Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Has anyone here , ever heard of `SafeGuard`?

If not , look it up - its the US ABM system , under the ABM treaty to protect Grand Forks missile base.


So , with bush pulling out of the ABM treaty , whats to stop Putin pulling out of , say, SALT-2 and putting a FOBS (or 10) into space?




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
"Everything every country does is for their own interest "

Yes, but some of us have the world as their country. Please don't assume that everyone int he world share's Bush's or Putin's view, and remember the example of Brazil which gave up its nuclear weapons program voluntarily.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
ahhh, the bases of the ABM treaty is that both nations only should have 1 point defended by ABMs it not eliminated tha ABM from the planet, but it LIMITED ABMs systems only to ONE POINT and only to 100 missiles


Yes i know. That's why i expressly said that the USSR have been in breach for decades.


the SU chose moscow, the US didnt deploy any ABM system, just that the great violation from the russian was a radar oriented in its own territory, but that radar was just for controll ICBMs like others -there werent more missiles, or tracking system, etc-, they deployed that in this way, to close the radar "wall" in a practical way, but that was used by politics, with that "the reds have a tracking system", yeah sure with only 100 interceptors and a a problem with a radar that wasnt oriented in the "hot area" (north pole)


"First, the SA-5 system was tested and developed at the officially declared ABM test range, Sary-Shagan.28 Second, medium- and intermediate-range missiles were fired to impact areas located at Sary-Shagan. Senators John "Jake" Garn and Gordon J. Humphrey have charged that many of these missiles could have served as the targets for ABM intercept programs.29 If so, the target most closely approximated in terms of range, radar cross section, and trajectory would be SLBMs. Third, if such a system as the SA-5 were to act as a terminal atmospheric defense weapon, it would require all-azimuth radar data for warning, acquisition, and pointing inputs to the SA-5 intercept radar. The Hen House long-range radar deployment was coincident in time with initiation of the SA-5 deployment.30 Hen House radars are deployed (in accordance with the ABM treaty) on the periphery of the U.S.S.R., scanninig outward over U.S. SLBM launch areas.31 As a linear array radar, Hen House can handle multiple targets limited only by internal computer configurations that can never be physically seen or assessed directly by U.S. intelligence.32 Acknowledged ABM radars such as the Dog House and Cat House also possess the capability to be used by the SA-5 in an ABM role as does a new class of large ABM capable phased-array radars publicly announced by Senator Garn.33 Fourth, and most important, the assessed technical characteristics of the SA-5 system itself indicated a clear capability to perform as a terminal ABM system to destroy ballistic missile targets of the SLBM variety given adequate radar acquisition data.34

Because of this relative wealth of uncertainty, the final ABM treaty included an explicit obligation in Article VI not to test SAMs "in an ABM mode." Since the ABM testing of the SA-5 could have been completed for some years prior to 1972, the treaty’s impact on an SA-5 ABM capability would be slight. Even at that, the reported repeated violations of the treaty after 1972 by the use of the SA-5 radar in tracking ballistic missiles resulted in Soviet tests against missiles similar in range to a normal SLBM trajectory.35 The Soviets claimed (and the administration) accepted) that the SA-5 radar was not being tested in an ABM mode, but rather was being used in a "legitimate range instrumentation role."36 Whether it is designated as a "range instrumentation radar" does not alter the fact that it has been used in a missile-tracking role. Its ability to track missile warheads on the range is therefore prima facie evidence of its ABM capability. 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...

And for more information.


www.missilethreat.com... and
www.missilethreat.com...
www.missilethreat.com...
www.missilethreat.com...



so is ridicoulus to compare a stupid violation -in which isnt involved more missiles, a tracking system,fire control etc- with a open breake of the treaty as in the Star Wars project


Please don't call what i say ridiculous. If it was i would not be saying it. Feel free to disagree when you have read the links i gave ( the entire site would be better but yes) but please assume that i know what i am talking about

news.bbc.co.uk...

So the US wants to buy them for use in ABM system but the Russians can not use them in that way?


there isnt winer in such war, there are enough missiles and heads to fry again and again every mayor city, saying "i will win" is just sick


Calling strategic planning 'sick' will not help any county without a ABM system. There will only be losers in a nuclear war but as the material shows Russia will lose far less than the US.


but the problem isnt if "this guys broke the law", is ridicoulus if we are talking in such level, the problem is that in the future there will be more -a looot of more- interest in ABMs systems, and more interest in other missile technology,actually the russians have more experience than the US in such defence, nice bussanes selling knowledge to China or NK, but in the end the world will be more unsecure, but is obvious that there are the tipical nationalists that dont understand the consequences


Some countries choose to try defend themselves with ABM defenses instead of building aircraft carriers with wich to intimidate whoever steps out line. I think any government that does not focus on the defense of it's civilians first is the criminal party. Whatever the other crimes of the USSR it certainly tried far harder to defend itself by passive means than the US ever did.

