backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 190 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Oct 6 at 8:42 AM

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, pictured here next to a Topol M nuclear missile, announced the latest escalation. He accuses the U.S. of playing a dangerous game of nuclear brinkmanship.  (Source: Sun UK)

Russia remains defiant against the Western world, for which it has great mistrust. Its new nuclear campaign seeks to expand its nuclear presence on land, in the air, and by sea.  (Source: AFP)
Russia is planning to expand its nuclear firepower

Amid constant fears of the economic and military pressures from China, the increasingly militaristic demeanor of Russia has been largely overlooked.  While China has been allegedly waging cyber war against the U.S. and others, Russia, manifested its aggressions by recently invading neighbor Georgia.

Infuriated at the U.S. and NATO's support of Georgia, Russia's leadership is announcing plans of a massive new nuclear armament campaign -- and it says the new campaign is the fault of the U.S.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced last week that by 2020, Russia would have a new "guaranteed nuclear deterrent system" in place.  Plans for the system will be submitted by Russia's top generals in December, and are expected to include new nuclear subs and a new "system of aerospace defense".  It is unclear whether this means a defensive anti-nuke system such as the U.S. missile shield, or an expanded nuclear arsenal.

In his announcement, President Medvedev pointed a finger at the U.S., saying that the U.S. was to blame for the recent military escalation.  He accused the U.S.'s deployment of a defensive missile shield to Poland as an attempt to start a new arms race.  He vowed, "We must guarantee nuclear deterrence under various political and military conditions by 2020."

His wide-reaching new plans also include trying to "achieve dominance in airspace".  Russia's aging air force is advanced, but significantly trails the U.S.'s top fighter lines.  Further, he said that "new types of armaments" from nukes to traditional payloads also might be on the agenda.

The nuclear subs and defense system will be the integral part of the campaign, he stated.  He announced, "We plan to start serial production of warships, primarily nuclear-powered submarines carrying cruise missiles and multifunctional submarines.  We will develop an aerospace defense system, as well."

U.S. officials expressed relative apathy for Russia's latest posturing.  U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Russia's new campaign would not change the balance of power.  She called the U.S. nuclear deterrent "capable" and "robust" and said, "The balance of power in terms of nuclear deterrence is not going to be affected by those measures."

Russia remains adamant that the U.S. is plotting against it.  It says the placement of missile-detecting radar in the Czech Republic and a missile shield is a U.S. conspiracy to establish "a ring of steel" around Russia.  Russia said it will be "forced to react".

The nation has long carried out a relatively ambitious program of weapons development.  Late last year DailyTech reported that Russia had developed the "father of all bombs", the largest traditional payload in existence.  More recently it was in the news for testing a new type of nuclear missile.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 9:10:00 AM , Rating: 4
Sigh.

Again Condi opens her mouth and spews forth something silly.

Of course its not going to change the nuclear balance of power... That isn't even what they are attempting, not even close. Putin warned the west years ago that if they went ahead with essentially Star Wars 2 (yeah its ground based so sue me) that Russia would change their nuclear strategy to nullify the anti-ballistic missile shield. Why? Cause the ABM shield is the destabilizing force upon the Nuclear Balance of power, not more nukes.

Anyone as supposedly versed in international relations as Dr. Rice knows in her small little ice cold heart that more nukes don't change anything. The amount of nuclear overkill between just the two major nuclear powers is so extravagant that a few thousand more won't substantially change anything. (who has them might, but that beyond the scope of this rant)

What is a game changer is the notion of scrapping the ABM treaties, which Bush did, and then attempting to institute a system where by one would be combatant can defend against a first strike / retaliatory strike of the other. This then would allow a notion that MAD no longer applies, and in such a case the Nuclear Balance is trashed. Important here is the notion that it doesn't even really have to work, instead it simply has to change the view of the masses / government into one of a possibility of survival.

So Condi, you're right that it won't change the nuclear balance, however, it isn't their idea to change any balance; instead it is the desire not to see the balance change that prompts their actions. Further, if you attribute and re-emergence of Russian power as 'the Cold War' then your a blathering idiot. NATO hasn't exactly been all that subtle in its attempts to forcefully move into Russia's sphere of influence, and as much as missiles in Poland, and Radar In Czech. may seem ok from the West's perspective, please remember how the 'west' felt when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba. I believe that American history holds that this action almost started World War 3.

