S-400 Triumf: Russia and Turkey signed a loan agreement

"Earlier in the day, Russia and Turkey have signed a loan agreement on Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 systems" Haberturk TV said last Friday.

According to the Hurriyet daily, Ankara will pay part of the sum from its own funds and will contract a Russian loan for the rest. Notably, the loan will be in rubles.

On September 12, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Ankara had signed an agreement with Moscow on purchase of S-400 systems, with an advance payment already made.

On November 2, Director General of Russia’s Rostec Corporation Sergei Chemezov told TASS that the contract with Turkey on the sales of S-400 Triumf systems exceeded two billion US dollars.

Supplies of these systems are expected to begin within two years. Russia’s S-400 Triumf (NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler) is the latest long-range anti-aircraft missile system that went into service in 2007.

It is designed to destroy aircrafts, ballistic and cruise missiles, including medium-range missiles, and surface targets. The S-400 can engage targets at a distance of 400 kilometers and at an altitude of up to 30 kilometers.

Washington keeps persuading Turkey not to buy air and missile defense systems from Russia, US Department of Defense Spokesperson Johnny Michael told TASS: "We have relayed our concerns to Turkish officials regarding the purchase of the S-400," the Pentagon spokesman said. "A NATO interoperable missile defense system remains the best option to defend Turkey from the full range of threats in its region. We have an open dialogue on this issue, and have emphasized the importance of maintaining NATO interoperability on any major defense systems procurements."

Aegis Ashore deployment in Japan will affect ties of Moscow and Tokyo

The deployment of U.S.-made Aegis Ashore land-based missile defense systems in Japan will affect ties of Moscow and Tokyo, including the dialogue on a peace treaty, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday 28.

She mentioned that the systems are equipped with universal launchers that are also capable of using attack weapons. "In practice, this will mean a new violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by the U.S. with practical assistance from Japan," Zakharova stressed.

On December 19, the Japanese government made the decision to deploy two Aegis Ashore missile defense systems in the north and southwest of the country’s main island of Honshu, tentatively in 2023. Japan maintains that they are aimed at securing the country against ballistic and maybe cruise missiles. These systems will be bought from the U.S. and will cost Japan an equivalent of about $889 million each.

"Once again we are calling on the Japanese counterparts to consider whether it is in their interests to become involved in violating the INF Treaty. The U.S. has been deploying them at the military bases in Romania and Poland, which is next to our western border, thus violating the INF Treaty of 1987, which outlaws use of such systems ashore." Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov also stressed.

Corea del Norte: Rusia advierte a Estados Unidos

Rusia ha advertido a Estados Unidos de las consecuencias que podría acarrear un ataque unilateral contra Corea del Norte: “Este es un camino muy arriesgado”, dijo el ministro de Exteriores ruso Sergei Lavrov durante una conferencia de prensa en Moscú. “No aceptamos las actividades con misiles nucleares de Pyongyang que violan las resoluciones de la ONU, pero eso no quiere decir que se pueda romper la ley internacional. Espero que no habrá ninguna acción unilateral como la que vimos recientemente en Siria”  añadió.

Estas declaraciones se han producido a raíz de que el Vicepresidente de Estados Unidos, Michael Pence, aconsejara hoy lunes a Corea del Norte que no ponga a prueba la determinación del presidente Donald Trump, declarando que “todas las opciones están sobre la mesa” para detener sus programas de misiles y armas nucleares: “En las últimas dos semanas, el mundo fue testigo de la fuerza y ​​la determinación de nuestro nuevo presidente en las medidas adoptadas en Siria y Afganistán. Corea del Norte haría bien en no poner a prueba su determinación o la intensidad de las fuerzas armadas de los Estados Unidos.”