Stellar

[edit on 16-8-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Whatever the other crimes of the USSR it certainly tried far harder to defend itself by passive means than the US ever did.

Stellar

[edit on 16-8-2005 by StellarX]


Wise words..

Even the bay of Pigs thing was in response to the ICBMs in Turkey right?
Anyways.. nobody answered my question..
Are there any US ballistic missiles in Turkey?? Someone on ATS thought so but unfortunately he was unable to back up his claims..



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
Yes, but some of us have the world as their country. Please don't assume that everyone int he world share's Bush's or Putin's view, and remember the example of Brazil which gave up its nuclear weapons program voluntarily.


Try again when somebody has "the world" educating their kids, paving their roads, protecting them against invasion, negotiating deals among nations which favor their ability to hold a job and earn a good income, etc etc etc. Nobody really has the world as their nation, although a few people who haven't really thought it through may consider themselves "world citizens".

Brazil got rid of its nuke program (not nukes though to the best of my knowledge, only South Africa has ever actually accomplished a weapon and then disarmed, unless you count former soviet states) because that was diplomatically and maybe even militarily advantageous. Nothing good was going to come from being on this hemisphere with nukes and not being yes-men to America. It was in Brazil's interest to get rid of their program.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
If you ask me, the winner of a global nuclear war is the obscure third-world nation that manages not to get blasted



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   
ohhhhh my goooood!!!!

www.wonderland.org.nz...
warfare.ru...

the sa5 griffon was the initial assigned name, when the abm was cancelled the name went to the sam-5 gammom sam.


Whatever the other crimes of the USSR it certainly tried far harder to defend itself by passive means than the US ever did.


crimes?????????, dont be exaggerated, first isnt crime, it is just your fanatic missinterpretation


your other comments are ridicoulus, again with the ABM technology evolution is more probable a nuclear war, what you think that only the USA will have ABM net in the future????



[edit on 17-8-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   
^^^..umm.. I don't now abt him.. but I was supporting the USSR on this one.. and I think he was too.. but thats just me..



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
supporing the russians????!!!!
, hell it would be catasthrofic if they would return with the FOBS!!!, but some fanatics supporting an tax-sucker proyect -nice business- , seems that want that


isnt abut be russian or american fan, is about analyse in a objetive way, only that

[edit on 17-8-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
ohhhhh my goooood!!!!

www.wonderland.org.nz...
warfare.ru...


Thanks for the extra links; they confirm all my points . I was not talking about the Griffon but about the Gammon and so was the first author and the American Sec of defense. Why would he talk about abm capability for a Sam system when the Griffon was purely a Abm? The fact that the American DIA chose to consider the V-1000 a Sam system ( and thus gave it the Sa-5 designation) is strange considering it was developed as a ABM system by Russia. What is even stranger is that they then chose to use the same designation for the S-200 sytem later....

From your link : The V-1000, also referred to as "Obiekt A" (Object A), was an ABM with two liquid-fueled stages. It was first detected by the west when the construction started on the ABM sites around Tallinn and Leningrad. Because it was considered to be a SAM, it received the DIA code SA-5 (this was later reused for the S-200 "Volga" SAM system, NATO reporting name Gammon), along with the NATO reporting name "Griffon".

They very much knew that the second "SAM" system was nothing more than a highly refined version of the first ABM system. The Abm treaty of 1972 was a farce for American public consumption as this evidence makes clear.

"Because of this relative wealth of uncertainty, the final ABM treaty included an explicit obligation in Article VI not to test SAMs "in an ABM mode." Since the ABM testing of the SA-5 could have been completed for some years prior to 1972, the treaty’s impact on an SA-5 ABM capability would be slight. Even at that, the reported repeated violations of the treaty after 1972 by the use of the SA-5 radar in tracking ballistic missiles resulted in Soviet tests against missiles similar in range to a normal SLBM trajectory.35 The Soviets claimed (and the administration) accepted) that the SA-5 radar was not being tested in an ABM mode, but rather was being used in a "legitimate range instrumentation role."36 Whether it is designated as a "range instrumentation radar" does not alter the fact that it has been used in a missile-tracking role. Its ability to track missile warheads on the range is therefore prima facie evidence of its ABM capability. 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."

