Are We headed into a new Cold War

[Eagle]

It is far better to live as strong equals who know they could simultaneously kill each other if they wished, but know it would be a losing fight no matter who struck first.

I disagree. (which unfortunately an opinion and therefore difficult to debate)

But I find the principals of parity to be naive and MAD to be a poor compromise. An evenly matched opponent will have the same resentment as an outmatched opponent. But an outmatched opponent will fear their adversary more.

If the West and Russia value each other's prosperity, there will be peace. If they don't, the only guarantee is strength.

Furthermore, I have no fear of a good and responsible neighbor, no matter how many guns, knives, fireworks or whatever he has. However, an untrustworthy neighbor is always a concern, no matter what little ability is known.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

But I find the principals of parity to be naive and MAD to be a poor compromise. An evenly matched opponent will have the same resentment as an outmatched opponent. But an outmatched opponent will fear their adversary more.

If the West and Russia value each other's prosperity, there will be peace. If they don't, the only guarantee is strength.

Furthermore, I have no fear of a good and responsible neighbor, no matter how many guns, knives, fireworks or whatever he has. However, an untrustworthy neighbor is always a concern, no matter what little ability is known.

I never said MAD was the ideal solution, just the best available given the chronic mistrusts. Prior to SDI, we were equally matched. Political expediency dictates that your strength should match your strongest neighbor (lest you be seen as weak). But now the SDI/missile shield is causing the west to begin to 'outmatch' Russia. Now you have a cornered bear that fears the growing strength of its perceived adversaries. The bear is growling and its hackles are raised. It is not a safe and stable situation.

 

[Eagle]

But now the SDI/missile shield is causing the west to begin to 'outmatch' Russia. Now you have a cornered bear that fears the growing strength of its perceived adversaries. The bear is growling and its hackles are raised. It is not a safe and stable situation.

Placing new 'missile shields' in former soviet republics may be aggravating the situation. But Russia is already at a disadvantage technologically with the west in conventional arms.

But that are not the cause of the problem. Medvedev's administration is worried that they will loose influence, power, and control in the affairs of their direct neighbors. They are losing this control as the former soviet republics become more westernized and participate in global markets.

Having US manned ballistic missile defenses in Poland means that Russia is unable to use (or threaten) direct force, in Poland, without engaging the US directly.

 

[simonpro]

(graph from Greg)
but beyond that, as I've written here before, I'm an advocate of swift development of thorium reactor technology.

That graph shows production, not use.
From a USGS report in 2003:

Mining of uranium in the U.S.A. accounted for less than 5 percent of the total needed to produce the current 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity.

Of the rest, 17Mlb were imported from Canada, 11Mlb from Australia and 25Mlb from the Russian Federation.

The USA has even less Thorium (as a percentage of world supplies) than it does of Uranium, btw: 6.2% compared to 9.4% of RAR for a cost category of $85/kg

A couple of minutes' searching did not reveal a chart comparable to the one I used back in 2003 when I wrote that piece. I don't doubt things have changed since then. One of the major factors changing the numbers will have been the adoption of unleaded gasoline in the last decade across Europe.

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2006_1/en


-----Posted Added-----

On the other hand, if you want to knock out the handfull of missles that one of the world problem children (I'm not going to name any names here but their names start with I and NK) could put in the air then that's a different story.

While it could probably intercept Iranian missiles (if they develop the capability to fire them far enough) it'd be pretty useless against North Korean missiles, they'd be going the other way, either Eastwards or over the pole: Nowhere near this site.

In my opinion the whole concept of missile shields is flawed. It's always easier and cheaper to develop more advanced decoy techniques than it is to deploy the interceptor technology capable of defeating them.

 

[Eagle]

In my opinion the whole concept of missile shields is flawed. It's always easier and cheaper to develop more advanced decoy techniques than it is to deploy the interceptor technology capable of defeating them.

Just because something isnt a cure all doesn't make it worthless. The Navy Phalanx system can only take out so many missiles at a time. But its unlikely that the destroyer will have 50 missiles coming at it at one time (but if its true, they're screwed).

