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.


NEWS: U.S. In Talks With Poland About Anti-Ballistic Missile Site

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 06:07 AM
The U.S. has been negotiating with Poland and Czech Republic to build a large base in Central Europe for the U.S.'s missile shield defense program. This comes on the heels of a 25 year agreement with Australia for a Pacific base. The U.S. also has North American bases under construction in Alaska and California.
Negotiations on a European base have been ongoing for as long as 8 months.
The US administration is negotiating with Poland and the Czech Republic over its controversial missile defence programme, with a view to positioning the biggest missile defence site outside the US in central Europe.

Polish government officials confirmed to the Guardian that talks have been going on with Washington for eight months and made clear that Poland was keen to take part in the project, which is supposed to shield the US and its allies from long-range ballistic missile attacks.

The two interceptor sites being built in Alaska and California are primarily to insure against potential ballistic missile attack on the US by North Korea. The possible European site is being widely seen as a shield against missiles from the Middle East, notably Syria or Iran

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The U.S. can be seen to be moving forward quickly with its controversial missle shield that will possibly make the U.S. and Allied nations safe from attack by nations such as North Korea of Iran in the future. The controversy is over whether or not the shield has the ability to stop a more determined attack by a nation such as China or Russia and its possible effect on giving the U.S. a first strike capability.

Related News Sources:
Australia, U.S. to Sign 25 Year Missile Defence Deal

Related ATS Sources:
Australia Joins U.S. in Missile Defence
Missile Defence Nears Operational Status

[edit on 13-7-2004 by Phoenix]

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:29 AM
I find it very interesting that they are moving so fast with his, when the concept hasn't even been proven really yet, didn't they even fail one of the major tests last year? or has becoming a parent fried my memory?

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:32 AM
I guess US can face all fronts at the same time. All those actions are just pushing Russia and China together.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:33 AM
I thought that our last test had the anti-ballistic missile crash intot he ocean?

If we are so set on building them that means one of two things.

We have credible evidence of a mass attack via missile on the US and US intrests.

Or we have finally perfected the missile system and are now rushing to get it in.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:33 AM
you sound as if you think a full russo-chinese alliance is actually possible

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:36 AM
While I think some kind of defense against ICBMs is a wise idea, thats all this sheild will protect against. Somehow I think a low flying cruise missile would zip right through the sheild and manage to strike its target. Given that a Tomahawk has a range of about 600 miles, thats quite a vulnerable area from the seas. Definately a good start but I think they also need to think about our costal areas a bit more in terms of defence from sea-launched cruise missiles.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:50 AM

Originally posted by alternateheaven
While I think some kind of defense against ICBMs is a wise idea, thats all this sheild will protect against. Somehow I think a low flying cruise missile would zip right through the sheild and manage to strike its target.

This is a defence oriented towards ballistic missles nothing more. You are correct to say its not protection from other methods of attack such as low trajectory SLBM's nor low altitude cruise missiles and saturation attacks by those able to do it. And it definitely won't stop a smuggled weapon which is the most likely form of attack due to difficulty in retaliating in kind.

What it does do is stop a mistaken launch (plausible) by either side. It stops a small nuclear power from instigating a far larger conflict via the use of ICBM's.

Other technologies are in the works for these problem areas such as high powered lasers.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:18 PM
I doubt this system more than I doubt Bush's IQ. My reasoning behind this is:

1) In order to be an EFFECTIVE anti-missile system, they will have to be more easily produced than a nuke itself. Considering that pic, the size of the missile alone gives it away that it will not be an effective counter because it will consume valuable resources and may not even take less time to produce/take less resources than an actual nuke.
2) It must be able to differentiate between a cruise missile, IRBM, and ICBM.
3) It's a missile. It can be flooded. If I launch two nukes and they launch one anti-nuke...well, you get the idea.
4) Supporting the nuke flood theory, so many nukes have already been produced. If anti-nukes are to just now begin production (highly doubtful), there is likely never going to be enough anti-nukes in dire situations.

Just my thoughts on the matter. I wouldn't trust this at all if I were you. Heck, building a fallout shelter in your backyard is safer than this
. Besides, I don't trust the government

[edit on 13-7-2004 by Blackout]

new topics

top topics


log in