So Russia deploys a wide variety of ICBMs, most of which are presumably a counter to US nuclear forces, but what does Russia have to check potential nearby threats such as India, China and the sort?
Are there specific IRBMs/MRBMs that are deployed with intention to be used against nearby countries in a possible future conflict?
By the 70s and the Sino-Soviet split, they almost certainly had missiles aimed at Beijing and other Chinese military and industrial centers. During at least one of the border wars, they allegedly came very close to deploying nukes.
Is it safe to assume to there hasn't been a change of posture towards China, at least among the highest levels of Russian military strategy?
Any ICBM can be used as IRBM/MRBM. Make engine to shut off earlier. Or change trajectory to go higher, this will reduce range. it is just bit more expensive to expend ICBM where IRBM will do.
China is an ally and has superior technology. It is only right for Russia to be subservient to the nation that helped most after the Soviet dissolution.
Doesn't Russia have a whole host of air bases along their Mongolian border? It's obvious who the target is but as far as missiles are concerned. Any number of TEL and Suv launched ICBMs can be targeted at China
I doubt there’s been a major change in posture when it comes to nuclear deterrence against China, but there’s obviously been decreased suspicion between the two countries over the years. I’m sure they have attack plans that involve an exchange with China, the US, or both.
>highest levels of Russian military strategy
They dont define posture.
Putin does.
China has been confirmed recently as "strategic partner". Sino-soviet pact of friendship and mutual defense has been reaffirmed recently likewise.
By contrast, USA is declared as "potential aggressor, high probability".
>Doesn't Russia have a whole host of air bases along their Mongolian border?
Never had them.
Far East bases are mostly to deter yanks in Japan ans So Korea from going apeshit
Iskander is a diplomatic counter to Euros, not the US.
Nukes and Siberia are the defense vs China.
"Strategic partner" is maskirova. The US may dunk on Russia, but China is the long-term threat, and already causing friction around Baikal and Mongolia.
>By contrast, USA is declared as "potential aggressor, high probability"
This is obvious, and has been the case for decades. I'm just wondering what Russian planning in case of Chinese hostility is.
They literally had a war with China on their border. There are absolutely bases there. Whether or not they’re staffed and maintained is another question.
>China is the long-term threat
More dangerous than NATO and islamists, indeed
During the depths of the Sino-Soviet split, vatniks did establish assets in Mongolia to check any adverse actions from China but those went along with the collapse of the USSR. Currently, Russia probably has extremely detailed plans on what to do in case of a Chinese attack since after NATO, China is obviously their biggest threat.
>I'm just wondering what Russian planning in case of Chinese hostility is.
>According to a Russian military doctrine stated in 2010, nuclear weapons could be used by Russia "in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened". Most military analysts believe that, in this case, Russia would pursue an 'escalate to de-escalate’ strategy, initiating limited nuclear exchange to bring adversaries to the negotiating table. Russia will also threaten nuclear conflict to discourage initial escalation of any major conventional conflict
TL:DR; Russia wouldn't entertain Chinese nonsense and would probably prepare the nukes in case of a serious Chinese transgression
>They literally had a war with China
Guess you dont know what "war" is.
The Damansky incident was just border skirmishes.
Considering the disparity between Russian and Chinese Arsenal’s, this is definitely a likely scenario. Not that there’s any winners in a strategic nuclear exchange, but Russia can do a hell of a lot more damage to China than the Chinese can retaliate with.
>thousands of russian nukes vs a few hundred chinese nukes
How badly obliterated would China be?
>During the depths of the Sino-Soviet split, vatniks
did not even exist, unironically
scmp.com
There was a serious possibility of the Russians attacking China with nuclear weapons. It was more than just a skirmish.
> but Russia can do a hell of a lot more damage to China than the Chinese can retaliate with.
Can people really trust China's reported arsenal count? There is only so much that observers can estimate when dealing with such a secretive army
>Secretary of state Henry Kissinger tells the Soviet ambassador in Washington that as soon as the Soviets set off their first missile against China, the US will launch nuclear missiles at 130 Soviet cities.
How dumb you are to believe this BS, that a kike Sec of State would imply US may intervene in case two commy empiries start shit fight.