The same kind of mentality is that because wind power(or any other energy source) isn't a cure all for energy needs, we shouldn't bother to build any.

Also, boost phase decoys are orders of magnitude more expensive than freefall decoys. And the anti-missile shield deployed in Poland attacks the missile then.

 

[GregBurch]

That graph shows production, not use.
From a USGS report in 2003:

Of the rest, 17Mlb were imported from Canada, 11Mlb from Australia and 25Mlb from the Russian Federation.

The USA has even less Thorium (as a percentage of world supplies) than it does of Uranium, btw: 6.2% compared to 9.4% of RAR for a cost category of $85/kg




http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2006_1/en

Yes -- I was aware that that was production. My point was that the current levels of uranium imports from Russia aren't necessarily written in stone. And, yes, I know that the US has very little thorium. My understanding is that India has quite a bit, though, and for reasons extrinsic to energy policy, I think that a closer and closer alignment between India and the US is quite probable over the next 50 years.

 

[Urwumpe]

Just because something is a cure all doesn't make it worthless. The Navy Phalanx system can only take out so many missiles at a time. But its unlikely that the destroyer will have 50 missiles coming at it at one time (but if its true, they're screwed).

Actually, all soviet/Russian cruisers since 1970 fire their missiles in 6-12 missile salvos, with 3-4 harpoon-like missiles in a salvo being already enough to saturate the defenses of a single cruiser. But with the difference, that most modern missile of the Russians are now faster (up to Mach 4.5) as a Harpoon. If you are optimistic, you can just half the saturation limits: 2 modern missiles for a single cruiser, four for hitting a ship inside the layered defenses of the task force, about 24 missiles (that is my personal estimate) for badly damaging a carrier task force.

The war of surface combatants and naval air force is not yet decided. Both dogs still learn new tricks. The modern club missile for example: It flies very low at subsonic speeds, but at a huge range, and finally raises for searching the target and firing a terminal rocket stage with the warhead at 45 km distance, traveling at Mach 3.9. Even with the rotating airframe missile (RAM) as point-blank defense, this rocket is mean.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Having US manned ballistic missile defenses in Poland means that Russia is unable to use (or threaten) direct force, in Poland, without engaging the US directly.

You are quite correct, but that does not change the fact that US administration kept feeding the world with a BS about putting up a missile shield in Eastern Europe against Iran.


-----Posted Added-----

The only way to avoid this cold war is to get Russia involved, and to respect their position. NATO needs to be ditched - it is Russia's 'enemy'. Another defensive alliance needs to be developed that puts Russia under the same umbrella. It means understanding Russia's concerns for it's economy and access to energy. It means really putting old rivalries aside and trusting - something that may be impossible for our leaders.

You got it exactly right how the situation is perceived from within Russia thoughout your posts. Your idea sounds very appealing, but this is a sophisticated world. I 'm not sure that certain countries of the Eastern Europe and especially countries of Baltia would feel confortable in an alliance including Russia. And by the way - a defencive alliance implies having a common enemy. Whom do you have in mind? I can only envisage this scenario as real if something nasty happens in Central or Eastern Asia.

 

[Urwumpe]

But you can't defend all under the same alliance.

And you also can't bury NATO only because it does not suit Russia. Russia is not member of the NATO and has nothing to say about it's fate, even if it would like to give argumentation aids.

The main point of criticism of NATO is, that it actually lost it's main purpose. The cold war is over and the common enemy, initially perceived is dead - the international communism. So far, so good.

