[ChuckMcM]

I am not a nuclear policy wonk, so I apologize if this question is answered elsewhere.

Much of the argument presented in this paper from last year is based on how destabilizing it is because Russia does not have an orbital launch detection capability. Since it would double the time they had to respond and requires no action banned or restricted by treaty, why would they not put satellites in orbit that could detect the IR signature of a missile launch? Why not strap it on to their constellation of GLONASS satellites? This seems like a much easier technology to develop and deploy and test (the US is launching rockets every month, it should see every one of those launches reliably). What am I missing here?

[caf]

This is covered in the article:

Detailed analyses, initially stimulated by questions about why the alert went on for so long, showed that a specialized space-based Russian early warning system called Prognoz was then under development. Analysis of the Prognoz satellite constellation and of available Russian infrared sensor technologies indicated that even if the satellite system had been working, it would not have been able to provide surveillance of the North Atlantic. Today, Russia has stopped launching satellites into this constellation and has instead focused enormous resources exclusively into building a highly robust and redundant network of ground-based radars. It is now very clear that Russia’s extreme de-emphasis on satellite early warning systems and its extreme focus on building numerous, technologically varied ground-based radar warning systems is due to the lack of critical technologies needed to implement a space-based ballistic missile warning system.

[nabla9]

It's combination of priorities, capabilities and money. If Russia can maintain credible second strike capability that survives the first strike, detecting attack is not necessary. Russia chose to develop new second strike weapons that survive surprise first strike with the limited resources it has.

Nuclear long range torpedo and Nuclear powered cruise missile that Russia is developing is just that kid of weapon. They are relatively easy to hide and incredibly difficult to intercept (U.S. had similar development in 60's. Google: Project Pluto and SLAM)

[InclinedPlane]

They don't have it because it's a very hard problem. You need IR sensors providing near global coverage and you need the sensors and the data processing pipeline to be good enough to provide low latency on detections (ideally seconds) with high confidence through filtering out false positives. That's an incredibly challenging technical problem. The US solves this problem with a fleet of satellites that each cost $1.9 billion a pop with R&D probably several times that and ground based infrastructure that is probably similarly expensive. Russia's defense budget in total is only about $50 billion a year, they just don't have the money to afford such a program.

[pdonis]

> why would they not put satellites in orbit that could detect the IR signature of a missile launch?

The article speculates that they do not have all of the capabilities needed (putting satellites in orbit is just one of them, you also need the detection hardware on the satellites, the ground stations to process and interpret the data, and people trained to use all this stuff properly).

An alternative speculation would be that Russia actually prefers not to have a better detection capability, because then they would be responsible for using it and would be less able to complain about the US. As it is, they can claim publicly that it is the US that is destabilizing things, while covertly they continue all sorts of much more destabilizing activities.

[caf]

The alternative speculation is silly. Whatever you might think about Russia, it's a rolled gold certainty that they don't want to be involved in an accidental nuclear exchange.

[pdonis]

> Whatever you might think about Russia, it's a rolled gold certainty that they don't want to be involved in an accidental nuclear exchange.

I'm sure the average Russian citizen doesn't. I'm not so sure about Putin.

[caf]

It would be a national catastrophe for every nation involved, and no-one at the top levels is in any doubt about that.

[supergirl]

why, what did he say about it?

[cryptonector]

First off, it may not be quite that simple. They may need detector tech that they lack. Secondly, development of these dead-hand weapons systems may be easier for them or more appealing for whatever reasons (perhaps cultural).

But yes, you'd think it'd be better to double decision times than to deploy dead-hands.

Also, the U.S. could easily share early warning satellite technology with Russia. This might be a lot easier if relations weren't already so frosty.

I believe Obama's sanctions against Russia were unwise, and ratcheted up tensions unnecessarily. Moreover, Congress' subsequent affirmation of those sanctions and removal of the President's ability to remove them further ratcheted up tensions. And all of this over a very partisan domestic feud about supposed Russian interference in the 2016 election, in a country that regularly interferes in other countries' elections. Is this really worth it for Democrats? Is it really worth it for all those very many Republicans that voted for that silly bill (probably so they could head off Democrat claims of being in cahoots with Russia)?? Almost certainly not. But such is the degree of bitter, uncivil partisanship in the United States today. President Trump doesn't even have the ability to negotiate a thaw in relations given the current statutory situation -- a treaty could be used, sure, but there's no reason to think that the Senate would welcome it anymore than it was willing to let the President be able to reduce sanctions by himself (as would have been the usual case).

My guess is it will take Republicans having a very good 2018, or failing that, a very good 2020, before tensions can decrease. Alternatively, Democrats would have to sweep in 2020 and somehow allow themselves to un-blame Russia for 2016, which just doesn't seem likely, not given their rhetoric so far.

[dragonwriter]

> And all of this over a very partisan domestic feud about supposed Russian interference in the 2016 election

The majority party in the Congress that adopted the sanctions is the same as the one of the President who allegedly benefitted from the interference. And national security officials in that same Presidential administration have described the Russian interference as something that happened in 2016 and can be expected to continue.

Blaming the sanctions on a domestic “partisan feud” is incorrect.

[cryptonector]

My impression is that Republicans voted for that bill because they were afraid that voting no would be used against them as proof that they were in cahoots with the Russians. I think that's at least a tenable interpretation.

[pdonis]

> the U.S. could easily share early warning satellite technology with Russia

I strongly suspect that the US already has "shared" such technology with Russia, in the sense that they have obtained it from spies. There are other possible reasons why Russia might not choose to use such technology even if it has it (see my other post upthread).