Current Nuclear Weapons Development

That is utter bullshit. Who are they about to invade? Their maximum objective is literally Taiwan. If they get too uppity, the Russians will flip on them.

As for Africa and Central Asia... the Fifth fleet can most definitely hold the Indian Ocean SLOCs to cut short any proxy war, and Central Asia is Russia's sphere.

The Chinese are boxed in seven ways to Sunday, and they know it. They're running scared, not out for conquest.

With Russia on the board, and India coming up, the Chinese Question is self limiting. What needs to be done are economic reforms in India.

Read your Adam Tooze (Wages of Destruction). Germany went to war because it needed imports but had inadequate exports. Unless the US intentionally and wilfully shuts down China's access to markets in Eurasia, or destroys the Chinese economy, there is little reason for the Chinese to be aggressive. Of course, the Americans could also be backing the Chinese into a corner so they could wipe the Chinese off the board and claim the Chinese struck first... but the US can't be that evil, can it? Oh wait...

What do you think is going to happen as the lines continue to be drawn? The US is already telling countries to pick a side, that's what happens in a Cold War between major powers. I'm sorry I don't hold any adoration for an authoritarian superpower that doesn't answer to its citizens and believes its form of government should be an example for the world to follow. We've been here before, and America exists to put down cancers like Communist China.

True, but only for as long as it is secure in the knowledge that it need not worry about having a US break-out thanks to binding arms control agreements in place. Remove that factor, and the rules of the game change completely from their perspective.

I seriously think that trust has been very deeply eroded since 2002, and particularly in the past 10 years - to the extent that relations with China (certain misgivings not withstanding) are already more cordial. If New Start dies and the US embarks on a genuine build-up, all bets are off. Far stranger alliances have been precipitated by exogenous pressures, think WWII.

Not sure things are all that black and white, but even supposing that you're right, extending New START buys the US 5 years of time to prove that to the world at large and then still start the arms race with a comfortable lead. Without blowing billions on a redundant race with the Russians in the meantime.

I agree, trust has been eroded, publicly, and while we had our spat over Ukraine & Syria, I think the bigger picture is more concerning for both nations. Russia knows it can't do anything about China (who is sitting comfortably under the Siberian resource belt), which is pushing it to field a new generation of missiles and strategic bombers in the interest of its own national security. As tensions between the US & China grow, Russia will fade into the background because both China & the US will pull far away and ahead of the rest of the world in their quest for dominance.
 
What do you think is going to happen as the lines continue to be drawn? The US is already telling countries to pick a side, that's what happens in a Cold War between major powers. I'm sorry I don't hold any adoration for an authoritarian superpower that doesn't answer to its citizens and believes its form of government should be an example for the world to follow. We've been here before, and America exists to put down cancers like Communist China.

Well then, screw you, and if the rest of the United States makes policy based on this intolerant ideological exceptionalism, may the country with the greatest counterforce capabilities and most robust socio-economic-political fabric win.

I am under no illusions that the Chinese can win, but a draw can be hoped for, I guess.
 
Last edited:
Well then, screw you, and if the rest of the United States makes policy based on this intolerant ideological exceptionalism, may the country with the greatest counterforce capabilities and most robust socio-economic-political fabric win.

The United States is the capstone for Western Liberalism and Democracy, we have a duty to protect the world order from these types of governments.
 
Just pointing out that you completely mischaracterized the factors at play to produce your hypothetical. Now you are arguing for effect.

Ah, I get it - you are semantically objecting to the word "seceded". Oh dear.

Fine, amend my statement to say "mutually agreed with the RoUSA to split". Since I was in fact ALWAYS arguing about the effect, your objection doesn't alter anything whatsoever.

Do you sincerely believe the "RoUSA" would have continued to rely on the "People's Republic of California" for vital parts of its deterrent? At the very latest once the latter made noises about wanting to enter a military alliance with the main strategic competitor, the "RoUSA" would have been scrambling to rectify the situation!

The Russians made a choice. And there were other choices they could have made (see below) for mitigating that original choice.

Sure, and I'm not here to defend those choices (many of which were *deeply* misguided). But they are water under the bridge now, and they DO cause the effects we see. The US also made choices, and not a few of them were similarly ill-advised - only nobody seems ready to admit it, and that's a shame, because it means the lessons from these mistakes will not be learned. And it begets an attitude that, to anyone who knows otherwise, severely damages the credibility of certain US policies.

The evidence for the hull life of the Ohio class. The evidence for the lifespan, maintainability and supplier base of MMIII esp. wrt
the number of glory trips required per year. All public domain. No such evidence is available for the Russian systems.

