Russia Retaliates Against US: Puts Radar Station On Combat Alert

page: 9
67
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
We need to mind our own damn business! this country will be at perpetual war if Romney/Cain/Gingrich/Obama are in power, most Americans are to lazy to do the right thing, and we will all pay.




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


What makes you think HAARP can destroy missiles? If that's the case, then wouldn't it be more convenient to give this to the Europeans instead?


They (we) have HAARP type systems in Europe =)




While HAARP itself may not have the power to create a planetary shield (for missile defense and solar radiation) the world wide network certainly does.

Well researched thread on HAARP

-Alien



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

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 potential raises.

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 making process.

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)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phantom28804
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


Have you ever heard of the adage MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction? Just curious, you stated let them attack us we will smash them. Are you even aware that our military is not all the strong and I would say that it would be very unwise to assume that any war between Russia and America would be conventional.There is no way that a war with Russia would end in any favorable way for the US.


If we went to war with Russia it is extremely unlikely that either side would use nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons would be a last resort and by that time the USA (and its allies) would have such an upper hand in the battle that their attempt at retaliating with what very few nuclear weapons we didn't already destroy would prove futile.

-Alien



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Before casting scorn familiarize yourself with the subject a bit more than you have thus far.

The facilities required to employ a system like THAAD are entirely different than the infrastructure needed to support ballistic missiles.

It is a silly supposition, doubly so when the U.S. SSBN fleet already performs the same role in a manner superior to any fixed position.

It is nothing more than saber rattling propaganda specifically aimed at the vast majority of westerners who have little interest in the specifics of missile theory.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Laokin
 


Before casting scorn familiarize yourself with the subject a bit more than you have thus far.

The facilities required to employ a system like THAAD are entirely different than the infrastructure needed to support ballistic missiles.

It is a silly supposition, doubly so when the U.S. SSBN fleet already performs the same role in a manner superior to any fixed position.

It is nothing more than saber rattling propaganda specifically aimed at the vast majority of westerners who have little interest in the specifics of missile theory.


I'm not casting scorn. And I fail to see how having a better option removes the threat.

Essentially that's like saying, robber has a pistol and a shotgun, so we don't have to worry about the pistol.



It makes no sense from a strategic point of view.

Not only that, but -- I didn't comment about it being a non-empty threat. I didn't say it wasn't sabre rattling. However, in order to rattle the sabre, one must have a reason. It's usually about announcing something you are displeased in, in hopes to gain some political influence over said thing you are displeased in.

I just postulated potential reasoning.
edit on 25-11-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Is Russia really an independent autonomous entity?

Or just a symbol to be used in another drama by the hidden 'producers' and 'directors'?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Again, to all of you armchair generals. Today, there are NO shields or technology capable of stopping a full scale ICBM attack.
An anti missile is a bullet trying to catch a flying bullet.
Missiles fired from countries with no smart ICBMs can be shot down - even then it's not an 100 percent success rate. Against a Russian launch, it will be a good day if one could stop 10% of the hundreds of warheads and decoys.
The only stage where ICBMs are vulnerable are at launch, before they enter the atmosphere. That's a big deal and that's the reason the russians have their ICBMs always on the move in subs, trucks or trains.

The real propaganda is the US reassuring you that you are safe from said attacks.
edit on 25-11-2011 by TheOracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
ATTENTION ALL

Focus on the topic. Not on each other. It's very simply.

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
Again, to all of you armchair generals. Today, there are NO shields or technology capable of stopping a full scale ICBM attack.
An anti missile is a bullet trying to catch a flying bullet.
The only stage where ICBMs are vulnerable are at launch, before they enter the atmosphere. That's a big deal and that's the reason the russians have their ICBMs always on the move in subs, trucks or trains.


Lol. That's a nice one.
But ppl should wake up to the fact that Nuclear was a deterrent and it has served its purpose,
and those days are over.
You dont need any more bloomin icbms anymore to destroy each other.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Nothing will happen, I remember talking to a Russian copper who come over here a few years back and he said he had a chance through his Father to get in to politics, when he said no to his Father, his Father questioned why not and added Politics is all a drama these days, you're job is nothing more than that of an actor.

Enough said!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think this has more to do with the european missile shield than syria......

... am i wrong?

... and all they are doing is putting there systems on alert and better guarding them.

I dont think this is as bad as some want it to be.


You are wrong and the reason why is that Russia can not in good conscious come out and say that they back Syria because there are human right violations happening there and on a world stage that would draw much angst.

