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 threatens military response to US missile defence deal

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
This is a noteworthy story but what exactly are they going to do to us using "military-technical methods"? This was never up to them anyway if I am not mistaken. But what would they do? Bomb it?

What we should really be worried about them siding with Iran and helping to start world war 3. That would be extremely bad..

-ChriS




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by USMC-oorah
 


The problem is partly that you and your "squad" are doing the dirty work. When you guys do it they call it "peace keeping" - anybody else does it it's called murder.

Imagine what a world it would be if the soldiers refused to fight...

You and your trigger happy cronies should realise you're fighting for businessmen who don't care for you. Any of you.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by camain
You know, it kinda makes me wonder, why put the missle defense shield in czech republic, when we could put it in Iraq? That would allow for the best defense against Iran. Additionally, How about putting it in Greece and Turkey, vs former Russian Controlled areas. That would protect against Syria. It would protect Europe anyway from those threats. I honestly believe this missle shield isn't for the U.S. its for Europe so that they have a deterrent against Russia which is growing by leaps and bounds Economically, as well as Industrially. Thats one of the reasons why they haven't asked them to join the EU, or NATO. They don't want them to run ruff shod over the rest of the countries.

Just my opinion,

Cheers,

Camain


Because a more stable U.S. aligned country is more trustworthy. You don't want some turncoat in Iraq flipping the switch off to get back at the u.s. when Iran fires a missile at israel... the czech republic is hostile with russia, remember all those terrorist attacks a few years ago at russia from there.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
russia is upset because we could effectively leave them open to attack, and defenseless, at least that's how they are seeing it.

sat defense, and sat nukes would raise the same alarm.

it's basically regans star wars initative only land based, the concept is the same the logistics changed.

-missile shield-



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
This is a noteworthy story but what exactly are they going to do to us using "military-technical methods"? This was never up to them anyway if I am not mistaken. But what would they do? Bomb it?

What we should really be worried about them siding with Iran and helping to start world war 3. That would be extremely bad..

-ChriS


no not bomb it, they mean electronic countermeasures, such as a jamming station across border.

they would want to render it inoperable/ineffective.

using a nuclear detonation over land isn't an option, thats not the strategic option for this type of defensive measure.

they could conventionally shell it but that would escalate the situation to the wrong direction...

by the way does anyone know what defcon level we are at currently?

it's got to be defcon 3 or 2...



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by greysave

Originally posted by Wotan


If you think this so-called missile shield is for Europe then you are very much mistaken ...... It is for the US and no-one else. It may be being 'sold' to Europe as a European Defence, but dont kid yourself.

Russia is no more a threat to Europe than Australia is to New Zealand. Russia and Europe have too much money tied up in each others economies to let military ambitions come between them.

A missile shield along the Southern Borders of Europe is a much better idea and far more practical - a ring from Portugal along the northern part of the Meditteranean Coast down to the Turkish/Iraq/Afghanistan Border.


How short your memory is of the Russian army forefully taking control of Eastern Europe. If you didn't notice, most countries in Eastern Europe that broke away from the USSR do not want to have anything to do with Russia. It wasn't too polite for those Russian tanks to take over the whole warsaw pact. To say Russia no threat to europe, is not only mistaken, but plain old foolish.


I suggest you look at the opinion polls of the people who live in Poland and the Czech Republic - They dont want your shields either.

And I am not that old ..... They were taken over long before I was born.

Like I said and I still stick to it .... Russia is not a threat to Europe. These shields are not for Europe, they are for the USA - read your own countries blurb about about it.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
It is true, that much of this is Russian foot-thumbing and that the real threat to the balance of power is the possible future expansion of the shield, not the first version. But it's pretty obious that the missile shield, if once built, will not be scaled back to comply with treaties of the olden days. It would either grow all the more sophisticated or it would fail. Both are possibilities, but obiously Russia doesn't want to take the chance it would actually work and some day threaten their nuclear deterrent.

