Friday, Feb 15, 2008
How far will this escalate?
The Telegraph: Vladimir Putin's nuclear threat to the West
Although he did not elaborate, Mr Putin gave warning of retaliation once Kosovo broke away - a threat likely to chill Western leaders. "We have a ready-made plan and we know what we are going to do," he said.
Any ideas on this?
Posted by sold 2 rent 1 @ 10:18 AM (807 views) Add Comment
16 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. Sinewaveboy said...
House prices go to zero?
2. Clint Justice said...
Russia's military is a shadow of its former self. One of her largest exports is arms, i.e the weapons that her once mighty army and air force used. Most Russian weapons manufacturers are bankrupt, and the west certainly won't sell them any new ones. Her army is largely conscripted and morale is low. We have nothing to fear from Russia!
3. hpwatcher said...
I would not expect them to do anything other than to protect their own interests. I don't think Russia has dabbled in the politics of other countries to the shameful degree that the US has......
4. lvmreader said...
Good post @sold2rent1,
No doubt some cerebally challenged shills will say (in zombie like numpty voices) "What has this got to do with house prices?".
People reckon that because the Bear-H has propellors it is some sort of cold-war relic. It actually has similar performance to the USAF B-52 and is about the same age.
Then you have the TU-160 Blackjack - a real beauty. The Russian B-1B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_160
Russia is never as weak as she looks. Russia is never as strong as she looks.
5. Silver Surfer said...
How far will this escalate? Not very far.
Russia is annoyed with Britain as we don't have an extradition treaty with them, and they see it that oligarchs, who stripped their country of the nation's wealth, are allowed to export their ill-gotten gains to London with impunity.
There's lots of posturing but Russia realises that Europe is still the main overseas customer for Russian gas and therefore critical to sustaining their national fortunes.
6. lvmreader said...
Add in the hypersonic cruise missiles and the supersonic 3-d weaving SS-N-26 Sunburns, Moskvits and Granits and someone could make an awful mess of your day if you were a hapless aircraft carrier battle group......
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0618.html
The SS-N-26 is a short-range, ramjet-propelled, single warhead, air-to-surface and surface-to-surface, anti-ship cruise missile developed and manufactured by Russia. It was designed to combat naval surface ships under heavy fire and electronic counteraction. Ship-, ground-, air-, and submarine-launched versions are believed to exist. The SS-N-26 was intended as a lighter weight follow-on system to the SS-N-9 “Siren,” SS-N-19 “Shipwreck,” and SS-N-22 “Sunburn” anti-ship missile systems. Development began in 1985 by NPO Mashinostroyeniye (previously Chelomei OKB), and the missile was first exhibited in 1993. Russia has designated the ship-launched missile 3M55, and 3K55 for the complete system. The export version is known as Yakhont. The missile is 8.9 m in length, has a body diameter of 0.67 m, and has a launch weight of 3,000 kg. It has four delta-shaped wings at mid-body and four delta-shaped wings at the rear for control during flight. It is powered by a solid propellant boost motor and a ramjet engine. Midcourse guidance is provided by an inertial navigation system (INS), with an active/passive radar seeker for the terminal phase. The missile is capable of selecting an individual ship target from a group, even in a jamming environment. The SS-N-26 has a cruise speed of Mach 2.6 at high altitude or Mach 2.0 at low altitude. It has a minimum range of 50 km, and a maximum range of 300 km when cruising at high altitude and 120 km when at low altitude. It flies at low level during the terminal phase, between 5 and 15 m in altitude, and makes evasive maneuvers near to the target to defeat any defenses. It carries a 250 kg high explosive semi-armor piercing warhead. The coastal defense version of the SS-N-26 was named SSC-5 “Bastion.” It uses the same missile as the ship-launched version, but is launched from a modified “Scud B” Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicle. Silo-launching may also be offered.
