DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**brraverishhh** · 04-07-2007, 12:52 AM

The Russians are moving to abandon their ICBM strategic rocket force because it's so incredibly expensive to maintain. ICBM's are managed under the Start I/II treaties whereas M/IRBM's are not. Russia's ICBM's degrade out of service from 5-10% per year down from a high mark of ~726 lauchers. Launchers have a service life out to maximum of 2013 if not earlier.

Russia's ace in the hole is therefore it's M/IRBM force. These are the intermediate range missiles. The problem for the Russians is that any ABM forward force in Europe would tend to reduce the effectiveness of those missiles, even the new generation which are maneuverable would suffer some attenuation against some ABM force deployed in Eastern Europe. Let's say for the sake of argument ABM's are 40% effective which is probably quite high but from a planning perspective looking 5-7-9 years out in the future it might be possible. That means that Russia's ace in the hole now has to build out 5/3rds more gear, about 66% more costly. At 66% more costly that's an appreciable difference given they've already given up their ICBM's. Moreover with the rapid disintegration of the Russian Navy into a coastal defense force it no longer has a credible first or second strike naval strategic capability. The newest operational Russian boomer is 17 years old. Total inventory is no more than 20 subs of which between 0-10 are actually service ready. So this leaves air power. There are about 60 Tu95 Bear bombers which are at least 30 years old now -the production line was shut down in the early 1990's. The newer Tu160 Blackjack has only 15 or so deployed.

So when presented with a series of bad choices the M/IRBM seems to be the best one. Now the problem for them is economic issue associated with putting all their nuclear eggs in one basket as it were. Confronted with an early generation ABM against their only 'strategic gambit it distorts badly for them the entire notion of functional deterrence. Now the US can act with a great deal more nuclear flexibility in the face of not having a massive strategic threat nor a fully 100% functional tactical threat. So now you see the problem for them.

04-07-2007, 12:52 AM	#6
brraverishhh Join Date Jan 2006 Posts 5,127 Senior Member	The Russians are moving to abandon their ICBM strategic rocket force because it's so incredibly expensive to maintain. ICBM's are managed under the Start I/II treaties whereas M/IRBM's are not. Russia's ICBM's degrade out of service from 5-10% per year down from a high mark of ~726 lauchers. Launchers have a service life out to maximum of 2013 if not earlier. Russia's ace in the hole is therefore it's M/IRBM force. These are the intermediate range missiles. The problem for the Russians is that any ABM forward force in Europe would tend to reduce the effectiveness of those missiles, even the new generation which are maneuverable would suffer some attenuation against some ABM force deployed in Eastern Europe. Let's say for the sake of argument ABM's are 40% effective which is probably quite high but from a planning perspective looking 5-7-9 years out in the future it might be possible. That means that Russia's ace in the hole now has to build out 5/3rds more gear, about 66% more costly. At 66% more costly that's an appreciable difference given they've already given up their ICBM's. Moreover with the rapid disintegration of the Russian Navy into a coastal defense force it no longer has a credible first or second strike naval strategic capability. The newest operational Russian boomer is 17 years old. Total inventory is no more than 20 subs of which between 0-10 are actually service ready. So this leaves air power. There are about 60 Tu95 Bear bombers which are at least 30 years old now -the production line was shut down in the early 1990's. The newer Tu160 Blackjack has only 15 or so deployed. So when presented with a series of bad choices the M/IRBM seems to be the best one. Now the problem for them is economic issue associated with putting all their nuclear eggs in one basket as it were. Confronted with an early generation ABM against their only 'strategic gambit it distorts badly for them the entire notion of functional deterrence. Now the US can act with a great deal more nuclear flexibility in the face of not having a massive strategic threat nor a fully 100% functional tactical threat. So now you see the problem for them.
	Quote