Russia urges US to avoid space arms race (NATO running Amok)

The only reason everyone else is against weapons in space is THEY CAN'T DO IT.

No one else has the money to do it.

No one else has the technology to do it.

If Russia could put 'Rods from God' up there, or put lasers up there, they would. Same with China and France and everyone else. They can't, so they don't want to fall behind.

Screw the rest of the world - the US needs to push the envolope, and get as far ahead of everyone else as possable. We need to INCREASE the gap, not let it dwindle away.

I don't think America has the money to put weapons in space , its bull# , if they do i think the money comes out of the caring for their citizens budget. Looks like you Yanks have to be poor to fund this project, i think you might die of starvation before the terrorists get to you.

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I don't think America has the money to put weapons in space , its bull# , if they do i think the money comes out of the caring for their citizens budget. Looks like you Yanks have to be poor to fund this project, i think you might die of starvation before the terrorists get to you.

We don't have the money to put weapons in space?

Im sorry to inform you, but with an anual DoD budget of over 400 BILLION dollars, we can do pretty much anything we want. If the USAF has 110 billion dollar budget, all they need to do is earmark a few billion for it.

The money comes out of our Department of Defence budget, which is inline (on a percentage basis) with most countries spending.

As for us being "poor" and how we "might die of starvation" - ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!

Make up your mind - are we all fat and overwieght greedy corporate scum, or are we all poor and starving?

Take a trip over to the states...I think you'll find that we are doing just fine for ourselves

Just wondering,

1) If the "rods from god" idea was put into effect, do you believe a rail gun would be useful?

2) If the "rods from god" idea was put into effect, do you believe that the rods should be spent reactor cores?

3) If the US has all that money, why hasnt it invented a cure for the common cold? sniff

3) If the US has all that money, why hasnt it invented a cure for the common cold? sniff

We have, it's called Vodka. Thanks Sweden! Thanks USSR!

Don't forget if we can vaporize enemy satellites from the surface, other people can vaporize ours. I can't wait until someone starts backstepping and declaring the space above their country to be sovereign... That'll be FUN!

Originally posted by MattMarriott
Russia would consider using force if necessary to respond if the US put a combat weapon into space, according to a senior Russian official.

According to a New York Times report yesterday, the Bush administration was moving towards implementing a new space policy that would move the US closer to placing offensive and defensive weapons in space. Russia, China and many US allies oppose any weaponisation of space, partly out of concerns that it would lead to an extremely expensive post-cold war arms race.

Vladimir Yermakov, senior counsellor at the Russian embassy in Washington, on Tuesday told a conference on space militarisation that Russia was working through diplomatic channels to urge the US not to move towards fielding weapons in space. But he said Russia would have to react, possibly with force, if the US successfully put a "combat weapon" in space.

news.ft.com...

It seems to be inevitable that space weapons will eventually come into play. I don't expect any country to show descretion in doing so either.

If one country gets one, then other countries will want one. Just like with nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The only reason everyone else is against weapons in space is THEY CAN'T DO IT.

They dont WANT to do it. Because there is no need for that.

No one else has the money to do it.

The USA arent as mobile in their budget, too. The billions needed for that would put a lot of other programs in a budget shortage, let alone that most of the military budget is spent on the pure running costs. Russia has a record of achieving their goals, maybe with a little less performance, but also with a lot less funding. And a joint program from several countries would of course have enough of a budget if, again, anyone else wanted this.

No one else has the technology to do it.

There are several countries that are very well capable of space programs, and can also develop their own sattelites.

Generally, it is sad that this discussion has been brought up again, and again by the USA. It creates a threatening atmosphere while there is no need for it. Until now, space has been something like being free-for-all, and that provided a limitation to armament. Of course you all can scream "SCREW THE REST", but this space armament would be like creating a cure before having the disease.

There is no threat NOW that space weapons would be any good against and that can not be countered with the methods we HAVE. But when the space arms race is started by anyone, there will be a reaction, and the "cure" will have created its own disease. Russia seems to have understood that, and I thought US had too after Reagan, until now....

