Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · 3d

I guess this should be the link: www.tandfonline.com/toc/fjss20/4...

The End of MAD? Technology Innovation and the Future of Nuclear Retaliatory Capabilities. Volume 48, Issue 2 of Journal of Strategic Studies

www.tandfonline.com

1

Reposted by Timur Kadyshev

James Acton @nuclear-jim.bsky.social · 8d

The End of MAD?

Join me, Steve Fetter, @jaysankarans.bsky.social, TD MacDonald, Ton Stefanik, @lauraegrego.bsky.social, @fiona-cunningham.bsky.social, and Charlie Glaser to discuss whether technological developments are undermining mutually assured destruction.

Link for virtual rego in next post.

a man in a shirt and tie is screaming with his hands in the air .

ALT: a man in a shirt and tie is screaming with his hands in the air .

media.tenor.com

1 4 5

Reposted by Timur Kadyshev

Franziska Stärk @franziskastaerk.bsky.social · 12d

Climate change & nuclear weapons are often seen as twin threats to future generations. My new open access article shows that while both pose similar moral dilemmas, intergenerational nuclear injustice is harder to spot—and harder to fix.

doi.org/10.1111/1758...

1/🧵

1 3 8

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · 26d

Deutsche Bahn is cautiously optimistic

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Sep 3

Our workshop report “Assessing Missile Defense Technology and Policy Half a Century After the ABM Treaty” is now out in the Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Assessing Missile Defense Technology and Policy Half a Century After the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: A Workshop Report

Published in Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament (Ahead of Print, 2025)

www.tandfonline.com

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Sep 3

Yes, and Russia denied this, see e.g. london.mid.ru/en/press-cen...
Thus the "damned uncertainty". To resolve it, a proof must be presented of either a test or a use of this missile to >500 km range, while calculations of maximum theoretical range are irrelevant.

london.mid.ru

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 17

Mine has never done this ...so far.

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 14

- therefore the question of whether 9M729 was in violation with INF Treaty or not cannot be decided by calculation of its maximum theoretical range, it’s a purely political question - until Russia or the US reveal a definitive information about it.
2/2

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 14

To be sure, I'm not saying that Russia did not violate INF Treaty, my points are:
- calculation of maximum theoretical range of a CM is not a correct way to determine its actual maximum range;
1/2
bsky.app/profile/kady...

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 14

BM and CM are very different beasts. Why do you think GLBM range is defind as “range,” while GLCM range need to be ”determined by projecting its flight path onto the earths sphere from the point of launch to the point of impact."?
1/6
bsky.app/profile/frho...

Fabian Hoffmann @frhoffmann.bsky.social · Aug 12

I'm sorry, but the arguments in this thread make no sense.

"While the wording differs, in both cases the underlying criterion is the missile’s tested capability".

If the negotiators had wanted the same criterion for GLBMs and GLCMs, they could have easily written it that way.

1/5

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 14

To advance this argument you need to state (and prove) which known Russian INF-range ALCM or SLCM the allegedly offending 9M729 actually is.
6/6
bsky.app/profile/frho...

Fabian Hoffmann @frhoffmann.bsky.social · Aug 12

Would we be having the same discussion if the US had deployed Tomahawk CMs on a ground-mobile launcher in 2014, but claimed the range was magically below the theoretical maximum simply because it hadn’t tested them beyond 500 km?

It would have been just as preposterous then as this is now.

5/5

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 14

Russia of course could have demonstrated something definitive out of good will. Unfortunately, what they did - the January'19 briefing - raised more questions than it answered. But then again, they have the right to protect sensitive information as much as the US, aren't they?
5/6

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 14

Russia would have explaining to do if the US said exactly what, when and where was tested in violation of the Treaty. What they did say instead was what the allegedly offending missile was NOT. I understand that this was to preserve their sources, but it does not help the situation.
4/6

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 14

By your calculation, maximum range of 9M728 is >500 km, correct? If yes, why was it not considered to be in violation?
Once more, calculation of theoretical maximum range is not a definitive way to determine GLCM’s actual maximum range, see Article VII.4 of the Treaty.
3/6
bsky.app/profile/frho...

Fabian Hoffmann @frhoffmann.bsky.social · Aug 12

So once more: we can absolutely determine who is right and wrong when it comes to the 9M729.

While calculating the exact range is difficult, it is clear that Russia had explaining to do, and it simply could not or would not provide it.

4/5

bsky.app/profile/kady...

