INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

I disagree that INF withdrawal is beneficial to Russia. It is not end of the world tho.

a) Russian more risks of quick preventive aggression for HATO countries - time of flight 3 km/s for 1500km is 809 mins...
b) USA doesn't give a shit about what happens to EU doggies hosting US weapons so adding more weapons to destroy those countries is just adding more strain on Russian economy

IMHO both above reasons are why US so gladly wants to withdraw from treaty.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I disagree that INF withdrawal is beneficial to Russia.  It is not end of the world tho.

a) Russian more risks of quick preventive aggression for HATO countries - time of flight 3 km/s for 1500km is 809 mins...
b) USA doesn't give a shit about what happens to EU doggies hosting US weapons so adding more weapons to destroy those countries is just adding more strain on Russian economy

IMHO both above reasons are why US so gladly wants to withdraw from treaty.

Expenses for those missiles are drop in the bucket. I doubt it will affect defense budget in any meaningful way let alone economy.

Not to mention security benefits it will provide.



And now that you mentioned EU doggos, Nuovo-Reich ain't too thrilled about the idea:


Germany to Washington: Don't Even Think About Placing Nuclear Missiles in Europe After INF Withdrawal

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-26/germany-us-dont-even-think-about-stationing-nuclear-missiles-europe-after-inf



And some good analysis about whole INF thing:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2019/01/people-who-really-matter.html

Looks to me that Ruskies will be sitting pretty after all

Hole wrote:The Bastion launchers as part of the coastal forces will carry two Zircon instead of two Onyx. But a "strategic" version as part of the strategic missile forces could carry more. Or take a heavier truck.

Just some ideas. The Forbidden Fruit of 'Pomegranate', what a 'Relief':












...The TEL for Pomegranate/Relief was widely produced/still in production MAZ 79111 TEL, of which the armored version looks awfully familiar:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I disagree that INF withdrawal is beneficial to Russia.  It is not end of the world tho.

a) Russian more risks of quick preventive aggression for HATO countries - time of flight 3 km/s for 1500km is 809 mins...
b) USA doesn't give a shit about what happens to EU doggies hosting US weapons so adding more weapons to destroy those countries is just adding more strain on Russian economy

IMHO both above reasons are why US so gladly wants to withdraw from treaty.

Your posts on this subject are quite embarrassing, and no surprise you refuse to address the overwhelming majority of the points in the article.

1.) A 5,500km range IRBM can hit Seattle (home of Microsoft) from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (Kamchatka Peninsula), the distance between them is 5356.90 km. The distance between Caracas to Houston is 3649.56 km, Caracas to Washington D.C. is 3320.83 km, Caracas to New York City is 3437.19 km, Caracas to Miami is 2203.12 km. The distance between Havana to Miami is 368.05 km, Havana to Washington D.C. is 1829.25 km, Havana to New York City is 2109.82 km, Havana to San Francisco is 4136.88 km, Havana to Los Angeles is 3690.06 km, Havana to Houston is 1490.88km. Managua (Nicaragua) to Los Angeles is 4056.85 km, Managua to New York City is 3400.86 km, Managua to Washington D.C. is 3118.11 km, Managua to Miami is 1646.27 km, Managua to Houston is 2179.36 km.

2.) The INF Treaty is only officially dead in late 2018, when in reality it's been dead unofficially since 2002. A Polished knob such as yourself should know, Poland, alongside Romania is basically Tomahawk cruise missiles sites (Mk. 41 cells) via Aegis Ashore. What's the point of maintaining the treaty when your already deploying cruise missile cells on land already.

3.) Because of the INF Treaty, The Federation was forced to divert part of it's Triad towards the European theater of which the treaty violating Tomahawk Mk.41 cells were located. Now it's nuclear triad can focus solely on it nuclear competitor.

4.) The U.S. was more than happy to get the USSR/Russia to sign in to the treaty, just look how the US has and a enormous naval (cruise missile platform) assets advantage compared to Russia naval capacity. Stop playing dumb, like you don't know this to be an overwhelming fact.

