# NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons



## MarkOttawa (22 Mar 2015)

Three pieces:

1) Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike "de-escalation"
http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation

2) [NORAD Commander] U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/us-russia-military-threat-alarm-norad/

3) Northcom: Russian Cruise Missile Threat [KH-101, -102--5,000 km range] to U.S. Grows: U.S. defenses ‘over-matched’ for missile threats
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/northcom-russian-cruise-missile-threat-to-u-s-grows/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Tibbson (22 Mar 2015)

And

Russia's Massive Military Exercise in the Arctic Is Utterly Baffling
https://news.vice.com/article/russias-massive-military-exercise-in-the-arctic-is-utterly-baffling


----------



## CougarKing (22 Mar 2015)

Yikes.  

Reuters



> *Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships if it joins NATO shield*
> 
> OPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Russia threatened to aim nuclear missiles at Danish warships if Denmark joins NATO's missile defense system, in comments Copenhagen called unacceptable and NATO said would not contribute to peace.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Mar 2015)

Some concerns their upgraded Blackjack (Tu-160M) bombers might start testing British airspace.  I suppose we could possibly see them test NORAD too.  Full story, photos at link below.



> *Revealed: Russia's new supersonic bomber can outrun Britain's best fighter jet... and Vladimir Putin could soon send them our way
> Russian President Putin is about to unleash a new supersonic bomber*
> The Blackjack will be able to outrun the RAF's fastest fighter jets
> Last month Russian Bear aircraft were spotted on sorties near Cornwall
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Mar 2015)

More on "nuclear de-escalation" doctrine:



> The deadly chaos behind Putin’s mysterious acts
> ERIC MORSE
> ...
> The problem with Mr. Putin’s Russia is: you really do not know anything. The same sense of entitled grievance combined with KGB-rooted addictions to secrecy and misdirection and a penchant for extreme violence characterized the Soviet Union, but were kept under some kind of control by the collective and innately conservative authority of the Communist Party. There is no such moderator in the reactor now, only shifting and virulent power-bloc rivalry.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TCBF (10 Apr 2015)

- Scenario: November 2017;

On the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, a Tu-160 sleds across the Canadian wasteland undetected, pops up over Kansas City, parachutes a large bust of Lenin over the town, and sneaks into Venezuela without being intercepted successfully. 

You do not need a nuke to prove your point.


----------



## CougarKing (14 May 2015)

Bears keeping the RAF busy:

Reuters



> *Britain scrambles Typhoon jets to escort Russian bombers*
> Thu May 14, 2015 11:29am EDT
> 
> LONDON (Reuters) - British Royal Air Force (RAF) Typhoon fighter jets were scrambled to intercept two Russian long-range bombers near UK airspace north of Scotland, Britain's Ministry of Defence said on Thursday.
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Jun 2016)

Latest, note also Russian navy subs' SLCMs (further links at original):



> NORAD and Russian Cruise Nukes: “de-escalation”? Part 2
> 
> Further to this 2015 post, more on an aspect of Russian nuclear doctrine to which we should be paying considerable attention–and an aspect that emphasizes the centrality of the NORAD mission for the RCAF’s new fighter...
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation-part-2/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Jul 2016)

More on Russian sub threat (note can launch cruise missiles)--implications for RCN's future priorities/vessels?



> Biggest Threat US Navy and NATO Face: Russian Subs and A2/AD Bastions
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/biggest-threat-us-navy-nato-face-russian-subs-a2-ad-bastions-16808



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Feb 2017)

NORAD chief hightlights Russian cruise missile threat, ALCMS and SLCMs--need to upgrade North Warning System:



> US, Canada Eye Ways to Counter Cruise Missile Attacks
> 
> The head of U.S. Northern Command last week said the U.S. and Canada are working on upgrades to protect against cruise missile threats posed by countries such as Russia and North Korea — the first substantial buildup in more than two decades.
> 
> ...



Lots more on Russkie cruise missiles (and nuclear doctrine) here:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/?s=cruise

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Mar 2017)

Some in US taking threat of limited Russian nuclear strike with cruise missiles seriously (further links at original):



> Build Limited Missile Defenses Against Russian, Chinese Strikes: Experts
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Mar 2017)

As for ALCMs (further links at original):



> Why America Should Fear Russia's Bombers (And Their Cruise Missiles)
> 
> The bottom line for the Russian military is that while its current bomber fleet is a fraction of the size of its Soviet-era predecessor, the Soviet Union’s investments in advanced cruise missile technology is finally paying off. Missiles such as the [stealthy] Kh-101 and Kh-102 likely would have entered service in the early 2000s had the Soviet Union remained intact. The new missiles afford Russia’s truncated bomber fleet a long-range precision strike capability that was until recently the sole purview of the Pentagon. Thus while the Russian bomber force of the future might utilize the same airframes as they have in decades past, those aircraft will carry ever more capable weapons as time goes on.
> 
> ...