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


the sa5 griffon was the initial assigned name, when the abm was cancelled the name went to the sam-5 gammom sam.


From your article

" The V-1000 ABM was first seen in the public in 1963 when it was paraded on the Red Square and was retired from active service in the following year from yet undefined reasons, but It should be noted that the 5V28 "Volga" missile from the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) SAM system, which was also developed by Grushin's OKB, is considered to be a highly modified version of it."



Whatever the other crimes of the USSR it certainly tried far harder to defend itself by passive means than the US ever did.



crimes?????????, dont be exaggerated, first isnt crime, it is just your fanatic missinterpretation


I am no fanatic as is obvious to everyone save you it seems. You need to calm down if you expect to be taken seriously here and at least get a few of your facts straight if you want to continue.


your other comments are ridicoulus, again with the ABM technology evolution is more probable a nuclear war, what you think that only the USA will have ABM net in the future????



[edit on 17-8-2005 by grunt2]


Russia was very much ready to start a nuclear war considering their defensive networks and offense capability. They would not only have been able to take Europe but would have been able to survive and possibly even defeat a full scale American nuclear strike imo. The fact that they never started the war is just more evidence that they were not the war mongers of popular propaganda induced perception.

Stellar

[edit on 17-8-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   


Thanks for the extra links; they confirm all my points . I was not talking about the Griffon but about the Gammon and so was the first author and the American Sec of defense. Why would he talk about abm capability for a Sam system when the Griffon was purely a Abm?
`

man, you wouldnt believe the huge quantity of missinterpretations when politics are talking about tecnical topics -just like the krasnoyarks radar case-

if the gammom was developed from the griffon that mean that is an ABM???, both missiles are very different with different requierements and performances, both gammon and griffon failed to be ABMs, because both are tooo slow

your article put the idea like if the sam5 will be used for abms systems when that is ridicoulus it try to sell the idea that the sa5 was a secret ABM weapon, for a comparation the target speed for such missile is M4, do you know how fast is a ICBM????

the only russians missiles that have some capacity against ballistic missiles are the sa10-12-20?-,-with a max target speed of M9-10- but with such stuffs you wont intercept an ICBM
, tell me when the US deployed Patriots to intercept ballistic missiles that was a violation of ABM treaty???

now, tell me, the russians have deployed an Sam5 gammon missile as a ABM -even against tactical missies-????, no, not???, so again your "facts" are based in the tipical "would", "should", "could", not enough strong arguments


tipical 80s cold war myths -to search more investment funds-


[edit on 18-8-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
"Try again when somebody has "the world" educating their kids, paving their roads, protecting them against invasion, negotiating deals among nations which favor their ability to hold a job and earn a good income, etc etc etc. "

Open your eyes - there are a huge number of international organisations staffed by good people doing just these things. Not necessarily aided by national governments.


" It was in Brazil's interest to get rid of their program. "

You could argue that for any nation, but Brazil was the one that did it



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
Open your eyes - there are a huge number of international organisations staffed by good people doing just these things. Not necessarily aided by national governments.


Accomplishing next to nothing in the grand scheme though, as compared to nationalized governments. "The World" which you claim is some people's nation, in fact is running up the debt on many nations via interest to a point that they can never get out from under it. So one day you're right, some people will eventually be citizens (or subjects) of the world... the world bank that is.


" It was in Brazil's interest to get rid of their program. "

You could argue that for any nation, but Brazil was the one that did it



The point is that Brazil didn't do it "for the world". They did it for Brazil.

The underlying reality of life is that it is a competition for survival. People will do what best provides for their own personal interests, usually through cooperation with a group, such as a nation. To a certain extent this works, so long as the cooperative organization they associate with is not so big that there is not enough to go around for everyone in the group.
When you attempt to defeat the idea that people must act in their own interest by contending that some people consider themselves world citizens you ignore the fact that now and even more so in the future there simply isn't enough wealth in the world for everyone to enjoy every possible advantage for their own health and security.

