Russia may put nukes in Cuba b/c of USA E.Europe plans

[Ender]

link

MOSCOW, July 21 -- Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons could be deployed to Cuba in response to U.S. plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, a Russian newspaper reported Monday, citing an unnamed senior Russian air force official.

The report in Izvestia, which could not be confirmed, prompted memories of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the United States and the Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war after Nikita Khrushchev put nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island. The weapons were eventually withdrawn in an apparent Soviet climb-down, but President John F. Kennedy also secretly agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey.

A spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry declined to comment on the report Monday, but did not deny it. Izvestia is often a forum for strategic leaks by Kremlin and other officials.

"While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba," Izvestia quoted the source as saying.

It was unclear if the source was suggesting that Russia would reopen a base in Cuba or merely use an airfield there for stopovers by the bombers, Tu-160s and Tu-95s, which are already capable of reaching the United States from bases in Russia.

Russian strategic bombers, long mothballed, resumed worldwide patrols last year under orders from then-President Vladimir Putin. The flights have continued under his successor, Dmitry Medvedev.

Aircraft from the NATO alliance have repeatedly scrambled as the bombers approached but did not enter the airspace of alliance countries. The Russian bombers also buzzed low over the USS Nimitz, an American aircraft carrier, in the Pacific Ocean this year.

Some Russian experts dismissed the possibility of a new Cuban crisis. "It's very silly psychological warfare," said Alexander Golts, an independent military analyst, in a telephone interview. "Putin and Medvedev are very militant in words but very cautious in practical issues. They have not taken any step that can be seen as a real threat to the West, and I cannot see any reason to raise this threat against the U.S."

But "if it's true, it looks like a repetition of the Caribbean crisis" he said, using the common Russian term for the Cuban missile crisis.

Cuba was a client state of Moscow's for decades during the Soviet era. However, those ties have largely ended since the early 1990s. Russia closed its last base on the island, a radar facility, in 2002, and it is unclear whether the Cuban government would grant landing rights to Russian bombers.

The United States says it wants to deploy tracking radar in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland as a defensive measure against missiles that might be fired from countries such as Iran. U.S. officials insist that the system presents no threat to Russia, which, they say, could easily overwhelm it by launching multiple missiles at the same time.

But Russia views it as a means to peer into Russian airspace. Officials here argue it could be easily expanded to undermine their country's strategic defenses and that Iran is many years away from developing missiles that could reach the United States or its allies in Western Europe.

Putin has in the past invoked the Cuban missile crisis to register opposition to the missile defense project, saying it could touch off brinksmanship as dangerous as in 1962.

Putin also said last year that Russia could target the sites in Poland and the Czech Republic with missiles and deploy missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave that borders Poland, if the United States pushes ahead with its plans.

Medvedev has also registered opposition. And this month, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that "we will be forced to react not with diplomatic but with military-technical methods."

The United States has reached agreement with the Czech Republic, but negotiations with Poland have proved difficult, continuing in Warsaw on Monday. The Polish government wants the United States to upgrade its air defenses in return for the use of its soil for the missile defense system.

"The two sides have said they are drawing closer," said Piotr Paszkowski, a spokesman for the Polish Foreign Ministry, after Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski held talks with U.S. Assistant Undersecretary of State Dan Fried on Monday.

It's like the 60's, only without the wanton sex, drugs, and great music.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Didn't we already do this once?

[General Zod]

Didn't we already do this once?

My first instinct was to check the date on the article just to make sure of what I was reading.

[Ace Pace]

Didn't we already do this once?

My first instinct was to check the date on the article just to make sure of what I was reading.

Fuck yes.
This is quite..disturbing. What the hell is russia thinking? It doesn't have a real answer to ABM so it does this?

[MKSheppard]

Let's bring up some oldies from the Soviet Union's greatest Marshals and Premiers:

A most articulate Soviet commentator on nuclear strategy, Maj. Gen. Nikolai Talenski, argued for the ABM in the Soviet magazine International Affairs in these terms:

Only the side which intends to use its means of attack for aggressive purposes can wish to slow down the creation and improvement of anti-missile defense systems. For the peace-loving states, anti-missile systems are really a means of building up their security.

