response Russia could muster that much more survivable. From Russia's point of view, that's bad enough. It's the sort of thing that was always a big roadblock to disarmament in the eighties, when people still cared about disarmament. You need to coordinate bringing up defensive weapons with retiring offensive weapons in a way that preserves some strategic balance, and if one side doesn't have the right sort of defensive weapons, or a good place to put them... It's why notions like the US partnering with the USSR to deploy defensive weapons were publicly floated. “A President of the United States could offer to give that same defensive weapon to them to prove to them that there was no longer any need for keeping these missiles,” explained Reagan. “Or with that defense, he could then say to them, ‘I am willing to do away with all my missiles. You do away with yours’”
- webmobdev 8y ago
  > That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Why do you think so? The Indian Ballistic Missile Defence system was built by modifying a nuclear capable short range ballistic missile (Prithvi Missile - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithvi_(missile) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithvi_(missile) ). This modified version was designed in different configurations to intercept missiles in high and low altitude. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Defence_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Def... ).
  - justin66 8y ago
    > Why do you think so? First, it'd be illegal to do in secret. Second and I suppose more significantly, it would not offer a military advantage over actually having them serve their intended purpose as defensive weapons (which would be useful in any hypothetical nuclear exchange, including a US first strike) and then moving a ballistic missile submarine or two to the Barents sea, or equipping some of the many attack submarines operating in those waters with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, or some combination of both.
    - webmobdev 8y ago
      > First, it'd be illegal to do in secret. There isn't any need for secrecy. An anti-ballistic missile is also a missile. So they can theoretically be designed to be both defensive and offensive. That's what the indians did - converted one of their offensive missile to also be a defensive missile that can shoot down other missiles (I am not claiming that the Indians are using the same missile both as an offensive arsenal and in their missile defence shield, but just that it may be possible in the future for them. Both Russia and the US are well ahead of India in missile R&D, and it may not be far fetched to think that they may have already developed configurable missiles that could be used for both offence and defence.)
      - justin66 8y ago
        > There isn't any need for secrecy. The Russian hypothesis we're discussing here is that these are not defensive weapons, they are secretly offensive weapons. Strictly speaking, there would be a legal need for secrecy until we're fully withdrawn from the INF treaty. You'd also have to develop the nuclear warhead to fly on the interceptors in secret. They'd have to be awfully lightweight, since these interceptors aren't designed to carry a nuclear warhead. (a quick look at wiki indicates the RIM-161 uses a kinetic energy warhead, which is a little hint at how silly it is to even be having this discussion) So that's a weapons program you'd have to fund in secret, as well as the funding needed to adapt all those weapons systems to a completely different purpose and test them. You'd have to keep the whole thing secret from those among our NATO allies who would never approve such a thing. Great idea. None of this would give the United States any first strike capabilities it doesn't already have thanks to its navy. I'm trying to be polite but this is all very silly. It's just not what those systems are there for.
- twtw 8y ago
  > Russian officials have raced to portray the United States as the nation at fault. > They charge that American missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe could be easily refashioned into offensive weapons, and that the rise of armed drones, which had not been invented when the treaty was signed, now threaten to provide Washington with similar intermediate-range ability without violating the precise wording of the treaty. From https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuc...
- usedtodatevlad 8y ago
  To answer your first question: yes 110% that is what is being said I'm in Germany and used to date a Russian guy. He would occasionally go off about how evil the US is and how they've already stationed missiles in Poland. He skipped the part about then being defensive and just talked as if they were offensive. I had literally no idea what he was talking about, this must have been what he meant. This is the Russian propaganda tactic: they scream and cry that they are the innocent ones, and are only making rational moves to protect themselves against the "evil US" and NATO. Any and all aguments about anything that Russia might have done wrong is met with Whataboutism.
  - astazangasta 8y ago
    Russia is not placing missiles in Canada and Mexico.
    - jryle70 8y ago
      Because US isn't a threat to Canada and Mexico, as opposed to Russia vs. Poland or Estonia?
      - astazangasta 8y ago
        Ok, how about Honduras or Guatemala or Haiti or Cuba, which the US is a threat to?
        djohnston 8y ago
        if you keep moving the goal posts this hard you might throw out your back, please ensure proper warmups beforehand
        astazangasta 8y ago
        I'm not moving any goal posts. The point is the US is actively encircling Russia, notably sponsoring a coup in the Ukraine and then conducting joint military exercises with its far-right government, while Russia is not doing anything even remotely comparable.
