quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX This is flawed logic. America is not building Star Wars. We are building an ABM system that can 'maybe' down a missle or two from a country like Iran or North Korea. How many fucking ICBMs does Russia have? Thousands, and many are equiped with MIRVs. So how can our ABM system that cannot even reliably shoot down a single missile that we shot ourselves make Russia's thousands of ICBMs obsolete. It will always be easier to make an offensive weapon system than a defensive one. Say we do build Star Wars with lasers in space and all of that fancy stuff. How many space based lasers is it going to take to defend against a massive attack by Russia involving in excess of 1000 missiles? How far away is that technology? Several decades at a minimum. And guess what, Russia has anti-satellite weapons now, which will become even more advanced over the next 10-20 years. If they wanted to launch they could certainly destroy a large part of any space based ABM sheild with those weapons. Paranoia is getting the better of you. Our ABM system is simplistic and CLEARLY aimed at downing a single missile from a rogue state, not defending against a massive nuclear strike by MIRVed ICBMs. Russia has absolutely nothing to fear from it and has no reason to build any more advanced nukes.

HAHAHAHAHA .... MUHAHAHAHA ... Is that why USA and NATO are building ANTI-MISSILE systems in Alaska, Poland???? Where's the logic in that? How do you suppose a missile defense based in Alaska capable of protecting lets say Los Angeles, when in fact this base can see all East Russia easily. It will much smarter to build the base in Japan, Hawaii, Wake Island / Guam to better defend against Asian agression. BUT NOOOOO, USA wants missile bases in Poland (who gives a shit about Poland?) and in Alaska, clearly flanking Russia. No Iranian missiles will go across Polish territory - take out your map and draw a straight line from Iran to UK - no, no missile trajectory.

___________________
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 HAHAHAHAHA .... MUHAHAHAHA ... Is that why USA and NATO are building ANTI-MISSILE systems in Alaska, Poland???? Where's the logic in that? How do you suppose a missile defense based in Alaska capable of protecting lets say Los Angeles, when in fact this base can see all East Russia easily. It will much smarter to build the base in Japan, Hawaii, Wake Island / Guam to better defend against Asian agression. BUT NOOOOO, USA wants missile bases in Poland (who gives a shit about Poland?) and in Alaska, clearly flanking Russia. No Iranian missiles will go across Polish territory - take out your map and draw a straight line from Iran to UK - no, no missile trajectory.

I don't know what map of the world you are looking at but to me Poland is absolutely in a logical postion to intercept missiles from Iran and North Korea(did you forget about them? They are the ones we really need to worry about right now anyway). It is the easternmost NATO ally in Europe, and we are talking missile trajectories here not straight lines. There are rocket scientists much smarter than you and I that have figured out the optimum place for incerception of missiles from rogue states likely to launch them.

And FYI - not only do we have the system in Alaska but it is also in California.

Again, and try reading my question very slowly so maybe you can understand, how can a system made up of 8 interceptors in Alaska and 2 in California be any threat to Russia when it has thousands of ICBMs? The system is clearly meant only to defend against a very small number of missiles fired from the Middle East or Asia. Note that there are no ABM sites around Washington DC, a city that would certainly be attacked by Russia but is still well out of reach of even the best North Korean missile. Russia still has the Moscow ABM system active, why do you need that?

Sheesh ... I leave for a couple days and this thread explodes.

