TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- USA to deploy another missle defense system ... in Turkey
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium What Russia worries about the most is that these missile defence bases are being implemented to intercept any Russian missiles after NATO/USA launch a surprise attack on Russia to defeat it once and for all.

It isn't Russia its just you.

quote:

Judging by the advancing NATO pact, continuing Russophobia around the world, and failure by the West to get with the times and allow Russia to develop democracy gradually and steadily - all this is creating a new dangerous era. In this new Cold War, which Russia cant afford to be part of and will never admit to be in one, but they will concentrate a lot of money and power to build allies around itself to establish a "safety zone" to prevent potential enemies like NATO to dig in and prepare to neutralize Russia. Expect Russia to edge closer and closer to a dangerous alliance with China.

Russophobia? Do you even know why Russians are hated around the world for?

quote:

Russia can ill afford another Operation Barbarossa. And they're not being paranoid ... its clear that NATO is advancing, and that USA and its allies, and other countries like China are very hungry for rich Russian resources, as they were hungry for Middle East.

My english isn't too good. When you mean "ill" you mean they can?

quote:

Originally posted by Spike couldnt agree more. hey who needs better healthcare, or lower university and college fees when you got bombs!

Who needs health care when you're a pile of ashes!

/sorry couldn't resist...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley America's missile defence shield, even with all the wild and whacky components that have ever been thought up, could never neutralise Russia's nuclear deterrent...

Considering the current dire situation of the Russian military, continuing reductions and lack of proper training and experience, today Russia is at its weakest point when it comes to defense against air attack. Just because Putin ruled for 8 years doesnt mean the military is all shiny and rebuilt. From my knowledge it hasnt gotten much better since its all-time low point in 1998.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Considering the current dire situation of the Russian military, continuing reductions and lack of proper training and experience, today Russia is at its weakest point when it comes to defense against air attack. Just because Putin ruled for 8 years doesnt mean the military is all shiny and rebuilt. From my knowledge it hasnt gotten much better since its all-time low point in 1998.

What's that got to do with what I said?

We're talking about missile defence shields and your mistaken belief that these could be used to defend against Russian ballistic missiles, they can't, and won't ever be able to defend against Russian missiles...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What's that got to do with what I said? We're talking about missile defence shields and your mistaken belief that these could be used to defend against Russian ballistic missiles, they can't, and won't ever be able to defend against Russian missiles...

Air attack can neutralize these missiles ;-) Plus, what are the chances these missile are actually going to take off and hit the designated targets? From our knowledge, these missiles have been sitting in their silos for many many years now. Plus, bribing a top Russian general in the missile defense can make a difference between timely attack and lack of tactical response by the Russians

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What's that got to do with what I said? We're talking about missile defence shields and your mistaken belief that these could be used to defend against Russian ballistic missiles, they can't, and won't ever be able to defend against Russian missiles...

George here's a piece I worte about a possible NATO attack on Russia:

"A standard NATO plan for a first strike would follow as thus. A full scale ICBM launch synchronised with massive bomber penetration of Russian territory would aim to knock out all military and command structures in Russia. To stop any launches of ICBM�s from their silos a technique called X-ray pin-down would be used. This is the use of submarine launched ICBM�s which are launched at a high velocity with a depressed trajectory with the aim of detonating them above ICBM fields. The aim to not to destroy the Russian ICBM�s but to prevent them from launching as they would be damaged if they took off through these nuclear explosions. They ICBM fields themselves would then be wiped out by land based missiles or bombers. This technique is useful as the warning time for a submarine launched missile is only a few minutes and therefore a counter-strike cannot be launched before they arrive. Once the vast majority of Russian forces have been wiped out, any retaliatory strike would be intercepted by the missile defence system. Despite the risk of some losses, these would be minimal and would ensure the advancement of NATO hegemony."

The "missile defence" is a first-strike weapon, make no qualms about this. America is seeking the relative ease of fighting a state instead of having to concoct ever more reasons to fight an invisible and fairly vacuous enemy that exists due to hard power in the first place.

