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 mattifikation
Your words are going to be twisted and distorted so ludicrously by these U.S. bashers that it'll make you sick.
I guarantee one of them (or more) will post some drivel about America being beaten in Iraq, ignoring what you said about declared wars.
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.
Circular logic and idiocy. Russia is allowed to attack other countries, but not the U.S.
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."
Circular logic and idiocy. America attacks other countries, evil America, they don't know how to be diplomatic...
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.
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 don't even know why I still come here, their pathetic little forum gang has completely overrun the Breaking News section of 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If Russia has less than 100 hidden missiles, I think they would be toast in this situation.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.