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.
The United States and its NATO allies already have about one thousand missiles capable of intercepting Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Russian deputy premier in charge of defense said.
"Along with its allies, whom the U.S. now persuades to buy ships equipped with the Aegis Combat System, the overall potential can be estimated at about 1,000 interceptor missiles,” Dmitry Rogozin, who is also the Russian president’s special representative for talks with NATO, said in an interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio station.
He said that the figure is currently approaching the limits established by the recently signed Russia-U.S. strategic arms reduction treaty.
"There are no guarantees that after the first, second, and third phases [of the U.S. missile shield project] are completed, there will be no fourth, fifth and sixth. Do you really think they will halt all their technologies after 2020? That’s nonsense!
Dead Hand (Russian: Система «Периметр», Systema "Perimetr")[1], known also as Perimeter,[2] is a Cold-War-era nuclear-control system used by the Soviet Union that might still be in use in Russia. An example of fail-deadly deterrence, it can automatically trigger the launch of the Russian ICBMs if a nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity and overpressure sensors. By most accounts, it is normally switched off and is supposed to be activated during dangerous crises only.
Originally posted by Fitch303
Ron Paul fan in support of the missile defense shield. Why is having the capability to shoot down icbm with nuclear warheads a bad thing? In order for us to use them Russia has to first launch which means they would be used only in response to a Russian attack.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Originally posted by Fitch303
Ron Paul fan in support of the missile defense shield. Why is having the capability to shoot down icbm with nuclear warheads a bad thing? In order for us to use them Russia has to first launch which means they would be used only in response to a Russian attack.
Wrong.
If NATO strikes first, then Russia fights back, then they can be used.
Its looking almost possible that NATO could launch a pre-emptive first strike on Russia, take out the vast majority of their nukes and then what Russia has left can be dealt with these interceptors. Scary, scary, scary.
Originally posted by randomname
it still won't stop a sub launched nuke 200 miles off the coast new york.
Originally posted by randomname
it still won't stop a sub launched nuke 200 miles off the coast new york.
Originally posted by princeofpeace
Personally i think Paul will CAUSE WWIII but i will leave politics to the political forum.
I was waiting for the flock o' folks who never miss a chance to tell us how great the Russian military is to respond to this thread by reminding us that (insert name of Russian SAM *here*) is so much better than its US / NATO counterpart, and would therefore be an even *better* missile interceptor than the Standards used by the Aegis-equipped ships, but so far, all I'm hearing from that quarter are cricketski. Odd, that.
I'm also wondering exactly which version of the Standard can be carried by an aircraft...given the size and weight, you probably can bolt four of them underneath an F-18 and light the motors, but odds are the missiles would be carrying the aircraft, rather than the other way 'round...and trying to stick *anything* built by / for the US Navy on a USAF aircraft isn't likely to work for a variety of reasons...I'm not even sure they use the same kind of duct tape.
I won't even get started on my opinion of a Russian defense minister complaining about a missile defense system while sitting behind the fully operational dedicated ABM system erected around Moscow.