Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by nightbringr
It isn't war.
What I was getting at is that it sounds better to say "NATO can covert defensive missiles to offensive weapons" than to say "If NATO wants to hit
Moscow we can't do anything about it".
The "threat" of conversion is propaganda aimed at the Russian populace to justify Moscow's reluctance to accept the ABM system. The "threat" of
conversion is something that Moscow is not concerned about. The ability of NATO to knock down their missiles is.
The point of view from a strategist is very different than that. Limiting the potential avenues for attack is a great way to be secure. Having yet
another location in which they can reach my territory is no good. Not only because it's another direction that needs to be watched, but the juke
I.E. Shoot dummy missiles from subs and live missiles from the converted defensive bases. Confusion is very advantageous in a war.
Also having two sites means there is always the "redundancy" factor. 2x the assault. Multiple targets at the same time, et al.
I'll give you, it's easier to not think about these potential outcomes because you see little feasibility for it to happen, however, if it was your
job to secure a nation -- your point of view would have to be different.
I imagine it shouldn't be hard for you to concede, the offensive potential of the "defensive" system is most obviously part of the issue here, albeit;
a side effect -- rather than the main point of contention. You're out here saying, it doesn't matter because we could hit Russia anyway. So,
therefore, by that logic -- the leader of a nation should ignore all additional offensive capability simply because "offense" is inevitable.
It's a combination of things...
It's the fact that it stifles Russian offense.
It's the fact that it can be converted to an offensive system easily.
It's the fact that Russia is essentially being blown off by those with vested interest in said system.
It's other factors unknown to us.
These decisions are often most contemplated, hence complicated. There is never any ONE reason, so stop trying to say it's because of A. When B, and
C, and D, and E also exist. Just because you feel A is most important, doesn't mean the rest are suddenly ignored or carry no weight in the decision
This is the second time you've disappointed me Phage. You aren't the smartest person here. Quit acting like it.
Your arrogance is most potent.
edit on 25-11-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)