Polonia debería prepararse para la guerra

En fechas recientes, el Atlantic Council of the United States ha publicado un documento bajo el ISBN: 978-1-61977-474-2, accesible públicamente (http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Arming_for_Deterrence_web_0719.pdf) donde se indica a los actuales dirigentes polacos el camino a seguir para anticiparse a un posible -y cada día más probable- enfrentamiento militar con Rusia. Les recomiendo que se lo bajen de internet  y lo lean con atención. Desde luego hay ciertos párrafos que resultan ciertamente inquietantes, sobre todo para los polacos. Se los copio a continuación:

Queda clara la amenaza real de un enfrentamiento militar con Rusia:

This report examines the threat posed by a resurgent Russia before considering NATO’s strategy and posture, focusing particularly on its Northeast region: Poland and the Baltic states. It then considers the implications for Poland and recommends how Polish defense should be reformed to take account of the new reality: That NATO now faces a greater

threat of war in its eastern regions than at any time since the end of the Cold War. 

Aborda la posibilidad de que Rusia realice un ataque sorpresa:

Russia’s political-military leadership actively 

uses military exercises for launching operations 

and intimidating its neighbors. These exercises 

represent a convenient way of camouflaging intent 

should Moscow decide to launch a surprise attack. 

Turning one of these exercises into an operation 

against one or several of the Baltic states would 

give very little or no early warning time for NATO.

Que la OTAN sería incapaz de contrarrestar en un primer momento:

As it stands, NATO’s defense posture is not strong enough to deter Russia. In part, this is because the Alliance’s decision-making will always be slower than Russia’s. NATO should compensate for this with a larger forward presence, better automated military movements that do not require prior North Atlantic Council approval, and adequate delegated authority to the military commanders, which so far has not been carried out at the level required.

Polonia debería comprometerse a atacar a Rusia hasta el final:

Poland should make clear policy declarations regarding its behavior in the event of Russian incursions and on targeting within Russia. (...) A statement is needed that Poland will immediately and unilaterally come to the aid of the Baltics (and Romania), should they be attacked in any way, pending a NATO-wide decision on Article 5. It should seek analogous declarations for itself, the Baltics, and Romania from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other allies, and reciprocity from Romania, as well. (...)

Poland should aim to join the 

tactical nuclear capability 

scheme within NATO, so 

enabling its F-16s to be 

carriers of tactical nuclear 

ordnance. (...) 

Poland should declare that it reserves the right to make counterattacks deep into Russian territory if Russia ever attacked Poland, notably with the long-range JASSM air launched cruise missiles it will receive from the United States later this year. (...) Poland should publish a potential list of targets, for example in the Kaliningrad Oblast. Kaliningrad city itself is less than 30 km from Poland, while the Pionerski strategic radar is some 60 km distant. (...) Poland should announce that it reserves the right to deploy offensive cyber operations (and not necessarily in response just to cyber attacks). The authorities could also suggest potential targets, which could include the Moscow metro, the St. Petersburg power network, and Russian state-run media outlets such as RT. (...) Poland should declare that, if attacked, it reserves the right to dispatch Special Operations Forces (SOF) into Russian territory such as Kaliningrad, in order to help destroy high-value targets, e.g. the Pantsyr and other missile batteries, which may be difficult to disable by methods such as jamming. (...) Poland should demonstrate the ability independently to target weapons and to launch these forces and capabilities. It should also show the ability to move forces into the Baltics and possibly Romania, in the process demonstrating joint action with relevant elements of US and other allied units.

Acción política:

Poland should undertake firm opposition to any 

EU plans (such as may be contemplated in the 

new Global Strategy on Foreign and Security 

Policy) envisaging an EU military force.

Medidas estratégicas urgentes:

As for immediate needs, Poland should improve 

the overall command and control of its forces, 

plus undertake a number of urgent acquisitions 

to bolster strategic deterrence and tactical preparations. (...) Poland should undertake these urgent procurements using radically different methods to overcome the systemic delays in the past. (...) Poland should ensure that all battlefield radios are digital and encrypted. Indeed, it should ensure that all Ministry and Armed Forces communications are secure, as many doubts on this matter persist. (...) Poland has been contemplating the Extended Range (900 km) JASSM cruise missile. If it places an order, it will be the first US ally to operate the Extended Range variant. Poland should expedite this procurement, mobilizing the support required in the US Congress. (...) Poland should address its capacity for independent targeting of key weapons, JASSM missiles, and others. (...) Poland should plan and train for the dispersal of the F-16s and weaponry to temporary, random airfields and roads in Poland itself, in the Baltics, and Romania. (...) 

