Cold War, The Reimagined Series

[BansheeOne]

That doesn't contradict the statement about the launchers in Europe, which were said to lack the necessary eqipment. Of course a Mk 41 with that equipment doesn't magically lose the capability if used on land. The question rather is how easily a launcher could be fitted for firing Tomahawks. Russia never took the US up on the offer of inspections to that effect.

 

Anyway, known fixed sites remain the least logical option to deploy intermediate-range weapons. Even 40 years ago, SS-20, Pershing, GLCM etc. were all mobile, for good reason.

Edited August 20, 2019 by BansheeOne

[Chris Werb]

Arguably they should be kept semi-continuously mobile, covertly moving around and between numerous sites in a "shell game".

[Josh]

I think the last fixed IRBM the US ever employed was Thor? In any case, as stated, inspections were offered. And fixed basing is useless; they need to re-manufactor the mobile ground launcher.

[Josh]

double post

Edited August 19, 2019 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

Russia has said for years that ground based Mk-41 deployed in Europe could launch Tomahawks, and therefore violate INF. US denied it.

 

16 days after the INF Treaty died, what does the US do?

 

Launch a Tomahawk from a ground-based Mk-41 launcher.

 

Still lacks the boxes to launch cruise missiles though. That would require all the launch sites to be updated, something I would imagine the Romanians, if not the Poles, are not going to be thrilled about.

 

Its worth noting on that video, even though its clearly a test lashup, its trailer mounted. Which is something which was proven as viable with Gryphon over 30 years ago.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Josh]

One thing I will acknowledge; the test was pretty clearly designed to annoy Russia, particularly the trailer component. Good eye Stuart.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Josh

[glenn239]

Does the US even need ground launched cruise missiles? Isn't their current inventory of subs and bombers enough to quickly launch their entire inventory (3,000?) of such weapons?

[Josh]

In a strategic exchange, all 1550 New START allowed warheads would ship on their existing platforms, and all but 240 (ALCM) would be delivered ballistically. For the US the development of intermediate ranged weapons is to have a counter available to Russian tactical weapons in this range (already developed in violation of INF) and to have land based conventional alternatives to the large arsenal of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles in the Pacific. US development likely would initially be conventional, not nuclear, though there are numerous W-80 warheads from retired AGM-129 and converted AGM-86/BGM-109 that could potentially be retrofitted.

[BansheeOne]

AUGUST 19, 2019 / 3:41 PM / 2 DAYS AGO

 

Global network's nuclear sensors in Russia went offline after mystery blast

 

Francois Murphy

 

VIENNA (Reuters) - The operator of a global network of radioactive-particle sensors said on Monday its two Russian sites closest to a mysterious explosion went offline days after the blast, soon followed by two more, fuelling suspicions that Russia tampered with them.

 

[...]

 

COMMUNICATION AND NETWORK ISSUES

 

While the CTBTOs IMS network is global and its stations report data back to CTBTO headquarters in Vienna, those stations are operated by the countries in which they are located.

 

The two Russian monitoring stations nearest the explosion, Dubna and Kirov, stopped transmitting on Aug. 10, and Russian officials told the CTBTO they were having communication and network issues, a CTBTO spokeswoman said on Monday.

 

"Were awaiting further reports on when the stations and/or the communication system will be restored to full functionality."

 

It is not clear what caused the outage or whether the stations were tampered with by Russia.

 

Zerbo also tweeted a simulation of the explosions possible plume, showing it reaching Dubna and Kirov on Aug. 10 and Aug. 11, two and three days after the explosion.

 

The spokeswoman said later that two more stations, Bilibino and Zalesovo, stopped transmitting data on Aug. 13. Bilibino is in far eastern Siberia, outside the map of the simulated plume that Zerbo tweeted. But that simulation also showed the plume reaching Zalesovo on Aug. 13.

 

"About 48 hours after the incident in Russia on Aug. 8, these stations (Dubna and Kirov) stopped transmitting data. I find that to be a curious coincidence", said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based think tank.

 

He and other analysts said any Russian tampering with IMS stations would be a serious matter but it was also likely to be futile as other IMS or national stations could also pick up telltale particles.

 

"There is no point in what Russia seems to have tried to do. The network of international sensors is too dense for one country withholding data to hide an event", said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Non-Proliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute in California.

 

[...]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-blast-ctbto/global-networks-nuclear-sensors-in-russia-went-offline-after-mystery-blast-idUSKCN1V9183

Edited August 21, 2019 by BansheeOne

[Stuart Galbraith]

All perfectly normal, nothing we havent seen before.

[Gregory]

The clown has spoken again, and the local Pavlovian dogs respond with the usual bark.

US threatens to withdraw troops from Germany

2 hours agoThe US says it might pull out some troops from Germany amid rifts over a naval mission in the Persian Gulf and defense spending. The remarks from the US ambassador come ahead of two presidential trips to Europe.

The United States is considering withdrawing some of the US troops stationed in Germany, with Poland mooted as a possible new deployment, the US ambassador to Germany has said.