This is getting ridiculous. I suppose 15 years of neglect and poor maintenance will not have affected the hull life of the Russian boats at all? And MMIII is a bizarre case anyway - with the extent of re-manufacturing that has gone into them over the years they aren't even the same missiles that were originally deployed to a significant extent. In any case, kindly complain to France about SNLE-3G and the hull life of the Triomphant class.

The certified shelf-lives of Russian ICBMs are well publicized BTW, pretty much every time they test launch a random sample for service life extension purposes they announce the newly approved limit.

Whether you keep a submarine going for 50 years or only 30 (which is probably what it was originally designed for, anyway) and keep missiles operational by replacing basically every nut, bolt and filament is arguably also a choice. I don't see under what obligation the Russians would have to justify a different strategy to anyone, so long as it doesn't bust New START (which it doesn't).

The Russians were offered NATO membership. They declined. So they and Ukraine could have been part of another alliance all over again.

Seriously? Things NEVER got anywhere near a formal offer for Russia to decline - EVER.

The closest it came was a mid-1990s British draft proposal (which likely never progressed beyond UK internal discussions) that would have created a special type of "membership" specifically for Russia. If you look at the details, it becomes apparent that this status was carefully crafted to exclude basically all the privileges that define a bonafide NATO member, so it would practically have been merely the NATO-Russia Council by another name.

The Russians cheated. They got caught cheating through a massive clandestine effort that was not part of the treaty.

So-called national technical means of verification (such as reconnaissance satellites) are at least implicitly taken to be part of the verification regimes in most treaties - that explicitly includes ABM.

They then stopped cheating in that manner. And moved on to other cheating see Krasnoyarsk.

See, now that's one of those examples where I'd be careful about accusations of "cheating" or "violations".

Krasnoyarsk is arguably best characterized as a treaty dispute or controversy (if you argue semantics, so will I). Cheating supposes you know that your action is in breach of the treaty and hope the other side doesn't notice - neither is likely the case with the EW site in Krasnoyarsk. There could be no expectation that a massive bi-static radar site would evade detection by the US, so it's probable the Soviets believed they were in compliance due to a misinterpretation of the treaty on their part. The US objected, discussions ensued, the USSR abandoned construction. Fair enough, right?

And of course the ABM treaty compliance body was incapable of applying sanctions. So why not continue to cheat?

Did they? No, the issues were remedied, so apparently things worked as they should.

Go ahead and bring them out.

If you class Krasnoyarsk as a "violation" rather than a "controversy" so are the upgrades to Fylingdales and Thule - certainly the Soviets thought so. What makes one party's concerns more important than another's?

That SAM-D (Patriot) was strictly limited in engagement velocities was the best example of the US scrupulously
abiding by the treaty to a ludicrous degree.

So?

So no violation is ever likely produce a breach. And none of the treaty compliance bodies can apply or enforce sanctions.

And the inspection protocols are deliberately designed *not* to find violations: inspectors can be held at a distance of 50 meters.

The high-fidelity SCUD TEL decoys the Iraqis cobbled together by 1991 could not be distinguished from the real thing from
a signature perspective until you were under 22 meters.

Would you please stop talking in code? I don't understand any of what you are saying there, starting with which treaty you are even referring to. And, sources please.

The late 80's system had a defended area of many thousands of square miles.

The Moscow metropolitan area is "many thousands of square miles" in extent (about 10 thousand square miles, to be concrete). Thousands of square miles does not in fact mean what you appear to think it does.

The defensive complexes were 50 miles away from Moscow itself.

From the city centre, yes - not from the city limit (and the vast majority are a lot closer). Do you propose they put missile silos in people's front gardens? Again, Moscow is a BIG place!

At its upper bound, they could have defended a good chunk of European Russia.

Quite how that was supposed to work with missiles which we *know* are not all that much more capable than Spartan/Sprint requires some explanation, I'm afraid.

Short-range endo: makes complete sense given the general de-MIRVing of the US arsenal under START+. Just wait for atmospheric strip-out of the decoys.

Which is probably the rationale for doing so. However: the number of short-range missiles was not increased to compensate - there are now fewer missiles than before. So much for "vast" and defending a good part of the more than one *million* square miles of European Russia.

Aegis Ashore has no utility against strategic weapons.

So? They'd unequivocally violate ABM regardless.

And the radars meet no plausible definition under the ABM treaty.

Which is precisely the problem, is it not?

GMD is not credible against a Russian threat of practically any size. They know that.