But it has not lost it's purpose as protection against aggression. You don't want to mess with the NATO. And that is still reason enough for maintaining the NATO. But it's internal organization and politics should change. IMHO the rules should be:

1. Who attacks a NATO member, has to deal with the whole NATO.
2. No NATO member is allowed to attack another country except by mandate of all other NATO members. Offense is often the best defense and refusing this strategy is not strength, but weakness by stupidity.
3. Territory conquered by NATO countries get put under NATO mandate - not automatically UN or a single member country.
4. No country should have more power inside NATO as other members. Yes, this would make NATO extremely unattractive for very powerful countries like (only) the USA. They can quit, if they want to - it would weaken NATO for a short moment, but could be better on the long term.
5. The armies inside NATO should meet minimum standards defined by NATO. These standards should be set far higher as today. If you can't meet basic minimum standards, you should loose all political power inside NATO, if you are already member, but can still rely on it in defense. You can only get rejected from NATO by mandate of all other members.

All IMHO.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

You got it exactly right how the situation is perceived from within Russia thoughout your posts. Your idea sounds very appealing, but this is a sophisticated world. I 'm not sure that certain countries of the Eastern Europe and especially countries of Baltia would feel confortable in an alliance including Russia. And by the way - a defencive alliance implies having a common enemy. Whom do you have in mind? I can only envisage this scenario as real if something nasty happens in Central or Eastern Asia.

As far as the new common enemy, what about the 'global war on terror'?
Logically it would seem to be a common front where Russia and the west could stand shoulder-to-shoulder, but many U.S. foreign policy decisions in the past few years have made the formation of such a united front difficult, if not impossible.

I have a friend from Serbia who has said that the U.S. and the west were hypocrites for siding with the Kosovars in the war against Serbia, then declaring war against the Al Qaida / Bin Laden terrorists which they felt was deeply associated with the 'Kosova Liberation Army'. He admits that the Serb army did many bad things in Kosovo, but the so-called Kosova Liberation Army won a huge PR war, pulling the wool over the eyes of the west, and were really drug-running terrorists. Given the chance to fight drug-running terrorist extremists or Slavs in the Russian sphere of influence, the west decided to attack the Slavs and so further eroded Russian willingness to work cooperatively with the west. Chechnya also seems to be a front where Russia sees a threat from terrorism, but the west has no interest in assisting the situation.

 

[Biscuit]

... I really love these political threads ... it always seems the opinion starts running toward whatever the U.S. does or doesn't do, for whatever reason, it's wrong, and is the root cause of all evil in the world ... never mind any other country's leaders vowing to wipe their enemies off the map as soon as they can get some nukes built, or a country's leaders totally ignoring 20+ United Nations sanctions against them, or building rape rooms just to have fun in and terrorize the populace, or stoning women to death because they got raped by a gang of thugs, or wipe out half the population because they are from a different tribe, or keep their population in abject poverty and slavery just out of sheer principal and worship of communism ... nope, it's all the United States fault somehow ... they were forced into it, those poor, poor dictators and megalomaniacs.

... not that the U.S. has had an absolutely sterling history, or has managed to get everything right all the time ... we've made our mistakes ... but it all gets old after a while.

 

[movieman]

Just because something is a cure all doesn't make it worthless. The Navy Phalanx system can only take out so many missiles at a time. But its unlikely that the destroyer will have 50 missiles coming at it at one time (but if its true, they're screwed).

Missiles are cheap, at least compared to destroyers and aircraft carriers.

The US military held war games some years ago to simulate a US attack on Iran. If I remember correctly, the people playing Iran fired around a thousand missiles at the US fleet within one minute, and the games had to be restarted because they sunk pretty much the whole lot, which wasn't considered a valid outcome since it didn't allow them to simulate a land war. At maybe $100,000 a missile, firing a thousand in one attack from small boats is vastly cheaper than the cost of replacing a single aircraft carrier.

Whatever kind of attack you believe is 'unlikely' is almost certainly going be the kind of attack that any sensible attackers choose to carry out, because it's precisely the one you can't defend against. History is littered with examples of countries building huge defences against the way they were attacked in the last war, only to discover that they're utterly useless against the way they're attacked in the next war.

 

[Eagle]

Actually, all soviet/Russian cruisers since 1970 fire their missiles in 6-12 missile salvos, with 3-4 harpoon-like missiles in a salvo being already enough to saturate the defenses of a single cruiser.

My only point is that they at least try to shoot down incoming missiles.

