• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Russia to quadruple nuclear weapon production

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
And Putin...COUGH I mean Medvedev has yet another Christmas present for POTUS-E Barack Obama.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/24/russia-nuclear"

Russia has thrown down a new gauntlet to Barack Obama with an announcement that it will sharply increase production of strategic nuclear missiles.

In the latest of a series of combative moves by the Kremlin, a senior government official in Moscow said the Russian military would commission 70 strategic missiles over the next three years, as part of a massive rearmament programme which will also include short-range missiles, 300 tanks, 14 warships and 50 planes.

Military experts said the planned new arsenal was presumed to consist of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) rather than submarine-launched missiles. If this is the case, the plans represent a fourfold increase in the rate of ICBM deployment. The arsenal will include a new-generation, multiple-warhead ICBM called the RS-24. It was first test-fired in 2007, with first deputy prime minister Sergei Ivanov boasting it was "capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defence systems".

The new missiles will be part of a £95bn defence procurement package for 2009-2011, a 28% increase in arms spending, according to Vladislav Putilin of the cabinet's military-industrial commission. There will be further increases in spending in the following two years.

The new military procurements follow the war in Georgia in August. Russian forces easily routed Georgian troops, but the conflict exposed weaknesses in the Russian army, including outdated equipment and poorly co-ordinated command structures. The defence ministry said it would carry out drastic reforms, turning the army into a more modern force.

Vladimir Putin on Monday urged cabinet officials to quickly allocate funds for new weapons and closely control the quality and pace of their production. Military experts said the construction of 70 long-range nuclear missiles in the next three years represented a Russian attempt to strengthen its bargaining position with Washington, in talks aimed at agreeing new nuclear weapons cuts when the current treaty in force, Start I, expires next December.

Moscow's strategy appears to be to challenge Obama's new administration as soon as it takes office on 20 January. On the day Obama was elected the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, announced plans to station short-range Iskander missiles in Russia's Kaliningrad exclave as a counter to American installation of its missile defence system in eastern Europe.

Ruben Sergeev, an expert on disarmament issues, said Moscow was afraid of falling behind in a new arms race.

"Russia is decommissioning its old liquid-fuel missiles from the Soviet era at a rate of several dozen every year," he said. "The Kremlin knows that if it doesn't increase production of ICBMs rapidly now then it will have no chance of getting a new arms reduction treaty out of the US, which has much greater quantities of missiles." Negotiations on a successor to Start I have been bogged down in detail, and hamstrung by the Bush administration's lame duck status.

The chief US negotiator, John Rood, said last week that the latest sticking point was Russian insistence that the new treaty cover long-range delivery systems, such as bombers and missiles, intended for conventional arms as well as nuclear warheads. The US wants the treaty to focus solely on nuclear warheads.

Moscow has also signalled that it would supply Tehran with new surface-to-air missiles in defiance of US opposition. Washington has asked for more information on the sales, fearing the weapons being sold include long-range S-300 missiles, which have a 120km (75 mile) range. They could threaten US planes in Iraq, and could also protect Iranian nuclear sites from aerial attack.

The US has set aside its own plans for military action against Iran for now, but US officials hoped that fear of an Israeli strike would make Iran more amenable to suspending its enrichment of uranium.
 
  We'll see what impact $40.00 barrel/oil has on the Kremlin's master plans.
 
Weinie said:
  We'll see what impact $40.00 barrel/oil has on the Kremlin's master plans.

- Might slow things down a bit, but Europeans still need natural gas in the winter. 

- Their plan looks sound - their silos are much more blast and overpressure hardenned than others around the world and cheaper than building new SSBNs.

- This may be geared more towards China than the USA. If China was to bite off a chunk of Siberia, the Russians could not touch them conventionally.
 
The new military procurements follow the war in Georgia in August. Russian forces easily routed Georgian troops, but the conflict exposed weaknesses in the Russian army, including outdated equipment and poorly co-ordinated command structures. The defence ministry said it would carry out drastic reforms, turning the army into a more modern force.

I don't suppose they mean moving to a volunteer based, professional army? I wonder if the Russians are considering a doctrine change away from mass attacks towards a more Western approach of better trained professional soldiers?
 
TCBF said:
- Might slow things down a bit, but Europeans still need natural gas in the winter. 

- Their plan looks sound - their silos are much more blast and overpressure hardenned than others around the world and cheaper than building new SSBNs.

