Russia change the rules! Has nuclear war edged closer?

banie01

Putin and the Russian high command yesterday announced that any incoming ballistic missile targeting its territory will be assumed to be nuclear.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/08/09/russia-warns-it-will-see-any-incoming-missile-as-nuclear/
http://redstar.ru/ob-osnovah-gosudarstvennoj-politiki-rossijskoj-federatsii-v-oblasti-yadernogo-sderzhivaniya/

In the Krasnaya Zvezda article, senior officers of the Russian military’s General Staff, Maj. Gen. Andrei Sterlin and Col. Alexander Khryapin, noted that there will be no way to determine if an incoming ballistic missile is fitted with a nuclear or a conventional warhead, and so the military will see it as a nuclear attack.

“Any attacking missile will be perceived as carrying a nuclear warhead,” the article said. “The information about the missile launch will be automatically relayed to the Russian military-political leadership, which will determine the scope of retaliatory action by nuclear forces depending on the evolving situation.”

Further to that the newly published Russian nuclear deterrent policy has envisaged nuclear retaliation in response to even conventional attacks on Russian Government or C3I infrastructure.

Russia has been making moves in recent years in its armament strategy that was in part at least due to the current US regimes decision to let certain treaties lapse and to weaponise new technologies.
This is pointing to a very strange future when MAD was abandoned and the cold war died the idea of a tripwire event escalating to a full ICBM exchange waned and died.

Now? The idea that in response to American efforts to move to use conventional but enhanced and highly targeted warheads in strategic strikes?
The US announcement of both new missile and warhead programmes including ultra low yield nuclear are a clear and stated threat to Russia.

The Russians much like their USSR forebears cannot compete economically with US defence spending so seem to be announcing that they are greatly lowering their response threshold and that they are happy to respond with the ultimate weapon.

It could be argued that we are seeing a move towards a reversal of the usual asymmetric threat.
From the counter-insurgency and low tech, low threat environment that is currently prevalent.
Where the US/NATO doctrine has usually tended to meet with Firepower and Technology.
To a near-peer threat where precisely that enhanced firepower doctrine could well lead to a nuclear response from Ivan!

The Geo-politics of this threat, the timing of its announcement and its effect on whatever the next round of arms control treaties may be?
Will be fascinating, particularly as the old duopoly is gone and any future arms control limitations will have to account for India, China, Pakistan and Israel as well as the UK and France!

It is the wild west of the early 20th century again!
Russia are attempting to change the rules in the same the British did with Dreadnought.

Well that's my view of this at least.
When this is gamed out, it will be very interesting to see which Nations retain "great power" notions and the Chinese, in particular, won't entertain a "junior" position in any future limitation talks.
I think they will reflect on their own long history aswell as the history of the Naval arms treaties and their hamstringing of Japan and its subsequent effects on WW2.

biko

The harsh warning in the official military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) is directed at the United States, which has worked to develop long-range non-nuclear weapons.

So Russia is saying that if fired upon with missiles, they will probably immediately retaliate with the nuclear option instead of conventional missiles.

Russian officials have cast the U.S.-led missile defense program and its plans to put weapons in orbit as a top threat, arguing that the new capability could tempt Washington to strike Russia with impunity in the hope of fending off a retaliatory strike.

I'm pretty sure putting weapons in orbit is against international treaties.

Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits placing in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It also prohibits the testing and the deployment of any kind of weapon on the moon or other celestial bodies.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/legal-agreements-space-weapon

ronivek

I'm pretty sure by their very definition a ballistic missile will always be treated as a nuclear missile. Are there examples of anyone who wouldn't believe this to be the case?

All this story is saying is that 'well if anyone *did* decide to fire ballistic missiles at us which happened to not be nuclear; don't expect us to respond as if they're not nuclear'. Which to me is simply an extension of precisely how ballistic missiles are treated right now.

Gatling

Sure they decided a number of years ago all air defence systems around Moscow were to be armed with nuclear warheads ,

So in theory they would unleash nuclear fall out on their own population to stop a conventional weapons strike ,as much as trump ended a particular threaty oh look what trump did , russia has never played by the rules so it's safe to say that they are no innocent partie ,and they still pushed ahead with weapon developments ,

But it seems the long the Putin reign continues the more paranoid the Russians are getting about defenses ,the cold war ended Eastern Europe moved on and opened and the world moved on ,Putin on the other hand seems to be stuck in the past

Melanchthon

ronivek wrote: »

I'm pretty sure by their very definition a ballistic missile will always be treated as a nuclear missile. Are there examples of anyone who wouldn't believe this to be the case?

All this story is saying is that 'well if anyone *did* decide to fire ballistic missiles at us which happened to not be nuclear; don't expect us to respond as if they're not nuclear'. Which to me is simply an extension of precisely how ballistic missiles are treated right now.

I am not sure if its a change in practice alright, I think they were always treated this way but I think China is researching anti-ship Ballistic missiles.

banie01

ronivek wrote: »

I'm pretty sure by their very definition a ballistic missile will always be treated as a nuclear missile. Are there examples of anyone who wouldn't believe this to be the case?