- paganel 8y ago
  > Arw you sure that's what has been said? That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Yeah, that’s what the Russians have said. I’m on my phone and I’m too lazy to search for references, but as a person that would be very negatively affected by a Russian strike on any one of those defense shield thingies (I live in Romania) I follow the subject closely and I can confirm that’s what the Russians think. You can search on YT for an interview with Putin with the German TV (I think) and when the interviewer mentions that the rocket shield installations in Poland and Romania are only for defensive purposes Putin instantly starts laughing. Not to mention that those installations were put in place with Iran in mind according to the official declarations from back then, but now even the Americans don’t use that excuse anymore.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    I know the video you speak off Putin claimed that those launchers can be used to house tomahawk missiles which isn’t true as the launcher for the SM3 missile isn’t designed for that. The SM3 missile can be used to attack ground targets but the US doesn’t have any nuclear warheads that can be fitted on it. That said considering that the Israeli Arrow 3 system has a range of 2400km and it’s partially integrated with the US missile shield in Europe it’s more than just a local problem from Russia’s point of view.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >You need to coordinate bringing up defensive weapons with retiring offensive weapons in a way that preserves some strategic balance, and if one side doesn't have the right sort of defensive weapons, or a good place to put them. I find it fascinating that the treaties and the rhetoric around these treaties is a big fat middle finger to other countries. "Russia was strong once so they deserve to be treated like that." All the smaller countries inbetween are rendered unimportant and their defense doesn't matter.
- makomk 8y ago
  It's propaganda - it doesn't have to be true or make sense, it just has to deflect attention and blame from what Russia is doing. Which, according to US intelligence, has been designing, building, and actually deploying real, non-hypothetical cruise missiles with nuclear warheads that violate the treaty in question. Not missiles that could theoretically be modified to deliver nuclear warheads with some work, actual operational nuclear-armed treaty violations: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruis... It helps that certain, ahem, outspoken Trump critics like https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1091683402741399552 https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1091683402741399552 are willing to literally regurgitate Putin's propaganda and claim to be fighting Russia by doing so, and there seem to be a fairly plentiful supply of people willing to eat this up so long as it's anti-Trump.

justin66 8y ago

> The Russian counter is that the "missile shield" being deployed by NATO in Europe, to knock out russian missiles before they reach their intended target, can also be modified from their "defensive" use to also attack (as regular missiles). Are you sure that's what has been said? That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Their use in assisting a US first strike would be to help neutralize Russia's offensive threat, making whatever retaliatory response Russia could muster that much more survivable. From Russia's point of view, that's bad enough. It's the sort of thing that was always a big roadblock to disarmament in the eighties, when people still cared about disarmament. You need to coordinate bringing up defensive weapons with retiring offensive weapons in a way that preserves some strategic balance, and if one side doesn't have the right sort of defensive weapons, or a good place to put them... It's why notions like the US partnering with the USSR to deploy defensive weapons were publicly floated. “A President of the United States could offer to give that same defensive weapon to them to prove to them that there was no longer any need for keeping these missiles,” explained Reagan. “Or with that defense, he could then say to them, ‘I am willing to do away with all my missiles. You do away with yours’”

webmobdev 8y ago
> That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Why do you think so? The Indian Ballistic Missile Defence system was built by modifying a nuclear capable short range ballistic missile (Prithvi Missile - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithvi_(missile) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithvi_(missile) ). This modified version was designed in different configurations to intercept missiles in high and low altitude. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Defence_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Def... ).
- justin66 8y ago
  > Why do you think so? First, it'd be illegal to do in secret. Second and I suppose more significantly, it would not offer a military advantage over actually having them serve their intended purpose as defensive weapons (which would be useful in any hypothetical nuclear exchange, including a US first strike) and then moving a ballistic missile submarine or two to the Barents sea, or equipping some of the many attack submarines operating in those waters with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, or some combination of both.
  - webmobdev 8y ago
    > First, it'd be illegal to do in secret. There isn't any need for secrecy. An anti-ballistic missile is also a missile. So they can theoretically be designed to be both defensive and offensive. That's what the indians did - converted one of their offensive missile to also be a defensive missile that can shoot down other missiles (I am not claiming that the Indians are using the same missile both as an offensive arsenal and in their missile defence shield, but just that it may be possible in the future for them. Both Russia and the US are well ahead of India in missile R&D, and it may not be far fetched to think that they may have already developed configurable missiles that could be used for both offence and defence.)