5.) The U.S. has several thousand km's between it's borders and other nuclear powers, where as Russia lives in relative proximity of no less than 4 nuclear powers (India, China, Pakistan, North Korea), and lets not talk about countries that host US nuclear weapons (Turkey), Aegis Ashore or U.S. Naval Tomahawk capable assets (Japan and South Korea).

6.) The U.S. has multiple close military allies that both have nuclear warheads as well as cruise missiles to fit them on (U.K., France, Israel). Are you going to pretend like this isn't an explicit fact?

7.) It's more cost effective to produce equipment in Russia circa 2019, compared to the USSR in 1989. Not only because of greater computer automation, but actual currency values between the Soviet Ruble of 1989 and the Russian Ruble 2019. In 1989 the Soviet Ruble even had more value than the U.S. Dollar, 60% greater value. During the month of May 1989, 77.6 Billion Soviet Rubles converts to $128 Billion, equating to 60% greater value. Now compare the value of the U.S. Dollar circa May 1989 to November2018, which the value of the 1989 dollar was double (2.04 to be exact)that of today's Dollar. Now compare the value of the U.S. Dollar and the Russian Ruble in November, which the Dollar value has 67 times the value of the Russian Ruble. Now compare Russian Ruble circa 2019 to the US Dollar circa 1989, which the value of the US Dollar circa May 1989 (2.04 x 67) was 136.68 times the value of Russian Ruble of 2019. Now lastly lets compare the value of the Soviet Ruble circa May 1989 to the Russian Ruble 2019, which the the Soviet Ruble value was a whopping 228 times the value of the Russian Ruble circa 2019. Soviet Ruble circa 1989 was 228 times the value of the Russian Ruble circa January 2019; so in no way in hell will it be as expensive to mass produce IRBM's now compared to back then...you would know this if you weren't crying that the sky is falling, now change your soiled trousers Chicken Little:

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/31/world/soviet-military-budget-128-billion-bombshell.html


8.) The USSR's IRBM 'Pioneer' was vastly superior to anything deployed by the U.S. in Europe, but don't take my word for it, one of the main creators/designers (Yuri Solmonov) of Pioneer, Topol-M, Yars, Bulava, Avantgarde, just listen to him on this subject (he's supports the death of the fake INF Treaty):

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Your posts on this subject are quite embarrassing, and no surprise you refuse to address the overwhelming majority of the points in the article.

You have full  right to stick to your refusal to cope with information that resources, also in Russia, re not endless. Either you spend on new missiles or hospitals. It is XOR not AND.
But if you live in the world of endless resources then I am fine with this too.

BTW why do you need an extra IRBM is Rubezh can hit 2000km and can have global range?

Actually exit from the INF treaty would save Russia some money... up until now the missiles targeting Europe can either be the 500km range Iskander, or ICBMs or SLBMs.

By allowing medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles and ground launched cruise missiles they can use smaller lighter cheaper missiles to cover targets in the EU, northern north America, China, and the Middle East as well as South Korea and Japan...

The fact is that any country within the EU could make medium and intermediate range missiles... including the Ukraine because the INF treaty only limits the US and Russia. The UK or France or Germany could make them if they wanted...

I would say the most efficient solution for Russia would simply be to take an existing ICBM and load it up with an enormous warhead section to carry a huge number of warheads... say 50 or 60, but with all that weight and space the range of the missile would likely drop from ICBM range to IRBM range...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Your posts on this subject are quite embarrassing, and no surprise you refuse to address the overwhelming majority of the points in the article.

You have full  right to stick to your  refusal to cope with information that resources, also in Russia, re not endless. Either you spend on new missiles or hospitals. It is XOR not AND.
But if you live in the world of endless resources then I am fine with this too.

BTW why do you need an extra IRBM is Rubezh can hit 2000km and can have global range?

So you don't want to address that the Soviet Ruble had 228 times the current Ruble value? What about the extremely low debt to GDP ratio? What about the budget surplus? What about the low Flat Tax (approx 13% of annual salary)? All of the military budget was consolidated by a low Flax Tax, just raise the Flat Tax by 3% and that should be more than enough to handle the funds for IRBM's. The launcher TELs, missile/ballistic systems (Avantgarde, Kinzhal/Iskander, Zircon), quick pop-up rocket stages are either in service or already coming in to service, there isn't going to be lengthy and expensive development periods for things that already coming in to production. Again your playing dumb like you didn't read the economics thread, the majority of the budget in the next 6 years is going to be spent on civil projects. I know for a fact that you read that thread, but yet again your playing dumb. Again, soiling your trousers and claiming the sky is falling, doesn't mean it actually will Chicken Little.

