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.

 

US wants to build missile defence system on Czech-Polish soil

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

US wants to build missile defence system on Czech-Polish soil


Source Link: news.bbc.co.uk

The leaders of the Czech Republic and Poland say they are in favour of letting the US build parts of its missile defence system on their soil.

The US wants to build a missile interceptor site in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic.

"If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take a decision to this effect, the strategic missile troops will be capable of having these facilities as targets," said Gen Nikolai Solovtsov, commander of Russia's missile forces.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
If poland and the cxech republic agree to have these defense systems on their soil, I dont see the problem. It will royally piss off the russians and they will start making threats, but what can they do about it. Poland and the Czech Republic are sovereign nations.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I can't imagine how the Poles and Czechs could not benefit from this, Russian saber rattling that's about it. It's free defense and an expensive defensive system at that. I really doubt that they still do not harbor a lot of anger towards Russia from the Cold War. Solidarity, Prague Spring, etc.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I agree, Poland can only benefit from this missle system built in poland but some ppl oppose it because it would be a target for terrorists or nuke attacks in case of war.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by ApoXx]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
AT present the interceptors based in Ft. Greely and Vandenberg do not have the cross range speed needed to protect Europe against a launch from the Middle East or North Korea. I doubt that any other countries in Europe would allow the placement of the Interceptors at any rate. The UK IMHO is the best choice as the X-Band radar needed to cue them is there (if I recall)

IMHO its a huge benif for the two countries. Aside from having US troops there, the bases and thier staff will pump a large amount of $$$$ into the local economy


[edit on 2/19/07 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
There is one thing hear that I don't think has been addressed. If the U.S. is going to build this defense system on there soil, for the U.S. to do so and pay for it, there must be some reason for doing so in there favor. In other words, what is in it for the U.S?

Aside from having a small number of troops on foreign soil.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Well, as far as the US goes we increase our overall military and political presence/influence in that part of the world, in Russia's back yard. We draw former Soviet blocks closer to NATO. We have radars and intelligence gathering systems that (because of their location) can look deep into central Russia and the Barents Sea. We also increase our ABM capability in the region against countries like Iran and North Korea. And perhaps maybe in the future we can chip away at Russia's offensive arsenal.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
West Point,
first off I know Russia still has a powerful military and Nuke arsenal, but the cold war is also over. I don't think Russia is on the top of the U.S. threat any more. North Korea and the Middle east countries are. So you are saying this defense system will help Gard against those regions?



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
...first off I know Russia still has a powerful military and Nuke arsenal, but the cold war is also over. I don't think Russia is on the top of the U.S. threat any more.


Yes they have a powerful military and nuclear arsenal, but not as powerful (or as reaching) as it once was. However it is my opinion that the 'Cold War' never ended, at least not in the way most ordinary folk seem to think it did. It has continued on ever since, albeit in a more quite and less dramatic manner. The desire from Russia's end to resist US-NATO expansion and domination has always there. However a slew of relatively "weak" leaders and a decreasing state of things meant that the resources and means were just not available. However things now are a changing, given the background, views and policies ([1] [2][3]) of the current Russian president ([1][2][3]) (as demonstrated at the recent 43rd Munich Conference) and throughout his term in office one cannot help but feel the waters getting warmer.

Putin's successor will be essentially hand picked, combine that with a huge income provided by oil/gas and military exports and what do you get? A spending spree. Russia recently announced plans to spend huge amounts of money that will go towards increasing and modernizing not only it's nuclear arsenal but its conventional forces as well. All the more reason to solidify and increase US presence in that part of the world. Why do you think the US sponsored the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine? Built bases in Romania and Bulgaria? Supports Georgia and built bases in former central Asian soviet blocks such as Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan? And in the latest development is seeking to build bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.


Originally posted by RedGolem
So you are saying this defense system will help Gard against those regions?


Partially, however it will also have other and more reaching purposes, as mentioned above.

I suggest reading the following links and putting the puzzle together...

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6
Link 7
Link 8
Link 9
Link 10
Link 11
Link 12
Link 13
Link 14

[edit on 19-2-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
West Point,
That is a lot of links and did not get the first I tried to work but I will try them again and see what they say, thanks for all the info.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
This system isn't aimed at North Korea or Iran for one second, it's obviously aimed at Russia. And yes, the US elite want to take out Russia.

First, North Korea, if they wanted to launch, would launch against Hawaii or Japan, but not against Europe.

Second, Iran is gonna be attacked in a matter of weeks, so there won't be any threat there either. And if they retaliate when they are attacked, they will retaliate against US forces, Israël or Iraq, not Europe.

So it's aimed at Russia, and Putin understand it. Missiles could reach Europe if Kremlin wanted: general So Russia is clearly against that kind of move.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
That is a lot of links and did not get the first I tried to work but I will try them again and see what they say, thanks for all the info.