Might it be the case fewer missiles would be sent if the Navy didn't use Phalanxes? Maybe, but at least with the Phalanx, Navy ships have some slim chance. At minimum, the Phalanx quadrupled (need to fire 4x the missiles) the expense of missiles to destroy a single ship.


-----Posted Added-----

Whatever kind of attack you believe is 'unlikely' is almost certainly going be the kind of attack that any sensible attackers choose to carry out, because it's precisely the one you can't defend against. History is littered with examples of countries building huge defenses against the way they were attacked in the last war, only to discover that they're utterly useless against the way they're attacked in the next war.

Good points. I don't disagree with any of your points. Tactics change to match the situation.

Really, the conventional arms race has never ended. I guess the big concern regarding (nuclear) ballistic missile defense is that it will somehow reignite the nuclear arms race (which hasn't really stopped, though warhead numbers are constant and there is little actual testing).

Would it have better had the Phalanx and other like systems never been invented? I think not, but opinions diverge, especially on hypotheticals.

 

[Linguofreak]

You are quite correct, but that does not change the fact that US administration kept feeding the world with a BS about putting up a missile shield in Eastern Europe against Iran.

Then why don't Putin and Medvedev try helping the US in the Middle East instead of hindering us? Or why don't they propose building their own missile shield in whatever location they think will guard best against a strike on the West from the Middle East?

If Iran is just a cover for us to get a missile shield against Russia, they can blow that cover by offering to help. If we *aren't* BSing, Russia can gain influence in the region (rather than losing it to us) by helping the situation instead of making us take care of things (and getting in our way while we try).

 

[Andy44]

If Iran is just a cover for us to get a missile shield against Russia, they can blow that cover by offering to help. If we *aren't* BSing, Russia can gain influence in the region (rather than losing it to us) by helping the situation instead of making us take care of things (and getting in our way while we try).

Russia did offer to help, they offered to let us use a radar station in the Caucasus region, IIRC, and integrate it into our ABM system. Washington told them "No F'ing way, we're sticking them in Poland and you're going to like it."

Thus I call BS.

 

[ijuin]

As for trains, well, I have an opinion about that (big surprise):

http://www.gregburch.net/cars/plans.html

Yeah, trains are not really good for commuting, but the bus service SUCKS where I am. I live in a city of fifty thousand people that is right up against a city of two hundred thousand, but the nearest bus stop to my house on ANY line is more than one mile away--and I am more than two miles from anything resembling undeveloped space. Buses ought to come within half a mile of where you are, if you are in an actual urban area as opposed to suburban or less.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Then why don't Putin and Medvedev try helping the US in the Middle East instead of hindering us?

Andy44 already pointed out that an offer was made for a joint use / upgrade of Gabala tracking station in Azerbajan. It has been waived off. Most probably because that station is a big concrete bulding looking South and cannot be turned northwards if one likes so.

Or why don't they propose building their own missile shield in whatever location they think will guard best against a strike on the West from the Middle East?

'cause our ABM technology sucks anyway. There are no treaties so far that would oblige us to protect West from East. In the unlikely case that Iran would fire a nuke at Russia, the resolution of the crisis would be simple: we make Iran a toast. As a good guarantee of keeping the weakening relations with the West, I would like it very much that Russia would have offered a protection guarantees to Israel: after all, a thick percent of Israeli population are the former citizens of USSR and Russia.

Iran is not thought of as a good and trusty ally here; at most a partner in certain aspects, an 'enemy of my enemy', and is generally approached cautiously because we have little interest in obtaining one more enemy out of nothing. But I am sure that in case of an actual Iranian nuke strike at anybody (given that would be a preemptive strike) they won't receive Russian appraisal. At best, they would see our turning back. Hope understanding this stops them from doing so.

Speaking of choosing the best site for the ABM radars and rockets, why don't US military consider this wide choice of countries: Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Iraq and Afghanistan are closer to the point, Turkey might be more comfortable to settle in (and is a trusted NATO member). These rockets are designed to shot down missiles during the powered flight phase, aren't them? Then surely they will get their job done at the shortest possible range and a vista view of the launch site.

