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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Phage
It isn't war.
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".
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.