P.S

George, Blades are done for on Saturday, enjoy your fruitless time at Fortress Deepdale

quote:

Originally posted by Lover Boy George here's a piece I worte about a possible NATO attack on Russia: "A standard NATO plan for a first strike would follow as thus. A full scale ICBM launch synchronised with massive bomber penetration of Russian territory would aim to knock out all military and command structures in Russia. To stop any launches of ICBM�s from their silos a technique called X-ray pin-down would be used. This is the use of submarine launched ICBM�s which are launched at a high velocity with a depressed trajectory with the aim of detonating them above ICBM fields. The aim to not to destroy the Russian ICBM�s but to prevent them from launching as they would be damaged if they took off through these nuclear explosions. They ICBM fields themselves would then be wiped out by land based missiles or bombers. This technique is useful as the warning time for a submarine launched missile is only a few minutes and therefore a counter-strike cannot be launched before they arrive. Once the vast majority of Russian forces have been wiped out, any retaliatory strike would be intercepted by the missile defence system. Despite the risk of some losses, these would be minimal and would ensure the advancement of NATO hegemony." The "missile defence" is a first-strike weapon, make no qualms about this. America is seeking the relative ease of fighting a state instead of having to concoct ever more reasons to fight an invisible and fairly vacuous enemy that exists due to hard power in the first place.

I don't know where Russia's nuclear arsenal is based but I should imagine a lot of it is based as far away from the coast as possible to defend as much as they can from what you describe above. How long exactly are you saying it would take an ICBM fired from a sub to the furtherst possible target in Russia? And is that faster than detenction + launch by Russia?

Either way, it's irrelevant because Russia, apparently, maintains over 2,000 warheads based on their own submarine fleet so they'd maintain more than enough for a second strike and no amount of missile defences are gonna account for over 2,000 warheads!

The currently deployed, and proposed missile defence shield, is only designed to defend against ONE missile. With Russia, we're talking about THOUSANDS of warheads. It simply is not possible to defend against an attack like that (hence the "deterrence")

quote:

P.S George, Blades are done for on Saturday, enjoy your fruitless time at Fortress Deepdale

Nah maybe when Robson was manager but now we're on a run and Billy Sharp has finally started bangin em in for fun!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Either way, it's irrelevant because Russia, apparently, maintains over 2,000 warheads based on their own submarine fleet so they'd maintain more than enough for a second strike and no amount of missile defences are gonna account for over 2,000 warheads! The currently deployed, and proposed missile defence shield, is only designed to defend against ONE missile. With Russia, we're talking about THOUSANDS of warheads. It simply is not possible to defend against an attack like that (hence the "deterrence")

Russia won't have 2000 warheads on subs, it's extremely doubtful they even have that many on alert status. As I said this is a possible scenario to eliminate Russian ground targets.

As for sea-based assets, American detection systems are preety much guaranteed to find the subs before they launch, or at least neutralise enough of them that America only receives a few hits. Were talking in the very macabre tract of acceptable losses here.

Also America intend to put ten inceceptors in at first. So that's ten missiles they can shoot down already (if it worked). This can easily be expanded.

The underlying question you should be asking is if Iran or N Korea wanted to attack America why wouldn't they;

a)Attack American military assets in the region and
b)The fact Iran will take a decade to get the missile technology to hit the US and North Korea is closer over the Pacific.

The "shield" has no purpose but that of containing Russia.

quote:

Originally posted by Lover Boy Russia won't have 2000 warheads on subs, it's extremely doubtful they even have that many on alert status. As I said this is a possible scenario to eliminate Russian ground targets.

I got that figure from here. Altho I admit that's not a very "good" source. A more reliable source (here) says Russia has 12 subs capable of carrying over 600 nuclear warheads (which doesn't mean they do carry that many but for the sake of our argument we should assume that they can fit these subs out with the maximum should tensions increase). Also you can't say that your plan is for when Russia is not on high alert but NATO is. This plan would be enacted right in the middle of another Cold War where tensions are as high as in the 80s (otherwise why on Earth would NATO ever consider putting such a plan into action if they percieved no threat?)

quote:

As for sea-based assets, American detection systems are preety much guaranteed to find the subs before they launch, or at least neutralise enough of them that America only receives a few hits. Were talking in the very macabre tract of acceptable losses here.

