• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Russia to Create “Son of Satan” Missile

    Last week, General Sergei Karakayev, Commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces, announced plans for a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) to go into production as soon as 2018. He emphasized that the new missile would be capable of penetrating the NATO missile shield Russia dislikes so much. The new delivery system will carry a five-ton payload into orbit, almost as much as its predecessor, the infamous R-36m/SS-18 ICBM known by its NATO designation, “Satan.” Like “Satan,” “the Son of Satan” will use highly poisonous liquid propellant.

    This escalation comes after President Obama once again hailed his Russia policy. The Russian announcement delivers a blow to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which limited U.S. and Russian warheads. An Obama Administration “reset” policy, New START traded real concessions to Moscow for promises of imaginary cooperation in arms control, in a vain effort to reach President Obama’s dream of a nuclear-free world.

    As NATO countries are reducing their military budgets in response to economic crises, the Russian announcement is a sad case of jingoism: The U.S. has not deployed or tested a new nuclear weapons platform since the Reagan Administration. Nevertheless, Russia continues to treat the U.S. as its “principal adversary,” despite the proclaimed “reset” in relations.

    The Kremlin confirms that it is developing the new rocket in response to the U.S. missile shield. Russian President Vladimir Putin claims that the missile defense upsets the Cold War-style strategic balance and that Americans “are obsessed with the idea of providing themselves with absolute invulnerability.” He promises that no expense will be spared in restoring that balance.

    The White House’s assurances that the shield is deployed against the developing nuclear and missile programs of Iran and North Korea are met by repeated demands from Russian diplomats for severe “qualitative and quantitative” limitations that would render the system weak, defenseless, or moot.

    My colleague, Baker Spring, notes that “this is in line with Russia’s longstanding policy of creating a multi-polar environment and actively working against U.S. interests all over the world.” Russia is spending more than $700 billion on military modernization, including a missile which, according to Col. General Viktor Yesin, has “a payload four times bigger than that of the Yars missile.” The Cold War rhetoric and price tags indicate a belligerent Kremlin unable or unwilling to fulfill promises of a “reset.”

    This demonstrates the White House’s naiveté. The Obama Administration has not learned from Russia’s recent threat to relocate its short-range, nuclear capable Iskander rockets closer to borders with Poland and other NATO countries, or from the announcements of high-ranking Russian military personnel that faithfully represent the political will of the Russian national leadership.

    The latest announcement may be just another bargaining chip. It is possible that the missile will never reach production. The Russian military industrial complex is plagued with corruption and depends on imported foreign components. Its declining technical expertise and quality control make a project of this magnitude a costly endeavor that the Russians might be happy to scrap in exchange for significant limits on the missile shield. Yet, this should not be taken for granted. If anything, it is heavy ICBMs with multiple warheads that the Russians know how to produce.

    The last thing the U.S. should do is abandon the ballistic missile defense program that provides defense against real threats to national security. The U.S. and its allies have the right to disable missiles fired at them and should not cede this right in the pursuit of a “getting to zero” fantasy.

    Like the U.S., Russia should put behind the Cold War mentality that hobbled the Soviet Union with massive military expenditures. Rather, Moscow should seek to develop a mutually beneficial relationship, including countering the threats from North Korea and Iran. The Kremlin should recognize that economic challenges, Islamist threats from Afghanistan to Yemen, and America’s pivot to the Pacific mean that conflict with Russia will probably remain the legacy of the 20th century.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to Russia to Create “Son of Satan” Missile

    1. @Artem444 says:

      So when America tries to disable missiles fired at them, we say it has the right to do so. But when Russia tries to defend itself, we say it has Cold War mentality? Come on now, you can't be serious…..

      • yup says:

        Dead serious. Russia is building a missle that "would be capable of penetrating the NATO missile shield Russia dislikes so much." So they are building something that can make a strike. disabling missles is defense. Building missles is building offense.

    2. GarryB says:

      The real threats to US security that this proposed missile defence system deals with are?

      This new Russian missile is a reaction to US persistence with missile defence systems in Europe.

      The Russians have only asked for a written guarantee that the US ABM system in Europe will not be used against them.

      Russia is not being unreasonable in not believing verbal promises from the current US administration, after all their believing promises from Bush Snr and Baker that NATO would not expand, that former Soviet countries would not become part of NATO, that no NATO troops would be stationed in eastern europe… lots of promises and after a change of leadership the new regime never felt obliged to adhere to the previous administrations promises… what has changed?

      BTW with Mitt Romney stating that Russia is the USs number one foe, and McCain saying very similar things the last election cycle is Russia being reasonable in not trusting the US. Just one election away from changing policy.

      BTW Satan is to be replaced in Russian service because many of its components are Ukrainian. Perhaps if US ICBMs were produced in Canada and the two countries had a falling out then you might understand that building a new missile to replace the old one might make sense.

    3. wulfranoruizsainzcam says:

      That makes american ICBMs "Sons of Lucifer".

    4. jacob stephen says:

      mr.cohan,please end your russophobia,now the biggest danger for america and russia is islamism not putin

    5. fungkkdi says:

      Last time i heard russia offer to host the missile defence shield on it territory but america refuse! now who has cold war mentality ? supporting geogia against russia and trying to seek breakup of it resource rich territory all the while russia was weak. do you think russia not notice. jabbing putin and use the democracy card in covert. i think for sure its nothing about democracy , its all about american greed. greedy people never stop. do not be dreaming

    6. Russia Ally says:

      Correct , Russia will not bend her knee for US ;)

    7. John says:

      Wow…this article is very biased. But I'm very glad to see nobody.is buying into it. Too bad. American so called "reset"…shaking your hand with their left and holding a gun in their back with their right. 

    8. smen says:

      I dont know if the writer is an expert on nuclear missiles but i can assure Russia doesent nedd foreign parts for their nuclear weapons,no russian missile uses foreign parts,this is a lie

    9. K.A.Sharma says:

      The U.S. has been encircling Russia silently with advanced interceptors over the last several years, supporting dissidents covertly to destabilize Russia by wooing with promises and propaganda, trying gimmicks like “resets” to fool Russia, all a part of US Strategy to dominate the World. But it is also true that Islamic extremism is senseless and cruel to all humanity. Is it not ironic that US is continuing its support to Pakistan to “contain” India?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.