What they can do is call the US and NATO out on other issues and give them a backdoor message that they are getting upset by the situation. Everything in politics regarding threats and action by major countries is done through carefully thought out dialog and planning.

Make no mistake, this is about Syria, not the missile system.


And you KNOW that because you just happen to be Medvedev's closest friend.....



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
The Russians have been trying to get NATO to take their concerns about its deployment of a missile defense shield near their borders seriously almost from the moment it was announced. President Medvedev's statement, on national TV, represents Russia's categorical rejection of the way that this missile defense shield has been portrayed to Russia by NATO.

He wants a realistic response from NATO/US to Russia's concerns. More BS is not going to be sufficient.

He has layed out a road map of Russia's responses to NATO's current plans for missile shield deployment, and by putting those radar stations on combat alert, he has ("show and tell" style) demonstrated that Russia has begun to react to NATO's moves, based, not on NATO's stated purposes but based on Russia's interpretation of NATO's true purposes.

He says that Russia is still open to dialogue based on written military and technical frames of reference that would lead to an agreement with substance that could be properly monitored and verified.

Vague assurances from snakeoil salesmen don't constitute a guarantee for Russia. They want it in point form, on paper.

It's really very hard for me to find fault with the Russian attitude in this matter.

This isn't a return to the Cold War but it is a glance at the fridge magnets from across the room. I get the impression that Russia doesn't want this.

My questions to the American people are the following:

"Are you confident enough in the swindlers that run your country (the debt, the bailouts, the bonuses, the military re-deployments, the wars based on lies, the crumbling American infrastructure, the unemployment) to trust their transparently offensive game plan against Russia?

Do you think they can pull the wool over Putin's eyes?

Are you willing to risk going into a nuclear bar-b-cue based on faith in Berzhinski and on Obama's ability to execute?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Russia needs to learn a new routine, this verbiage is SO cold war.

Honestly they put a radar on combat alert? ummm what were they doing before? tracking the migratory patterns of finches? and all those new missle systems etc. etc.? well this isn't WW II any more, all those projects will take a few years at minimum to complete.

If I were Russia I would be getting my act together to join NATO and end all the silly posturing.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
Russia needs to learn a new routine, this verbiage is SO cold war.

Honestly they put a radar on combat alert? ummm what were they doing before? tracking the migratory patterns of finches? and all those new missle systems etc. etc.? well this isn't WW II any more, all those projects will take a few years at minimum to complete.

If I were Russia I would be getting my act together to join NATO and end all the silly posturing.


The only posturing that I see happening is amongst America and NATO. I don't see the Russians posturing at all. I see a very calculated point made by the Russian president to the people of Russia. A message that he knew would reach America and NATO as well. I see a Russian president assuring his people that he will not let their country be threatened by outside forces. No different then the speeches we got from Bush about Iraq and the WMD's. I would not take what he said lightly nor would I worry overly about it. There was absolutely nothing in his speech that was a threat of military action. He said they would make deployments, target missile sites etc, but it never once said they would take out those sites.He is very much making a point to the world that they want real answers or Russia is about to make preparations that will step the peace process back a few decades.

I mean honestly if you think he is bad wait till Putin comes back.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
this is just beginning..



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I think Russia speaks for a lot of nations concerning having had their fill of the US's bullying and wars. It seems war has become synonamous with the USA, and the lack of Peace with Israel. Both are seen in a not so favorable light. And China, likely agrees with Russia but must be more diplomatic to keep trade flowing, so it benefits them to have Russia be a mouth piece. Fear mongers seem to come from everywhere, and ATS is no exception. Even 'if' Iran does get a nuke, which would just be easier to buy from Russia or China, or even India, than to build their own, no one on the world stage is willing to abandon all hope of human survival and be the start of a nuclear holocaust, which would surely follow. The chances of a singular blow and defeat, will be nearly impossible to contain. Once one flies, many more will follow, and then many more, and as it is stated in the Bible, Unless Christ intervened, there would be n more flesh.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
It isn't war.

Its isnt? I thought we were discussing hypothetical situations. I must be in the wrong thread.

Originally posted by Phage
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".

Again, i realize this is sabre rattling. But they do have reason to be concerned. Understand in grand strategy planning you take into consideration every little posibility, as small as it might be. You refuse to take into account that submarines can be neutralized with hunter-killer warfare.

Originally posted by Phage
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.


I agree. But at the same time its a real consideration. Your refusal to admit this is puzzling. Are you always this stubborn? Another poster made a great point. If someone has a shotgun, you do not ignore their pistol. Tenfold so when the stakes are this high.
edit on 25-11-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join