New NATO nuclear weapons

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
6
Now that the INF Treaty seems to have joined the Chequers Deal in the land of the Dodo, I found myself wondering whether Russia is altogether wise to pick this particular fight with the West.

At the end of the Cold War, France was deploying HADES and the US had Pershing 2s in Germany. Both were capable to hitting key decisionmaking and other targets very quickly. The Soviet Union's fear of a pre-emptive surgical strike on Moscow by Pershings played a key role in its decision to negotiate on INF.

With modern technology it should be possible to develop a high speed missile that can be launched from subs and possibly surface ships assigned to give SACEUR an appropriate level of response to a use of ISKANDER plus or whatever SS20 style nasty, Putin fields.

This would have the advantage of not having protesters camped 24/7 in NATO countries outside land bases. Given the naval superiority still enjoyed by NATO and Russia's poor shipbuilding industry this threat could easily be ratcheted up. US systems could swing between NATO, the Gulf and Far East wherever a nuclear missile threat needed a high speed counter.

What we don't need is landbased systems like LANCE/ATACMS which are easy to enmesh politically (who operates them, who has the warheads, when can they shoot)

The purpose of this system should be purely to put the same pressure of Russia that we did with Pershing 2. There need not be that many (72 Pershing?)
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
572
Reaction score
1
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
Ship-based missiles were never limited by INF.

The end of INF isn't so much relevant to nuclear-tipped missiles. It's extremely relevant regarding conventionally-tipped missiles.
A single MRBM could launch multiple precision guided submunitions that are each capable of penetrating a hardened aircraft shelter (the ~250 lbs class SDB can do it).
A couple hundred such missiles could knock out much of the European Typhoon, Rafale and F-35 fleets in minutes.
Additionally, lots of other high value targets such as warships in port, counter-battery radars, SAM battery radars, NATO and UK AEW&C aircraft, NATO HQ buildings, Oder bridges, Vistula bridges, ministries of defence, BMD radar, M3 amphibian (and equivalent French vehicles) and even hundreds of 1st rate MBTs could be knocked out with disproportionately low Russian hardware expenses (few hundred missiles costing few billion Euros total) and almost non-existing Russian operating expenses required for the capability.

The end of INF is the single most destabilising event in Europe since the attempted coup in Moscow, and it's hardly about nukes at all.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
6
I would have thought building thousands of accurate MRBM in the quantity you describe with super conventional munitions and high accuracy would be easier for the US than the Russians, especially as the US already had Pershing 2
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,416
Reaction score
35
uk 75 said:
I would have thought building thousands of accurate MRBM in the quantity you describe with super conventional munitions and high accuracy would be easier for the US than the Russians, especially as the US already had Pershing 2
Without cluster munitions and the like such missiles would be of limited use, at best. Nuclear or bust in other words.
 
Top