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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

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


As has been said over and over again, it is to stop a few missiles from small rogue states like Iran, Syria, N Korea.....

It will have no effect on Russia's nuclear deterrant.

It will only effect countries with a few missiles, Russia and China don't qualify.




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
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.


You are aware are you not that the New Soviets have dedicated Exo-atmospheric anti balistic missiles already deployed around Moscow right? And have had then for years. In fact it is much like the US system with upper and lower tier systems

Upper Tier


The 51T6 [NATO reporting name GORGON] ABM interceptor missile, introduced in the mid 1980s, is the high-altitude exo-atmospheric component of the improved Moscow ABM system. It is deployed in silos at facilities surrounding Moscow.
www.globalsecurity.org...


Lower Tier (There is some debate if its deployed. Its certainly been tested)


The 53T6 [NATO reporting name GAZELLE] is a short-range ABM interceptor missile, which was first introduced in the mid-1980s, was designed to intercept ballistic missile reentry vehicles inside the atmosphere. The missile, which has not been displayed in public, is thought to be similar in design and mission to the US Sprint interceptor that was part of the Sentinel/Safeguard system. On 02 November 1999 Russia tested this short-range interceptor rocket for the Moscow anti-ballistic missile system, in what appeared to be a symbolic warning to the United States not to go ahead with an expanded ABM system.
www.globalsecurity.org...


and of cource the New Soviets are busy as well



This system, the ABM-3, became operational at Moscow in 1989. Five new launcher sites were constructed, and two Galosh sites were converted for the new system. The Moscow Industrial Area ABM Defense System (A-135) was accepted on alert duty by presidential edict of 17 February 1995. The Moscow anti-ballistic missile system, known as A-135, includes the full complement of 100 interceptor missiles permitted by the treaty [though published reports provide conflicting accounts as to the exact number of missiles]. The system includes three dozen long-range SH-11 Gorgon missiles, as well as over five dozen short-range SH-08 Gazelle missiles, which are quick-reaction, high-acceleration interceptors. Both types of interceptors are silo-launched.

According to some reports, it is claimed that this system was taken off-line in December 1997 and remained inactive, although this does not appear to be confirmed by recent American statements on this subject. In February 1998 the commander in chief of the Strategic Rocket Forces -- Colonel General Vladimir Yakovlev -- said that the system needed some minor modifications, After these were completed, however, the "nuclear umbrella" over Moscow would once again be opened, he said. A few days later, Col. Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, commander-in-chief of strategic missiles forces, said the ABM system with conventional warheads on the Galoshs and Gazelles, was combat ready and would shortly be placed on 24-hour alert status.
www.globalsecurity.org...


Thats at least 100 interceptors



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
if we place these missiles there, it will trigger another arms race...


Maybe that's the whole point.. Restarting the arms race for money. And both sides actually agree on it, but they have to put up a show for us.

I think i may have read too many conspiracy theories around here.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


Which is ridiculous. NK can't even put a missile up that will work and they are WAY ahead of Iran and Syria. This smacks of justification to me.

reply to post by Becker44
 


Not according to this article:


n the wake of Sunday's Russian parliamentary elections, in which President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party scored a crushing but disputed victory with 64 per cent of the vote and a super-majority of seats...


www.macleans.ca...

He's very popular due to his anti-American rhetoric. It works.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Russia is playing poker with us....and are about to loose the hand....think about it...we setup a failed missle defense system and make it seem like it works - they get all upset (yes we knew they would) and we turn-around and agree to dismantle for something in exchange.....maybe a policy against the Iranians....maybe a vote or two on some tougher sanctions, maybe a vote to go to war with Iran.

None of what I am saying should be a surprise....this goes on all the time. Look at the North Koreans.... a year ago, they were the biggest threats on the planet....they made good on their ability to create a nuke, and in turn dismantled it for something in trade. IT GOES ON ALL THE TIME......shhhhh don't tell the russians. LOL



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


In fact, in a recent poll by the Czech "Center for National Polls" (link if you can read Czech: www.trokavec.cz...) the people in Czech Republic are strongly against the radar system (68% against, 26% in favor, 77% favoring a referendum). The government is proceeding without a referendum.

Evidently, Putin offered to allow the US to use a base in Azerbaijan, but that was a non-starter. MIT Physicist Theodore Postol claims that the Missile Defense Agency was erroneous when saying that the base would be ineffective against Russia's ICBMs. Here's a little more of what he had to say:
www.aaas.org...

