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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Excuse me for butting in, but ground based missile defense systems have been well researched by both sides (US/Russian) during the cold war and were found to be next to useless.

Both sides have researched Electronic Counter measures (ECM's) and Anti Electronic counter measures (AECM) system against air-borne 'missiles' so where is the need to employ other nations to house these missile defense systems?




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
*** RUSSIA......is part of the NEW WORLD ORDER....SINCE THE END OF WW1 ***

Russia already start playing the bad guy....to create another threat to international peace by confronting USA and being friendly with Iran and China

ALBERT PIKE AND THREE WORLD WARS..!

Albert Pike in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871. graphically outlined plans for three world wars that were seen as necessary to bring about the One World Order, and we can marvel at how accurately it has predicted events that have already taken place.

THE FIRST WORLD WAR:
must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."

history show that the political alliances of England on one side and Germany on the other, forged between 1871 and 1898 by Otto von Bismarck, co-conspirator of Albert Pike, were instrumental in bringing about the First World War.

THE SECOND WORLD WAR:
must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm." 3

After this Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China.

THE THIRD WORLD WAR:
must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.
*** THE BLUEPRINT ***



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonSays
 


Simonsays I am not trying to be smart A here, but missilies do have specific purposes and specific types of targeting systems. There are land attack missiles that can be re-programmed to shift targets but that is what they are designed for. TBMD are programmed to seek out certain types of airframes in an exo-atmospheric mode. There is no loiter mode. There is no if-then statement to say if not found than reacquire the Kremlin. It does not work like that.

Essentially what I am saying is a missile is a missile...but they have specific jobs which are not inter-changeable. That would be great news if it were true because it would eliminate the need for so many platforms.

Yes there are some missiles that can be programmed to loiter a certain area and seek out multi-targets with designations as to the priority of the target.....but this is far and away from the types of missiles we are talking about here.

Like I said I am not trying to be a smart A, and in fact I will answer any questions (that I can) about this issue, I am just trying to impart some knowledge about your statement.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Since the US appears to be in dollar meltdown Putin is shooting his cuffs on the main stage!
The bear is snuffling around the Medi folks and his buddies are going to be doing some ME moves eventually according to my sources.
Yacov



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
It's silly nationalistic chest thumping bravado.

No, thats not it and there is nothing silly about having some pride for one's own country.


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

I don't know what the Nazi attitude was but I don't think the Russians are inherently inferior so your point is moot.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Hi There,

With wanting to post an opinion on this thread's topic, I firstly apologise for not reading all the posts, but have skimmed through to gain an sense of people's feelings.

I haven't seen this mentioned in the general news circulations yet, so I am going to postpone acceptance of their validity until such time they are. Even so, Russia has adopted a more aggressive attitude towards the West over the last 14 months, and this is certainly due to the planned deployment of American missle batteries in East-European countries. Quite simply, they do not need them, and personally, I think Bush and his military advisors have ill-conceived an over-ambitious plan with gall and audation. As a number of posters have already rightly mentioned, this proposed deployment breaks down the 'accepted' status quo between America/Europe and Russia. I wholeheartedly condemn this insane proposition, and quite frankly, you should too!

Let us not forget...It was wrong for Russia to place missiles in Cuba...it is wrong for America to place missiles in these European countries. During the Cold War Russia was perceived as the threat, but time has shown that they were never the threat they were perceived to be. Yes, they still have an massive nuclear clout, they are still capable of destroying western infrastructure beyond recovery, even at the expense of their own. Since the fall of Communism, Russia has never been so irked by American machinations since that pillock Bush snatched hold of the Star-Spangled reins and drove the world into a deep depression of fear, suspicion, and distrust. Thanks George, really appreciate it...not!


Europe is quite capable of defending herself against the type of aggressions these missiles are supposedly going to defend her from, without any need for extra missile deployment. Bush states that Iran, in pursuing the technology to procure nuclear weapons makes it a threat against a number of European allies. Somehow, I do not think that Iran - even with a nuclear weapon - would dare use it against anywhere in Europe, for if she did, a massive retalitory response would swiftly follow. Bush's argument cannot stand up to reason and logic. These missiles have nothing whatsoever to do with Iran, they are about procuring a response to Russia...period.