I maintain that the NORAD mission is the only crucial one for RCAF fighters (I include being able to deal with rogue aircraft, cf. 9/11)--all others are optional.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Mar 2017)

Problem is, Mark, that the Russians could come barely past the North Pole and shoot their Kh-101 to hit something all the way down to Washington. What are the chances that we could detect their bombers in time to actually intercept them, on their side of the North pole, before they could launch and turn around? Basically just about none.

It's even worse with the Kh-102. They could just pop up over their home bases in Northern Russia, launch and land again, and hit targets anywhere in the continental US or Canada.

Now we could (and probably would) try and intercept the missiles themselves, they are after all subsonic and defenceless so they are easy kills. However, they are tree huggers and stealthy and we have a great big ("huge" to be presidential) empty space where they would travel, so finding them is incredibly hard.

That's why (1) NORAD will treat any launch of Kh-101 or Kh-102 at North America as a first nuclear strike and (2) will retaliate "in force" accordingly. As it is MAD we are talking about, the actual fighter jets of NORAD don't matter as much for that specific threat (Russian bombers).


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Mar 2017)

So does that mean we should invest in a low level arctic interception system?


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Mar 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver: Well, the US takes the cruise missile threat seriously and if we don't...guess who will take over continental air defence in RCAF areas of responsibility?  And ask us to pay them--see this recent post:
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/118455/post-1477862.html#msg1477862

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Mar 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver:



> That's why (1) NORAD will treat any launch of Kh-101 or Kh-102 at North America as a first nuclear strike and (2) will retaliate "in force" accordingly. As it is MAD we are talking about, the actual fighter jets of NORAD don't matter as much for that specific threat (Russian bombers).



But if one doesn't know if ALCMS are nuclear or conventionally armed until they hit would the US launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in advance of impact?  Hence the importance of doing one's best to get the missiles and even more so the bombers if one can.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Mar 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver:
> 
> But if one doesn't know if ALCMS are nuclear or conventionally armed until they hit would the US launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in advance of impact?  Hence the importance of doing one's best to get the missiles and even more so the bombers if one can.
> 
> ...



That is for the Russians to ponder, and to realize that the Americans would assume any attack would be nuclear and react accordingly.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Mar 2017)

Old Sweat: Even if a Russian ALCM or SLCM strike was nuclear, but obviously limited given that the number of warheads would not threaten most of US second-strike capabilities, would the US retaliate with nukes or rather stop doing whatever caused the Kremlin to act in the first place?

It seems to me that that is what Russian "nuclear de-escalation" thinking is all about and is essentially equivalent to NATO's tac nuke first-use doctrine vs a Soviet/Warsaw Pact ground attack during the Cold War.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Mar 2017)

I would not bet against the Americans "out-yielding" whatever the Russians shot at them.


----------



## GR66 (5 Mar 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver:
> 
> But if one doesn't know if ALCMS are nuclear or conventionally armed until they hit would the US launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in advance of impact?  Hence the importance of doing one's best to get the missiles and even more so the bombers if one can.
> 
> ...



According to this article (http://www.rense.com/general35/crussde.htm) on March 21st, 2003 the US launched 1,000 cruise missiles on the first day of the air war against Iraq (plus 1,000 air strike sorties).  A devastating attack to be sure, but against a nation that had its military ravaged in the First Gulf War in 1991 and crippled by years of sanctions.  

I'd imagine that any conventional cruise missile attack by Russia (or China) against the USA would have to be of at least as large a scale to have any significant military effect.  It makes for some pretty big questions mark I'd think.  Would the US be willing to absorb a first strike of such a scale against the continental US to confirm if it is conventional or nuclear before responding?  Are they ABSOLUTELY 100% certain that a 1,000 missile nuclear first strike by Russia couldn't disrupt a US counter strike (how would you even be able to test that with certainty?).  If not, then wouldn't that make waiting for the missiles to hit a non-option?

What if the Russian strike is much smaller in scale?  Ironically that might be taken by the US as evidence that the strike MUST be nuclear rather than conventional.  If the number of missiles incoming is so small that a conventional attack wouldn't be crippling then wouldn't that suggest that the weapons MUST then be nuclear?  

Don't get me wrong Mark, none of this is to suggest that I don't think we should take Russian cruise missiles very, very seriously.  I however don't agree with the scenario of our primary role being to prevent Russian cruise missiles from coming over the pole against North American targets.  As I stated earlier, I think that such an event would mean that there is now a general strategic nuclear exchange taking place between NATO and Russia and that at that point what type of fighter we have is frankly irrelevant.  

Politically, that MAY be the role that is required for Canada to state as THE primary purpose of the CF but I don't think in reality it is actually the case.  To my mind, a much more likely use of Russian cruise missiles would be against the ships attempting to bring US military reinforcements, equipment and ammunition to Europe to defend against a more limited Russian aggression against it's immediate neighbours.  Or against European ports, airfields, transportation hubs, etc. which would be used to move those reinforcements/supplies to the front.

Does that change the type of fighter that Canada requires?  Or the mix of assets we require?


