Russian defense minister : NATO has 1000 ICBM interceptors aimed at Russia

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
The Russian defense minister is not a fool like many in the west think he is.

U.S., NATO Have Some 1,000 Interceptor Missiles - Rogozin

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!


Yep. And those interceptors can be put on ground bases, on F-16s/F-15s/F-22s/F-35s or on Aegis ships. This ain't about Iran, it never was.

I'll remind you that the New START treaty limits Russia/US to 800 launchers.

1000 interceptors can intercept 800 launchers. Especially if you factor in a NATO first strike that would take out several % of Russia's strategic forces, which Russia has to take account of in their defense plans.

If NATO (and our crazy ``leaders``) have no downside to launch war against Russia due to the disappearance of MAD, then why not do it?

Of course the missile shield right now doesn't have 100% rate of interception, but in the future, it might have, and if the Russian think NATO has nearly 1000 interceptors, you betcha they have more than that.

If this BS continues the way it does, at one point, either Russia is gonna have to strike first or NATO is gonna strike first.

Russia also said a few months ago they would boycott the NATO meeting in March if the missile shield BS continued... and that they would deploy tactical missiles around Kaliningrad, near Poland's border...which will increase tensions.

And to the nutjobs in the elite thinking about this...
Dead Hand (nuclear war)

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.

This system is still in place today.

The only one sane enough to stop this madness is Ron Paul... so come on America, save the world from WW3, elect Ron Paul. Or if the US/Europe could go bankrupt already and stop this military spending, that would be neat too.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

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.

And it's not wrong to have a missile shield. But don't put it up Russia's butt where they can be used to take out Russia's ICBMs when they are in their most vulnerable phase... when they launch.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Personally i think Paul will CAUSE WWIII but i will leave politics to the political forum.

These interceptors are publicized mainly to take the eyes off of the things the US doesnt want the rest to know about. Mainly space based as well as ground based laser systems that make these current "interceptors" look antiquated in comparison.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Exactly...thats the scary scenario. 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 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.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 



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.

That's what Russia is afraid of. They know our ``leaders`` are warmongering nuts. They know what happened to them in WW2 because they thought ``Hitler cannot attack us, we have a treaty and he's not that mad``... Russia got nearly wiped off the map... they won't make that mistake again.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
it still won't stop a sub launched nuke 200 miles off the coast new york.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Why wouldnt it?



Originally posted by randomname
it still won't stop a sub launched nuke 200 miles off the coast new york.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
it still won't stop a sub launched nuke 200 miles off the coast new york.

Acceptable loss to the elite. You don't win a war without a few loss.

And even then, they can put interceptors on F-16s so you bet there will be F-16s full of interceptors missiles cruising along each coast when it goes down.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
For whatever purpose, for whatever nation it's aimed against, the shield is vital if we're to have conflicts in Russia's reach.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Personally i think Paul will CAUSE WWIII but i will leave politics to the political forum.


I,m sorry but WHAT!!!!!

You have 3 out of the 4 saying they WILL attack Iran.

Then you have the other guy , Ron Paul, saying he wont.

And you somehow deduct Ron Paul will start WW3.

Speechless.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


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.

All sarcasm (okay, most sarcasm) aside, *any* high performance SAM system has the potential to intercept an ICBM reentry vehicle. Nike-Hercules was doing it in the 1960s, Patriot and Standard were doing it in the 1990s, and I'd be more than willing to bet that the Soviet missiles of corresponding generations have similar capacities...so unless this gentleman expects the US and / or NATO to completely stand down their entire air defense network, he's going to have to live with the threat to his ICBMs. 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.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Well i am not impressed with the whole dead-hand system in the least. This type of system makes me nervous and i am positive its not turned off. One loose meteor or an industrial accident in Russia and all heck would break loose.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 




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.

Well then you are waiting for people who don't know squat about the Russian military... especially in the anti-missile area...



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.

Well we all know that with time, the technology will become better and smaller allowing for SM-3 to be put on F-18s/F-16s...


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.

An ABM system doesn't do anything against stopping a conventional army. Russia is not stupid, they know their conventional army would get it's butt kicked in any war.

reply to post by Immune
 

Well it is shut down... until there's a crisis, then they put it on. Then if all hell break loose, it's still up to the folks in the bunker to decide whether to launch or not. Even the Russian generals said themselves they wouldn't launch if they were those people in the bunker since why kill half the world when the other half is already dead? I mean, it's not like they gonna give the guy a court martial over this... all his superiors are dead.

So Russia has a doomsday machine (that they kept secret like fools) but there's still humans involved till the last second.


Anyway, if NATO continues their BS, wouldn't surprise me if the Russians get out of the START treaty and start putting 20-40 nuclear warheads PER MISSILE in their arsenal... we shall see.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Yes and russia has 1000s out of missiles trained on the rest of the world, you dont see us complaining do you?

2nd



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
While i think the Russians are right to be a bit upset over this, i think they are overstating the capabilities of the shield to their own advantage. Unless NATO are lying through their teeth about the capabilities of the shield, it is wholly inadequate and could quite easily be overwhelmed by Russia.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Solomons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
The russians are paranoid. Theres no way europe or the USA would survive a strategic nuclear exchange with russia. For rational actors MAD continues to apply.

Anti Missile technology is the defence for those that may not necessarily be rational and therefore cannot be deterred.

The 1000 missiles claim is wild.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
edit on 21-1-2012 by justwokeup because: deleted double post



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
ICBM interceptors have a 95% success rate, all it takes is one to get through and game over. This is an uncalled move by NATO, which I suppose is a move in preparation for WW3. I think Russia needs to increase their stockpiles to about 50,000 to 100,000 nukes.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
You would figure people would be happy about a nuclear missile defense anywhere. But no, if it is the US that controls the defense it's automatically bad. Give me a break, the same people that shun these interceptors would praise Russia building actual nuclear missiles, just because of their bias against the US they would invite armageddon.



top topics
 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join