I mean, China seems much more interested in funding the modernization of their conventional forces than worrying about competing with the US and Russia on warhead counts. Their reported number of stockpiled warheads could potentially be higher, but it's pretty hard to hide the existence of significantly more delivery systems than what you claim. They're not quite on the same level as the UK and France when it comes to maintaining absolute minimum deterrence, but they seem to be currently convinced that they have enough weapons to deter an invasion of the mainland.
Well, if you knew anything about history, you'd know that under Nixon and Kissinger, the US began to peruse a policy of courting the Chinese as an ally against the USSR, which mostly worked. If the Soviets nuked China, they'd be destroying a country American planners saw as a likely means of preventing further Soviet expansion into East Asia.
Would it be possible, if launching a missile against a close enough target, that instead of a typical ballistic arc trajectory, the same missile could be made to fire on a very low, flat trajectory? I'd think it would be hard to detect, but I also know those missiles are huge so maybe it couldn't work since it'd have to fight gravity the whole way
That's kinda already how SLBMs fly. It's called a depressed ballistic trajectory.
en.wikipedia.org
It's less efficient and reduces the amount of mass you can put on target, but the flight time is much faster.
>but what does Russia have to check potential nearby threats such as India, China and the sort?
Sub launched missiles
Their SLBMs are almost entirely oriented towards the US, with SSBNs hiding in the bastion near the north pole. I really doubt their missile subs spend much time in the Pacific or Indian oceans.
>By contrast, USA is declared as "potential aggressor, high probability"
So nothing has changed then. ;-)
>you deploy icbm to counter nuclear forces
you are retarded there is only one single reason someone develops icbm's and thats to shit on other countries if the shit goes down the drain because there isnt a single way to intercept them
Like ur moms pussy
>there isnt a single way to intercept them
I mean, that's not entirely correct. So far, a system that could reliably intercept enough warheads to matter is prohibitively expensive.
thats not the point usa and russia has two last lines of defence
usa uses that gsomething in alaska and california a literal icbm without th warheads
and russia last line is a literally fucking nuke being launched into the warheads
nothing was tested obviously but we have a video of just how fast your end comes once the mirv is on its final stage
youtube.com
15 fucking seconds thats all you have
>Any ICBM can be used as IRBM/MRBM
No.
>Make engine to shut off earlier.
How would you propose shutting of a solid fuel reaction?
>Or change trajectory to go higher, this will reduce range
Congratulations you just destroyed the warhead on reentry.
>just destroyed the warhead on reentry.
Why don't they get destroyed in normal use then
Because they aren't entering at a steep angle.
If you enter near vertically the gforces and heat from deceleration will destroy the reentry vehicle. if you enter at a shallower angle that deceleration is spread out over a longer period of time, reducing the maximum temperature and reducing the peak g force from deceleration.
>Would it be possible, if launching a missile against a close enough target, that instead of a typical ballistic arc trajectory, the same missile could be made to fire on a very low, flat trajectory?
Yes this is possible as the other user mentioned. But it wouldn't allow you to even reach IRBM ranges since it's so inefficient. Only really good for hitting a target a few hundred miles away.
Minuteman III’s have a pyro charge that splits open the propellant case to shut down thrust iirc.
Our one and only major threat is United States (and partially europe). Only their countries have a plan to annihilate Russian Federation.
India, China, well yes their military forces are decent and their ambitions are clear, but even if they'll suddenly decide to realize their goals, it's still whould not be a mortal wound. A little bit of occupied territories is nothing, it could be played back in distant future.
Extermination of russian people in other hand is a big deal. Primary objective is to counter mutt threat, and nuclear forces doing a good job. Niggers don't like the idea of atomic blasts in their cities.
DT shots are very specific and are not the norm. They're primarily meant for time critical targets.
>I don't know what credible deterrence is: the post
>it's still whould not be a mortal wound
>A little bit of occupied territories is nothing, it could be played back in distant future.
Are you sure you're Russian? This is extreme cuck speak desu
there are probably a bunch we don't have good information on, but also Russia lies about their capabilities a lot
>poland intervention
>crimean war
>russo-japanese war
>ww1
get education
If China decides to march into Russia, Russia has no recourse.