Icelands president offers Keflavik airbase to Russia

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Large amounts of ABM missiles cannot be installed without inevitably giving the Russians considerable forewarning, whether we intended to or not.

At this point in time, the cost of strategic offense is substantially less than that of defense. Not only does Russia possess more than enough firepower to obliterate Europe many times over, the planned ABM site notwithstanding, but the cost of "just one more" nuclear warhead is significantly less than "just one more" kinetic-kill interceptor. For all the hemming and hawing about the high cost of C3I for atomic weapons, price tags on highly maneuverable, highly accurate kill vehicles are far higher.

So how does that address his counter argument? What justification do you have that the C3I cost for atomic weapons is cheap? Nevermind that the fabrication and maintenance of nuclear weapons is by no means cheap either. The cost of the missiles is far less than the massive ABM radar that will be built.

The United States is not looking at potential neutralization of the Russian arsenal within the near future, and certainly not without ample warning. It's just not possible.

Says who? A person like Stuart would tell you it's possible, and that they were working on it in the 60s and 70s before McNamara came along and gutted the defence system.

Not to mention that, if Russia's complaint is, "We can no longer hold you so completely at risk once this infrastructure is built," we've got every reason to do it, don't we? (Just like you've got every reason to oppose it.) The ABM is certainly no immediate danger to Russian strategic capability, however.

It doesn't take too much effort to install more missiles. So "immediate" is relative, and no damn competent fool isn't going to ignore future threats.

The new radars are valuable strictly for intercept plotting; we have plenty of early-warning systems aimed at Russia, and have had them for a long, long time. Often in countries right on your border.

I'm sure the Russians planned to launch a few missiles in the direction of Norway and Alaska when that time comes.

[Kane Starkiller]

For all the hemming and hawing about the high cost of C3I for atomic weapons, price tags on highly maneuverable, highly accurate kill vehicles are far higher.

The cost of a Minuteman 3, I believe, is about $7 million while the cost of a GBI is estimated currently at $20-$25 million or 3.5 times greater. Not only would the cost of a GBI fall if it was mass produced in similar quantities as the ICBMs but US economy is 6.9 times larger in PPP terms than Russian. So economically speaking it should be possible.

As for cruise missiles I heard there are plans to develop air launched PAC-3 which could handle them although I don't know anything specific.

[K. A. Pital]

You gotta tell Russia about "price tage on highly maneuverable KVs", Axis, since we have S-300V and the S-300 family in general with a family of heavy missiles suited for ABM intercepts.

Yes, you are right that stationary ABM missiles (those worth a damn, like the Moscow ABM) do cost a lot. They are also equipped with nuclear warheads so that they can take out incoming ballistic missiles more effectively. But they are only part of a wider defense system, just like ICBMs are a part of larger nuclear offense system.

The new radars are valuable strictly for intercept plotting; we have plenty of early-warning systems aimed at Russia, and have had them for a long, long time.

Those radars will become irradiated pits, since you don't launch an attack without taking out enemy EW first. Likewise, Daryal sites in Russia are heavily targeted by US planners.

[Samuel]

So having strategic US sites in Europe will make Europe a target in a nuclear exchange. Isn't this good for the US- it ties Europe closer to the United States and increases the number of targets an enemy would have to hit.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So having strategic US sites in Europe will make Europe a target in a nuclear exchange. Isn't this good for the US- it ties Europe closer to the United States and increases the number of targets an enemy would have to hit.

Good for the US, bad for Europe. Because at the end of it all, Europe gets cratered. They are better off being neutral, really.

[Beowulf]

For all the hemming and hawing about the high cost of C3I for atomic weapons, price tags on highly maneuverable, highly accurate kill vehicles are far higher.

The cost of a Minuteman 3, I believe, is about $7 million while the cost of a GBI is estimated currently at $20-$25 million or 3.5 times greater. Not only would the cost of a GBI fall if it was mass produced in similar quantities as the ICBMs but US economy is 6.9 times larger in PPP terms than Russian. So economically speaking it should be possible.

$7 million in which year dollars? Probably not current year dollars. If we assume it's the cost for the last missiles (built in 1978), then current year dollar cost (adjusted using the NASA inflation calculator) is around $22 million each. Or about parity. But wait, it gets worse. The requirement for positive control of nuclear weapons imposes a roughly 10x multiplier on the cost of the missile for silos, C3I, and other costs. That cost doesn't really apply to GBI, since if it accidentally gets launched, worst case is we lose a satellite. Oops, government pays out a bit of cash. Oh well.

[Sea Skimmer]

So having strategic US sites in Europe will make Europe a target in a nuclear exchange. Isn't this good for the US- it ties Europe closer to the United States and increases the number of targets an enemy would have to hit.

Europe is home to two independent nuclear weapons states and half of the most powerful military alliance in the world. It also has numerous bases on which US nuclear warheads are stored for duel key use by NATO aircraft in wartime. It is a nuclear target in any WW3 scenario no matter what. Russia would not possibly allow itself to be nuked by the US, while leaving Europe intact on its boarder, ready to exploit the destruction of Russian industry for its own ends. Europe gets nuked any way about it, so do a bunch of other states. The presence of US ABM will have zero effect on this… which is no doubt why Poland and the Czech Republic agreed to host the system. Their leadership isn’t nearly dumb enough to believe Russian propaganda about now being ‘forced’ to aim nukes at them, they damn well know the nukes are already aimed that way.

[K. A. Pital]

Russia would not possibly allow itself to be nuked by the US, while leaving Europe intact on its boarder, ready to exploit the destruction of Russian industry for its own ends.

Why? Why should we risk further nuclear devastation from Europe if they stay neutral? What "exploit" could there be after the US ravages Russian industry?