Yea I don't see the threat of a European based ABM system. For one it is completely out of position to intercept Russian ABMs. Maybe if you took out a 2d map and drew a straight line, yea I guess one can make the mistake of assuming it might constitute a threat, but to anyone familiar with the trajectories of ICBMs and the fact that an ABM interceptor is trying to hit a weapon that’s arcing into space across a sphere, it would be silly to place an ABM system in Poland to defend against Russia. We’re dealing with a globe here, not Randy Mcnally’s road atlas …



Poland is highlighted Green, the Czech Republic in purple, Iran is the start of the trajectory, and Wash DC the end. Given the fact that the interceptors are THAAD missiles (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), it’s impossible for the missiles to intercept Russian ICBMs that are traveling over the North Pole, because they’d be playing catch up to them rather than striking them head on. They are however, ideally positioned for any long range Iranian strike against W. Europe. Maybe if they were notional boost phase intercept missiles, Russia might have a legitimate concern, but those are extremely expensive (several billion per single interceptor), and they would have to be extremely close to the Russian border … far closer than Poland. I don’t need to pull up a map of N. Korea and show the trajectory of missiles as they would hit the west coast now do I?

The point is, is that short of there being a revolution in ABM technological design, one that is able to destroy thousands of missiles within 10-20 minutes, roughly the time it would take for the missiles in a full strike to impact, it is impossible for the US to get away from MAD. Most certainly impossible with interceptor vehicles which are prohibitively expensive. Maybe if the US were able to develop a laser system capable of destroying hundreds of reentry vehicles in minutes or seconds (and if anyone is advocating that than you’re just retarded), it might have a chance … in which case the Topol-Ms would be obsolete anyway. The point is is that Russia is wasting money for a threat that doesn’t exist. Its nuclear deterrence is not threatened. Fine an aircraft carrier might be a waste of money too, my point wasn’t that Russia needs an aircraft carrier, my point is that a tactical weapon that can project power such as an aircraft carrier would be more useful than enhancing a nuclear deterrence that’s already 100% effective in guaranteeing MAD. Or spend more money on a couple tank battalions and send them to the Chinese border instead … spend the money on developing the Sakhalin oil/gas fields … or whatever Russia can waste more money on upgrading its ICBMs and SLBMs 500 hundred times over for all I care. It’s not my tax dollars and it’s not going to change the strategic balance of power in any way whatsoever so yea go ahead and develop and field Topol-Ms, Os, Zs, etc. By all means, Russia should be sure to spend trillions developing 10 ultimate missiles that will hit their targets like the other 3000 missiles that Russia has just to be double plus safe!

___________________
Retro ...

Actually a the biggest threat to Russia is probably the joke that its SSBN fleet has become. Very few boats are ever out to sea on patrol and many recent missile test firings have been failures. The USA could possibly post its SSBNs at Russia's shores and with no warning launch a massive strike and wipe out almost all its land based ICBMs, destroy all its airbases, and wipe out the majority of its SSBN fleet in port. That, coupled with US advances in sub detection could allow for the few boats out to sea being destroyed before they can launch.

If you take the 14 SSBNs carrying Trident missiles (24 missiles per boat, 5 MIRVed warheads per missile) you are talking 1680 highly accurate warheads falling all over Russia within minutes of launch, no time to prepare and launch land based ICBMs, no time to load and scramble bombers.

Not that we would want to do that.

Well let's not forget that Russia has an ABM system of its own in place.

quote:

A-135 / ABM-3 By June 1975 it was already possible to clearly define the purpose and time periods of development and creation of the new Moscow ABM system. A.G. Basistov became the general designer. V.K. Sloka was the chief designer of the multifunctional Don-2NP [PILL BOX] radar. A.G. Basistov headed the Council of Chief Designers, who were working on a new effective ABM system. This system, the ABM-3, became operational at Moscow in 1989. Five new launcher sites were constructed, and two Galosh sites were converted for the new system. The Moscow Industrial Area ABM Defense System (A-135) was accepted on alert duty by presidential edict of 17 February 1995. The Moscow anti-ballistic missile system, known as A-135, includes the full complement of 100 interceptor missiles permitted by the treaty [though published reports provide conflicting accounts as to the exact number of missiles]. The system includes three dozen long-range SH-11 Gorgon missiles, as well as over five dozen short-range SH-08 Gazelle missiles, which are quick-reaction, high-acceleration interceptors. Both types of interceptors are silo-launched. According to some reports, it is claimed that this system was taken off-line in December 1997 and remained inactive, although this does not appear to be confirmed by recent American statements on this subject. In February 1998 the commander in chief of the Strategic Rocket Forces -- Colonel General Vladimir Yakovlev -- said that the system needed some minor modifications, After these were completed, however, the "nuclear umbrella" over Moscow would once again be opened, he said. A few days later, Col. Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, commander-in-chief of strategic missiles forces, said the ABM system with conventional warheads on the Galoshs and Gazelles, was combat ready and would shortly be placed on 24-hour alert status. This suggested that Russia had abandoned plans to employ nuclear warheads on SH-11 Galosh and SH-08 Gazelle missiles. Experts had warned of the potential damage to Moscow, saying the detonation of a single warhead could contaminate a 77 square mile area. The ABM-3 incorporated several improvements over the Galosh. Mechanically steered radars were replaced by much more capable phased-array radars. And two types of interceptor missiles were used, taking advantage of atmospheric bulk filtering to discriminate decoys from actual warheads. The interceptors were deployed in underground silos to reduce their vulnerability to direct attack. Nonetheless, the ABM-3 was the technological equivalent the U.S. Sentinel/Safeguard ABM, and clearly shared the major limitations and vulnerabilities of that system. The components of the ABM-3 include: * 32-36 of the SH-11 long-range exo-atmospheric interceptor missiles, which are somewhat smaller than the massive Galosh and is probably three-stage solid-fuel rocket with a range of 300-400 kilometers and a multi-megaton warhead. * 64-68 of the SH-08 short-range endo-atmospheric interceptors, which are a two-stage solid-fuel with a range of about 100 kilometers and a low-yield nuclear warhead. It is similar in design and mission to the U.S. Sprint missile, although its maximum acceleration is reportedly significantly lower. In at least one test of the SH-08 short-range ABM interceptor, two interceptors were fired from a single launcher in an interval of two hours, although no reloading equipment was observed in the area. No other details on this incident have come to light. Given the short battle-time available to ABM systems, two hours does not seem to be particularly "rapid". * The ABM-3 phased-array short-range battle management radar replaced Try Add radars at Moscow ABM sites to support SH-08 interceptors It is similar in function to American Missile Site Radar, although smaller and less capable. * The Pushkino large battle-management phased-array radar constructed near Moscow provides 360 degree coverage and will supplement Dog House and Cat House radars in supporting SH-04 long range interceptors. * The Pechora-type bi-static phased-array early warning radar supplemented the Hen House radars. Deployment began in the late 1970's at seven sites: Pechora, Lyaki, Mishelevka, Olenegorsk, Sary Shagan, Kamchatka and Abalakova.