----------



## Jungle (5 Mar 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's why (1) NORAD will treat any launch of Kh-101 or Kh-102 at North America as a first nuclear strike and (2) will retaliate "in force" accordingly. As it is MAD we are talking about, the actual fighter jets of NORAD don't matter as much for that specific threat (Russian bombers).



NORAD has a strictly defensive mandate, and no means to retaliate.

The NORAD missions are the following:



> In close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners, prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America.



USNORTHCOM, on the other hand, has access to USSTRATCOM ressources, but these can be employed without consulting Canadian authorities. Maybe if we joined missile defence, we would have a say...


----------



## Jungle (7 Mar 2017)

Looks like we may finally join:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/wanting-to-ditch-reputation-as-natos-cheap-date-liberals-looking-at-ballistic-missile-defence-sources



> The joint statement from the two leaders said both countries want to “modernize and broaden our NORAD partnership”, as well as relations in cyber and space.
> 
> As the Senate defence committee found in its report on BMD two years ago, the decision not to participate has harmed Canada’s position in the continental defence organization, NORAD. The decision on when, where and whether to intercept an incoming missile is not made under the NORAD structure but, rather, by the U.S. alone under its domestic defence body, United States Northern Command. If a missile is heading towards Calgary, the Canadian military representative at NORAD has to leave the room while those decisions are made.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2017)

North Korean ICBMs not only thing on RCAF NORAD deputy commander's mind--growing Russian cruise missile threat (possible nuked), both ALCM and SLCM (read Russia):



> NORAD commander calls for modernization amid North Korea tensions
> 
> The top Canadian officer at the North American Aerospace Defence Command says the system needs to evolve to meet modern threats.
> 
> ...



From 2016:



> NORAD and Russian Cruise Nukes: “de-escalation”? Part 2
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation-part-2/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2017)

But does Russia have a first use of nukes for "de-escalation" doctrine? Might precision conventional ALCM and SLCM strikes against counterforce targets in North America be part of response to a crisis?  Start of a serious analysis:



> The Myth of Russia’s Lowered Nuclear Threshold
> 
> As Russia’s Zapad 2017 strategic exercise finishes, Russia-watchers and nuclear hawks will be looking for evidence of Russia’s alleged “lowered nuclear threshold”. This lowered threshold has become a key concern in recent years for Western policymakers watching Russia’s active military signaling. The official way of expressing this concern is to say that nuclear-armed regional adversaries should not think they “can escalate their way out of failed conventional aggression.” That is, a regional adversary (such as Russia) will not get away with conventional aggression against U.S. allies (such as the Baltic countries) by threatening to use or using nuclear weapons.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Oct 2017)

Then there are Russian subs and cruise missiles, Syria section:


> A Russian submarine’s recent antics have revived a Cold War fear
> _A TENSE chase through the Mediterranean has revealed how rattled the US and NATO were by a cheeky Russian ploy._
> 
> 
> ...



2016:



> USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Feb 2019)

US pushing us to put real money into upgrading North Warning System:


> Canada Awards Contracts In Support of Arctic Surveillance
> 
> The Department of National Defence is investing in defence research and development to produce innovative solutions to surveillance challenges facing the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF), particularly in Canada’s North.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jul 2020)

USAF general at top on NORTHCOM/NORAD this time:



> Air Force Gen. VanHerck Nominated to Serve as Next NORTHCOM/NORAD Commander
> 
> Air Force Lt. Gen. Glen VanHerck was nominated to serve as the next commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99 (6 Jul 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> US pushing us to put real money into upgrading North Warning System:
> Mark
> Ottawa




I realize this post is absurdly outdated, BUT... I think my question is still relevant.

In regards to being able to monitor the north, can satellites do it all?



With the constellation of satellites already monitoring the north, is a new "DEW" line of sorts necessary?  Or can we monitor air traffic and ship traffic sufficiently using only satellite?


----------



## Cronicbny (6 Jul 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I realize this post is absurdly outdated, BUT... I think my question is still relevant.
> 
> In regards to being able to monitor the north, can satellites do it all?
> 
> ...



No - RADAR is still required to detect aircraft and also missiles over the northern reaches.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jul 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I realize this post is absurdly outdated, BUT... I think my question is still relevant.
> 
> In regards to being able to monitor the north, can satellites do it all?
> 
> With the constellation of satellites already monitoring the north, is a new "DEW" line of sorts necessary?  Or can we monitor air traffic and ship traffic sufficiently using only satellite?


'


IN ARDUA NITOR is pretty much correct. It would take several constellations of specialized satellites, some in _geostationary_ orbit but more in _polar_ and _eliptical _(_highly inclined_) and _low earth orbit_s to do the job. A mix of space and terrestrial based senors is the better choice. We, Canada, have too few space based assets, _in my opinion_.


----------



## Weinie (10 Jul 2020)

And one wonders why the US has not been more emphatic in their quest to have DEW line-like capabilities replicated, especially in the North. Methinks that they have it covered, in spades, and that it is not a big concern anymore .


----------

