quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I always thought and still do so that it would more accurate to target missiles when they're launching, then when they re-enter the atmosphere. Also, I dont think the missiles would re-enter the atmosphere so early in their flights over Poland, near Alaska, thats almost half-way through their trip in the case of Poland ;-). Do you have evidence to prove your point here?

Unfortunately I don't have much time to do research and I'm going to be away for a few days, but I'd be happy to look into it when I get back. Cursory research claim that, " It's designed to intercept missiles during late mid-course or final stage flight, flying at high altitudes within and even outside the atmosphere."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...dated/index.php

If a weapon is launched at W. Europe I would imagine that would be "late mid-course" if not the "final stage" of flight, but I don't know what that means specifically and obviously the specs are classified. Sooo I dunno.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Unfortunately I don't have much time to do research and I'm going to be away for a few days, but I'd be happy to look into it when I get back. Cursory research claim that, " It's designed to intercept missiles during late mid-course or final stage flight, flying at high altitudes within and even outside the atmosphere." http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...dated/index.php If a weapon is launched at W. Europe I would imagine that would be "late mid-course" if not the "final stage" of flight, but I don't know what that means specifically and obviously the specs are classified. Sooo I dunno.

In addition to your good research, and some other additional reading I've done, I concluded that for the time being these discussed bases are no threat to Russia (though I am still A BIT sceptical of their real uses and effectiveness). However, if I hear a single one of them will be equipped with Patriot missiles or such, you will have a hard time convincing me that they're aimed at defense against Iran.

Also, I figured out after doing some Russian military digging that these bases dont threaten Russian strategic missiles deep within Russia. So I am willing to let go of these bases. But there better be no bases in Baltic states ;-) NATO/USA should be careful not to initiate another arms race with their careless military expansion closer to the Russian borders.

___________________
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'm glad to see you have come to your senses while I was away from this thread for the weekend. I'm not sure why it took so long though, all it takes is first grade math to know that a dozen or so interceptors are no threat to 1000+ Russian ICBMs.

If we were building a combined land/sea/air/space based ABM system (Star Wars as you call it, its amusing that you guys are still afraid of Reagan almost 20 years after he left office) capable of destroying hundreds or thousands of missiles at a time then Russia might have cause for concern.

No matter the location of the bases, the ABM system being developed is clearly scaled to shoot down just a few missiles. It only makes sense to get these bases operational well before NK or Iran have sucessfully launched a long range missile. After all, ICBM technology has been perfected for decades, where as the business of shooting down ICBMs is not reliable even today.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX I'm glad to see you have come to your senses while I was away from this thread for the weekend. I'm not sure why it took so long though, all it takes is first grade math to know that a dozen or so interceptors are no threat to 1000+ Russian ICBMs. If we were building a combined land/sea/air/space based ABM system (Star Wars as you call it, its amusing that you guys are still afraid of Reagan almost 20 years after he left office) capable of destroying hundreds or thousands of missiles at a time then Russia might have cause for concern. No matter the location of the bases, the ABM system being developed is clearly scaled to shoot down just a few missiles. It only makes sense to get these bases operational well before NK or Iran have sucessfully launched a long range missile. After all, ICBM technology has been perfected for decades, where as the business of shooting down ICBMs is not reliable even today.

As I said, once NATO/USA starts placing ICBM's/long-range missiles / Patriot missiles, the real nature of the bases will be seen ;-) If they are just placing the interceptors to shoot down missiles in flight over Poland/Alaska, thats fine with me. But the point to this thread, the unfolding events and NATO's expansion closer to Russian borders gives every excuse to Russia to modernize and strengthen its military.

___________________
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 As I said, once NATO/USA starts placing ICBM's/long-range missiles / Patriot missiles, the real nature of the bases will be seen ;-) If they are just placing the interceptors to shoot down missiles in flight over Poland/Alaska, thats fine with me. But the point to this thread, the unfolding events and NATO's expansion closer to Russian borders gives every excuse to Russia to modernize and strengthen its military.

The USA will never place land based ICBMs or even short range nuclear missiles in Europe near Russia again. It would be diplomatically foolish, a clear provocation, and it would have absolutely no military value. It is much more effective to have SSBNs filled with Trident D5 missiles at unknown locations off the coast of Russia than some land based missile site that can easily be targeted by Russian forces in the event of an attack. Russia could probably see land based missiles in Europe being prepped for launch but they would likely have no warning of an attack by subs until the mushroom clouds start appearing over strategic targets.

And the Patriot missiles, what makes you afraid of them? They have shown very little success shooting down even old technology missiles like SCUD.

quote:

Yes, lets use the soft power of hundreds of aircraft, missiles and other machines to "softly put to sleep" anyone who is willing to resist our advances. Soft power reminds me of some other silly words like replacing suicide bombings with "homicide bombings". I cant imagine how softly can these powerful tools of war can be used. LOL @ "phenomenon unique to every state/culture". You are just blabbering here, you know that aircraft carriers are military weapons designed to kill people, whether you are right on wrong in the situation at hand. And if Russia goes abroad to push its policy as you wish it to do, it will lose support with either Americans, Arabs or both. There is nothing for Russia to gain, other to lose money. Russia will need thousands of troops, lots of money, strategic planning, and many years to achieve even a foothold in Middle East like that of America, and at cost of many lives. You are dreaming, Aquadyne!