Hence statements such as Putin's - the problem is that it isn't actually "not" but "not YET". And they know THAT, too.

I'm not. There are too many direct quotes from period. Particularly what Putin said on Russian national television.

Ah. So I'm supposed to just take your word for it. I do research these things before posting, you know.
 
Last edited:
THREE nuclear capable bomber assembly lines

I count only one, BTW - Kazan. From what I saw of it the Tu-95 plant in Samara is decrepit, its scratch-built output of the past 20 years totals a handful of 50-seat turboprop airliners.
PAK-DA, Blackjack, and Backfire. Or are the Blackjacks and Backfires refurbs instead of new builds?


Looks like the Backfires are refurbs. So two strategic bomber assembly lines. Looks like the treaty is working miracles after all.
 
What do you think is going to happen as the lines continue to be drawn? The US is already telling countries to pick a side, that's what happens in a Cold War between major powers. I'm sorry I don't hold any adoration for an authoritarian superpower that doesn't answer to its citizens and believes its form of government should be an example for the world to follow. We've been here before, and America exists to put down cancers like Communist China.

Well then, screw you, and if the rest of the United States makes policy based on this intolerant ideological exceptionalism, may the country with the greatest counterforce capabilities and most robust socio-economic-political fabric win.

I am under no illusions that the Chinese can win, but a draw can be hoped for, I guess.
Would you rather live under Chinese influence or American? There is no Door #3.
 
Have you been reading my posts?

I've seen a lot of wishful thinking. I'm asking why you want to stay in it giving the reality that they really do nothing except tie the US's hands. Sounds like we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not for staying in treaties that only hand-cuff us while Russia ignores them and China runs wild.
 
Last edited:
PAK-DA, Blackjack, and Backfire. Or are the Blackjacks and Backfires refurbs instead of new builds?

Considering PAK-DA to be in production (there's a prototype rumoured to be under assembly, but that has never been the same thing, right?) stretches it, IMHO...

The Backfires are refurbished, and until last year the Blackjacks were assembled from stored parts.

Looks like the Backfires are refurbs. So two strategic bomber assembly lines. Looks like the treaty is working miracles after all.

One. With an output in the very low single digits of airframes a year for the time being. And again, that treaty doesn't prohibit having as many lines as you want, so long as the fleet they build remains below the ceilings established. Which is ultimately what counts, anyway - production plants don't raze cities, bombers do.

I'm asking why you want to stay in it giving the reality that they really do nothing except tie the US's hands.

How is that the case when it subjects Russia to the same restrictions?

I'm not for staying in treaties that only hand-cuff us while Russia ignores them and China runs wild.

Where's the evidence that Russia is violating New START? So apparently the treaty is successfully keeping them in check after all.

For the foreseeable future, China is more like creeping wild. If in 5 years time, despite your best efforts, China still refuses to be drawn into arms control agreements, sure - abandon any limiting treaties that would constrain your response. Why untie the hands of the threat that is already here over another that won't arrive for several more years, though?
 
A question I’d ask of those advocating the US not extending/ exiting the New START treaty; hand on heart being full honest with yourself and with other contributors - is your underlying principal objection the US accepting any limitations on itself and to any international treaties involving such limitations?
 
A question I’d ask of those advocating the US not extending/ exiting the New START treaty; hand on heart being full honest with yourself and with other contributors - is your underlying principal objection the US accepting any limitations on itself and to any international treaties involving such limitations?

There's always the information we don't have access to, which can always paint a much different picture than the reality we're used to. If they feel there's an urgent need to leave the treaty and provide deterrence for a growing threat across the ocean, I trust it.
 
Do you sincerely believe the "RoUSA" would have continued to rely on the "People's Republic of California" for vital parts of its deterrent? At the very latest once the latter made noises about wanting to enter a military alliance with the main strategic competitor, the "RoUSA" would have been scrambling to rectify the situation!

The only DOD qualified source for HTPB which is pretty important to an exclusively SRM propelled strategic force is French.
So yes. I don't see a problem. It's similar to other aspects of the supply chain. Manageable.

This is getting ridiculous. I suppose 15 years of neglect and poor maintenance will not have affected the hull life of the Russian boats at all?

IOW, you can't quantify it. Their choice to neglect them right? Cleary, the strategic situation permitted them to do so.

And MMIII is a bizarre case anyway - with the extent of re-manufacturing that has gone into them over the years they aren't even the same missiles that were originally deployed to a significant extent.
They are less capable; they can only hit their max design range with a single warhead. But the security situation was seen as stable.


