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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Telos
Don't you think countries who decide to install a defense shield have the right to do so without asking permission from 'Mother' Russia?


Do you really think these countries, which are barely a decade and a half old, are really the innitiators of this ABM shiled idea with goals that are at best - ambiguous? These countries were puppets were the last several centuries, and there is no indication anything - except for the puppeteer - has changed. They don't need permission to ask "Mother Russia" anymore, only permission from NATO. But NATO does make it all look happy, willing, and democratic - kudos for that.



Originally posted by Telos
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?


Maybe the fact that they have existed as sovereignties for little more than a decade, and have seen more administration changes, political party rearrangements, and other "mood swings" than one cares to count. Every other country/democracy in the world can be considered to be in the infant stage due to recent regime changes. Countries in these stages, especially small countries, are very prone to outside manipulation.


Originally posted by Telos
If a country decides to install a shield for one reason or another and they ask USA for help, that's their decision.


I am sure the Czechs woke up one day and said "gee I am getting really bad vibes from Iran. Iran is probably going to attack us with a missile that it doesn't yet have, armed with a nuclear warehead that it also doesn't yet have. Let's ask big mighty US to place a missile shield on our territory and protect us from the terrible Persians".

While they are at it they should have also looked into asking the US to protect them from aliens and the kraken. These threats are just as high, if not higher, to the Czechs and the Poles as the nonexistant Iranian missiles.



Originally posted by Telos
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.


Oh yeah - Russia has been playing a game with itself from the last few decades pretending to be the police force of Europe. Won't someone please tell that schizophrenic child to put down the cop hat and the whistle?

What is the U.S.'s playground getting too small for its growing [foreign policy] obesity?



Originally posted by Telos
And what economic measures is Russia intending to take against this countries?


Why does it need to retaliate against these countries? They are but kindly hosts. Better to retaliate against the boarder. How much are you paying for gas and energy lately? Feeling comfortable?



Originally posted by Telos
Btw did they pass the starvation period


No they are still in hybernation mode with their dancing bears, vodka, and balalaikas - As far as most Americans and Westerners are concerned anyway...



Originally posted by Telos
or still dealing with the lefts over from from all those billions gotten from USA and World Bank?


Who could forget the great humanitarian effort by the US to save the Russian people. US must have spent billions to "feed" Russia, expecting nothing in return likely a kindly Mother Teresa. If only the damn burgers and coca-cola in your McDonalds in Moscow weren't so damn expensive...




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 




Originally posted by maloy

No they are still in hybernation mode with their dancing bears, vodka, and balalaikas - As far as most Americans and Westerners are concerned anyway...


Had no doubt about that. I just like the idea that is being emphasized. A bear remains a bears, no matter what and how many skins changes


You communists are a very strange species


Anyway too tired and bored to answer to your pathetic Pavel Korchagin type monologue
Zdravstvuite Tovarish . Revolution needs people like you. It really does.


[edit on 27-12-2007 by Telos]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Just telling it how the majority of Russians see it. Right or wrong - the opinion of your enemy or a potential enemy cannot be underestimated when you are trying to figure out what the hell is going on through their minds - especially if your enemy is a bear seeming acting on instinct.

It is scary to see how many seemingly intelligent people treat issues such as the ABM shield in isolation. The bigger picture is coming together, but who cares - its the election year in the US, and everyone has bigger things to worry about than commies. The questiong is who is going to lead America into its next war - a democrat conservative or a republican conservative.


[edit on 27-12-2007 by maloy]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


srmsc.org...


The Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex was the United States' first operational ABM (anti-ballistic missile) defense system. The primary goals of this web site are to (1) provide an operational overview of the Safeguard ABM system and (2) document its single tactical deployment at the Mickelsen complex in North Dakota





Spartan was the long range missile used for area defense. It was designed to destroy incoming targets before they re-entered the atmosphere. Because the interception occured much earlier in the trajectory of the target re-entry vehicle, protection could be provided for a large geographical area, thus the term "area defense".

