NATO: Russia's new missile lowers bar for the use of nuclear arms

[Rogue Valley]

NATO: Russia's new missile lowers bar for the use of nuclear arms

SSC-8 (Novator 9M729)

1/24/19
The U.S. looks set to quit a missile treaty with Russia after the latter failed to agree to destroy a nuclear-capable missile which is said to be banned under a decades-old agreement. A meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in Brussels on Friday broke up without agreement between Moscow and NATO's 29 member countries. Russia has said it will not comply with a February 2 deadline to destroy the missile, which is called the SSC-8 by NATO. The missile is thought to be able to carry nuclear weapons at medium range and with short notice, thereby threatening European cities. At Davos on Thursday, the secretary general of NATO warned that the new missile from Russia not only breaks a treaty with the U.S. but also lowers the bar for the use of nuclear weapons.

"Russia is in violation of that treaty. They have developed and deployed new missiles which are mobile, hard to detect, have a short warning time and they are therefore reducing the threshold for the use of any nuclear weapons," he said. The INF Treaty between the U.S. and Russia sought to eliminate nuclear and conventional missiles, as well as their launchers, with short ranges (310–620 miles) and intermediate ranges (620–3,420 miles). Stoltenberg said NATO would do what it could to help preserve the INF treaty but his military commanders were already looking into the consequences of Russia's new weapon and how it would need to be opposed. "This is really serious and we have to do this in a measured and responsible way." he said.

From Kaliningrad, the mobile-launched SSC-8 (Novator 9M729) nuclear-capable cruise missile can target five NATO capitol cities at a minimum. The SSC-8 uses the same mobile launch vehicle as the Iskander cruise missile, another INF violation.

Moscow maintains that the US SM-3 Block IIA interceptor missiles stationed in Poland, Romania, and on ships in the Baltic Sea violate the INF Treaty.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Don't see the point, you nuke those places, your nuked as well. And either way, nuking Europe countries it will lead to radioactive cloud over your country and pretty much the end of the world as we know it.

 

[American]

Don't see the point, you nuke those places, your nuked as well. And either way, nuking Europe countries it will lead to radioactive cloud over your country and pretty much the end of the world as we know it.

Link?

 

[FreedomFromAll]

Link?

Dont know anything about ww3? How old are you?

 

[Westphalian]

Not sure why RV is banging on about INF since the treaty is dead thanks to US withdrawal.


The 9M729 is a short range tactical missile whose primary target is the US missile defence system in Poland, and any forward operating bases in eastern Europe. Those monstrous wastes of US money will be first to go.

The 9M729 is not currently equipped with nuclear warheads.

Russia has no aggressive intent, but will defend itself extremely vigorously.

 

[beerftw]

Don't see the point, you nuke those places, your nuked as well. And either way, nuking Europe countries it will lead to radioactive cloud over your country and pretty much the end of the world as we know it.

Those intermediate range missiles bypass missle defense systems, not just through erratic path like the iskander, but also being mobile. most missile defense systems against nukes use a predictable path to target, as icbm's travel at mach 20-23 well above hypersonic speeds in terminal phase. They can be intercepted because their path is predictable, however intermediate range missiles from mobile launchers eliminate those advantages, as their launch site changes and their curve and travel much less predictable, greatly lower missle defence chances.

The us wanted missile defense systems against nukes, and russia wants mad to remain in full effect with no way of the other side being able to defend against nukes. It was a given that as soon as america was putting up missle defense systems, russia would violate the inf to ensure their nuclear deterrent stayed viable.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The 9M729 is a short range tactical missile whose primary target is the US missile defence system in Poland, and any forward operating bases in eastern Europe.

The Novator is a cruise missile that exceeds the range allowed under the INF.

The 9M729 is not currently equipped with nuclear warheads.

And how would you know that? It is nuclear-capable.

Russia has no aggressive intent....

:rofl Ukraine would strongly disagree. Russian soldiers still occupy parts of eastern Ukraine.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Moscow maintains that the US SM-3 Block IIA interceptor missiles stationed in Poland, Romania, and on ships in the Baltic Sea violate the INF Treaty.

Sorry, what?

The INF treaty says nothing about defensive systems. The only possible violation is actually of the ABM Treaty (1972), which limited the number of Anti-Ballistic Missile sites allowed by the US and USSR. But the INF treaty did not even cover defensive systems in any way.

The only possible claim that the INF treaty was violated is if they are actually considering the test missiles that are used to test the system. While technically those are Ballistic missiles and Ground Launched Cruise Missiles, they have not objected to them at all since they are declared to be without warheads and only used for testing the defense system.

