Aby The Liberal

Aby August 20th, 2007

Origin and History of the US vs Soviet (now Russia) ICBM Race
The first steps to develop long range strategic missiles were taken by the National Socialist (Nazi) Germany during the World War 2. Known as Project Amerika, the rockets were developed with the intention to target and strike continental United States. The missiles were tested a few times during 1945, however the World War 2 ended and Germany was captured before they could be successfully deployed. Following the Operation Paperclip, the US administration secretly transferred prominent Nazi scientists like Erich W. Neubert and Wernher von Braun to America with assurances of immunity from persecution if they cooperated with the US in developing nuclear ballistic missiles.

A video of the first ICBM - the R-7, launched from Soviet base Tyuratam

Following the end of the World War 2 and the beginning of the US vs USSR Cold War, America began to deploy its forces in the bases of its NATO allies near Soviet Union (USSR). To counter the threat resulting from deployment of US bombers in NATO countries, Soviet scientists under Stalin’s regime started to research on long range missiles which could strike US mainland. The team was headed by aviation engineer Sergei Korolev and after a series of disappointing failures, they tasted success on August 1957 when the first ICBM, designated as R-7 Semyorka managed to cover 7000 km to strike a target in Kamchatka peninsula. The missile was capable of carrying a 2.9 MT nuclear warhead weighing 5.4 tons, up to a maximum range of 8600 km. A modified version of the R-7 ICBM was later used to launch the first satellite to space – the Sputnik 1 on October 1957. The US attempts to build an ICBM met with several spectacular failures till November 1958 when an Atlas missile logged a successful flight of 6350 miles, making it the first ICBM of the United States.

Early First and Second Generation ICBMs
Both the Soviet R-7 and US Atlas ICBMs used large launchers which were located in open space and vulnerable to an enemy attack. To make missile launch systems more secure against enemy first strikes, both the US and USSR started to develop underground Silo and sea based missile launch platforms. The period between 1960–70 was the second generation of nuclear missiles on which strategic missiles went from overground launchers to underground Silos and submarine SLBMs. The command and control centre were based separately from the launch locations for added protection. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the secret US nuclear missile deployments in Turkey created a situation of high tension and distrust between the superpowers USSR and USA resulting in the largest nuclear missile build-up in history.

The Third Generation ICBMs, MIRV and the Second Missile Gap
The third generation nuclear missiles (~ 1960-70) were marked by strategic missiles with multiple-warheaded MIRV capabilities. The LGM-30 Minuteman was the first ICBM to be deployed with MIRV warheads, in the late 1960s. The Soviets followed up in the early 1970s by modifying the heavy R-36M Voyevoda with MIRV warheads. The R-36M had a high throw weight of 8.8 tons, giving it a payload capacity of 10 MIRV warheads at 0.55 Megatons each or a single large warhead of 16-20 Megaton yield. The LGM-30 Minuteman, in comparison had a throw weight of less than 1200 kg which could carry up to 4 MIRV warheads of 0.17 kilotons each (or a single warhead of 2 Megaton yield). The US administrations of Reagan and Bush respected and feared the R-36RM (NATO name SS-18 Satan) to such an extent because of its speed, yield and survivability; that it became the focus of discussions with Soviet Union (now Russia). The START II treaty banned land based MIRVs partly because of the destabilising power of SS-18 Satan. However the treaty is yet to be ratified because of heavy opposition in Russian Duma (Parliament) against it. [Source]. The period was often known as “second missile gap“, as the lack of political will made the US strategic nuclear missile technology fell behind the Russian technology. To offset this disadvantage, the US started moving its strategic nuclear force to SLBMs and making long range nuclear capable ’stealth’ bombers.

The Fourth Generation ICBMs and the end of Cold War
The fourth generation nuclear missile age started somewhere around the 1980s with the introduction of mobile ICBMs, widespread submarine based SLBMs and hardened blast proof Silos. With the end of the Cold War and dissolution of USSR, the arms race between US and Russia (ex-USSR) decreased to a small extent. The US started to prioritise its conventional capabilities to spread its influence over the globe (often termed as ‘neo-imperialism’). Russia went into an economic crisis after 1991 which resulted in a severe cut-off in defence spendings, perhaps due to confidence on its huge military it inherited from Soviet Union. However Russia continued to research and develop its land based ICBMs and up to a little extent, the submarine launched SLBMs (perhaps to counter the US’ ICBMs’ accuracy advantage). The Soviet/Russian ICBMs of this generation were RT-2PM Topol (NATO desig. SS-25) and RT-23 Molodets (NATO SS-24 Scalpel) - both of them had mobile launch capabilities and heavy throw weights. The comparable US ICBMs were LGM-118A MX Peacekeeper and LGM-30 Minuteman III, both deployed in the 1980s - both of them known for high accuracy in targeting.

The Fifth Generation ICBMs and Present Scenario
The introduction of fifth generation ballistic missiles began with Russia’s RT-2PM2 Topol M and Iskander missiles after the re-emergence of Russia, owing to the recent economic boom. The fifth generation missiles are known for their high speed (scramjet rockets), manouverable warheads (MARV), high penetration decoys, cold launched mobile and fixed silos and a few other classified advantages. The Iskander tactical missile with a CEP of 10m is the most accurate ballistic missile till date. These missiles were deployed to preserve Russia’s nuclear deterrence in response to the US NMD (National Missile Defence) program which started to secure US mainland, on the lines of Moscow A-135 ABM defence of Russia. Russia has been opposing the US ABM system which would result in deployment of base-10 radars in Czechoslovakia and Poland, apparently compromising Russia’s national security. The Strategic Rocket Force (SRF) of Russia which overlooks the missile offence and defence system gained privileged status after the recent militarisation moves of Russian President Dr. Vladimir Putin. The latest missiles under development in Russian arsenal are RS-24 and RSM-56 Bulava, the latter a new generation SLBM.