He went on to say:

The creation of an effective anti-missile missile system enables the state to make its defenses dependent chiefly on its own capabilities, not only on mutual deterrence, that is, on the good will of the other side.

and

The arms controllers have been battling against the deployment of an ABM system for ten years. They consider it "provocative" and inducive to another arms race. The fallacy of this reasoning was best pointed out by Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin during his visit to London early in 1967:

What would you say is more of a step toward tension in the military field, an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon?

And his answer to his own question:

The system that warns of an attack is not a factor in the arms race. On the contrary, it is a factor that reduces the possibility of the destruction of people.

It embarrasses me that this expression of common sense must come from a Soviet leader. Why do some of our political leaders not see the obvious?

The above is courtesy of Saint Curtis from his book "America is in Danger".

[FedRebel]

It's like the 60's, only without the wanton sex, drugs, and great music.

And without SAC

[Tanasinn]

As the article points out, assuming this is even true, there's no guarantee Cuba would go along with it. I really can't see why they'd want to, since it's only going to attract unfriendly attention from the U.S. in a time when it's finally tapering off, and in a time where Russian/Cuban relations have decreased.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Obama was at least somewhat friendly towards relaxed relations with Cuba. Assuming this is true, it would seem to be even more reason for Cuba to decline the "offer."

[Sidewinder]

I doubt the Cubans will allow Russia to base nuclear weapons in their country (unless Mahmoud Ahmadinejad somehow replaced Raul Castro as President of Cuba), not only due to concerns about the inevitable US military response (a blockade if they're lucky, an invasion if they're not), but because the Russians are no longer able to give a convincing answer when Castro asks, "What's in it for me?" During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was able to provide massive amounts of aid to its client states (it had to, or those client states might break off ties with the Soviets, like Yugoslavia under Tito, or worse, switch sides, like damn near everyone in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union). The Russians have only recently began to have enough money to throw at their military and get new equipment; if there's enough money to throw at the Cubans to get them to let Russia base nukes on their country, a Russian general/admiral will certainly say, "Hey, we need that money more than the Cubans do! We still need to build enough [insert next-generation weapons system] to counter the Americans' [insert another next-generation weapons system]!" Russian civilians will certainly say, "Hey, Russian aid should go to Russians first! Our children need better education, our elderly parents need better care, and our cities need better utilities, so we won't freeze to death when winter comes!"

[Veramocor]

I don't undertsand why the Russians are so worried about the missile defense system. Anyone have any thoughts?

They have plenty of missiles to overwhelm the system, without using any countermeasures. With countermeasures the system would be even easier for them to defeat.

[phongn]

I don't undertsand why the Russians are so worried about the missile defense system. Anyone have any thoughts?

They have plenty of missiles to overwhelm the system, without using any countermeasures. With countermeasures the system would be even easier for them to defeat.

Most of the expense of missile defense is in the initial fixed costs (sensors, datalinks, etc.). Once in place, it becomes (relatively) cheap to massively expand the system. Given sufficient numbers of interceptors, targeteering becomes an extremely hard task as "must-kill" targets become difficult to destroy with any certainty. The solution is either to (1) build a lot more missiles (and their associated silo and control link costs) or (2) accept that you may not be able to inflict the damage needed. Neither are really happy outcomes for Russia.

As for countermeasures (presumably you mean penetration aids?), they are largely ineffective.

[Ender]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Obama was at least somewhat friendly towards relaxed relations with Cuba. Assuming this is true, it would seem to be even more reason for Cuba to decline the "offer."

I know a lot of IL state government people are. Daley has gone down a few times IIRC, and several years back a good sized delegation went down to talk with them. I don't know of anything specific with Obama (and if there were anything I would imagine that we would have heard it in "he's a commie!" ads), but given the IL legislature it wouldn't shock me.

[FedRebel]

I don't undertsand why the Russians are so worried about the missile defense system. Anyone have any thoughts?

They're still suffering from the night terrors that started back when we had massive strategic supremacy over them and would frequently fly our bombers over their airspace with impunity

They interpret the ABM shields as being specifically intended to neuter their strategic capability and that they'll be as helpless and vulnerable as they were in the 50's

[A-Wing_Slash]

Why can't the russians just use nuclear submarines?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Why can't the russians just use nuclear submarines?

