What is a long-range missile? – The hysteria about ATACMS and Storm Shadow

Hello,

Lately there has been a lot of focus on missiles. Ukraine finally got permission to use ATACMS and Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles to hit targets in Russia, and Russia responded by demonstrating an intermediate range ballistic missile in Ukraine.

In the midst of all that, there has also been a discussion on social media about the classification of ATACMS as a long-range missile. This is how the missile is typically described in Western media, and it is the fundamental assumption behind Russia's claim that they have a red line about the use of these missiles on Russian territory. In this video, I join the discussion and try to clarify the terminology. And no, ATACMS is not actually a long-range missile. It would be good if we would stop using this word about it.

As always, you can watch the video here or read the transcript below.

Best,
Anders


Transcript:

The United States has now allowed Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles to hit targets inside of Russia. And it's a significant step. It gives Ukraine some opportunities that they did not have before. But it has also started an interesting discussion about how we categorize different missiles and what type of missile is ATACMS actually. It can seem like a semantic discussion, but it's interesting because the words we use about these missiles are a very important part of how the Russians are trying to frame the situation and their response. And the words also shape much of the discussion in the West about what is it actually that Ukraine is being permitted to do. And to some extent, they probably also give an exaggerated impression of the type and scale of support that the West is providing to Ukraine. So let's talk about it.

Ukraine has now been allowed to use ATACMS missiles and Storm Shadow missiles to hit targets inside of Russia. And they have done so. The first attacks have been conducted. It's significant because it's something that the Ukrainians have been asking for for a very long time. Joe Biden has resisted until now, but he has finally made the decision. He has given this permission.

It seems there are still limitations to what Ukraine can do with these missiles. They appear to be limited to the Kursk region and to be in connection, at least, with the operation that is taking place there. And that's what the rumors say. And that's where the attacks have been taking place so far. But it also appears that Ukraine probably has a limited quantity of these missiles. So it will be limited how much they can do. But the decision is also interesting because it has been one of those red lines that have sparked so much discussion. The Russians have been warning that if the Americans allow the Ukrainians to do this, then it could lead to dangerous escalation. And once again, we have heard the threats about nuclear war.

It's obviously not the first time that there is talk about a Russian red line and how if Ukraine is allowed to use this or that weapon, then it could lead to escalation. But frankly, I think this red line about using ATACMS inside of Russia is probably the strangest red line so far because Ukraine has been using ATACMS since April. They've been hitting the occupied territories in Ukraine that, according to the Russians, these should be also considered Russian territory. And the Ukrainians have also been hitting what is internationally recognized as Russian territory just with other types of weapons. They've been doing that since May.

So apparently the red line is the combination of these two things: If you hit exactly this part of Russian territory with exactly this weapon, then it's a big problem. But other types of weapons and other parts of Russia, that's fine. It's strange because logically Putin is essentially admitting that the occupied territories are not really a part of Russia. And I don't think that's what he means, but it just shows how artificial this red line is, that it's essentially something that they came up with because it seemed at least reasonably plausible.

So the argument that Putin has been making is that it will be something substantially different if Ukraine is allowed to use these long range missiles to hit internationally recognized Russian territory. That it will fundamentally change the war and could lead to dangerous escalation. And this perspective has also been supported by how ATACMS has been described in the West, namely that it's a long-range missile and it's something special, which is why it has required significant political considerations to provide this weapon to Ukraine. That if Ukraine is given this missile, then they will be gaining a very substantial long-range capability

But what I want to do now is to question the assumption that ATACMS is a long range missile. This assumption has been basically the foundation of all these discussions about whether the West should provide these weapons to Ukraine, or if it will be a red line for the Russians, and if it can lead to escalation.

And in some ways, it is a long range missile. ATACMS has a range that depending on the variant is either about 160 kilometers or about 300 kilometers. So that's substantially more than the other types of weapons that Ukraine has received, like the GMLRS for the HIMARS system. It has a range of about 80 kilometers. So in that sense, ATACMS is a long range missile. And also, if you look at the website for Lockheed Martin that produce ATACMS, they will also describe it as a long range missile.

