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

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Uhm ok....

Exactly how many different and completely unrelated systems are you going to use in a futile effort to support your argument? You are now using anything and everything except the ABM system itself.

As with your SM3 example when used as missile defense against incoming surface to surface / anti ship weapons, the SM3 blocks have to wait for something to be fired at them before they are deployed - hence making them a defensive, and NOT offensive weapon system.

Its an easy concept and I dont understand why you cant see that. Again it look sas if your only arguing because you despise the US, so in your mind you are going to do whatever it takes to prove your point, even if it means using other anti missile systems that have absolutely nothing to do with an ABM system.

An ABM system - only applicable when something is fired first at it.

As I said many pages back that you ignored. Its like a bullet resitant vest that law enforcement uses. Its present regardless of situation, and is effective only when offensive action is taken against the officer.

Stating your argument and position as being delusional would severley extend to much credence to your position so I will refrain. Feel free to continue arguing withyourself over this one. As I said, and you ignored, we are not going to agree on this topic, and neither of us will change each others minds.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Again you ignore facts.

There are no interceptor rockets based around Russia. The radar systems are in place. The interceptors are based out of Alaska.

Please research before making claims.

I just can't believe you wasted a whole page worth of time trying to explain to these fine gentlemen how ABM is defensive.

Yes, a network of ABM systems spreading around a country is a move intended to prevent an attack on said country's behalf, therefore defensive. Anything beyond this line of argument is a deliberate effort in twisting reality to fit your logic.
In other words - don't bother wasting any more time IMO, they will not change their stance on this matter.

It's like saying a shield of a Roman warrior holding is not defensive because he also has a sword on the ready.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

I would hope Russia and the US would love to have shields covering the globe,so a mistake or a purposeful attack couldn't happen.

That is the worst defensive philosophy imaginable. Build and deploy as many "defensive" measures as possible to prevent war using these weapons? The conflict couldn't happen if there was no weapons to fight it with.

Si vis pacem, para bellum: "To settle for peace is to prepare for war"

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Uhm ok....

Exactly how many different and completely unrelated systems are you going to use in a futile effort to support your argument? You are now using anything and everything except the ABM system itself.

As with your SM3 example when used as missile defense against incoming surface to surface / anti ship weapons, the SM3 blocks have to wait for something to be fired at them before they are deployed - hence making them a defensive, and NOT offensive weapon system.

Its an easy concept and I dont understand why you cant see that. Again it look sas if your only arguing because you despise the US, so in your mind you are going to do whatever it takes to prove your point, even if it means using other anti missile systems that have absolutely nothing to do with an ABM system.

You are so full of yourself.

Just because you can't comprehend my side of this argument, means that it is because I despise the US? Oh excuse me for not accepting that the US is deploying "defensive" missiles around the world for the sake of peace. I guess that makes me a Yankee Hater

And you don't see the relation between ground based ABM systems and naval based ABM systems? Next thing you'll tell me is that silo-launched nuclear ICBMs and nuclear SLBMs are unrelated because they technically aren't the same thing (yet belong to the same damn strategy, just like American ABM platforms regardless of what format they are based).

PS- I don't really care about your interpretation of where American ABM interceptor missiles are located, because you have already stated that you don't see the relation between ground-based ABM interceptors and naval based ones. You don't seem to realize that they can be deployed anywhere, as the US has already made the deals to do so in select countries, and pre-existing radar platforms ARE part of the strategy and ARE deployed already.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

I would hope Russia and the US would love to have shields covering the globe,so a mistake or a purposeful attack couldn't happen.

That is the worst defensive philosophy imaginable. Build and deploy as many "defensive" measures as possible to prevent war using these weapons? The conflict couldn't happen if there was no weapons to fight it with.

Si vis pacem, para bellum: "To settle for peace is to prepare for war"

Sorry, oh wise one,I am thinking OUTSIDE the box,and as you have ILLUSTRIOUSLY have cherry-picked my full statement,you have LOST the meaning of the reason why. Man has built 22,000 offensive Nuclear warheads on this planet,the call for war is obviously the last thing on my mind,and any extra deterrents should be put in place. As I see,some don't agree.

Amor Vincit Omnia,..................................

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

I would hope Russia and the US would love to have shields covering the globe,so a mistake or a purposeful attack couldn't happen.

That is the worst defensive philosophy imaginable. Build and deploy as many "defensive" measures as possible to prevent war using these weapons? The conflict couldn't happen if there was no weapons to fight it with.

Si vis pacem, para bellum: "To settle for peace is to prepare for war"

Sorry, oh wise one,I am thinking OUTSIDE the box,and as you have ILLUSTRIOUSLY have cherry-picked my full statement,you have LOST the meaning of the reason why.