Do you even know what "soft power" is? Just go and buy "Soft Power" by Joseph Nye. Or at least do yourself and me a favor and at least google "soft power" before you start running your mouth.

It has nothing to do with military.

quote:

China is feared because its the world's largest economy and its army is the largest in the world and has the capability to inflict serious damage on anyone. China has a lot of money and influence in the region because of its sheer size.

How does that disprove anything I have said? If anything, that's pretty much what I said.

quote:

Basically, you dont have anything strong to add to support your policy that Russia should start pushing its foreign policy by aicraft carriers. The costs, the achievements, the losses will overshadow any gains because a) Russia has all the resources it needs, b) it is too weak right now to counter America or Arab states, c) it has vast internal issues that need to be tackled, d) its foreign policy within C.I.S. has failed, and its not working with USA, Iran, EU - and you expect then that Russia will succeed ALONE with its aircraft carriers trying to push someone around.

I think the question is what is more prudent to invest money to, a stronger navy that can project force or nuclear weapons that are useless. The answer has already been clearly answered not only by me but by many others, you can continue living in denial though.

Magnetonium, it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. You should try it more often.

Last edited by Aquadyne on Feb-21-2007 at 04:21

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Do you even know what "soft power" is? Just go and buy "Soft Power" by Joseph Nye. Or at least do yourself and me a favor and at least google "soft power" before you start running your mouth. It has nothing to do with military.

You are talking about the aircraft carriers for Christ's sake and then you added soft power to them. Stop flip-flopping, aircraft carriers are not an example of soft power (as you now said, it has nothing to do with military).

quote:

I think the question is what is more prudent to invest money to, a stronger navy that can project force or nuclear weapons that are useless. The answer has already been clearly answered not only by me but by many others, you can continue living in denial though. Magnetonium, it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. You should try it more often.

Yes, invest billions of dollars into aircraft carriers that achieve NOTHING positive for the country like Russia. It achieves nothing, you have not shown any proof or even common sense as to how these aircraft carriers will make Russia better on world stage and how will they make it safer. LOL, you think I am wrong for saying that? I admitted my errors before (recently: USA in isolationism), its you who has a big ego problem and never admitting when you're wrong. You should take your ego and shove it up your own ass ;-) I dont need no hot shots who think they're king shit like you are. So you either argue like normal people do, take example from occrider, or shut the hell up. Thanks!

___________________
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:

You are talking about the aircraft carriers for Christ's sake and then you added soft power to them. Stop flip-flopping, aircraft carriers are not an example of soft power (as you now said, it has nothing to do with military).

Uh huh.

This is the original exchange:

Magnetonium: I am not saying Russia should isolate itself. There's a difference between sending your aircraft carriers, battleships and troops abroad to suppose instead sending oil/gas, knowledge, economy and political influence. You think people like it when you bomb the fock out of you? Aircraft carriers carry weapons, bombs, missiles for a reason, and its not to keep them forever sealed to their barrels,


Aquadyne: Yes, you are referring to the phenomenon of "soft power". And "soft power" nowadays is a much more pervasive and effective way of projecting influence. However, soft power needs to be backed up by hard power. No one is saying that the weapons should be used, but the threat of hard power is significant leverage that no nuclear weapon could provide. Furthermore, soft power takes decades to develop and it is a phenomenon unique to every state/culture.

I merely pointed out that soft power doesn't appear in a matter of years - it literally takes decades to develop and propagate because soft power is projecting influence by effectively projecting one's values, culture and lifestyle. American soft power is effectively channeled by media such as American media conglomerates, Hollywood, by advocating an American lifestyle, by propagating a material consumerist culture and the products that are associated with it.

Russia doesn't have that and even in the best of circumstances probably won't develop something like that for multiple decades. There are many people who aspire to be Americans, who want to emigrate to America. Who the hell wants to be Russian? Who the hell wants to emigrate to Russia?

That is the nature of soft power, my obtuse little friend. And yes, soft power is the most effective and pervasive way of projecting influence because the origin country just has to create the material, the rest of the world is the one who propagates it. Russians paying absurd prices for Levi's Jeans in 1980s? That's soft power. Arabs listening to hip-hop in Middle East? That's soft power.

Aircraft carriers do not project soft power, but for a country who probably won't develop an identity that the world wants to emulate - aircraft carriers, a blue water navy are the best ways of projecting force and influence. That is why I said, soft power is unique to every culture, because soft power is in essence a projection of one's culture.

In regards to soft power eventually needing to be backed by hard power, that is pretty much a given. Weak countries don't project soft power and influence. Strong countries do.

There's no flip-flopping here my boy, just your inability to differentiate between basic concepts and complete ignorance of basic poli sci. terms.