You'd think the 'west' or more specifically the U.S might learn from their own history when thinking about possible repercussions of placing new arms systems very close to a cagey adversary? Or perhaps that cancelling treaties who's purpose was stability and an arms draw down; may cause the other party to rearm.

Putin is powerful and popular in Russia. While not universally loved and supported, he is known for bringing Russia back to a state of power and pride after the lost decade (post Soviet Union). That is a very powerful image in a country that was 'a super power', and had been brought to its knees which engenders domestic support. Part of this strength image is from standing up to the west, and part of that is in reassuming the role that even a perfectly democratic capitalist Russia would have both regionally and globally. (remember democratic doesn't mean agrees with and supports US foreign policy)

To continuously poke a regional / re-entrant global power the way NATO has; is to invite a show of strength... Perhaps even require it.




RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 9:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
Edit:

"attribute and re-emergence" should be "attribute any re-emergence"


By paydirt on 9/30/2008 8:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
brinksmanship = expanding your nuclear arsenal.
brinksmanship = turning off the natural gas and oil spigot to Europe.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 3
Russia has a long way to go before they are a threat. The only thing they are doing is trying to put more chips on the table. This doesn't shift the balance of power really since Russia has more nukes than we could shoot down in the first place. It's nothing but propaganda for the masses at home.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Lord 666 on 9/29/2008 10:44:51 AM , Rating: 4
Their Georgia invasion was just a warm-up. They have been steadly increasing their flybys of US carriers and airspace.

But what is even scarier would be the potential for not a ground war, but a cyberwar with Russia. With all of the idiots with spyware on their machines, these bots can be quickly turned into a DDoS attack or worse from within US network.

The "Axis of Evil" are both growing and waiting patiently for US to exhust resources until a real conflict starts. Venezula and Russia are real close now. Throw in the potential to poison our food and cut off our supply chain from China, and the US will be hard pressed for WWIII.

Who are the US allies at this point? Canada, Australia, Germany, Poland, UK, France, and Iraq.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By geddarkstorm on 9/29/2008 11:47:52 AM , Rating: 5
Why should Russia be mad about a missile /defense shield/? One that can't even stop them if they wanted to attack Europe, one we've had them openly tour and get the technological briefings about, one that can't be used as a weapon against them. Really, why are they so upset about it? It's obvious it's just an excuse to justify their moves to attempt to become a world super power again and replace the USA.

Seriously, the US has done little against Russia who was laundering billions illegally through Iraq via the oil for food program before we went in (hence why they were resistant, along with France). Oh, I'm sure the US has slighted them a few times, complained about their back sliding on democracy and civil rights, but that's no different than the usual political mud slinging, and Russia has done nothing but antagonize the US since the start of the new millennium.

Really, this sounds like one of those high school spats were everything is blown out of proportion. Except, this time the squabbling couple both process the fire power to blow this planet into the stone age.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By killerroach on 9/29/2008 11:50:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Way to go neocons... Piss off the Russians and make them arm our enemies.


Apologies for the snark, but how is that any different than how the Russians have behaved pretty much constantly for the past sixty years, save a couple of years under the doddering Boris Yeltsin?


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By derwin on 9/30/2008 3:13:37 AM , Rating: 5
It benefits Russia, majorly.

This is not your 1970's cold war anymore. This is definitely not your 1980's cold war anymore.
The US is no longer the "protector of freedom" in the world. We are just another superpower flexing nuts like Russia and China. You don't think the rest of the world looked at Iraq like we saw Georga to be? The world is no on our side anymore - not just militarily.

Our economy is in the dumps. Yeah, it will go on; but can it support a major war? Do we even have the infastructure to convert over to massive arms production?
Can it survive another "cold war?" Without the outpour of citizens to aid the cause, the government is left to foot the bill. We are already in growing debt, and our economy has been running on empty for about four years. We only delayed the inevitable when we dropped interest rates into the basement to forstall the recesions we faced in 2003-4, and now no good deed has gone unpunished. We are not manufacuring. We are not providing raw material. We are not even really providing services anymore - India answers our telephone calls now. We are becoming more and more the middle men of the global economy. We don't have to make it happen, we just make it happen through us.
The world is no longer on the dollar standard though. Our military industrial complex has fewer and fewer allies in need of our arms. Our automotive industry is teetering on the brink of nationalization. We produce iron and coal, but in the 21st century, the world is built on much more exotic materials, many of which are imported - such as most of the materials used in modern day batteries. Finally, one of the larger segments of the US economy - the financial services and banking sector - finally bit the bullet this past month.