GarryB wrote:

I would say the most efficient solution for Russia would simply be to take an existing ICBM and load it up with an enormous warhead section to carry a huge number of warheads... say 50 or 60, but with all that weight and space the range of the missile would likely drop from ICBM range to IRBM range...

I actually like 2 solutions for this.

1.) Like you suggested, have a existed ICBM fitted with a bunch of Avantgarde warheads.

2.) Take a bunch of Kinzhals, and stick a large high energy stage. Same option with Zircons.

The more I think about it the more I think the Russians should go hard and heavy and develop that 100MT warhead if they haven't done so already and make it clear to the west that any WWIII scenario with Russia will result in obliteration of the west.

They need to make it clear there wont be any survivors in the EU or US... and even if there were they will wish they were dead...

The west needs to understand that this is suicide for both Russia and the West and wont be a choice Russia takes lightly or if it has a viable alternative...

WWIII will not be Russia invading EU countries, there will be no land grabbing or occupation, if Russia has to use military force against a European country it will be complete destruction with no plans for future occupation or territory acquisition... it will be Russia defending itself from external aggression with lethal force... ie 100MT explosion on the enemy countries capital city and more for every major city they have, plus others for any US military base on their territory just for good luck...

magnumcromagnon wrote:

So you don't want to address that the Soviet Ruble had 228 times the current Ruble value? What about the extremely low debt to GDP ratio? What about the budget surplus? What about the low Flat Tax (approx 13% of annual salary)? All of the military budget was consolidated by a low Flax Tax, just raise the Flat Tax by 3% and that should be more than enough to handle the funds for IRBM's. The launcher TELs, missile/ballistic systems (Avantgarde, Kinzhal/Iskander, Zircon), quick pop-up rocket stages are either in service or already coming in to service, there isn't going to be lengthy and expensive development periods for things that already coming in to production. Again your playing dumb like you didn't read the economics thread, the majority of the budget in the next 6 years is going to be spent on civil projects. I know for a fact that you read that thread, but yet again your playing dumb. Again, soiling your trousers and claiming the sky is falling, doesn't mean it actually will Chicken Little.

even if 2  billions $ will be used extra to IRBM defense/new missiles it is still 120 billions rubles.

So you can double budget  all state research programmes

Almost by one third, and in actual terms by 25 billion rubles, the starting budget of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations for 2018 will be increased in comparison with what was at the start of 2017. And the total amount of funds allocated should exceed 109 billion rubles - the head of FANO, Mikhail Kotyukov, said this when answering the RG question.

https://rg.ru/2017/12/20/biudzhet-fano-v-2018-godu-uvelichat-na-25-mlrd-rublej.html


or 27% of yearly health care spending in Russia.

The draft budget: for health care in 2018 will allocate 438.3 billion rubles

https://ria.ru/20170918/1504987825.html



if you say it is nothing, well then we disagree about that

Just a few remarks.

The Pioneer (SS-20) was developed and deployed because of the english and french nuclear weapons. Why waste ICBM´s to hit targets that are so close at home was the inntetion behind the decission. Also IRBM´s were and are much cheaper than 100t+ ICBM´s.

Even if Russia would go back to the levels of the 80´s it would cost max. 10 Bill. a year. This year they got 50+ Bill. surplus in the budget. Next year it will be the same. So enough money to spend on all national projects and new weapons for the next 3 - 4 years. Also a lot of the military budget will be freed in the next years after all the new infrastructure building is coming to an end.

Remember the old russian saying: if you are not ready to feed your own army, you will feed the army of someone else.

There is also a flaw in the article about the INF treaty. The guy counts all silos of the ami navy and claims they could launch 10.000 cruise missiles. This is wrong. At least 2/3 of all surface ship silos would be used for air defence missiles and some ASW missiles. The rest would be free for cruise missiles. The silos of ships that are not deployed overseas are empty because there are not enough missiles of all types in the inventory.