On the surface of it, Russia seems to have legitimate reason to assume that the US is attempting to weaken their nuclear deterrent. Along with missiles in Poland, the deployment seems capable of doing that. Assuming the sunk cost of creating that nuclear deterrent and the value to Russia of keeping it, I wonder what they'd be willing to do to stop deployment.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I'm tired of us backing down. I'm tired of everybody afraid that we'll offend someone for what we believe and think. I say put them up and tell Putin to shut up!! They are being installed for defense not offense. I'm tired of other countries being jealous of the US and I frankly don't care who hates us. I'm tired of all the one's who live in America trying to bring us down. We are the strongest nation and it's time to start acting like it again.
So go ahead Putin retaliate and see what happens next.
This sissified dummying down of America has to stop now. Are we supposed to just sit back and let everyone else catch up and take over. America has done to much and has lost to much blood to just give up on Freedom and democracy.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
That might be the kind of thinking and speaking that gets everyone killed. Please don't run for President....lol



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
From Wikipedia "The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons. On May 26, 1972, the President of the United States, Richard Nixon and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The treaty was in force for thirty years, from 1972 until 2002. On June 13, 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent, the US withdrew from the treaty."

This really goes back to the Cold War Era, and it is a history that is not long ago. The Anti Ballistic Missile treaty was signed to ensure that both the US and then Soviet Union would not have an advantage over each other on the (TOT- Time on target) amount of time it would take for a nuclear weapons strike, thereby negating the time effectiveness of their "Nuclear Deterrence" Equal playing fields, so to speak

Deterrence was the fundamental concept for the National Security of both countries, and still is. Deterrence and the American threat to the USSR (which is what it is) is still very much real in Putins eyes. He (Putin) is a staunch Soviet and ex KGB...make no mistakes

to further understand how this all works will take some study as it would take me days to gen up the info. This is a very deep subject and can not be understood by looking up the word Deterrence in websters.

Try this

1. Arthur Waskow "The Theory and Practice of Deterrence"
2. Heramn Kahn "Escalation as a Strategy"
3. Freeman J. Dyson "Defense Against Ballistic Missiles"
4. Alain C. Enthoven "American Deterrent Policy"
5. Leo Sziland " Minimal Deterrent vs. Saturation Parity"

These can also be found in a book called "Problems of National Strategy"
Edited by Henry Kessinger and distributed by Praeger in 1965... good luck on finding the whole book though

If this gets you more interested try to find a book written by Admiral Eccles

called "Military Concepts and Philosophy" distributed by Rutger, also in 1965




[edit on 27-12-2007 by birchtree]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Solarskye
 


You really should read this article:

www.macleans.ca...

The US doesn't have the clout they did after the end of the Cold War. Russia is back.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


That's why I say we quit pussy footin around and get serious ourselfs. We've been nice to long and what does it get us? Time to wake up and do what we have to do.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


It is really not about clout it is a power play by both sides and I am willing to bet this is a front for both sides to enter back into a renewed agreement for an Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. It is about forcing the Status Quo and maintaining even stephens on the ball field. This never stopped,
it has always been there, it is just we got a warm fuzzy when the wall dropped and the "Commies" split up. But that is Bull, it never went away. If anything we helped them get back to the point where this could happen, especially after Cherynobyl destroyed the grain stores and production. Who do you think helped them get back on their feet and who is in Russia now helping them figure out what they are going to do with all of their disentigrating nuclear stockpiles that were not stored and managed correctly. The US is.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Only a proponent of what I call "the single nuke theory" would be likely to consider this a threat to Russia or China's deterrent.

"The single nuke theory" is basically the belief that two nations can exchange very limited tactical or even strategic nuclear strikes, and then back away from the table having learned their lessons without a full scale nuclear war.

Purely hypothetical example: There's an attempted coup in North Korea. Loyalist units are given the green light to use tactical nuclear weapons on the rebel force. America preempts by using tactical nuclear weapons on North Korea's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons sites. South Korea begins mobilizing just in case, and China thinks the South is about to invade the North.

Under the single nuke theory, China might believe that if they launch a single nuclear weapon, probably at the American base where the nuclear strike on North Korea originated, that America will accept the fact that this is retaliation, and will realize that if they retaliate against the retaliation, that China will feel justified in launching yet another attack. Therefore China might believe that they can end the conflict by launching a single nuclear weapon, and that both sides will then quit while they are ahead. On the other side of the coin, China might believe that America will respond with only a single nuclear attack on the base where China's attack originated, and then end the conflict, and China might be willing to call that acceptable losses and allow it without retaliation, so that the emerging conflict in Korea is ended, at the cost of Korea's nukes, 1 Chinese base, and 1 American base.

I think the single nuke theory is misguided and dangerous, but it seems to be out there. A limited missile shield takes that option away. To a proponent of the single nuke theory, that means that the side that possesses a limited nuclear defense still has the ability to launch a single nuclear strike, but that they cannot be retaliated upon in kind, because in order to be successful, several missiles would be needed to saturate the defense, and this would be an escalation.

Such a scenario sounds very scary when this administration is fielding the defense, because the current administration obviously does subscribe to something like the single nuke theory, and embraces the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

In that context, I can see why the Russians and Chinese would be upset. At the same time, I don't think they will act. I think they will find a way around the defense instead. To attack the defense before it is up would be to trade the possibility of being nuked once in the future for the near certainty of being nuked at least once right now.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Afterthought: It should also be considered that it is in China's best interest for Iran to have the ability to deter attack by threatening missile strikes on Europe or American bases in Europe. Iran won't have enough weapons to saturate such a defense, thus a major energy supplier to China gets even further from deterrence if this defense goes up.