The subs don't have to be off the coast of America to strike (they only need to be close for a fast strike). We're talking about second strike capability and if the subs are off the coast of Russia underwater they would not be caught up in any attack on the Russian mainland and would remain capable of firing missiles at America in a second strike. That makes America's detection systems irrelevant to this scenario. Also, how many nuclear strikes do you think it would take to "destroy" America (ie cause a complete collapse of society). How many big cities?

quote:

Also America intend to put ten inceceptors in at first. So that's ten missiles they can shoot down already (if it worked). This can easily be expanded.

No that's for one missile, and the BMD shield doesn't even work. Their test flights haven't produced consistant successful intercepts and the ones that have been successful have not been under realistic conditions (the "defenders", for example, are given the flight path of the missile). Bush declared the shield "operational" in 2004 I think in time for the elections, but it's not even operational now! But you would literally need thousands and thousands of interceptors (or whatever) to nuetralise an arsenal the size of Russia's and even then, it is just too easy to modify a missile with decoys to render the defences useless (er). There is no way these defences will prevent more than the minimum amount of warheads hitting their taregt

quote:

The underlying question you should be asking is if Iran or N Korea wanted to attack America why wouldn't they; a)Attack American military assets in the region and b)The fact Iran will take a decade to get the missile technology to hit the US and North Korea is closer over the Pacific. The "shield" has no purpose but that of containing Russia.

Well I don't think Iran or North Korea would launch a nuclear (or any other kind of missile attack) on America because they'd be wiped out like Saddam's regime. These two countries probably have/want nukes to prevent America from attacking them (maybe this defence shield is so they can attack Iran or North Korea without fear of a counter attack from a single missile?)

As for the geographical locations, well Poland and the Czech Republic are in a direct line with Iran and America, so are pretty well placed to defend America against Iranian missiles (if the BMD actually worked that is!). With North Korea, Alaska is just about in line with the flight path a missile would take so the defences based in Alaska would be for North Korea

Very interesting reply, though I think some of your underlying assumptions are false.

Your right about the subs but they would never get to America to get a second strike in. They would either be intercepted before they launched and even if they did launch in the middle of the Pacific then the BMD would take them out. American surveillance of the oceans is fairly spot on, again in this idealised situation the subs would be neutralised before they became a threat.

North Korea and Iran would never use nukes or any weapon against the American homeland, why would it when it can attack forces around its region? You also have to consider the widening of NATO so that it will border Russia when Georgia and Ukraine join.

As Bismarck said, you have to judge capabilities not intentions. Iranian and Korean attacks are not going to happen because they defy game theory. The only rational way to see the BMD is targeted at Russia and perhaps China in future.

It not working is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion as it is being built to work and were not talking short-term strategy here. The ten inteceptors arn't all built for one missile - if they were then somebody would fire a missile without a warhead, let it be shot down then rain fire on the US. This is a shield that intends to be able to combat multiple missile threats simultaneously.

PS

Billy Sharp: In Youl Mawene's pocket

quote:

Originally posted by Lover Boy Your right about the subs but they would never get to America to get a second strike in. They would either be intercepted before they launched and even if they did launch in the middle of the Pacific then the BMD would take them out. American surveillance of the oceans is fairly spot on, again in this idealised situation the subs would be neutralised before they became a threat.

But the subs won't need to "get to America" at all. Their missiles are capable of reaching America from their bases on the coast of Russia. The advantage of submarine strikes is the speed at which they can deliver their payload by popping up on the enemy's coast (reducing flight time and therefore detection time). Other than that they are no different to other delivery systems apart from in this scenario they won't be destroyed in a first strike and will therefore be able to launch a second strike. And no, the BMD will NOT take their missiles out! The BMD as it stands today won't even take ONE of their missiles out let alone several hundred warheads (on a conservative estimate at that!)

I don't know how sophisticated the US' sub detection systems are (perhaps you can give me a link?) but I don't think in this scenario they are all that relevant because the subs don't need to travel anywhere to make a conventional nuclear attack (ie not a suprise attack)

quote:

North Korea and Iran would never use nukes or any weapon against the American homeland, why would it when it can attack forces around its region? You also have to consider the widening of NATO so that it will border Russia when Georgia and Ukraine join. As Bismarck said, you have to judge capabilities not intentions. Iranian and Korean attacks are not going to happen because they defy game theory. The only rational way to see the BMD is targeted at Russia and perhaps China in future.