    - justin66 8y ago
      > There isn't any need for secrecy. The Russian hypothesis we're discussing here is that these are not defensive weapons, they are secretly offensive weapons. Strictly speaking, there would be a legal need for secrecy until we're fully withdrawn from the INF treaty. You'd also have to develop the nuclear warhead to fly on the interceptors in secret. They'd have to be awfully lightweight, since these interceptors aren't designed to carry a nuclear warhead. (a quick look at wiki indicates the RIM-161 uses a kinetic energy warhead, which is a little hint at how silly it is to even be having this discussion) So that's a weapons program you'd have to fund in secret, as well as the funding needed to adapt all those weapons systems to a completely different purpose and test them. You'd have to keep the whole thing secret from those among our NATO allies who would never approve such a thing. Great idea. None of this would give the United States any first strike capabilities it doesn't already have thanks to its navy. I'm trying to be polite but this is all very silly. It's just not what those systems are there for.
twtw 8y ago
> Russian officials have raced to portray the United States as the nation at fault. > They charge that American missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe could be easily refashioned into offensive weapons, and that the rise of armed drones, which had not been invented when the treaty was signed, now threaten to provide Washington with similar intermediate-range ability without violating the precise wording of the treaty. From https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuc...
usedtodatevlad 8y ago
To answer your first question: yes 110% that is what is being said I'm in Germany and used to date a Russian guy. He would occasionally go off about how evil the US is and how they've already stationed missiles in Poland. He skipped the part about then being defensive and just talked as if they were offensive. I had literally no idea what he was talking about, this must have been what he meant. This is the Russian propaganda tactic: they scream and cry that they are the innocent ones, and are only making rational moves to protect themselves against the "evil US" and NATO. Any and all aguments about anything that Russia might have done wrong is met with Whataboutism.
- astazangasta 8y ago
  Russia is not placing missiles in Canada and Mexico.
  - jryle70 8y ago
    Because US isn't a threat to Canada and Mexico, as opposed to Russia vs. Poland or Estonia?
    - astazangasta 8y ago
      Ok, how about Honduras or Guatemala or Haiti or Cuba, which the US is a threat to?
      - djohnston 8y ago
        if you keep moving the goal posts this hard you might throw out your back, please ensure proper warmups beforehand
        astazangasta 8y ago
        I'm not moving any goal posts. The point is the US is actively encircling Russia, notably sponsoring a coup in the Ukraine and then conducting joint military exercises with its far-right government, while Russia is not doing anything even remotely comparable.
paganel 8y ago
> Arw you sure that's what has been said? That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Yeah, that’s what the Russians have said. I’m on my phone and I’m too lazy to search for references, but as a person that would be very negatively affected by a Russian strike on any one of those defense shield thingies (I live in Romania) I follow the subject closely and I can confirm that’s what the Russians think. You can search on YT for an interview with Putin with the German TV (I think) and when the interviewer mentions that the rocket shield installations in Poland and Romania are only for defensive purposes Putin instantly starts laughing. Not to mention that those installations were put in place with Iran in mind according to the official declarations from back then, but now even the Americans don’t use that excuse anymore.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  I know the video you speak off Putin claimed that those launchers can be used to house tomahawk missiles which isn’t true as the launcher for the SM3 missile isn’t designed for that. The SM3 missile can be used to attack ground targets but the US doesn’t have any nuclear warheads that can be fitted on it. That said considering that the Israeli Arrow 3 system has a range of 2400km and it’s partially integrated with the US missile shield in Europe it’s more than just a local problem from Russia’s point of view.
Mirioron 8y ago
>You need to coordinate bringing up defensive weapons with retiring offensive weapons in a way that preserves some strategic balance, and if one side doesn't have the right sort of defensive weapons, or a good place to put them. I find it fascinating that the treaties and the rhetoric around these treaties is a big fat middle finger to other countries. "Russia was strong once so they deserve to be treated like that." All the smaller countries inbetween are rendered unimportant and their defense doesn't matter.
makomk 8y ago
It's propaganda - it doesn't have to be true or make sense, it just has to deflect attention and blame from what Russia is doing. Which, according to US intelligence, has been designing, building, and actually deploying real, non-hypothetical cruise missiles with nuclear warheads that violate the treaty in question. Not missiles that could theoretically be modified to deliver nuclear warheads with some work, actual operational nuclear-armed treaty violations: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruis... It helps that certain, ahem, outspoken Trump critics like https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1091683402741399552 https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1091683402741399552 are willing to literally regurgitate Putin's propaganda and claim to be fighting Russia by doing so, and there seem to be a fairly plentiful supply of people willing to eat this up so long as it's anti-Trump.