Medvedev: Russia may target US missile defense sites in Europe if Washington fails to address concer

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
If I was a Russian tactician faced with a US missile defense system, and wanted to pull a first strike, I would lob a volley of decoys, then follow a few minutes later with a volley of the real things. The decoys would have no warheads, and be built very light, making the booster less expensive. They wouldn't even need to have an expensive targeting system, just head them in the general direction of the target.

Once the US system has wasted its compliment of missiles or suffered failures due to Russian countermeasures, they would be severely at risk from the second volley. I know the US has planned for this possibility, but what else could you do when faced with a massive launch from the other side? Wait to see IF they are decoys?




posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


The flaw with your plan, and why the Russian complaints about our missile defense are baseless -

Ballistic Missile Subs

A launch from a Russian sub could impact its target in the US in about 2 minutes or less. The Russians could use their sub fleet to end any missile defense advantage the US has.

The missile shiled is not directed at Russia. The missle shield woul not work against russia.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What makes you think a US missile defense system is so ineffective against Russian ballistic missiles?

RIM-161 Standard Missile 3

Also, by itself it's hardly a "missile shield". This is no more than a few anti-ballistic missile sites, not a "shield" by any means, more like a deterrent. Don't discount other US assets either, among US military commanders there is something called full spectrum dominance, all military assets are generally supposed to work together to dominate ground, sea, air and space. This deployment of interceptors, which happens all the way down the road in 2015, is nothing compared to other naval and air assets already in place around Europe and the Mediterranean. So if the Ruskies are complaining about a defense system only now, why haven't they been complaining for a decade about all the other US defensive and offensive military assets in place?

Armscontrol.org


Originally posted by Xcathdra
mervs (single warhead, multiple nukes)


It's MIRV btw... Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle.


Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 missiles have been fired in 16 different test events resulting in 16 intercepts against threat-representative full-size and more challenging subscale unitary and full-size targets with separating warheads.
edit on 23-11-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree that it isn't directed at Russia. It is more likely directed at China as they are the country we will be warring with over resources in the near future.

The problem is there are so many ideological hangups concerning Russia. Russia though a holder of oil reserves in irrelevant at the moment. China is the only other superpower.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What makes you think a US missile defense system is so ineffective against Russian ballistic missiles?


Originally posted by Xcathdra
mervs (single warhead, multiple nukes)


It's MIRV btw... Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle.


Have you been following our advances in the ABM area? The ABM treaty the US and Soviet Union signed way back in the day allowed for an ABM shield that could protect only the 2 Capital cities and nothing else. The Russians built theirs, the US did not and eventually we withdrew from the treaty.

As far as MIRV's go thats my point. Our ABM shiled is not capable of intercepting those style warheads, let alone multiple incomings of them.

Russia and the US share a border. Do you really think that either the US or Russia has the means to stop an attack on each other?

The ABM system will not be effective against sub launched missiles.
The ABM wont be effective against surface vessel / aircraft launched nukes.

Its designed to counter Iran / N. Korean missiles.
edit on 23-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
U.S. may deploy ship-based interceptor missiles in seas around Russia - Lavrov

KHABAROVSK. Nov 14 (Interfax) - The U.S. does not rule out the deployment of ships carrying interceptor missiles in the Black, Baltic and North Seas, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters on his way from Hawaii to Moscow.

"The United States does not rule out - and the option has been admitted - the possible deployment of warships carrying interceptor missiles not only in the Mediterranean Sea but also in the Black Sea, the Barents Sea, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. They keep telling us not to worry: the plans are not targeted against us. We cannot accept that," he said.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
As far as MIRV's go thats my point. Our ABM shiled is not capable of intercepting those style warheads, let alone multiple incomings of them.


I was editing my above post, check again. My point is that your point about MIRV's is false.

Yes, I have somewhat been following the advancement of our interceptor missiles. In fact, what is coming down the pipe for US missile defense is quite impressive. The US sucks as far as a civil economy goes, but the military-industrial complex is alive as ever.

Don't forget the defense budget, the United States has been starving itself for a long time developing weapons of war. You didn't seriously think they were just making drones with all that did you?

Military budget of the United States


The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[6] Starting in the fiscal year 2010 budget however, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are categorized as "Overseas Contingency Operations" and included in the budget.

By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.


I personally did not know this, but that isn't even accounting for the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before 2010, all that went to defense spending. According to this, about 100 billion goes to research, development and construction, though I suspect it is even more than that.