The Naval Strike Missile (NSM) coastal missiles 

launched from two batteries of onshore mobile 

launchers serve primarily to interdict surface 

shipping, but can also have a strategic dimension. 

With a 185 km range, if properly targeted they can 

also destroy onshore targets, say in Kaliningrad.

 Poland should rapidly augment its targeting radars for longer distances. It should also order more of these NSM missiles 

and launcher. Its two batteries cost $132 million in total. Incremental missiles were recently reported to cost somewhat over $2 million each. (...) Poland should contract with NATO-member militaries or civilian firms to develop cyber capabilities and train Polish cyber troops, complementing measures already underway. Poland should develop an information warfare capability using social media and other channels, to counter Russia’s active propaganda campaign, which uses overt methods and its numerous “trolls.” (...) Poland should seek to accelerate licensed production of the 1,000 Spike ATGMs, ordered from PGZ’s Mesko plant for delivery in 2017-20. Some of its 670 Rosomak wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicles can transport Spike-equipped troops (and 307 more Rosomaks are on order). If needed, Poland should order rival ATGM systems for faster delivery. (...) Poland should immediately order an adequate number of the new Polish Piorun missiles, to supplement the approximately 2,000 Polish Grom missiles currently held (400 launchers, with only 5 missiles per launcher). (...) A network of all-weather shelters should be constructed, with stores of food, fuel, weapons and ammunition, medical kit, and communications gear.

Plan de movilización:

Poland should plan mobilization (including transport to northeastern Poland, the Baltics, and Romania) for both its Regular and Reserve units. Mobilization domestically of the new Territorials should also be on the agenda. (...) Poland should demonstrate readiness by frequent exercises. Interchangeable and mutually redundant channels should be planned. Railways, aircraft from the national carrier LOT and other sources, civilian road vehicles, and Polish and non-Polish ferries should all be included, in addition to the military’s own resources. (...) Transport for the Territorials should include use of local civilian 4WD and other vehicles. Mobilization and transfers east from the center and west of the country should be planned and publicly rehearsed. (...) Radical change is needed to the archaic culture regarding MRO, which calls for most of it to be done by Poland’s military. Civilian contractors should be brought in to replace over-stretched or badly run military servicing units.

¿Why Japan is wary of North Korea's Musudan missiles?

North Korea has recently claimed a series of breakthroughs in its push to build a long-range nuclear missile that can strike the American mainland. If the North's claims about the sixth Musudan launch are true, it would pose a threat to the USA military base in Guam, where troops that would be sent to the Korean Peninsula if conflict broke out are based, and also possibly a nuclear threat. It explains in part North Korea's tenacious testing of the Musudan missile. (Read more)

Russia to deploy Iskander missiles in Europe

According to the country's official and former Black Sea fleet chief Vladimir Komoyedov, Moscow is planning to send its nuclear capable Iskander missile systems to Kaliningrad. "Kaliningrad is our frontline in the west, the main base of the Baltic fleet, which is pressured by the NATO states from all sides. Our plans to deploy the Iskander systems there have been announced several times", Komoyedov said in an interview with Interfax, according to Deutsche Welle. These missile systems are capable of hitting targets located 500 kilometres away from the launch site. (Read more)

Rusia: Se complica la entrega de los S-300 a Iran

Como ustedes seguramente ya saben, Rusia está ultimando con Irán la entrega a este último de 5 batallones S-300PMU-1.

La pasada semana, Rusia e Iran firmaron un memorando sobre la implementación del acuerdo para la entrega de los sistemas, pero sin embargo, siguen quedando flecos que Moscú exige sean eliminados antes de proceder a la entrega de la mercancía.

