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.

 

Obama: NATO to erect missile shield for Europe

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
Thing that gets me is that usa has em weapons that could take out any missile surely now. Missiles are mechanical, and surely there are em weapons that could make them fail.

That just shows how much we are bing lied too.


Funny. Russia is generations ahead in EMP weaponry. Their modern ICBMs also have advanced countermeasures, one being EMP shielding... alongside decoys, ECMs, and in-flight maneuverability. As far as I've seen, there are no American ICBMs that feature such countermeasures (in fact their ICBM fleet seems rather primitive compared to the armament of the modern Russian Strategic Rocket Forces). This probably explains why the US is so desperate to create defensive ABM systems like missile shields and satellite weapons.

And Russia wants to be in the NATO missile shield? Why? Russian S-400 systems (and S-500) are much more effective and reliable than the failures of American missile interceptors. One of the main reasons why there isn't an American missile shield around Canada right now is because it was agreed that the American system was an ineffective waste of money that served more of a political purpose.

And really, why would Russia need to be under an American shield? To shoot down their own missiles? Russia already has an S-400 ABM system around Moscow (compliant with the ABM Treaty). Is this in place to defend against a couple of rogue Iranian missiles or American bomber formations and ballistic missiles?




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Be cheaper to pay Israel to attack Iran....

Oh wait, we have been.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Read this then tell me if u would like to have NATO/U.N controlling that UMBRELLA


en.wikipedia.org...

It's the same NATO/U.N



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I know what your saying, but iran is just starting there end in missile techs.

Any iranian missile could be taken out easily by usa i reckon. Irans tech in terms of missiles, must be like 40's or 50's.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


NATO wants a first strike capability against Russia/China. They want to kill MAD.

Once the missile shield is finally set up, and in documents I've seen years ago, the final phase of the missile shield includes THOUSANDS of FIXED missile interceptors just in the US... I don't remember how much in Europe...

And that is only the FIXED sites. What they are developing too is the MOBILE interceptors... that can be launched from F-22/F-35 maybe even F-16/F-15 and already can be launched from specialized warships.

For the F-22/F-35/F16 launches, you don't need any kind of modification, just the right interceptor missile loaded.


Yeah I'm sure North Korea and Iran mighty missile power needs all that...


This is OBVIOUSLY a plan to be able to carry out first strike.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Who started all this Missile Shield / Umbrella business in the first place?

Was it Obama who watched some silly Powerpoint presentation at the White House and got talked into it?

Get rid of Iran, Lebanon, Syria and North Korea (the main Muppets / trouble makers in the World) and save billions of dollars creating some fancy big Patriot Missile system, live in peace too!

Simples .....!!!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
"The only winning move is not to play."




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


That would explain were our 500 billion dollars in defense spending have been going...

2



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I know what your saying, but iran is just starting there end in missile techs.

Any iranian missile could be taken out easily by usa i reckon. Irans tech in terms of missiles, must be like 40's or 50's.



Unless Iran has fallen into a time paradox, then I only see them developing missiles from 90s and 2000s. They aren't some backwater group of monkies living in caves; Iranians are regional players with a powerful sovereign weapons program, large elite and intel forces, connections to other like-wise nations.

Did you happen to know that 2/3 of the people working on NASA projects are Iranian (or second generation Iranian)? Are they building 50s rockets for US space programs too?

This whole argument is completely stupid. If your a country in 2010, why would you waste time and money into developing 50 year old technology? Do they also have 50s computers in their 50s nuclear energy facilities (because that would mean they wouldn't be hooked up to the Internet in order to get attacked by Stuxnet)? I guess Americans believe anything these days.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Well Iranian missile technology is outdated, but saying it's 40s... no. 1950s yeah sure.

The first ICBM ever tested was the R7, by the Soviet Union in August 1957.

Iran doesn't even have an ICBM.... So Iran YES is in the 1950s in the missile technology world.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Well Iranian missile technology is outdated, but saying it's 40s... no. 1950s yeah sure.

The first ICBM ever tested was the R7, by the Soviet Union in August 1957.

Iran doesn't even have an ICBM.... So Iran YES is in the 1950s in the missile technology world.


Military intelligence. It's whole point is to acquire data on other military forces. Iran would not be building obsolete missiles when they could either buy or secretly obtain pre-existing missile designs.

Sure, Iran isn't producing technology like 5th generation fighters or space weapons. However, they are building weapons that will work for them in their region. A high-cost and high-technological level of the weapon does not guarentee it will work better than less-sophisticated, cheaper weapons adapted to current battlefield expectations. And look at it in a geo-political sense: US is using American weapons in the Middle East that are designed to fight Cold War armies; Iran is developing weapons for use in their region, for their own defensive purposes.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join