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.

 

Russia plans new nuclear missile production

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donoso

Originally posted by Horusnow
I'm curious HOW it will end up then according to you.


The same way the last Cold War did.


That doesn't make sense since the Cold war never really ended. Both countries are just both too stubborn to disarm.




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I can see it now Russia,China,Iran and the rest of the disgruntled side orders teaming up.

Didn't Bush straighten that out after Putin stated he would point his nukes at us if we continued with the defense sheild. Did he not understand it is a defense system not an offensive system. Oh well here we go again. All the cool jobs will be coming back.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
A defense system diedagaincraftsmen? You actually believe that the "Defense Shield" is going to be used primarily for defense? haha!



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by douglas2k4
A defense system diedagaincraftsmen? You actually believe that the "Defense Shield" is going to be used primarily for defense? haha!


Well, the system is based on interceptor missiles designed to hit incoming missiles. How do you propose it would be used on offense, considering we really haven't come that far when it comes to missile defense in the past 20 years. No system has been proven in combat to be effective enough to rely on to defend from a second strike that comes in response to your first strike.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by malganis

Originally posted by Thurisaz
urgh!

Take away their nuclear technology and give them sticks and stones. Because they are not responsible with the technology.

Russia of all nations... OMG.


I hope that was sarcasm, because Russia has never nuked anyone...


I cant say for certain... But i think the posters initial point was how russias massive nuclear armament has decayed (and would be alot worse without american help in the form of financial aid as well as technologically speaking, to properlly dispose of such waste) and it 'could' (probably is) easier to get such nukes from the black market via corrupt russian officials, gangs, mafia, etc. All major problems in the current russian federation.



That's what I was thinking. I bet the USA are already developing counter-measures for Russias new arsenal. And obviously Russia can never look weak they so they have to keep spending to try to keep on top of USA technology.


russia has good tech, and you cant underestimate them, however the US just kept up spending literally hundreds of billions of dollars throughout the 90s on a yearly average. The US has since then ramped up its spending since the war on terror began. I believe the actual military expenditures for the United states is well over $500B today. Case in point, the US more then likely is ahead of russia on many fronts at this point. I beileve i read a summary a while back that the US was quite a few years ahead of the soviets on the military technological scale after the USSR collapsed.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Well, the system is based on interceptor missiles designed to hit incoming missiles. How do you propose it would be used on offense, considering we really haven't come that far when it comes to missile defense in the past 20 years. No system has been proven in combat to be effective enough to rely on to defend from a second strike that comes in response to your first strike.

You need to verse yourself in past Cold War activity. Being able to hinder or neutralize a nation's military capability is considered an offensive measure.

It comes down to the old security dilemma. A nation feels its military is not up to scratch when compared to its neighbours so it upgrades its weapons to match them. The neighbours now consider their loss of military supremacy to be a threat so they in turn upgrade their military even further and so on and so on.

This missile shield is a prime example of a nation upsetting the balance of power and causing an arms race. The missile shield can be used as defence but that does not concern the Russians. What they are concerned about is their diminished capacity to respond to any ATTACK on Russia from the United States.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
This what the point I was trying to make in my previous post. You hit the mark right on the head subz.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by douglas2k4]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
You need to verse yourself in past Cold War activity. Being able to hinder or neutralize a nation's military capability is considered an offensive measure.

It comes down to the old security dilemma. A nation feels its military is not up to scratch when compared to its neighbours so it upgrades its weapons to match them. The neighbours now consider their loss of military supremacy to be a threat so they in turn upgrade their military even further and so on and so on.

This missile shield is a prime example of a nation upsetting the balance of power and causing an arms race. The missile shield can be used as defence but that does not concern the Russians. What they are concerned about is their diminished capacity to respond to any ATTACK on Russia from the United States.


True, but the point is, we don't have a system advanced enough that can be relied upon or counted on to neutralize Russian Missiles. We simply aren't that far advanced in ABM technology. The program I was watching on the military channel stated this, and this is typically pro-American material. I know there are black projects and such, but If I don't know about it for sure, how can I rely on the tech being there when stating my opinion about this issue? And how can you or anyone else?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
we don't have a system advanced enough that can be relied upon or counted on to neutralize Russian Missiles. We simply aren't that far advanced in ABM technology.

In the politics of security, whether it works or not is actually irrelevant. Security is not purely concerned with being secure in reality, it also comprises the sense of security that comes from your military capability.

If the Russians did nothing about the US missile shield on their doorstep the Russian people would not feel safe. If the Russian government did not do anything about it it would appear weak in the eyes of Russians and other countries. To do nothing would be unacceptable to any right minded nation.

The counter moves of the Russians could also be phony in their claims, that's the game. All nations do not give a black and white run down of their nation's military capabilities. That would be a self-defeating policy. What they do is announce and display enough to give food for thought to their rivals and then make all sorts of claims about their weapons systems (some true, some false).

Case in point would be Reagan's famous Star Wars programme that scared the living crap out of the Russians but was a complete pink elephant. It had no prospect for success in that day and age and for the costs involved. Yet it caused the Russians to actually believe it had to keep up, both in reality and in peoples minds. The feasibility of Star War's was irrelevant, it brought the Soviet Union to its knees regardless.

The same is happening again with this Missile Shield. If the United States is planning on reigniting an arms race with the Russians on a Cold War scale this would be the way of achieving it. The Russians are being led by an ultra-nationalist leader who is thinking about his legacy now that his leadership term is coming to an end. He might set the Russian military on an historic course before he leaves office. A costly historic course. A historic course that would then allow for the injection of billions of dollars into the US economy to match it.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join