I agree completely about what you say about Iran's and North Korea's capabilities/intentions - but - what you overlook is the American desire to attack these two nations. North Korea has a missile that can hit Hawaii and Alaska and possibly America's West Coast. But, they can also strike South Korea and Japan no problems. These factors prevent America attacking North Korea. Now if they can defend against tactical and strategic missiles (not a great deal of missiles) then they can attack North Korea (same goes for Iran) without the fear of reprisals against either US soil or US allies. I do think it's an offensive rather than defensive measure (considering intentions/capabilities) but I just don't think the target is the same as you do (now we might have a better chance of agreement if we talk about China, but this argument is currently about Russia)

quote:

It not working is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion as it is being built to work and were not talking short-term strategy here. The ten inteceptors arn't all built for one missile - if they were then somebody would fire a missile without a warhead, let it be shot down then rain fire on the US. This is a shield that intends to be able to combat multiple missile threats simultaneously.

It doesn't work today how it is "supposed" to work. If a ballistic missile was fired at the US today they would have no defence (in fact there is no defence in existance against a ballistic missile). If the currently "operational" BMD shield actually worked how it was envisioned, it is still not estimated to have a 100% kill rate (there are 7 or 10 interceptors which are supposed to protect against a single ballistic missile, or possibly two at a stretch)

But looking to this hypothetical future...if we have all the components ever imagined (going beyod what is planned or thought possible) then there is still no way they can defend against the 3,000+ warheads of Russia! They travel at 5 miles per second! They are hard to track! But not only that, it is very easy to modify existing (or future) missiles to counter these defences (decoys etc) rendering missile defences useless.

Can you honestly say you actually believe that, should it come to it, it would be possible to detect, track, and intercept over 3,000 objects wizzing through the air at 5 miles per second that have been fitted with sophisticated countermeasures?

quote:

PS Billy Sharp: In Youl Mawene's pocket

The difference is, you know who Billy Sharp is, I've never heard of this "Youl Mawene"!

Smiley, you have me (to an extent). I cannot deny that currently the BMD poses no threat to Russia but it represents a dangerous precedent of ring fencing an emerging power which controls much of Europe�s energy resources. To contend that it is worth spending billions of dollars on a technology to defend against one missile is ludicrous beyond belief, therefore the only realistic extrapolation of the facts is that America (at least long term) is looking at this in the same way Regan did when he started the Star Wars project.

As with stealth technology, America is trying to build up an arsenal of weaponry that will enable them to deliver a decisive blow to any adversary with minimal return. Not sure if you�ve read much about America�s policy on the militarization of outer space; in my opinion when this information is tied in with the BMD then it is clear that America is only interested in securing its military hegemony.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopoli...ntrol/Space.asp

I think the problem Russia has with America's missile defence programme is not that it is, or that they think it is, intended to target Russia's missiles, but that it might allow America to extend its influence to areas Russia also seeks to have an influence. The most obvious example is Iran. Everybody knows America wants regime change in Iran for various reasons. Russia is also trying to gain influence in Iran (probably for similar reasons). I think Russia is scared that should America successfully build a missile defence shield it will be less reluctant to attack these "rogue states" and install regimes favourable to American interests. It's basically the old imperial game we saw during the 19th and 20th centuries and again through the Cold War - the major powers want their influence spread as far round the globe as possible and perhaps this missile defence shield will help America do just that.

But I think the power that has most reason to fear missile defence technology is China. Not only because they have a small nuclear arsenal compared to Russia and America, but because of the implications it should have for one of America's biggest arms customers - Taiwan. If Taiwan had well developed strategic and tactical missile defences China might not be in that great a position to prevent their independence...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But I think the power that has most reason to fear missile defence technology is China. Not only because they have a small nuclear arsenal compared to Russia and America, but because of the implications it should have for one of America's biggest arms customers - Taiwan. If Taiwan had well developed strategic and tactical missile defences China might not be in that great a position to prevent their independence...

