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.
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.
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.
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"
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)
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.
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
You are so full of yourself.
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
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).
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)
Apart from the main Moscow deployment, Russia has striven actively for intrinsic ABM capabilities of its late model SAM systems.
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.
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Russia is not deploying ABM systems around the US!
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Currently, Russian ABM systems are only deployed within Russia. This IS NOT the case with the US.
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".
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.
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm done with this boring discussion.
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.