A good majority are mothballed and rusting in dock.

[MKSheppard]

Most of the expense of missile defense is in the initial fixed costs (sensors, datalinks, etc.). Once in place, it becomes (relatively) cheap to massively expand the system.

That's the thing. The Russians have had a working ABM system in place for the last forty years, and have continuously upgraded it; the latest replacement was with hit to kill interceptors. And the system's silos and missiles were originally sized for 30,000 kg missiles, our GBI is about a bit less than that.

You're telling me that we can make a missile that defends most of the continental US on about 30,000 kg, but the Russians can't make one that defends the majority of western russia on that size?

The big problem for the russians I think is, while the Moscow ABM system can shield the western part of Russia, they don't have anything to shield the eastern part -- it's all wide open to Trident and Minuteman; and building an equivalent system out east would cost $$$ which they don't have right now.

[MKSheppard]

The big problem for the russians I think is, while the Moscow ABM system can shield the western part of Russia, they don't have anything to shield the eastern part -- it's all wide open to Trident and Minuteman; and building an equivalent system out east would cost $$$ which they don't have right now.

Hum. I'm thinking further about this. Right now, we've pretty much sealed off the western approaches to CONUS with Fort Greely; it can slap down ICBMs and SLBMs coming in from the West -- namely Siberia and China.

But we're still vunerable to attacks from the east; because a GBI launched from Greely would take a bit too long to hit a SLBM or ICBM coming in from the east targeted on NYC or DC.

I think this is why they're so upset over the proposed European ABM site; it would seal off our Eastern approaches to SLBM/ICBM attacks -- they'd still bitch even if we built it in Maine.

[PeZook]

I'm not an expert, but isn't the Czechoslovakian radar going to be pointed in a direction that would make it close to useless for tracking Russian missiles?

[Surlethe]

I don't undertsand why the Russians are so worried about the missile defense system. Anyone have any thoughts?

They're still suffering from the night terrors that started back when we had massive strategic supremacy over them and would frequently fly our bombers over their airspace with impunity

They interpret the ABM shields as being specifically intended to neuter their strategic capability and that they'll be as helpless and vulnerable as they were in the 50's

They are specifically intended to neuter their strategic capability, aren't they? The way I see it, we are working to shield the US and Western Europe from missiles launched anywhere east of the 30th meridian, be it Russia or Iran.

[Medic]

I'm not an expert, but isn't the Czechoslovakian radar going to be pointed in a direction that would make it close to useless for tracking Russian missiles?

IIRC, this is correct, but because of the integrated nature of America's BMD (ballistic missile defense) efforts, we already have engagement sequence groups (or "ESG's" look up www.mda.mil 's 2009 defence budget for more info) which can track AND engage threat RV's with the AN/SPY-1 (Aegis cruisers and destroyers) and launch GBI's off of that information.

In other words, an appropriately-equipped American surface warship can be the eyes and ears for an engagement of Russian missiles aimed either at Europe or the continental U.S., especially with the Fylingsdale early-warning radar in the U.K. (and potentially IR-sensors in orbit) giving us a heads-up. This is the great unheralded aspect of BMD efforts: most ESG's involve sensors and weapons across different systems; i.e., a THAAD cued from an Aegis, GBI cued from the forward-based X-band radar (oil-rig looking thing with a dome on top, floating in the Pacific these days I think) or SPY-1 on warships, SM-3 cued by perhaps an AN/TPY radar (what's part of the THAAD system) -- everything that has a say in shooting down ballistic missiles "talks" with each other so every sensor system comes into play for every weapon system. In other words, the launching weapon system is decoupled from the dedicated sensors that that system. No weapon system is a "one-of."

National missile defense really is a misnomer, wherever it may still be used. The MDA's charter more or less says "build a national missile defense as soon as possible, as approved by congressional funding appropriations" but our current efforts are aimed at tackling ballistic missiles in all phases of flight and targeted at CONUS, OCONUS and allies.

[PeZook]

Oh. Yeah, I didn't think about it in those terms - it's kinda obvious, of course, to use the maximum possible advantage that modern communications can give you and integrate the fuck out of every single system.

It's no wonder the Russians are worried, though. Untill now I thought it was mostly political gamesmanship, an attempt to win concessions in exchange for gracoiusly allowing the missile shield to be built at all.