The chief of Russia's strategic forces on Saturday attended the deployment of a new set of state-of-the art intercontinental ballistic missiles, boasting of their capability to penetrate any prospective missile defense, news reports said.

Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, chief of the Strategic Missile Forces, took part in a ceremony that marked the commissioning of the latest set of Topol-M missiles at a missile base in Tatishchevo in the Volga River's Saratov region.

Solovtsov said Saturday that the new missile "is capable of penetrating any missile defense system," the RIA Novosti and Interfax news agencies reported.

Russian officials have called prospective U.S. missile defenses destabilizing and boasted repeatedly that Russia's new missiles could pierce any nation's missile shield.

The Topol-M missiles, capable of hitting targets more than 10,000 kilometers (6,000 miles) away, have so far been deployed in silos. The mobile version, mounted on a heavy off-road vehicle, is to enter combat service next year, Solovtsov said.

The deployed Topol-Ms have been fitted with single nuclear warheads, but officials have considered plans to equip each missile with three individually targeted warheads.

Originally posted by MattMarriott
The chief of Russia's strategic forces on Saturday attended the deployment of a new set of state-of-the art intercontinental ballistic missiles, boasting of their capability to penetrate any prospective missile defense, news reports said.

Talk about arrogant.

"Any prospective missle defense"???

How in the world would they know that?

Hell, Just this second I thought of an inpenatrable defence systems.

Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, chief of the Strategic Missile Forces, took part in a ceremony that marked the commissioning of the latest set of Topol-M missiles at a missile base in Tatishchevo in the Volga River's Saratov region.

Let's see if these missles work better then the last time they had exercises before we claim they can penatrate "any prospective" defense shield.

Russian officials have called prospective U.S. missile defenses destabilizing and boasted repeatedly that Russia's new missiles could pierce any nation's missile shield.

Yes, the US defense shield is destabalizing because this system - which does not even exist yet - is already compromised by Russian missles.

What a joke.

Originally posted by Lonestar24
They dont WANT to do it.

If they could do it they would, it's just that they can't.

The USA arent as mobile in their budget, too. The billions needed for that would put a lot of other programs in a budget shortage, let alone that most of the military budget is spent on the pure running costs.

Do you really believe that the DoD - with FOUR HUNDRED BILLION dollars a year for a budget - can't build shoot down an ICBM? You do understand that this program has been in developement for 20 years right?

Russia has a record of achieving their goals, maybe with a little less performance, but also with a lot less funding. And a joint program from several countries would of course have enough of a budget if, again, anyone else wanted this.

The US military budget is more then the next 20 nations. COMBINED! Russia and China added together and multiplied by two would not equal the US budget.

As for Russia "achieving their goals", what goals are they? Russia has been behinf the US technologically for the last 50+ years. Yet somehow you infer that they are ahead of the US...

There are several countries that are very well capable of space programs, and can also develop their own sattelites.

You are wrong.

If there were "Several" nations that could do this, one of them would have. The simple fact is that the US is the only nation with the technology and money to build a "space force". No other nation can at the moment.

Generally, it is sad that this discussion has been brought up again, and again by the USA. It creates a threatening atmosphere while there is no need for it. Until now, space has been something like being free-for-all, and that provided a limitation to armament.

Uhhhh - you realise the Buran is a nuclear bomber...right?

Originally posted by Trent

Actually if the rest of the world doesn't like it enough it won't just be too bad it will be war. Just ask Germany, the USSR or any other country that thought it could do anything it wanted without backing from the majority of other powerful nations. You can certainly choose your own path but don't think for one second there will not be consequences if the rest of the world agrees that you have become too much of a threat and decides to do something about it. Unless you think we don't have the right to choose how to respond to the choices you make? Also armed conflict is not the only form of war and i doubt it would be nessesary to contain the US. In cold war 1 the USSR got it's behind kicked because it basically had no allies of significance and the ones it did have mostly had populations that were against the USSR. In cold war 2 if the US does not have the backing of Japan, Europe and other allies (not just the governments but also the people) don't expect to fare well...

