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 warns of 'measures' against US missile shield

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
From my understanding, the missile shield for Central Europe is for protection against the ever growing threat of more sophisticated missiles with greater range originating from the Middle East.

Namely the same country that Russia is so eager to be in bed with. The same nation that vows to destroy Israel.


What? European nations should defend themselves over nations that want to destroy Israel? Seems redundant to me. Or merely a justification.




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
prisonplanet have a habit of going O.T.T

I would take this news with a pinch of salt



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
No, not good. You don't poke a sleeping bear. Remember the reaction that the Pearl Harbor attack provoked? "Let sleeping dogs lay."

Except the big difference is that we are NOT attacking Russia. This defensive shield in no way 'pokes' a sleeping bear.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


Which is all well and good BUT that's not how they see it. They see it as a direct threat. Thus the bear is poked. Remember Newton's 3rd law.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
they say in the last of times there will be wars and rumors of wars sounds to me like all of it is coming true. Oh well I guess maybe we should have moved to Mexico a few years ago instead of North carolina, and especially this close to the nuclear plant. I guess if you all ever see on TV that the plant blew you can all say hey I see Hilda flying thru the air.

I always figured if we had another war it would be with Russia.

Hilda



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Which is all well and good BUT that's not how they see it. They see it as a direct threat. Thus the bear is poked.

I understand what you are saying but the problem is with Russia. They need to get over it because its not an offensive weapon that will threaten them.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


OK but what if they choose to NOT get over it? I was reading in MacLean's that the influence that the West has over Russia is minimal at this time. They're going to do what they want. Hopefully there won't be a reaction that WE will have to get over.

I'll see if I can find that article online.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I think we all ned to see what the current numbers as well as future plans of this system are, so we can talk current hard and future numbers.

Current NMD program

The first phase is called Capability 1 (C1), and was originally designed to counter a limited threat from up to about five warheads with either simple or no countermeasures. More recently this phase has been upgraded to include the deployment of up to 100 interceptors and would be aimed at countering tens of warheads. This would require radar upgrades. Since North Korea is perceived to be the earliest missile threat, the interceptors and radar would be deployed in Alaska

[urlThe second phase is called C2 and designed to counter an attack by warheads with more complex countermeasures. It would deploy additional radars and more interceptors, plus a missile-tracking satellite system.[/url]

The C3 phase is supposed to counter threats consisting of many complex warheads. It would deploy additional radars as well as additional interceptors, including some at a second site, bringing the total to 200 or more. Although the C3 system is the current final deployment goal, the system design permits further expansion and upgrades beyond the C3 level. A Pentagon study concluded that the NMD system could be upgraded by integrating the hundreds of interceptors to be deployed as part of the ship-based Navy Theater Wide missile defense system. These interceptors would be integrated into the sensor infrastructure of the NMD system.

Now, even if we say 300 Intercepters are deployed. Even if all 300 were placed in Polland (yeah, I know, but work with me for a sec).

What are 300 supposed to do to stop 5000+.........................

Personally, I think the real issue is that the system may/will be used to stop missles from Russia's ME friends. Think from Iran, Syria..............

Furthermore, could they be used to stop missles heading towards Israel???

That could foil attemps by ME countries to attack Israel in a first strike attack?

That could also cover Israels arse if it did some military (first strike attack in mind) action-think taking out the nuclear sites in Iran????

I believe I read today Iran is buying advanced missle defence from Russia???


IMO, what we have here is not a simple US/Russia issue.
We have a very complex checkerboard politics going on.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



The difference is that The Soviets installed offensive missile systems in Cuba.

The ABM shield is a purely defensive system. Add to the fact that that its really designed to intercept a limited number of missile launches.

The interceptors based at Ft. Greely, Alaska have ten interceptors. Under current operations two missiles will be lofted towards an inbound ICBM because they are not sure of a first hit first kill with this sytem and the possibility exists that they may not have enought time to get a second shot off given the cross range speed of the inbound ICBM. We are talking about the ability to intercept at best 5 missiles.

Certainly enough to get say North Korea but not China. The Soviets would very easily saturate the interceptors based in Europe.

Unless, the Soviets have under 10 Topol M's there is simply NO way thier deterent is compromised at all.

Now if the US deploys 1000's of interceptors then they have a legit complaint IMHO.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


It weaknes russia?? GOOD

erm no - thats not how you want to play geo-politics, but it is how this administration wants to play - i do believe its termed `brinksmanship` - russia don`t play the way the usa does and have been enemies for along time - as soon as the us believe they can genuinely take on russia they will do - and that means if they can counter teh icbm`s then you`ll see star spangled banner on its way to moscow - right till the bio clouds fly.

intrepid - iran never said they want to destroy israel - thats is a constant lie.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Sometime in November Putin visited Portugal. Probably because Portugal had the presedency of the european council. But when I heard his speech in Lisbon I immediately thought that Putin was trying strenghten russian relations with Portugal to install a missle defence system. What else could Russia benefit from such a small poor country than its geographical position. Portugal is the most western country of EU and it also owns the Azores and Madeira islands.