Más concretamente, se trata de la denuncia que Iran presentó en 2011 contra la empresa Rosoboronexport ante el Tribunal de Arbitración de Ginebra, tras la negativa de Rosoboronexport a cumplir el contrato de suministro de los S-300 aduciendo el embargo impuesto por el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU.

En definitiva: Que Teheran esperaba recibir el pedido a finales de Septiembre o primeros de Octubre, pero tendrá que retirar la denuncia antes de firmar un nuevo acuerdo para la entrega. Y mientras no retire la denuncia contra Rosoboronexport, ésta no moverá ni un dedo por entregar la mercancía.

Iran: ¿La cortina de humo?

El máximo general de Rusia ha advertido a los países europeos candidatos para acoger las instalaciones de un escudo de defensa antimisiles liderada por Estados Unidos, que en caso de guerra serán objetivo prioritario de los misiles rusos: "Las potencias no nucleares donde se está instalando el escudo antimisiles se han convertido en objetivos prioritarios" dijo el general Valery Gerasimov, refiriéndose a Polonia y Rumania.

Los comentarios se produjeron en una conferencia de defensa en Moscú, donde una serie de líderes rusos de alto nivel advirtieron repetidamente sobre la amenaza que representa el escudo para la Rusia moderna. Para George Scutaru, vicepresidente del Comité de Defensa del Parlamento rumano, "la retórica belicosa" de Rusia forma parte de una guerra de información dirigida a los nuevos y potenciales miembros de la OTAN: "Rusia teme la capacidad de la Alianza para defender a sus miembros", dijo el Sr. Scutaru en una entrevista telefónica.

A este respecto, la OTAN ha reiterado que el escudo antimisiles está concebido tan solo para defenderse de un ataque proveniente de Irán, algo que para el ministro de Defensa ruso, Sergei Shoigu, no es más que una mentira: "Hoy en día está claro que la amenaza de misiles de Teherán era un farol". Esta postura es compartida por el General Gerasimov, para quien el temor principal de Estados Unidos no es tanto Iran, como el Estado Islámico: "No hace mucho tiempo los muyaidines fueron considerados buenos luchadores, ampliamente recompensados ​​por Occidente como luchadores por la democracia en Siria. Ahora han salido de control, y representan una amenaza para sus antiguos empleadores."

Shoigu también acusó a la OTAN de aumentar el riesgo de que estalle una guerra en Europa del Este, la cual incluya "el uso de armas nucleares tácticas estadounidenses desplegadas en varios países europeos." A ese respecto, el Teniente General Darryl Roberson, Jefe de Operaciones de la USAF en Europa, ha negado rotundamente que la OTAN haya desplegado armas nucleares tácticas en Europa del Este: "No estoy al tanto de nada de eso", dijo en una entrevista telefónica. Sin embargo, la referencia del Ministro Shoigu no se refería a un despliegue de armas nucleares en Europa del Este, sino a los arsenales de ojivas almacenados en Alemania, Bélgica, Italia, Países Bajos y Turquía durante la Guerra Fria.

En cualquier caso, tanto el general Gerasimov como el Ministro Shoigu tienen claro que Rusia es el enemigo a combatir, a tenor de los recientes ejercicios de la OTAN en Europa del Este: "Si en años anteriores los ejercicios se centraron en la lucha contra el terrorismo, hoy la prioridad se ha convertido en la solución de problemas ante una posible confrontación militar con un enemigo convencional, que es fácil de adivinar: la Federación de Rusia", dijo el general Gerasimov en referencia a los ejercicios de Campia Turzii, Rumania, donde los aviones de ataque a tierra A-10 norteamericanos han estado ensayando un posible enfrentamiento con los MIG-21 rumanos. Sobre esos ejercicios, el General Roberson ha aclarado que "el despliegue en Rumania de una docena de A-10 con 300 aviadores no es más que la primera de una rotación regular de fuerzas aéreas de Estados Unidos en Europa, y está previsto que llegue en breve un destacamento de aviones de combate F-15C. Estas rotaciones fueron planeados antes de la crisis del año pasado en Crimea. No espero que los rusos lo crean, pero es verdad", ha afirmado. 