I agree on conventional military terms but Taiwan has just elected a pro-Chinese government which aims to strengthen ties with the mainland while maintaining a sense of autonomy. America�s belligerent attitude towards China regarding Taiwan has softened recently with the increase in trade between the two powers. It is highly unlikely that America would go to war with China over what is for them more of an ideological battle than anything else. Such a war would also probably not be able to contain itself due to the nature of the conflict and the amount of economic turmoil it would create. Much in the same way Britain sold Poland out at the end of the Second World War; responsibility to defend Taiwan is looking more like a weight around America�s neck than the excuse it needed to justify its military presence off the Chinese coast. Also China is developing extensive asymmetric warfare capabilities as the purported attempts to hack Robert Gates email and the other attacks on the Pentagon show.

Again I�d suggest reading the article on American space-based weaponry. Although I have basically folded to your analysis regarding BMD I do think that when considering US intentions for the militarization of outer space then the threat towards Russia becomes more credible.

PS

We�ll have to start our own thread on geopolitics at this rate!

Lover Boy, you're a one very interesting thinker ;-) too bad I dont see you post enough on this POD forum.

George, so what that Russia has 2,000 nukes sitting/lying all over the place? Russia has like many more tanks than nukes ... yet most of these tanks are rusting away, not being used, not being maintained properly, etc. (you get the point)

Also, if USA wanted to bring influence to countries like Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, etc. to cut off Russian influence and threat, they would have just settled with military bases, economic pacts, alliances, etc. etc. etc. But building missile interceptors is quite a different story. You only create interceptors to counter a country's missile attack ... in this case, the only thing that makes sense is to prepare to intercept the few Russian missiles that manage to survive the initial NATO/USA pummeling ... and with recent American announcement that they will now consider sending weapons into space - well, now shouldn't Russians be worried? Especially after Americans overthrew most of the oil and gas rich regimes in Middle East? And the remaining, of course, have been forced to ally with USA.

I say if USA builds the interceptors in Turkey then Russia should start full-scale military rebuilding, mainly focusing on tactical weapons and making sure they're sharp and ready, aimed at all possible threats. Its long overdue. Russia is in huge danger today, like never before. It hardly even has any allies around itself to serve as a buffer zone to protect itself anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium George, so what that Russia has 2,000 nukes sitting/lying all over the place? Russia has like many more tanks than nukes ... yet most of these tanks are rusting away, not being used, not being maintained properly, etc. (you get the point)

Russia currently has 7,200 operational warheads and a further 8,800 in reserve (link)

quote:

Also, if USA wanted to bring influence to countries like Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, etc. to cut off Russian influence and threat, they would have just settled with military bases, economic pacts, alliances, etc. etc. etc.

America has, or will do, exactly as you describe above for the countries you mentioned, but we aren't talking about those countries are we?

quote:

But building missile interceptors is quite a different story. You only create interceptors to counter a country's missile attack ...

Yes, like Iran's ballistic missiles

quote:

in this case, the only thing that makes sense is to prepare to intercept the few Russian missiles

7,200 is not a "few"

quote:

that manage to survive the initial NATO/USA pummeling ...

Please read what me and Lover Boy were saying about the possibility of being able to mount a successful first strike against Russia (a successful first strike would mean Russia would not be able to retaliate) - Russia's submarine based nuclear arsenal pretty much eliminates the possibility of being able to mount a successful first strike

quote:

I say if USA builds the interceptors in Turkey then Russia should start full-scale military rebuilding, mainly focusing on tactical weapons and making sure they're sharp and ready, aimed at all possible threats. Its long overdue. Russia is in huge danger today, like never before. It hardly even has any allies around itself to serve as a buffer zone to protect itself anymore.

Lol! Where do you think Russian missiles would fly on their way to America?! They gonna take the scenic route over Turkey then buy a cheap beer in Prague?! The shortest distance between American territory and Russian territory is 3 miles, and that is nowhere near Turkey or Eastern Europe - any BMD components that are designed to target Russian missiles would be based on American soil and nowhere else - these European bases are designed to target only missiles fired from the Middle East region

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Lover Boy, you're a one very interesting thinker ;-) too bad I dont see you post enough on this POD forum.

Why thank you Magnetonium. I come and go on the TA forums, I should make more of an effort because the POD forum here is very good imo.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley ... any BMD components that are designed to target Russian missiles would be based on American soil and nowhere else - these European bases are designed to target only missiles fired from the Middle East region

I don't think this stands logically. If America is defending itself against Middle Eastern missiles aimed towards the continental US then they would only need interceptors on American soil. They�ll be plenty of time to shoot them down over the Atlantic after all (as you suggest they would do with Russian missiles, generally speaking). This raises the spectre of another underlying intent � the protection of Israel.