Perhaps the US should upgrade all our missiles too because a hundred out of several thousand might get shot down.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sheesh ... I leave for a couple days and this thread explodes. Yea I don't see the threat of a European based ABM system. For one it is completely out of position to intercept Russian ABMs. Maybe if you took out a 2d map and drew a straight line, yea I guess one can make the mistake of assuming it might constitute a threat, but to anyone familiar with the trajectories of ICBMs and the fact that an ABM interceptor is trying to hit a weapon that’s arcing into space across a sphere, it would be silly to place an ABM system in Poland to defend against Russia. We’re dealing with a globe here, not Randy Mcnally’s road atlas … Poland is highlighted Green, the Czech Republic in purple, Iran is the start of the trajectory, and Wash DC the end. Given the fact that the interceptors are THAAD missiles (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), it’s impossible for the missiles to intercept Russian ICBMs that are traveling over the North Pole, because they’d be playing catch up to them rather than striking them head on. They are however, ideally positioned for any long range Iranian strike against W. Europe. Maybe if they were notional boost phase intercept missiles, Russia might have a legitimate concern, but those are extremely expensive (several billion per single interceptor), and they would have to be extremely close to the Russian border … far closer than Poland. I don’t need to pull up a map of N. Korea and show the trajectory of missiles as they would hit the west coast now do I? The point is, is that short of there being a revolution in ABM technological design, one that is able to destroy thousands of missiles within 10-20 minutes, roughly the time it would take for the missiles in a full strike to impact, it is impossible for the US to get away from MAD. Most certainly impossible with interceptor vehicles which are prohibitively expensive. Maybe if the US were able to develop a laser system capable of destroying hundreds of reentry vehicles in minutes or seconds (and if anyone is advocating that than you’re just retarded), it might have a chance … in which case the Topol-Ms would be obsolete anyway. The point is is that Russia is wasting money for a threat that doesn’t exist. Its nuclear deterrence is not threatened. Fine an aircraft carrier might be a waste of money too, my point wasn’t that Russia needs an aircraft carrier, my point is that a tactical weapon that can project power such as an aircraft carrier would be more useful than enhancing a nuclear deterrence that’s already 100% effective in guaranteeing MAD. Or spend more money on a couple tank battalions and send them to the Chinese border instead … spend the money on developing the Sakhalin oil/gas fields … or whatever Russia can waste more money on upgrading its ICBMs and SLBMs 500 hundred times over for all I care. It’s not my tax dollars and it’s not going to change the strategic balance of power in any way whatsoever so yea go ahead and develop and field Topol-Ms, Os, Zs, etc. By all means, Russia should be sure to spend trillions developing 10 ultimate missiles that will hit their targets like the other 3000 missiles that Russia has just to be double plus safe!

Well, one thing I didnt see a straight line adjacent to the north pole that is close to poland - thanks for the map. Well, tell me this - Iran launches a nuke - AND IT WILL GO NEAR/THROUGH RUSSIAN TERRITORY. It will actually pass by about 500-1000 km from Moscow - well, yeah, Russia will be quite happy about this and do nothing. Remember in 1995 how Boris Yeltsin, who saw an American missile launched off the cost of NORWAY (how close to Moscow????) thought this was a pre-emptive American nuclear attack and for the first time in history a Russian/Soviet leader activated the nuclear briefcase???? YOU DONT REMEMER THAT? You think Iran doesnt see this? There's no way Iran will launch a missile by that trajectory without Russia launching something back in return. Its stupid, Russia will most likely launch a missile attack in return seeing a missile approach to Moscow. Plus the distance between Iran and Washington D.C. by that map is at least 15,000 km (I think its about 18,000 km) - waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer range than the longest Iranian missile can go. And they HAVENT EVEN DEVELOPED NUCLEAR WEAPONS. So there you go! It will take at least 1.5 hours to reach American cities - and I dont think even the Russian misiles can fly on fuel for that long, not even talking about making a precise hit. Come on, man, think common sense ... Iran will not develop such technology for at least 20 years, they only have scuds that can barely reach south-eastern Europe for Christ's sake, their range is WAAAAAY too short even for UK.

___________________
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 [COLOR=FF7F50] Well, one thing I didnt see a straight line adjacent to the north pole that is close to poland - thanks for the map.

You’re welcome. As you can see, THAAD interceptors in Poland are in a very poor position to intercept Russian ICBMs.

quote:

Well, tell me this - Iran launches a nuke - AND IT WILL GO NEAR/THROUGH RUSSIAN TERRITORY. It will actually pass by about 500-1000 km from Moscow - well, yeah, Russia will be quite happy about this and do nothing.