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Trent]

right....you keep thinking that, its our right and no law prohibits conventional space weapons, and no you dont have the right to use force because you dont like something we have a legal right to having, but be arrogant, keep thinking we need to do what you want.

no they lost because a mismanaged economy and lack of foresight, not from lack of allies, afterall russia wasnt 30% of the world economy and they didnt have other countries tied into their economy, the world stock markets would be destroyed and your economies would fall apart before any navy got near us, ours would fall but not as hard because our war economy would compensate for many losses, there would be a boom in local oil, agriculture and heavy industry too, our country has been built for such a war for decades.

tell me, what right is it of yours to decide how powerful we can or cant be? the left and others who might side with you now would turn as soon as any war was declared and would fight you to the end and parts of your population would be sympathetic and protest against a war solely for limiting power of another nation who never hurt you because a "possible" threat.

and considering economic issues i doubt china, saudi arabia, kuwait, canada, japan or much of asia would side with russia or anyone helping russia attack us.

you dont want war with us over a rod of cement on a satellite or lasers on satellites, do you?

and any "other" form of war would result in armed conflict before we would incur serious economic damage.

who is to say the Russians could shoot it down maybe it has lasers on it make it very hard to be shot down, maybe a new type of secret weapon who knows but im sure if it going in orbit it would have defences on it for such a situation.

maybe this is the starting point of this?

"..America must pass... an
air, ground and sea invasion of the America's by a World Order which will
have conquered all of Asia, Africa and Europe. Depending on how one
interprets the prophecies of Revelation, this siege will last for either 3 1/2
or 7 years, and will end with an American victory aided by Divine
Intervention.."

I don't remember where i got that from,but i've saved it in one of my text files..The World Order could be maybe a new treaty? Of all the nation's that oppose the US in the weapons in space and become a World Order and do joint attacks on the United States by Land,Air,And Water?

With the modernizing of the chinese army..the ground attacks could be covered by them..since they got numbers of toughly trained soldiers and all of Europe and Russia[The British would probably wimp out and join the rest] they would most likely handle the Air and Sea?

So how are these Chinese soldiers supposed to land in the Americas then ? Taking the rest of the world amphibious capability into mind they would be lucky to sealift two or three divisions and support at a time.Maybe they will use all those fishing boats their going to use to invade Taiwan...

Originally posted by bmdefiant
So how are these Chinese soldiers supposed to land in the Americas then ? Taking the rest of the world amphibious capability into mind they would be lucky to sealift two or three divisions and support at a time.Maybe they will use all those fishing boats their going to use to invade Taiwan...

I don't think it would be hard for the joint nations to come up with a way to do it..paratrooping is available and their possibility of doing what is needed isn't impossible...we're talking about pretty much all the other big countries joining together to fight just the United States..that prediction just got me thinking is all.

Originally posted by chinabean
I don't think it would be hard for the joint nations to come up with a way to do it..paratrooping is available and their possibility of doing what is needed isn't impossible...we're talking about pretty much all the other big countries joining together to fight just the United States

Attacking the US would be the single greatest logistical feat in the history of warfare. The US is a HUGE country, with VASTLY different terrain. We have great deserts in the south west. 100 degree days in the south east. HUGE mountains in the northwest. below zero degree temps in the north east.

An army marches on it's stumache. How are all of these TENS OF MILLIONS of soldiers (as if they actually exist, which they don't) going to be fed? Resuplied?

You can't just drop some paratroopers in the US. How are they going to get by all of our airforce and naval assets? Once they are here, how in the world are the very limited number of paratroopers going to deal with soldiers already in the US? What happens when they run out of ammo?

No, invading the US at this point in time is next to impossible. China, Russia, India, and who ever else you can think of would not be so stupid.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by chinabean
I don't think it would be hard for the joint nations to come up with a way to do it..paratrooping is available and their possibility of doing what is needed isn't impossible...we're talking about pretty much all the other big countries joining together to fight just the United States

Attacking the US would be the single greatest logistical feat in the history of warfare. The US is a HUGE country, with VASTLY different terrain. We have great deserts in the south west. 100 degree days in the south east. HUGE mountains in the northwest. below zero degree temps in the north east.