Sprint was the ultra high acceleration missile used for terminal defense. This was a "last ditch" effort to destroy incoming re-entry vehicles that had survived the area defense provided by Spartan. Terminal defense occurred within the atmosphere only a short time before the RV's reached their targets, necessitating Sprint's ultra high acceleration


The USA had there own version - but as mentioned was cancelled soon after being declared FOC. (IOC was declared on April 1st 1975).


It must make you wonder - since the russian system protects people - the US system protects missiles....



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by intrepid
Hmm, ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Seems like the US didn't take to kindly to aggressive actions being taken in their back yard. How is this any different?

No, never heard of it.....kidding.
That is not a good analogy for a number of reasons. The most glaring reason being that the missles being deployed in Cuba were actually missles, an offensive weapon, which could carry a nuke warhead. On the other hand, the missle shield is a defensive weapon. BIG difference.

whew, which christmas cracker did that joke come from.

Anyone who believes the "its not offensive but defensive" line is tru;ly naive. Its a missile system for gods sake!!!! with targetting for god's sake!!!! It takes seconds, literally, to re-target and deploy!!!! Granted it takes a little longer to re-arm the "defensive" missiles with nuclear warheads instead of conventional. However does anybody here have the necessary military clearance to be able to say with 100% certaintly that when the "defensive" missile systems are deployed they are armed with conventional warheads.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   
It takes a little bit more thatn `seconds` to actually arm any missile with a nuclear warhead - first off the missile has to be designed to take the warhead - of which thhese interceptors actaully arn`t designed that way, and missiles like this usually arn`t stored `hot` with the actual nuclear warhead on them.

no this system is conventional and will be that way - the US abandoned nuclear ABM 32 years ago.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I thought this was going to be an interesting story. Then I saw the URL
Perhaps when I see a source that has some credibility I will take it more seriously.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   
"I thought this was going to be an interesting story. Then I saw the URL Perhaps when I see a source that has some credibility I will take it more seriously."

I agree, Prison Planet has the tendency to take things out of context. But this story was also on...

www.spacewar.com
www.prophecynewsheadlines.com/2007/12/
www.alalam.ir/english/en-NewsPage.asp?newsid...
www.daylife.com/topic/Russia/articles/custom/date/1?...

You can argue that these may not be the best sources to get info from but what source actually has credibility these days? CNN, MSN or any corporate media outlet is told what to say so I will read more into what these smaller outlets(who actually are a free press) say over what the "big whigs" say anyday. Does that mean I believe I everything I read on the net? No. This story is not made up

Now they are test firing missles... which may not mean anything, but an interesting story in the link below.

www.prophecynewsheadlines.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 
Yea, these countries can really say "no" to the US. I mean look at all the good things we have done to the countries that said no to us in the past. Good lord.



Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by intrepid
Hmm, ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Seems like the US didn't take to kindly to aggressive actions being taken in their back yard. How is this any different?

No, never heard of it.....kidding.
That is not a good analogy for a number of reasons. The most glaring reason being that the missles being deployed in Cuba were actually missles, an offensive weapon, which could carry a nuke warhead. On the other hand, the missle shield is a defensive weapon. BIG difference.
So as long as its the kind of missle the US agrees with its cool? Yea that makes alot of sense. Would we just stand by and be happy if russia were to put missle shields in Canada, Mexico and Cuba? SURE WE WOULD. Good lord.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlequinIt must make you wonder - since the russian system protects people - the US system protects missiles....


You could look at it that way but its pretty clear that the Russian ABM system was there to protect the Communist elite in Moscow. Why else would they have deployed it only there?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Geography and philosophy dictated placement of America's ABM system.

