quote:

Originally posted by The17sss they already have their planes flying sorties over alaskan airspace, their navy back in the caribbean for the first time since the 1960's, and are drilling for oil 45 miles off the cost of Florida.

___________________

Set Archive | TA DJ Challenge

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss they already have their planes flying sorties over alaskan airspace,

i doubt that

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss and are drilling for oil 45 miles off the cost of Florida.

that's not true. The law of the sea provides that the exclusive rights to economic activities extends 200 nautical miles out to sea. where do you get your information?

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convent...perspective.htm

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss they already have their planes flying sorties over alaskan airspace,

i doubt that

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss and are drilling for oil 45 miles off the cost of Florida.

that's not true. The law of the sea provides that the exclusive rights to economic activities extends 200 nautical miles out to sea. where do you get your information?

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convent...perspective.htm

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss they already have their planes flying sorties over alaskan airspace and are drilling for oil 45 miles off the cost of Florida.

If that were the case, we'd have a major international incident. Hm, hasn't happened.

quote:

their navy back in the caribbean for the first time since the 1960's,

And you think we don't already do that of their coast? So Russia is supposed to bend over and take it up the ass huh?

___________________
WORSHIP!

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman If that were the case, we'd have a major international incident. Hm, hasn't happened. And you think we don't already do that of their coast? So Russia is supposed to bend over and take it up the ass huh?

According to the story linked at the bottom, as long as the oil rigs are placed "within Cuba's economic zone", which is 45 miles from Florida, there's nothing we can do about it.

Do we have oil rigs right off of Russia's coast? Anyway I dug this up and thought it was interesting; from 2 weeks after the election, Mark Thompson of Time Magazine reporting that missile defense has come too far for any President to shut it down, explaining why Obama will keep it, and that the Russian challenge will force Obama to show toughness by continuing it:

quote:

Richard Danzig, a Clinton Navy secretary... recently told reporters that the Obama team has “a strong view that national missile defense is a rewarding area and should be invested in.” In fact, during the campaign, Obama said “I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons.” While expressing concern that such a program might not work, he also has said that it makes sense to “explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/art...1859393,00.html

Putin/Medvedev- 1
Obama-0


Anyway, as journalist Tony Halpin says: For Putin, the lesson of today's decision is clear. Intransigence pays dividends.

Russia seeking to use Cuba and Venezuela's airfields to base their strategic bombers---> http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ...bers/index.html'

Airforce escorting Russian bombers out of Alaskan airspace (for the 2nd time) ---> http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/us...anes/index.html

Airforce intercepting more Russian military planes... for the 16th time in this report from the Airforce:--->
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2...e_pacaf_040608/

Russian oil rigs 45 miles from Florida---> http://www.topix.com/content/csm/20...es-from-florida

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i doubt that that's not true. The law of the sea provides that the exclusive rights to economic activities extends 200 nautical miles out to sea. where do you get your information? http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convent...perspective.htm

see my post above this one... buddy.

can the US really afford to put a multi billion dollar defense shield through eastern europe?

quote:

Originally posted by tathi can the US really afford to put a multi billion dollar defense shield through eastern europe?

Yes, but we can't afford health care.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss According to the story linked at the bottom, as long as the oil rigs are placed "within Cuba's economic zone", which is 45 miles from Florida, there's nothing we can do about it. Do we have oil rigs right off of Russia's coast?

Who cares if we did or didn't, and who cares if Russia drills in Cuban waters? Non-issue.

quote:

Anyway I dug this up and thought it was interesting; from 2 weeks after the election, Mark Thompson of Time Magazine reporting that missile defense has come too far for any President to shut it down, explaining why Obama will keep it, and that the Russian challenge will force Obama to show toughness by continuing it: http://www.time.com/time/nation/art...1859393,00.html Putin/Medvedev- 1 Obama-0

The idea that Iran is considering launching missiles at the NATO alliance is absolutely absurd. That would be national suicide. Like us thinking about preemptively launching missiles at Russia. No way in hell we'r going to do it. There is ZERO need for a missile defense system in eastern Europe. It's bullshit. Is it no wonder Russia is so vehemently against it? They aren't idiots, they know.

quote:

Anyway, as journalist Tony Halpin says: For Putin, the lesson of today's decision is clear. Intransigence pays dividends.

Actually the lesson is Russia won't take it up the ass.

quote:

Russia seeking to use Cuba and Venezuela's airfields to base their strategic bombers---> http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ...bers/index.html'

The USA has bases all over the world including some very close to Russian territory.

quote:

Airforce escorting Russian bombers out of Alaskan airspace (for the 2nd time) ---> http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/us...anes/index.html

Not Alaskan airspace, but an "air-exclusion zone".

quote:

Airforce intercepting more Russian military planes... for the 16th time in this report from the Airforce:---> http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2...e_pacaf_040608/

Russia flexing its muscles. Gives us a huge incentive to improve relations with Russia. Something a ,useless missile defense shield supposedly to protect against Iran's puny missile arsenal and with the assumption Iran would commit national suicide, would not do.

quote:

Russian oil rigs 45 miles from Florida---> http://www.topix.com/content/csm/20...es-from-florida

Cuba can do whatever they want in their territorial waters.