An army marches on it's stumache. How are all of these TENS OF MILLIONS of soldiers (as if they actually exist, which they don't) going to be fed? Resuplied?

You can't just drop some paratroopers in the US. How are they going to get by all of our airforce and naval assets? Once they are here, how in the world are the very limited number of paratroopers going to deal with soldiers already in the US? What happens when they run out of ammo?

No, invading the US at this point in time is next to impossible. China, Russia, India, and who ever else you can think of would not be so stupid.

they could attack us,because most of the places they can attack from wouldn't have much defenses and they could take over terrirtory quickly,and through force they could probably reach numerous places quickly,their combined resources are almost unlimited,because if all that happened the US would be in a siege..even if they couldn't come into the country and attack us with soldiers..

Originally posted by chinabean
they could attack us,because most of the places they can attack from wouldn't have much defenses and they could take over terrirtory quickly,and through force they could probably reach numerous places quickly,their combined resources are almost unlimited,because if all that happened the US would be in a siege..even if they couldn't come into the country and attack us with soldiers..

I don't think you get it. In real life, you don't just click a mouse to invade a nation. Moving an army requires a LOT of work.

The US - with the best logistical system the world has ever known - took MONTHS to buildup 200,000 troops in GWI. That was with the best logistical resources in the world, and several nations not only letting our troops gather there, but nations that actually already had US bases in them.

Russia and China together do not have CLOSE to the logistical system that the US military enjoys. On top of that, how in the world are they going to start moving an army across the Pacific ocean without us knowing? Don't you think the US, with hundreds of spy sats and unkown thousands of secret agents might know that all these troops were headed towards us? Don't you think the US would know if Russian and Chinese armys were building up in Canada or Mexico?

NAMEHERE

Quote: 'tell me, what right is it of yours to decide how powerful we can or cant be? the left and others who might side with you now would turn as soon as any war was declared and would fight you to the end and parts of your population would be sympathetic and protest against a war solely for limiting power of another nation who never hurt you because a "possible" threat' . ------------- One Answer - --- IRAQ - WMD

CHINEBEAN - When has the UK EVER wimped out ????????
Don't start on us becuase we might just be your saving grace.

Don't get me wrong i like the US over Russia and China but you guys do sometimes think your invincable - Like they say when your at the top there really is ONLY one way to go and thats DOWN - Proof - Read History.

On a personal note as i have said in other threads :
IRAN & SYRIA & and North Korea - Attack the west with the 'Silent' backing of Russia and China =- Then you have some issues.
#The 3 small countries start the war spread your resources all over the middle east the bang The big guys come along and clean up

It isn't that hard for those who have the balls/lack of brain cells to push the buttons.(just my prediction for the future)

Merry Christmas and Happy new year - ---

I think that by the Russians trying to get our co-peration through the original diplomatic channels that exist now it is going to be a hard sell for Bush and the next admistration, due to the current situation in the Middle East and to it's ongoing tension in the surrounding territory's.
With that part of the world in such a frenzy and the current outlook bleak, why would the U.S. not want to put a weapons system in space? What says that we do not already have one or more already up there now? I suspect that the good men and women over @ the Skunk Works have had that problem taken care of for a while.
I strongly suspect Russia is trying to hedge it's bets on this in the early stages, due to it's current economic burdens. I think what she truely fears is another tit-for-tat weapons ramp-up while their economy is on the skids.
Truth be told, ours is too and they know it. I'd be more worried about one of their neighboring countries that end in "stan" doing something very stupid before we ever got to the point of having to use a space based weapon. And if we did, we would have just showed them our game plan.
Now NATO is an altogether different subject in real world terms; meaning they no longer function as their Charter dictates. It is my opinion that NATO is more of a hinderous to us and has outlived it's usefulness to the U.S. for decades past. It is rotten to the core and with the people connected to it for the most part, are the ones responsible for what the hell is going on throughout the world. I'd settle for peace if it were up to me.