It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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 response to U.S. shield

page: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by mattifikation
Your words are going to be twisted and distorted so ludicrously by these U.S. bashers that it'll make you sick.

While we are at it i have every sympathy with the vast majority of the American public and do my best to explain that it's the American national security state that i despise.

I guarantee one of them (or more) will post some drivel about America being beaten in Iraq, ignoring what you said about declared wars.

Well i would say that forty thousand dead and seriously wounded can be taken as some kind of unofficial admission that things are not going as the American government said it would. The fact that the US national security state never declared war just makes it more illegal.

Then when you point out what they ignored, they'll fall back on "Nobody's ever beaten Russia" and ignore the part about them getting their butts stomped in Afghanistan.

The Russians did not get their 'butt's stomped on in Afghanistan any more than the US did in Vietnam and as the record shows the USSR never tried anywhere near as hard as the US with a peak strength of 100 000 as compared to more than six hundred thousand 'allied' soldiers being deployed in South Vietnam at peak.

Circular logic and idiocy. Russia is allowed to attack other countries, but not the U.S.

In fact it's circular logic to accuse the Russian of war crimes when they US national security state committed them en mass for most of the cold war while the USSR stayed home and locked up it's own dissidents. To suddenly condemn Russia as the 'threat' for legitimately reinforcing it's peacekeepers ( and doing it so well unlike the Sudan, anyone?) when they came under attack is naked hypocrisy.

Well, Russia was defending Ossetia, and that's a just and noble cause. But then you point out that Saddam attacked his own people and killed far more civilians than Georgia did, and suddenly defending other countries is an "excuse."

The problem with this scenario is that SH ( the CIA sponsored puppet) committed most of his atrocities while the US were supplying him with arms to fight both local and foreign enemies. Does anyone remember how after the first gulf war the CIA encouraged his enemies in Iraq to stand up and resist and how the US national security people then allowed the Iraqi air force to bomb the resistance while US forces stood by and watched from the border while SH eradicated the opposition? Why didn't they at least allow the resistance commanders access to some of the captured Iraqi equipment? The US wanted to put SH back in his place ( and get basis in SA) but did not want him out of power altogether as US leaders passionately hate true democracy and knew that democracy for Iraq would result in closer cooperation with Iran and other nations interested in resistance against western imperialism.

Circular logic and idiocy. America attacks other countries, evil America, they don't know how to be diplomatic...

US leaders know quite well how to pursue diplomatic routes and that's what they do while they can get what they want trough those means.

But when Russians roll their tanks into Georgia and the U.S. suggests a ton of diplomatic measures, it becomes "Oh look at the weak Americans who can't fight back!" from Russia's European Cheerleading Squad here at ATS.

Russia acted fairly legitimately ( Georgia should have taken the case to the UN, or other organization, and accused Russia of supporting and protecting the SO rebels in their terrorism on Georgian soldiers. This is what the US is for and for Georgia's leaders to play into Russian hands like this got them in the trouble they are today.

I'm with the guy who made the "anti-yank brigade" comment. Some of the people on this site make the most staggeringly ignorant statements.

I agree and i really wish they would stop.

I don't even know why I still come here, their pathetic little forum gang has completely overrun the Breaking News section of ATS.

I don't know why you come here either.
I can agree that the breaking news section could be better moderated but then so can the entire site so I'll take the good we have and try to contribute to what i eventually want to have in ATS.

It's shameful, really. I won't be surprised if somebody hasn't already posted the arguments I just predicted by the time I hit "submit." Oh well, huh?

You clairvoyant, you!
How such smart people can be so totally propagandized into such a debilitating state of ignorance and hatred is always worthy of applause given the complexity and coordination required to get a young mind so far off track so fast. The propagandist are not few in number and their abilities underestimated as much as the affect it has on society.


[edit on 24-8-2008 by StellarX]

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
It's designed to shoot down missiles. The operators decide who is a "rogue state" that day. And while it can't stop a full scale nuclear attack, it can limit the effectiveness of any Russian response.

While sympathetic to the Russian cause ( survival for most of the cold war) i must in all fairness point out that they already have a national ABM defense system that is at least a hundred times as large as the one the US had proposed to erect in Poland.

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 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.

So while we need to point out the crimes and provocations of the American regime we should not forget the past crimes of Russian leaders or that they have in fact in large part prepared their country to fight and survive a nuclear war.

Then I'm glad you're not a military strategist. If Russia was the victim of a "pre-emptive" nuclear attack, the primary targets would be it's known missile silos and launchers. And it would most likely be an orchestrated attack from the Continental US, US bases in the Middle East, US Naval Assets (submarines), US Air Force and NATO Allies in Europe and the Baltic States.

All defended by at least these known missile defenses as well as a undisclosed number of direct energy weapons and space based assets. Obviously the US may have similar ground based direct energy weapons but in my opinion the 'UFO's are not all that unidentifiable and probably mostly Russian when they are observed close to the Shuttle.

I have no idea how many missiles Russia might have in unknown locations, but I bet the US Department of Defense has a pretty good guess and would divide that by the number of directions Russia would need to respond to.

They still have about two hundred declared road mobile missiles that can not be presumptively targeted ( check the completely unsuccessfully scud hunting campaigns in Iraq) and will have to be shot down by US ABM defenses if at all. Coupled with that there is obviously their naval SLBM force which can and will be deployed if US strategic forces are readied for war. A smaller strike by US submarine forces will not have sufficient power to overwhelm or reliably destroy Russian second strike capabilities and will thus just give Russian ABM defenses sufficient time to resupply and reorganize.