This is less of a problem for Russia than for China, but still somewhat of a problem, in part because China is such an important strategic partner for Russia.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


I have never heard of this single nuke theory it sounds to me like "The Counter Force Deterrence Theory" but I will look it up.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   


You are aware are you not that the New Soviets have dedicated Exo-atmospheric anti balistic missiles already deployed around Moscow right?


Yeah, they've been there since the 1970's.

Under the original ABM Treaty each party was allowed a limited missile defense.

The US set up a system around the Minuteman missile fields (and abandoned it the day it became operational), the Russians set a system around Moscow.

I'm not sure what it has to do with this debate though, the Russians didn't set their ABM system up in Cuba



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin


- who does the US think they are telling other countries what they can and cannot do and what US equipment they have on there own soil; that is what it boils down to.


Don't you think countries who decide to install a defense shield have the right to do so without asking permission from 'Mother' Russia? What makes you think that other countries are babies in dippers who don't know nothing about how to run a country and need USA or Russia do dictate them what to do? If a country decides to install a shield for one reason or another and they ask USA for help, that's their decision. If Russia is becoming (actually never changed) so paranoid then I guess is about time for them to learn that they're not the police force in Europe and can't tell to European Countries what and when to do. This story is getting ridiculous. And what economic measures is Russia intending to take against this countries? Are we being serious? Btw did they pass the starvation period or still dealing with the lefts over from from all those billions gotten from USA and World Bank?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Telos
 


The Nuclear systems in Europe were put there and are still ran by the US as part of NATO, the ABM treaty that expired in 2002 opened the proverbial door for change it is just a front for political motivations... this is not even neccesary as long as The US keeps a presence in the MED because Aegis systems are outfitted with TBMD (Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Systems)

[edit on 27-12-2007 by birchtree]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


There was an ABM system set up but this was an intercept system that would not have stopped MIRV's if it stopped the airframe at all. The capability was in a mere infantcy and def was not Exo-Atmospheric TBMD. I will say that the exo atmospheric stuff was still having problems in 1997.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
First - nowhere does the article mention anything about any strike against any missile shield. It does say Russia will retaliate, and that is exactly what it is already starting to do. Russia will retaliate by preventing US and NATO's progress anywhere and in any way it can, including but not limited to: Ukraine, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Kosovo and Serbia, North Korea. Russia has the means to do this (energy resources, military equipment, nuclear technology), and Putin has shown willingness to do this.



Is the vastly unreliable and incompetent ABM system the US has currently a threat to Russia's nuclear capabilities? Not at all. But the fact that US is actively pushing NATO's borders closer to Russia, while installing newest military hardware systems in nations close to Russia - is threatening.

First come 10 ABM systems. There is a big stink and what not, and eventually everything subsides. The first step is always the most difficult. Then the 10 system become 100's. Then they become updated to God-knowns-what. Then to "back-up" the ABM assets US will introduce its military bases to "host" countries. Then NATO slowly expands south of Russia, to include such potential candidates as Georgia and Azerbaijan. Then ABM systems are installed there too. In a few decades with small steps, NATO could have a buffer zone around Russia's Western half.

This is already happening. It is painfully clear to Russia and Russians and their allies. Its not just the ABM shield. It's America's actions in Ukraine, and Georgia, and Azerbaijan, and Caspian oil pipeline, and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and Yugoslavia. Many Americans are blind by their arrogance, and see each of these events in isolation. But others see these events, and others such as the War on Terror, as America's wholesome attempt to create a world-wide buffer zone for themselves.


The US started "pushing" Russia back when Yeltsin was in power and Russia largely isolated itself from the world politics due to internal issues. Back then US invaded Yugoslavia, and pushed NATO into Eastern Europe to include the new "willing" hosts (read PUPPETS who just had their puppeteer changed). US was given sole superpower status, and it wasted no time in furthering its own political interests, and taking a huge crap on everyone else's interests. Well- Americans easily forget who they took a crap on - and this is the cause of nearly every international issue that is threatening the US today. One of Putin's main goals, especially recently - is to make sure that Russia does not end up on the bottom of the toilet bowl again. Get the picture?



You can say what you want about Russia's own actions, the ABM system, and the reasons for its placement. But Russia sees this as the first series of steps by NATO of creating a buffer zone around it. The US has shown no willingness to cooperate with Russia, it has shown complete disregard for the concerns (both realistic and not) of Russia's foreign policy, and in the process US and Great Britain have waged a veiled propaganda against Putin in the media.

Don't give a hoot about Russia, and the others? Great. Carry on. Don't expect the others to give a hoot when the next 9-11 occurs, or when Iran and Syria obtain nuclear missiles and the newest air defence technologies - and you can't do a thing about it. **** happens when your foreign policy's arrogance creates a world momentum that cannot be said to be in your favor.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join