Of course, you can argue that the true reason for putting the installations at Poland and Czechia is an opportunity for US service people to hang out with lovely Polish babes or drinking lovely Czech lager... Who knows.


-----Posted Added-----

As far as the new common enemy, what about the 'global war on terror'?

I would like it to happen, surely. When listening to the reports from Beslan I felt aggrieved and enraged so greatly that I was ready to go tear some terrorist throats. I also felt very sorry and appalled by the 9/11 attack. I think these my feelings are shared by the most of Russians. But the war on terror is rarely something that involves an army action. Nukes are useless against terrorists. The most effective countering is done by secret services and intelligence agencies. US and Russian secret services allied? Hmm, maybe when the devil is blind. Well, you know we have a little problem taming them... You too.

Given the chance to fight drug-running terrorist extremists or Slavs in the Russian sphere of influence, the west decided to attack the Slavs and so further eroded Russian willingness to work cooperatively with the west.

Forget it, this set of the game was lost by our great tennis player. It's now a European headache. I hope Serbia will integrate into EU smoothly.

Chechnya also seems to be a front where Russia sees a threat from terrorism, but the west has no interest in assisting the situation.

Thank goodness for the small mercy: the topic seems to wander away from the title pages of Western media with big Russia blaming headlines. Little people know what happened over there, and how unbearable the pressure was. It is still an aching wound, but at least a dressed one.

 

[James.Denholm]

I'm not going to bother reading 3 pages of stuff, so I'm just going to hope we are still talking about MAD and nuclear weapons:

Somehow, I seriously doubt that either USA or Russia actually wants to see the other burn. I just don't think that either side is actually prepared to launch the nukes. As I always say (from this day on), To build it is one thing, to use it is another.

 

[Urwumpe]

My only point is that they at least try to shoot down incoming missiles.

Might it be the case fewer missiles would be sent if the Navy didn't use Phalanxes? Maybe, but at least with the Phalanx, Navy ships have some slim chance. At minimum, the Phalanx quadrupled (need to fire 4x the missiles) the expense of missiles to destroy a single ship.

No, my point is more, that defense systems are a reaction, but no action - you have to design defense systems for an existing threat, so they are quickly obsolete when the enemy develops better weapons. The Phalanx system is already obsolete - The Rotating Airframe Missile is now the current state-of-the-art defense system for NATO ships, as it has a better range and more accuracy, as well as it is harder to saturate. Phalanx can only fire at a limited number of targets in series before the barrels overheat. RAM can fire multiple missiles at multiple targets parallel and
does not overheat, but has only 21 shots loaded until it gets manually reloaded.

The next generation of defense systems might get installed into VTOL drones, allowing a better chance to hit the targets and more distance to the ship.

A missile shield against Iran does only work as long as Iran is not capable of building MIRVs. And a defense against MIRVs is currently impossible - but not forever. But what will be the next generation of offensive tactics?

 

[SiberianTiger]

I'm not going to bother reading 3 pages of stuff, so I'm just going to hope we are still talking about MAD and nuclear weapons:

Somehow, I seriously doubt that either USA or Russia actually wants to see the other burn. I just don't think that either side is actually prepared to launch the nukes. As I always say (from this day on), To build it is one thing, to use it is another.

The most popular American apocalyptic scenario: an evil force comes to power in Russia and unleashes a nuclear strike on USA and Western states.

The most popular Russian apocalyptic scenario: an evil force comes power in USA and firstly does a number of things to screw up Russian economy, destabilize politics and ultimately incite a civil war. When the pot begins boiling, international peacekeeping forces move in and isolate the factions in smaller separate territories. Those who are loyal to West are granted independence from each other and support. Few stray nukes launched in the process are shot down by the ABM. Finally, the corporates get what's they've been long for all along: gas, oil, timber, uranium, iron, base metals and so on.

Now we are, as usual, quickly heading to a silly argument about who is more evil.