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.

 

Russians have had ABM since 1974!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   
According to the discovery channel, a documentary about the cold war and nuclear weapons, mentioned that the Russian military has had ANTI-BALLISTIC-MISSLE technology fully operational since 1974. This is very scary as the Americans have yet to develop a working version themselves in the year 2005.
Now what bothers me even more is that the Liberal media always leaves this part of the equation out of the story when arguing about missle defence & Star Wars leading to an increased escalation / revived cold war.
Why is it wrong for the U.S. to have missle defence if Russia already has it.
Second: Why would Liberal Canadians protest over joining the Americans on missle defence if the Russians already have had a functioning version of the technology since 1974.




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
seriously dude.

USA already has Ballistic missle defense operational!!

The Media Lies! what a Revelation!

the US govt already has this type of SDI Defense system , secretly

The MONEY $$$$ they use to fund "current SDI programs" is actually used for something else! a Black project!

my personal opinion::
they already have SDI decades ago; and they use the "SDI $$$" they get nowdays to fund various super advanced technology tests
perhaps they use the $$$ to fund UFO-type research and development

but yes.
USA has SDI already *99% chance of truth



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I think you are referring to this, the A35/Galosh ABM system. Later they were replaced by the Gazelle and the Gorgon as part of the A135 ABM system.
NATO was well aware of these ABM systems: they were designed and deployed to protect Moscow, more as a show of military and technological might, than anything else. They were (and are) all exo-atmosferic very high speed intercptor, fitted with an high yield nuclear warhead. You may not know that the US Army had a very similar system in service since 1964: the Nike Zeus. Based on the famous Nike Hercules/Nike Ajax family of SAMs, it was a nuclear-tipped ABM, very primitive and with many drawbacks, but was better than nothing. It was usually deployed in Nike Hercules/Nike Ajax sites on metropolitan US (deployment abroad has never been confirmed). The program was terminated and the missiles withdrawn when the US decided to dismantle the Nike Hercules metropolitan network. The USAF had an operational nuclear-tipped AAM, the AAM-1 Genie (deployed on such aircrafts as the F89 Scorpion, the F102 Delta Dart and the F106 Delta Dagger), but this was intended to wipe out huge bomber formations with just one shot... to the point that the F106 was fitted with automated controls, requiring the pilot only for take-off and landing: everything else could be controlled from the ground. It was a primitive and crude system, but it worked well... and the F106 was a gem of a plane!



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The ABM treaty allowed one ABM site per country, and limited future development to include space based sensors and certain types of test launches.

The Russian system has operated with the allowable limits of the ABM treaty. The US also had a system operation for a brief amount of time (1 day) near Grand Forks ND to protect our Minuteman missile complex that used to be there. We decided that the nuclear ABM missiles were bound to make the Minuteman missiles useless anyway, so it was deactivated.

The only reasons that the currently operational ABM system that the US has would have violated the treaty is the number of sites (2) and the radar systems used.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
The governments have lots of technology now that im sure we won't see untell the next fifty years unless someone gets into there databases/servers and reveals a minority of the truth... I'd love to be the person who does this..



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
According to the discovery channel, a documentary about the cold war and nuclear weapons, mentioned that the Russian military has had ANTI-BALLISTIC-MISSLE technology fully operational since 1974.


They made their first intercept in 1961 if i recall correctly and had most of the essential work done before they signed the ABM treaty. They have been deploying SAM/ABM defenses in their thousands since the middle 60's and today still have around 10 000 launchers defending the country.


Former Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird claims that thousands of SA-5 interceptors have been deployed in hundreds of sites around some 110 Soviet urban areas, principally in the European U.S.S.R.37 Such a deployment could play havoc with the surviving 1440 SLBM RVs.

The SA-5 anti-SLBM defenses are unorthodox and even "sneaky" in that they exist in the context of an ABM treaty under which the United States officially assumes they do not exist and takes no actions or precautions to counteract the capability. And an SA-5 ABM capability only makes sense in an overall damage-denial scheme which negates ICBMs some other way and reduces the number of SLBM RVs by ASW efforts to levels which can be countered by active SA-5 defenses, civil defense, and hardening of key targets.38"

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...