Iran realistically has no motive for attacking Europe or the continental US; such a move would be suicide. However an attack on Israel is much more likely & Israel�s counter would have to be balanced, it can�t level Iran as it would unleash a pogrom to rival The Holocaust. Therefore it could be deduced that America is building the shield in effect to guarantee Israeli security.

In any case the ring fencing of Russia and regional powers (Iran) threatens to disrupt the delicate balance of forces that has kept these bellicose protagonists at bay. When juxtaposed with the emerging energy crisis and global economic slowdown, America�s final gambit at maintaining its global hegemony risks pushing the world into a new Cold War.

quote:

Originally posted by Lover Boy I don't think this stands logically. If America is defending itself against Middle Eastern missiles aimed towards the continental US then they would only need interceptors on American soil. They�ll be plenty of time to shoot them down over the Atlantic after all (as you suggest they would do with Russian missiles, generally speaking). This raises the spectre of another underlying intent � the protection of Israel.

Well Russian missiles wouldn't fly over the Atlantic for a start! But the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic (or Fylingdales for that matter) do not house interceptors, they are radar bases for detection. I guess the closer they are to the launch site the easier it is to detect a missile in its boost phase. But I agree that it would be odd to site interceptors in Turkey because they are designed to intercept missiles in the mid-course phase, but as Turkey shares a border with Iran I'd probably say these missiles would still be in the boost phase and out of range when they were in their mid-course phase from interceptors based in Turkey. The articles posted seemed a bit ambiguous over whether or not the Turkish site would house interceptors or radar bases but imo interceptors would be a bit pointless (not that I don't think the entire BMD shield is pointless in the first place!)

quote:

Iran realistically has no motive for attacking Europe or the continental US; such a move would be suicide. However an attack on Israel is much more likely & Israel�s counter would have to be balanced, it can�t level Iran as it would unleash a pogrom to rival The Holocaust. Therefore it could be deduced that America is building the shield in effect to guarantee Israeli security.

It's a reasonable argument. The line between American security interests and Israeli security interests has become so blurred that the two are almost identical. There are a few problems you might want to think about while talking specifically about Turkey - one, Turkey isn't geographically placed between Israel and Iran; two, if it were to protect Israel, why not just build the site actually in Israel?; three, the BMD shield, as far as what is being mooted for Turkey, is designed to defend against strategic missiles, not tactical missiels, the distance between Iran and Israel would mean tactical missiles would tend to be used (also I'm not too sure Iran, as of yet, even has any strategic missles!); four, Israel and America have already a joint tactical missile defence programme currently in operation in Israel - the Arrow Defence System (why would they need further defences based in Turkey?)

quote:

In any case the ring fencing of Russia and regional powers (Iran) threatens to disrupt the delicate balance of forces that has kept these bellicose protagonists at bay. When juxtaposed with the emerging energy crisis and global economic slowdown, America�s final gambit at maintaining its global hegemony risks pushing the world into a new Cold War.

I think what you hit on here is the key point. These systems, imo, are not intended to target the big boys of the world. They are designed to target the rogue states it will be necessary in the future to control (energy etc). As technology advances, these rogue states will have access to weaponary (long range ballistic missiles) that might be able to strike America and that would severly hamper American efforts to extert influence over them, for example, would the Iran war have happened should Saddam have had missiles capable of reaching New York?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley ... would the Iran war have happened should Saddam have had missiles capable of reaching New York?

I hope you mean Iraq!

I disagree that nukes wouldn�t go over the Atlantic; if you want to hit NYC the quickest way is the Atlantic. You also have the added bonus that there is relatively little chance of intercepting it over the ocean when compared to travelling over three thousand miles of BMD enforced territory.

My Israel hypothesis was a thought I came up with while I wrote my last post. As you said, it�s a reasonable assumption but doesn�t follow usual logic. Much about the BMD doesn�t make sense. To an extent I do think it is just a component of the corrupt military-industrial complex, an excuse to destroy the products of human labour in the name of securing �freedom�. I�m not too sure of the monies involved or the contractors but whoever it is has a guaranteed revenue stream of billions of dollars for the next decade at least. Bush�s cronyism knows no limits, I doubt even Eisenhower could have envisaged the extent to which the military-industrial complex has destroyed American democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lover Boy I hope you mean Iraq!