If Russia has less than 100 hidden missiles, I think they would be toast in this situation.

Russia has at least 200 declared road mobile firing systems and at least in theory they have the capacity to reload these missiles for second strikes. Unless the US deploys all it's nuclear assets in a concentrated ( B52's naval task forces etc) strike it may not even penetrate Russian strategic defenses in any overwhelming fashion and and smaller scale strikes will not only leave the Russians as the clear victims ( so enabling them to form a alliance with many nations who suddenly realised their power) but allow them to strike counter force targets at will.

North America has a missile shield, the Carrier Groups have the Aegis missile defense, you can't nuke a submarine that's already left the area, you can't nuke a plane that's flying over your own airspace, and if we put a missile shield in Poland they can't strike back at the NATO countries.

The declared ( i believe there are numerous DEW's deployed to defend ICBM fields) US ABM system is pathetic in comparison to the Russian one and will not allow a reliable defense of the continental United States. Carriers battle groups are mostly immune for ballistic attacks due to their speed and will either succumb to Russian cruise missiles submarines or be so degraded by these attacks that concentrated backfire/bear/blackjack strikes should be able to prevent them from staging large scale attacks on Russian coastal regions. The Russians are known to still deploy nuclear warheads in some of their fixed Sa-300 sites and these will most certainly be used to break up conventional bomber attacks or massed ICBM strikes. The fallout effects will obviously be minimal ( as per scientific fact) and the Russian population has long been prepared to deal with these effects by creating shelters and storing food.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the missile defenses we've installed in Israel could be used to protect the US bases in the Middle East just as easily.

Sure and that is one of the reasons why the US builds bases everywhere. It is a desperate attempt to encircle the beat and to protect these bases from nuclear retaliation by Russia; few countries like it when others nuke them even if the target is a American base.

It should be obvious that the events in Georgia were designed to provoke a response from Russia and scare the Polish public into accepting the missile shield, as well as making the smaller Baltic States rush to join NATO for their "protection".

Not to mention the fact that Saakashvili is really hurting on the home front and that he may not have needed all that much additional incentive to redirect the attention of Georgian citizens? Does seem a bit desperate but it would not be the first time and not too unlikely given that he believed in someone to drag his butt out of the fire later on!

The US pounced on Poland within hours of the news breaking and did everything they could to entice them to sign the deal, even adding a sweetener - when it was well known the Russians opposed it and signing the deal right then would only add to the tension. Rice even made a bigger deal of signing that treaty than delivering Georgia's treaty, and I think if it wouldn't have looked so bad to the ignorant public, she would have done that first and made Georgia a side trip.

But then these people don't seem to be particularly astute when it comes to compassion or at least hiding their actions. How people that are so clearly socially inept can rise to such stations in public life i really have no idea! Either way the neocons have been trying to start a war with the USSR/Russia for many decades now and they have clearly not given up just yet.


posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:15 PM

Is that the actions of a country that is supposedly trying to de-fuse the conflict between two of our allies (I shouldn't have to remind anybody but it seems that lots of people forget that Russia's been a strong ally of ours for as long as Georgia)? Or does it show us that the missile shield was never directed at Iran and Russia was the target all along?

Well the pretense where required because the neo cons know that the US is not strong enough to take on the Russian federation without the help of many other nations. They are , ineptly in my opinion, trying to force the world into picking sides ( by building bases everywhere and controlling energy flows) against the best wishes of Europeans and civilized peoples elsewhere. The fact that the American public does not understand that the 'war on terrorism' is in fact a massive rearmament program with the ultimate goal of defeating the Russian federation ( and their long time Chinese allies) is hardly surprising but should be given the fact that you don't need F-22, Hunter submarines, SDI and joint strike fighters to kill 'terrorist'.

I know which one I believe and I think that we may be seeing the real reason for the US push into the Middle East and the expansion of NATO toward Russia's borders now. The Russians have a right to be concerned.

You don't have to tell the Russians!

I enjoyed your post and i hope the different context i provided make as much sense to you as i believe it should.


posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:49 PM
Do u realy think that US needs defense bases for nuclear attack in Poland?
No satellites no nothing to prevent that without Poland

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 08:33 PM
Ummm why would america be building missle shields in other countrys in the first place? Wheres the missle shield in Brooklyn, somehing like that could of stopped the planes in manhattan

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:04 AM

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Absence of Self

1. The US launches its Nukes first.

2. Those Nukes take out most of Russia's Ordinance on the ground.

3. Russia's surviving warheads are launched in retaliation. (In accordance with the doctrine of mutually assured destruction)

4. The US's 'defensive' missile system takes those warheads out as they launch in a counterpunch strike.

5. Ta Daaa! Profit!

Yup, that's right kiddies...Global Thermonuclear war is now 'Winnable', and if that concept doesn't worry you there's no hope at all.

I forgot I'd been so active in this thread... dear me.
Anyways, to address those concerns, let me point out that Russia has some of the most sophisticated radar in the world. According to some sources they even put American radar to shame.

This means that any nuclear strike would be detected long before the bombs actually hit the ground, giving Russia time to respond with its full arsenal.

In addition to that, they also operate nuclear-capable submarines and bombers, the locations of which we probably do not know. And in further addition to that, they are believed to have mobile launchers, the locations of which we do not know. That submarine fleet alone is capable of delivering over 600 warheads to their targets.

This missile shield could be ten times bigger and not even scratch Russia's ability to assure mutual destruction to the United States, even after a "successful" first strike by the U.S.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11   >>

log in