The certified shelf-lives of Russian ICBMs are well publicized BTW, pretty much every time they test launch a random sample for service life extension purposes they announce the newly approved limit.

Their propulsion and guidance suppliers have detailed presentations on their life extension approaches right?
You know for an actual ground truth like we have for the MMIII SLEP and the D5 LE.

Whether you keep a submarine going for 50 years or only 30 (which is probably what it was originally designed for, anyway) and keep missiles operational by replacing basically every nut, bolt and filament is arguably also a choice. I don't see under what obligation the Russians would have to justify a different strategy to anyone, so long as it doesn't bust New START (which it doesn't).

The former choice reflects a view of the strategic situation: it makes you willing to incur operational risks, limits and restrictions and do things on the cheap.
Is there another less charitable interpretation?

The current US ICBM replacement looks to have the same MIRV capability with the same warhead, same RVs as its predecessor.
It will go in the same silos. There's no evidence to suggest its upload capability will be any faster than the current MMIII: one missile/week.

But you'd prefer the charitable interpretation of a country developing a large number of new strategic launchers with high warhead upload capability
in conjunction with an active warhead line in the context of a treaty that doesn't permit the continuous monitoring that would detect
destabilizing cheating.

Okay.

Seriously? Things NEVER got anywhere near a formal offer for Russia to decline - EVER.

The closest it came was a mid-1990s British draft proposal (which likely never progressed beyond UK internal discussions) that would have created a special type of "membership" specifically for Russia. If you look at the details, it becomes apparent that this status was carefully crafted to exclude basically all the privileges that define a bonafide NATO member, so it would practically have been merely the NATO-Russia Council by another name.

Are you suggesting that that wouldn't have improved the security situation? That's the original point.


So-called national technical means of verification (such as reconnaissance satellites) are at least implicitly taken to be part of the verification regimes in most treaties - that explicitly includes ABM.

The treaty explicitly forbids interfering with or concealing activities from NTM.
The Russian successfully concealed their cheating from the NTM they knew about but failed to conceal
it from the covert stuff they didn't know about.

It's a repeat of the INF violations where they've only demanded more information to figure out how the US is
continually able to detect their tests.

See, now that's one of those examples where I'd be careful about accusations of "cheating" or "violations".

Krasnoyarsk is arguably best characterized as a treaty dispute or controversy (if you argue semantics, so will I). Cheating supposes you know that your action is in breach of the treaty and hope the other side doesn't notice - neither is likely the case with the EW site in Krasnoyarsk. There could be no expectation that a massive bi-static radar site would evade detection by the US, so it's probable the Soviets believed they were in compliance due to a misinterpretation of the treaty on their part. The US objected, discussions ensued, the USSR abandoned construction. Fair enough, right?

Did they? No, the issues were remedied, so apparently things worked as they should.

The same people who dismantled the Soviet Union admitted it was a violation and dismantled the radar in 1990.
This was after the fall of the wall. So a radically changed strategic situation. Not sure that counts as a remedy under the treaty.


If you class Krasnoyarsk as a "violation" rather than a "controversy" so are the upgrades to Fylingdales and Thule - certainly the Soviets thought so. What makes one party's concerns more important than another's?

Technical realities. UHF doesn't have blackout resistance and the Wideband capability that's needed; note the shift to higher frequencies,
S-Band (Coby Judy) and then X-band throughout the period.



That SAM-D (Patriot) was strictly limited in engagement velocities was the best example of the US scrupulously
abiding by the treaty to a ludicrous degree.
So?

Scrupuolous adherence for a tactical SAM. The ABM treaty had a pervasive impact on US interceptor development that went
far behind actual obligations.

That's what adherence to at treaty looks like.


And the inspection protocols are deliberately designed *not* to find violations: inspectors can be held at a distance of 50 meters.

The high-fidelity SCUD TEL decoys the Iraqis cobbled together by 1991 could not be distinguished from the real thing from
a signature perspective until you were under 22 meters

Would you please stop talking in code? I don't understand any of what you are saying there, starting with which treaty you are even referring to. And, sources please.

I can only assume with your vast research you are being deliberately obtuse. 50m is the New START restriction.
The actual indistinguishability of a real vs. decoy for a mobile ballistic missile should have informed the New START treaty
the way it couldn't have for START..

The late 80's system had a defended area of many thousands of square miles.

The Moscow metropolitan area is "many thousands of square miles" in extent (about 10 thousand square miles, to be concrete). Thousands of square miles does not in fact mean what you appear to think it does.