Rusia, China, Terrorismo... ¿hacia una nueva guerra fría?

El nuevo año recién comenzado nos deja sobre el tapete cuestiones no resueltas que llevan camino de abocarnos a todos a una suerte de guerra fría global... en el mejor de los escenarios. Vamos a exponerlas brevemente a continuación.

Terrorismo

• El peligro terrorista constituye ciertamente un peligro global que requiere respuestas inmediatas a todos los niveles, incluído el militar.
• El avance de los grupos terroristas en Irak, Afganistán y Siria, así como la amenaza de extender sus acciones hacia Europa y Estados Unidos, van a exigir un considerable aumento de los presupuestos militares, especialmente en el apartado de Inteligencia: El terrorista es un enemigo que no da la cara, y es preciso contar con todos los medios técnicos y humanos que sea posible, al objeto de identificar y neutralizar las amenazas.
• La posibilidad de que grupos terroristas consigan el control de armas de destrucción masiva resulta improbable... hoy por hoy: Tanto Estados Unidos como Rusia protegen celosamente sus bases y lanzaderas de ICBMs, e incluso han aumentado recientemente el nivel de seguridad.

China

• China está desarrollando una impresionante carrera de armamentos a todos los niveles, pero cabe destacar como riesgo mayor su probada capacidad para dotarse de misiles nucleares capaces de golpear objetivos localizados a 11.000 Km de distancia.
• Es cierto que Estados Unidos cuenta con suficientes medios para contrarrestar un ataque de esa envergadura, pero no es menos cierto que China ha desarrollado misiles hipersónicos que se presume pueden dejar fuera de combate la capacidad de respuesta norteamericana.
• China posee medios humanos y técnicos cuyo principal objetivo es anular las infraestructuras del enemigo controladas mediante ordenadores. En ese sentido, cualquier país resulta vulnerable.

Rusia

• Al igual que China, Rusia está desarrollando un ambicioso programa de modernización de su arsenal nuclear, enfocado no tanto a un mayor alcance sino a dotarse de misiles capaces de atravesar el escudo antimisiles de la OTAN.
• Un ataque simultáneo a Estados Unidos por parte de China y Rusia pondría en serios aprietos la capacidad de respuesta norteamericana y arrastraría a la guerra al resto de países de la OTAN.

David del Fresno Consultores

Asesoría en Impresión 3D y Manufactura Aditiva

http://daviddft.wix.com/david-del-fresno

¿Pueden China y Corea del Norte atacar conjuntamente a USA?

No resulta difícil a día de hoy encontrar frecuentes noticias que indican la existencia de una auténtica guerra fría entre Estados Unidos y China.

Desde luego nadie quiere la guerra, pero no debemos cerrar los ojos tratando de ignorar que China y Corea del Norte desarrollan programas de misiles balísticos capaces de golpear objetivos en todo el territorio continental de los Estados Unidos.

¿Por qué? ¿Para qué? Vamos a dar tan sólo algunos datos, y luego ustedes traten de sacar sus propias conclusiones:

China

• En fechas recientes, el diario Want China Times desveló que la segunda potencia económica del mundo posee ya en servicio un submarino nuclear dotado de misiles capaces de golpear objetivos continentales estadounidenses desde las propias costas de China.

• Más concretamente, se trata del submarino Tipo 096, que porta misiles balísticos capaces de golpear objetivos ubicados a 11.000 Km de distancia.

Corea del Norte

• En fechas recientes, el ministro de defensa de Corea del Sur ha alertado de la posibilidad de que se lleve a cabo un ataque a Estados Unidos desde Corea del Norte: "Es posible que el norte disponga ya de la capacidad necesaria para alcanzar el territorio continental de los Estados Unidos ... La capacidad norcoreana de miniaturizar armas nucleares parece haber alcanzado un significativo nivel."