We have less and less ground to stand on. As our enimies realize that, they are slowly turning the flames under our feet up. The world will not come to our aid as we have theirs - we always did it with more than a modicum of self interest and that has not gone unnoticed. They have the oil. We have their spite.

When these tensions escalate, things get worse for everyone, but now, they get worse faster for the US - which means others benefit.


By rudolphna on 10/1/2008 12:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
my god that was the most sensible, rational, thing I have heard in YEARS. Everything in that post was absolutely true. Thats a +6 post if I ever saw one. If we keep going the way we are, before long the US will be economically, a 3rd world country. Everything is going overseas, and people just dont care, because it doesnt directly affect them-yet.


By toyotabedzrock on 9/29/2008 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that currently we have no way to defend against the massive number of missiles Russia already has, and submarines can launch closer to our borders allowing very little time for a defensive missile to intercept it. But i believe they feel repressed by the US economically and it is being manifested in actual aggressive actions, almost the way an animal thats trapped would react.

Perhaps we should offer a limited amount of our missile defense technology to Russia? I'd rather see them develop that than additional nuclear weapons.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Regs on 9/29/2008 10:14:48 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
NATO hasn't exactly been all that subtle in its attempts to forcefully move into Russia's sphere of influence, and as much as missiles in Poland, and Radar In Czech. may seem ok from the West's perspective, please remember how the 'west' felt when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba.


We don't need missiles in Poland when we have Air Force bases in Germany and Turkey that can deliver a tactical nuke by Air. Our delivery systems are a lot more advanced than Russia's, though still doesn't mean it won't bring a holocaust. And Iran? What are they going to do with a nuke? They'll just have to get 300 angry Iranians together so that they can throw it out us. (Ok that was joke).


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 10:23:29 AM , Rating: 3
Israel will deal with the Iran problem, its not really our concern. Russia is NATO's problem, and in a stand up fight NATO would win but in a nuke-fest its a 50/50 split and Russia knows it. Their ability to wage conventional war against a properly equipped enemy is practically non-existant. Most of their aresenal is concentrated in the nuclear arena anyways.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 11:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well in a Nuke fest, China wins as both the U.S and Russia would devastate the other to the point where they would cease to be functioning states. On the conventional war front, neither side would be all that interested in it because its not nearly as profitable to buy and use up your own weapons, as it is to sell said weapons to others to use.

However, one must remember that neither the U.S or Russia holds near the level of convention force power that they did 20 years ago. Further, the U.s is caught in a two front war, and being global hegemonic police man. As the U.S forms the core and backbone and most appendages of NATO militarily, they would not have a very easy time defeating Russia. Go back to around 1989-92 force levels of the U.S and yea I would say NATO then, could certainly defeat Russia now, conventionally. However, when the U.S could only muster approx 1/4 the land force it used to initially liberate Kuwait, this time in Iraq; things get a bit more murky.

I do find it interesting that you call it the 'Iran problem' when it is equally an 'Israeli Problem'. Like it or not the U.S took out a major regional power when it destroyed Iraq and her military. Iran and Israel now sit as opposing regional powers, and neither has bloodless hands. The recent failure of Israel to defeat Hezbollah and not even Iran proper, certainly signifies that Israel, less her nuclear armament, is not singularly capable of taking on Iran any more.

Because of this, I would prefer that both had nuclear weapons, as then they can get on with accepting each others existence. Nuclear weapons here would serve to nullify the trump card Israel holds over the region, and would further bang home the point that if they really and truly did go at it, it would result in the destruction of both their economies and states as we know them today. Instead of merely speculating that Israel would lose the conventional exchange and resort to a tactical nuclear exchange, which would result in perhaps WW3, and both states becoming glass; both parties would have certainty that a move to overt war would lead to two chunks of once sand now glass emerging through their own hands.

Honestly, Russia has to respond to NATO pressure, and likewise the U.S has to jump in and add the rhetorical propaganda. Which is sad, as it doesn't really have to be this way.