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...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

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.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

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

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

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

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

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.

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

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

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

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"!