Hmm...hey, since the system is going to be integrated that much, does that mean that interceptors located in, say, Poland can intercept Russian, Chinese or Iranian missiles aimed at Eastern Europe?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Oh. Yeah, I didn't think about it in those terms - it's kinda obvious, of course, to use the maximum possible advantage that modern communications can give you and integrate the fuck out of every single system.

It's no wonder the Russians are worried, though. Untill now I thought it was mostly political gamesmanship, an attempt to win concessions in exchange for gracoiusly allowing the missile shield to be built at all.

Hmm...hey, since the system is going to be integrated that much, does that mean that interceptors located in, say, Poland can intercept Russian, Chinese or Iranian missiles aimed at Eastern Europe?

Stas pretty much mentioned a few times that the Russian thinking was that if the missile defence when up, the US could pretty much do what it liked with nukes, and the Russians would be utterly powerless due to the lack of a nuclear deterrent. He agreed that it was high time for Russia to look past ballistic missiles, but... money as always was an issue.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hmm...hey, since the system is going to be integrated that much, does that mean that interceptors located in, say, Poland can intercept Russian, Chinese or Iranian missiles aimed at Eastern Europe?

The system was always intended to cover all of Europe. The main limitation is radar capability, its fine to integrate lots of radars together but in reality only a handful of the biggest ones can really handle engagements against ICBM class ballistic missiles as China or Russia would fire. The 3000+ mile range X-band radar the US wants to put in the Czech Republic will have a limited field of view, and since its oriented towards the mid east it may not be able to cover all possibul launches out of Chinese or Russian territory.

However the whole point is, once we have the command systems installed, integrated, debugged and working we can add more radars and more interceptor silos relatively easily; though the costs are non trivial.

Stas pretty much mentioned a few times that the Russian thinking was that if the missile defence when up, the US could pretty much do what it liked with nukes, and the Russians would be utterly powerless due to the lack of a nuclear deterrent. He agreed that it was high time for Russia to look past ballistic missiles, but... money as always was an issue.

Fuck the Russians, they’ve been dumping a huge amount of money into new offensive nuclear weapons systems for a while now. Topol-M ICBMs, the Borei class SSBNs with Bulava SLBM, and the Kh-102 cruise missile. Meanwhile they bitch and moan that they can’t even guard plutonium stockpiles, or pay to cut up ICBMs banned by arms treaties years ago. The US military meanwhile already scrapped its most modern ICBM, and is in the process of scrapping its most modern nuclear cruise missile and cant even get funding for a new nuclear gravity bomb.

US has no reason to allow Russia to be able to nuke it on whatever budget Russia feel like spending. If they don’t like it, then maybe they can scrap all these new nuclear weapons and spend the money on their own ABM system, then we both float in the same boat. Anyway its not like the US even has any real air defenses to keep even one single Tu-160 from blowing away a dozen east coast cities and killing 30 million people in the process. That’s deterrent enough one its own, the damage one modern bomber could inflict.

[Wanderer]

US has no reason to allow Russia to be able to nuke it on whatever budget Russia feel like spending. If they don’t like it, then maybe they can scrap all these new nuclear weapons and spend the money on their own ABM system, then we both float in the same boat. Anyway its not like the US even has any real air defenses to keep even one single Tu-160 from blowing away a dozen east coast cities and killing 30 million people in the process. That’s deterrent enough one its own, the damage one modern bomber could inflict.

Damn McNamara, I can still find the ruins of Army Air Defense sites around Detroit.

Now its a sitting duck with a Million people in and around it.

[Kanastrous]

Isn't the simple solution to Russian nukes in Cuba, opening any war against Russia with a close-in SLCM saturation attack on Cuba? Get the missiles in their silos before the Russians or Cubans know what's happening...

...won't the Cubans be at least a little worried about making themselves into a first-wave target? I know that didn't appear to faze Fidel Castro, but maybe Raul is a little more cautious...

[Kanastrous]

Damn McNamara, I can still find the ruins of Army Air Defense sites around Detroit.

Now its a sitting duck with a Million people in and around it.

I grew up next to the remains of a Nike-Hercules radar site in Bethesda, MD, right outside Washington DC.