- This may be geared more towards China than the USA. If China was to bite off a chunk of Siberia, the Russians could not touch them conventionally.
I did hear on the radio the other day that Russia announced that cheap natural gas was a thing of the past, and that prices would be increasing.  Are the Americans still contributing to the cost of dismantling their old stockpile?
 
jeffb said:
I wonder if the Russians are considering a doctrine change away from mass attacks towards

They did a long time ago.

a more Western approach of better trained professional soldiers?

I believe they started trying a short time ago.
 
Infanteer said:
[tr][td]
I believe they started trying a short time ago.

Kontrakniki as they call them are not seen very well by a large part of the military. Sellouts and mercenaries they are called.
 
The incongruous said:
Kontrakniki as they call them are not seen very well by a large part of the military. Sellouts and mercenaries they are called.

Actually, not always true. They may be looked at by some old fashioned guys like that, but the point is that in any actual fighting Russia today uses only their volonteer professional units. Border guards also recently moved to a volunteer base and are now controlled by the FSB. Georgia war included mostly professional and a few conscripts doing unessential things. The boarder guards were always one of the best places to be sent as a conscript as they did not have much "dedovshina" (informal hierarchies within the conscripts, etc), but now this is not an option anymore.

They're also stepping up their recruiting efforts:

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSKgKHp2igk
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdFWpW3yd4o

look familiar?

Their long term plan appears to be to move most of the fighting units onto contract basis but still have a short conscription period for basic training for all healthy and eligible males in the country. This could be explained by the slew of security concerns but also by engrained outlooks by the population and the army. Russians are also weary of drastic changes to anything after the effect drastic changes in the economy brought in the 1990s, so this will be a long, slow, and careful process before conscription is abolished. Also, there is a belief in Russian millitary circles that "if someone comes for money, they will leave for money", but a conscript serves to protect his home and not his wallet. However, I know many Russians and none of them want to be conscripted. I have heard OF THEM, but have never SEEN them personally. The reality is that most of the good places to serve are contract oriented now.
 
TCBF said:
- Might slow things down a bit, but Europeans still need natural gas in the winter. 

- Their plan looks sound - their silos are much more blast and overpressure hardenned than others around the world and cheaper than building new SSBNs.

- This may be geared more towards China than the USA. If China was to bite off a chunk of Siberia, the Russians could not touch them conventionally.

To be honest I can't see Russia and China going against one another not one bit. They're pretty much oil allies now with other countries around the world like Iran and Venezuala. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/puti-a04.shtml
 
JayJay144 said:
To be honest I can't see Russia and China going against one another not one bit. They're pretty much oil allies now with other countries around the world like Iran and Venezuala. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/puti-a04.shtml

- A balanced view from the "WorldSocialistWebSite"?

::)
 
Most of this is geared towards Russia's quest to regain "Great Power" status. This worked in the last incarnation as the USSR (the impression of strength provided by the massive "Red Army" gave them a lot of leverage which they otherwise would not have), but the strategy is built on a weak economic foundation and may explode in their faces.

1. Russia's political and economic system is an unstable kleptocracy, which is a pretty weal basis to provide the stable long term funding needed. The collapse of oil prices and the forecast instability of oil prices combined with the global financial crisis will make funding this project much more difficult.

2. Russia is facing pressure on the southern borders from the Islamic states and the "Near Abroad". Retaking the former Russian Empire will consume much time and attention from other Imperial projects

3. Long term, Russia is facing a demographic crash, which means manning the borders and the factory floors will become more and more difficult, with the crash projected to be in full flower in the 2030 time frame. Depopulated areas never stay depopulated for long; the Chinese will have their own demographic issues in the 2020's (excess male/female ratios) and the Islamic lands to the south will also have massive and growing populations who would like to settle available lands.
 
Thucydides said:
the Islamic lands to the south will also have massive and growing populations who would like to settle available lands.

You mean Islamic lands in the West, like Xinjiang/新疆 province of China, which some archaic linguist nitwits who still use the Wade-Giles system still refer to as "Sinkiang".
 
I have heard – I cannot find many published sources but there are a few – that Eastern Siberia, especially the Russian regions of Amur and Chita (which border the Chinese province of Heilongjiang), are being depopulated as residents move (back) to the European provinces.

The Chinese appear to be moving into several regions of Eastern Siberia. The migration is perceived to be both real and overblown. I have little doubt it is real and I suspect the Chinese want to downplay the whole thing.