Some will be poor, some will rely on others for security. Those who see the world as their forsake nationalism in practice (which certainly doesn't include Europeans) will be among them.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Noone can win a nuclear war between 2 nuclear powers.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

"Everything every country does is for their own interest "

Yes, but some of us have the world as their country. Please don't assume that everyone int he world share's Bush's or Putin's view, and remember the example of Brazil which gave up its nuclear weapons program voluntarily.


lol, you obviously don't know too much about the Brazillian nuclear weapons program. They only stopped it after the US detected the secret bore hole being drilled deep in the Amazon for their first test. The US placed intense pressure on the Brazillian government to cancel the test and their weapons program.
If they could have got away with it without repercussions they would have.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Thanks for the extra links; they confirm all my points . I was not talking about the Griffon but about the Gammon and so was the first author and the American Sec of defense. Why would he talk about abm capability for a Sam system when the Griffon was purely a Abm?



man, you wouldnt believe the huge quantity of missinterpretations when politics are talking about tecnical topics -just like the krasnoyarks radar case-


"August 31, 1988 In a unilateral statement following the Third U.S.-Soviet Review Conference on the ABM Treaty, the United States states that: “Since the Soviet Union was not prepared to satisfy U.S. concerns with respect to the Krasnoyarsk radar violation…the United States will have to consider declaring this continuing violation a material breach of the treaty. In this connection, the United States reserves all its rights, consistent with international law, to take appropriate and proportionate responses in the future.”

www.missilethreat.com...

"Ironically, the development of the upgraded ground-based battle-management radars, which can track MIRVed RVs, was carried out during the ABM Treaty negotiations. Construction of these facilities could hardly have gone unnoticed by the West, for they resemble several Manhattan skyscrapers joined together in one unit. Construction began in 1972, and the first units became operational in the1980s. The well-known Krasnoyarsk Radar-the sixth of nine such radars--was a deliberate treaty violation by the Soviet leadership. Is it possible that United States and NATO spy satellites did not detect these massive structures? If not, then why are these flagrant treaty violations being ignored?"

newsmax.com.../4/24/53247

Your making accusations without posting even the most obscure website to back it up and what little you do post just agrees with all my statements... You really need to bring something to the table other than statements of what you believe to be true. I will need your sources if you want to stage a credible argument.


if the gammom was developed from the griffon that mean that is an ABM???, both missiles are very different with different requierements and performances, both gammon and griffon failed to be ABMs, because both are tooo slow


The Gammon is a 'highly refined' version of the Griffin ( wich was succesfully tested at the Russian ABM testing grounds against SS-4)wich the DIA and CIA in their wisdom decided to call a SAM system when all the evidence suggested that it was a dual use system at worse and a full blown ABM system, under the guise of a SAM system, at worse.

"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"

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


your article put the idea like if the sam5 will be used for abms systems when that is ridicoulus it try to sell the idea that the sa5 was a secret ABM weapon, for a comparation the target speed for such missile is M4, do you know how fast is a ICBM????


You can blame the American Sec of defense ( and many other high ranking one's) for being that paranoid if you must. Do leave me out of it. With a normal He fragmentation warhead Mach 4 would be a problem against ICBM's ( And i never even claimed they would stop ICBM's reliably) but then these missiles are also nuclear capable
with nuclear stockpiles on site. I know how fast ICBM's can move yes. Assume i researched all of this.....


the only russians missiles that have some capacity against ballistic missiles are the sa10-12-20?-,-with a max target speed of M9-10- but with such stuffs you wont intercept an ICBM
, tell me when the US deployed Patriots to intercept ballistic missiles that was a violation of ABM treaty???


"To the best of my knowledge, reports of Kosygin's remarks lumping Moscow and Tallinn (the SA-5) together as ABM systems never reached DIA. Whether it was reported elsewhere I do not know. In any case, it did not deter McNamara from telling Congress six months later that U.S. intelligence, i.e. the CIA, was now confident that
the system was only a SAM, not a dual purpose SAM/ABM although such systems could have some marginal ABM capabilities."

www.fas.org...

And this was back in 1966 when they were disregarding so much evidence concerning the radars and the basis of the SA-Gammon program.


now, tell me, the russians have deployed an Sam5 gammon missile as a ABM -even against tactical missies-????, no, not???, so again your "facts" are based in the tipical "would", "should", "could", not enough strong arguments


tipical 80s cold war myths -to search more investment funds-

[edit on 18-8-2005 by grunt2]


They did in fact deploy it at the very least against SLBM..... They succesfully tested it against such missiles.... Please start reading the links i provide as all this information and so much more are right there for you to see.

This one gets to the main points....
newsmax.com.../4/24/53247
and www.fas.org...