And then the missile will slow down from several thousand miles an hour to make a 90 degree right hand turn in space and then speed up again to hit Moscow? Look, do you not understand that this is simply impossible according to the laws of physics? There’s a whole science behind this that fighter pilots study in order to evade missiles. Do you think that Russian early warning systems use undergrads armed with TI-83 calculators to determine where a missile is going? These aren’t bottle rockets that you fire off in your back yard … these are ICBMs that use exo-atmospheric trajectories at speeds of thousands of miles per hour to hit their targets. If Russia doesn’t know where missiles launched from Iran are going within a minute or two with all their land/space based radars than you’d be the laughing stock of any nuclear power.

quote:

Remember in 1995 how Boris Yeltsin, who saw an American missile launched off the cost of NORWAY (how close to Moscow????) thought this was a pre-emptive American nuclear attack and for the first time in history a Russian/Soviet leader activated the nuclear briefcase???? YOU DONT REMEMER THAT? You think Iran doesnt see this? There's no way Iran will launch a missile by that trajectory without Russia launching something back in return. Its stupid, Russia will most likely launch a missile attack in return seeing a missile approach to Moscow.

Ok ok, no need to shout and no need to over dramatize events with superfluous emphasis. Yes the nuclear briefcase was enabled … which enabled communication with the President’s top military advisors to review the situation for the first time. The incident was triggered by a single missile that resembled the trajectory and speed of an SLBM Trident missile launched away from Russia to blind land based radars. Russia still had full operational capability of their early warning satellites to determine that there was no threat. Don’t take my word though …

quote:

General Vladimir Dvorkin In 1995, the Norwegians launched a rocket which was mistaken for an incoming American nuclear missile by the Strategic Rocket Forces. How did that happen? Has there been an investigation by your institute or within the government, that you're aware of, of what happened in that situation? There has been no investigation of this issue and we don't see why there should be. The launch of the missile was detected and that information was passed on to the President....But there was nothing, not even in the very nascent form, in terms of taking any kind of retaliating measures....To make a decision to make a retaliatory, a massive retaliatory strike, is very hard decision; even if you possess the complete information and true information concerning the fact that your country has been hit. It's totally impossible to make a decision based on information about one missile. Our information was that it came within two minutes of the President having to make a decision in that particular instance. Does this not give you some cause for concern? No, that is all in the land of fantasy. I will say it again. No president, no matter what President it is, will ever make a decision about launch-on-warning based on information about one rocket or missile or even...two or three missiles. So, I think that all concerns in that regard are just wasted time. And I don't think that there is sufficient grounds for Americans to be concerned or worried about our control system. I think you should be more concerned with the falling birth rates in Russia, than a decreasing control system. Because that does not lead to the improvement of our economic state and also to the improvement of the military might and security. The United States does need a strong, big power that is economically strong....I have deep respect for the Americans and for the United States and I think that gives me some kind of a moral right to say that sometimes, you overly concentrate or overly focus on some problems that do not really have any ground. Russia is not [a] country. Russia is [a] continent, and without Russia, to provide global strategic stability [would be] impossible. And Russia could potentially become a very powerful center of stability in its half of the world. We don't have any ideological contradictions and we don't have any major economic claims against each other, so I think that we should become the centers of a stability in our respective continents and we should jointly provide for global stability, and I hope that eventually that will happen. General Eugene Habiger In 1995, there was a Norwegian rocket launch. The Russian forces supposedly were put on alert and went down to two minutes before they determined it was not an American missile. Is that your understanding of the facts? No. Not at all. Let me just kind of put it perspective for you. The Norwegians were going to launch this rocket. They were very sensitive about making sure that the Russians knew about it. Any country today that launches a missile puts out what they call a Notice to Airmen--it's through an international aviation organization--so that airplanes don't go flying over where this missile's going to be launched. So the Norwegians did that....In addition to that one channel of communication, the Norwegians went through the diplomatic channels to let the Russians know that this was going to happen. So you had two channels of information supposedly going up through the system. Somehow, neither one of those channels got up to their national command center.... And the best explanation, and the one that I have absolutely no reason to doubt, is this. Somehow in the bureaucracy, the word about this launch of the Norwegian missile did not reach to the military channels. The missile was launched. The missile was launched from what looked like [to] the Russians where one of our ballistic missile submarines would launch a missile. The general officer on duty saw the indications, went to his checklist. The checklist said, if you have this kind of indication, you let the following people know, including the President and his briefcase. Once that process was initiated, and within tens of seconds after that process was initiated, before any status change was made to any nuclear force, they determined that this was not a threat to Russia. So no Russian military system was placed on an increased status of alert. And because they'd already initiated the procedures to contact the President, they went through and said, "There is nothing to worry about. We have just had an indication of a launch from Norway, and it is no threat to Russia...." All they did was activate a communications link. So it raised no concern in your mind? No. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...l/howclose.html