___________________
WORSHIP!

Last edited by Brahman on Sep-18-2009 at 17:16

This was the right decision, full stop.

If anyone wants to argue the technical merits of this then by all means try me. I am obsessed with anything regarding nuclear weapons, ICBM, and ABM.

First please read this article in Newsweek though and come back to me: http://www.newsweek.com/id/215620

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss because we are basically selling out the Poles and the Czechs to satisfy Russia's security concerns... and Russia has very little actual interest in giving a shit about the U.S.'s concerns. As the UK Times points out, Ukraine and Georgia's chances of entering Nato over Russian objections have diminished further. The timing is disastrous for Ukraine in particular, given the Kremlin's determination to reverse the pro-Western Orange Revolution and ensure victory for a pro-Russian candidate at presidential elections in January. uhhh... http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblo...missile_def.asp the rest of that article has more good detail.

That article is full of crap. The author has no idea what they are talking about.

Aegis ABM is a much more proven system than the GBMD system that was to be deployed. Aegis using the SM-3 Standard ABM missile is meant to hit the targets during boost or pre-rv seperation. This is a better time to hit a ballistic missile as it is when it is traveling the slowest.

If you try and intercept a re-entry vehicle on its terminal descent you are hitting a much smaller, much cooler, and much faster target. There was a reason we put nuclear warheads on the missiles deployed in the Safeguard program.

Never heard of Safeguard? Guess what, the US during the early 1970s had a fully functional anti-ballistic missile system! It was the culmination of years of development from the mid-1950s (yes the 1950s) and actually worked (sorta). It used a two layer defense to hit missiles and re-entry vehicles as they entered the atmosphere over southern Canada that were targeted at the Minuteman missile fields in the Dakotas. The first layer used a giant nuclear warhead to hit RVs as they entered the exosphere, leakers that got through were taken out by the second layer, using a missile that traveled up to 27 miles in 6-9 seconds and used a smaller, enhanced radiation (neutron bomb) warhead to fry the incoming RVs electrical systems. Problem was at first intercept they realized the warhead would create an EMP pulse in the area and it would blind the tracking and guidance radars... The system was active 1 day and then shut down. It was basically a multi-billion, 20 year boondoggle.

Basically the point I am trying to make with that story is this. It is stupid to try and take out warheads or missiles during the post boost phase. Any time during mid-course guidance, bus, or re-entry phase is a crap shoot. You will more than likely fail. Putting big nukes on the interceptors definitely helps, but brings up all sorts of political, environmental, and technical issues.

SM-3 is the way to go. Based off of ships that can be parked in the waters off Iran it would be able to easily intercept Scud type missiles as they leave the ground. The system is proven as well, more completed successful tests than the GBMD or THAAD systems, and better yet it is deployed, not only with the US, but with foreign flag navies as well, mainly the Japanese, with European nations also looking to purchase the Aegis system (it not only intercepts ICBM/IRBM but can defend your fleet from air and missile attack, cook your breakfast and also shine your shoes!). Couple SM-3 with PAC-3 (Patriot upgraded) for limited terminal defense and you have a system that is already tested and already deployed.

Lets get on to the bit about Poland and the Czechs being pissed. Well to put it simply this missile shield would have done NOTHING to defend them. In the event of a nuclear exchange between Europe and Russia, Russias systems do not fly far or high enough to be engaged by the systems that were going to be deployed in those two countries. NOTHING. The missiles fly shallow ballistic arcs or wouldn't even be ballistic at all, as everyone knows the Russians have a huge appetite for cruise missiles of all shapes and sizes. If the Czechs and the Poles want an ABM system they can come and pony up the cash and buy THAAD, PAC-3 or Aegis for themselves. We do not need to pay for their paranoia of Russia.

As for the idiots in the US saying this would weaken our defense against Russia. WHAT THE FUCK!? We already have a great defense. It is called MAD and it has worked for almost 50 years now. Second, look at a map, what is the shortest distance to the US from Russia (central Russia specifically)? Over the north pole. Their missiles wouldn't even be in range of any interceptors, SM-3, THAAD, GBMD, or any other system deployed in Europe or the Middle East. Simply put, their missiles go the other way.

So quit your bitching, stop using this as an unfounded political attack and realize that everyone who has a technical knowledge, conservative or not knows this is the right decision. The only people bitching are Lockheed Martin and Boeing cause they will lose their contracts to Raytheon (though Lockheed still gets money cause they make the bulk of the Aegis system).