Hmm... I tired all the links and they worked for me, so if you could, please tell me the ones you're having problems with, also I added a few new links.

Vitchilo, as I said before these missiles could be used against Iran or North Korea, and at present (these 10 missiles) would not pose any significant direct (shoot down) capability against Russia and it‘s vast nuclear arsenal. One, there is not enough of them and two depending on the trajectory they would not be able to catch up with Russian ICBM's. However the sensors and long term political/strategic implications are a different story.

Also, you're making some bold and uncorroborated claims about what Iran or North Korea would do if attacked. And I won't even touch your claim that Iran wont be a threat because it "will be attacked in a matter of weeks".

[edit on 19-2-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Am I the only one thinking these missiles would probably be more useful in a first strike role, killing satellites to cripple targetting and C&C frameworks?

I mean, they're 'extraorbital kinetic kill vehicles' or whatever, aren't they? Doesn't that equate to an anti-satellite missile by any other name?

We call it a missile defense system, but isn't it comparable, in terms of functionality, to the anti-satellite system tested by China that was summarily tried and hung in the media? What makes the kinetic kill vehicle of our 'missile defense shield' any different, functionally, from the 'kinetic kill vehicle' employed by the Chinese system?

Ours has a better name, obviously, and it has a better PR wing.

Seriously though, is the missile defense system nothing more than a euphanism for first strike anti-satellite capabality?

That's how it's lookin' to me...

Of course, I could be mistaken. Perhaps I'm mistaken about the capability of the system?



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I think the difference is that our's is designed to shoot down missiles, while China's is meant to take down satellites. Meaning that although our system can essentially do the same thing as China's (at least I think it can), that's not all that it can do. So it's not just PR, it's also a matter of our system is a bit more versatile than China's.

How that translates into China getting the bad press about it instead of the US is beyond me, but that's the media propaganda machine in motion for you.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   


Vitchilo, as I said before these missiles could be used against Iran or North Korea,

Yeah right. North Korea would NEVER attack Europe, they have better and closer targets available. To say the contrary is just .... What would be the point of nuking Poland or Czech Republic? Seriously. The North Koreans nukes are for attack/defense purpose, not for some kind of terrorism.

Iran, same thing as North Korea.


and at present (these 10 missiles) would not pose any significant direct (shoot down) capability against Russia and it‘s vast nuclear arsenal. One, there is not enough of them and two depending on the trajectory they would not be able to catch up with Russian ICBM's. However the sensors and long term political/strategic implications are a different story.

That's why Russia is worried, they think on the long term. And Russia vast arsenal... in stock yes, but in a case of US first strike, how many would be left and able to launch before they get bombed?



Also, you're making some bold and uncorroborated claims about what Iran or North Korea would do if attacked.

Bold and uncorroborated claims... just look at history of both countries, and see if it would be LOGICAL to nuke Poland or Czech Republic, seriously.


And I won't even touch your claim that Iran wont be a threat because it "will be attacked in a matter of weeks".

Even if they wouldn't be attacked, they wouldn't attack Europe in the first place, they would try to neutralize their first enemies, Israël, Saudi Arabia, US forces in the area, ect...

Think from a strategic point.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
WyrdeOne, the primary functionality of the GBI is anti-nuclear warhead but there is nothing keeping it from being able to target satellites. In fact it would probably be easier than targeting nuclear warheads; orbital and therefore a predictable trajectory, no decoys, larger size, easier to track on radar etc... We probably could not test such a capability but we can upgrade it to the current system.

The GBI certainly has the range and the KE Vehicle certainly has the capability. I mentioned this a few weeks back when China tested it's own ASAT capabilities.

The US has more (black) ASAT capabilities, remember we gave up testing in the 80's but no one said anything about development. Given China's recent test I expect we will take our ides of parasite Anti-Satellites and the use of DEW's and actually start development and limited production...


Originally posted by cyberdude78
How that translates into China getting the bad press about it instead of the US is beyond me, but that's the media propaganda machine in motion for you.


Well, China did actually shoot down a satellite, creating all kind of mess, it was unannounced (secret) and it's message was clear. The US and Soviets did it too but taken in context it's not the same situation. Also the US announces all of it's ABM and ICBM tests, though you won't hear about them in the news until the test is done.

Furthermore we are not advertising nor claiming any ASAT capability via the GBI, while theoretically the capability is there as far as I am aware no such upgrade has been implemented or tested on the GBI (yet). So yeah, they pretty much deserve all the bad press they get.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I also see no point in nuking the Czech or poland... They're no threat... except the missile defence system on their soil.