quote:

Plus the distance between Iran and Washington D.C. by that map is at least 15,000 km (I think its about 18,000 km) - waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer range than the longest Iranian missile can go. And they HAVENT EVEN DEVELOPED NUCLEAR WEAPONS. So there you go! It will take at least 1.5 hours to reach American cities - and I dont think even the Russian misiles can fly on fuel for that long, not even talking about making a precise hit. Come on, man, think common sense ... Iran will not develop such technology for at least 20 years, they only have scuds that can barely reach south-eastern Europe for Christ's sake, their range is WAAAAAY too short even for UK.

Sigh … so first you claimed that Russia needed enhancements of its strategic nuclear forces in response to your claims that MAD was being directly threatened by the US ABM system. I believe that I responded to that argument to which I received no response. Is that argument settled?

Your subsequent argument is that the Polish based THAAD system is secretly targeting Russian ICBMs as opposed to Iranian ICBMs to which I responded and did not receive a response. Is that settled based upon the laws of physics?

Now you’re arguing about strategic capability and nuclear deterrence rationale. Something I’m very surprised to see you argue since you completely chose to ignore it when I previously raised it but now find it very convenient for your argument.

Yes current Iranian SCUD missiles are incapable of reaching the US, but let us not forget that there’s been trade in nuclear technology and rocketry between N. Korea and Iran. Unless you forgot, the supposed range of the Taep'o-dong 2 is estimated to be around 5000-9000km. Well within the range of the west coast and/or western Europe …. The explicit purpose of the Polish ABM system. Christ, you yourself asked us to draw a straight line from Iran to the Uk … we’ve done so. I hope that we can get away from the path of tangential arguments and that we can continue our original argument to which I responded to and am still awaiting a response.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You’re welcome. As you can see, THAAD interceptors in Poland are in a very poor position to intercept Russian ICBMs. And then the missile will slow down from several thousand miles an hour to make a 90 degree right hand turn in space and then speed up again to hit Moscow? Look, do you not understand that this is simply impossible according to the laws of physics? There’s a whole science behind this that fighter pilots study in order to evade missiles. Do you think that Russian early warning systems use undergrads armed with TI-83 calculators to determine where a missile is going? These aren’t bottle rockets that you fire off in your back yard … these are ICBMs that use exo-atmospheric trajectories at speeds of thousands of miles per hour to hit their targets. If Russia doesn’t know where missiles launched from Iran are going within a minute or two with all their land/space based radars than you’d be the laughing stock of any nuclear power. Ok ok, no need to shout and no need to over dramatize events with superfluous emphasis. Yes the nuclear briefcase was enabled … which enabled communication with the President’s top military advisors to review the situation for the first time. The incident was triggered by a single missile that resembled the trajectory and speed of an SLBM Trident missile launched away from Russia to blind land based radars. Russia still had full operational capability of their early warning satellites to determine that there was no threat. Don’t take my word though … Sigh … so first you claimed that Russia needed enhancements of its strategic nuclear forces in response to your claims that MAD was being directly threatened by the US ABM system. I believe that I responded to that argument to which I received no response. Is that argument settled? Your subsequent argument is that the Polish based THAAD system is secretly targeting Russian ICBMs as opposed to Iranian ICBMs to which I responded and did not receive a response. Is that settled based upon the laws of physics? Now you’re arguing about strategic capability and nuclear deterrence rationale. Something I’m very surprised to see you argue since you completely chose to ignore it when I previously raised it but now find it very convenient for your argument. Yes current Iranian SCUD missiles are incapable of reaching the US, but let us not forget that there’s been trade in nuclear technology and rocketry between N. Korea and Iran. Unless you forgot, the supposed range of the Taep'o-dong 2 is estimated to be around 5000-9000km. Well within the range of the west coast and/or western Europe …. The explicit purpose of the Polish ABM system. Christ, you yourself asked us to draw a straight line from Iran to the Uk … we’ve done so. I hope that we can get away from the path of tangential arguments and that we can continue our original argument to which I responded to and am still awaiting a response.