Further Reads and Information -

• United States Nuclear Forces: ICBMs - Federation of American Scientists
• Long Range Ballistic Missiles of Russia - Anatoly Zak at Russian Space Web

• America , Military , Russia
• Comments(11)

Dmitri August 15th, 2007

Most of us aware of the history of World War 2 would be aware of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda in National Socialist (Nazi) Germany. If you wonder how the Germans could become prey to such anti-world and anti-Semitic views, it would be enlightening if we were to have a look at something new and more recent, closely similar to the policies and propaganda of third Deutsches Reich. Issued by the United States Department of Defense, the National Defense Strategy was signed by Dick Cheney (Vice President of United States) and approved by the previous US Senate. If one reads between the lines, it answers a lot of questions and doubts about how much the United States respects freedom and peace around the globe; also how international the US policies are…

On page 2 of the report, it talks about the ‘threats’ the United States faces in from its ‘adversaries’ in the international arena -

 

The US military predominates the world in traditional forms of warfare. Potential adversaries accordingly shift away from traditional military action and adopt asymmetric capabilities and methods……

• Traditional challenges are posed by states employing recognised military capablities and forces in well understood forms of military competition and conflict.

• Disruptive challenges may come from adversaries who develop and use breakthrough technologies to negate US advantages in key operational domains.

While challenges of competition in military and technology is a normal phenomena for any country that is something on the globe, it is only the US which finds it such a serious threat that a fear and paranoia against the whole world becomes an order of the day. Any nation with a strong and powerful military is a potential threat to the United States and need to be condemned if they cannot be silenced. Such an attitude breeds a perfect excuse for Americans to have some mud slinging at Russia, China or Venezuela - countries who stand as a threat to US supremacy either because of military power or ability to influence global oil price-market mechanism. It is no surprise then, when this distrust causes China and Russia respond by revitalising their military forces and deploying their nuclear missiles on US targets - just in case….

On page 5, on the objectives about how the United States seeks to remain the only global superpower - at any cost for any country -

 

• We will have no global peer competitor and will remain unmatched in traditional military capability.

• We will maintain important advantages in other elements of national power - eg. political, economic, technological and cultural

The first one is pretty self explanatory, in short the United States wants to remain The One in the field of military strength, at any cost. If this domain is challenged or threatened, the United States needs several strategies to counter the scales it its favour; which also include a propaganda campaign against those countries. The second objective gives an insight why the United States administration sees any independent political, technological or economic power as a threat, unless they submit to US will and become mirror puppets like Australia. “We will not have anyone who can beat us, we will attack them if they even dare to think of it.”

One the same page (Page 5), the report also speaks about the challenges and vulnerabilities which would be faced by America on the path to achieve these objectives -

 

• Some allies and partners will decide not to act with us or will lack the capacity to act with us.

• Our leading position in the world affairs will continue to breed unease, a degree of resentment, and resistance.

• Our strength as a nation will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial process and terrorism.

So, garnering international support or seeking justice through judicial process has become something as evil as terrorism. We can understand why diplomatic and peaceful methods are as serious as terrorism for the US government, they work more effectively and convince more people than the usual violent methods employed by terrorists. It is clear now why the United States totally disregards and discredits anything which serves greater interests of the world rather than its own, like Kyoto Protocol or Global Warming Summit. It is no surprise then, when some old time allies turn away from US demands; like France did by refusing to side with the US in Gulf War II (2003) or Spain who refused to side with US in the Libyan bombings of 1986.

So much for liberty, justice and freedom of choice - these terms have relevance only in relation to American people and their interests. For the rest of the world, using these ideals is on par with terrorism and need to be countered by all means. No wonder nations like Russia, China, Venezuela, etc. have such deep rooted distrust for the United States, they are aware of these government policies. Such propaganda based government policies coupled with past experiences make these nations suspicious of every US move till they are sure of the motives.

On page 6, the points state how the United States will secure itself from the threat or ‘international fora’ and ‘judicial processes’ which could be used by other countries -

The United States cannot influence what it cannot reach. Securing strategic access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons:

• Promotes the security and prosperity of the United States;
• Ensures freedom of action

In short, the United States wants to access and control all lines of communication on the globe so that they can influence global opinion and obtain freedom from being responsible for its actions. In the name of ’security and prosperity of US’ of course. It never liked international scrutiny for its actions, particularly its genocides, war crimes and more recently, the secret CIA torture camps. Never mind that the the United States accused the Nazi Gestapo and Reich Ministry of Propaganda of doing the same things during World War 2 era; America is holier than thou - over and above criticism, irrespective of its actions. A dose of double standards anyone..?

Any nation that values its national interests, security and self sufficiency cannot risk getting very close by military partnerships with the United States; the US would use its national objectives to subjugate that nation to a position of weak and voiceless. It is no surprise that Australia has become a mirror for American interests and voices around the globe without any real political or military freedom of its own, much to the humour of the rest of the world. Global leaders like Hu Jintao, Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez are aware of this and keep the US at an arms length when dealing with military or political issues. One has to read between the lines and ‘goodwill’ propaganda to see the Fourth Reich ideals hidden in….

More Information and Resources -

• The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America - Report on March 1, 2005 by the United States Department of Defense

• America , Sarcasm
• Comments(6)