The problem is that any conflict between Russia and the West would - be under no illusion - turn nuclear quite rapidly. Having possession of nuclear weapons determines that such countries should never go to war, and yet, between Russia and America/Nato they are two bones of contention...Kosovo and the planned missile deployment, and both have the potential to bring conflict. The Cuban roles are now reversed, Bush is playing the role of Khrushchev, and hopefully like Khrushchev, Bush may gain a similar eventual downfall.

I commend Putin's stance against the proposed missile deployment, but his stance regarding Kosovo is another matter. Russia has the ability to take those American missiles and shove 'em up Bush's ass...something I'd like to see happen, but for the wholescale destruction it would involve. It is pure madness!



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Let us not forget...It was wrong for Russia to place missiles in Cuba...it is wrong for America to place missiles in these European countries.

Let us not forget the missiles in Cuba were for OFFENSIVE purposes only plus they could carry a nuclear warhead whereas the missile shield is a DEFENSIVE weapon and missiles used cannot carry a nuclear warhead. In fact, some missles don't have a warhead at all because they use their inertia to destroy the inbound target.
There is a big difference between the Cuba incident and now and frankly, your analogy does not apply.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
So if the Russians install an ABM system in Cuba, you're OK with it?

Because I doubt the US .gov would be.

They would, rightly, see it as a threat to the US's strategic deterrent capability.

Just like the Russians do.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

There is a big difference between the Cuba incident and frankly, your analogy does not apply.


Quite frankly, you have not thought your flawed thinking through. However, seeing as how Xmotex has given you an appropriate response to your failed logic, I'll just state that there is no difference whatsoever, the analogy does indeed apply. Russia is reacting in the same manner as America did back in '62, and with rightful justification.

Bear in mind that it is not simply the deployment of the missiles, but the justification for them that reeks of stinking American hypocrisy. No! I'm not anti-American either, I'm anti-hypocrisy. Personally, I'd like to see all American bases in Europe dismantled and withdrawn. You'd save buckets of money, and to be sure, once things go nuclear, it matters not from where they are launched. Europe does not need American weaponry, nor does it need American fear and suspicion, and distrust. That's a canker you keep to yourselves!



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabriel5578

WW3? Is this what the NWO is setting up? Or are we really at odds with Russia? This is my first post so I would like to hear any opinions... and my apologies if this has already been posted as I did not see it.

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

[edit on 27-12-2007 by gabriel5578]


My Theory: Is is NOT a anti rocket system
This has been going on for a while. It is strange, because if it is an anti-missile system, there would be no worries for Russia. It is a defense system that would also protect them against the supposed rockets from Iran (hahaha...did we not learn that they don't have nuclear arms and are not producing them?) In fact Russia proposed a bilatleral system, but is left out by the US/Nato. So what are they installing?

My guess is that is is something totally different. And the catch is that Russia knows but cannot tell, because by telling they would disclose a knowledge that we are not supposed to know. My wild guess is that it has something to do with an ET shield or attack system that they are installing . In any way avanced technology that Russia may see as threatening near their borders.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by Pjotr]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
So if the Russians install an ABM system in Cuba, you're OK with it?

Because I doubt the US .gov would be.

They would, rightly, see it as a threat to the US's strategic deterrent capability.

Just like the Russians do.


Well Mr.xmotex. That is pure speculation on your part at best.

This system is not offensive in nature. It was not intended to be. The US has already said that this system is not to be used to deter russia in anyway.

And no, you cannot compare this to the cuban missile crisis. Nukes were planted 200 miles of the US mainland by a determined advesary that had the means and determination to destroy the US mainland. The US used a show of force, and led the russians to believe that she would go to war over such a preposterous move (example: the US navy blockading the island, denying russias navy access to cuba). that was a very aggressive move, and it was INTENDED to hurt the US. As said, yet again, by myself along with many others, the US is not putting nukes near russian soil, the US is giving countrys a form of defense that they want.

I think this goes to show just how the Russian federation view the US as their #1 enemy still. They can see nothing good from the US. The US has moved on, i feel, in these regards.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Everyone needs to ask themselves a question. Why does Russia view this move as offensive in nature, especially when the US is busy fighting a war on terror? THe US does not view russia as the #1 enemy anymore. The US is currently preoccupied with another enemy they deem more offensive then the crumbling bumbling russian federation. Russia can be viewed as somewhat of a threat, due to their military, and support for rogue nations such as Iraq, Iran, NK, china etc.