But if there is a nuclear war, we pretty much all die, or hope that we would have died. I mean, I can't blame you not having as grim a view of it as I have. Both the US and Soviet goverments spent much of the cold war trying hard to keep their people believing that they could survive a war - and actually win it somehow. My goverment didn't.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toveri
It is true, that much of this is Russian foot-thumbing and that the real threat to the balance of power is the possible future expansion of the shield, not the first version.


I am confident that by the time the US deploys such defenses , and get it working, Russia will just start MIRVing the Topol-M's or building more ICBM's i n general.


But it's pretty obious that the missile shield, if once built, will not be scaled back to comply with treaties of the olden days.


Treaties neither side respected when they could find a way to disregard them. ..


It would either grow all the more sophisticated or it would fail. Both are possibilities, but obiously Russia doesn't want to take the chance it would actually work and some day threaten their nuclear deterrent.


It can't and it won't especially because Russian ICBM's are aimed at North-American, not Europe. For that they have hundreds of long and short range bombers with stand off missiles that can reach anywhere in Europe at relatively low altitudes.


But if there is a nuclear war, we pretty much all die, or hope that we would have died.


I'm sorry to have to disappoint you but the large majority of the world's population would have survived including , very probably, 80-90% of the Russian population; wish i could say the same for the American population but since their government did very little to protect them against nuclear attack the majority may well have died or slowly starved to death.


I mean, I can't blame you not having as grim a view of it as I have. Both the US and Soviet goverments spent much of the cold war trying hard to keep their people believing that they could survive a war - and actually win it somehow.


Maybe if you went back and looked at the propaganda ( MAD) you would be able to arrive the conclusion that the US government did it's best to convince the American people that no one could win and that everyone might die? Did the ever mention the fact that the USSR spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the effort to build shelters for the large majority of their urban populations while deploying thousand of dual use SAM/ABM missiles to protect cities?

Stellar



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   


Maybe if you went back and looked at the propaganda ( MAD) you would be able to arrive the conclusion that the US government did it's best to convince the American people that no one could win and that everyone might die? Did the ever mention the fact that the USSR spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the effort to build shelters for the large majority of their urban populations while deploying thousand of dual use SAM/ABM missiles to protect cities?


I wouldn't put much hope even if there are shelters. The first problem is the short warning time in the event of an attack, for example the time between a confirmation of Soviet attack and the first impact in the UK was estimated to be 4 minutes. To evacuate large number of people into the shelters that would be a very short time.

The bigger problems would come after the war itself. Cities would be in ruins, most likely still burning. There would be a lot of radiation in the fallout and lot of where they would not have burned, dead bodies. Pure water would be hard to find, except deep underground but getting it up would be difficult. This would mean a lot of epidemics among the survivors.

If they could survive that, then eventually emergency reserves (assuming they could even be effectively distributed in the chaos of the aftermath) would run out and people would start to starve - contributing to a even more serious health crises with malnutrition and the consumption of radioactive goods.

It would be consievable, that in additiont o military targets and cities also the aggricultural infrastructure would be attacked. In the least there would be problems with fallout. Actually, Soviet Union of the 80's might have been a lot better off in this than they (or we) are now. It would have been a more aggrarian culture and much more people could have achieved self-sufficience. The loss of 10% of the largest farms today would devastate the food production - not to mention that goods are transported longer, meaning the collapse of infrastructure would make the distribution of food very difficult.

In all this, EMP effects would also pose a major problems. Most farming equipment these days would propably be dead after the war, with the electronics fried by EMP. Same would go for trucks, trains and planes. The army reserves that would not have been destroyed would be pretty insignificant in the national scale.

So, even though it would depend on the madness of the people who have planned the attack patterns whole humanity might not die, but most would, along with the world we know. Also the life expectancy for any survivor would be very low and amount of birth-defects very large.

I would also believe it to be possible, that in the event of a full-out nuclear war (would there be another kind?) there might be the danger of "doomsday" attacks - ie. attacks that are meant to maximise the radioactive fallout.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toveri
I wouldn't put much hope even if there are shelters. The first problem is the short warning time in the event of an attack, for example the time between a confirmation of Soviet attack and the first impact in the UK was estimated to be 4 minutes. To evacuate large number of people into the shelters that would be a very short time.