This is very scary as the Americans have yet to develop a working version themselves in the year 2005.


Actually the US had a great and effectively working system but for political reasons chose to abandon it. Why the US government is spending so much money to do work that they have allready done before one can but wonder about.


Now what bothers me even more is that the Liberal media always leaves this part of the equation out of the story when arguing about missle defence & Star Wars leading to an increased escalation / revived cold war.


The US media has right and left leaning channels but that is really irrelevent as they all obscure and distort reality for mostly the same political ends.


Why is it wrong for the U.S. to have missle defence if Russia already has it.


Is is not wrong and Russia have been in breech of the ABM treart since they minute one. The US government benefits by keeping the treaty as it gives them a excuse to spend all military funds on offensive systems wich can be used for their own political ends instead of serving as real protecting for individual Americans.


Second: Why would Liberal Canadians protest over joining the Americans on missle defence if the Russians already have had a functioning version of the technology since 1974.


Because leff and right is meaningless when they serve the same purpose and are funded by the same elite groups.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
According to the discovery channel, a documentary about the cold war and nuclear weapons, mentioned that the Russian military has had ANTI-BALLISTIC-MISSLE technology fully operational since 1974. This is very scary as the Americans have yet to develop a working version themselves in the year 2005.
Now what bothers me even more is that the Liberal media always leaves this part of the equation out of the story when arguing about missle defence & Star Wars leading to an increased escalation / revived cold war.
Why is it wrong for the U.S. to have missle defence if Russia already has it.
Second: Why would Liberal Canadians protest over joining the Americans on missle defence if the Russians already have had a functioning version of the technology since 1974.


Those older systems cannot be compared to todays ones (in development).
Firstly - they were armed with nuclear warheads compared to conventional or kinetic developed today (nuclear explosion 90km over your head is certainly not very pleasant thing).
Secondly - they are quite obsolete (especially regarding their accuracy - because they used nukes they were not supposed to hit target directly) and have almost no use against modern balistic misilles.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Those older systems cannot be compared to todays ones (in development).


They can be as they were tested against very much the same missiles that are still being deployed today.


Firstly - they were armed with nuclear warheads compared to conventional or kinetic developed today (nuclear explosion 90km over your head is certainly not very pleasant thing).


Some may have been but the Su managed to intercept a IRBM type warhead with convetional explosives. They can certainly do so today but would probably have used nuclear warheads in the past. Fallout effects have been vastly overstated by MAD proponents and others who gain by having people scared to death of nuclear war.


Secondly - they are quite obsolete (especially regarding their accuracy - because they used nukes they were not supposed to hit target directly) and have almost no use against modern balistic misilles.


The Russians never throw anything away and design systems so that they may be constantly upgraded and improved. The systems currently making out the Russian ABM defenses are capable and modern



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
According to the discovery channel, a documentary about the cold war and nuclear weapons, mentioned that the Russian military has had ANTI-BALLISTIC-MISSLE technology fully operational since 1974. This is very scary as the Americans have yet to develop a working version themselves in the year 2005.
Now what bothers me even more is that the Liberal media always leaves this part of the equation out of the story when arguing about missle defence & Star Wars leading to an increased escalation / revived cold war.
Why is it wrong for the U.S. to have missle defence if Russia already has it.
Second: Why would Liberal Canadians protest over joining the Americans on missle defence if the Russians already have had a functioning version of the technology since 1974.


It is not wrong for the US to have a missile defense and frankly I've never seen a news show where someone said it was. Fact is, the star wars was a ridiculous failure (and the people working on it later revealed that they always knew it would be but were scared of losing their jobs) and the missile shield is another tax-payer scam. Fact is, whether we have a missile shield or not, it will offer no defense against the Russians who have so many missiles the idea of a defense shield is pointlless, just as their's, if its real, wont make the least difference against us. Having a functional one, not the one with the faked tests, will help us against other countries however.

I think we should have one, we should invest properly in it, but its time to find different contractors. In the private industry, poor performing contractors are never rewarded with more contracts, not so with government contracts as tax payers have discovered time and time again.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
and the missile shield is another tax-payer scam.


You wont be saying that when the same tech pioneered in programs like SDI saves earth from a asteroid impact greater then all the earths nuclear weapons combined.