Everyone needs to get the cold war era mentality out of their head.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Well this is something that I see as somewhat justified by any country that happens to be in Russia's shoes at the moment.

For ease of discussion, lets forget for a moment we are talking about russia and the united states. Lets just call the two countries "Country A" and "Country B".

Country A and Country B have been over the years using the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy of keeping off each others backs. Each country knows that as soon as one sends its armaments, the other will send theirs. That has been the founding reason for the prevention of war between the two countries. Now lets say Country A has installed missiles that can now shoot down Country B's retaliation if Country A decides it wants to send its missiles. You have now lop-sided the MAD policy, and it no longer holds true. There is now nothing from preventing Country A from firing upon Country B.

Now I am not saying that I believe that this is the reason for the US missile defense system. I am also not saying that the US is going to war with Russia.

What I am saying, is that from Russia's point of view, it is breaking down the MAD policy and lock that has prevented war for decades.

If I were the president of Country B, I would be worried as well.

my $.02



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmaddness
Well this is something that I see as somewhat justified by any country that happens to be in Russia's shoes at the moment.

For ease of discussion, lets forget for a moment we are talking about russia and the united states. Lets just call the two countries "Country A" and "Country B".

Country A and Country B have been over the years using the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy of keeping off each others backs. Each country knows that as soon as one sends its armaments, the other will send theirs. That has been the founding reason for the prevention of war between the two countries. Now lets say Country A has installed missiles that can now shoot down Country B's retaliation if Country A decides it wants to send its missiles. You have now lop-sided the MAD policy, and it no longer holds true. There is now nothing from preventing Country A from firing upon Country B.

Now I am not saying that I believe that this is the reason for the US missile defense system. I am also not saying that the US is going to war with Russia.

What I am saying, is that from Russia's point of view, it is breaking down the MAD policy and lock that has prevented war for decades.

If I were the president of Country B, I would be worried as well.

my $.02


One thing that one needs to take into account of country B. Country B has hundreds of DEFENSIVE ABMs around their nations capital, and has had such a ABM in place since the 80's. Now by using ur logic, this skews MAD just a bit, does it not?

Russia cannot have it both ways. Russia just wants to have its cake and eat it too. the US is using this to prevent an attack by rouge nations that could mean europe harm. I do not see anywhere, where the US is pushing this on the EU nations. Its solely up to them.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Pjotr-

I agree with you that this might be a special Star Wars defense shield, and if so, then Russia might be objecting to it publicly, while really helping build it secretly behind the scenes. Don't believe everything you see on the news.

After all, if this Earth needs planetary defense systems installed pronto, for threats of incoming objects of natural origin, (comets, asteroids, etc) or from air forces from other planets, then we all, as mankind, would obviously band together to defend ourselves.

Or is this too "pie in the sky"? No way to know, I guess-



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
So if the Russians install an ABM system in Cuba, you're OK with it?

If 'if' was a skiff, we would go for a boat ride.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I mentioned this before but it was ignored for whatever reason.

Someone tell me why Russia is worried about this "shield" when they have proclaimed several times that their icbms can easily defeat any "missile shield"

Anyone?

source


[edit on 29-12-2007 by LwSiX]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LwSiX
I mentioned this before but it was ignored for whatever reason.

Someone tell me why Russia is worried about this "shield" when they have proclaimed several times that their icbms can easily defeat any "missile shield"

Anyone?

source


[edit on 29-12-2007 by LwSiX]


Russia is well known for exaggeration on their true capabilities. Just natinalistic chest thumping...

But you brig up a good point. If russia has "super cool" ICMBs that cannot bestopped, why so upset by this small ABM that wont be aimed at them?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


That's an evasion, not an answer.

We discuss hypotheticals all day on this board, it's part of what we do.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:39 AM
link   
That's BS. It's not only a defense system from North Korea and Iran. It's also a defense against detterence from Russia if NATO decides to do a nuclear first strike on Russia.

When the US takes out 90% of Russia's missiles in one blow, the last 10% can be intercepted, then the US won the nuclear war.

It's how the Russian thinks, it's the only way to justify their actions.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join