Another aspect would be the threat to export IRBMs the equivalent of SS-20, but modernised... smaller and lighter and easier to hide...

Perhaps the threat that will get Americas attention is to sell such weapons to North Korea and Iran.

The original missiles from the 1980s needed nuclear warheads because accuracy was something like 200-250m CEP, but these days accuracy would be less than 10m so conventional explosive warheads could be used making them easily exportable...

If countries are going to impose sanctions on Russian companies for selling to countries the US does not like then those sanctioned companies should feel free to sell to those countries anything they want so they can make money to compensate for any losses or issues created by the sanctions from the US.

If the US can back out of international agreements then so can Russia... the non proliferation treaty and the one limiting sales of long range missiles spring to mind.

Hole wrote:
Even if Russia would go back to the levels of the 80´s it would cost max. 10 Bill. a year. This year they got 50+ Bill. surplus in the budget. Next year it will be the same. So enough money to spend on all national projects and new weapons for the next 3 - 4 years. Also a lot of the military budget will be freed in the next years after all the new infrastructure building is coming to an end.

Remember the old russian saying: if you are not ready to feed your own army, you will feed the army of someone else.
.

why are you talking about  budget surplus? it is good. But this is not the point.  I never said Russia wont build new missiles. I only say it is not good for Russia. West has mildly speaking 10:1 more resources to spend on military.  Arms race is one way to destroy adversary without even starting a war.

 There is never too much money. At least as long as new roads needs to be built, R&D increased or people who are very very poor.  There are still very poor people in Russia. Recently Sovfed rejected idea of increasing MROT (minimal wage to $415$/month) - no money. /many people in province work for $200 (~12500 rub AFAIK) per month. Will you tell them OK you can live in poverty because we spend "only 120billions rubles of more on missiles?!

There is never too much money. At least as long as new roads needs to be built, R&D increased or people who are very very poor. There are still very poor people in Russia. Recently Sovfed rejected idea of increasing MROT (minimal wage to $415$/month) - no money. /many people in province work for $200 (~12500 rub AFAIK) per month. Will you tell them OK you can live in poverty because we spend "only 120billions rubles of more on missiles?!

Ummm, so you are saying they can either make lots of IRBMs or that money will go directly to people in low wage jobs to help improve their lives.

You sound like a politician in opposition criticising a governments policies...

Whether they spend any money on IRBMs, or divert existing spending on existing systems to focus on the new range bracket of systems they already have in development and production their net spend might actually be a saving.

Smaller, lighter shorter ranged missiles to replace bigger heavier more expensive missiles, that could now be freed up for satellite launches or exports...

I think a much better argument is how much less safe it makes Europe, because the small size of these weapons and their relatively high speed means warning times will become much shorter and the IADS network needed to deal with these potential threats will be enormously expensive... but Russia is already spending that money and further developing its air defence network, while NATO and the EU pretty much have an air policing agreement with fighter planes but no ABM setup that incorporates national defence of individual countries in Europe.

The ABM system the US is setting up is to stop threats on their way to the US...

So don't fret for the poor people in Russia... worry about the poor people in EU countries because these countries are either going to have to live in denial, or increase their "defence" spending to like 20% for the next few decades to beef up their air defence capacities.

In comparison the cost of building 5,000 subsonic cruise missiles with significant range and basing them in European Russia would be relatively cheap.

With their new breeder reactors, making 5,000 new nuke warheads will be relatively quick and easy, meaning inertial guidance will be fine... no need for complex or expensive terminal guidance because 1km CEP is perfectly adequate for city bashing missiles...

GarryB wrote:

There is never too much money. At least as long as new roads needs to be built, R&D increased or people who are very very poor.  There are still very poor people in Russia. Recently Sovfed rejected idea of increasing MROT (minimal wage to $415$/month) - no money. /many people in province work for $200 (~12500 rub AFAIK) per month. Will you tell them OK you can live in poverty because we spend "only 120billions rubles of more on missiles?!

Ummm, so you are saying they can either make lots of IRBMs or that money will go directly to people in low wage jobs to help improve their lives.

You sound like a politician in opposition criticising a governments policies...