From the city centre, yes - not from the city limit (and the vast majority are a lot closer). Do you propose they put missile silos in people's front gardens? Again, Moscow is a BIG place!

Quite how that was supposed to work with missiles which we *know* are not all that much more capable than Spartan/Sprint requires some explanation, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure where to start: this is the late 80's system: Horse Leg/ Pill Box were much more capable than the PAR/MSR radars of the Spartan/Sprint era.
Gorgon was more capable than Spartan and Gazelle was much more capable that Sprint; even AMaRV was within its envelope.

Gorgon had a range of at least 210 miles: given the number of batteries and their positioning it's a huge defended area. Feel free to do the math to
convince yourself.

the number of short-range missiles was not increased to compensate - there are now fewer missiles than before. So much for "vast" and defending a good part of the more than one *million* square miles of European Russia.

So I'm supposed to take your word for it? It's totally dependent on what the Russians say the current state is.

I do research these things before posting, you know.

Despite the considerable evidence to the contrary.
 
Would you rather live under Chinese influence or American? There is no Door #3.

There is playing both sides as far as possible to extract maximum gain in the spirit of realpolitik.

Also... Chinese influence, actually, since the process of imposing American influence will like spread extensive fallout over my house, and force me to live through a reasonably large war or a prolonged period of social unrest. I stand to lose everything in this. Unlike the inhabitants of North America, I have skin in the friggin' game, and I live on that socio-economic-military battlefield some of you drool over.

At this point, the Chinese have not been acting out of line, and all things considered, Chinese influence has had a very light touch. They're a threat to American dominance and American ideological sensibilities, not a threat to East Asia. If they're clamping down, it's because the US is starting shit in the region. No Cold War = no need for serious control over neighbors. Better to live in a worst case gilded cage than in a best case warzone, and to be honest, the cage you guys keep talking about doesn't actually look like a cage from the inside. Those bars are to keep people out, not in.
 
Last edited:
A question I’d ask of those advocating the US not extending/ exiting the New START treaty; hand on heart being full honest with yourself and with other contributors - is your underlying principal objection the US accepting any limitations on itself and to any international treaties involving such limitations?

START classic was a fine treaty; detailed and well thought out. Tried to curtail things like SLCM-Ns.
and didn't have holes like ALBMs which the Russians have bulldozed though under New START.

It needed much better inspection, verification and telemetry though. But that won't happen.

What's gone largely overlooked is that the precipitous decline of strategic arsenals post-Cold War means
that there is enormous strategic advantage to be gained by cheating under a treaty.

And you are dealing with another signatory that's an acknowledged cheater under ABM and a
flagrant cheater under INF.

Add to that Russian strategic launcher developments look to be high-MIRV count and they have an active warhead line.
 
At this point, the Chinese have not been acting out of line, and all things considered, Chinese influence has had a very light touch. They're a threat to American dominance and American ideological sensibilities, not a threat to East Asia. If they're clamping down, it's because the US is starting shit in the region. No Cold War = no need for serious control over neighbors. Better to live in a worst case gilded cage than in a best case warzone, and to be honest, the cage you guys keep talking about doesn't actually look like a cage from the inside. Those bars are to keep people out, not in.

The world you live in now was granted because of the sacrifices of those that came before, sacrifices made to stop authoritarian regimes from imposing unforgivable conditions on the rest of the world. If you lack the foresight to see what's coming, that's okay, but at least educate yourself on China and be aware of how they dedicate a rather extensive amount of resources making the rest of the world think they are a benign entity simply seeking a peaceful rise. They got this far one economic merit alone, and Obama even delayed the Pacific Pivot, so what reason did have in engaging in a massive military modernization over a decade ago? What does China need a strategic stealth bomber for if it seeks strength through economic relationships? Again, foresight.
 
They got this far one economic merit alone, and Obama even delayed the Pacific Pivot, so what reason did have in engaging in a massive military modernization over a decade ago? What does China need a strategic stealth bomber for if it seeks strength through economic relationships? Again, foresight.

What large economic power does not have a 2% GDP NATO standard military expenditure? How are the Chinese supposed to hedge against the US flipping on them (as they are now) without a proportionate military force when the US had ten carriers at the apex of the Pax Americana? How are the Chinese supposed to defend their economic interests in the Third World without Marines? Will the US invade Saudi Arabia to secure oil for the Chinese if Saudi Arabia, say, falls into the grip of ISIS mk 2? American blood for Chinese oil - a surefire campaign winner!