So please, how exactly do defensive missile systems anywhere violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?

And I admit that by the most stringent definition of the treaty, it eliminates all missiles of ranges from 500-5,500 KM (310-3,420 miles). However, if the Russians were to try and claim that as the benchmark, this would eliminate far more of their missiles then it would of our own.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The Novator is a cruise missile that exceeds the range allowed under the INF.

Sorry, what?

There is no "maximum range" included in the INF treaty. The treaty was meant to eliminate anything of "Intermediate Range" or less. That means anything that could launch a nuke, be land based, and have a range of under 5,500 KM. It makes no prohibition on a weapon being "to long of a range".

Hence, the name INF, and not LNF (Long-Range Nuclear Forces).

By your claim, then all ICBMs are illegal under the treaty. And that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Westphalian]

Sorry, what?

The INF treaty says nothing about defensive systems. The only possible violation is actually of the ABM Treaty (1972), which limited the number of Anti-Ballistic Missile sites allowed by the US and USSR. But the INF treaty did not even cover defensive systems in any way.

[B]The only possible claim that the INF treaty was violated is if they are actually considering the test missiles that are used to test the system. While technically those are Ballistic missiles and Ground Launched Cruise Missiles, they have not objected to them at all since they are declared to be without warheads and only used for testing the defense system.

So please, how exactly do defensive missile systems anywhere violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?
[/B]
And I admit that by the most stringent definition of the treaty, it eliminates all missiles of ranges from 500-5,500 KM (310-3,420 miles). However, if the Russians were to try and claim that as the benchmark, this would eliminate far more of their missiles then it would of our own.

With respect, you are totally wrong. The nature and stated purpose of the system are irrelevant.


The issue is with the launchers which are capable of launching offensive missiles with a prohibited range. Russia has always been very clear about this.


You won't believe me of course because of my nationality - I won't ask what that says.


But you really need to read the INF treaty and see for yourself. Facts are facts.


PS The US has now unilaterally withdrawn from both ABM and INF. Congratulations.

 

[Fledermaus]

Not sure why RV is banging on about INF since the treaty is dead thanks to US withdrawal.


The 9M729 is a short range tactical missile whose primary target is the US missile defence system in Poland, and any forward operating bases in eastern Europe. Those monstrous wastes of US money will be first to go.

The 9M729 is not currently equipped with nuclear warheads.

Russia has no aggressive intent, but will defend itself extremely vigorously.

You don't nuke anti air systems.

You use air launched anti radiation missiles...

 

[Oozlefinch]

With respect, you are totally wrong. The nature and stated purpose of the system are irrelevant.

Then you should be able to show me where in the treaty that defensive anti-air systems (that are mobile and not armed with nuclear weapons) fall under the prevue of the INF treaty.

Please, feel free to do so. You say I am wrong, now kindly prove it. As I said, much of the INF treaty is indeed vague. And if this vagueness is claims for it's being violated, then you must also consider every system that the other side has that can also violate it.

You say the SM3 violates it, then how do the various Russian systems (like the S300) not violate it? Simply because it is mobile?

And remember, the treaties only discuss systems in the US and USSR-Russia. They do not discuss systems in other nations, like Poland. Kindly who me where it violated the INF treaty to place defensive systems in other nations.

I will wait for your response. Show me the relevant portions of the treaty that you insist are violated.

 

[Westphalian]

You don't nuke anti air systems.

You use air launched anti radiation missiles...

May I point out that it's only the Russophobes who are talking the 9M729 being nuclear.

But, regarding fixed and rather large ABM installations, land based cruise missiles are more appropriate and easier / quicker to deliver. We're not talking here about mobile AA systems which you seem to be confused with.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You don't nuke anti air systems.

You use air launched anti radiation missiles...

Well, while technically a HARM missile can be launched from any platform, every one I know of are air launched.

And there was a time that "nuking" an air defense system was the norm. But that was 40+ years ago. When the air defense systems themselves were nuclear armed. It is no longer applicable today.

 

[Westphalian]

Then you should be able to show me where in the treaty that defensive anti-air systems (that are mobile and not armed with nuclear weapons) fall under the prevue of the INF treaty.

Please, feel free to do so. You say I am wrong, now kindly prove it. As I said, much of the INF treaty is indeed vague. And if this vagueness is claims for it's being violated, then you must also consider every system that the other side has that can also violate it.

You say the SM3 violates it, then how do the various Russian systems (like the S300) not violate it? Simply because it is mobile?

And remember, the treaties only discuss systems in the US and USSR-Russia. They do not discuss systems in other nations, like Poland. Kindly who me where it violated the INF treaty to place defensive systems in other nations.