Man has built 22,000 offensive Nuclear warheads on this planet,the call for war is obviously the last thing on my mind,and any extra deterrents should be put in place. As I see,some don't agree.

Amor Vincit Omnia,..................................

edit on 28-11-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

Keep your deterrants in your own country if you think it is for defensive posturing. ABM systems are part of a nuclear attack strategy and deploying them in proximity to rival nuclear powers is an obvious provocation.

Russia's envoy to NATO to discuss missile defence with China, Iran in December
Source: BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union
Publication date: 2011-11-28

/eh7khNte

Russia's envoy to NATO to discuss missile defence with China, Iran in December
Source: BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union
Publication date: 2011-11-28

Russia's permanent envoy to NATO Dmitriy Rogozin is going to visit China and Iran after 10 December, Russian news agency Interfax reported on 28 November.

"I am planning to have meetings in Beijing and Tehran," Rogozin told Journalists on the same day. Those meetings will take place in pursuance of Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev's instruction to hold talks on anti-ballistic missile defence (ABM) with partner states, he said. Rogozin added that he would meet the leadership of China's Foreign Ministry and General Staff and the heads of Iran's Foreign Ministry and security council.

Originally published by Interfax news agency, Moscow, in Russian 1024 28 Nov 11.

(c) 2011 BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.

reply to post by ulfcoyd


Seems like the Cold War is indeed heating up once again. Russia is really taking an assertive stance these days, with Medvedev talking about ABM's in other Countries and possibly attacking the U.S. shield, Putin calling for a Eurasian Union (sounds a lot like the Soviet Union to me), and now reports of them sending warships to Syria for the possibility of a NATO attack, they really don't want to be screwed around with.

reply to post by concernedcitizen519


Well to be honest, the Eurasian Union proposal sounds a lot like a practical geopolitical organization to correspond with the relationships already produced from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Check out the link for an image showing the extent of the SCO in terms of nations. It would be quite a powerful union.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
You are so full of yourself.

Not really no..

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Just because you can't comprehend my side of this argument, means that it is because I despise the US? Oh excuse me for not accepting that the US is deploying "defensive" missiles around the world for the sake of peace. I guess that makes me a Yankee Hater

Because your side of the argument is not supported by the facts. You do know what a fact is right? There are no ground based missile interceptors deployed anywhere except Alaska.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
And you don't see the relation between ground based ABM systems and naval based ABM systems? Next thing you'll tell me is that silo-launched nuclear ICBMs and nuclear SLBMs are unrelated because they technically aren't the same thing (yet belong to the same damn strategy, just like American ABM platforms regardless of what format they are based).

There is a difference between land and sea based systems. One is on land, where the only missiles deployed are in Alaska. Sea based systems arent 100% implemented, and the vessels that aren arent anywhere near Russia.

Also, you really need to pay attention to your posts and the claims you make. You have once again shifted the point of your posts. As I stated before, you are grasping at straws in an effort to support your personal opinion. The facts dont support your opinion at all.

SLBMs and ICBMs are different since they are offensive weapons, where as the ABM is not.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
PS- I don't really care about your interpretation of where American ABM interceptor missiles are located, because you have already stated that you don't see the relation between ground-based ABM interceptors and naval based ones. You don't seem to realize that they can be deployed anywhere, as the US has already made the deals to do so in select countries, and pre-existing radar platforms ARE part of the strategy and ARE deployed already.

edit on 28-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

So now they can be deployed anywhere? You just got dont arguing they are already deployed.

Please do some more research.
I have already stated the only thing active in foreign countries are the radar systems. You are the one who was trying to claim they were missile batteries. Your argument on this topic is without foundation and you have consistently shifted your argument back and forth into other realms with the hope of linking them together.

You claimed the ABM system os offensive, and now a few pages later your arguing anything and everything.

- ABM's are defensive only.

Apart from the main Moscow deployment, Russia has striven actively for intrinsic ABM capabilities of its late model SAM systems.

Why are you so quiet on Russias?

As far as your hatred of the US, I believe you are. Yoiu take any chance you get to slam the US, regardless of the facts, as is evident in your posts here as well as other threads. You accept anything at face value that slams the US, while ignoring any information that supports the US, again evident in this thread.

By all means continue on Ahab.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Apart from the main Moscow deployment, Russia has striven actively for intrinsic ABM capabilities of its late model SAM systems.

Why are you so quiet on Russias?

As far as your hatred of the US, I believe you are. Yoiu take any chance you get to slam the US, regardless of the facts, as is evident in your posts here as well as other threads. You accept anything at face value that slams the US, while ignoring any information that supports the US, again evident in this thread.

By all means continue on Ahab.

Russia is not deploying ABM systems around the US!

Currently, Russian ABM systems are only deployed within Russia. This IS NOT the case with the US.