Lack of trust. Not everyone can trust the US, because US intentions, while superficially benign like the Chinese, may be malign. US intent is unknowable, and changes from week to week. Military power is necessary. Peace through strength.

Sure, building a military increases the risk of the US going apeshit on them, but all things considered, it was proportionate, steady, and transparent - optimized to minimize tensions. It's not a crash buildup, it's not a new buildup, its been in the open for twenty years. It's completely proportionate to national requirements for regional defense and expeditionary warfare. If they keep building to parity in military power, sure, then you can start worrying... but Russia will flip on them in a heartbeat if it comes to that, and peace will be maintained.

If you assume from the start that Chinese intentions are malign, you will say "lulling into false sense of security". But I can't help you with your ideology.

The US still has a preponderence of military power. Enhancing that stick to hedge against possible Chinese malevolence is one thing. Screaming about Chinese ill will, inciting anti chinese sentiment, attacking the Chinese economy, supporting the subversion of the Chinese government and building a containment alliance is another. China has done nothing so egregious to deserve hard containment. In many, this merely reinforces the perception that American intent is Empire, and that no equals can be tolerated - sentiments you and InADream have expressed. Why wouldn't the Chinese build up at this point? Nigh implacable American hostility is self evident.

China is not pulling a Soviet Union. It is barely spending 2% of its economy on defense. The crazy Soviets spent thirty percent of their economy on defense. Other than the Taiwanese, who is it going to coerce? For what end? If it tries too hard, America will swoop to the rescue, and the Russians will flip. The situation is completely contained and self limiting.

What the Chinese do to their minorities is none of my business. And the Chinese are brittle. They aren't adventurous because they have a wide variety of problems and troublemakers at home, all of which the US has been supporting. The Chinese know the US have them by the balls seven ways to Sunday, and all the US needs to do is squeeze. They won't actually try too hard, so why is the US squeezing their balls without proportionate provocation?

Speak softly, and carry the big stick. China is not out of line yet. Beating up on them is just straight bullying, and will force China to react by... stepping out of line. More propaganda victories for America, and more reasons to crush the Chinese!
 
Last edited:
They got this far one economic merit alone, and Obama even delayed the Pacific Pivot, so what reason did have in engaging in a massive military modernization over a decade ago? What does China need a strategic stealth bomber for if it seeks strength through economic relationships? Again, foresight.

What large economic power does not have a 2% GDP NATO standard military expenditure? How are the Chinese supposed to hedge against the US flipping on them (as they are now) without a proportionate military force when the US had ten carriers at the apex of the Pax Americana?

15. But who's counting?
 
15. But who's counting?

Apex of Pax Americana = 1993-2007 or so, I guess? 10 - 12 carriers, IIRC. 15 was what, 1992 ish?

You can start worrying if the Chinese build beyond 6 (not including training decks?). That sounds about a max reasonable requirement for large scale expeditionary warfare OR regional parity, but not both at the same time. The number 4-5 is typically bandied about, and the target date is 2035. Plenty of time to get the Indians stiffened up.

But like I said, the Russians don't trust the Chinese. They'll flip in a heartbeat. Japan and Korea are too rich to be bullied into submission with stout American support. The Chinese can't swing a cat in SEA without the Americans looking over their shoulder. The point is adequately made.

The American panic is unnecessary and inducing paranoid war fever in the Middle Kingdom, enabling hawks to make crackdowns and pushing centrists to support the hawks. Because America is rich, powerful, and terrifying, and China is brittle and thus hypersensitive. Unless the American intent is malign and aimed at inducing a Chinese buildup/reaction to justify further American China-stomping, it is wholly counterproductive to the situation.

 
Last edited:
Apex of Pax Americana = 1993-2007 or so, I guess? 10 - 12 carriers, IIRC. 15 was what, 1992 ish?

You can start worrying if the Chinese build beyond 6 (not including training decks?). That sounds about a max reasonable requirement for large scale expeditionary warfare OR regional parity, but not both at the same time. The number 4-5 is typically bandied about, and the target date is 2035. Plenty of time to get the Indians stiffened up.

But like I said, the Russians don't trust the Chinese. They'll flip in a heartbeat. Japan and Korea are too rich to be bullied into submission with stout American support. The Chinese can't swing a cat in SEA without the Americans looking over their shoulder. The point is adequately made.

The American panic is unnecessary and inducing paranoid war fever in the Middle Kingdom, enabling hawks to make crackdowns and pushing centrists to support the hawks. Because America is rich, powerful, and terrifying, and China is brittle and thus hypersensitive. Unless the American intent is malign and aimed at inducing a Chinese buildup/reaction to justify further American China-stomping, it is wholly counterproductive to the situation.