Stellar

[edit on 18-8-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
""The World" which you claim is some people's nation, in fact is running up the debt on many nations via interest to a point that they can never get out from under it. So one day you're right, some people will eventually be citizens (or subjects) of the world... the world bank that is. "

You seem to have missed the whole Drop The Debt thing. Weird, as it was one of the biggest stories around.

"The point is that Brazil didn't do it "for the world". They did it for Brazil. "

Well, that's your interpretation


"The underlying reality of life is that it is a competition for survival. "

Yes, that's what the evil people say
Luckily there are some other viewpoints around, or the world really would be hell.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
You seem to have missed the whole Drop The Debt thing. Weird, as it was one of the biggest stories around.


Perhaps you are suggesting that nobody in the world owes the world bank a single penny anymore, and I missed it? Please tell me if that's the case. Otherwise, you're latching on to petty PR displays.


"The point is that Brazil didn't do it "for the world". They did it for Brazil. " Well, that's your interpretation



It's the right interpretation. It is perfectly in line with the way that every organism on this planet forms it behavior patterns. We act in a way most likely to help us survive, not in the way that helps out everyone else. Period.



"The underlying reality of life is that it is a competition for survival. "
Yes, that's what the evil people say
Luckily there are some other viewpoints around, or the world really would be hell.


When was the last time you ate? I'm only curious because if you haven't stopped eating yet, you're still contributing to the death of others for your own survival. Depending on what you eat, we aren't just talking about animals either.
Do you drink coffee or tea? Western nations are raping the crap out of Ethiopia and other East African nations so that they will grow cashcrops like those instead of the FOOD that they need to survive. Even I don't favor that one, it's not necessary for survival, but more often than not it's a pragmatist like myself who is aware of the world and sees things like that before the unnaturally warm and fuzzy cowards have any idea that it's even going on. So as I asked, when was your last cup of coffee or tea?
Here's another one for you. Do you ever ride in a gas or diesel driven vehicle, go to a store to buy goods that were shipped in from anywhere far from home, or otherwise enjoy the benefits of oil-powered transportation? Congratulations once again, you are surviving at the expense of others.

Your words fall under your weak idea of "good" but your deeds are evil by your own standard. Why don't you get off your lazy, evil butt and go organize some boycotts so that you can sacrifice your own survival for the good of others, because that IS what you are advocating.

But you won't. The "give peace a chance" crowd in the West is one of the greatest centers of hypocrisy in the world. They enjoy the fruits of imperialism under the thin excuse that they aren't the ones who made the decisions, they just embraced the fruits thereof.

We need not argue anymore though, for as I have shown you, you are my friend and fellow warmonger.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I belive that no one wins a nuclear war. But There have been two bombs used where humans live and the two cities were rebilt. I do not know how long after. People do live in Nagasaki and Horishima. Mabe the long half life is a lie, I don't know.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurityOfPeace
Nobody truelly wins, it is that simple. I always think about the absurdity of Dr. Strangelove when thinking about Nuclear war, because as Stanley Kubrick discovered, the idea is just so idiotic that you cannot take it seriously.
The film "Threads" is another nuclear war film made during the cold war, supposedly it freaked a lot of people out in the 80's when it was made. Worth a look!


I agree 100 percent, however it doesn't matter what WE think as far as the un-winnability of nuclear conflict. The ONLY thing that matters is what my ADVERSARY thinks. eg; If HE thinks he can win then it really doesn't matter what I think, does it? The documented fact is that the leadership of the Soviet Union planned on "winning" a conflict, with ABMs, civil defense, air defense, and deep underground bunkers. Indeed, the "end of capitalism" was to involve nuclear weapons from their military doctrine. I believe the Soviet Union, or today Russia would be destroyed just as absolutely as the US, however the REAL question is whether THEY believe it...
Would Russian ABMs, civil defense and all active and passive efforts to fight a nuclear war have mattered? Would US advances in stealth, cruise missiles, MIRVs, and ICBM decoy, solid fuel, and accuracy advantages of he cold war have mattered? The US clearly chose a different path, a different philosophy, but don't ever question the fact that the US effort and reasources were being spent on "the art" of nuclear war. The Russian/Soviet philosophy is a little more obvious to the average armchair warrior, and the US's a little more confusing and not as clear. That could cause a mistaken view of US strategy as one of self denial or complacence. I believe that would be a mistake. The "fog of war" has allways held many suprises for all who tried to comprehend the end result, and as far as Nuclear conflict goes, thank god we never had to find out.



[edit on 24-12-2005 by Sandman11]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join