Whether they spend any money on IRBMs, or divert existing spending on existing systems to focus on the new range bracket of systems they already have in development and production their net spend might actually be a saving.

Smaller, lighter shorter ranged missiles to replace bigger heavier more expensive missiles, that could now be freed up for satellite launches or exports...

I think a much better argument is how much less safe it makes Europe, because the small size of these weapons and their relatively high speed means warning times will become much shorter and the IADS network needed to deal with these potential threats will be enormously expensive... but Russia is already spending that money and further developing its air defence network, while NATO and the EU pretty much have an air policing agreement with fighter planes but no ABM setup that incorporates national defence of individual countries in Europe.

The ABM system the US is setting up is to stop threats on their way to the US...

So don't fret for the poor people in Russia... worry about the poor people in EU countries because these countries are either going to have to live in denial, or increase their "defence" spending to like 20% for the next few decades to beef up their air defence capacities.

In comparison the cost of building 5,000 subsonic cruise missiles with significant range and basing them in European Russia would be relatively cheap.

With their new breeder reactors, making 5,000 new nuke warheads will be relatively quick and easy, meaning inertial guidance will be fine... no need for complex or expensive terminal guidance because 1km CEP is perfectly adequate for city bashing missiles...

GarryB, remember the polished-knob your quoting thinks spending tens of billions developing a competitor F-35 program is a better relocation of funds. Replace IRBM's with a S/VTOL aircraft like a Russified F-35II B Lightning, and he'll start frantically masturbating like Randy Marsh with a strong WiFi signal...

GarryB wrote:

There is never too much money. At least as long as new roads needs to be built, R&D increased or people who are very very poor.  There are still very poor people in Russia. Recently Sovfed rejected idea of increasing MROT (minimal wage to $415$/month) - no money. /many people in province work for $200 (~12500 rub AFAIK) per month. Will you tell them OK you can live in poverty because we spend "only 120billions rubles of more on missiles?!

Ummm, so you are saying they can either make lots of IRBMs or that money will go directly to people in low wage jobs to help improve their lives.

Poor were just an example the there are needs on different levels not only new missiles. You seem to confuse 2 things - I am not saying Russia wont buy new IRBMs or whatever they need. All I am saying it that this will cause increase in military spending.

IMHO this is the main idea of US INF withdrawal. Military is secondary reason.

Amiland spends already 1 Trill. and ist military looks the same as the russian one in the 90´s. In 10 years they will have to spend 1,5 or even 2 Trill. just to keep part of their forces combat capable. Just some foolish politicians (and the oligarchs that pay them) could think that they can outspend Russia (and China, Iran...).

Coming back to the economics of building some missiles: this will be high paying jobs in an high tech sector. Thousands of jobs. A lot of the spend money will go back to the state in form of taxes, the rest will be spend by the people = GDP growth! Compared to Trumpland this will be real growth because Russia doesn´t need to borrow the money.

Hole wrote:
Coming back to the economics of building some missiles: this will be high paying jobs in an high tech sector. Thousands of jobs. A lot of the spend money will go back to the state in form of taxes, the rest will be spend by the people = GDP growth! Compared to Trumpland this will be real growth because Russia doesn´t need to borrow the money.

if development of military sector is so good Russia then why Putin wants military companies to diversify with civilian products? Why Putin decided to bring down on military spending to 3% GDP ? he shpuld increase them isnt it?

The answer is simple. Imagine, I am say moving to USA. Country of possibilities and my Us owner employer pays me $1,000 per month. I rent a flat for $300. The next year my rent goes up to $350, so folloing in your logic I have more money now to spend on different things? do I get this right?

GarryB, remember the polished-knob your quoting thinks spending tens of billions developing a competitor F-35 program is a better relocation of funds.

Yes, I did notice a certain member suggest STOVL 5th gen fighters be developed to save a small amount of money building carriers... though he seemed to suggest that they would buy more smaller carriers than they could have if they bought bigger carriers so I really don't think there would be any money saved on carriers either...

ie don't buy the 1kg of cheese it is too expensive... it is $10, instead buy a new cheese cutter for $30 and buy the 250 gramme packets of cheese... you will only need to buy three of them... but you end up saving... nothing and get three small inferior carriers.