The threat of withdrawal comes amid ongoing differences between Berlin and Washington over Germany's contribution to NATO and a current spat caused by the German refusal to take part in a US-led naval mission in the Persian Gulf.

"It is actually offensive to assume that the US taxpayer must continue to pay to have 50,000-plus Americans in Germany, but the Germans get to spend their surplus on domestic programs," US Ambassador Richard Grenell told the DPA news agency, in comments carried widely by German media on Friday.

His remarks come after the US ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, tweeted that her country would be happy for the American troops in Germany to move there instead.

US President Donald Trump had also mentioned the possibility of moving some American troops from Germany to Poland in talks with Polish President Andrzej Duda in Washington in June, something that was also mentioned by Grenell.

"President Trump is right and Georgette Mosbacher is right, " he said, saying that requests by "numerous presidents" for Germany to "pay for its own defense" had been ignored. Now was the time for Americans and the US president had to react, he said.

[...]

https://www.dw.com/en/us-threatens-to-withdraw-troops-from-germany/a-49959555

I've said it before - something like relocating 2nd Cavalry Regiment to Poland would actually make military and political sense if you presumed that the NATO-Russia Founding Act has been invalided by Russian action, and probably affordable by Poland if they are supposed to pay for it. The same is not true for the huge logistics and C4ISR infrastructure and its sunk cost, which benefits global US interests at least as much as German security. You could do it of course, but it would be a multi-term process with exceedingly high cost I don't see any single or combination of allies willing to pay.

I'm also not sure for which "our country" the US ambassador to Poland speaks.

That’s a reasonable argument when negotiating basing cost compensation. As a reason for US to continue to provide Germany with defense guarantees it lacks certain .... moral suasion. I am afraid we are nearing a point where bipartisan consensus will be for US to de facto (if not de jure) withdraw militarily from Europe.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its interesting to note how little there is coming out of Russia on the armed forces these days. There has been no posts on Russian Defence.net for months about new units being formed or reequipped. There are still the odd flyby of Alaska and Europe, there was the shooting incident off South Korea, but apart from that, nothing. Im not sure why this is, but I doubt its because they have lost interest in reforming Divisions.

[a77]

The fact that the nuclear reactor is not exposed to the environment means that the missile flies "clean" and therefore can be launched to holding stations deep at sea or over barren terrain such as the Antarctica, without causing any radioactivity unless the missile fails or is shot down; it is a useful rung in the escalation ladder, with it being understood as a matter of course that finding new rungs in the escalation ladder is at the heart of international deterrence and strategy these days.

 

and its totaly stupid, it will be super expensive, better to build more conventional propelled nuclear tiped big cruise missiles, and ad a solid boster for rapid lunch and deploy and scatter them deep into Russia. No this is all scam, yes they are doing some R&D, but it all to look "strong"

[a77]

Launch a Tomahawk from a ground-based Mk-41 launcher.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Ground_Launched_Cruise_Missile

 

Come back then they US deploy a modernized Gryphon, A static Mk-41 launcher will only be a target in WW3.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

The fact that the nuclear reactor is not exposed to the environment means that the missile flies "clean" and therefore can be launched to holding stations deep at sea or over barren terrain such as the Antarctica, without causing any radioactivity unless the missile fails or is shot down; it is a useful rung in the escalation ladder, with it being understood as a matter of course that finding new rungs in the escalation ladder is at the heart of international deterrence and strategy these days.

 

and its totaly stupid, it will be super expensive, better to build more conventional propelled nuclear tiped big cruise missiles, and ad a solid boster for rapid lunch and deploy and scatter them deep into Russia. No this is all scam, yes they are doing some R&D, but it all to look "strong"

 

 

I believe the word you are looking for is 'stronk', but I agree entirely. Its a works project for oligarchs to skim off the top. Russia doesnt need to replace a system vulnerable only to ABM with one vulnerable to just about everything else. That and they seem to be irradiating half of Northern Russia trying to get the damn thing to fly.

[Chris Werb]

As Glenn pointed out, like Status 6, the nuclear powered cruise missile makes much more sense as a conventional weapon.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Except if its going to chuck out this kind of radioactive material every time it hits a target, it may well qualify as a WMD inviting a retaliatory response. Which lacking a nuclear engine might invite a nuclear warhead.

 

Look at the UK. If we were attacked by a large number of these weapons, the radiological footprint to the UK might not look much different from a nuclear weapon detonation. So why bother to withhold from their use that being the case?

[Chris Werb]

You can have it drop munitions then fly to a recovery point. Let's say it carried four 250kg class guided munitions. It could deliver them essentially anywhere in the World.

[Stuart Galbraith]

But that still wont rule out what happens when someone shoots them down. And someone will, because how is anyone to know what is a conventionally powered cruise missile and a nuclear engined one?