Coastal cities can be attacked with submarine-launched short range missiles with little warning, and the ABM treaty defences negotiated with the Russians did not allow for the point defense in a large number of locations. Moscow, on the other hand, is Russia's Washington, New York, and Chicago all in one location.
More importantly, the American ABM's were intended to protect counter-strike assets, and thus be a more effective deterrant to a first strike from the USSR.
I think the current flap over the Polish and Chek sites dates to the end-of-cold-war understanding that former East European Soviet satillite states would not be drawn into NATO in an offensive posture but treated as a buffer to the western border of Russia. The increase in bases and stationing of American personnel there and in the Balkens seems to be a policy akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The shield has nothing to do with humans firing at humans....but that is a side benefit and a good cover story

It's all about defending us against "air forces (or armies...can't remember his exact quote) from other planets..." from Gen MacArthur in an interview in the 50's. Someone else out there in the ATS world will be able to find the quote...I'm too lazy on this Friday to do it myself.

Any-who.....STAR WARS, brilliant pebbles, whatever you'd like to call it is UP AND WORKING....has been for years. Thanks, Ronald Reagan! We owe our lives to you, sir...may you rest in peace. Same goes for you, Dr. Edward Teller...thank you.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
On the other hand, the missle shield is a defensive weapon. BIG difference.

A missile is a missile, a gun is a gun whether it is used in self defense
or to shoot and kill an intruder is irrelevant. A missile can kill people
or it can be re-programmed to do it in flight. So don't claim it is for
defense purposes only.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Do you think that perhaps these countries might want the shield and think its a good idea?


I recall reading somewhere that the shield would be about as useful as a paper bucket to the hosting countries!

I will try and find the source



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Do you think that perhaps these countries might want the shield and think its a good idea?


I recall reading somewhere that the shield would be about as useful as a paper bucket to the hosting countries!

I will try and find the source


Ok fine, then Russia should not have a problem if the system is useless right?

Hooray, you just solved the problem. Good job!


[edit on 28-12-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonSays
A missile is a missile, a gun is a gun whether it is used in self defense
or to shoot and kill an intruder is irrelevant.

Umm....its not irrelevant!

Using your flawed logic anything could be considered an offensive weapon. Should we all get rid of our cars because they could be used to kill also.

Sorry, but your analogy does not work.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by shug7272
Yea, these countries can really say "no" to the US. I mean look at all the good things we have done to the countries that said no to us in the past. Good lord.

Please elaborate because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Thats a easy statement to make but harder to back it up. Please tell me what the U.S. has done to another country that said 'no' to us.

With your faulty logic, we cannot even defend ourselves anymore. Good Lord!



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
whew, which christmas cracker did that joke come from.

Anyone who believes the "its not offensive but defensive" line is tru;ly naive. Its a missile system for gods sake!!!! with targetting for god's sake!!!! It takes seconds, literally, to re-target and deploy!!!!


Whew, which cracker jack box did you get your info from.
For starter, it does NOT take seconds to retarget these missles. Secondly, this system is designed to target objects in the air and not the ground. Thirdly, some of these missles don't even have a warhead. They use their own inertia to destroy the incoming missile.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
Don't give a hoot about Russia

Trust me, I don't.



Don't expect the others to give a hoot when the next 9-11 occurs

I don't and why would I?



or when Iran and Syria obtain nuclear missiles and the newest air defence technologies

If its the newest Russian system, then there is definitely nothing to worry about.



**** happens when your foreign policy's arrogance creates a world momentum that cannot be said to be in your favor.

What you call arrogance, I call confindence. Stop mixing up the two.
Again, who cares what the 'world' thinks. We must do what is in our best interest. Some of these 'other' countries will be the first to come crying to the U.S. for help when they get into trouble. I wonder why nobody goes crying to Russia for help...hmm.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   


What you call arrogance, I call confindence. Stop mixing up the two.


It's silly nationalistic chest thumping bravado.

Similar to the Nazi attitude that the Russians were inherently inferior and thus could be easily conquered.

This attitude lasted until about the time the first T-34 showed up and the Germans began their long bloody retreat back to the ruins of Berlin.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join