You are basing your entire argument around that straight 15,000 km line from Iran to USA through Eastern Europe, which I give you a credit for. Then, since you fit North Korea in here, you remember their missile tests AND HOW FAR THEY WENT??? Haha, those missiles barely outreached Japan. So much for the claim that they can hit the States. Then, Iran is DOESNT HAVE and not planning to build nukes (despite media reports, and despite talk there's no evidence they've started on developing nuclear weapons), and long-flight missile technoology with all the accurate navigation, satellite system, etc. etc. And they have to test it before anything!!! What if the missile does veer off course and hit Russia because of low fuel, mechanical problem, etc? What kind of an idiot would spend huge amounts of money for preparing against a possible enemy that might never become so powerful? When oil prices will go down, Iran will weaken. But wait - why is NATO EXPANDING IN EASTERN EUROPE? IS IT TO PROTECT AGAINST IRAN? WHY IS USA MISSILE MISSILE DEFENSE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS IN ALASKA? TO SHOOT DOWN NORRTH KOREAN NON-EXISTING FAILED MISSILES (that will fly on a trajectory much more to the south)?

You did make a good point that Poland is somewhere in line through to USA on a long long journey that requires a very sophisticated missile. But then you claim that USA is building these bases to fight against the enemny, when you know that they dont have the technology to shoot down the missiles? Dont you think it will be cheaper to just make a terrorist attack claim and attack those countries? Or is there oil involved - how come NK is considered too be a terrorist threat (to global security), they have tested nuclear devices, they have threatened America, they have tested missiles, and YET America says that Iran is a threat, and refuses to "liberate" NK and instead feeds that regime with money and food for G-d knows how long? WHERE'S THE RATIONALE?

___________________
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

It's fun watching Magnetonium get repeatedly owned.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne It's fun watching Magnetonium get repeatedly owned.

Hahaha, yeah, you're an idiot, you know that? Like how a missile-defense system in Alaska is supposed to protect against North Korea's attacks, while Alaska is a great distance north of the trajectory, and then missiles from this base would have to fly great distance south to intercept NK's missile going to US West Coast ;-) . Obviously this system has another, more obvious use - to defend against Russia.

Poland one is debatable, though still unfeasible because Iran is many years behind in developing a long-range ballistic nuclear-tipped missile capable of flying 15,000-20,000 km around the world to attack America. Its a waste of money. Iranians today barely have a scud missile system that can reach Israel and all Turkey. YAY! And they havent even built nuclear weapons!!! And at the same time UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE AN ABM SYSTEM CAPABLE TO STOP IRANIAN MISSILES. So who is dumb here, you for being stupid or me for clarifying that the only threat that missle system in Poland and Czech Republic will ever protect from is possible Russian missile. Watch - as oil prices go down, the chances of Iranian long-range missiles will go down with it.

___________________
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

I didn't say anything about the ABM in Poland.

You remind me of that crazy homeless guy who is spinning around and wildly slashing the air with his knife and thinks everyone is trying to attack him.

I'm not even having that argument with you, dude. But it's fun watching you get repeatedly and thoroughly owned. Do you froth at the mouth when you type?