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
"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.”
"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?"
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
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"
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
"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."
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....
[edit on 18-8-2005 by StellarX]