I will wait for your response. Show me the relevant portions of the treaty that you insist are violated.

I've already shown this in relation to INF text in another thread.


The INF Treaty is explicit about the banning of launchers which are compatible with launching missiles with the proscribed range. SM-3 launchers fall within that category.

Your point about 'defensive anti air systems' is irrelevant to INF. The question is whether the launchers used in such systems are also compatible with launching offensive missiles. This is why SM-3 launchers are a violation.

Regarding S-300, the launchers are unable to launch missiles with an over 500km range. The S series is not designed for use against ballistic missiles, and hence it does not violate INF in the way the US MDS does.

 

[Oozlefinch]

But, regarding fixed and rather large ABM installations, land based cruise missiles are more appropriate and easier / quicker to deliver. We're not talking here about mobile AA systems which you seem to be confused with.

This is a non-issue, since the US destroyed all of these systems back in 1991 (BGM-190G).

As part of the ABM treaty, the US deactivated all land launched cruise missiles in 1988, and within 3 years all were destroyed (or reconfigured to a ship launched or air launched mode). And while we are looking into bringing them back, it is still in an early phase which can be easily cancelled at any time. They are not even close to a "live fire" stage at this point. And it was only started after the Russians started their own project to make nuclear land based cruise missiles.

But I can not see the US ever deciding to use these in a large scale. They may place a handful in Central Europe to help bolster NATO (not unlike the Pershing series of ballistic missiles), but that is about it. Our current defensive situation for the US itself does not really call for them. Such a weapon makes no sense, unless we are invaded by Canada or Mexico.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I've already shown this in relation to INF text in another thread.

That is not this thread. Kindly show it again please.

If you already did it, then it should be easy to do so again. Just copy and paste your response.

​

Regarding S-300, the launchers are unable to launch missiles with an over 500km range. The S series is not designed for use against ballistic missiles, and hence it does not violate INF in the way the US MDS does.

And how does the S300S not violate the INF, yet the SM3 does? What language in the INF covers anti-ballistic missile systems? After all, that is covered in the ABM treaty, something completely different.

Please show me what language in the INF treaty limited the use of ABM non-nuclear missiles.

And remember, at the time that the treaty was drafted, the only ABM weapons that either side had were nuclear armed (although the US destroyed all of theirs in the 1970's).

 

[Fledermaus]

May I point out that it's only the Russophobes who are talking the 9M729 being nuclear.

But, regarding fixed and rather large ABM installations, land based cruise missiles are more appropriate and easier / quicker to deliver. We're not talking here about mobile AA systems which you seem to be confused with.

Your point is obscured by your ignorance.

 

[Fledermaus]

Well, while technically a HARM missile can be launched from any platform, every one I know of are air launched.

And there was a time that "nuking" an air defense system was the norm. But that was 40+ years ago. When the air defense systems themselves were nuclear armed. It is no longer applicable today.

I haven't seen a HARM or SHRIKE version that was ground launched.

Maybe Westphalian has intelligence on a sooper sekret missile we don't know about.

 

[Westphalian]

That is not this thread. Kindly show it again please.

If you already did it, then it should be easy to do so again. Just copy and paste your response.

And how does the S300S not violate the INF, yet the SM3 does? What language in the INF covers anti-ballistic missile systems? After all, that is covered in the ABM treaty, something completely different.

Please show me what language in the INF treaty limited the use of ABM non-nuclear missiles.

And remember, at the time that the treaty was drafted, the only ABM weapons that either side had were nuclear armed (although the US destroyed all of theirs in the 1970's).​

The ABM Treaty has been dead for 20 years. Why you keep referring to it is beyond me.


Regarding S-300, its interceptors do not exceed 500km range. Nobody except you seems to contest this.


Regarding INF, try reading the text yourself. It applies to launchers too. Simple fact.​

 

[Westphalian]

Your point is obscured by your ignorance.

What are you talking about?

 

[Fledermaus]

What are you talking about?

Your ignorance.





Duh.

 

[Westphalian]

Your ignorance.





Duh.

You need to be more specific, otherwise you come across as a purveyor of weak one line insults.


Actually .......... too late :roll:

 

[Fledermaus]

You need to be more specific, otherwise you come across as a purveyor of weak one line insults.


Actually .......... too late :roll:

I don't really need to be specific as ignorance pervades many of your posts....

 

[Westphalian]

I don't really need to be specific as ignorance pervades many of your posts....

I gave you the opportunity to be specific about my alleged 'ignorance'.


But there really is no debating anything with someone who is so shallow (and dare i suggest ignorant) that they can't substantiate their claim with anything except a banal generalisation. You really need to do better.