Military construction has been drastically ramped up in the fast few years.
edit on 23-11-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
The logic is simple .NATO wants to reduce strike time to attack Russia and neutralize population evacuation in event of war.Russia has a massive civil defence network which can enable survival of populous.The ABM system could easily be transformed into a offensive nuclear strike system in the future.





edit on 23-11-2011 by USAisdevil because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
A boost-phase interceptor ABM system is the only way that the SLBM and MIRV equipped BM systems could be defeated effectively. The problem with that is detection, targeting and launch of the ABM in a very short window, especially where the SLBM's are concerned.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
It's time for a european leader to rise up again and tell both of these countries to pi$$ off.

Hell, I already feel tempted to spread around some hardcore armbands. I wonder how fast those would spread.
Then start doing some pro-euro speeches and that should really get the party going.
edit on 23-11-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-11-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


USA owns most of europe along with the rothschild.Europe is a mistress to USA and Israel.Gets raped by everyone.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
In an opinion poll conducted in October, when shown a list of countries and asked "if in your opinion it presents or not a threat to peace in the world", some 59 per cent of European Union citizens polled said that Israel was a danger. The other leading threats to the peace were (in descending order) Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


most Russian SSBN's except boreis and Delta IV's are detectable to Seawolf's and Virginia class .Only Akula's and Sierra SSN's are capable of detecting Ohio class subs and they(akula and sierras) are very few.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   


Medvedev: Russia may target US missile defense sites in Europe if Washington fails to address concer,


Allow me to translate . . .

We, the good people of Russia heard a rumor that your . . . how you say it . . . your defense budget is about to take a one trillion dollar hit. that means you'll probably be pulling out of a bunch of places and leaving us with nothing to do in the places where we sit to watch you watch us. That means our budgets are gonna get cut too, so we gotta do something to make it look like there's gonna be a bunch of mayhem and . . . how you say . . . moooshroom clouds everywhere so there's some reason for you to stay and sit in the places you already are to watch us watch you watch us . . . so by doing this you won't cut your budget and we won't cut ours . . . and the four families that own the companies making all the money off our . . . how you say . . . bomberexplodewar budgets will still be happy . . .yesno?

With that, I officially throw the horse poop flag at Medvedev as that ain't gonna happen.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by USAisdevil
 


Not to mention the old undersea sensor network the US has north of the UK, any Russian sub that moves past England runs the risk of detection and tracking.

Everyone rags on the US for engaging in pointless wars and seemingly getting no where, but the US military is no joke. I don't particularly support the way they are using it though.
edit on 23-11-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


I am not concerned about the sensor networks.The Losharik subs can easily dismantle those stealthily.

My concern is the ohio carrying cruise missiles / remote controlled long range robots carrying biowarhead.

America under Bush did have project bachus and america's bioweapons program are the primary concern.Nukes are so 20th century.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I have no problem with this, only an idiot would think the US should be allowed to put missile sites all over the globe without a country being allowed to put defensive missiles on its own land to protect itself.

As for treaties, someone can bring up a list of all the treaties the US ignores or wont sign up too, americans have to right to whine at Russia ignoring them.

anyone who disagrees with their right to do it is a massive hyopcrite because theyd be screaming like a girl if Russia or China has missiles in Mexico pointing at the US.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by USAisdevil
reply to post by Jepic
 


USA owns most of europe along with the rothschild.Europe is a mistress to USA and Israel.Gets raped by everyone.



You have no idea how fast that could change. All it takes is one person with a strong enough will.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Rothschilds and the Windsors owned UK for centuries .How will you change it?NATO is their enforcer.Look at what happening in Egypt.Nerve gas,a WMD is being used against protesters. What makes you brits think that your govt wont use WMD against peaceful protesters.

You have no gun rights like USA and Russia and your Govt has very powerful weapons.If too many people turn against rothschild ,he wont restrain from using WMD like neutron bombs and chemical weaponry against civilians.
You have a big brother state who watches you everywhere.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
This dispute has been rattling on for a long time. The Russians seek proper consultation over the issue, and they are not getting it, so they have to say something. Their people will not be comfortable with Johnny foreigner sticking his big weapon up around their borders. All sides co-operated after the end of the cold war, now it seems like the west wants to be the 'big bear' it's all so stupid. Ah well, at least the guns r us mob will be happy.
edit on 23-11-2011 by smurfy because: Text.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join