Poor were just an example the there are needs on different levels not only new missiles. You seem to confuse 2 things - I am not saying Russia wont buy new IRBMs or whatever they need. All I am saying it that this will cause increase in military spending.

I agree they should not waste money on unnecessary programmes, but the fact is that making Iskander longer ranged and big missiles shorter range to fill the gap would not cost much money at all.

They will currently have ICBMs targeted at Europe and China and Japan and SK and other places with US forces... being able to target those places with shorter ranged smaller lighter missiles might actually save a bit of money by reducing the number of big missiles they need.

Further more the expensive of building an IADS to cover the Russian territories... they are already doing that... but having to do that will cost the EU and enormous amount of money if they are honest, but I suspect they will just go into denial and ignore the problem of their vulnerability and not mention how exposed they are.

IMHO this is the main idea of US INF withdrawal. Military is secondary reason.

I suspect it is more a case that China has a fleet of mostly IRBMs that are not covered by the INF treaty and so the US has to counter them with shorter ranged missiles close to China or much more expensive much longer ranged missiles (like Russia does in Europe).

They clearly want IRBMs they can base in SK and Japan and threaten china with.

Amiland spends already 1 Trill. and ist military looks the same as the russian one in the 90´s. In 10 years they will have to spend 1,5 or even 2 Trill. just to keep part of their forces combat capable. Just some foolish politicians (and the oligarchs that pay them) could think that they can outspend Russia (and China, Iran...).

Most of the money they spend is infrastructure for a world wide empire of bases...

And that will only increase in costs.

if development of military sector is so good Russia then why Putin wants military companies to diversify with civilian products? Why Putin decided to bring down on military spending to 3% GDP ? he shpuld increase them isnt it?

Russian forces are defensive and should not become like the bloated western conglomerates that promote wars via the media they own to sell product... weapons in the US are like the illegal drug trade... except the pushers own the media and the government...

The answer is simple. Imagine, I am say moving to USA. Country of possibilities and my Us owner employer pays me $1,000 per month. I rent a flat for $300. The next year my rent goes up to $350, so folloing in your logic I have more money now to spend on different things? do I get this right?

A poor example.

The US is withdrawing from the INF treaty... Russia gets little say... they tried through the UN to get some discussion going but it was voted down by all those European countries that will start squealing about their defence situation very soon.

If the US withdraws from the INF treaty they already have Mk-41 launchers in place in Europe so it would be trivial to load naval cruise missiles there immediately.

This represents a threat to Russia... the obvious solution would be to target those launchers and their support systems with hypersonic missiles recently revealed, like Kinzhal... which is an excellent solution but longer term a much longer ranged ground launched weapon would make more sense and be cheaper and easier to deploy.

The current Iskanders range is limited artificially by the INF treaty and likely could be extended enormously with a few minor changes... for example its warhead could be reduced and made nuclear only for the IRBM role in the EU. The current vehicle carries two ready to launch missiles so making it a single missile equipped system could allow for a much much bigger missile perhaps with multiple powerful warheads...

New technology could be applied to make it more capable... a scramjet booster engine could extend range and boost terminal velocity...

These things could be easy to impliment and not that expensive.

As I previously mentioned thousands of subsonic 3-4 ton jet powered cruise missiles with inertial guidance and a big nuke weapon would be cheap to make and store... they could have bigger wings and twin engines and have a range of 6-10,000km so even if the US changes its mind and goes back to the table to discuss the INF treaty they wont need to scrap them...

And that is important too... make sure any money spent is not wasted... an upgraded Iskander could be air and sea launched so even if the INF treaty goes back into play they still get the new capabilities...

Ironic eh?

At one time I was worried that they might drop out of the INF treaty... because these weapons are very destabilising and any limits on western weapon capability is a good thing for Russia, but now I am worried that Trump might flip flop again and demand a different deal that is better for the US... fuck that.

GarryB wrote:

IMHO this is the main idea of US INF withdrawal. Military is secondary reason.

I suspect it is more a case that China has a fleet of mostly IRBMs that are not covered by the INF treaty and so the US has to counter them with shorter ranged missiles close to China or much more expensive much longer ranged missiles (like Russia does in Europe).

They clearly want IRBMs they can base in SK and Japan and threaten china with.