Your inability to accept the higher strategy involving ABM systems, instead only focusing on their tactical purposes, shows how limited your perception is. And based on your limited perception, you accuse me and my views of being "anti-American".

Screw it, I might as well be anti-American then. Because obviously when I point out how provocative it is to deploy a global ABM system for the US's sole benefit, it means that I hate all of America and I am just out to attack it because I apparently hate its freedoms.

I'm done with this boring discussion.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Russia is not deploying ABM systems around the US!

And the US is not deploying an ABM system around Russia. Just like the difference between offensive and defensive, there is a difference between Radar stations and missiles.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Currently, Russian ABM systems are only deployed within Russia. This IS NOT the case with the US.

Actually it is since the only interceptors in use are based in Alaska.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Your inability to accept the higher strategy involving ABM systems, instead only focusing on their tactical purposes, shows how limited your perception is. And based on your limited perception, you accuse me and my views of being "anti-American".

Riigghhttt.... This coming from a person whose argument has been all over the place. Anytime you are presented with facts that counters your opinion, you shift your argument, as you are now doing again. You also go into personal attacks when people counter your arguments.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Screw it, I might as well be anti-American then. Because obviously when I point out how provocative it is to deploy a global ABM system for the US's sole benefit, it means that I hate all of America and I am just out to attack it because I apparently hate its freedoms.

Well, they say admitting it is the first step, so good for you. 11 more steps to go now. You hate the US and its evident in all of your posts across many threads.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm done with this boring discussion.

Translation - You cant support your argument with facts so your packing your marbles up and heading home. Probably a good idea. This way we can get back to the topic at hand instead of constantly correcting your flase claims and accusations.

On the off chance you decide to come back and join us, how bout you take the time to answer the questions asked that you ignored?

Originally posted by maloy
The only outcome of all of this, is that both sides will end up spending more money on developing and upgrading their ABM and ICBM technologies. US made the first move by withdrawing from the ABM treaty, and installing the ABM installations and radars on Russia's border. These systems when viewed as part of US and NATO's nuclear tactical strategy have the potential to offset nuclear parity that has been in place since the Cold War.

Now Russia is forced to make its move, and I have no doubt that it will. Deploying tactical missiles in Kalinigrad and Belarus is only the first step. In the coming decade Russia is going to be making significant invesments in new ICBM technology. Russia will focus on ICBM that can overcome any existing defenses. Russia is also quickly getting back into the game with Ballistic Missile submarines, which it sees as the quickest stop-gap measure to regain nuclear parity and potentially force US to reconsider the ABM installations.

I can only anticipate how much whinning will come from the US when Russia introduces and tests new ICBM's. But now that should not come as a surprise to anyone.



In the end both Russia and US will still be at nuclear parity, alas with significantly strengthened nuclear capabilities and hundreds of billions of dollars out the door. Call it a new Cold War if you will, but I doubt it will be nearly as dramatic as the first one. There is no clash of competing idealogies now. This one will be mostly quiet and behind the scenes, with good windfall profits to defense contractors on both sides.

One potential reason I see for both US and Russia engaging in this "arms race", is not to actually threaten each other, but to keep ahead of nuclear capabilities of China. Neither Russia nor US wants China to achieve nuclear parity with them, and this may be a conscious move - now US and Russia have an excuse to update their nuclear capabilities without officially making it seem like China is the reason.

Unlikely IMO

Russia recently cut 15% of their military budget. Their currency is becoming increasingly weak and they have massive amount of internal problems they also are not very strong externally except in ground forces furthermore it is very very expensive to build anti missile equipment and let alone a national missile defense shield and requires a lot of money something Russia does not have. It is cheaper for them to build and try and build ballistic missiles that can hope to get past a missile defense shield than it is for them to try and build their own missile defense. Their response so far is to have placed iskander systems which launch short range ballistic missiles near the black sea on their side and in kalinigrad aimed i suppose at the missile defense systems. However the main problem for them is that their exist already missile defense to stop short range and to slight mid range ballistic missiles. The NATO missile defense shield is to be a fully developed missile defense shield not just individual systems placed everywhere like it is right now. Currently however right now the missile defense shield is operational and will be complete by 2020-2022. Russia's response is not so scary at all as the currently operational missile systems in place are designed to take out iskander missiles. The only real threat and thing they did that is a question mark is their new Topol missile that is mobile based. However i do believe that the shield when fully operationally will be able to stop such a missile. Typically it is not land based missiles that are so hard to stop its silo based ICBM or SLBM as they have more power and fuel.

There are operational anti missile defense systems not only in Alaska but elsewhere. There are patriot missiles and terminal high altitude missiles in European countries among other systems designed for low to mid range ballistic missiles. However there does not exist the amount or level of missile defense in Europe that the US currently has deployed around its self and in its own country. There are AEGIS systems on a number of destroyers in the Mediterranean sea that is missile defense on a ship.