China wants – maybe desperately – the resources in Eastern Siberia and, above all the petroleum in Central and Western Siberia. In my opinion the Chinese are happy to pay for them, provided only that the supply is secure. Were Russia to try to treat China the way it treats e.g. Ukraine then I am pretty sure Chinese attitudes would change and the Chinese faction that believes that everything East of the Yenisei River is Asian (read Chinese) will dominate the debate and Chinese aggression in Siberia will become more pronounced.

Russia’s demographic nightmare is not going away – not in the near term and not in the mid term. China, on the other hand, continues to grow and needs resources to sustain its prosperity. Siberia is emptying and is rich in resources. You do the math.

 
The global economic collapse will result in Russians migrating towards the European side of their great land.... where there is better land and perceived better economic oportunities.

With a sudden turn of the tap, a lot of those petro dollars Russia was spending on their infrastructure (military included) have come to a screeching halt.
 
CougarDaddy said:
You mean Islamic lands in the West, like Xinjiang/新疆 province of China, which some archaic linguist nitwits who still use the Wade-Giles system still refer to as "Sinkiang".

Xinjiang is more of a problem for China; I am sure the Russians are looking more at the 'Stans, the Caucus and the troublemakers in the Persian Gulf...

When you add Xinjiang to that landmass you are looking at a potentially troublesome problem for both the Russians and Chinese; demographically speaking "the East is Green" and a large and expanding Islamic population in central Asia looking for resources and economic opportunities is the source of nightmares in the Kremlin, probably in Beijing and New Deli as well.
 
The Russians would be well advised to move their resources to something more productive than weapons:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/01/dying-bears-and-eunichs.html

A Dying Bears and a Pack of Eunichs

We have the most expensive US presidant money can buy ... they, have the most expensive eunichs money can buy ... and a dying bear to boot:

    It was only six months ago that Gazprom, at that time the third largest company in the world with $350 billion capitalization, confidently forecast that it will become the largest in the world with $1 trillion valuation by 2015. Many a Western banker also nodded in agreement to Gazprom’s other prediction of $250/barrel price of oil in 2009.

    As Putin managed to build monetary reserves of $600 billion – the third largest in the world – Russia did look invincible for a time. He also bribed the Russian people into political acquiescence by jacking up salaries and pensions 200 percent since 2000, even though GDP and productivity had gone up barely a third of that.

    [...]

  With no industrial production worth mentioning, its infrastructure badly dilapidated, virtually all of its food imported and mortality rates only found in sub-Saharan Africa, Russia under Putin had become a classic banana republic with oil and gas. It lived or died depending on the price of bananas over which it had no control.
 
Thucydides said:
The Russians would be well advised to move their resources to something more productive than weapons:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/01/dying-bears-and-eunichs.html

Wow! Nothing has changed for the last 200 years.
Do not be so naive in your wishful thinking on your "potential" ennemy.
I dare remind that there had already been quite famous "thinkers" like that ... Napoleon and others, you know ... but they all had ended very badly.
 
I'm not planning on invading Russia anytime soon; rather I am worried how their deteriorating social, economic and environmental situations will affect Russia's leadership. Many regimes in difficulty find it useful to direct the attention of the population outwards, and starting a war is one of the best ways for Russia's leadership to take their people's mind's off the issues closer to home. (Of course, the stresses of actually campaigning eventually overwhelm any potential gains, the 1980 Afghanistan war or more recent conflicts in the "near abroad" are instructive).

As for wishful thinking, a paranoid and humiliated regime armed with nuclear weapons facing severe difficulties on multiple issues is hardly something to "wish away"; a little cold analysis of the facts at hand are in order.
 
Thucydides said:
I'm not planning on invading Russia anytime soon; rather I am worried how their deteriorating social, economic and environmental situations will affect Russia's leadership. Many regimes in difficulty find it useful to direct the attention of the population outwards, and starting a war is one of the best ways for Russia's leadership to take their people's mind's off the issues closer to home. (Of course, the stresses of actually campaigning eventually overwhelm any potential gains, the 1980 Afghanistan war or more recent conflicts in the "near abroad" are instructive).

As for wishful thinking, a paranoid and humiliated regime armed with nuclear weapons facing severe difficulties on multiple issues is hardly something to "wish away"; a little cold analysis of the facts at hand are in order.

Paraniod and humiliated.... wtih a 70% approval rating...lol
 
As for wishful thinking, a paranoid and humiliated regime armed with nuclear weapons facing severe difficulties on multiple issues is hardly something to "wish away"; a little cold analysis of the facts at hand are in order.

You talking about North Korea in this thread ?
 
Back
Top