It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia found an extremely cheap way to defeat missile shield IF it ever became necessary.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Russians don't get any street credibility in the west because they are little rough around the edge, nevertheless when push comes to shove, they are clever people. One way to understand them is to recall old saying "need is the mother of all inventions"

I myself am not a military man, I subscribe to few journals and magazines which try to wow you with techno gizmos and latest computerised designs. But after reading about Russian strategy for missile shield,

I realise that I've been living in the dream world of grants and government funding for weapons that have no real application in full blown war.

These are just some General's pet projects, feel good project that cost money. Nothing more.

If you measure yourself against a weak enemy you will lose the war even against an equal enemy

Say I want to attack someone with a knife knowing the other person has nothing but bare hands. Seems like a sure win, but what if the other guy is a former navy seal.

He would kick my ass with bare hands and carve a little zee on my forehead with my own knife. Point of the story, prefer peace not war, like say India, and you won't have to die a fool's death.

I have seen the future, India stays neutral and survives to meet the messiah himself. While the rest of us crash and burn in wars. Australia fares well too by telling NATO to go suck a lemon. Won't take sides.

The only winners will be those who refuse to play.

People in the future will be quoting "meek shall inherit the Earth"

If you are in the military, quit, change career, move to Switzerland if you can afford it.
edit on 7-6-2015 by Nowornevertill because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Nowornevertill

So really no evidence just your own version of how you see things...gotcha.

Now how about some evidence that what you stated in the title could actually happen?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Nowornevertill

So really no evidence just your own version of how you see things...gotcha.

Now how about some evidence that what you stated in the title could actually happen?

Yes, I was hoping to see a link to some general's ideas on how to defeat a missile shield.
Now I have to Google search and read up on it... and hope that I read the same thing (s) that the OP did.

ETA: I did a search and all I found was that they would do a preemptive strike in eastern Europe before the shield became operational. Not exactly defeating the shield, just removing the need for it.
edit on b000000302015-06-07T06:15:04-05:0006America/ChicagoSun, 07 Jun 2015 06:15:04 -0500600000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy




and hope that I read the same thing (s) that the OP did.


Good luck on that.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Nowornevertill

I don't see India being very neutral with Pakistan



Since the partition of British India in 1947 and creation of modern republics of India and Pakistan, the two South Asian countries have been involved in four wars, including one undeclared war, as well as many border skirmishes and military stand-offs.

Indo-Pakistani wars

and as far as Autralia and NATO:

NATO and Australia are currently strengthening relations to address shared security challenges, building on dialogue and cooperation that have been developing since 2005. Australia is one of the top non-NATO troop contributors NATO-led operations in Afghanistan.


NATO - Australia



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Nowornevertill

am i missing something? i thought that a missile shield was a defensive weapon, not offensive.
besides that you analogy is way off. you should have been thinking along the lines of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
seeing how defeating a missile shield / gun with it being a defensive weapon, means that russia would have be to be the aggressor firing missiles /carrying a knife.

plus unless i've missed something, missile shields are not 100% effective. so if not only if i was carrying a knife,what if i was also a pretty bad ass fighter, you know there are people out there that don't have any spec ops training that are still pretty bad ass and if carrying a knife, could make your day a very painful one.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Vlad, is that you?

Did you forget the red pill today?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Nowornevertill

So really no evidence just your own version of how you see things...gotcha.

Now how about some evidence that what you stated in the title could actually happen?

Whatever the defenses are they can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Its how they defeated the Wermacht, by the way.

Whatever missile defense there is, just increase the number of decoys beyond their number by filling the sky with decoys.

Lots easier to shoot things up than shoot things down.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
re US missile shield
the best results even with BEACONS in the targets is at BEST 50 percent
a twofer
thats a cheap work around

say what about them new cruise missles that fly under the missle shield....
or
just the sloppy as poop union welding jobs on any nuclear reactor

I see a nice big fat expensive profit making cold war

sorry messiah
no india for you
they are hindis mostly anyway



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nowornevertill
One way to understand them is to recall old saying "need is the mother of all inventions"


I thought it was
Necessity is the mother of invention


originally posted by: markosity1973
Vlad, is that you?

Did you forget the red pill today?


And its Ivan
not Vlad

Vlad is from Romania
& likes to suck your blood



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
So you made a title that you speak nothing to....nice.

All I got out of your rant was run and hide... yeah that's worked real well in the past....NOT.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
The missile shield is not meant for Russia or China... they would only be able to stop 1% of the rain of missiles if WW3 broke out. The shield is protection against smaller countries if they should decide to fire a missile or two.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Just reading about NATO above, has reminded me that I have not seen anything about South East Asia Treaty Organisation for years, is it still operational?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
What's the way to beat the missile shield?

Why would Australia remain neutral? The United States and United kingdom have a special relationship. US gets attacked en masse, UK will help retaliate, UK gets attacked en masse. My thinking is that the relationship between AU, being part of the Commonwealth, and UK isn't so poor that they'll just sit back and watch.

India wouldn't remain neutral if Pakistan was involved. Or China. Or maybe even UK, being part of the Commonwealth.

Why move to Switzerland? It's neutral, yes. But, if nuclear weapons are involved, that won't help them any.
edit on 6/7/2015 by cmdrkeenkid because: Fixing autocorrect error.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nowornevertill
Russians don't get any street credibility in the west because they are little rough around the edge, nevertheless when push comes to shove, they are clever people. One way to understand them is to recall old saying "need is the mother of all inventions"

I myself am not a military man, I subscribe to few journals and magazines which try to wow you with techno gizmos and latest computerised designs. But after reading about Russian strategy for missile shield,

I realise that I've been living in the dream world of grants and government funding for weapons that have no real application in full blown war.

These are just some General's pet projects, feel good project that cost money. Nothing more.

If you measure yourself against a weak enemy you will lose the war even against an equal enemy
So, how is Ru
Say I want to attack someone with a knife knowing the other person has nothing but bare hands. Seems like a sure win, but what if the other guy is a former navy seal.

He would kick my ass with bare hands and carve a little zee on my forehead with my own knife. Point of the story, prefer peace not war, like say India, and you won't have to die a fool's death.

I have seen the future, India stays neutral and survives to meet the messiah himself. While the rest of us crash and burn in wars. Australia fares well too by telling NATO to go suck a lemon. Won't take sides.

The only winners will be those who refuse to play.

People in the future will be quoting "meek shall inherit the Earth"

If you are in the military, quit, change career, move to Switzerland if you can afford it.
So how is ole Vladimir going to defeat our missile shield? Simply hide and refuse to play? That sounds more like the French during WW2. How did that work out for them?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Moving on. Absolutely nothing for me to see here.Was expecting information on defeating the shield



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Now how about some evidence that what you stated in the title could actually happen?


Oh I hear you tsurfer, I hear you, I even starred your post demanding links proof etc

The reason I didn't include any is because I don't want your grubby little hands on it


You see. I want US to lose the next war, I am counting on it.

For all I know you have Pentagon on speed dial.

"Oh hey jeff, put me through to strategic resources please I want to speak to mike "


edit on 8-6-2015 by Nowornevertill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Nowornevertill

So... You don't actually have any. Is that what you're saying? Because that's what I'm hearing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nowornevertill



If you are in the military, quit, change career, move to Switzerland if you can afford it.



I find that statement, funny to say the least given Switzerland"s military conscription and militia policies.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join