China: We will not militarize the South China Sea:

Also China:

cc00f864-a0da-11ea-8055-0ae12e466049_1320x770_175719.jpg
 

Oh, Southeast Asia trembles in fear! A big dick-measuring move for public consumption, easy to bomb and easy to blow up, and done to one-up Vietnamese island-building.
Photos taken by American warships and patrol aircraft, looking over Beijing's shoulder so they don't try anything more.
The stick has been shown. There is no need to further squeeze balls.
You say "grey zone aggresion", they say "dick-waving without looking too serious to all the serious people by using beat-up fishing boats and coast guard cutters". Can't countries wave dicks around these days?


 
Last edited:
You're calling on the French to go beyond the Ruhr and preemptively destroy Weimar Germany in 1923 by subversion, economic warfare, and actual warfare.

Back to nukes.
This isn't the Bar.

 
Last edited:
The only DOD qualified source for HTPB which is pretty important to an exclusively SRM propelled strategic force is French.
So yes. I don't see a problem. It's similar to other aspects of the supply chain. Manageable.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Still, a choice (since you're so fond of that argument) - one that other countries would be under NO obligation whatsoever to emulate.

EDIT: On second thoughts, no I don't. The supplier is French owned nowadays, but the facilities, personnel and know-how are and always were firmly on US territory. In a crisis, there is no question that they could be repossessed with zero risk of interference.

IOW, you can't quantify it. Their choice to neglect them right?

Thing is, I don't even need to. Their choice also not to publish that info. It is entirely within their prerogative not to do so, not sure what makes you think otherwise.

Their propulsion and guidance suppliers have detailed presentations on their life extension approaches right?
You know for an actual ground truth like we have for the MMIII SLEP and the D5 LE.

What's the difference between the state/military supplying that info and the manufacturer? It's quite possible that such presentations are public BTW - a surprising amount of info on Russian missiles is - but frankly I'm getting tired of humouring what is, as has been pointed out numerous times now, essentially a red herring argument.

Once more, there is no obligation to disclose that info - so your premise is flawed.

The former choice reflects a view of the strategic situation: it makes you willing to incur operational risks, limits and restrictions and do things on the cheap.
Is there another less charitable interpretation?

Or it reflects domestic political haggling over budgets? These things don't happen in a vacuum, after all. Given the cost of keeping the operational risks in check on aging hardware, it's not even clear that it's the cheaper approach.

The current US ICBM replacement looks to have the same MIRV capability with the same warhead, same RVs as its predecessor.
It will go in the same silos. There's no evidence to suggest its upload capability will be any faster than the current MMIII: one missile/week.

But you'd prefer the charitable interpretation of a country developing a large number of new strategic launchers with high warhead upload capability
in conjunction with an active warhead line in the context of a treaty that doesn't permit the continuous monitoring that would detect
destabilizing cheating.

Okay.

Bulava *halves* the throw weight of the Cold War R-29RM(U) family and R-39 SLBMs (and Trident, for that matter). Topol-M only marginally improves throw weight over Topol (or MMIII) and Yars has only one third the throw weight of the UR-100N. The UR-100Ns remaining in empty storage will now be deployed with one or two Avangard HGVs instead of the 6 MIRVs they could nominally carry.

You act as though the US has no upload potential whatsoever - that is laughable. Just by fully loading the naval leg of the triad it could comfortably exceed the treaty ceiling for its entire deterrent.

Are you suggesting that that wouldn't have improved the security situation? That's the original point.

No, I'm suggesting you were talking nonsense. Russia did not decline, no offer was ever presented to them and the closest thing even being considered internally fell *far* short of a full membership anyway.

Quite apart from the irreparable damage the above already deals to your original point, Russia eventually did get the benefits (such as they are) of the token membership in that draft proposal with the NATO-Russia Council.

So no, there was no scope in this regard for the security situation to improve one iota compared to actual history.

The treaty explicitly forbids interfering with or concealing activities from NTM.
The Russian successfully concealed their cheating from the NTM they knew about but failed to conceal
it from the covert stuff they didn't know about.

Which means everything worked as it should, given a party who attempts to cheat. The contingency measures proved robust and effective, even defeating obfuscation measures designed to deny them. As an example probably calculated on your part to discredit the efficacy of arms control with an unreliable opponent this therefore kind of misses the mark, as I said. It instead demonstrates that such agreements can still work, even when the other side tries its best to undermine them.

A tool worth retaining, not one to discard, I would think.