• El pasado mes de Octubre, el comandante de las fuerzas armadas estadounidenses en Corea del Sur, General Curtis Scaparrotti, declaró durante una comparecencia en el Pentágono que el ejército norcoreano podría haber conseguido la capacidad tecnológica necesaria para fabricar una ojiva nuclear miniaturizada, integrarla en un misil de largo alcance, y fabricar una lanzadera móvil para ese misil: "Poseen los contactos adecuados, por lo que no es descartable que hayan conseguido ya la capacidad para miniaturizar una ojiva. Potencialmente poseen la capacidad de lanzar lo que dicen tener, así que yo no puedo como comandante permitirme el lujo de creer que quizás no lo hayan conseguido todavía."

David del Fresno Consultores

Asesoría en Impresión 3D y Manufactura Aditiva

http://daviddft.wix.com/david-del-fresno

Poland urges NATO

NATO’s 28 members decided in 2010 to create a missile shield based on US technology.

The project is due to be completed in 2020, with significant elements in Romania and Poland. But last monday Poland urged NATO’s new secretary general to push ahead with the missile shield system amid the West’s worst standoff with Russia since the Cold War.

Mr. Jens Stoltenberg, who chose Warsaw for his first foreign visit, said Poland is "a key contributor to our missile defence system.” Stoltenberg, who took over as NATO chief on 1st October, insisted that Russia must reverse course in Ukraine but stressed that the alliance remains open to a constructive relationship with Moscow.

Tension mounted further after Russian President Vladimir Putin was quoted last month as saying that “if I wanted, Russian troops could not only be in Kiev in two days, but in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw or Bucharest, too.” The escalation of tensions with Russia since January over its role in the Ukraine crisis has sounded the alarm on NATO’s eastern flank in countries that were under Moscow’s thumb during the Soviet era.

The Western defence alliance insists the role of the planned shield is a “purely defensive” response to external threats, notably from so-called “rogue states”, and is in no way directed against Russia. “We firmly support the creation of this system as a pan-NATO one because only this makes deep sense both politically and in terms of defence,” Poland’s President Bronislaw Komorowski said at a joint press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. “Poland is determined to build its missile shield and air defence system — it’s important not only for Poland — and we uphold our obligations for the US portion of this project,” stated.

Han Min-koo, upbeat

During a parliamentary audit in the ministry building in Seoul, Defense Minister Han Min-gu said that he was looking at the deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system, a key element of the global U.S. missile defense program, from a standpoint of national security: "Given that the operational coverage of the THAAD is wide, should it be deployed here, it would help the defense of South Korea.”

In its parliamentary policy briefing, the ministry also said the number of North Korean summertime drills doubled this year, and that the North has gradually increased its strike capabilities: Over the last two years, the North has increased its number of multiple rocket launch systems by some 300. Currently the figure stands at 5,100, an increase from a 2012 estimate of 4,800, according to data from the ministry.

Seoul has been reluctant to openly talk about the issue of the THAAD deployment as it could cause diplomatic friction with Beijing and Moscow, which believe that the deployment could potentially target them in case of a crisis, but “While the assets that are available to cope with the North’s nuclear and missile threats are limited, the deployment of the THAAD would help ensure South Korea’s security and defense,” said Han during the audit.

Russia says dissatisfied

Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov said Russia had voiced concerns over planned U.S. ground-launched arms tests next year in Romania and in 2018 in Poland, which he said the U.S. side assured him would only use anti-rocket defences and would not fall foul of the treaty.

Relations between the two countries are at their lowest since the Cold War because of Russia's role in the crisis in Ukraine, and both Moscow and Washington question the other's commitment to the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.

Russia argues that Washington's use of drones and other intermediate-range arms amounts to a violation of the treaty and has said that planned U.S. weapons tests in Romania and Poland may also breach the agreement. Also, Russia said on Thursday it was dissatisfied with talks held with U.S. officials to address concerns that Moscow had violated a Cold War-era arms control agreement by testing a ground-launched cruise missile.

About the treaty, Anatoly Antonov said last month Moscow was committed to the treaty but President Vladimir Putin has questioned whether it meets Russia's interests, bearing on mind the INF treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500-5.500 km (300-3.400 miles).