You are presuming a out-of-the-blue strike with absolutely no geopoliticalmotivation besides trying to win a war. Since you can't win world war threewith a few sea launched missiles you wouldn't do that even if you were somehow sure that such a small strike could overwhelm Russian ABm defenses.


The bigger problems would come after the war itself. Cities would be in ruins, most likely still burning.


Nuclear blasts does not result in fire and in fact puts it by virtue of massive blast effects. Cities would be in ruin but since that would largely be the result of airbursting warheads underground shelters should not be greatly affected giving the civil defense personal and people who managed to evacuate the city beforehand the time to move back in and start clearing access ways to shelters.


There would be a lot of radiation in the fallout and lot of where they would not have burned, dead bodies. Pure water would be hard to find, except deep underground but getting it up would be difficult.


There would be very little fallout ( airbursts don't do that) and any covered water would be safe to drink. As for the dead bodies the Russians had widespread civil defense programs which trained Russians in the skills required to re-establish order after nuclear strikes.


This would mean a lot of epidemics among the survivors.


Only if there are very few survivors or if no planning or stores were arranged beforehand.


If they could survive that, then eventually emergency reserves (assuming they could even be effectively distributed in the chaos of the aftermath) would run out and people would start to starve - contributing to a even more serious health crises with malnutrition and the consumption of radioactive goods.


Unless food were stored outside of cities and inside of all air raid shelters? Why does everyone presume choas in the aftermath? Did Germany descend into choas after massed firebombing raids that were quite lethal to anyone above ground and not in shelters? Why presume that proper preparation wont be as effective as it was back then?


It would be consievable, that in additiont o military targets and cities also the aggricultural infrastructure would be attacked. In the least there would be problems with fallout. Actually, Soviet Union of the 80's might have been a lot better off in this than they (or we) are now. It would have been a more aggrarian culture and much more people could have achieved self-sufficience.


The Soviet union were not a aggrarian 'culture' ( lol) in the 80's and i can see why you have so many misconceptions about nuclear wars if you don't even understand what sort of society were are talking about.


The loss of 10% of the largest farms today would devastate the food production - not to mention that goods are transported longer, meaning the collapse of infrastructure would make the distribution of food very difficult.


Where from or how do you come up with these numbers and ideas? Do you have any sources beside your imagination?


In all this, EMP effects would also pose a major problems. Most farming equipment these days would propably be dead after the war, with the electronics fried by EMP. Same would go for trucks, trains and planes. The army reserves that would not have been destroyed would be pretty insignificant in the national scale.


In the USA, yes, that would have been the case but since the Russians were in fact planning for the exact situation by hardening everything the effects would have been comparatively minimal. Today i think it would be much worse but then ABM defenses have become more lethal and i presume that DEW's would play a much larger role in both countries.


So, even though it would depend on the madness of the people who have planned the attack patterns whole humanity might not die, but most would, along with the world we know.


Thanks for again giving us your opinion without having done anything to subtansiate it.


Also the life expectancy for any survivor would be very low and amount of birth-defects very large.


Not so as Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Chernobyl proved.


I would also believe it to be possible, that in the event of a full-out nuclear war (would there be another kind?) there might be the danger of "doomsday" attacks - ie. attacks that are meant to maximise the radioactive fallout.


Sure , why not. Clearly anything is possible if one has not spent time studying what he is talking about.

Want to do yourself a favor and look at some of the stuff i have posted before you continue along that line?

ttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread144543/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is quite a bit of overlap but you should probably get the idea of what i am going to do next if you persist in sharing your uninformed opinions with us.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Being Russian and having grown up in the US i can say that Russians not "hate" Americans. They dislike them because Bush is constantly trying to undermine Russia by building his missile shields, and making war on allies. Why built i missile shield in Europe? Why not put it off the coast of the US? The old saying " the best offense is also the best defense" can be reversed. the Bush administration doesn't like Russia because just 18 years ago it was Communist, well get over it! Thats not gonna change. Deal with the fact that America is not the center of the world, that there are other nations who have just as much military power. Not everyone is out to get you just because you have big guns. Why are our stupid politicians fussing when we have much bigger issues in the world and outside our world.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join