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 Fires SS-21 Ballistic Missiles at the Republic of Georgia

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
It seesm rather than ceace fire, Russia is INCREASING it level of attack, though no more missiles have been shown fired into Georgia........yet!!!!!!

"Over the last few days Russia has fired over two dozen SS-21 Ballistic Short Range Missiles into the country of Georgia, integrating ballistic missile strikes with their conventional military force"
MissleDefenceAdvocacy.org

Perhaps the Russian use of Ballistic missiles on its former soviet victims is the reason Russia has a stick up its rear over the missile shield.

The shield could prevent Russia from attacking its independent countries on its boarder.



[edit on 8/15/2008 by mrmonsoon]




posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Your statement is misguiding on many levels, I wonder if it's intentional.
First, the Tochka system was not used today AFAIK. It happened earlier in the conflict, before hostilities started to wind down. Second, the Tochka system is 30-year old technology and not as powerful as the gravity bombs used by Russians on some targets. Third, it's a short-range theater missile and hardly has anything to-do with the strategic missile shield.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Your statement is misguiding on many levels, I wonder if it's intentional.
First, the Tochka system was not used today AFAIK. It happened earlier in the conflict, before hostilities started to wind down. Second, the Tochka system is 30-year old technology and not as powerful as the gravity bombs used by Russians on some targets. Third, it's a short-range theater missile and hardly has anything to-do with the strategic missile shield.


It is not misleading, as Russia DID fire ballistic missiles into Georgia.

If you bother to read the link, it says it is relatively short range attack missiles.

My point is, a missile defense system would stop Russia's use of ballistic missiles on them, as they would be shot down.

It is clear now with Russia's threats to Poland/Ukraine......that Russia IS thinking about attacking other states with missiles and it knows a US defense system would stop the Russian Empires move to expand.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I agree with you to the extent that this system probably would be unaffected by the US long-range interceptors being based in Poland. I doubt they're designed for such a short range weapon (these have a range of around 100 miles, I believe; the 43 miles cited in the source is for the 'A' variant alone). They'd be more a target for the Patriot missile system, which incidentally, Poland did acquire in their deal this week.

One thing that is notable: the SS-21 IS nuclear-capable. I don't think for a second that the Russians are going to go that route in Georgia, just that its a fact worth mentioning.


[edit on 15-8-2008 by vor78]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


No, you are not getting away with this nonsense. You claimed that instead of cease-fire Russia just fired a volley of SS-21 into Georgia, and that's a lie you tacitly admitted to in your reply ("they DID"). Second, a radar installation in Poland will do nothing to stop short range missiles. I wish you inform yourself on the subject before you post.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


One thing that is notable: the SS-21 IS nuclear-capable. I don't think for a second that the Russians are going to go that route in Georgia, just that its a fact worth mentioning.


One of ATS members that I consider knowledgeable, stated that SS-21 is an antiquated technology and they don't have much value left in them. So it was brought in as a military surpus, if you will. Russia did not bring more advanced systems (Iskander etc) that they would use for serious firepower. So that SS-21 mention is void of any meaning.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


No, you are not getting away with this nonsense. You claimed that instead of cease-fire Russia just fired a volley of SS-21 into Georgia, and that's a lie you tacitly admitted to in your reply ("they DID"). Second, a radar installation in Poland will do nothing to stop short range missiles. I wish you inform yourself on the subject before you post.


If you try to quote me, PLEASE quote me, don't attempt to put words in my mouth/post.

I never said the missiles were fired today-please read the post.

Russia has been caught by every major news agency on the planet NOT following the cease fire, keeping tanks and troops in Georgia proper, in fact adding men/equipment and pushing FURTHER into Georgia, not going back.

With those facts known by the world, It IS clear Russia is NOT doing what they agreed to, Russia is breaking the cease fire agreement.

those facts a side, the point of the missiles and shield's from it is more than ever very valid.

Btw, Patriot missiles were the defense missiles I was referring to in Poland-for shorter range missiles.

Of course, if Russia stupidly launched ICBM's at Poland, the new system would spot and down them, when it is completed.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That's an assessment that I would tend to agree with. The words 'ballistic missile' conjure up an image of nuclear war (especially given that this thing is technically nuclear capable), but I highly doubt that these are tipped with anything but conventional warheads. In that sense, as you mentioned earlier, there's little practical difference between these and a bomb dropped from an aircraft.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That's an assessment that I would tend to agree with. The words 'ballistic missile' conjure up an image of nuclear war (especially given that this thing is technically nuclear capable), but I highly doubt that these are tipped with anything but conventional warheads. In that sense, as you mentioned earlier, there's little practical difference between these and a bomb dropped from an aircraft.


The difference is Ballistic missiles and larger, can be shot down.

To the best of my knowledge, gravity bombs can not.

I say gravity bombs, because any active guided bomb can have it's electronics interfered with-as opposed to being shot out of the sky.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


I'm simply saying that the end result is similar. A conventional warhead is a conventional warhead, no matter the means of delivery.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


I'm simply saying that the end result is similar. A conventional warhead is a conventional warhead, no matter the means of delivery.


I fully agree with that.

My point was the ability of some conventional bomb delivery systems are more open to being stopped than others.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


Just as a devils advocate,
I wonder how the US would respond if the russians made agreements to have a missile shield in mexico and cuba, or if canada and the US fell out and canada built a series of missile shields along its border...

It sometimes seems that the only country allowed to protects its interests is the US and its supposed allies.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


The Russians and their allies DO have a right to protect their own self-interests. But the US and Poland also have a right to protect theirs, regardless of proximity to Russia. Many seem to forget that states such as Georgia, Poland and the Ukraine are sovereign nations as well and have the right to enter whatever military agreements they wish (I'm not aiming that at you, BTW).

And therein lies the problem; those interests conflict and we end up in situations such as these. There's no black-and-white, right-or-wrong about it, IMO. All sides here have valid arguments.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join