Russia: ¿Getting Ready For Nuclear War?

A Russian general has called for Russia to revamp its military doctrine, last updated in 2010, to clearly identify the U.S. and its NATO allies as Moscow’s enemy number one and spell out the conditions under which Russia would launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the 28-member military alliance, Interfax reported Wednesday.

And Russia is spending money as if a nuclear confrontation with the U.S. is a very real possibility.  In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin has committed to a “weapons modernization program” that is going to cost the equivalent of 540 billion dollars. In line with this program, it is said Russia would be building submarines so quiet that the U.S. military would not detect them. These “black hole” submarines could freely approach the coastlines of the United States almost without fear of being detected. The U.S. Navy openly acknowledges that they cannot track these subs when they are submerged, so it would mean that the Russians would be able to sail right up to U.S. coastlines and launch nukes whenever they want.

Meanwhile...

• U.S. nuclear officers are actually still using floppy disks and other computer technology from the 1960s
• The size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been reduced by about 95 percent from the peak of the Cold War
• Most Americans still believe that “the Cold War is over” and that Russia presents absolutely no threat to U.S.
• The Obama administration has discussed reducing the size of their already neutered strategic nuclear arsenal down to just 300 warheads

But...

• Russian media is reporting that 60 percent of all Russian nuclear missiles will have radar-evading capability by 2016.
• Just this week, Russia conducted a successful test of the new submarine-launched Bulava intercontinental nuclear missile.

Most Americans don’t want to think on this, but ¿What if Russian subs could come cruising right up to U.S. coasts while americans are sleeping..., and launch missiles towards the main cities? Of course nobody on either side actually hopes that such a war will happen, but most wars are won before a single shot is fired, and right now Russia is working very hard to make sure that it will have the best chance possible of coming out on top in any future conflict.

Let us hope and pray that we never see a nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

Russia gripes about Korea leaning to U.S.’s Thaad

In a statement Thursday, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that deployment of Washington’s missile defense battery “will inevitably negatively affect the regional strategic situation and may stir up an arms race in Northeast Asia,” as well as complicate resolving the nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula.

It expressed concern over Washington’s move to bring “an American global missile defense system” to South Korean soil. Korea’s new Minister of National Defense Han Min-koo said in an interview on July 20 that the U.S-led Thaad “if deployed on the Korean Peninsula, will be helpful in controlling North Korea’s nuclear and missile provocations and strengthening the security posture” in the region.

Moscow expressed alarm that South Korea seemed to be leaning toward deploying an American antiballistic missile system and indicated such a move may fuel an arms race in the region. Russia has opposed U.S. plans to expand its missile defense shield as relations with Washington have plummeted, especially since the start of the Ukraine crisis and the China-Russia gas deal signed last May.

“Such statements cannot but make us alarmed, as the South Korean leadership had earlier stated repeatedly that the country intended to ward off probable missile threats through their own forces,” said Russia’s Foreign Ministry. But the U.S State Department said that the Thaad system is not aimed at Russia: “We have been very clear that it is not aimed at them,” U.S State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a briefing Thursday, “and we will continue talking to them and being transparent with them about why we are doing what we are doing.”

More U.S. nuclear missile officers implicated in cheating scandal

A U.S. Air Force investigation into exam cheating by America's nuclear missile officers has widened, with roughly double the original 34 officers now under review, a U.S. official said on Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity. The investigations also come just months after the head of the ICBM force, Air Force Major General Michael Carey, was fired for getting drunk and carousing with women last year while leading a government delegation to Moscow for talks on nuclear security. (Read more)

Russia to Deploy Rail-Mounted Nuclear Missiles

Russia Strategic Missile Force Commander announced that Moscow plans to deploy rail-mounted nuclear missiles as a defensive measure against the United States’ Prompt Global Strike missile program.

The benefits of a rail-mounted program include the ability to camouflage the missiles amidst commercial rail traffic, unlike more conventional silo-based nuclear missiles which can more easily be located and targeted. The START Treaty, signed by the United States and Russia in 2011, does not prohibit the development of rail-based missiles, although the fact that Russia decommissioned the last of its rail-based missiles eight years ago but is now restarting the program again suggests that Russia would be embarking on a nuclear arms build-up.