It would be a perfect place for any Euro-Russian alliance missle defence system agaisnt USA.

Just something I thought during Putin's speech (Isensed something suspicious in it). So I decided to post my little theory here. What do you think?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I think this is simply an elobrate sabre rattling. Putin wants some concession like a halt to NATO expansion or the like. He knows that the shiel poses no threat and in ground silos that house the interceptors are very very vulnerable to attack.

Also, he keeps going on about thier vaunted countermeasures etc. that are supposed to defeat the interceptors anyway.

He wants something pure and simple and its not the interceptors.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Sir Intrepid,

The cuban missles were offensive in nature. These systems are deterrents only. I think you may have been a bit confused.

The Russian political arm in my opinion is a bag of hot air. Heck the Russian public can't even stand them!

www.rferl.org...

Becker


sty

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

i guess there are a lot of buyers outside US/Europe.. and indeed Russian population would suffer but i have the feeling that leadership would not be very preoccupied by this issue



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Russia has been threatening, posturing since the mention of Iran. They have a lot of money feeding them right now from that region... which I'm sure is a welcome boost to their stagnant economy and deteriorating military.

I would imagine, that anything that would threaten that, to the Russians, would at this point be considered a direct threat to their national security.

Remember, for a long time they couldnt even afford to pay their military and they are considerably weaker than in previous decades, but make no mistake...they are still a Super Power with the second largest nuclear arsenal on this planet, and I'm afraid Putin's "a few sandwiches short of a picnic" enough, to do something stupid. With that being said...at this point in the game..... I believe its all a bunch of saber rattling.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Ask yourselves one question..

WHAT WOULD THE UNITED STATES DO, IF RUSSIA SETUP MISSILES in CUBA??

You cant go putting defensive missiles around Russia, the status quo from the coldwar would be made null.

The cold war ended because both sides were equal, and there'd be no winners... no use in trying to better yourself any more.

if we place these missiles there, it will trigger another arms race...



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


We are talking about the ability to intercept at most 10 missiles. Are you telling me that the Russian Nuclear deterent is so bad of fthat they can't muster up more than 10 ICBM's?

Nor are we talking about surrounding the New Soviet Union with interceptors all around. We are talking about a fixed emplacemnt that can easily be targeted by conventional means.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
The offensive/defensive missiles debate is a diversion.

MAD, the state that prevented WW3 during the Cold War, worked because neither side could launch a first strike against the other without facing massive retaliation.

An ABM system is inherently destabilizing because it allows one side to attack and hope that it can knock out much of the retaliatory strike. We know this, the Russians know this.

While the proposed deployment is numerically incapable of defeating a Russian strike, once the facilities are in place it's an extremely simple matter to increase the number of interceptors. The Russians are keenly aware of this.

Do you really think the US is going to limit itself to 10 interceptors once the bases are in place? The Russians sure don't.

And besides, it is clearly the proposed location of these ABM installations that is irking the Russians. The expansion of NATO into Russia's traditional sphere of influence is clearly making the Russians nervous.

If the Russians were to start setting up "defensive" missile bases in Mexico or Canada (provided a future .gov in either invited them to), I suspect you'd see the US raising a similar stink.

And I doubt any of this is unintentional, US denials aside.
The placement of these bases has little to do with Iran, and lots to do with "global dominance" and solidifying US inroads into Eastern Europe.

Don't kid yourself, this is a clear attempt to "show the Russians who's boss", and they're not happy about it.

They're not going to go nuking Europe unprovoked, but should the US and Russia go to war, these bases will certainly be among the first targets hit.


[edit on 12/27/07 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
This just proves what Russia's intentions are. They want to be able to hit Europe with a limited attack. I cant believe the U.S. government has not called them out on this more. I am one getting very tired of the Russian bear making threats that it cant back up unless they want all out war. This system is no threat to them and they know that, In the mean time they sell Iran a crude ABM system in the S-300. Russia will be eventually glowing in the dark from all their rotting nukes and nuke subs let alone Chernobyl. They need to worry about their own trash pile.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
We are talking about the ability to intercept at most 10 missiles. Are you telling me that the Russian Nuclear deterent is so bad of fthat they can't muster up more than 10 ICBM's?

Nor are we talking about surrounding the New Soviet Union with interceptors all around. We are talking about a fixed emplacemnt that can easily be targeted by conventional means.


What's the sense then if it isn't effective?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join