Before you hit reply, like Pavlov's dog, I suggest you educate yourself on the concepts of "soft power" - I have no interest in being your unpaid tutor. Joseph Nye would be a good place to start. Then you can move on to slightly bigger concepts, like the complete lack of need to build nuclear missiles in an age of what is largely tantamount to guerrilla warfare to defend against a non-existent ABM shield.

quote:

Yes, invest billions of dollars into aircraft carriers that achieve NOTHING positive for the country like Russia. It achieves nothing, you have not shown any proof or even common sense as to how these aircraft carriers will make Russia better on world stage and how will they make it safer. LOL, you think I am wrong for saying that? I admitted my errors before (recently: USA in isolationism), its you who has a big ego problem and never admitting when you're wrong. You should take your ego and shove it up your own ass ;-) I dont need no hot shots who think they're king shit like you are. So you either argue like normal people do, take example from occrider, or shut the hell up. Thanks!

Yawn. We already went over this. Do you really need me to re-educate you? You should have been taking notes earlier in the thread.

But for now, you are dismissed.

So now how do you put this in action? Tell me, how will using aircraft carriers and soft power will make Russia popular and strong again on world stage? Tell me, Einstein. It won't happen, and you know it. Thats all I wanted to say.

Yes, everyone around the world loves America, everyone wants to be just like America - what a great example! Surely an ordinary person wants to go there because of what America has done to these countries, countries that lost to America. No need to teach me what hard power vs. soft power is. Go back to your Baltic bloc and suck European Union's arse ;-)

What significant achievements, victories, developments did aircraft carriers achieve for Russia/Soviet Union so far? Huh?

Once someone in the Russian military recognizes your idiotic scheme, and Russian aircraft carriers will dock in Persian Gulf / Middle East, Asia, expect all of the world's aggression and hatred shift from USA to Russia! And even USA will jump on the bandwagon! Russia will then become just like the States today, spending trillions of dollars to upkeep its global empire and continue on plowing. And eventually, as a failed state, it will collapse economically or geopolitically, sort of like Soviet Union.

___________________
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 Once someone in the Russian military recognizes your idiotic scheme, and Russian aircraft carriers will dock in Persian Gulf / Middle East, Asia, expect all of the world's aggression and hatred shift from USA to Russia! And even USA will jump on the bandwagon! Russia will then become just like the States today, spending trillions of dollars to upkeep its global empire and continue on plowing. And eventually, as a failed state, it will collapse economically or geopolitically, sort of like Soviet Union.

you are silly. The US isn't the Soviet Union nor do the people even have the same mentality. In USSR you are brainwashed from the beginning of your life and it stays that way. Thats why older Russians can't grasp democracy. Their so use to have been spoiled and lied to by their government. Unlike here. You have the resources possible to find out what is going on and you can change the system. Not like USSR we won't fall anytime soon. And when we do you can talk all the shit you want to. Till then just stop.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium In addition to your good research, and some other additional reading I've done, I concluded that for the time being these discussed bases are no threat to Russia (though I am still A BIT sceptical of their real uses and effectiveness). However, if I hear a single one of them will be equipped with Patriot missiles or such, you will have a hard time convincing me that they're aimed at defense against Iran. Also, I figured out after doing some Russian military digging that these bases dont threaten Russian strategic missiles deep within Russia. So I am willing to let go of these bases. But there better be no bases in Baltic states ;-) NATO/USA should be careful not to initiate another arms race with their careless military expansion closer to the Russian borders.

Patriots are a VERY short range missile defense system unlike THAAD. If they were placed in Poland they would not be placed with the intent of shielding a direct attack against the US 2 years from now or 10 years from now simply because they're useless against long range missiles. They are perimeter defense missiles which I don't think a base in Poland would need without substantive explanation.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid you are silly. The US isn't the Soviet Union nor do the people even have the same mentality. In USSR you are brainwashed from the beginning of your life and it stays that way. Thats why older Russians can't grasp democracy. Their so use to have been spoiled and lied to by their government. Unlike here. You have the resources possible to find out what is going on and you can change the system. Not like USSR we won't fall anytime soon. And when we do you can talk all the shit you want to. Till then just stop.

Hmmm, in 1988, did anyone even think Soviet Union was going to collapse? There goes that logic of yours (USA "won't fall anytime soon"). Actually here's a good analogy: Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, which set off a series of events leading to end of Soviet Union - for USA this could possily be their wars in Middle East that are doomed. Also, USA is spending about similar amounts of its total product on the war - just like Soviets did on their military machine. US healthcare (humm, do you have it for free like they had in Soviet Union?), education is underfunded, just like the Soviets, who had it worse. Empires can collapse quickly, it can happen within one presidential term. And most people won't see it coming. In 1945, did people see the end of the British Empire after they won WW2?

As for the main topic, I support the new Russian military revamping - they will put money into most areas to supply Russian military with modern equipment (ex. night vision goggles, advanced communications equipment), proper training and rations, and of course, the mostt important factor - much newer and improved strategiv defense to bolster Russian military image.

___________________
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