Posted on November 11, 2008 - by Venik

Medvedev’s Missile Myth. Or Not…

In his recent article in the Moscow Times entitled “Medvedev’s Missile Myth“, Alexander Golts – a Russian defense analyst (without technical education or military background, as seems to be the rule for Russian military “experts”) popular among Western journalists in Moscow – expressed the following idea:

“Imagine the following scenario: After the standoff between the United States and Russia has reached boiling point, the U.S. president decides to launch a nuclear first strike. Russian radar and spy satellites identify a launch of U.S. missiles directed at Russia. The Russian president gives the command for a nuclear counterstrike and simultaneously orders the destruction of U.S. missile-defense installations in Central Europe. To neutralize U.S. radar systems in the Czech Republic and missile-defense batteries in Poland, Russia launches Iskander missiles from Kaliningrad…

Is this the script of the latest cheap Armageddon novel? Not at all. I just carried the statements and hints made by Kremlin leaders to their logical conclusion. It all started when then-President Vladimir Putin, and now Medvedev, invented the myth that the United States is attempting to create a global missile-defense system to establish military superiority over Russia. This myth is based on the notion that the United States or NATO could launch a first strike against Russia and its missile-defense system would be able to fully intercept a counterstrike of Russian missiles, thus guaranteeing complete military superiority over Russia.

The indisputable fact is that this scenario dreamed up by Kremlin strategists is complete nonsense.”

And, you know what, I agree with Golts at least in part: ten interceptor missiles is not a threat to Russia in case of an all-out nuclear war. But this nonsense scenario was not dreamed up by Kremlin strategists, but by Golts himself. He thought he was taking Medvedev’s words to their “logical conclusion”, but he wasn’t. Instead, Golts had the 1960s nuclear Armageddon concept in his head – probably from all those years working for the Soviet Army’s “Red Start” newspaper – and he assumed this is what everyone was talking about. And in this case – once you realize that it takes about 10 interceptor missiles to destroy one ICBM and that Russia has 2,000 nuclear warheads – the ten missiles in Poland should be no issue for Russia. So why is the Kremlin getting all worked up about it?

US ABM sites (source: BBC)

And the answer is very simple: the interceptor missiles being deployed in Easter Europe do not concern the Russian military nearly as much as the powerful radar facility planned for the Czech Republic. Such radars are capable of detecting Russian ICBM launches thousands of kilometers away. Working in concert with existing ABM radar installations at the Beale AFB in California, Fylingdales in the UK, as well as planned radars constructed in Boston, Thule AFB in Greenland, Clear AFB and Shemya in Alaska, and various sea- and air-based ABM radars, the Czech radar in Brdy will complete the ring of long-range advanced ABM radars capable not just of detecting missile launches, but also guiding interceptor missiles and ABM laser aircraft, such as the Boeing YAL-1. Clearly, all of this just went over Golts’ head.

YAL-1 airborne laser targeting assembly

Then there is an issue of how expandability: today its 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and in ten years it may be a thousand. Also, today we may need 10 interceptor missiles to take down one ICBM, but, as ABM technology is improving, in ten years we may need just one or two. Right now Americans are just trying to get their foot in the door. Golts make one rather naive (and I am being polite here) assumption that the Americans will build the ABM sites in Poland and the Czech Republic and that this will be the end of the US ABM program. Of course it will not be the end.

Washington will keep on pushing and spending trillions of dollars until it is reasonably certain that it has effectively neutralized Russia’s ICBM arsenal. For people like Golts I will explain: “neutralize” does not mean that every single Russian ICBM will be intercepted by this defense network. However, this global ABM system will be able to intercept enough Russian missiles to scrap the MAD doctrine – the cornerstone of today’s balance of global nuclear power and Russia’s defense strategy. Behind the tremendous technical complexity of all these radars, lasers and interceptor missiles, there is very simple logic: if Russia knows that it will not be able to destroy its adversary in the case of a nuclear war, then it is far less likely to ever use its nuclear arsenal no matter what happens.

Floating SBX ABM Radar

Russia’s response of deploying “Iskanders” to Kaliningrad is a defensive half-measure that is only good enough to address – partially – the ABM threat from Poland and the Czech republic at this time. The only workable reponse to the ABM arms race initiated by the US when it pulled out of the 1972 ABM treaty is for Russia to set up similar ABM facilities around the US. Venezuela comes to mind. If Obama is smart, he will realize that this cat-and-mouse game that has been played by Moscow and Washington for the past sixty years consistently achieves only two things: shattered nerves and empty wallets. The US does not have the scientific, technological, or economic advantage over Russia significant enough to win this game. Even in its darkest hours, Russia has always been able to counter the US and then some.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Related posts:

1. Ronald Reagan at 100: man and myth | Stewart J Lawrence
2. Russia deploys anti-missile defence unit near North Korea
3. Medvedev threatens US over missile shield
4. US scraps plans for missile defence shield in central Europe
5. US missile defence: Shooting down Bush’s plans | Editorial