SS-N-19 (NATO = Shipwreck) (Russia = P-500 Granit)
20 Granit (SS-N-19) anti-ship missile launch tubes are situated in two groups of ten beneath the foredeck. The missile is believed to have an inertial guidance system, possibly with provision for mid-course guidance in over-the-horizon (OTH) engagements, and active radar terminal guidance.
Mid-course guidance is carried out either by Tu-95 `Bear D' long-range reconnaissance aircraft, or the ship's Ka-25 or Ka-27 helicopters with Big Bulge I/J-band radar. Radar Ocean Surveillance Satellites (RORSAT) may also be used and it is noteworthy that these ships carry `Punch Bowl' satellite communications systems. Targets can also be acquired by ship sensors, with bearing and range data being fed direct into the missile guidance system. Boosters take the missile in a ballistic trajectory which continues when the jet engine begins to operate, until it achieves an altitude of 20,000 m (65,000 ft) when it enters the cruise phase. The active radar seeker then acquires the target and the missile commences a high-angle dive attack. Some reports suggest the missile seeker may include a home-on-jam capability.
Specifications
Length: 10 m (32.8 ft)
Diameter: 85 cm (33.5 in)
Wing span: n/k
Weight: 3,250 kg (7,165 lb)
Speed: Mach 1.6 (some sources state Mach 2 or Mach 2.5)
Range: 10.8-243 n miles (20-450 km)
Guidance: Inertial with command update and active radar terminal guidance
Warheads: 750 kg HE; fuel-air explosive (FAE); nuclear 500 kT (capable but not carried)
7. sold 2 rent 1 said...
lvmreader,
I was thinking along the lines of some kind of energy related retaliation.
8. lvmreader said...
Erm, a smoking hulk of a US Carrier group in the Straits of Hormuz.........
How would that be for energy retaliation.
That is where all our oil comes in.
These Russian missiles are the main reason the Soviets didn't bother with aircraft carriers. We saw Hezbollah in Lebanon take out at least 1 and possibly 2 Israeli ships with some smaller cousins.
The Russians did a "sneak pass" in a Bear over a US Carrier. The Chinese surfaced a Song class boat in between a Carrier and its escorts.
The message is clear. We can f**k you up politically, militarily and logistically.
The Western Oil Supply nexus seems to be frail. One "systempunkt" is that evil bottleneck called the straits of Hormuz.
9. su said...
The Serbian language is very similar to the point it can be understood by Russians. It is natural for the Serbs to ask Russia for assistance as there is a bond between the two nations. I'm not sure that the western countries acted very wisely when they supported Kosovo's independence. Removing Kosovo from the Serbs would be like removing Scone from the Scots.
10. drewster said...
LVMReader, s2r1, I'm afraid I will have to rise to that bait. What does this have to do with house prices? If you could draw a graph showing a neat correlation between house prices and the level of political sabre-rattling, then I would be convinced.
Looking at Nationwide's figures (the source for the graph on the home page), there are notable peaks in 1972-3, 1979-80, and 1989-90. The post-1973 fall was caused by the sharp rise in the oil prices which engendered a general economic slowdown. The 1979-80 peak could also be related to the leap in the oil price (the Iranian Revolution took place in 1979, and the country didn't export oil for some time). The 1989-90 boom and bust is unclear: some say it was just a natural bubble waiting to burst, others blame the politically-motivated 15% interest rates, and some might blame the collapse of the Soviet Union. Note that although the collapse of the USSR caused great uncertainty at the time, in retrospect it kicked off a decade of globalisation and growth: the peace dividend.
If the world descends into WW3, then yes house prices will fall. London was an unpopular place to live in the 1940s, with German bombers overhead. Such a scenario seems unlikely today - with radar technology, we would see the Russians coming. With nuclear weapons, they could wipe out the capital before you had a chance to call a surveyor.
A more plausible (though still highly unlikely) scenario is what happened to Lebanon in 2006. From 1990-2006, Lebabnon enjoyed a period of steady growth and prosperity. It was one of the best performing states in the middle-east, without even the benefit of oil. By mid-2006, stockmarkets were at all-time highs, tourists were pouring into the country, and foreign investors were rushing to pour more money in. All that changed after the July 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. Although it only lasted a couple of months, the war caused severe damage to the infrastructure, to the economy, and to the investment climate. Investors raced for the exits. Tourism nose-dived. The Beirut Stock Exchange was down 35% (source: Market Oracle).