But range is a relative thing. And if we look at missile ranges, then 300 kilometers is actually not very far. There are many missile types that have a much greater range than that. If we take, for example, something like the Tomahawk missile, that has a range of about 2,000 kilometers. And several of the missile types that Russia has been using against Ukraine during this war have ranges that are similar to the Tomahawk missile. So that's, for example, the Kalibr cruise missile. And if we take something like the Kh-101 missile that is launched from an airplane, then that has a much greater range of about 5,000 kilometers. So Russia has been using missiles in this war that have a range that is more than 15 times greater than the ATACMS missile. And still, we're talking about ATACMS as a long range missile.

So it's important that we always keep in mind that range is a relative thing and that we don't confuse the concepts when we talk about them. And just to illustrate this point, in response to the Ukrainian use of long-range ATACMS missiles on Russian territory, then Russia launched an intermediate range ballistic missile against Ukraine. It was a new, or at least it was a rebranded missile that the Russians called the Oreshnik missile. And one might get the impression that the long-range missile would have a longer range than the intermediate range missile, but that's not the case. ATACMS has a maximum range of about 300 kilometers, while the Oreshnik has a maximum range of about 3,000 kilometers. So the missile that we call intermediate range in this case has a range that is 10 times larger than the missile that we call long-range.

The reason why we get into this counterintuitive naming of the missiles is that the ATACMS missile is typically seen as a conventional tactical missile that should be compared to other tactical missiles that are used close to the frontline. And on the other hand, the Oreshnik is seen as part of the sort of bigger nuclear deterrents. So it's characterized by the definitions in different arms control treaties. And it's a bit different depending on what treaty you look in, but typically in that regime, you would say that anything that has a range shorter than 1,000 kilometers would be characterized as a short-range missile. And between 1,000 and 5,500 kilometers, that is considered intermediate range, and anything longer than 5,500 kilometers is classified as an intercontinental ballistic missile.

So if we categorize ATACMS by that definition, it wouldn't be a long-range missile, it would be a short-range ballistic missile. And the reason why this is important is that these words actually mean a lot for the public perception of what ATACMS is and what it means to give this capability to Ukraine.

So, for example, this headline makes it sound as if Biden has made a very profound decision about giving Ukraine access to a whole new range of capabilities. But if you change the word from long-range to short-range, then it wouldn't sound very impressive, even though it's the same missile. So it could change the discussion in the West about what we're doing and what kind of assistance we're actually providing to Ukraine.

And if we look at it in terms of the Russian rhetoric about the red lines, then it becomes even more obvious that we need to consider the actual ranges of these things and not just the headlines. The whole logic behind the Russian red line was that it would be a dangerous escalation if Ukraine were allowed to use long-range missiles on Russian territory. And the whole talking point just wouldn't work if ATACMS were classified as a short-range missile because it would sound ridiculous, right? It would not be credible to call it a red line if Ukraine is allowed to strike Russia with short-range missiles, given that Ukraine is already doing so, just with other short-range missiles.

So the point about all this is that ATACMS shouldn't be seen as anything extraordinary. On the modern battlefield, the frontline area stretches hundreds of kilometers behind the actual frontline and ATACMS is a tactical missile that supports that fight. And it's understandable that Ukraine is asking for this capability because it's part of how you fight a modern war.

And I think it's important that we don't let ourselves be confused by the fact that sometimes, in some contexts, ATACMS is referred to as a long-range missile. Because this semantic difference has specifically created a kind of mental block in the Western discourse.The question of ATACMS has turned into something that it actually isn't. And this has allowed the Russians to establish the impression of red lines that don't make sense if you look at what this missile actually is and what it can do. So it's important to always keep in mind when we talk about ATACMS that Russia is using missiles that have a much greater range against Ukraine. And, you know, ATACMS is a good missile. It's a powerful missile, but it's not that special and it's not particularly long-range.

Okay, I will end it here. If you found this video helpful or informative, then please give it a like. And also, remember to subscribe to the channel and click the bell icon to get notifications when I upload new videos. If you want to support the channel, you can subscribe to my newsletter at www.logicofwar.com. Thank you very much for watching and I will see you again next time.