Originally posted by rogue1
^^^ The Russian ABM systems only covers the Moscow area, big deal. I'd hardly call Moscow surviving and the rest of the cities being obliterated a
victory. I doubt Moscow would survive anyway.[edit on 12-2-2006 by rogue1]
Never said anything else: my first sentence was "winning a nuclear war is a contradiction in terms". Of course Moscow will be obliterated in case of
a massive strike. But as I've argued, the aim was to avoid a incapacitating limited strike on the city military command and infrastructure.
Furthermore, a less official goal was to deter the Chinese.
Originally posted by rogue1It is interesting that you say Russia accomplished this in the 70's when there newer missiles have no
capability gainst ICBM's. Actually no missiles have any real capability against ICBM's.
Also, I'm curious - if the Russians have been so advanced for so long, why are they developing the S-400 system and the successor S-500 ( which is
equivalent of the US NMD ) ?[edit on 12-2-2006 by rogue1]
First of all, I'm not saying this. They said it to Bush.
Second, what newer missiles? The existing ABM shield is operational and sufficient, as demonstrated above, and why would they need to further develop
something that will never match pure and bloody MAD in terms of efficiency?
The S-500 is no more than a rumour, and whether it is, or not, the equivalent of the US NMD no one can judge. The assumption that NO missiles have any
real capability against ICBM is wrong - but it will NEVER be enough to counter a nuclear strike, you're right here. The development of the S-300/400
systems have nothing to do with ABM systems:
1) Why shoot down anything from UAVs to ICBMs with an universal missile type??? can you imagine the costs? Each missile system has more or less
specific advantages and missions, and it is designed to meet specific specifications.
2) S-300/400 systems are primarily
meant for air defense, anything one could suppute about ABM capabilities notwithstanding. They are highly
mobile (compared to other long-range SAMs like the Patriot) to ensure some kind of survavibility in a dense air superiority battle theatre, the
missiles are fast and capable of high G manoeuvres for countering similar targets (but not fast enough for ICBM-type targets) and the C3I systems are
jamming-resistant: everything that specifies them as primarily anti-aircraft (including cruise missiles) systems. ABM systems need completely
Originally posted by rogue1 PS. Just because Putin says so, doesn't mean it's truthful. We all know Putin is an ex-KGB general prone
to misinformation.[edit on 12-2-2006 by rogue1]
Well, for starters, he never raised above the rank of KGB colonel. He was then (briefly) the head of the FSB (which is NOT the "successor of the
KGB" as all the journalists put it but the Interior Security section of it). If you want a real KGB general, look for S. Ivanov (the Def. Minister).
And BTW, we all know that George Bush senior was a CIA Director, and that half of the present US administration was more or less involved in some
dubious conclaves and think tanks... It doesn't make prone to misinformation, methinks (well, not more than anyone else).
Putin's job was to inform, and not to misinform, his masters (he was in the foreign intel section). And I can't imagine a man like him (if you can
read Russian, I suggest you read some of his press conference briefings and his lengthy and detailed answers) blatantly lying like this in public.
Besides, he's not speaking about it for the first time and he's not the only one to do so. I don't say that you can trust him all the time (nobody
should trust a politician anyway) but as far as I remember he never was caught saying a blatant lie.
[edit on 12-2-2006 by RSM55]
[edit on 12-2-2006 by RSM55]