This also reminds me of wargames... or defcon: everybody dies.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Yeah right. North Korea would NEVER attack Europe, they have better and closer targets available. To say the contrary is just .... What would be the point of nuking Poland or Czech Republic? Seriously. The North Koreans nukes are for attack/defense purpose, not for some kind of terrorism.


Easy for you to say, North Korea, if it came to it could attack anyone or any place it thinks is a threat or any place it thinks an attack would be successful. Given Europe's situation and the fact that the US has numerous assets there it is not inconceivable that it could be a potential target. In any case I'd rather have a defense for the whole of Europe instead of sitting there and saying "nahh... could never happen..." Also, I think you're a little confused about what the GBI can do, I'll explain below....


Originally posted by Vitchilo
Iran, same thing as North Korea.


Why? Iran would surely go at US targets in the region but it has short and intermediate missile for this. Iran is developing ballistic missiles (capable of carrying a nuclear warhead) that will be able to reach southern England. Why develop those if you are NEVER going to attack places outside of the ME? As I said before given Europe's implication in the current Iran situation, it is not inconceivable...


Originally posted by Vitchilo
Bold and uncorroborated claims... just look at history of both countries, and see if it would be LOGICAL to nuke Poland or Czech Republic, seriously.


The ground based interceptors that would be placed in Poland have a range of nearly 4,000 miles and can climb to a ceiling of 1,250 miles. They are intended to shoot down nuclear warheads while they're in space and traveling to their target (mid-course stage), before they renter the atmosphere and being the terminal phase. So a GBI missile based in Poland will be able to protect all of Europe and even Israel as well as most of the ME due to it's range. Now do you see why Iran does not have to attack Poland in order for us to use this system?

[edit on 20-2-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   


Why? Iran would surely go at US targets in the region but it has short and intermediate missile for this. Iran is developing ballistic missiles (capable of carrying a nuclear warhead) that will be able to reach southern England. Why develop those if you are NEVER going to attack places outside of the ME? As I said before given Europe's implication in the current Iran situation, it is not inconceivable...

I know that Iran is developping ballistic missiles, like the Shahab-3. But I think it's for propaganda, national pride, and to put them in subs to attack US mainland and Israël after their installations have been crushed.

And if you look at the range of short/intermediate iranian missiles, they can't go far. The Zelzal-2, a intermediate missile, have a 200km range only, I know it's an artillery missile... but well. The Shahab-2, have a range 300-500-700km, not enough to strike Israël.

My point is that they are not developping ballistic missiles to strike Europe, but to be able to deter an attack against Israël and US because without them, they can't reach Israël with short/intermediate range missiles.




The ground based interceptors that would be placed in Poland have a range of nearly 4,000 miles and can climb to a ceiling of 1,250 miles. They are intended to shoot down nuclear warheads while they're in space and traveling to their target (mid-course stage), before they renter the atmosphere and being the terminal phase. So a GBI missile based in Poland will be able to protect all of Europe and even Israel as well as most of the ME due to it's range. Now do you see why Iran does not have to attack Poland in order for us to use this system?

I already knew that, but if those missiles shields have that range, why don't they put those in Iraq? The US is all around Iran, let's place missile shield launchers in Iraq and Afghanistan, that would be able to cover anywhere in the world from Iranian launches, no? It would be much more efficient, in the first stages of a missile, the speed is not very high, if all of this is aimed at Iran of course. And if it's aimed at North Korea, put missile shield in South Korea/Japan.

But my point is that it's aimed at Russia on the pretext of Iran/North Korea, well I agree with Putin. And the US didn't just put missile shield in Poland or Czech Republic, but also in Australia, Japan, UK. It's not just that, it's also the deployment of US SSBN and B-52 around Russia. And from all post here that say that the US would be able to win over Russia in a first strike and the old circles of power that still wants to beat Russia, just like GWB wanted to go back in Iraq to finish the work... it makes me wonder if they plan on attack Russia in the coming years. The recent Putin speech blaming the US violation of international law and imperialism wasn't for nothing, it's because they feel threatenned.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
You've got a point Vitchilo... If North Korea (who is labeled a threat) wanted to attack th US, they would never launch a nuke across th EU to hit the US, their latest missile can hit the west coast of the US (hypothetically, they have not tried it practically). And as you say, Iran doesn't have the right weapons for that kind of range... if Israel is out of range, nevermind the US. Even with the help of North Korea.

correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Iran farther from the US, than North Korea is from the US?
I don't have Google Earth.

IF Russia is the true threat, then I wonder what are the russians brewing, to stir up this commotion... Or what is the US' next step/action?

Sometimes I wonder, why can't we all just get along? Come on, we're living on the same rock, called Earth. To me it would make sense if we were already able to inhabit other planets. And there were conflicts between planets, with real reasons.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join