 

By way of example, even our cruise missiles which have had 30 years to mature still miss and hit unintended targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike

Seven or nine Syrian soldiers were killed,^[2][3] including a general;^[44] Russian military personnel were also present at the airbase at the time it was attacked.^[45] According to Syrian state news SANA, nine civilians were also killed in the attack, including four children. SANA also stated that five of the civilians were killed in the village of Shayrat,^[52] outside the base, while another four were killed in the village of Al-Hamrat, and that another seven civilians were wounded when a missile hit homes in Al-Manzul, four kilometers (two and a half miles) away from the Shayrat air base.^[53] According to Russian defense ministry, four soldiers were killed and two soldiers were missing.^[49]

 

^{Thats not counting the ones that were duds and fell in deserted areas. Again, not likely in the European context.}

 

The whole idea is barking mad. It assumes you can fly nuclear engined vehicles over an enemys country and not suffer reciprocal consequences when they crash or hit the wrong target. Which is part and parcel of Russian strategic thought these days I guess.

[Chris Werb]

And how do we respond if we shoot one down over our own territory? Its basically tough luck for us, not them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Take that one step further. Its a missile with a near infinite range. What if it misses the target and then heads off towards, say, China? Or circles the globe and comes back at them. Because if our state of the art cruise missiles are going to go missing targets, I guarantee theirs are. I seem to recall the ones they shot at Syria had a loss rate of something like 15 percent. Scale that up to a nuclear powered engine, and you have a serious problem, particularly if you start irradiating people you would rather keep onside.

 

There are so many problems with the application of the weapon you have to wonder what the point is. The ONLY realistic use of them I can see is a nuclear dead hand system, and I would have thought that kind of irrelevant. They already have that with the SLBM's.

[Chris Werb]

If it lands on someone else, they'll say we jammed it. If it lands back on them, they won't care (and there is an awful lot of nothing in Russia for it to crash on).

[Stuart Galbraith]

Russia reciprocates with its own cruise missile 'test'. C'est tres Butch.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-russia-missile-test-trump-pentagon-us-arms-race-treaty-a9075941.html

 

The irony is, being sea launched this would have been perfectly legal under the INF treaty anyway I believe?

[seahawk]

 

The clown has spoken again, and the local Pavlovian dogs respond with the usual bark.

US threatens to withdraw troops from Germany

2 hours agoThe US says it might pull out some troops from Germany amid rifts over a naval mission in the Persian Gulf and defense spending. The remarks from the US ambassador come ahead of two presidential trips to Europe.

The United States is considering withdrawing some of the US troops stationed in Germany, with Poland mooted as a possible new deployment, the US ambassador to Germany has said.

The threat of withdrawal comes amid ongoing differences between Berlin and Washington over Germany's contribution to NATO and a current spat caused by the German refusal to take part in a US-led naval mission in the Persian Gulf.

"It is actually offensive to assume that the US taxpayer must continue to pay to have 50,000-plus Americans in Germany, but the Germans get to spend their surplus on domestic programs," US Ambassador Richard Grenell told the DPA news agency, in comments carried widely by German media on Friday.

His remarks come after the US ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, tweeted that her country would be happy for the American troops in Germany to move there instead.

US President Donald Trump had also mentioned the possibility of moving some American troops from Germany to Poland in talks with Polish President Andrzej Duda in Washington in June, something that was also mentioned by Grenell.

"President Trump is right and Georgette Mosbacher is right, " he said, saying that requests by "numerous presidents" for Germany to "pay for its own defense" had been ignored. Now was the time for Americans and the US president had to react, he said.

[...]

https://www.dw.com/en/us-threatens-to-withdraw-troops-from-germany/a-49959555

I've said it before - something like relocating 2nd Cavalry Regiment to Poland would actually make military and political sense if you presumed that the NATO-Russia Founding Act has been invalided by Russian action, and probably affordable by Poland if they are supposed to pay for it. The same is not true for the huge logistics and C4ISR infrastructure and its sunk cost, which benefits global US interests at least as much as German security. You could do it of course, but it would be a multi-term process with exceedingly high cost I don't see any single or combination of allies willing to pay.

I'm also not sure for which "our country" the US ambassador to Poland speaks.

That’s a reasonable argument when negotiating basing cost compensation. As a reason for US to continue to provide Germany with defense guarantees it lacks certain .... moral suasion. I am afraid we are nearing a point where bipartisan consensus will be for US to de facto (if not de jure) withdraw militarily from Europe.

 

At least in Germany the threat scares nobody. The only result it achieved was that the costs paid by Germany in regard to the US troops stationed here made it into the press and the amount was not met with enthusiasm.

 

The combined costs of direct support like the pension of former civil employees of the US forces and the costs of building and the costs of building projects for US forces amounts to 720 million Euros in the last 7 years. So roughly 100 million a year for 35.000 troops - or 2850 Euro for each soldier stationed in Germany. The threat to withdraw to Poland is not so scary. especially once this had been made public.

[Daan]

Does Germany pay the pensions of civil employees contracted by the US to work on their bases in Germany? Do these employees not have a pension plan with mandatory monthly down payments?