I agree, military component is very much part of it. In Russia case it wont provide that much leverage anyway: ships with tomahawks are around Russia same with ABM bases already.

GB wrote: A poor example.

The US is withdrawing from the INF treaty... Russia gets little say... they tried through the UN to get some discussion going but it was voted down by all those European countries that will start squealing about their defence situation very soon.

in contrary ti is a great example. You seem to mix 2 things to me. I'm not saying Russia should not respond. Nope. All am saying it that Russia will respond but this is a forced measure and not something Russia look forward to.

Lets say Russia spends 10 Bill. on this. The money goes to companies which will keep or even expand ist workforce and pay them. The russian state will get 2 - 2,5 Bill. back trough taxes from this companies and their employees. The companies will spend money on supplies for their products, the workers will spend money to life which will return more money to the state and keep people in other sectors of the economy employed and so on.

Good example is the new deal under Roosevelt. The state spend a lot of money employing people who build streets and bridges and dams. It brought people back to work and laid the foundation for later growth. But the real braketrough for the economy was the war, when Amiland spend an insane amount of money on weapons, but after the war the yards and plane factories and tank and truck manufacturers changed some of their production to civil products.

Spending money on missile producers in Russia will benefit the producers of electronics, engines and all the stuff you need for an IRBM, but it will also benefti the civilian (space) missile program and the tech industry. Spending a few billions on some missiles will lead to enormous growth later on.

Compared to "our western partners" Russia is spending money that it has. It doesn´t need to borrow one ruble to spend, neither on the national Projects (russias new deal) or weapons procurement.

I agree, military component is very much part of it. In Russia case it wont provide that much leverage anyway: ships with tomahawks are around Russia same with ABM bases already.

The problem I see is political... you can bet your ass when the US says... who wants to be the home of nuclear armed missiles to point at Russia, all the baltic states and some of eastern europe are going to be jumping in the air shouting "Pick me, pick me", and they are going to tell their people how much safer this will make them and how scared Russia will be.

In fact now that I think about it, this would be a huge win for Russia too... why would Russia not want to point a devastating nuclear missile force at the little pain in the ass neighbours that are bitching and complaining and voting against them at every opportunity and taking every chance to hurt Russia at various EU organisation votes.

This gives them a legitimate excuse to ensure these people don't survive to reproduce for WWIV.

in contrary ti is a great example. You seem to mix 2 things to me. I'm not saying Russia should not respond. Nope. All am saying it that Russia will respond but this is a forced measure and not something Russia look forward to.

Of course we all agree that this is a forced measure being pushed by the US, but do you want a meek response or one that might make the US and certainly the EU reconsider their both their choices and who they trust to keep their interests in mind.

The US is hanging out the EU to dry and the EU don't seem to care enough to stand up and say no to the US... they are pavlovs dog barking and getting their treats from the US. Except this time their barking is going to get them put down... I really don't think the people of the EU will accept the governments of the countries within the EU cooperating with the US on a decision that will get huge numbers of new nuclear armed missiles pointed at their cities and their countries again... they have other shit to worry about that their governments are failing at too... if you own a fabric company... start making yellow fluro fabric in bulk.... they are going to need it.

Hole wrote:
Spending money on missile producers in Russia will benefit the producers of electronics, engines and all the stuff you need for an IRBM, but it will also benefti the civilian (space) missile program and the tech industry. Spending a few billions on some missiles will lead to enormous growth later on.

Compared to "our western partners" Russia is spending money that it has. It doesn´t need to borrow one ruble to spend, neither on the national Projects (russias new deal) or weapons procurement.

Ok then Putin is wrong and decision to diversify MIC production actually contracts economy? I disagree. Decision to spend extra resources on weapons is needed but forced and not beneficial for economy .

GarryB wrote:The problem I see is political... QEW+++This gives them a legitimate excuse to ensure these people don't survive to reproduce for WWIV.

Agree



Of course we all agree that this is a forced measure being pushed by the US, but do you want a meek response or one that might make the US and certainly the EU reconsider their both their choices and who they trust to keep their interests in mind.
[/quote]

nope, I dont. And answer IMHO was planned long time ago as a contingency measure. It's just not good for economy.