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

the question boils down to whether one believes the Russian or US account.
Ultimately, whether 9M729 violated the INF Treaty cannot be determined by calculating its theoretical maximum range. At present it's a political judgment, not a technical one, though additional evidence could change that.
6/6

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 14

For GLCM maximum range in its standard design mode can be very different from its range in the mode optimized for maximum range (as illustrated in my thread you're answering to). That’s why the treaty has "standard design mode" in the range definition.
2/6
bsky.app/profile/frho...

Fabian Hoffmann @frhoffmann.bsky.social · Aug 12

For GLCMs, maximum range is much simpler to determine, as it is almost entirely a function of engine efficiency and fuel load.

No intrusive testing is needed to establish this, as I, and others before me, have demonstrated.

3/5

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 14

BM and CM are very different beasts. Why do you think GLBM range is defind as “range,” while GLCM range need to be ”determined by projecting its flight path onto the earths sphere from the point of launch to the point of impact."?
1/6
bsky.app/profile/frho...

Fabian Hoffmann @frhoffmann.bsky.social · Aug 12

I'm sorry, but the arguments in this thread make no sense.

"While the wording differs, in both cases the underlying criterion is the missile’s tested capability".

If the negotiators had wanted the same criterion for GLBMs and GLCMs, they could have easily written it that way.

1/5

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

Yes, that's what I said, "the United States found the “Russian Federation in violation of its obligations under the INF treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a GLCM with a range capability of 500 to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

I cannot deny (or confirm) what I don't know. The US official statement is that 9M729 was tested at "over 500 km" range, and objectively at this time everything else is just speculation.
While Russia’s credibility is doubtful, the US version is not necessarily definitive.

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

See bsky.app/profile/kady...

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

On the 9M729 Controversy Under INF Treaty Rules
A followup to my reply bsky.app/profile/kady... to the discussion on 9M729 (re)initiated by @frhoffmann.bsky.social
Under the INF Treaty, “range capability” is defined for ballistic missiles as “the maximum range to which it has been tested,”
1/6
‬

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

Interesting post by ‪@frhoffmann.bsky.social‬
My own ball-park calculations on the subject: let's take Tomahawk 1,600 km range-optimized version and try to estimate its range at very low altitude for the duration of the flight. 1/3 bsky.app/profile/frho...

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

the question boils down to whether one believes the Russian or US account.
Ultimately, whether 9M729 violated the INF Treaty cannot be determined by calculating its theoretical maximum range. At present it's a political judgment, not a technical one, though additional evidence could change that.
6/6

2 1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

The 9M729 controversy is not about its theoretical maximum range (which, if not corresponding to its standard design mode, would be irrelevant), but about US allegations that it was tested to more than 500 km from a mobile launcher. There is no verifiable open-source evidence to confirm this and
5/6

2

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

The decisive point is not the theoretical maximum range, but whether the missile was tested to the range in question or not.
In the case of the 9M728, which could theoretically be flown much further than 500 km, no range-related issue arose because it was never tested beyond that threshold.
4/6

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

For GLBMs, a missile tested to less than 500 km could theoretically fly farther, and one tested above 5,500 km could fly shorter ranges. The same applies to GLCMs: a missile designed and tested for under 500 km in its standard design mode could, in a different mode, fly farther.
3/6

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

and for cruise missiles as “the maximum distance which can be covered by the missile in its standard design mode flying until fuel exhaustion.” While the wording differs, in both cases the underlying criterion is the missile’s tested capability.
2/6

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

On the 9M729 Controversy Under INF Treaty Rules
A followup to my reply bsky.app/profile/kady... to the discussion on 9M729 (re)initiated by @frhoffmann.bsky.social
Under the INF Treaty, “range capability” is defined for ballistic missiles as “the maximum range to which it has been tested,”
1/6
‬

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

Interesting post by ‪@frhoffmann.bsky.social‬
My own ball-park calculations on the subject: let's take Tomahawk 1,600 km range-optimized version and try to estimate its range at very low altitude for the duration of the flight. 1/3 bsky.app/profile/frho...

Fabian Hoffmann @frhoffmann.bsky.social · Aug 10

Hi all,

I published my latest newsletter earlier, where I provide a technical analysis of the 9M729 to show that even without access to classified information it's clear that Russia has been lying.

Access the post via this link:
missilematters.substack.com/p/the-morat...

Short summary below.

1/7

1

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · Aug 11

Combining that with less efficient engine (sfc=0.92) and smaller fuel fraction (fuel mass 400 kg), the range is ~530 km. Terminal maneuvering can cut it further down to below 500 km.
Cruise missile's maximum theoretical range can be far from actual range for a specifically optimized flight profile.

2 5