All this story is saying is that 'well if anyone *did* decide to fire ballistic missiles at us which happened to not be nuclear; don't expect us to respond as if they're not nuclear'. Which to me is simply an extension of precisely how ballistic missiles are treated right now.

The most recent case of a ballistic missile not provoking a nuclear response would be any of the Iranian launches including the one against US Iraqi installations.

IRBM and other ballistic missiles are a weapon used by multiple Militaries.

Even the US has non nuclear ballistic missiles.
A ballistic missile isn't necessarily an ICBM/SLBM, the lack of differentiation in the Russian announcement could readily be argued as a counter to precisely that kind of threat.

The threat response escalation model has been quite pointedly changed from the usual assess and respond model.
To a defined assumption of a nuclear launch.

@Biko, agree with regards to the treaties and it's always nice to see someone has read the article before they make a point.

There is a suspicion in the west that Russia tested an orbital A-Sat weapon in July.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53518238

From their pursuit of hypersonic weapons, the push on conventional armour forces and the current speculation around the Russian cyber threat.
There seems to be at least a growing fear of a Bear resurgence and its associated threat.

banie01

Gatling wrote: »

Sure they decided a number of years ago all air defence systems around Moscow were to be armed with nuclear warheads ,

That was limited to their ABM batteries. They were allowed 2 sites and 100 missiles per site as per the ABM treaty.

The US went with a nuke tipped version of Nike Zeus that they deployed to protect the ICBM fields and the Russians went with the A35 and A135 around Moscow.
There weapons were at least "hoped" to detonate above the atmosphere to take out incoming nukes.

ronivek

banie01 wrote: »

The most recent case of a ballistic missile not provoking a nuclear response would be any of the Iranian launches including the one against US Iraqi installations.

And Iran has no nuclear weapons; so treating an Iranian ballistic missile as being nuclear wouldn't make sense.

Would you expect (in the context of let's say a 2nd cold war) that if the US launched ballistic missiles at Russia; or vice versa; that they would assume anything other than nuclear ordnance? I mean unless they had very compelling reasons or intelligence to show otherwise.

Bearing in mind of course that any public information on the policies of individual nuclear superpowers are not somehow legally binding statements of truth in terms of how they may respond; and simply whatever message they deem to be the most effective as a deterrent.

Has a nuclear superpower ever fired ballistic missiles at another nuclear superpower in anger?

banie01

ronivek wrote: »

And Iran has no nuclear weapons; so treating an Iranian ballistic missile as being nuclear wouldn't make sense.

Iran are assumed to have no nuclear weapons.
The issue at hand here is that the Russians have made a nuclear response their default position to any launch detected incoming.

Not an American launch, not a Chinese one or any other specific threat but against all.

The number of ballistic missiles in service around the world, and in particular in Eurasia is surprisingly high.
The world has entered a period of quite confrontational sabre rattling and where conventional strikes could now carry a catastrophic response.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbY0VpyjtuI

Putin has been in power for 20 years it is always important to listen to the opposition to gain some insight into the thinking process. The above interview took place in 2019.

Table of contents
0:00:08 How has the world changed over the last 20 years?
0:01:49 Has the world become more fragmented?
0:02:27 What do you want to achieve in Osaka?
0:04:31 OPEC oil production agreements
0:07:27 How does Trump compare to other US presidents?
0:10:54 Trump’s criticisms of European alliances
0:15:10 Globalisation vs ‘America First’
0:16:25 Russia and China’s relationship
0:21:02 Danger of tensions between Russia America and China
0:24:05 Arms control
0:26:45 Potential for nuclear agreements
0:28:08 China’s maritime strength
0:30:45 North Korea
0:33:06 North Asia security situation
0:34:42 Has your appetite for risk increased?
0:36:51 Intervening in Syria
0:42:13 Venezuela
0:50:15 Anglo-Russian relations post Skripal
0:55:32 Did what happened in Salisbury send an unambiguous message to anyone who is thinking of betraying the Russian state that it is fair game?
0:57:04 Russia’s economy and foreign exchange reserves
1:04:18 Russia’s macro economic stability - oligarchs
1:06:05 Breakup of the Soviet Union vs China’s anticorruption campaign
1:09:30 Can Russian remain immune to backlashes against the establishment?
1:14:30 Did Angela Merkel make a mistake?
1:18:32 The end of the liberal idea
1:21:15 Religion is not the opium of the masses?
1:21:49 Is now the time for illiberals?
1:24:33 Who do you most admire?
1:26:10 How will your successor be chosen?


21 minutes in if you want to get to the topic you raised.


What does have me worried over the past 20 years, the United States has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty, and is on the cusp of allowing the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to expire without a replacement. They have also been modernising their weapons with a focus on "small yield" warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The issue becomes "when" not "if" the United States will next use a nuclear weapon and against whom?


A particular scenario that has cropped up recently is Taiwan. (Beware the Guns of August—in Asia). China has subjugated Hong Kong. COVID has caused serious economic dislocation with severe drop in profits for many Taiwanese companies and the the issues will keep rolling for a few years in the West. Will an economically distressed West be willing to step up to defend Taiwan in a few years time?