Russia’s military build-up would be a response to Washington’s plans to complete a project to install a missile defense system in Redzikowo, Poland by 2018 while another ballistic missile defense system in southern Romania is expected to be operational by 2015. Moscow fears that the missile shield is in fact offensive in nature and part of a NATO military encirclement of Russia.

The missile shield in Central Eastern Europe became a reality

On 28 October, work started at the former airbase at Deveselu in southern Romania on installing elements of the US missile defence system, specifically an Aegis system with SM-3 interceptors.

This means that the missile defence project is being implemented on schedule. From the Russian perspective, the start of work on the missile shield in Central Europe represents a failure of its policy of preventing the deployment of strategic US military facilities within the former Soviet sphere of influence.

However, it is unlikely that Moscow will soften its position and become more flexible with regard to the planned location of anti-missile launchers in Poland. 

The Shield in Central Europe

After a pause in implementing the original plan for the missile defence system during the presidency of George W Bush in 2009, which assumed the construction of a global system capable of capturing and neutralising all categories of ballistic missiles, the Obama administration has put forward a new plan for a shield for the region.

This provides for the suspension (at least until 2020) of the so-called fourth phase of the system, involving the deployment of missiles in Europe which could neutralise intercontinental ballistic missiles, while implementing the so-called third phase, based on installing Aegis anti-missile launchers in Poland and Romania, and on activating a radar station in Turkey (radar stations in the Czech Republic were also a proposed element of the Bush plan).

Negotiations are in progress on constructing a future missile defence system for NATO based on elements of the American shield in Europe, a plan which was approved at the NATO summit in Chicago in 2012.

Romania: ¿An aircraft carrier for the US?

The Deveselu base represents the second stage of the project to create a regional anti-missile shield (the first included the launch of the radar system in Turkey, and the deployment in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea of US Navy ships with Aegis systems).

The anti-missile launchers (3 SM-3 batteries, with a total of 24 missiles) is expected to be operational by the end of 2015. The third stage involves installing the same system in Poland by the end of 2018.

¿Failure of Russian security policy?

Russia has always contested the deployment of elements of a missile defence system within the former Soviet sphere of influence.

It has stated that the anti-missile programme poses a threat to its national security, although to a substantial degree its opposition actually derives from geopolitical causes. Russia made its cooperation with the United States and NATO on the missile defence system conditional on having the right of joint decision over what form the system takes (either by a joint decision-making process, or by imposing technical parameters that limit the system’s activity), as well as international legal guarantees that the system will not undermine Russia’s nuclear potential.

Russia has also put forward its own initiatives, including so-called sectoral missile defence, in which the Russian army would take responsibility for the defence of NATO’s eastern region. So far, Russia’s policy to prevent the deployment of the missile shield in Central Europe has been limited to diplomatic activity and periodic threats to take military measures (mainly by deploying Iskander missiles, which can destroy anti-missile installations, in the Kaliningrad region).  The military projects Russia has initiated over the last few months (such as the activation of the radar station in the Kaliningrad region, the deployment of Russian combat aircraft in Belarus, and the delivery of more S-300 missiles) are part of the accepted trend of modernising its armed forces, and have no direct connection with the American system.

Retaliatory measures by Russia (such as the deployment of Iskanders in the Kaliningrad region, possibly in Belarus, or least likely of all in Transnistria) will be postponed, and will ultimately depend on whether the US anti-missile systems are deployed in Poland. It must be regarded as doubtful that Moscow would treat the installation of the SM-3 rocket system in Romania as a signal to moderate its position (as NATO expects), or to show greater flexibility regarding NATO’s deployment of shield elements in Poland, especially as it regards a US military presence on its borders as one of the main threats to its security. An agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program, as was hoped for after the election of that country’s new president, would undoubtedly serve as an argument against the US deploying its anti-missile units in Poland.

(Read more)