Yep!

quote:

I disagree that nukes wouldn�t go over the Atlantic; if you want to hit NYC the quickest way is the Atlantic.

I said Russian nukes wouldn't go over the Atlantic - they would be fired over the Arctic to strike all locations in America. "Iranian nukes" would clip the arse end of Greenland and hence the very northern most part of the Atlantic Ocean.

quote:

You also have the added bonus that there is relatively little chance of intercepting it over the ocean when compared to travelling over three thousand miles of BMD enforced territory.

Don't think I've ever made this claim have I?

quote:

My Israel hypothesis was a thought I came up with while I wrote my last post. As you said, it�s a reasonable assumption but doesn�t follow usual logic. Much about the BMD doesn�t make sense. To an extent I do think it is just a component of the corrupt military-industrial complex, an excuse to destroy the products of human labour in the name of securing �freedom�. I�m not too sure of the monies involved or the contractors but whoever it is has a guaranteed revenue stream of billions of dollars for the next decade at least. Bush�s cronyism knows no limits, I doubt even Eisenhower could have envisaged the extent to which the military-industrial complex has destroyed American democracy.

This is probably very true

So I see Magnetonium is still beating this dead horse? The US missile defense system is not a threat to Russia and will never be in its current form.

1. It is not in proper position to defend against Russian nuclear launches against the mainland US

2. The system is nowhere near 100% successful at intercepting a SINGLE missile much less a massive launch of thousands of missiles from Russia

3. The US does not have enough interceptors to even put a small dent in a full scale Russian nuclear launch

And it is amusing that the pot is calling the kettle black here, don't forget Russia has had a functioning ABM system around Moscow for decades now.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Don't think I've ever made this claim have I?

Sorry think I misread what you wrote here

quote:

You also have the added bonus that there is relatively little chance of intercepting it over the ocean when compared to travelling over three thousand miles of BMD enforced territory

I think there would be more chance of detecting, tracking and intercepting a missile fired from Russia over the Atlantic rather than the Arctic (the shortest distance) simply because of the extra amount of time it would spend in the sky (don't know the exact distance but were talking around double the distance/time)

Also, don't forget that a major component of the BMD shield is the sea based Aegis defence system which will track and intercept mid-course ballistic missiles, so whether the missiles were fired over land or sea wouldn't make a difference

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Russia currently has 7,200 operational warheads and a further 8,800 in reserve (link) America has, or will do, exactly as you describe above for the countries you mentioned, but we aren't talking about those countries are we? Yes, like Iran's ballistic missiles 7,200 is not a "few" Please read what me and Lover Boy were saying about the possibility of being able to mount a successful first strike against Russia (a successful first strike would mean Russia would not be able to retaliate) - Russia's submarine based nuclear arsenal pretty much eliminates the possibility of being able to mount a successful first strike Lol! Where do you think Russian missiles would fly on their way to America?! They gonna take the scenic route over Turkey then buy a cheap beer in Prague?! The shortest distance between American territory and Russian territory is 3 miles, and that is nowhere near Turkey or Eastern Europe - any BMD components that are designed to target Russian missiles would be based on American soil and nowhere else - these European bases are designed to target only missiles fired from the Middle East region

That article is ballony. 12 SUBS??? That globalsecurity.org article alone crashes that point - most of Russian subs are rusting away. And the ones that do patrol, these can ill-afford to be armed with real nuclear missiles due to various problems, like that of Kursk ...

Russian missiles dont have to take scenic route over Turkey. Lover Boy explained it in detail for me already as to who what and why these interceptors are being developed for. Russia has no interest in sending initial attack on USA or NATO and its allies. So far it seems vice versa, culminating in American announcement of developing weapons in space.

7,200 nuclear warheads mean nothing if they're just sitting locked away in warehouses. Because thats what most of them are - up until recently Russian military was so cash-strapped they couldn't even afford to do regular maintenance on them. When accidents, failures and problems in the Russian military will stop being an everyday media event in Russia, then I'll believe that their strategic forces are actually in full force and protecting the country ready to send a retaliatory blow in case of an attack.