Their leadership isn’t nearly dumb enough to believe Russian propaganda about now being ‘forced’ to aim nukes at them, they damn well know the nukes are already aimed that way.

Which way? Russia did not target WARPAC and especially former USSR nations in the past, and re-targeting huge amounts of ICBMs and MRBMs from contingency plans against states that were prior considered safe isn't exactly making our leaders happy.

We are "forced" in the sense that there's one more strategic installation and thus several more nukes we would have to lob their way. The total amount of nuclear weapons expended against NATO bases increases each time a nation agrees to host NATO facilities, or US ABM screen elements.

And no, automatically going to nuclear war with everybody is not rational, it's the bullshit scenario. It's rational if Europe is NATO, and thus only rational as long as Europe cannot remain a truly neutral third power a-la China. You could argue that those nations already cast their lot with NATO and thus will be nuked anyway, but you can't claim they were to be nuked from time immemorial regardless of their NATO membership. That's just dumb.

[Samuel]

Why? Why should we risk further nuclear devastation from Europe if they stay neutral? What "exploit" could there be after the US ravages Russian industry?

Europe gets their oil and natural gas from Russia. I am sure they have a vested interest in liberating the supplies. Of course, taking Russia for territory is pretty stupid- it is much colder than the comperitive Western European latitudes. Plus than you would have a border with China, Kazachistan and whatever power emerges in the Cascus. Why the heck did Hitler want to conquer Russia again? Was it for Ukraine, because the rest is not exactly anything approaching fertile.

Off topic, but where the heck did you get that banner? Heck, where did you get all the banners and images- I liked Chairman Meow.

[K. A. Pital]

Europe gets their oil and natural gas from Russia.

The pipelines would be immediately wrecked in a nuclear war, by the United States, the prime European ally nothing less the best shot at re-establishing them over thousands of kilometers of Russian Fallout-style wasteland? Do you really think Europe has a shot at that amidst a nuclear war between Russia and US?

The processing facilities and oil wells are even farther away into Siberia, deep inside Asia, where I currently reside. From Europe, it's over 6000 km to travel. Those wells would of course be bombed by the United States again, since denial of industry is objective A in a modern large war.

Seizing the agrarian powers of Russia seem irrelevant under a nuclear war situation - the input will be extremely low, and the local population would not tolerate anyone taking food from them since it would mean death. Unless modern Europe will behave a-la Nazis, immediately taking over European Russia and forcing it's population to starve - which would generate massive casualties and partisan warfare, and doesn't seem to offer much benefits to Europe except the seized crops... nothing is of particular value in European Russia to Europe.

Why the heck did Hitler want to conquer Russia again?

He only wanted the European part of Russia and all of Eastern Europe up to the Urals and no further. Once the existing population of Slavs in the territories of Poland, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Belorus, Ukraine and European Russia has been mercilessly slaughtered and partly driven off into Siberia, 200 million Germans would be born to inhabit this land from the re-settled German colonizers. Estonia and Latvia due to their "racial purity" would have gotten a third or a half of population offed, the remainder "Germanized

Off topic, but where the heck did you get that banner?

I make them myself from the various commie graphics that one can find if he summons the spirit of Lenin through a Red Star pentagram... or wanders on the Russian internet, which is a scary place for people who cannot read cyrillics

[Axis Kast]

According to statistics supplied by the Brookings Institute, which consider “research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E, and procurement costs,” but not including lifecycle support (“operations, support, training, post-deployment upgrades or conversions, construction, and personnel costs”), each Minuteman III cost $33.5 million apiece. That’s three independently-tracking nuclear warheads for the price of $48.5 million, or $16.17 million per unit. I don’t imagine the cost of the ABM would be any less on a per-unit basis.

Another acquisition chart, “Average Unit Acquisition Costs for Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles,” from the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project, in 1996 dollars, cited the Minuteman III as a $50 million project, give or take, including “research, development, testing, and procurement costs” on a unit-by-unit basis. Again, the KKV for the ABM would cost much more, by this reckoning – particularly because there is only one vehicle for every three nuclear bombs.

Also, the costs of Russia's nuclear ABM is almost assuredly far less, per unit, than under the U.S. program, where the "shotgun effect" of the nuclear warhead doesn't correct for being "slightly off" in terms of intercept solutions.

Stuart would tell me that they tried to build an ABM system in the '60s and '70s, without being assured that it could function as ordered. He would not tell me that it is possible to erect tens of thousands of these in Eastern Europe or even within the continental United States without Russia being any the wiser. It actually takes quite a bit of effort to install more missiles -- which is how we kept finding out what the Russians were up to, and vice versa.

[Samuel]

The pipelines would be immediately wrecked in a nuclear war, by the United States, the prime European ally nothing less the best shot at re-establishing them over thousands of kilometers of Russian Fallout-style wasteland? Do you really think Europe has a shot at that amidst a nuclear war between Russia and US?

The processing facilities and oil wells are even farther away into Siberia, deep inside Asia, where I currently reside. From Europe, it's over 6000 km to travel. Those wells would of course be bombed by the United States again, since denial of industry is objective A in a modern large war.

I believe the US wouldn't bother bombing thousands of kilometers of pipelines- just hitting key points. Which means all you need to do is repair junctions and rebuild the wells. Yes, I know it would be insanely hard, but Europe lives and dies by those supplies- if it is possible to get them, they will. All they need to do is get in the heavy equipment- I am sure they could convince the survivors to work for them.

I make them myself from the various commie graphics that one can find if he summons the spirit of Lenin through a Red Star pentagram... or wanders on the Russian internet, which is a scary place for people who cannot read cyrillics

I guess I will have to rely on a wall of ignorance to protect me then- "dives in".