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.

 

Who is paying for these stupid missile shields?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
When installed in a country like Poland or Czech Republic is it the us taxpayers?The country hosting the shield?What are they exactly benefiting by using these there?




posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


the US and them. the missle systems will be closer to the source and giving us more time to react in case it dosent work.

im all for it.

i cant tell quite how you feel about them. could you please go into more detail. u normally agree with you about most thing and from what ive read from this post i dont think i feel the same and just want to make sure. before i am an a$$.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


If an IBCM is launched, a big far reaching nuke, from that side of the planet, this shield is a first line of defence at shooting the nuke down before it travels over toward the USA. There are other places defensive missles can be shot from along the expected path of the IBCMs to increase our (USA) chances of shooting down incoming nukes.

Nostradamus already addressed this. A good inturpetation can be found in "The Man who saw tomorrow" the last bit of that documentary.

Happy End of the world!



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
OK from my understanding they are nato countries hosting the shield.Also within reasonable thinking.Why would they need a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.How is this any different from aiming a tank?Who are the exactly keeping from these suppose missiles from hitting these host sites?I dont see Iran ever threating these 2 countries.So it obvious from stopping a ICBM attack from within Russia.Don't people get this is going to spark a new arms race if not war?

Russia already has a icmb that can penetrate these shield.So i dont get the motive here on what he wants to accomplish.
Russia Tests Missile Able To Penetrate Defences As Putin Warns Of European Powder Keg

Russia on Tuesday said it had successfully tested a new multiple warhead ballistic missile designed to overcome air-defence systems such as the US shield planned for deployment in central Europe. Fired from the north-eastern Arkhangelsk region, the RS-24 rocket hit its target on the Kamchatka Peninsula that juts into the Pacific Ocean 6,000 kilometres away, the country's strategic missile forces said in a statement.

"The RS-24 reinforces the military potential of the strategic forces to overcome anti-missile defence systems," the statement said. The test comes as Russia is locked in a diplomatic battle over US plans to expand a missile defence shield into central Europe, a move Moscow portrays as an attempt to tip the nuclear balance in Washington's favour.

The verdict is Bush is just pulling a exact opposite cuba crisis but parking anti missile defense on the borders of Russia.Now how is that fair?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
The verdict is Bush is just pulling a exact opposite cuba crisis but parking anti missile defense on the borders of Russia.Now how is that fair?


Well, the missiles in Cuba were offensive. The ones in Poland are to be defensive.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


that helps.

i can think of 2 reasons.

1. good strategic placements for first line defence. i dont really know just a thought.
2. these countries asked us to put them there. Poland has named schools after our (US) presidents. i think it just builds a closer military relationship with them..

i dont know if these are the exact reasons. but they make sence to me..


[edit on 15pmu62007 by DaleGribble]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
"2. these countries asked us to put them there." Exactly right..just like Cuba let Russia.Question is how would the US feel if they had a build anti missile defense around the coastal US from Russia?Funny how nobody know much about these missile shields as some the technology is still top secret.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


Interceptors at Ft. Greely and Vandenberg AFB, CA do not have the cross range speed needed to defend the UK or the EU from a missile launch in that direction from the Middle East. The X-Band radar system will be emplaced in the UK I understand that will provide the cuing etc for the interceptors.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
So i can see where Russia would take this as a military threat.They are old world thinkers.They can see no benefit from them.The Us parks a missile shield in Europe and some former warsaw countries.The Us launches a strike against them.They on (mad) launch back.We take out of theirs.They don't know the technology actually.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Please stop assuming our missile shield has anything to do with Russia.
We do not, and could not have anywhere enough interceptors to take out even a fraction of their fleet, and in addition, they could without a thought obliterate the things with conventional strikes before-hand.

The out-post is for rogue states, and rogue states only. Russia knows full well it's not a threat, beyond a 'Hey! Guess what we get to do now!' annoyance, and only uses the project as an excuse to continue developing new ICBM's and nuclear cruise-missiles while being able to whine about the U.S. 'is trying to provoke an arms race'.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
thats what i thought the defensive missile shield with places like Poland and Czech Republic are = for the appearance of dealing with rogue states like Iran.


having former Soviet satellite nations like the Czechs & Poles, accept missile batterys is a coup for the western power USA.
not only did those former soviet states join NATO, they are thumbing their nose at present day Russia by taking an active stand in Europes defense
by allowing American weapons, technology and the missile forces crews to enjoy an almost Diplomatic Status on their soverign soil.


Perhaps there is a minor exchange of knowledge sharing and training with these missile batterys... but that would be more Show than earnest exchange of technology with the host country.


the 21st century military, in line with PNAC, might have numberous battalion sized outposts scattered over a wide region rather than the massive Division sized units of the Cold War era.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Not quite the republic but what you make out of this in Poland?Appears maybe ballistic missiles.

www.kommersant.com...



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
Not quite the republic but what you make out of this in Poland?Appears maybe ballistic missiles.

www.kommersant.com...


Just more hysterics from Russia. While I'm against deployment of an ABM system in Poland for practical reasons if it's meant for "rogue states," there is no need to deploy offensive ballistic missiles there even IF the US had hostile intentions vis-à-vis Russia. The US doesn't need 'em.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The missiles are intended to bring down a rogue launch of 3 or 4 tactical or intercontinental ballistic missiles (at most). As has been said many times, this poses absolutely no threat to the Russian ICBM fleets capability of overwhelming the West's defences, rather, it is intended to defeat a limited attack from either a rogue state, either European or potentially further afield.

The Russians under Putin's guidance, are attempting to re-introduce themselves into the World military scene. This gives them the excuse to make noise, the question is, how serious are they about "taking action" in the event that the missiles are actually deployed.

Could be interesting.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I think the Russians were deliberately vague about their warning. I seriously doubt they'd risk a war over an ABM - the Russian "Bear"is shaking off it's post-Cold War decline but they are not there yet - and if they weren't just making noise would likely do something in a deployment or reconfiguring sense with regard to their own missiles.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


sorry fred but i`ve allready proved that the Iranian missiles will not reach *europe* - at the maximum range it can reach some of the most southern greek islands


and its 530+ miles from warsaw (south of these interceptor missiles) to bucharest , and 1100 miles to crete!

so , im sorry but there interceptors are for engaging russian icbm`s and nothing to do with Iranian missiles - and poland know this and voted not to have them there.




top topics



 
0

log in

join