In such a situation, even a short-term conflict would cause investor panic. London has a far larger proportion of foreign investors and residents than Beirut, so we could expect to see an even sharper decline. Similarly, an extended period of terrorism in London would cause the same kind of panic. Personally I think we have more to fear from terrorism (home-grown or imported) than from any kind of large-scale war.
In any negative event, the overall uncertainty would reduce global trade. Nobody would send a ship full of goods half-way round the world if it's likely to be bombed en-route or hijacked at its destination. This would cause the peace dividend (the win-win of comparative advantage) to collapse, generally ruining our standard of living. The economy would tumble and house prices would crash down with it.
Again, these are all extreme scenarios that I consider highly unlikely!
11. drewster said...
It's an election year in Russia. Isn't he just playing to the home crowd? Sounds like President Ahmadinejad of Iran, all bark but no bite.
12. lvmreader said...
@drewster,
Care to sell me some options on this "unlikely scenario". I tell you what, I pay you 1p for every £1,000 that you will pay me if we have any sort of shooting war with Iran and/or Russia.
This is the Economist's way to measure someone's position. If you really believe what you are saying about "unlikelihood", you will sell me some options. It is free money for you and the scenario you are insuring me against will never come to pass, so you say.
So, what price for insuring me against Russian missiles flying (they have stealth birds too, BTW).
13. drewster said...
lvmreader, that depends heavily on your definition of "any sort of shooting war with Iran and/or Russia". Your target has already been reached: Iran kidnapped fifteen sailors last year. It didn't have a noticeable effect on the UK economy or on investor sentiment - the papers weren't full of stories about Persian billionaires selling their mansions in Britain.
Similarly, Russia might continue to sabre-rattle. They might fly more aircraft over the UK (they've already done so) or they might even park a ship up by the Isle of Skye for a day or two. You want a price for Russian missiles flying - do you mean flying anywhere, or flying over the UK, or actually landing in the UK, or actually causing damage to buildings or people in the UK? In principle I'd be prepared to place a bet, but we'd have to agree very specific terms. There are many different levels of sabre-rattling.
14. talking rot said...
I believe drewster's analysis is correct.
Russia's "official" military budget is not much larger then that of the UK's. While Russia has the capability to produce advanced aircraft and armoured vehicles, the majority of their conventional equipment is from the Cold War era. Furthermore, the standard of their fighting people is not as good as we might believe - I recall seeing Russia sailors looking painfully thin. Most importantly, their logistic services would experience difficulties in providing effective supply and support to combat forces. The use of tactical nukes is possible, but highly unlikely due to the response it would illicit.
The Russian bear is growing in influence but if it fights the West, to whom would it sell its oil and gas? The is merely sabre rattling. It should be treated as such.
@lvmreader said " ... against Russian missiles flying (they have stealth birds too, BTW)."
Yeah! We know certain Russian air and sea platforms have stealth capability because we tracked and monitored them. So ...... it's not too stealthy really! Check out BVRAAM and Brimstone within the MOD's Defence Equipment and Support organisation.
15. lvmreader said...
@drewster,
Didn't the Iranians free those sailors, who had sailed into Iranian waters, the Iranians said.
16. lvmreader said...
@talking rot,
Didn't realise that you knew so much about military hardware.
Tell me, in the 1980s, we shouldn't have tracked F117s with our poxy British radars. I remember several RAF friends telling me they could easily track the F117s. I am not sure which radars, maybe type 93s.
I worked with several Russian and Ukrainian former nuclear scientists (at Hedge Funds) who told me that Russian defence spending was not as constrained during the "collapse" of the Soviet Union as we were led to believe. They maintained that the military always got the best of everything.
Look up Yamantau Mountain and see what happened there in 1997.