Hacker News Reader

> That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy.

Why do you think so?

The Indian Ballistic Missile Defence system was built by modifying a nuclear capable short range ballistic missile (Prithvi Missile - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithvi_(missile) ). This modified version was designed in different configurations to intercept missiles in high and low altitude. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Def... ).

> Why do you think so?

First, it'd be illegal to do in secret. Second and I suppose more significantly, it would not offer a military advantage over actually having them serve their intended purpose as defensive weapons (which would be useful in any hypothetical nuclear exchange, including a US first strike) and then moving a ballistic missile submarine or two to the Barents sea, or equipping some of the many attack submarines operating in those waters with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, or some combination of both.

> First, it'd be illegal to do in secret.

There isn't any need for secrecy. An anti-ballistic missile is also a missile. So they can theoretically be designed to be both defensive and offensive. That's what the indians did - converted one of their offensive missile to also be a defensive missile that can shoot down other missiles (I am not claiming that the Indians are using the same missile both as an offensive arsenal and in their missile defence shield, but just that it may be possible in the future for them. Both Russia and the US are well ahead of India in missile R&D, and it may not be far fetched to think that they may have already developed configurable missiles that could be used for both offence and defence.)

> There isn't any need for secrecy.

The Russian hypothesis we're discussing here is that these are not defensive weapons, they are secretly offensive weapons.

Strictly speaking, there would be a legal need for secrecy until we're fully withdrawn from the INF treaty. You'd also have to develop the nuclear warhead to fly on the interceptors in secret. They'd have to be awfully lightweight, since these interceptors aren't designed to carry a nuclear warhead. (a quick look at wiki indicates the RIM-161 uses a kinetic energy warhead, which is a little hint at how silly it is to even be having this discussion) So that's a weapons program you'd have to fund in secret, as well as the funding needed to adapt all those weapons systems to a completely different purpose and test them.

You'd have to keep the whole thing secret from those among our NATO allies who would never approve such a thing. Great idea.

None of this would give the United States any first strike capabilities it doesn't already have thanks to its navy. I'm trying to be polite but this is all very silly. It's just not what those systems are there for.

> Russian officials have raced to portray the United States as the nation at fault.

> They charge that American missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe could be easily refashioned into offensive weapons, and that the rise of armed drones, which had not been invented when the treaty was signed, now threaten to provide Washington with similar intermediate-range ability without violating the precise wording of the treaty.

From https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuc...

It's propaganda - it doesn't have to be true or make sense, it just has to deflect attention and blame from what Russia is doing. Which, according to US intelligence, has been designing, building, and actually deploying real, non-hypothetical cruise missiles with nuclear warheads that violate the treaty in question. Not missiles that could theoretically be modified to deliver nuclear warheads with some work, actual operational nuclear-armed treaty violations: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruis...

It helps that certain, ahem, outspoken Trump critics like https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1091683402741399552 are willing to literally regurgitate Putin's propaganda and claim to be fighting Russia by doing so, and there seem to be a fairly plentiful supply of people willing to eat this up so long as it's anti-Trump.

>You need to coordinate bringing up defensive weapons with retiring offensive weapons in a way that preserves some strategic balance, and if one side doesn't have the right sort of defensive weapons, or a good place to put them.

I find it fascinating that the treaties and the rhetoric around these treaties is a big fat middle finger to other countries. "Russia was strong once so they deserve to be treated like that." All the smaller countries inbetween are rendered unimportant and their defense doesn't matter.

> Arw you sure that's what has been said? That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy.

Yeah, that’s what the Russians have said. I’m on my phone and I’m too lazy to search for references, but as a person that would be very negatively affected by a Russian strike on any one of those defense shield thingies (I live in Romania) I follow the subject closely and I can confirm that’s what the Russians think. You can search on YT for an interview with Putin with the German TV (I think) and when the interviewer mentions that the rocket shield installations in Poland and Romania are only for defensive purposes Putin instantly starts laughing. Not to mention that those installations were put in place with Iran in mind according to the official declarations from back then, but now even the Americans don’t use that excuse anymore.

I know the video you speak off Putin claimed that those launchers can be used to house tomahawk missiles which isn’t true as the launcher for the SM3 missile isn’t designed for that.

The SM3 missile can be used to attack ground targets but the US doesn’t have any nuclear warheads that can be fitted on it.

That said considering that the Israeli Arrow 3 system has a range of 2400km and it’s partially integrated with the US missile shield in Europe it’s more than just a local problem from Russia’s point of view.

To answer your first question: yes 110% that is what is being said

I'm in Germany and used to date a Russian guy. He would occasionally go off about how evil the US is and how they've already stationed missiles in Poland. He skipped the part about then being defensive and just talked as if they were offensive. I had literally no idea what he was talking about, this must have been what he meant. This is the Russian propaganda tactic: they scream and cry that they are the innocent ones, and are only making rational moves to protect themselves against the "evil US" and NATO. Any and all aguments about anything that Russia might have done wrong is met with Whataboutism.

Russia is not placing missiles in Canada and Mexico.

Because US isn't a threat to Canada and Mexico, as opposed to Russia vs. Poland or Estonia?

Ok, how about Honduras or Guatemala or Haiti or Cuba, which the US is a threat to?

if you keep moving the goal posts this hard you might throw out your back, please ensure proper warmups beforehand

I'm not moving any goal posts. The point is the US is actively encircling Russia, notably sponsoring a coup in the Ukraine and then conducting joint military exercises with its far-right government, while Russia is not doing anything even remotely comparable.