The same people who dismantled the Soviet Union admitted it was a violation and dismantled the radar in 1990.
This was after the fall of the wall. So a radically changed strategic situation. Not sure that counts as a remedy under the treaty.

Sure it does. The treaty was still in force, right? BTW, the Soviet Union first agreed to dismantle the radar in 1988.

And it continued to exist through 1991 - not sure what the Berlin Wall has to do with it.

Technical realities. UHF doesn't have blackout resistance and the Wideband capability that's needed; note the shift to higher frequencies,
S-Band (Coby Judy) and then X-band throughout the period.

And?

I can only assume with your vast research you are being deliberately obtuse. 50m is the New START restriction.
The actual indistinguishability of a real vs. decoy for a mobile ballistic missile should have informed the New START treaty
the way it couldn't have for START..

That would explain why I could not make sense of it. The *maximum* (yes, maximum - not minimum) viewing distance for inspection of the RV bus in New START is in fact 5m (yes, five - not 50). For certain other procedures the range is up to 50m, but those are more to ensure that the RV bus which is later inspected is actually the same object taken from the silo or submarine. This leaves open the possibility that the missile body is a decoy of course, but unless you can offer a rationale for what Russia gains from placing real warheads on decoy missiles, thereby inflating their arsenal rather than downplaying it, I don't quite see your point.

Now, as I've said elsewhere there are some concerns with the New START verification scheme, but they are generally overblown. This also doesn't change the fact that the alternative to it, for the time being, is no treaty at all - and how that is supposed to be a better security situation has yet to be convincingly argued.

Gorgon had a range of at least 210 miles: given the number of batteries and their positioning it's a huge defended area. Feel free to do the math to
convince yourself.

You imply that you are familiar with the math - you should then be aware that defended footprint is a mere fraction of interceptor missile range.

Gazelle needs greater range and altitude than Sprint because city centres take less kindly to nuclear air bursts than hardened ICBM silos. Duh.
 
Last edited:

Oh, Southeast Asia trembles in fear! A big dick-measuring move for public consumption, easy to bomb and easy to blow up, and done to one-up Vietnamese island-building.
Photos taken by American warships and patrol aircraft, looking over Beijing's shoulder so they don't try anything more.
The stick has been shown. There is no need to further squeeze balls.
You say "grey zone aggresion", they say "dick-waving without looking too serious to all the serious people by using beat-up fishing boats and coast guard cutters". Can't countries wave dicks around these days?


1590960671715.png
 
START classic was a fine treaty; detailed and well thought out. Tried to curtail things like SLCM-Ns.
and didn't have holes like ALBMs which the Russians have bulldozed though under New START.

Another of its loop holes, which the US bulldozed through from the Russian point of view, is the omission of binding limits on missile defence. There is a significant degree of interplay between both.

What's gone largely overlooked is that the precipitous decline of strategic arsenals post-Cold War means
that there is enormous strategic advantage to be gained by cheating under a treaty.

Ditto for missile defence.

And you are dealing with another signatory that's an acknowledged cheater under ABM and a
flagrant cheater under INF.

Which is wholly irrelevant, unless you can prove they also cheat on New START. As for "flagrant", you must know more than the public at large.
 
Russia was violating the INF. The other treaties had some disagreements that were smoothed over, but the Russians simply denied violations until the US withdrew in the case of INF.
 
Sounds like a country that would honor a treaty.

Non sequitur.

There are no rules establishing what kind of threat a nuclear weapons state can use its arsenal against, each is free to elaborate its own policy. Most doctrines already include non-nuclear WMDs (chemical/biological), extending the scope to cover a conventional threat that is grave enough to "threaten the very existence of the state" (as this Russian document puts it) doesn't seem that big of a leap.

It's certainly not a posture likely to score brownie points with anybody, but you might say the same about reserving the right to first use (as the US does and which, if you think about it, ultimately has similar implications).

EDIT: For some additional perspective, it's probably worth explaining that this document is primarily noteworthy for the fact that it was released into the public domain. Previous editions used to be classified, and some experts have preliminarily inferred by comparing this version to those parts of the Russian doctrine which were always public that it is probably not a radical departure from its predecessors.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a country that would honor a treaty.
cough.. ABMT cough.. INFT cough.. TOS cough.. CTBT

Sounds like if some country dont give a s**t about any treatments.

We withdrew from the ABM and INF treaties. The treaties allowed that. Don't know what a "TOS" is. As for the CTBT how is it possible to break it if you're not a member of it? That said, we haven't set any nukes off since the early 90s.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom