It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Copernicus
Europe should set up some missile defenses in the United States.
I dont see the difference between that and putting US defenses in Europe.
Originally posted by Cthulwho
Didn't Russia invade Poland and occupy them for over 50 years? You would think they were well within their rights to build whatever defense system they want, and that Russia should be the last country to winge about it.
Originally posted by mattifikation
This might have been said already, but has it occurred to anyone that maybe the U.S. wants Poland to be attacked?
My personal, unbacked by sources hunch is that the U.S. intentionally let Georgia bring the wrath of the Russian military down upon it. First of all, to gauge response. But second, because Russian troops in Georgia are troops that aren't in Iran.
I believe the U.S. was hoping Russia would become embroiled in a guerrilla war like we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I think it was only part one. Poland seems to be next, and Poland has a much, much bigger army than Georgia. Russia will roll over them too, but not without casualties. And more importantly, not without costing a great deal of money and leaving a lot of Russian equipment in need of repairs.
If the other former Soviet countries get sucked into this in the same manner, their combined armed forces (plus Poland) actually outnumber Russia's. Nowhere near the tech, but with unconventional warfare that's irrelevant.
Originally posted by Cthulwho
I don't see this system as a direct threat to Russia.
If it is indeed an offensive system then NATO will be able to obliterate Russia in a very short period of time, of course, they already have this ability.
If this is a defensive system then NATO will be able to shoot down a few nuclear missiles, but still be obliterated by Russia, as is now the case.
Instead I see this as a threat to Russian business. If Russia is exporting or helping countries like Iran build nuclear weapons, then this defense system would threaten such contracts.
P erhaps the US knows about Russia's dealings and is building this system in reply.
However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.
Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.
In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).
Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire's illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.
Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.
Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation "S-400" ("Triumph") SAM/ABM designed not only to end the "absolute superiority" of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia's illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia's commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty.
Mr. Lee's analysis is complex. To vastly simplify, he says he has evidence that Russia's surface-to-air interceptor missiles carry nuclear warheads and therefore are capable of bringing down long-range ballistic missiles, not just aircraft and shorter-range missiles, which is their stated purpose. Russia has 8,000 of these missiles scattered around the country, and Mr. Lee says he has found numerous Russian sources that describe how successive generations of SAMs were in fact designed with the express intention of shooting down ballistic missiles, which is illegal under the treaty.
SA-10 GRUMBLE (S-300P/PMU - 1/2/3, 5V55, 48N6, 9M96E2)
1,800 missiles per year, 10,000 by 1990, still in production
The missile troops are equipped with about 150 SA-2 Guideline, 100 SA-3 Goa, 500 SA-5 Gammon, and 1,750 SA-10 Grumble missile launchers. A program to replace all of the older systems with the SA-10, well under way by 1996, has been considered by experts to be one of the most successful reequipment programs of the post-Soviet armed forces. Seven of the military districts have at least one aviation air defense regiment each; two districts, Moscow and the Far Eastern, have specially designated air defense districts.
The borders of the Moscow Air Defense District are the same as those of the Moscow Military District. The Far Eastern Air Defense District combines the territory of the Far Eastern Military District and the Transbaikal Military District. Presumably, the boundaries of the other military districts are the same for air defense as for other defense designations.
Data as of July 1996
Originally posted by Neon Haze
Originally posted by kaspermartyrphantom
Mine was posted on this date: posted on 14-8-2008 @ 07:00 PM
Yours was posted on this date: posted on 15-8-2008 @ 06:30 AM
So there Poindexter. Next time, follow the link and check before you let your fingers make an idiot of you.
Hmmm... Ohhhh Really?? (Said as Ace Ventura would have said it)
Your thread started was posted on 15-8-2008 @ 1:00
U.S., Poland sign missile shield deal
But this thread was already in existence for 30 minutes...
This thread started was posted on 15-8-2008 @ 12:30
Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles
This thread was not started by me it was started by Daedalus24
So before you attempt to divert a successful thread make sure you get your facts straight.
I know it is annoying when people start similar threads close together but that's because so many likeminded people frequent ATS... Surely that's what makes ATS so great.
I might also warn you that if you call people idiots here you will be warned by the Mods. If you disagree with someone that's fine, but personal attacks are frowned upon.
All the best,
Hello, I’m from Poland. In fact If you ask me how we feel about this
And one more argument and the most important about that threat of some Russian Generals made is just talking. They said that they direct their missiles to our country. In fact they already done this few years ago when we step into the NATO.
The problem is that Russia afraid that Ukraine want to join the NATO. After that it would be too late for them. To avoid the other conflicts with Russia we should invite Ukraine and Georgia to NATO as fast as possible so the Russia could do nothing in the future.