Besides, building these interceptor missile sites around Russia can one day result in a war. Why? One day one of these rogue states might launch a long-range missile, and then Russia might panic and send an attack if it sees one of the missiles (interceptor ones) going into its direction. I remember the famous 1995 incident when Yeltsin almost pushed the nuclear button when Norway launched some kind of missile or whatever it was.

USA should save itself some problems and build missile defense around its continent, not around Russia. And also, Israel already is developing missile defense - a very expensive and sophisticated program which I read about 3 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX So I see Magnetonium is still beating this dead horse? The US missile defense system is not a threat to Russia and will never be in its current form. 1. It is not in proper position to defend against Russian nuclear launches against the mainland US 2. The system is nowhere near 100% successful at intercepting a SINGLE missile much less a massive launch of thousands of missiles from Russia 3. The US does not have enough interceptors to even put a small dent in a full scale Russian nuclear launch And it is amusing that the pot is calling the kettle black here, don't forget Russia has had a functioning ABM system around Moscow for decades now.

US missile defense system is getting higher and higher accuracy ratings with more developments and tests, dont forget that. Many more billions of dollars will be spent on developing that system. I watched couple months ago updates on how Star Wars tests in the Pacific were able to shoot down 4 of 7 missiles (a fluke?). These interceptor sites are just the beginning, eventually to be replaced with weapons that will have high accuracy at shooting down missiles. Once USA's missile defense is finalized and has high success ratio at shooting down missiles, initial attack on Russia will wipe out most of their missiles, and the rest will be intercepted and destroyed in flight. China can join in to take chunks of Russian Far East too - why wouldn't they? Lotsa oil and gas there to feed the starving Chinese economy and markets ...

Also, USA already has set up missile interceptors / radars in Alaska. So there's that angle. But those sites alone are not enough to completely monitor all possible launch sites from Russia.

We're not paranoid - Iran is nowhere near developing ballistic missiles capable of reaching USA. Period. And they already have missiles that can reach Israel. And its highly doubtful that Turkish interceptors will be able to catch Iranian missiles with accuracy ... considering that Israel is developing its own missile defense.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium That article is ballony. 12 SUBS??? That globalsecurity.org article alone crashes that point - most of Russian subs are rusting away. And the ones that do patrol, these can ill-afford to be armed with real nuclear missiles due to various problems, like that of Kursk ...

Yet the Federation of American Scientists (of which globalsecurity.org originated from) puts the number of Russia's nuclear sea-based forces at 20, carrying a total of 1744 warheads, altho 1000 of those are based on Russia's Typhoon class submarines which are on their last legs. However, Russia is currently building a new breed of nuclear submarine, the Yuri Dolgoruki, complete with new missiles as well

http://armscontrol.ru/start/rsf_now.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFS_Yury_Dolgoruky

quote:

Russian missiles dont have to take scenic route over Turkey. Lover Boy explained it in detail for me already as to who what and why these interceptors are being developed for. Russia has no interest in sending initial attack on USA or NATO and its allies. So far it seems vice versa, culminating in American announcement of developing weapons in space.

Of course Russian missiles wouldn't be fired over Turkey to reach America! It's called sarcasm! They would be fired over the Arctic, nowhere near Turkey (the complete opposite direction in fact)

quote:

7,200 nuclear warheads mean nothing if they're just sitting locked away in warehouses. Because thats what most of them are - up until recently Russian military was so cash-strapped they couldn't even afford to do regular maintenance on them. When accidents, failures and problems in the Russian military will stop being an everyday media event in Russia, then I'll believe that their strategic forces are actually in full force and protecting the country ready to send a retaliatory blow in case of an attack.

All you've done so far is say that all (or most) of Russia's nuclear arsenal is not operational. That's not true and you've provided no evidence to back up your claims. You seem to have plucked that information out of your arse to back up your opinions but I've provided links to information saying 7,200 warheads are operational (that does not mean "rusting in a shed" that means primed and ready to go). If you don't like that source, here's the FAS (globalsecurity.org) giving a figure of 5,569 OPERATIONAL warheads (and 14,000 in stockpile, or as you might say, "rusting in a shed"). You need to stop making these claims right now because I have provided conclusive sources, links and evidence that your claims are false

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nukestatus.html

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.