A another massive asteroid will hit earth again theres no if about it.

If we devolped the tech to even come close to hitting a tiny ICBM a few mile asteroid will be alot easier to hit with a nuclear weapon. We dont even have to make a direct hit to changes its course.

Unless we have decades of warning before a hit the only chance earth will have will be using a nuclear weapon. Those other theories like solar sails and rockets motors are nice and good but not practical in a short time peroid.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by orca71
and the missile shield is another tax-payer scam.


You wont be saying that when the same tech pioneered in programs like SDI saves earth from a asteroid impact greater then all the earths nuclear weapons combined.

A another massive asteroid will hit earth again theres no if about it.

If we devolped the tech to even come close to hitting a tiny ICBM a few mile asteroid will be alot easier to hit with a nuclear weapon. We dont even have to make a direct hit to changes its course.

Unless we have decades of warning before a hit the only chance earth will have will be using a nuclear weapon. Those other theories like solar sails and rockets motors are nice and good but not practical in a short time peroid.


Forget asteroids, if you read my post, you will see I am all for having a missile shield to hit missiles. If somehow a missile shield will save us from the doomsday asteroid(s) then thats all well and good. But Im not writing off my tax money for a system that cant stop missiles.

[edit on 9-2-2006 by orca71]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
fair enough, but the system can hit missiles. Can it hit them 100% of the time heck no. But think of it this way N Korea or another rogue states launches a single nuclear missile at the US. Without any missile defense you have a 0% precent chance of stopping it. With even a crappy missile defense system you have say 25% chance to stop it.

I may not be a betting man but I like 25% chance to stop a missile compared to 0%.

The missile defense was never intended to stop the Russians perhaps rattle them alittle but their sheer numbers made it impossible. It was designed for states with a small nuclear arsenal which there are becoming more and more every time.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche

Why would Liberal Canadians protest over joining the Americans on missle defence if the Russians already have had a functioning version of the technology since 1974.


I am by no means a 'liberal canadian' , I voted conservative, but one of my main reasons for doing so was the beefing up of the canadian military. I dont think that its wrong to have an anti-missile system, but I think the canadian prespective is (mine anyways) that us canadians need to implament (sp) our own resources to create our own self sustaining military, and furthermore our country. Like the tsunami (sp?) chrisis. Canadian forces were left waiting being abled to do nothing because we had to wait on american planes, and we even rented some russian (i believe) heavy lift aircraft.

Furthermore, I think canadians are reluctant to help the american defence, because alot (maybe even most) canadians feel by totally giving in to american weapons on canadian soil is kind of like saying that we cannot defend ourselves in a moment of chrisis, and also it gives these rougue states a reason to have a target in canada.

And I know for sure, if anything ever did happen in canada, I'd be the first to run head on into the crisis with my 12-guage and blast some holes in some asses, this is our country, and were gonna keep it that way.

Canadians are known to be the nicest people (even been accused of being too nice) but our niceness only goes so far, poke a canadian the wrong way, we'll blow it off, poke us again and we'll politely tell u get lost, keep pokin at us....expect to have a 12-guage up your arse.

I know this sounds a little hostile, and be assured it is not directed at anyone here at all. Just trying to get MY canadian point of view across...

Thanks!



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
According to the discovery channel, a documentary about the cold war and nuclear weapons, mentioned that the Russian military has had ANTI-BALLISTIC-MISSLE technology fully operational since 1974. This is very scary as the Americans have yet to develop a working version themselves in the year 2005.
Now what bothers me even more is that the Liberal media always leaves this part of the equation out of the story when arguing about missle defence & Star Wars leading to an increased escalation / revived cold war.
Why is it wrong for the U.S. to have missle defence if Russia already has it.
Second: Why would Liberal Canadians protest over joining the Americans on missle defence if the Russians already have had a functioning version of the technology since 1974.

Well, it's no big secret really. Both the US and Soviets agreed back in the 70's (1974 i think) that each would be allowed to operate one ABM system...the Soviets chose to center that system in Moscow, whilst the Americans built the 'Safeguard' ABM system, but even before it had been deployed, Congress chose to shut it down, due apparently to high costs associated with the project and the system's limited capabilities.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join