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.

 

Physicists claim the US European ABM's could eliminate Russia's nuclear deterent

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Physicists claim the US European ABM's could eliminate Russia's nuclear deterent


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON - A number of top U.S-based physicists have concluded that the United States used inaccurate claims to reassure NATO allies about U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe.

They say the planned Polish-based interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic could target and catch Russian missiles, thus threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Clearly this is someone political agenda at work. We are really talking about a limited missile defence. Its not as if they are going to place 10's of thousands of ABM's eh? The Russians / New Soviets could easily saturate the defences at anyrate. Im not sure why the bees are buzzing in Putins bonnet, but either they are that ignorant or are making this grandiose stand to try to wring consessions or something

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Yeah for now it's not ``good enough`` but eventually, in the future, those systems will be a threat to Russian missiles.

The system is a threat for Russia because NATO could take out 95% of Russia's arsenal in a pre-emptive nuclear war. The 5% left would be wiped out by the missile shield. The elite wouldn't care about killing hundreds of millions of people in the process, they want to reduce the population by 90%... so who cares if a few NATO's cities get hit by nukes?

The only way for Russia to avoid utter destruction would be pre-emptive strike against NATO countries. But when do they pre-emptive strike? If they do too early, it's not good for them, and if they do too late, they are destroyed. That's why I think that the threat of nuclear war is much higher now than it was during the cold war.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Hmmm, you are assuming that the US/Nato would get a first strike without the Russians being able to get thier birds off the ground as well as thier SLBM's.

That is an unlikely scenario even for the degraded Soviet forces. Yes the US SLBM's have counterforce capacity, but get 95% of them? Thats highly unlikely. Enough will get through.

Nor are there enough B-2 to hunt down the mobile Topol M ICBM's etc.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   


Nor are there enough B-2 to hunt down the mobile Topol M ICBM's etc.

There are not that much mobile Topol M... Currently there are 40 silo based and 3 mobiles topol-M, and they estimate that they will have 69 missiles by 2015. When you already know where 40 of those are... let's say that there will be about 15 mobile launchers, they each are in a group of 3, which makes 5 groups. I know that with all the technologies you can spot at least 3 of those groups...

Also for the SLBMs, most russian submarines are nuclear... the easiest kind of submarines to find because they make a lot of noise. My bet is that with all NATO float, you can track them down in a period of 6 months and know where they all are at a certain time and sink them before they can launch.

But about the bombers, can they launch a lot of nuclear missiles? Even then, you can track them down and hit them with the new F-22...

I'm not that good in military things, but I think it's what Russia fears for the long term and putting a missile defense in Europe is a dangerous first step towards pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia.

Anyway, nobody thinks they will not lose a few cities... they probably think that losing 10 to 25% of the population would be acceptable to win over the Russians.

Also, why would the US place a missile defense in Alaska? North Korea won't launch against the US, that's for sure because they would be oblitered and Kim Jong Il may be crazy but he's a selfish crazy.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I think miscommunication is at the heart of the danger which Vitchilo correctly states. They see that eventually we will remove their deterent, while at the same time the US only intends to protect itself. In the end neither country was necessarily evil in its intent, but the result is the same.

Isn't communication at the heart of most human problems? I see it everywhere I look.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I don't see whats so hard to understand about this issue. Sure the current system poses no threat but as we know the Military will want to upgrade them as soon as they are able.

What is the line drawn between defense against rogue states and deterrence elimination?

How can we police such a highly classified installation to make sure it doesn't threaten MAD? We can't reliably do that especially as technology gets more advanced(ie Miniaturized) and DEWs start entering the mix of defense options.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


The SLBM's are actually pretty quiet for the most part AND they can operate under the polar ice and the inherent noise would help mask them.

Yes the system can be expanded but that would be a whole nother debate. We are talking about what 10-20 interceptors with the ability to hit A max of 10 ICBM's



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join